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

[Calm]

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.

It is standard for someone excommunicated to be required to stop wearing garments or so I've thought. It makes sense given one's covenant that the garments represent has been removed....so remove the symbol of it. I remember one exmember who stated he continued wearing them because they didn't have the right to take away his priesthood.

I don't think it is a requirement she bare her shoulders though as I've never heard of anyone having to change the rest of her wardrobe. (actually I think it is likely another attempt at manipulation---look at me, they've forced me to be immodest---or at least 'I can't even dress like a Mormon now since they kicked me out'...even though iirc the bishop invited her to still come to church etc.....it is like the emphasis on sobbing though it only works for LDS. What it likely comes across to nonmembers who are clued in enough to realize she is not wearing them is relief at being able to wear comfortable clothing again....or so I assume given my experience with nonmembers on the subject)

I wonder if she plans on wearing sleeveless to all church activities she might attend (since she talks working with OW I assume she will attend some).

PS: do I have to delete this, Smac? I will if you say so but I feel the need to express my distaste for manipulation when I see it. Report it to the mods in case I don't see your request to remove before I sign off tonight.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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?

And yet she was expecting to be notified immediately first off and then as soon as the decision was made.

Which means the bishop had a choice of phone or email and given that he likely did not have recording equipment for his phone, if she really had misrepresented her situation as both the letter implicates and she stated he claimed in their previous meeting (when she spoke of what was required of her for getting off the informal probation), he has to balance the civility of phoning her (while she is standing in the middle of the crowd at the vigil with the first contact) with ensuring there was no misunderstanding or misreprentation of what he said.

Would it have been kind to make her wait for the certified letter?

And the MI incident was unkind IMO because it was out of the blue, he did not expect it which is completely opposite to what Kelly's situation was...she was expecting an answer and quickly. If he had been informed before that his position as editor was in question, I think it would have been appropriate and even kind to let him know as soon as the decision had been made by email.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet she was expecting to be notified immediately first off and then as soon as the decision was made.

Which means the bishop had a choice of phone or email and given that he likely did not have recording equipment for his phone, if she really had misrepresented her situation as both the letter implicates and she stated he claimed in their previous meeting (when she spoke of what was required of her for getting off the informal probation), he has to balance the civility of phoning her (while she is standing in the middle of the crowd at the vigil with the first contact) with ensuring there was no misunderstanding or misreprentation of what he said.

Would it have been kind to make her wait for the certified letter?

And the MI incident was unkind IMO because it was out of the blue, he did not expect it which is completely opposite to what Kelly's situation was...she was expecting an answer and quickly. If he had been informed before that his position as editor was in question, I think it would have been appropriate and even kind to let him know as soon as the decision had been made by email.

You've expressed my sentiments precisely here.

 

The bishop would have been placed under condemnation no matter how he chose to inform her. Under the circumstances (including the fact that she refused to show up for her own disciplinary hearing) email was the wisest and most compassionate course.

 

I still don't get how sending an email is all that cruel. That she is seizing on it now seems to be part of the whole passive-aggressive pattern.

 

And the comparison with the Maxwell Institute incident is indeed a distortion.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

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.

 

That is openly published. If you are excommunicated you are supposed to stop wearing the garment. In other situations (disfellowshipment or probation) you continue to wear it. It is odd that the day after her excommunication she is wearing clothing she could not have worn before. Did she already have it?

 

As to the video......oh please. She was surprised that it was excommunication? Not buying it. Cruelty? Whatever. 

 

And the comparison to abuse? Ridiculous. Yes, abusive people claim that the abused "made" them do it. That does not mean that the Bishop is accusing you of making them do what they did unjustly. YOU DID MAKE THEM DO IT! 

 

"I am feeling a lot more sympathetic towards Joseph Smith." Oh wow......you had to attend two interviews and get a report of excommunication compared to Joseph who was jailed, tarred and feathered, driven from state to state, and eventually killed. Sure......whatever.

[wenglund]

I, personally, don't view KK as a saint or a deceiver. Instead I consider her as a once well meaning and lovely young lady who has inadvertently been swept up in the rising flood of narcissistic drama.

 

My hope is that she doesn't end up drowning in pride, but will one day humbly take hold of the rescue ring her Bishop lovingly tossed in her direction. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

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

Oh yeah? Just look in the mirror there, buddy!

[mfbukowski]

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.

An excellent and very ironic point which has relevance to the difference in temple blessings.

[Tacenda]

I, personally, don't view KK as a saint or a deceiver. Instead I consider her as a once well meaning and lovely young lady who has inadvertently been swept up in the rising flood of narcissistic drama.

My hope is that she doesn't end up drowning in pride, but will one day humbly take hold of the rescue ring her Bishop lovingly tossed in her direction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It happens...Maxine Hanks comes to mind. BTW, I Iike this side of you Wade.

[Calm]

" It is odd that the day after her excommunication she is wearing clothing she could not have worn before. Did she already have it?"

Many of the nicer sleeveless dresses these days come with shrugs or small jackets and she's worn a lot of jackets, so unlikely she had to buy something new. I have three tops I wear with something over them, two came in a pant set and the other I wear for cormfort with a really loose shirt as a jacket. Given the styles these days, you have to get creative at times with layers.

[mormonnewb]

Quick question: Why do so many of you seem to take KK's actions so personally? She isn't "attacking" YOU.

Even if you think she's dead wrong, this is a matter between her and the Church. Do you became so incensed at your neighbors when they break their covenants to The Lord?

Or do you think that our one true Church needs YOU to rise up in its defense?

If this situation represents KK having a temper tantrum is this how you handle those situations when you seem a baby acting out at Costco? Do you castigate the baby? Or perhaps, you turn to your spouse and begin to list all of the baby's sinful actions, including trespassing by climbing all over the checkout conveyor belt?

Or do you do what I do and turn your focus to something else? "136 rolls of toilet paper for $1.98. Let's buy TWO packs." Maybe, just maybe, if the parent were to give the impression they wanted my help, I would, of course, walk up to the baby and tell him what a narcissist he is. Or maybe, I would do just the opposite and try to cheer him up even if the baby didnt "deserve" it.

However, from the judgmental and condemning reactions, I would suspect that KK was the adult who had just slapped a helpless child in public. In that case, I'd see your judgmental and raise your enmity. But since I happen to see the Church as being more than able to protect itself from a few hundred "flailing" activists, then perhaps it doesn't need us piling on too,

[Calm]

If I love my neighbours as myself, then shouldn't I take it personally when they are hurt whether physically, emotionally or spiritually? Are not church members as much my neighbour as KK? Are not church leaders?

[mormonnewb]

If I love my neighbours as myself, then shouldn't I take it personally when they are hurt whether physically, emotionally or spiritually? Are not church members as much my neighbour as KK? Are not church leaders?

KK's actions hurt the average member in Bountiful how?

[Calm]

Why does it have to be only the average members in Bountiful? Why can't it be her bishop and stake president? Why can't it be the other members who she has convinced to join her in her apostasy, intentionally or unintentionally? The families who are arguing with each other now? The women who are now fearful to speak up because of the propaganda being attached to her acts that it was for just disagreeing and speaking out? Why can't I see her actions at hurting you because I believe you are misguided in your support of her and you are apparently sacrificing your temple covenant to do so, one of the most beautiful and precious gifts God has given us on earth at this time.

[mormonnewb]

Why does it have to be only the average members in Bountiful? Why can't it be her bishop and stake president? Why can't it be the other members who she has convinced to join her in her apostasy, intentionally or unintentionally? The families who are arguing with each other now? The women who are now fearful to speak up because of the propaganda being attached to her acts that it was for just disagreeing and speaking out? Why can't I see her actions at hurting you because I believe you are misguided in your support of her and you are apparently sacrificing your temple covenant to do so, one of the most beautiful and precious gifts God has given us on earth at this time.

All the things you decry, I see as progress for our maturity. Where did we get the idea that agency was supposed to be neat and tidy? That we could have freedom to choose and that this freedom wouldn't cause contention and strife? If the ultimate good is uniformity and agreement, then some of us should have taken the blue pill in the pre-existence.

For instance, fashion choices cause strife within families, say between fathers and daughters. "You think I'm going to let you out of the house wearing THAT, Young Lady?" And even aside from modesty issues, there is often an issue of cost. "You want to spend WHAT for one pair of jeans? Your mother and I didn't spend that much for our first house." Of course, the Church could solve this issue by mandating that we wear a modest yet low-cost uniform. Among the faithful, this would end the clothing battle once and for all. Yet, perhaps part of our progression is that we learn to navigate though these minor family squabbles.

Likewise, perhaps being part of a Church FAMILY means that we tug and pull and work towards mutual cooperation; and not just with people who are like us. That's easy. But with people unlike us. However, when we excommunicate those who think AND ACT differently, we're taking the easy way out.

I have four sons and I only wish I could excommunicate at least two of them; and they are the "normal" ones. Two of my boys are autistic. Believe it or not, they don't always see things as their "priesthood leader" does. They ask for things they shouldn't and not always politely. And once again, I'm talking about the "normal" boys. To be totally honest, my home would be far more tranquil and peaceful without ANY of them. And it would be FAR neater. And I would be half the person that I am today (how scary is that?).

At a particularly difficult time for my oldest autistic son, his doctor suggested that we institutionalize him. I travel often and he was simply getting too strong for my wife to handle alone. At the time, I was a Baptist, so I called my "prayer warriors" together for the purpose of "fixing Matty." Our leader stopped me in my tracks and said, "I can't pray for God to fix Matty. I can only pray for God to fix YOU -- for you to learn patience, resourcefulness and never ending persistence as you deal with this challenge." (The Baptists always do have a way with words ... But I digress).

Maybe, just maybe, rather than praying for Kelly and Dehlin to get better, maybe we should be praying for US to get better. Because as much as they may have caused the commotion, they were willing to stay and work it out. Yet, it was us (the Church) that decided that it would be safer and less stressful for all if we shipped them off somewhere (perhaps to the Baptists). When faced with a similar decision, I couldn't fathom breaking up MY family like that. Matty could have broken EVERY plate we owned and put holes in every wall, but he wasn't going ANYWHERE because he is MINE.

KK was born in this Church. Served a mission. Went to the Lord's University. Was an active member of her ward. She was OURS. But because she broke some plates, made some funny noises and caused some stress in the household, we literally wiped her name from the family records. Wow!

[Tacenda]

All the things you decry, I see as progress for our maturity. Where did we get the idea that agency was supposed to be neat and tidy? That we could have freedom to choose and that this freedom wouldn't cause contention and strife? If the ultimate good is uniformity and agreement, then some of us should have taken the blue pill in the pre-existence.

For instance, fashion choices cause strife within families, say between fathers and daughters. "You think I'm going to let you out of the house wearing THAT, Young Lady?" And even aside from modesty issues, there is often an issue of cost. "You want to spend WHAT for one pair of jeans? Your mother and I didn't spend that much for our first house." Of course, the Church could solve this issue by mandating that we wear a modest yet low-cost uniform. Among the faithful, this would end the clothing battle once and for all. Yet, perhaps part of our progression is that we learn to navigate though these minor family squabbles.

Likewise, perhaps being part of a Church FAMILY means that we tug and pull and work towards mutual cooperation; and not just with people who are like us. That's easy. But with people unlike us. However, when we excommunicate those who think AND ACT differently, we're taking the easy way out.

I have four sons and I only wish I could excommunicate at least two of them; and they are the "normal" ones. Two of my boys are autistic. Believe it or not, they don't always see things as their "priesthood leader" does. They ask for things they shouldn't and not always politely. And once again, I'm talking about the "normal" boys. To be totally honest, my home would be far more tranquil and peaceful without ANY of them. And it would be FAR neater. And I would be half the person that I am today (how scary is that?).

At a particularly difficult time for my oldest autistic son, his doctor suggested that we institutionalize him. I travel often and he was simply getting too strong for my wife to handle alone. At the time, I was a Baptist, so I called my "prayer warriors" together for the purpose of "fixing Matty." Our leader stopped me in my tracks and said, "I can't pray for God to fix Matty. I can only pray for God to fix YOU -- for you to learn patience, resourcefulness and never ending persistence as you deal with this challenge." (The Baptists always do have a way with words ... But I digress).

Maybe, just maybe, rather than praying for Kelly and Dehlin to get better, maybe we should be praying for US to get better. Because as much as they may have caused the commotion, they were willing to stay and work it out. Yet, it was us (the Church) that decided that it would be safer and less stressful for all if we shipped them off somewhere (perhaps to the Baptists). When faced with a similar decision, I couldn't fathom breaking up MY family like that. Matty could have broken EVERY plate we owned and put holes in every wall, but he wasn't going ANYWHERE because he is MINE.

KK was born in this Church. Served a mission. Went to the Lord's University. Was an active member of her ward. She was OURS. But because she broke some plates, made some funny noises and caused some stress in the household, we literally wiped her name from the family records. Wow!

Well when you put it that way.....

Actually, excommunication could be the church's version of tough love. They are hoping she'll change her ways I guess, and return. Being ex'd in the church isn't banishment for forever. Maybe a very stern time-out, put in context.

But oh how I love your analogies....you are indeed a writer and a half.

[CV75]

Wow!

You simply have a different perspective, but there are also a number of flaws in your arguments:

 

While agency is not neat and tidy, neatness and tidiness is the whole end of the atonement: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” (John 14:27). “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3 Nephi 11:29). We can fulfill Matthew 10:34 without having the spirit of contention; that comes from the adversarial side. Ultimate good, uniformity and agreement are of a kind and a choice that is made on the basis of the Intercessory Prayer (“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”)

 

I’d like to see a better argument than putting priesthood ordination on a par with a young woman’s fashion choice. This argument demeans both the priesthood and young women. We have guidance for modesty and we have an order for priesthood.

 

Excommunication (being “cut off”) has been the Lord’s pattern all along, as you will find in a word search of the scriptures. It’s not the consequence of “them” not being like “us,” but about “me” not being “one in us.”

 

I’d like to see a better argument than putting Church discipline on a par with raising an autistic child. Equating the degree of moral accountability between the functioning apostate and the awkward child demeans both persons. The Church is simply not responsible for members in the same way a parent is responsible for a child.

 

No functioning (D&C 121:34-46) priesthood leader wishes he could excommunicate anyone under his stewardship. The fact is that he can, but he doesn’t abuse his power or attitude. He does “learn patience, resourcefulness and never ending persistence.” Disciplinary action is as much in the best interest of the accountable sinner and the whole group (and the group is far more integrated a relationship than a family; it is one “body,” the body of Christ, even as “one flesh.”).

 

King David’s fall from grace is often used to teach the lesson of “that was then; this is now.” You decry neatness and tidiness, yet would wipe out the messy consequences of another’s agency.

[Analytics]

And yet she was expecting to be notified immediately first off and then as soon as the decision was made.

Which means the bishop had a choice of phone or email....

 

I was just clarifying what she actually said so that you could criticize the facts rather than a different narritive.  You're welcome.

 

You've expressed my sentiments precisely here.

 

The bishop would have been placed under condemnation no matter how he chose to inform her. Under the circumstances (including the fact that she refused to show up for her own disciplinary hearing) ... 

 

I would be more sympathetic to criticisms of her not showing up if the hearing had been held within 2,000 miles of where she actually lived.

[Sleeper Cell]

All the things you decry, I see as progress for our maturity. Where did we get the idea that agency was supposed to be neat and tidy? That we could have freedom to choose and that this freedom wouldn't cause contention and strife? 

 

Probably from the same place that some of us got the idea that “freedom to choose” meant not having to face the foreseeable consequences of one’s choices. 

[Sleeper Cell]

 If the ultimate good is uniformity and agreement, then some of us should have taken the blue pill in the pre-existence.

 

BTW, what ever happened to the guy in the pre existence who got so upset when he wasn‘t given the ecclesiastical position he wanted?

[Sleeper Cell]

Maybe, just maybe, rather than praying for Kelly and Dehlin to get better, maybe we should be praying for US to get better. Because as much as they may have caused the commotion, they were willing to stay and work it out. 

 

CFR that Kelly was “willing to work it out?”  Did she offer any compromise in her letter to her disciplinary council?  

[Buzzard]

Mormonnewb: Well written. But let's throw this curve ball into the mix: Lets say one of your boys-pick anyone of them, since I'm sure you love each of them profoundly, was on drugs, and was supplying your other sons with drugs, AND was selling/providing drugs to the other kids at church and in the area. 

When you challenge him on his behavior, he tells you that drugs are not bad, that they expand his mind, and that everyone, including you really should be on drugs. You respond that you love him too much to see him ruin not just his own, but your other sons and friends children's lives, and that unless he stops immediately, you have no choice but to call the police as well as place him in a rehab clinic.

His response is that a father who loved him would not do that, you have no right to punish him since he is a good student and keeps his room clean, and besides he is in the right. It's time for you to drop your archaic view of these wonderful chemicals that God has given him and means for everyone to have. He intends not only to continue to distribute drugs to his present friends, but to expand his operation, and nothing less will suffice.

Do you call the police and rehab clinic because his actions are against the states commandments and besides you know what long term drug use will do to his brain, or do you hold off and negotiate with him, hoping that maybe he will be satisfied with passing out smaller quantities of less powerful drugs in return for being left alone about this?

And much respect on raising two autistic boys. My oldest was profoundly non-verbal autistic, and could rock and roll behavior wise when he wanted to. Lost him a decade ago to a seizure, still miss him every day, but don't miss the tantrums one bit. 

(No, I'm not equating women's ordination with drug use, just using the example of something that is presently prohibited. There ARE those who sincerely feel that some drugs do expand the mind, at present they still go to jail).

Edited June 25, 2014 by Buzzard

[eddie]

I would be more sympathetic to criticisms of her not showing up if the hearing had been held within 2,000 miles of where she actually lived.

 

I would be more sympathetic to her if she had chosen to set up a secure video link, or at least have a conference call with the bishop instead of running to some special event she organized to display her spiritual martyrdom.  (And that is not hyperbole, she was the one comparing herself to Joseph Smith.)

 

The fact is this didn't mean enough to her to try to talk in person, instead she tried to put herself in the media view as she has done throughout every step of this movement.

Edited June 25, 2014 by eddie

[ERayR]

BTW, what ever happened to the guy in the pre existence who got so upset when he wasn‘t given the ecclesiastical position he wanted?

 

Oh he is still around.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would be more sympathetic to criticisms of her not showing up if the hearing had been held within 2,000 miles of where she actually lived.

There were offers to reschedule the hearing or provide a Skype or some other electronic link-up to accommodate her.

 

Also, they didn't spring this on her all of a sudden. This was an ongoing proceeding that included her having been placed on informal probation weeks earlier. She could have proposed to priesthood leaders that they get this cleared up sometime prior to her departure.

 

I'm skeptical that she would have attended in person, even if she was still in the neighborhood.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

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?

 

She could have likewise complained at his "cruelty" if he had sent her the decision via regular mail and drawn out her waiting period.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac