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

[mfbukowski]

It is so disappointing.  Never get any sense of compromise or that these are good people who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing even if they disagree with her.

 

If anyone has come across something by her which would make me more hopeful, I would love to see it.

Definitely an odd combination of dogmatic fundamentalism from someone considered a "liberal" source. Reminds me VERY much of my student radical days. Living as a dogmatic Progressive causes a lot of angst, as we see here. When one is omniscient, all these little people just get in the way of the Grand Vision That Only I Have...

[Pahoran]

With respect to the "lying" issue that is a he said, she said, type of thing -- and even GAs have been caught out in misstating events.

Sure, but where did the bishop supposedly lie?

In a confidential letter addressed to her. IOW, we are supposed to believe that he lied -- to her -- about matters in which she had direct personal knowledge.

Why would he do that? What could he possibly hope to gain?

Now let's turn it around: what does Ms Kelly stand to gain by lying about it to her following?

Well, the letter -- which only became public knowledge because she chose to publicise it -- makes the bishop look rather good, and her, not so much. OTOH, Ms Kelly's followers -- who, however they choose to describe themselves, are clearly rather heavily skewed towards the disaffected fringe -- are predisposed to believe her (rather uncritically) and be suspicious of any Church leaders.

So, she tells them what they want to hear, and they, of course, swallow it.

To anyone still capable of critical thinking, the notion that the bishop "lied" is ridiculous.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Stone holm]

Sure, but where did the bishop supposedly lie?In a confidential letter addressed to her. IOW, we are supposed to believe that he lied -- to her -- about matters in which she had direct personal knowledge.Why would he do that? What could he possibly hope to gain?Now let's turn it around: what does Ms Kelly stand to gain by lying about it to her following?Well, the letter -- which only became public knowledge because she chose to publicise it -- makes the bishop look rather good, and her, not so much. OTOH, Ms Kelly's followers -- who, however they choose to describe themselves, are clearly rather heavily skewed towards the disaffected fringe -- are predisposed to believe her (rather uncritically) and be suspicious of any Church leaders.So, she tells them what they want to hear, and they, of course, swallow it.To anyone still capable of critical thinking, the notion that the bishop "lied" is ridiculous.Regards,Pahoran

I have no idea who is misstating the facts, with regards to the procedure and I certainly do not presume that the Bishop got the facts straight. What to me is truly important here is the analogy she made of the Church to a serial abusive husband. Leaders have been known to not get the facts straight, people going through the process have also been known to not get the facts straight. But there is no doubt what she said on video tape.

[teddyaware]

I have no idea who is misstating the facts, with regards to the procedure and I certainly do not presume that the Bishop got the facts straight. What to me is truly important here is the analogy she made of the Church to a serial abusive husband. Leaders have been known to not get the facts straight, people going through the process have also been known to not get the facts straight. But there is no doubt what she said on video tape.

Serial abusive husband? Oh brother! And I suppose KK thinks all the other spiritual giants in Church leadership, both ancient and modern, were serial abusers of women as well. And why not? They didn't ordain women to the priesthood either. "What more proof do we need?!?" Since historical revisionism is the stock in trade of the progressives, how long will it be before the "progressive" OW types, and their sympathizers, typecast Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Joseph Smith as malicious serial abusers as well? Can anyone say "skating on thin ice?"

[Hamba Tuhan]

How long will it be before the "progressive" OW types, and their sympathizers, typecast Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Joseph Smith as malicious serial abusers as well?

 

Are you being intentionally funny? If not, I think the answer to your question is, 'Too late'.

[ERayR]

Definitely an odd combination of dogmatic fundamentalism from someone considered a "liberal" source. Reminds me VERY much of my student radical days. Living as a dogmatic Progressive causes a lot of angst, as we see here. When one is omniscient, all these little people just get in the way of the Grand Vision That Only I Have...

 

You are right.  Nobody is as smart as you or me and I sometimes wonder about you. :diablo:

Edited June 25, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Sure, but where did the bishop supposedly lie?

In a confidential letter addressed to her. IOW, we are supposed to believe that he lied -- to her -- about matters in which she had direct personal knowledge.

Why would he do that? What could he possibly hope to gain?

Now let's turn it around: what does Ms Kelly stand to gain by lying about it to her following?

Well, the letter -- which only became public knowledge because she chose to publicise it -- makes the bishop look rather good, and her, not so much. OTOH, Ms Kelly's followers -- who, however they choose to describe themselves, are clearly rather heavily skewed towards the disaffected fringe -- are predisposed to believe her (rather uncritically) and be suspicious of any Church leaders.

So, she tells them what they want to hear, and they, of course, swallow it.

To anyone still capable of critical thinking, the notion that the bishop "lied" is ridiculous.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

that is the problem with undocumented verbal communication.

[ERayR]

I have no idea who is misstating the facts, with regards to the procedure and I certainly do not presume that the Bishop got the facts straight. What to me is truly important here is the analogy she made of the Church to a serial abusive husband. Leaders have been known to not get the facts straight, people going through the process have also been known to not get the facts straight. But there is no doubt what she said on video tape.

 

For one who has no idea you are certainly quick to "presume" the bishop was "misstating" the facts.

[teddyaware]

Are you being intentionally funny? If not, I think the answer to your question is, 'Too late'.

What fun!

[Tacenda]

Radio West or radiowest.kuer.org, is set to have KK and two others on the show tomorrow. Doug would love your questions or comments for the show, such as what's next after her excommunication or did this help or hinder the movement, etc.

I'm on my phone so I can't link.

[smac97]

Kate Kelly keeps digging in: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58110298-78/kelly-church-women-mormon.html.csp

Kelly: Mormon feminists ‘galvanized’ by LDS action

Religion » Ordain founder labels church’s response as “classic abuse.”

By Peggy Fletcher Stack And Kristen Moulton | The Salt Lake Tribune

Kate Kelly was in a meeting of Ordain Women’s executive board Monday afternoon when she spied the email from her LDS bishop in Virginia, informing her that she had been excommunicated from the Utah-based church.

Kelly began to sob and so did the other board members, seated around a large table in a historic mansion on South Temple in Salt Lake City.

Twenty-four hours later, Kelly was still sad, she said Tuesday, but she continues to be committed to the cause of Mormon women’s ordination to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ all-male priesthood.

And she has no regrets.

"I have acted with complete candor and integrity at every step of the way," the Mormon feminist said . "They can’t take that away from me."

The entire process was "extremely abusive," she said. "The language [of church discipline] is classic abuse...Abusive, manipulative and patriarchal."

Defying the Church and trespassing and protesting on its property shows "integrity?"

Publicly accusing her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike" shows "integrity?"

Accusing the Church of "abuse" shows "integrity?"

Meanwhile, Kelly’s expulsion for "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church" has been discussed and debated far and wide among church members online, in person, at parties and picnics, in homes and chapels across the nation and even globe.

Mormons have lined up on either side, she said, viewing her as either a "saint and savior," or "the devil incarnate, nothing could be worse."

"I can count on one hand," Kelly said, "people in the middle."

Kelly does feel, though, that the church’s treatment of her has "galvanized" Mormon feminists — even those who do not support female ordination — "around the ecclesiastical abuse of women, highlighting the different ways men and women are treated in the church."

I'm still not getting the "The Church excommunicated me because of my gender" narrative.

Lisa Butterworth, who founded Feminist Mormon Housewives a decade ago, teared up on Trib Talk when talking about the excommunication’s impact on her own family.

"My daughters are heartbroken," Butterworth said, "and don’t want to go to church anymore."

The Idaho mom said she had tried to raise feminist issues quietly, politely and behind-the-scenes for years, but it wasn’t until Ordain Women began their activism that LDS leaders paid attention.

I don't think that's accurate. The OW group is taking credit for changes in the Church and discussions in the Church which preceded it.

"I’m not sure at what point a larger conversation in the church would have taken place if OW had not decided it wouldn’t be so polite," she said. "They have opened up a space for discussion."

Butterworth said she now plans to be more open and bold speaking about the issue at church.

It is a bit refreshing, I suppose, to see OW supporters acknowledge - at least a little bit - that their tactics have been offensive (even if that acknowledgement comes in the form of patting themselves on their backs).

But Butterworth's plan to "be more open and bold speaking about the issue at church" does not, I think, bode well for her.

That’s exactly what Kelly hopes will happen.

The LDS leaders thought that if they cut her off, she said, the movement would die.

To Kelly, it’s more like the mythical many-headed Hydra — "they can cut off one head, but another will grow in its place."

That's an interesting metaphor.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Can I just say I am rather sick of the constant referring to women crying in these reports?

Maybe I am old school, but the reference (not the actual crying, I don't have a problem with that as emotional expression) to women being so hurt they cry seems not only emotionally manipulative, but feeding into the myth of weakness. IOW, "look at those mean bullies, they made her cry!"

"Mormons have lined up on either side, she said, viewing her as either a "saint and savior," or "the devil incarnate, nothing could be worse."

"I can count on one hand," Kelly said, "people in the middle.""

Okay, this is just laughable. Devil incarnate? Many LDS don't even think she could be the devil if she wanted to given in their view sons of perdition have to have the Priesthood.

"saint and savior". I really, really, really hope she is not implying Christ here and more like someone doing proxy temple work, but given her reference to Satan...

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Hamba Tuhan]

Defying the Church and trespassing and protesting on its property shows "integrity?"

Publicly accusing her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike" shows "integrity?"

Accusing the Church of "abuse" shows "integrity?"

 

[smac97]

Here is a link to a YouTube video of an interview of Kate Kelly which was posted by the Salt Lake Tribune as part of this story.  I will refrain from describing the feeling I get from watching this.  Here is a partial transcript of some of her more notable comments from this interview:

 

Kelly: I was surprised by the cruelty (of her bishop's email).

 

...

 

Kelly: The entire (disciplinary) process is extremely abusive.  And I think .. that the language that is used to talk about the process that happened to me is classic abuse.  You know, my mom is a prosecutor and works with special victims and has for over twenty years.  And she works with victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual assault, and a lot of what happens in that dialogue is that the perpetrator of the abuse describes the abuse as something that the victim made them do.  'Why did you make me hit you?  Why did you make me do this?'  Or 'I'm doing this because I love you, and I've doing this out of love.'  And so in our society the most violent situations against women are often shrouded in a cloud of disingenuous love.

 

Interviewer: And that's how you see this action against you?

 

Kelly: Absolutely consistent with abusive, manipulative, patriarchal situations.

 

Interviewer: Do you have any regrets with how you handled the situation?

 

Kelly: No.  I have no regrets.  I acted with complete candor and integrity every step of the way.  And I can't take that back.  Not that I won't take that back.  I can't take that back.

 

Interviewer: Obviously there's some discrepancy between they way you describe their lack of response to you and what they said in the letter alleging that actually you had met several times and you had ...

 

Kelly: That was just point blank a lie.  I challenge them to name the times of those meetings or provide me with a phone log of those phone calls.  I have my phone log and I can prove that they never called me.  I have my emails.  They never emailed me.  We never met.  We met one time in December, which I blogged about on FMH.  The result of that meeting was, in my opinion, we'll have to agree to disagree and you won't be disciplined.  And we met one time on May 5.  Under duress.

 

...

 

Interviewer: What you said yesterday, you know, urging people to stay in the Church and try to make it better.

 

Kelly: Yeah, I think people should stay, but if they stay they should raise hell.

 

...

 

Interviewer: Any advice for young feminists?

 

Kelly: My advise for people in general is, and particularly young feminists, is don't follow me.  Follow your heart.  If you feel you can stay in the Church and you can be yourself and you can actively contribute to making it a better place, then you should.  And if you can't, for your own mental well-being or your own emotional health, then you should find a safer place.

 

The more I listen to Kate Kelly, the more saddened I become.  To some extent it is unfortunate that this is all playing out in real time (due almost entirely to the media efforts of Kate Kelly).  In times past, a painful event like an excommunication would happen, and tears would be shed and angry words vented to family and close friends.  And then, hopefully, the healing can begin.  But with every vituperation given to the news media and posted on YouTube, Kate Kelly is only widening the gap between her and the Church.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[juliann]

Mormons have lined up on either side, she said, viewing her as either a "saint and savior," or "the devil incarnate, nothing could be worse."

"I can count on one hand," Kelly said, "people in the middle."

Kelly does feel, though, that the church’s treatment of her has "galvanized" Mormon feminists — even those who do not support female ordination — "around the ecclesiastical abuse of women, highlighting the different ways men and women are treated in the church."

 

Interesting...because I think her rejection and disparagement of the middle was the biggest mistake. There are more than five middle people just on this board.  So I find this an odd comment.   And again that need to make her tent smaller by excluding (or denying the existence of)  those who want change but will not go about it in extreme ways or with extreme comments.

[Stone holm]

For one who has no idea you are certainly quick to "presume" the bishop was "misstating" the facts.

Not sure where I said I presumed anything, unlike others I simply do not presume that he got them straight. I think I have been pretty clear that I don't presume that either of them got the facts straight. I don't think it is proper to assume that she is misstating the facts just because he is a Bishop. Memories are tricky things, and I don't like to call anyone a liar.

[smac97]

 

???

 

-Smac

[juliann]

Can I just say I am rather sick of the constant referring to women crying in these reports?

 

 

The words sobbing and pain have been trivialized to the point of self-satire.   Part of the problem of using so many trendy phrases,  such as "authentic self", is that it sounds manufactured and can be perceived as insincere.

[smac97]

The words sobbing and pain have been trivialized to the point of self-satire.   Part of the problem of using so many trendy phrases,  such as "authentic self", is that it sounds manufactured and can be perceived as insincere.

 

I see your point.  That she is comparing receiving a letter (and a fairly kindly worded one at that) to rape, and therefore casting her bishop to a rapist and herself as a rape victim, likewise comes across as problematic.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

???

 

Would it have been clearer had I instead posted this clip?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogp_Dai691k

[Tacenda]

Here is a link to a YouTube video of an interview of Kate Kelly which was posted by the Salt Lake Tribune as part of this story. I will refrain from describing the feeling I get from watching this. Here is a partial transcript of some of her more notable comments from this interview:

Kelly: I was surprised by the cruelty (of her bishop's email).

...

Kelly: The entire (disciplinary) process is extremely abusive. And I think .. that the language that is used to talk about the process that happened to me is classic abuse. You know, my mom is a prosecutor and works with special victims and has for over twenty years. And she works with victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual assault, and a lot of what happens in that dialogue is that the perpetrator of the abuse describes the abuse as something that the victim made them do. 'Why did you make me hit you? Why did you make me do this?' Or 'I'm doing this because I love you, and I've doing this out of love.' And so in our society the most violent situations against women are often shrouded in a cloud of disingenuous love.

Interviewer: And that's how you see this action against you?

Kelly: Absolutely consistent with abusive, manipulative, patriarchal situations.

Interviewer: Do you have any regrets with how you handled the situation?

Kelly: No. I have no regrets. I acted with complete candor and integrity every step of the way. And I can't take that back. Not that I won't take that back. I can't take that back.

Interviewer: Obviously there's some discrepancy between they way you describe their lack of response to you and what they said in the letter alleging that actually you had met several times and you had ...

Kelly: That was just point blank a lie. I challenge them to name the times of those meetings or provide me with a phone log of those phone calls. I have my phone log and I can prove that they never called me. I have my emails. They never emailed me. We never met. We met one time in December, which I blogged about on FMH. The result of that meeting was, in my opinion, we'll have to agree to disagree and you won't be disciplined. And we met one time on May 5. Under duress.

...

Interviewer: What you said yesterday, you know, urging people to stay in the Church and try to make it better.

Kelly: Yeah, I think people should stay, but if they stay they should raise hell.

...

Interviewer: Any advice for young feminists?

Kelly: My advise for people in general is, and particularly young feminists, is don't follow me. Follow your heart. If you feel you can stay in the Church and you can be yourself and you can actively contribute to making it a better place, then you should. And if you can't, for your own mental well-being or your own emotional health, then you should find a safer place.

The more I listen to Kate Kelly, the more saddened I become. To some extent it is unfortunate that this is all playing out in real time (due almost entirely to the media efforts of Kate Kelly). In times past, a painful event like an excommunication would happen, and tears would be shed and angry words vented to family and close friends. And then, hopefully, the healing can begin. But with every vituperation given to the news media and posted on YouTube, Kate Kelly is only widening the gap between her and the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I hadn't realized that she would have to quit wearing her g's. Her bare shoulders were quite apparent. Is that part of the requirement? I failed to fully read the excommunication letter/email from her bishop.

[smac97]

I hadn't realized that she would have to quit wearing her g's. Her bare shoulders were quite apparent. Is that part of the requirement? I failed to fully read the excommunication letter/email from her bishop.

Let's leave that aspect of this matter alone. It's not our concern.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2014 by smac97

[Tacenda]

Let's leave that aspect of this matter alone. It's not our concern.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oops...ok, sorry.

[Analytics]

 

Here is a link to a YouTube video of an interview of Kate Kelly which was posted by the Salt Lake Tribune as part of this story.  I will refrain from describing the feeling I get from watching this.  Here is a partial transcript of some of her more notable comments from this interview:

 

Kelly: I was surprised by the cruelty (of her bishop's email).

 

...

 

 

 

 

For clarification, she didn't say she was surprised by the cruelty of the content of the email.  What she said was, "I was surprised by the cruelty of doing something like that by email."  It reminds me of how the Director of the Maxwell Institute let go of the editor of the Mormon Studies Review.  By email?  Really?

Edited June 25, 2014 by Analytics

[Calm]

. Memories are tricky things, and I don't like to call anyone a liar.

Apparently Kelly does not have the same restraint.

(normally I am with you, someone has to be pretty obvious in deception for me to label them such....for some reason this is one of those cases)