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

[Sleeper Cell]

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

Did she mention how harmful and devastating her interviews have been  to her bishop?  Who, by the way, cannot give interviews to the NYT or the Huff Post to defend himself.   

[Analytics]

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

 

I know you strongly disagree with the saints who see it that way. That's why I said you probably agree with me that they'd be better off outside of the Church.

 

It all goes back to the tension between Liahona saints and Iron Rod saints.  The decision of church leaders to discipline her for this is causing many Liahona saints feel their piece of the tent is shrinking. 

[Duncan]

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?

 

right, i've wondered what caused her to start protesting and demanding, who asked her to do all this? who else signed up on that sheet that was passed around in Relief Society? because the Church doesn't have enough to do I am wondering who in the COB asked her to start a website, recruit members etc. and do what she has been doing? Remind me again how they bullied her to get a law degree and start judging the Church by in what she was educated in. I'd love to know what leader asked her to contact the media. 

 

I am wondering if she should take up acting, i've heard CSI is always looking for people to play victims

Edited June 16, 2014 by Duncan

[eddie]

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

They have something like 300 followers and 3000 likes on Facebook in a church with 15,000,000 members. (Many are ex and non-LDS). Mormon women stand has about 10 times as many likes on Facebook just for reference.

She is simply seeking attention and seeking glory in this, nothing more.

[rongo]

As I've watched the progression over the last two years, I have always wondered what the next step for Ordain Women was. From profiles, to holding concurrent, rival meetings during priesthood session (media circus, to boot), to twice trying to get into priesthood session, to the discussions. It seemed to me that eventually, in the quest for activist edginess, the line would be crossed. I mean, they were trying to be more and more edgy to provoke the Brethren into a reaction. Eventually, they had to go too far or fade into irrelevance.

 

And that is precisely what happened.

[mormonnewb]

As I've watched the progression over the last two years, I have always wondered what the next step for Ordain Women was. From profiles, to holding concurrent, rival meetings during priesthood session (media circus, to boot), to twice trying to get into priesthood session, to the discussions. It seemed to me that eventually, in the quest for activist edginess, the line would be crossed. I mean, they were trying to be more and more edgy to provoke the Brethren into a reaction. Eventually, they had to go too far or fade into irrelevance.

And that is precisely what happened.

I agree with you. The OW movement was in trouble and sooner or later, they would either fade away or have to do something really drastic to get anyone's attention. In that sense, I think the Church bailed them out by taking the choice away from them. Now, in the media and elsewhere, the Church will play the bad guy for ex-communicating a "faithful sister who was merely asking to help shoulder more of the burden of servanthood in the Church." (That's how I would have spun it).

Of course, in the end, it really doesn't matter. In the short term, it will cause some consternation from us liberal types but eventually, this flame will die from lack of fuel.

Harriet Tubman once said, "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if they only knew they were slaves." STOP! I AM NOT SAYING THAT WOMEN IN OUR CHURCH ARE SLAVES.

What I am saying is that you can't bring "equality" to people who already feel equal. And therefore, until that dynamic changes, the Church's doctrine won't either.

Perhaps, that was the point of the discussions (to show women that they are NOT equal) but I just don't imagine that they would have been all that successful. Dr. King never had to hold six discussions before organizing a mass protest during the civil rights movement. Black people KNEW they were being treated unequally and felt the sting of it. I don't think our sisters feel nearly as oppressed.

So that being said, the question is how hard the Church wants to fight a battle that it can not lose.

Edited June 17, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Bob Crockett]

She is simply seeking attention and seeking glory in this, nothing more.

I don't think one can make that assumption.  

However, it is fair to say that choosing to fight the battle in the press, knowing the Church cannot respond in detail about her circumstances, means that a lot of negative conclusions can be legitimately drawn about her behavior.  One of the conculsions legitimately to be drawn is that she does not intend to comply with standard church procedure, that she intends to make a mockery of the proceedings and mock those Brethren participating in it as well as perhaps mischaracterizing what has occurred in the past between she and them.  That alone may be sufficient for discipline.  

[Duncan]

I don't think one can make that assumption.  

However, it is fair to say that choosing to fight the battle in the press, knowing the Church cannot respond in detail about her circumstances, means that a lot of negative conclusions can be legitimately drawn about her behavior.  One of the conculsions legitimately to be drawn is that she does not intend to comply with standard church procedure, that she intends to make a mockery of the proceedings and mock those Brethren participating in it as well as perhaps mischaracterizing what has occurred in the past between she and them.  That alone may be sufficient for discipline.  

 

 

exactley, she can spin it anyways she wants

[Duncan]

Apparently on Radiowest tomorrow someone from the Church will be on to discuss this with Dehlin and Kelly-I don't know if either of them will be there though

[Calm]

I don't think our sisters feel nearly as oppressed.

And given the sisters are generally well educated here in the US where this is centered and many are working as well so have experience in environments where gender equality is defined in very specific ways as identical treatment, I think the fact that the sisters do not generally feel oppressed by the different treatment (call it inequality or diversity, whichever you prefer) they receive so deserve at least as much attention as the idea that treatment so be closer in similarity.

 

Why is the Church so successful in treating educated, culturally aware and sophisticated women so differently than men?  (I am not saying the general satisfaction implies there is no need to change…I see change as a given, we can always improve on how we treat each other (female and male) in and out of the Church).  We need to be very careful however in trying to improve how things are done not to change for the sake of change itself and not to lose what drives the satisfaction rate up so high.

[GingerRed]

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

 

Here here!!

 

I, too, don't buy this 'poor pitiful me' routine!  She's milking it for all its worth. She isn't stupid! She's known all along what this could lead to as far as church discipline.  And then has the audacity to act all shocked and surprised when it does happen! Really??  The fact she's going all public and viral over a totally PRIVATE matter that should only be known to her and her Bishop speaks volumes!  Can we say, attention hog?

 

I've had bad vibes about her since day one.  As they say, you can choose your actions but not your consequences.  I'm am sorry for her ,but she made her bed and now she has to lie in it.  I feel MORE sorry for her family and anyone she has led astray.  Just a sad situation. 

 

 

Red

[sethpayne]

Would you say self absorbed would be a good description?

 

Interesting.  I got the exact opposite impression.

[maxrep12]

In 1997, reporter David Ransom asked Gorden B. Hinckley if the policy on denying priesthood to women could be changed, much like it had for black men.

 

President Hinckley responded, “Yes. But there’s no agitation for that.”

 

Hmmm..."Yes - But".

 

Now that there is agitation for it, "yes" seems to be nowhere in sight. Judging by the church's reaction, "yes" never really was an actual option that President Hinckley alluded to.

[The Nehor]

I, too, don't buy this 'poor pitiful me' routine!  She's milking it for all its worth. She isn't stupid! She's known all along what this could lead to as far as church discipline.  And then has the audacity to act all shocked and surprised when it does happen! Really??  The fact she's going all public and viral over a totally PRIVATE matter that should only be known to her and her Bishop speaks volumes!  Can we say, attention hog?

 

But.......she feels bad!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And look at how mean the Church is to her:

 

[cdowis]

In 1997, reporter David Ransom asked Gorden B. Hinckley if the policy on denying priesthood to women could be changed, much like it had for black men.

 

President Hinckley responded, “Yes. But there’s no agitation for that.”

 

 

 

 

Here is what he actually said

 

 

Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

DR: They all say that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

DR: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

DR: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

DR: So you’d have to get a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife. 

Gordon B. Hinckley: Are you happy? (to his wife...)

Mrs. H: Very happy! (laughs) 

 

Certainly "anything" is possible, but it must be thru revelation.  He was clearly making a PR statement, speaking to a reporter, and avoiding additional criticism of the church as he had done in other interviews.

 

This subject has been clarified by the church in recent official statements in General Conference, etc.  Agitation is not the standard by which doctrine is changed, regardless of how you are trying to spin his statement.

Edited June 17, 2014 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

In 1997, reporter David Ransom asked Gorden B. Hinckley if the policy on denying priesthood to women could be changed, much like it had for black men.

 

President Hinckley responded, “Yes. But there’s no agitation for that.”

 

Hmmm..."Yes - But".

 

Now that there is agitation for it, "yes" seems to be nowhere in sight. Judging by the church's reaction, "yes" never really was an actual option that President Hinckley alluded to.

 

All that "yes" implies is that God could change it if He wanted to. It was not a suggestion that agitation would change the will of God or that God decided to rescind his counsel on not counseling your God.

[changed]

Women's current roles were put into place in Eden.... do people want to rewrite the genesis account? rewrite temple covenants?  "The greatest are servants", humble roles are beautiful roles... As a woman, I honestly hope that the role of women do not change.

[mormonnewb]

All that "yes" implies is that God could change it if He wanted to. It was not a suggestion that agitation would change the will of God or that God decided to rescind his counsel on not counseling your God.

So your contention is that Pres Hinckley was in the habit of speaking in non-sequiturs? When asked about women getting the priesthood, he mentioned that there was no agitation for it although agitation would be irrelevant to the issue?

"Pres. Hinckley, could the church ever allow gays to be sealed in the temple?"

"Perhaps, but I really like cheeseburgers."

Why would he mention agitation in response to the question if it was a complete non-factor in the calculus?

[changed]

So your contention is that Pres Hinckley was in the habit of speaking in non-sequiturs? When asked about women getting the priesthood, he mentioned that there was no agitation for it although agitation would be irrelevant to the issue?

"Pres. Hinckley, could the church ever allow gays to be sealed in the temple?"

"Perhaps, but I really like cheeseburgers."

Why would he mention agitation in response to the question if it was a complete non-factor in the calculus?

It was not a suggestion for women to start agitating for the priesthood, it was an explanation to defend the role of women by saying women are happy in the church, and 99% of them are.

 

[mormonnewb]

It was not a suggestion for women to start agitating for the priesthood, it was an explanation to defend the role of women by saying women are happy in the church, and 99% of them are.

Agreed that they currently are. And if they were one day unhappy with their roles in the Church? Would it matter?

[Duncan]

Agreed that they currently are. And if they were one day unhappy with their roles in the Church? Would it matter?

 

hmmmmm, how do roles and callings in your opinion differ? are we not all in the same boat? I never thought I had a 'role' to play like Peter Falk did in Columbo but a calling then yes! but everyone has callings in the church, sometimes 2 or 3

[The Nehor]

So your contention is that Pres Hinckley was in the habit of speaking in non-sequiturs? When asked about women getting the priesthood, he mentioned that there was no agitation for it although agitation would be irrelevant to the issue?

"Pres. Hinckley, could the church ever allow gays to be sealed in the temple?"

"Perhaps, but I really like cheeseburgers."

Why would he mention agitation in response to the question if it was a complete non-factor in the calculus?

No, it was probably intended to answer the next few questions along the lines if we asking for such a change or if women in the church were. It does not imply that agitation would change the equation.

[mormonnewb]

And given the sisters are generally well educated here in the US where this is centered and many are working as well so have experience in environments where gender equality is defined in very specific ways as identical treatment, I think the fact that the sisters do not generally feel oppressed by the different treatment (call it inequality or diversity, whichever you prefer) they receive so deserve at least as much attention as the idea that treatment so be closer in similarity.

Why is the Church so successful in treating educated, culturally aware and sophisticated women so differently than men? (I am not saying the general satisfaction implies there is no need to change…I see change as a given, we can always improve on how we treat each other (female and male) in and out of the Church). We need to be very careful however in trying to improve how things are done not to change for the sake of change itself and not to lose what drives the satisfaction rate up so high.

I'm not sure that I have any good answers (or even any really bad answers that I nevertheless feel passionate about). As a point of clarification, while LDS women are increasingly working outside of the home, they still stay at home at greater rates than the national average. So, ON AVERAGE, LDS women are LESS exposed to the worldly concept of "gender equality."

Also, while LDS women achieve college degrees at higher rates than average, it doesn't mean that they are more "exposed" to the broader issues of "gender equality." I don't expect that a typical young woman who graduates from one of our church schools is going to be steeped in ways of third wave feminism. Therefore, the greater rate of degree attainment does not necessarily translate into greater "enlightenment" on issues of gender equality.

[mormonnewb]

DELETED

Edited June 17, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Duncan]

I'm not sure that I have any good answers (or even any really bad answers that I nevertheless feel passionate about). As a point of clarification, while LDS women are increasingly working outside of the home, they still stay at home at greater rates than the national average. So, ON AVERAGE, LDS women are LESS exposed to the worldly concept of "gender equality."

Also, while LDS women achieve college degrees at higher rates than average, it doesn't mean that they are more "exposed" to the broader issues of "gender equality." I don't expect that a typical young woman who graduates from one of our church schools is going to be steeped in ways of third wave feminism. Therefore, the greater rate of degree attainment does not necessarily translate into greater "enlightenment" on issues of gender equality.

 

 

if LDS women want to stay home then let them, if they want to work outside the home it's up to them and not us to judge. In my growing up situation my Mom, who has 2 university degrees and my dad has none, stayed home to raise us and my dad worked. Sure she could have worked outside but she chose not to, we had nothing but everything. I know others whose Moms worked and that's fine for them, if that's their situation, it's theirs.