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

[Gray]

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.

 

Man, I wish all church leadership meetings were virtual, too. It would save so much time and gas money

[mormonnewb]

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.

I don't know if he got what he deserved. Even David seemed to ask God, "What was THAT all about?"

However, the passage in Numbers 4:15 helps clarify that Uzzah was punished for TOUCHING the ark, not for merely warning others tht it might fall.

"And when Aaron and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not TOUCH any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation."

So, once again, an ark steadier is one exceeds their authority by "grabbing hold" of power that is not theirs. However, to say that others shouldn't WARN those in authority about danger ahead seems absurd. Would it be ark steadying to warn my bishop that there is ice on the road as he goes out for home teaching or should I assume that The Lord will tell him if He so desires? What about reporting my wife's unrighteousness because she keeps watching porn? Is that ark steadying or should I assume that The Lord will let the bishop know about denzelwashingtonshirtless.com?

In either of these cases, it would seem that I wouldn't cross over into ark steadying until I confiscated by bishop's keys or yanked my wife's temple recommend. However, to say that it is grievous sin to simply point out that the ark is wobbling seems too much.

[Scott Lloyd]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2014/06/an-open-letter-room-for-all-in-this-church/

 

Interesting post by Gina Colvin here.  She seems to have given up the bitterness of her last blog post on the subject and is not trying to help our leaders, with the support of other bloggers, understand why excommunication isn't the right answer.

 

It's good that church leaders have to many people willing to help them.

Not impressed with Gina Colvin. Here's why.

 

Jumping to conclusions and publicly agreeing with someone's accusations without fact checking is bad enough. Summarily deleting a response from the accused pointing out the error compounds it.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

So Kate Kelly and Judith Dushku just completed an interview livecast on the Huffington Post. Here are my notes:

Notes from Hiffington Post Interview w/ Kate Kelly on 06/16/14 (and Judy Dushku)

1. Kate Kelly: The prospect of being excommunicated "horrifying, disheartening and sad" and "devastating." My family is heartbroken.

2. Judy Dushku: Talked about Emmeline B. Wells and about The Exponent II. She also talked about the excommunication of Sonia Johnson.

3. Kate Kelly: There is a long feminist tradition in Mormonism. That tradition has been very narrow, but it's now getting bigger. This is a tradition from Emmeline B. Wells to Exponent II to Ordain Women. Now we are challenging "traditional gender roles" in the Church.

4. Question: Why don't you just leave the Church if you don't like it? Kate Kelly: If an institution needs to be improved, I tend to invest myself in it. I also disagree with the U.S. Government, but that doesn't mean I move to France. This movement is not about just me.

5. Does the Church's stance on OW alienate girls? Answer (Judy Dushku): People are leaving the Church in droves over this. We love the Church. I've been in the Church all my life. I have a gay son. I don't think my Church has a right to dictate to others about same-sex marriage. Nobody has ever told me I can't say what I believe.

6. Questin: But Kate Kelly hasn't been able to say what she wants. Your bishop says that you are encouraged to wear temple garments, attend church, pay tithes, etc. So you're not allowed to talk, but you can continue to give them money.

7. Kate Kelly: That's very ironic. That letter is from my stake president. In it he says that I can't talk in public.

8. Judy Dushku: Only in the last week has there been something alarming regarding a "shift" in how the Church handles this issue. Most members in the Church are very upset about the "excommunication card" being played by the Church.

9. Reporter: We contacted the LDS Church and received a written response from Kristen Howey: "The Church is a global family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is always room for questions when exploring faith. However, when some members attempt to change clear Church teachings to fit their personal preferences, and encourage others to follow them, doctrine needs to be clarified so that others are not misled. Our local leaders who know their members personally have that responsibility."

10. Kate Kelly: There is no clear doctrine in the Church about why women are not ordained. Elder Andersen said we do not know why women are not ordained. Elder Oaks also said that women exercise the priesthood in the responsibilities they are currently given. I've never taught any doctrine. I have made a factual assertion: men and women are not equal in the Church and are not given equal access to responsibilities. I've never taught any doctrine.

11. So are you a "pied piper," leading others to your way of thinking?

12. The OW website is a venue for individuals to post their personal stories. This isn't about me. It's about everyone posting their own stories.

13. Question: What is going to happen if you are excommunicated? Kate Kelly: Excommunication is intended to put you outside the community of the Church. My community is very supportive. But it would be devastating. Excruciatingly painful. A lot of people in our community feel like they are being excommunicated. It's a very visceral experience. It's not just hurting me, it's hurting a lot of people.

14. Question: The other side (those opposing the work of the OW group) is fairly silent right now. Why is that? Answer (Judith Dushku): The Church does not want to be heavy-handed to respond. The Church was very embarrassed about the response to its "bad behavior" it did when it supported Prop 8.

15. Kate Kelly: The most healthy families are those who are open and talk about things. The most disfunctional are those that hide and suppress their problems. The Church is my religious family.

16. Kate Kelly: I hope they do the right thing and not discipline. I have good examples of others who have been excommunicated: Lavina Fielding Anderson and Margaret Toscano. Some of them continued outside the Church, and some of them continued with the Church. I will do whatever is right for me and my family. I will always be Mormon, and they can't take that away from me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

Why is it that some find a house in a neighborhood that they really love, both the neighborhood and the house, but as soon as they get moved in they start trying to change both.

Edited June 17, 2014 by ERayR

[USU78]

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

 

Fanatics like KK rarely do.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So Kate Kelly and Judith Dushku just completed an interview livecast on the Huffington Post. Here are my notes:

 

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

So, people are leaving in droves over this? OK. I think she is trying to hype this up more than it is.

[ERayR]

So Kate Kelly and Judith Dushku just completed an interview livecast on the Huffington Post. Here are my notes:

 

Notes from Hiffington Post Interview w/ Kate Kelly on 06/16/14 (and Judy Dushku)

1. Kate Kelly: The prospect of being excommunicated "horrifying, disheartening and sad" and "devastating." My family is heartbroken.

2. Judy Dushku: Talked about Emmeline B. Wells and about The Exponent II. She also talked about the excommunication of Sonia Johnson.

3. Kate Kelly: There is a long feminist tradition in Mormonism. That tradition has been very narrow, but it's now getting bigger. This is a tradition from Emmeline B. Wells to Exponent II to Ordain Women. Now we are challenging "traditional gender roles" in the Church.

4. Question: Why don't you just leave the Church if you don't like it? Kate Kelly: If an institution needs to be improved, I tend to invest myself in it. I also disagree with the U.S. Government, but that doesn't mean I move to France. This movement is not about just me.

5. Does the Church's stance on OW alienate girls? Answer (Judy Dushku): People are leaving the Church in droves over this. We love the Church. I've been in the Church all my life. I have a gay son. I don't think my Church has a right to dictate to others about same-sex marriage. Nobody has ever told me I can't say what I believe.

6. Questin: But Kate Kelly hasn't been able to say what she wants. Your bishop says that you are encouraged to wear temple garments, attend church, pay tithes, etc. So you're not allowed to talk, but you can continue to give them money.

7. Kate Kelly: That's very ironic. That letter is from my stake president. In it he says that I can't talk in public.

8. Judy Dushku: Only in the last week has there been something alarming regarding a "shift" in how the Church handles this issue. Most members in the Church are very upset about the "excommunication card" being played by the Church.

9. Reporter: We contacted the LDS Church and received a written response from Kristen Howey: "The Church is a global family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is always room for questions when exploring faith. However, when some members attempt to change clear Church teachings to fit their personal preferences, and encourage others to follow them, doctrine needs to be clarified so that others are not misled. Our local leaders who know their members personally have that responsibility."

10. Kate Kelly: There is no clear doctrine in the Church about why women are not ordained. Elder Andersen said we do not know why women are not ordained. Elder Oaks also said that women exercise the priesthood in the responsibilities they are currently given. I've never taught any doctrine. I have made a factual assertion: men and women are not equal in the Church and are not given equal access to responsibilities. I've never taught any doctrine.

11. So are you a "pied piper," leading others to your way of thinking?

12. The OW website is a venue for individuals to post their personal stories. This isn't about me. It's about everyone posting their own stories.

13. Question: What is going to happen if you are excommunicated? Kate Kelly: Excommunication is intended to put you outside the community of the Church. My community is very supportive. But it would be devastating. Excruciatingly painful. A lot of people in our community feel like they are being excommunicated. It's a very visceral experience. It's not just hurting me, it's hurting a lot of people.

14. Question: The other side (those opposing the work of the OW group) is fairly silent right now. Why is that? Answer (Judith Dushku): The Church does not want to be heavy-handed to respond. The Church was very embarrassed about the response to its "bad behavior" it did when it supported Prop 8.

15. Kate Kelly: The most healthy families are those who are open and talk about things. The most disfunctional are those that hide and suppress their problems. The Church is my religious family.

16. Kate Kelly: I hope they do the right thing and not discipline. I have good examples of others who have been excommunicated: Lavina Fielding Anderson and Margaret Toscano. Some of them continued outside the Church, and some of them continued with the Church. I will do whatever is right for me and my family. I will always be Mormon, and they can't take that away from me.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Would you say self absorbed would be a good description?

[smac97]

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.

Really? So 80 year old men are at liberty to join the Army?

I agree that invidious age discrimination is wrong. But there are countless ways in which age discrimination is perfectly appropriate.

"Discrimination" is a loaded word. We are exceedingly sloppy in using it. We all acknowledge that there are countless ways in which we all discriminate, and do so both legally and morally and without feeling the least bit guilty about it. And then there are circumstances in which "discrimination" is illegal/immoral (Jim Crow Laws, for example).

So the question for the Saints is this: The Church "discriminates" based on things like gender and age. It previously discriminated based on race (the Priesthood Ban), but does not now. Is the Church's current practice of discriminating based on gender and age "invidious," or is it an acceptable form of discrimination like any of the myriad forms of discrimination we find unobjectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Would you say self absorbed would be a good description?

Well, they are interviewing Kate Kelly for her story. She can't help but talk about herself. I don't fault her for that.

I do fault her in other ways. She waxed poetic about how "harmful" and "devastating" and "hurtful" her disciplinary process is to many, many other people. But if that is so, whose fault is it that these people are feeling that pain? Perhaps the person who, instead of addressing this issue quietly and with reserve, instead went blabbing to The New York Times, defamed her bishop as "cowardly and unchristlike," and in general has moved heaven and earth to make sure that as many people as possible are all up in her business.

She called the Church her "religious family," and she talked about how dysfunctional families are those who do not properly address the problems within them. Well, she may have a point. But a manifestation of dysfunction may also be seen when a single member of a family takes the family's dirty laundry and airs it before the world, and in so doing gains notoriety for himself/herself at the expense of his/her family and its reputation, and also causes pain to "many, many" other people who otherwise would have been spared the experience she is facing.

That is what I think Kate Kelly is doing. She is playing this up like a guest on "Jerry Springer" who craves the spotlight and can't wait to dish it out to family members who are unwillingly thrust into a public spotlight and humiliated by outrageous claims of wrongdoing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So the question for the Saints is this: The Church "discriminates" based on things like gender and age. It previously discriminated based on race (the Priesthood Ban), but does not now. Is the Church's current practice of discriminating based on gender and age "invidious," or is it an acceptable form of discrimination like any of the myriad forms of discrimination we find unobjectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

Currently I say no, as I default to the roles of fathers vs mothers here on earth. We have different roles and that is the way things are. It was debated about men not being able to give birth and some women minimizing that. The main reason that it can't be debated is there is no way to change it. Were some feel that if you complain and "have the discussion" about the priesthood that that can be changed too. I say it cannot. And if I am wrong about I will happily admit it. So far I have seen zero reason for a change. BTW God discriminates all the time. So who are we to tell Him what He must do?  

[Tacenda]

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/episode-112-kate-kelly-on-being-disciplined-by-the-church-of-jesus-chris-of-latter-day-saints/

 

Just saw this.  I believe this interview took place yesterday.  KK sounds very tired and worn down.  I've just started listening, this is my last post for the day so if anyone wants to discuss further I may just edit this post.  

[frank_jessop]

So the question for the Saints is this: The Church "discriminates" based on things like gender and age. It previously discriminated based on race (the Priesthood Ban), but does not now. Is the Church's current practice of discriminating based on gender and age "invidious," or is it an acceptable form of discrimination like any of the myriad forms of discrimination we find unobjectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it would depend on the "why" of the limiting the Priesthood to only worthy males. Is the current practice of a male only Priesthood "the law of God" or is it (will it be deemed at some future time) just the prejudice of natural man?

You mentioned in another thread or this one about discussions on Doctrinal reasons for male only Priesthood. I am interested in reading such a discussion. To put my cards on the table, as I understand the Bible the earliest ordinations were to males only; the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his descendants (not sure if that covers the Levites). I do not know that the Church takes any position for Gods reasoning in limiting the Priesthood to only worthy males.

Edited June 16, 2014 by frank_jessop

[ksfisher]

Not impressed with Gina Colvin. Here's why.

 

Jumping to conclusions and publicly agreeing with someone's accusations without fact checking is bad enough. Summarily deleting a response from the accused pointing out the error compounds it.

What bothers me the most is that Colvin is not defending Kelly and Dehlin's positions so much as telling the church what the result of the hearing should be (or at least what it shouldn't be). All the while portraying herself, and now with a list of other to help, as taking the moral high ground.

By making such a public spectacle of this process Dehlin and Kelly are setting themselves up to be triumphant heroes for their cause if the church takes no action, or as martyrs unwilling to be silenced by an unjust patriarchy if they are disciplined. Either way they are making the church appear as the bad guy.

[smac97]

I think it would depend on the "why" of the limiting the Priesthood to only worthy males. Is the current practice of a male only Priesthood "the law of God" or is it (will it be deemed at some future time) just the prejudice of natural man?

I think that's a fair question, but it raises others.

1) Whose responsibility is it to determine if the status quo is ordained of God or else "the prejudice of natural man?

2) Is it the province of self-selected Church members to identify the answer to that question and then publicly agitate for the Church to adopt that answer?

3) Are there more appropriate ways for local members to express their views on substantive points of doctrine and practice (than public agitation)?

For me, the answers are 1) The Presiding High Priest, as counseled by the other Brethren and under the influence of the Spirit," 2) No, and 3) Yes.

 

You mentioned in another thread or this one about discussions on Doctrinal reasons for male only Priesthood. I am interested in reading such a discussion. To put my cards on the table, as I understand the Bible the earliest ordinations were to males only; the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his descendants (not sure if that covers the Levites). I do not know that the Church takes any position for Gods reasoning in limiting the Priesthood to only worthy males.

Nor do I. Frankly, at this point I think we should focus more on the "what" (has God revealed regarding who may receive the priesthood), and not so much on the "why" (has He established things that way).

That said, I think 1 Corinthians 12 is an important scriptural text to consider in this matter.  Here is the thread I started regarding "What is the Scriptural Basis for Limiting the Priesthood to Males."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 16, 2014 by smac97

[mormonnewb]

What bothers me the most is that Colvin is not defending Kelly and Dehlin's positions so much as telling the church what the result of the hearing should be (or at least what it shouldn't be). All the while portraying herself, and now with a list of other to help, as taking the moral high ground.

By making such a public spectacle of this process Dehlin and Kelly are setting themselves up to be triumphant heroes for their cause if the church takes no action, or as martyrs unwilling to be silenced by an unjust patriarchy if they are disciplined. Either way they are making the church appear as the bad guy.

Agreed. If only there were some way for the Church to have avoided this situation in the first place.

[smac97]

Agreed. If only there were some way for the Church to have avoided this situation in the first place.

 

Kate Kelly is entirely to blame for "this situation."  She is the one that has publicized it, not the Church.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Sleeper Cell]

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

 

 

 

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. 

 

Let’s start a crusade against releasing General Authorities on account of age.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Kate Kelly is entirely to blame for "this situation."  She is the one that has publicized it, not the Church.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

You would think that much was obvious.

[Analytics]

Well, they are interviewing Kate Kelly for her story. She can't help but talk about herself. I don't fault her for that.

I do fault her in other ways. She waxed poetic about how "harmful" and "devastating" and "hurtful" her disciplinary process is to many, many other people. But if that is so, whose fault is it that these people are feeling that pain?

 

Most of those people would say it is in fact the Church's fault, or at least the ecclesiastical leader of her former ward that is initiating the proceedings.  In general, the Saints who are hurt by this are hurt because they either agree with her point, or at least have a lot of sympathy for it and don't think there is anything wrong with the way she is expressing her views. Kicking her out sends the message to these Saints that they have a lot less freedom to speak their sincere beliefs in their own church than they thought they did.

 

You and I probably agree that all such people would be better off outside of the Church.  But we might disagree about whether the Church would be better off without them.

[mormonnewb]

Kate Kelly is entirely to blame for "this situation."  She is the one that has publicized it, not the Church.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

LOL! It sounds like something I once heard on the TV show Cops when an abusive husband yelled at his wife, "I'm going to lose my job when my boss sees this and it will be all YOUR fault." In his mind, he wasn't to blame for beating her. She was to blame for telling the authorities.

And no, KK is not an "innocent victim" here. She's an activist. And she has been agitating to hold the priesthood. Would it at all make since for her "to go quietly into that good excommunication" now? Why would she fight for the priesthood but just surrender her membership in the Church? She's being totally consistent here (perhaps, as you see it, consistently WRONG), but why would she change now if the result of changing would be complete and total defeat?

[mormonnewb]

Let’s start a crusade against releasing General Authorities on account of age.

[Crickets chirp loudly]

[ksfisher]

Agreed. If only there were some way for the Church to have avoided this situation in the first place.

As long as Dehlin and Kelly's followers keep increasing I don't see how the church can avoid it. A big tent is one thing, but the proverbial house divided isn't going to last long.

[smac97]

Most of those people would say it is in fact the Church's fault, or at least the ecclesiastical leader of her former ward that is initiating the proceedings.

I could not disagree more. Whether disciplinary proceedings are justified is, in my view, a judgment call. "Apostasy" is not the most specific charge in the world, but I can certainly see why local ecclesiastical leaders felt discipline is potentially appropriate.

If the local leadership is wrong, then Kate Kelly has a means of redress. She can file an appeal. Instead, however, she is publicizing this process to further agitate against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

LOL! It sounds like something I once heard on the TV show Cops when an abusive husband yelled at his wife, "I'm going to lose my job when my boss sees this and it will be all YOUR fault." In his mind, he wasn't to blame for beating her. She was to blame for telling the authorities.

And no, KK is not an "innocent victim" here. She's an activist. And she has been agitating to hold the priesthood. Would it at all make since for her "to go quietly into that good excommunication" now? Why would she fight for the priesthood but just surrender her membership in the Church? She's being totally consistent here (perhaps, as you see it, consistently WRONG), but why would she change now if the result of changing would be complete and total defeat?

I don't believe good faith communication with you is possible, so I decline to respond to your post.

Thanks,

-Smac