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

[ERayR]

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 months 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.

 

Almost as if she thought she could stave this off by moving and starting with a fresh set.

[Scott Lloyd]

Almost as if she thought she could stave this off by moving and starting with a fresh set.

Like repeatedly refinancing debt to avoid having to pay it, perhaps.

[Gratefulpraise]

Hmm. She was acting strangely during the interview: http://i.imgur.com/1OczP00.gif

 

Doesn't look like someone telling the truth to me.

[smac97]

Hmm. She was acting strangely during the interview: http://i.imgur.com/1OczP00.gif

 

Doesn't look like someone telling the truth to me.

 

It's odd that she's shaking her head and frowning as she says "I have acted with integrity."

 

 

I need to go back and watch re-runs of Lie To Me on Netflix.

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2014 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

It's odd that she's shaking her head and frowning as she says "I have acted with integrity."

 

 

I need to go back and watch re-runs of Lie To Me on Netflix.

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Oh lie to me...I miss that show . To me her primary posture/language was pretty clear to me: Anger and reactivity mixed with self-validation (or defensiveness against an attack or an affront). In short she was on the attack. The statement she was making in here is simply giving 2 messages at the same time to a question of whether she had any regrets (I think that was the question). It's saying, "no, that's so wrong" and her words explaining that response more fully.

 

But it was a painful interview that I found myself moreso getting angry at her than anything else, so I only watched parts of it.

 

With luv,

BD    

[smac97]

Oh lie to me...I miss that show . To me her primary posture/language was pretty clear to me: Anger and reactivity mixed with self-validation (or defensiveness against an attack or an affront). In short she was on the attack. The statement she was making in here is simply giving 2 messages at the same time to a question of whether she had any regrets (I think that was the question). It's saying, "no, that's so wrong" and her words explaining that response more fully.

 

But it was a painful interview that I found myself moreso getting angry at her than anything else, so I only watched parts of it.

 

With luv,

BD    

 

Yes, it is a painful interview.  Her mother's article today is likewise unpleasant.

 

Thanks,k

 

-Smac

[gtaggart]

Yes, it is a painful interview.  Her mother's article today is likewise unpleasant.

 

Thanks,k

 

-Smac

 

Do you have a link to the actual interview?

[smac97]

Do you have a link to the actual interview?

 

Here you go: 

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 25, 2014 by smac97

[Calm]

"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. "

And I totally agree with this.

But I have my doubts about whether Kelly does.

Kelly emphatically stated that no incremental changes would be sufficient, that only ordination of women would provide the equality she saw as essential for women.

Where in that ultimatum is there any sense of mutual cooperation?

Kelly in essence excommunicated from her group or even her acceptance moderate feminists that wanted equality but didn't see ordination as necessary or even desirable in order to achieve it (how does asking men for power demonstrate equality?). She says there is no middle, people see her as saint or the devil incarnate.

Where in that is working with those not like her?

Can someone cooperate with a person who refuses to cooperate?

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

I need to go back and watch re-runs of Lie To Me on Netflix.

Like minds and all.

Always wonder if the science was real on that show.

[gtaggart]

Here you go: 

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

The irony of her claim that the church has created a false dichotomy . . . . . . .

[Kenngo1969]

 

... 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.

Secure videoconferencing is a wonderful thing!

[Kenngo1969]

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?

That [Ahem!] "position" was to replace God Himself.  (I'm sure you know that, Sleeper Cell.  I'm just clarifying, in case anyone else is wondering ...)

[Kenngo1969]

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

Right: "work it out."  "Nothing short of female ordination will suffice."

[Kenngo1969]

It's odd that she's shaking her head and frowning as she says "I have acted with integrity." ...

Granted, I'm not necessarily the best at ensuring that my physical mannerisms are consistent with what I'm saying.  Perhaps she's never done trial advocacy and has confined herself to transactional work, but one of the first things I learned about trial advocacy in law school is that what one does matters as much as ... if not more than ... what one says. 

[Kenngo1969]

Circa 3:50.  Comparing ecclesiastical disciplinary processes to physical and sexual abuse.  (Granted, the former are not the most pleasant things in the world, but if I were "on the fence" regarding Ms. Kelly, her organization, and their tactics, such hyperbolically strained comparisons wouldn't do anything to win me over.)

 

Circa 4:50.  I hope she doesn't dislocate a shoulder or anything, patting herself on the back like that.

 

Circa 5:20.  Her leaders "point blank" lied to her.    (Forget the whole "apostasy" or "conduct contrary to the order of the Church" thing for a second.  I'm not sure how allowing Ms. Kelly and those who sympathize with her to remain in full fellowship with the Church of Jesus Christ is at all consistent with a "I say unto you, Be One.  And if ye are not One, ye are not Mine" ethic.)

 

Circa 5:50.  This process is so "private and so personal and so painful."  But I've blogged about it.  I've spoken at length to anyone with a videocamera, a microphone, or a notebook.  But it's "private and personal and painful."

Edited June 26, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to mention that I spent the day yesterday at the Provo Missionary Training Center, where scores of new mission presidents and their wives are undergoing intensive instruction from the First Presidency, several apostles and other General Authorities in preparation for departure to their fields of labor.

I with others listened to instruction from President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Elders Robert D. Hales and D. Todd Christofferson, and Bishop Gerald Causse.

A touching moment came just after the closing prayer at the MTC devotional in the afternoon, where Elder Christofferson spoke to the assembled missionaries. The mission presidents and wives, who were seated in front, arose and turned to look at the elders and sisters behind them. Spontaneously, one of the young missionaries began to wave. Some of the couples waved back. Soon, everyone was waving. A few of the departing mission presidents or their wives began to record the scene photographically on computer tablets or iPhones. Fortunately, I had presence of mind to pick up my camera and capture the image. The mutual love was palpable.

Today is the final day of the seminar, which has been going on since Sunday.

Nary a word did I hear about Ordain Women, Mormon Discussions, dissidents or the like. Just pure teaching about the gospel of Jesus Christ and motivation to share it with the world.

I got the definite sense the caravan is moving forward.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to mention that I spent the day yesterday at the Provo Missionary Training Center, where scores of new mission presidents and their wives are undergoing intensive instruction from the First Presidency, several apostles and other General Authorities in preparation for departure to their fields of labor.

 

I with others listened to instruction from President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Elders Robert D. Hales and D. Todd Christofferson, and Bishop Gerald Causse.

 

A touching moment came just after the closing prayer at the MTC devotional in the afternoon, where Elder Christofferson spoke to the assembled missionaries. The mission presidents and wives, who were seated in front, arose and turned to look at the elders and sisters behind them. Spontaneously, one of the young missionaries began to wave. Some of the couples waved back. Soon, everyone was waving. A few of the departing mission presidents or their wives began to record the scene photographically on computer tablets or iPhones. Fortunately, I had presence of mind pick up my camera and capture the image. The mutual love was palpable.

 

Today is the final day of the seminar, which has been going on since Sunday.

 

Nary a word did I hear about Ordain Women, Mormon Discussions, dissidents or the like. Just pure teaching about the gospel of Jesus Christ and motivation to share it with the world.

 

I got the definite sense the caravan is moving forward.

 

 

I love that. Wish I could have seen it for myself. This work truly is amazing.

[mormonnewb]

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).

 

You posed a fair question and I wanted to give it a fair response, so belatedly, I want to reform the analogy in a slight way.  In this paradigm, we are assuming that the child is actually engaged in the harmful activity (taking drugs).  However, KK was never engaged in ordaining women.  She was simply asking the Brethren to allow it.  So, in our analogy, that would be like my son saying, "Dad, we should all have the right to do drugs in this house.  Go ask the Lord if we can.  And if he says we can't, I'm going to ask you to ask again.  And if you still say no, I'm going to set up six discussions with my brothers to convince them that you are wrong and that you should keep asking God until you get the right answer."

 

I probably shouldn't admit this, but my kids do this type of thing quite regularly and it never ONCE occurred to me to throw them out.  For example, my oldest son has never liked vegetables.  From his standpoint, they taste horrible and provide him with nothing that he can't get from a nutritious chicken nugget.  He has repeatedly asked me to go to the supreme authority on these matters (my wife) to OV (omit vegetables).  I've prayed in supplication and received a very clear revelation that vegetables will continue to be served through this dispensation (i.e., until he can afford to buy his own darn dinner).  Yet, this hasn't stopped him from enlisting his 10-year-old brother to his cause.  They have protested, whined and even gone on short-lived "hunger strikes" and yet, we somehow found a way to avoid excommunication from the family.

 

Fortunately, as of yet, none of the boys has advocated drug use within the family.  If they did, I would simply say, "No!"  (Thanks, Nancy Reagan!)  If they kept asking me, I would keep saying "No!"  If they so choose, they are free to make signs and "trespass" through the living room shouting, "Heck no, we will toke!"  They could even call their movement "OW" -- "Ollow Weed" (pot does make one stupid).  They could even stage such protest during the most sacred day in our household -- Superbowl Sunday.  Of course, they get no weed but they still remain Newbs (a definite lose-lose).

 

Now, there are situations in which they could get thrown out.  If I found the two oldest ones force feeding the baby crystal meth, then they have to go.  Yet, I don't think that's what KK and OW were doing.  They were trying to persuade sisters to join in their request for a change in the rules on ordination.  That's a far cry for ordaining themselves in violation of the "house rules."  And it is NOTHING like forcing other members into being ordained against their will.

 

And I don't mean to trivialize the concern about harm to family/church members.  In our case, the doctor recommended institutionalization for Matty largely for fear that he might hurt my wife, or my likely, one of his little brothers.  We had real reasons to cast him out (or at least, "disfellowship" him to a care facility) to protect the family.  And it might have come to that, but we were going to be damned if we didn't try EVERYTHING to avoid that.  We obviously experimented with new drugs and occupational therapies to control his mood swings, but we also taught the other kids how to handle Matty's tantrums.  We taught them how to recognize his triggers and how to stay clear.

 

Today, through God's grace, Matty and our youngest son, Devin, are bosom buddies.  Very often, you'll find Devin seated in Matty's lap while they watch TV and play some game on the iPad.  I'm so thankful that excommunication isn't an option in our family.

Edited June 26, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Stone holm]

The irony of her claim that the church has created a false dichotomy . . . . . . .

Actually, the problem is her hairstyle and style in eyeglasses just don't work.

[Pahoran]

You posed a fair question and I wanted to give it a fair response, so belatedly, I want to reform the analogy in a slight way.  In this paradigm, we are assuming that the child is actually engaged in the harmful activity (taking drugs).  However, KK was never engaged in ordaining women.  She was simply asking the Brethren to allow it.  So, in our analogy, that would be like my son saying, "Dad, we should all have the right to do drugs in this house.  Go ask the Lord if we can.  And if he says we can't, I'm going to ask you to ask again.  And if you still say no, I'm going to set up six discussions with my brothers to convince them that you are wrong and that you should keep asking God until you get the right answer."

 

I probably shouldn't admit this, but my kids do this type of thing quite regularly and it never ONCE occurred to me to throw them out.  For example, my oldest son has never liked vegetables.  From his standpoint, they taste horrible and provide him with nothing that he can't get from a nutritious chicken nugget.  He has repeatedly asked me to go to the supreme authority on these matters (my wife) to OV (omit vegetables).  I've prayed in supplication and received a very clear revelation that vegetables will continue to be served through this dispensation (i.e., until he can afford to buy his own darn dinner).  Yet, this hasn't stopped him from enlisting his 10-year-old brother to his cause.  They have protested, whined and even gone on short-lived "hunger strikes" and yet, we somehow found a way to avoid excommunication from the family.

 

Fortunately, as of yet, none of the boys has advocated drug use within the family.  If they did, I would simply say, "No!"  (Thanks, Nancy Reagan!)  If they kept asking me, I would keep saying "No!"  If they so choose, they are free to make signs and "trespass" through the living room shouting, "Heck no, we will toke!"  They could even call their movement "OW" -- "Ollow Weed" (pot does make one stupid).  They could even stage such protest during the most sacred day in our household -- Superbowl Sunday.  Of course, they get no weed but they still remain Newbs (a definite lose-lose).

 

Now, there are situations in which they could get thrown out.  If I found the two oldest ones force feeding the baby crystal meth, then they have to go.  Yet, I don't think that's what KK and OW were doing.  They were trying to persuade sisters to join in their request for a change in the rules on ordination.  That's a far cry for ordaining themselves in violation of the "house rules."  And it is NOTHING like forcing other members into being ordained against their will.

 

And I don't mean to trivialize the concern about harm to family/church members.  In our case, the doctor recommended institutionalization for Matty largely for fear that he might hurt my wife, or my likely, one of his little brothers.  We had real reasons to cast him out (or at least, "disfellowship" him to a care facility) to protect the family.  And it might have come to that, but we were going to be damned if we didn't try EVERYTHING to avoid that.  We obviously experimented with new drugs and occupational therapies to control his mood swings, but we also taught the other kids how to handle Matty's tantrums.  We taught them how to recognize his triggers and how to stay clear.

 

Today, through God's grace, Matty and our youngest son, Devin, are bosom buddies.  Very often, you'll find Devin seated in Matty's lap while they watch TV and play some game on the iPad.  I'm so thankful that excommunication isn't an option in our family.

That's a nice story, Noob.

But the analogy is faulty.

The Church is like a family, in some ways.

But only some. It is really a covenant community of believers in a shared faith.

When someone announces that they no longer share the faith, that they're no longer a believer, or that they don't think they need to keep their covenants -- and starts systematically attempting to persuade others to the same views -- then they become hostile to the covenant community.

And then it is time for them to leave.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Buzzard]

IMHO, (and this has been debated beyond all reason and recognition) the "actions" that she engaged in that made her excommunication inevitable were: The second time she took her protesting group onto Temple Square after having been specifically asked by both the church PR department, and we now know, her local leadership not to. And the introduction of the six discussions, some of which contained some fairly acidic material. That is where she moved from questioning and advocacy. which might be irritating but is allowed, to acting in opposition to the church after having been directed not to. 

And she still counsels those who sympathize with her and remain in the church to "raise hell".  She still doesn't get it. And that's probably all I have to say about that. We, including me, are at about this point on Ms. Kelly: 

[MorningStar]

The Church issued a statement.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605988/Priesthood-blessings-equally-available-to-all-LDS-leaders-say-in-new-statement.html

[smac97]

The Church issued a statement.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605988/Priesthood-blessings-equally-available-to-all-LDS-leaders-say-in-new-statement.html

You beat me by 13 minutes! I'm losing my edge . . .

-Smac

[MorningStar]

You beat me by 13 minutes! I'm losing my edge . . .

-Smac

Hahahahaha!!!!