Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[bluebell]

Perhaps the church could offer to pay for her airfare and lodging.

 

Perhaps they could.  It would be interesting to know if she asked them.  

[stemelbow]

Well, for one: His jurisdiction is in Virginia.

Also, a disciplinary council requires the attendance of the bishop, plus both his counselors, plus the ward clerk. That's four people flying to Utah instead of one flying to Virginia.

Also, the meeting was necessitated by Kate Kelly's actions.

Also, has she requested such an accommodation from the VA bishopric? If not, then this is entirely academic, innit?

Also, I don't think this is about the expense of a plane ticket. She's flown back and forth between Virginia and Salt Lake many times before, to attend protests and the like. She has the ability to attend the disciplinary council if she chose to. It appears she is affirmatively choosing not to.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems unreasonable to me. Put her mug on the computer and set up a live feed. Cheaper, easier, quicker, less inconvenient. Why not put her on speaker phone? In person is great, but the meeting was established knowing she's not around. Plus, there was something about her need to help take care of an ill family member.

Simply asking too much, it seems to me.

[bluebell]

Yes the church certainly does have a PR department.  

 

They have a Public Affairs department, but I'm not aware of a Public Relations department.

[mfbukowski]

This whole thing is a disaster for the PR department of the church in my opinion.  Most people understand that when someone asks for a meeting that they want to have, they try and accommodate the person they want to attend such meeting.  Perhaps she could afford the time and expense to fly half way across the country.  I don't know.  But what I do know is that the church who is requesting the meeting should be the ones trying to accommodate her.  Why can't her bishop fly out to where she is?  Can't the church also afford a plane ticket?  Could she not have a fair hearing on her case in Utah?  It seems like she would be more than generous with this process by just telling the church when she would be available for the meeting.  That is certainly the more reasonable approach, and certainly makes the church much more accomodating and understanding to her situation.  This we are having the court here in D.C. whether you show up or not sounds more like a witch hunt.

A bishop's keys are based on the records in his ward.  His keys are actually geographically limited by his ward boundaries.

 

I thought everyone knew that.

 

That's why you are supposed to attend the ward which has your records, or transfer your records to the new ward.  

 

A bishop cannot even marry someone outside his ward boundaries.   Even if the rented wedding venue is across town, technically the bishop is not supposed to drive to another area to perform the wedding, because outside his ward, he doesn't have the authority.

 

Home teachers are not even supposed to cross ward boundaries to home teach.   Of course it is done, but in a high-profile case like this one, there is no way Salt Lake would allow that to happen.  If they do it once, chaos would result.

 

Although I am sure there are a few bishops who would not mind flying to Hawaii to perform a wedding for ward members, especially if they were footing the bill. 

[rongo]

The Church used to outsource its PR to the New York firm Edelman International. Not sure if that's still the case.

[bluebell]

Seems unreasonable to me. Put her mug on the computer and set up a live feed. Cheaper, easier, quicker, less inconvenient. Why not put her on speaker phone? In person is great, but the meeting was established knowing she's not around. Plus, there was something about her need to help take care of an ill family member.

Simply asking too much, it seems to me.

 

This is pure speculation, but it could be a privacy concern for the church, not being able to guarantee that the whole proceedings won't end up being recorded and used on the news or other blogs.

 

It's not just about KK's privacy but the privacy of all concerned i believe.

[smac97]

Seems unreasonable to me. Put her mug on the computer and set up a live feed. Cheaper, easier, quicker, less inconvenient. Why not put her on speaker phone? In person is great, but the meeting was established knowing she's not around. Plus, there was something about her need to help take care of an ill family member.

Simply asking too much, it seems to me.

Hmm. I think that could be a feasible solution. But I could also see the bishop requiring an in-person appearance. I occasionally drive down to St. George to attend hearings in-person because the judges require it. A telephonic or Skype appearance is just not the same as an in-person appearance. Plus the hearing usually requires coordinating the schedules of several people, and that can become problematic when, at the scheduled time, a technological glitch prevents the hearing from going forward. So I could see her bishop (who I understand is an attorney) being reluctant to schedule a Skyped disciplinary council.

It's a judgment call. But at the end of the day, her refusal to attend is not, I think, a question of finances. I'm just not buying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

This is pure speculation, but it could be a privacy concern for the church, not being able to guarantee that the whole proceedings won't end up being recorded and used on the news or other blogs.

 

It's not just about KK's privacy but the privacy of all concerned i believe.

True. I'm sure it will not be allowed over the phone or internet. But that'd be very easy if all parties were trusted.

Ah well...

[ksfisher]

That was a much better post than her last one.

 

It does come off sounding like those people who signed the post might actually believe that they speak for the church's membership on this issue (I'm guessing most of the church's membership doesn't have a clue who KK and JD are, and that they don't care either) but other than that i thought it was very fair minded.

 

I sounds very reasonable.  But the sense I get from it is that Colvin and the others feel that if church leaders would just be reasonable that all this could be avoided. 

 

"We ask our leaders to consider other ways of maintaining boundaries, strengthening Church members, and encouraging them to grow spiritually within Mormonism’s large and embracing community without the fear and despair the threat of excommunication sows not only in those threatened but in their families, friends, and those who share similar concerns about LDS Church doctrine or history—even those who do so silently."

 

On the other hand, the course that church leadership is pursuing is cause fear, despair, and causing families, friends, and other to feel threatened (see bolded words above).  Her course is reasonable, while the course that church leadership is pursuing is damaging.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't see in the scriptures where Uzza was told not to touch the ark.  I do see where he was told to drive the ark to Chidon (v. 7), and it's also possible he helped load the ark onto the cart (same verse).  Someone had to carry it.

 

Numbers 4:15. 

[bluebell]

I sounds very reasonable.  But the sense I get from it is that Colvin and the others feel that if church leaders would just be reasonable that all this could be avoided. 

 

"We ask our leaders to consider other ways of maintaining boundaries, strengthening Church members, and encouraging them to grow spiritually within Mormonism’s large and embracing community without the fear and despair the threat of excommunication sows not only in those threatened but in their families, friends, and those who share similar concerns about LDS Church doctrine or history—even those who do so silently."

 

On the other hand, the course that church leadership is pursuing is cause fear, despair, and causing families, friends, and other to feel threatened (see bolded words above).  Her course is reasonable, while the course that church leadership is pursuing is damaging.

 

There is definitely the implication that the bloggers are 'right' and the church is 'wrong'.   Most popular bloggers are nothing if not sure that their opinions matter more than normal people's.  

Edited June 16, 2014 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

True. I'm sure it will not be allowed over the phone or internet. But that'd be very easy if all parties were trusted.

Ah well...

I would think there would be too many issues- nuances are lost.  There could be prompting from behind the camera, glare on the screen blocking the flicker of an eye or who knows what.  Theoretically if you want to get weird about it, she could be under duress.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Denton

 

That's silly here, but just goes to show that with a camera you never know what is "really" happening- there can be all sorts of situations going on.

 

Gotta be eyeball to eyeball.  There is a reason heads of state meet personally.

[Sleeper Cell]

That's not really what i was commenting on though.

 

Kelly has claimed that it is unChristian and cowardly for her bishop in VA not to have sent her records on but to have kept them and now be holding the court there.   Besides the fact that doing such is well within the guidelines for such issues (as others have linked in this thread pages and pages ago), it's also not at all unusual for bishops not to sent records forward when someone is in transit.  

 

Kelly is trying to make it sound like he is doing this just to be a jerk.  ...

 

For that mater, I could make a better case that  simply dumping the problem in her new bishop’s lap would be even more “cowardly” than her current bishop taking care of the matter, himself. 

 

In the extremely unlikely event I ever were called to be a bishop, I wouldn’t hesitate to use any excuse to avoid holding a dc (and the foreseeable news media flak) by dumping  the responsibility onto another bishop. 

 

Now, that is really being a jerk.. 

[rockpond]

An interesting perspective to consider on this matter:  http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/when-it-really-matters/

[california boy]

A bishop's keys are based on the records in his ward.  His keys are actually geographically limited by his ward boundaries.

 

I thought everyone knew that.

 

That's why you are supposed to attend the ward which has your records, or transfer your records to the new ward.  

 

A bishop cannot even marry someone outside his ward boundaries.   Even if the rented wedding venue is across town, technically the bishop is not supposed to drive to another area to perform the wedding, because outside his ward, he doesn't have the authority.

 

Home teachers are not even supposed to cross ward boundaries to home teach.   Of course it is done, but in a high-profile case like this one, there is no way Salt Lake would allow that to happen.  If they do it once, chaos would result.

 

Although I am sure there are a few bishops who would not mind flying to Hawaii to perform a wedding for ward members, especially if they were footing the bill. 

Oh come on.  If this whole post isn't just blowing smoke I don't know what is.  Bishops act as bishops all the time when they are not in their ward boundaries.  Do they not visit hospitals and give blessings as the persons bishop?  Do they not attend scout camp and preside over meetings.  Can they not request permission from a stake president to do things outside the ward boundaries when appropriate?  Give me a break.  Your post is nothing more than using the church as some inflexible institution that can not accommodate someone THEY have asked a meeting with.  

 

Look if you are just looking for an excuse for the church to be inflexible about this then go right ahead.  But reasonable people can certainly see many other options rather than just simply holding a court without the participant being able to attend even if you don't buy her excuses.  You would think that the church would step up and be the ones to accommodate her.  It is THEIR meeting that they want her to attend.  I personally find it unreasonable and insulting that they are asking her to leave her sick relative, take the time and expense to fly back to a ward she is no longer a member of and meet with a bishop who technically is n o longer her bishop for a meeting that they initiated AFTER she has left the area.  If she was such a threat to the church why did they wait until she left the area to start these actions.  

[stemelbow]

For that mater, I could make a better case that  simply dumping the problem in her new bishop’s lap would be even more “cowardly” than her current bishop taking care of the matter, himself. 

 

In the extremely unlikely event I ever were called to be a bishop, I wouldn’t hesitate to use any excuse to avoid holding a dc (and the foreseeable news media flak) by dumping  the responsibility onto another bishop. 

 

Now, that is really being a jerk..

I don't see that. She had moved or was moving quite soon. She's gone. Not cowardly so much as considerate.

[smac97]

An interesting perspective to consider on this matter:  http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/when-it-really-matters/

This is hilarious. The same "the Church has no moral authority to discipline its members because a single German branch president was a Nazi and improperly excommunicated someone during World Ward II" schtick was presented in this forum during the Denver Snuffer kerfuffle.  My response to it back then seems equally applicable to the current situation:

 

The excommunication of Helmut Hubener was by his local LDS leader, Arthur Zander, who was a fervent anti-Semite and a member of the Nazi Party, and who excommunicated Hubener immediately after his arrest by the Nazis for distributing anti-Nazi materials. And all this happened in the epicenter of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the world. And Hubener's membership was posthumously reinstated immediately after the war.

I concede that it is possible for a person to be excommunicated improperly. That's what happened Hubener. But Mr. Snuffer's excommunication was not by a compromised and isolated church leader in the middle of a war and operating under the Nazi regime. The two situations are not remotely comparable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97

[rockpond]

An interesting perspective to consider on this matter:  http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/when-it-really-matters/

 

 

This is hilarious. The same "the Church has no moral authority to discipline its members because it collaborated with the Nazis during World Ward II" schtick was presented in this forum during the Denver Snuffer kerfuffle.  My response to it back then seems equally applicable to the current situation:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You'll notice I said that the "perspective" was interesting to consider.  That being that positions taken during one period of time may seem antithetical the church doctrine whereas they can become quite mainstream later on.

[mfbukowski]

Oh come on.  If this whole post isn't just blowing smoke I don't know what is.  Bishops act as bishops all the time when they are not in their ward boundaries.  Do they not visit hospitals and give blessings as the persons bishop?  Do they not attend scout camp and preside over meetings.  Can they not request permission from a stake president to do things outside the ward boundaries when appropriate?  Give me a break.  Your post is nothing more than using the church as some inflexible institution that can not accommodate someone THEY have asked a meeting with.  

 

Look if you are just looking for an excuse for the church to be inflexible about this then go right ahead.  But reasonable people can certainly see many other options rather than just simply holding a court without the participant being able to attend even if you don't buy her excuses.  You would think that the church would step up and be the ones to accommodate her.  It is THEIR meeting that they want her to attend.  I personally find it unreasonable and insulting that they are asking her to leave her sick relative, take the time and expense to fly back to a ward she is no longer a member of and meet with a bishop who technically is n o longer her bishop for a meeting that they initiated AFTER she has left the area.  If she was such a threat to the church why did they wait until she left the area to start these actions.  

I didn't expect to change your opinion, nor would I expect to change hers.

[cinepro]

Numbers 4:15. 

 

Fair enough.  I guess he got what he deserved.  After all, if God bent His rules based on the context in which they were broken, He would cease to be God.

Edited June 16, 2014 by cinepro

[california boy]

I didn't expect to change your opinion, nor would I expect to change hers.

Oddly enough, as I said, I don't really have an opinion on the OW movement.  And yes, I think the church has a right to excommunicate who ever they want.  My only point is that there are pages written about how Kelly should find the funds, time and fly back to this meeting.  Yet not a word about the church, who called the meeting accommodating her.  Your post that the bishop can't do it is ridiculous.  And yes you did not change my opinion on that position.

[ERayR]

Oddly enough, as I said, I don't really have an opinion on the OW movement.  And yes, I think the church has a right to excommunicate who ever they want.  My only point is that there are pages written about how Kelly should find the funds, time and fly back to this meeting.  Yet not a word about the church, who called the meeting accommodating her.  Your post that the bishop can't do it is ridiculous.  And yes you did not change my opinion on that position.

 

The point is if it were as important to her as she claims it is and not just a publicity stunt she would find a way.

[Gray]

So don't go through the OW group. She could solicit funds in her individual capacity. Is her circle of friends, family, neighbors, relatives, online supporters, etc. so destitute that they could not collectively put together the cost of an airline ticket to and from Virginia? Plus I believe the bishop has already indicated that he could postpone the council to accommodate her.

C'mon. She could go if she wanted to.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Maybe she could sell enough plasma to get a bus ticket. But it doesn't sound like she's reasonably able to go. 

[Gray]

The word they are using is not compatible with their position. To "ask" is to "to put a question to; inquire of." This is fundamentally incompatible with a statement that is followed up with "and nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'd say they're boldly asking. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're demanding anything. 

 

But as you say, we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this

 

 

I can't really control my age though and we discriminate based on age all the time.

 

Aside from development related concerns (ie it's reasonable not to let five year olds drive a car), I think most people agree that age discrimination is wrong too. 

Edited June 16, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Deleted 

 

Edited June 16, 2014 by Gray