Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[ERayR]

I led my family astray and didn't resign for many years.  It's subjective or I just had a weak bishop. 

 

Most bishops I have known really can see the good in most people and keep hoping they will come back.  They really do not like DC's.

[name]

It is precisely because I love her that I want her to do the right thing.

Somehow, I get the strong impression that she was/is doing what she believes to be the right thing!

 

All parents understand that you can love and correct a wayward child at the same time.  When I correct my daughter, I am not doing it because I hate her, I am doing it because I love her.

Ohh! I didn't realize that you were her mother.

My apologies!

 

[ERayR]

I think I need an extra metformin, your sweetness is like to kill me.

 

 

Please feel free not to partake.

[ERayR]

 

 

It's funny that you mentioned that because I handed my TR over to my bishop yesterday with a note explaining that, as I understand current Church policy, I am no longer "worthy" to hold it because of my vocal support for OW.  I doubt many other members will see it that way, but it seems clear that if members are being ex'd for leading movement, then those of us who follow can't claim to be meeting the Church's highest standard of worthiness.

 

 

That choice is yours.  Don't expect me to praise your decision but your temple recommend has no more meaning to you than that, perhaps it is for the best.  I sincerely hope you can find your way back.  Those temple blessings are indeed precious.

[ERayR]

And if a human being (for whatever reason) does not take this "easy and simple way back into full membership and fellowship", should we then resist the temptation to offer compassion, humility and extensions of Christian love?

What if they had a "full membership" at Costco? Would that be enough to earn our collective compassion/understanding/love?

(Thank you, Calmoriah, for the info/advice)

 

No.

 

If you do not se the difference between a Church membership and a Cosco membership there is no need to waste time talking to you.

[Erin15]

Somehow, I get the strong impression that she was/is doing what she believes to be the right thing!

I'm sure I don't know what she believes. It is her actions not her beliefs that caused her to come under the Lord's discipline.

Now, she has a chance to begin anew and submit to the Lord and receive the blessings that come from discipleship, and that is a beautiful thing.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Erin15

[rpn]

I don't get your turning in your TR because you support OW.   The letter KK received made it crystal clear that it was her protesting when she was asked not to, and her development of the six discussions with its efforts to expand the number of those who support OW that got her in trouble, not her support for OW itself or believe that women should be ordained.

 

And I don't know that she can stop OW.  If the descriptions of how OW started that have surfaced on various sites in the last week are to be believed, Sister Kelly and others were selected as leaders of OW precisely because they were active members in good standing.   I think the OW will continue (though they may have the problem that MormonThink has had getting any active, pretending to be a believing member to be its face. 

[name]

No.

No, what?

No, that we should not extend our loving hands and compassion if they are not in "full membership?"

 

If you do not se the difference between a Church membership and a Cosco membership there is no need to waste time talking to you.

Please feel free to resist any future wasting of your time.

[ERayR]

No, what?

No, that we should not extend our loving hands and compassion if they are not in "full membership?"

 

Please feel free to resist any future wasting of your time.

 

No, what?

No, that we should not extend our loving hands and compassion if they are not in "full membership?"

 

 

I answered your question. In case you don't remember here it is:  Note the bolded part.

 

"And if a human being (for whatever reason) does not take this "easy and simple way back into full membership and fellowship", should we then resist the temptation to offer compassion, humility and extensions of Christian love?"

[Pahoran]

This is a very, very, very sad day.

It's certainly not cause for celebration; but with respect, I think the very sad day was the day she decided she was exempt from giving heed to the words of the prophets and apostles.

Hopefully this will be the start of her road back.

(And hopefully she won't feel the need to call a press conference every time she takes a step on that road.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[name]

I answered your question. In case you don't remember here it is:  Note the bolded part.

Yes, I remember it. I wrote it!

The reason I asked is that you replied "no" under 2 questions that you quoted (I won't ask you if you remember - nor will I post it in bold and note it for you)

Anyway, I am pleased to learn your answer.

[ERayR]

Yes, I remember it. I wrote it!

The reason I asked is that you replied "no" under 2 questions that you quoted (I won't ask you if you remember - nor will I post it in bold and note it for you)

Anyway, I am pleased to learn your answer.

 

The reason I answered in the format I did is that I thought your question was offensive.  Peace

[name]

The reason I answered in the format I did is that I thought your question was offensive.  Peace

My apologies. Offense was/is not my intent.

Peace back!

[Pahoran]

If we follow the language in the Kelly letter, I think there is a difference in that Dehlin hasn't really advocated for a cause.  Then again his support for OW may be enough.  On the other hand, Dehlin is, per his admission, no longer really a believer whereas Kelly is.

 

Dehlin's DC has been cancelled in favor of a meeting with his SP.

 

All that said, I don't entirely disagree with you... if Dehlin is not excommunicated there will be plenty who see that as being "unfair".

I always thought Ms Kelly's activities were considerably more benign than Mister Dehlin's. Ms Kelly is advocating, however wrong-headedly, for something she and others see as being good for the Church and its members. In this she is mistaken, but the Church can live with mistaken ideas in its ranks; it is in organising a pressure group, openly flouting the requests of the Brethren not to "protest" at General Conference, and especially in proselytizing among Church members, that she made her fatal error.

Mister Dehlin is more obviously hostile to the Church than Ms Kelly. Once you set aside his marketing hype, he is clearly a fully fledged anti-Mormon, rejecting the Church's truth claims and trying to deceive the unwary. He is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" in the classic sense.

He lives in a different place and answers to a different DC, and they have different issues to examine. But if he doesn't receive a similar sanction, Ms Kelly's supporters will be up in arms.

 

I think the bigger question is this:  How will the church move forward with respect to OW?  From what I've read, the website/group/cause isn't going to disappear.  Active church members seem committed to maintaining/promoting it.  Will Church leadership continue to excommunicate others who are involved?  Will they keep taking away recommends from members who have profiles posted on the site?

The Church doesn't need to "move forward with respect to OW." They're not relevant to what the Church is or does.

However, those who claim membership in the Church and who are supporting the OW "movement" may indeed have a decision to make.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

... UPDATE TO ADD ...

 

Kelly says, “The decision to force me outside my congregation and community is exceptionally painful. ...

Then, with all due respect, Ma'am, one would not be totally out of bounds to ask whether you happen to be a sadomasochist.

[Tiki]

--

Edited June 24, 2014 by Tiki

[mormonnewb]

That choice is yours. Don't expect me to praise your decision but your temple recommend has no more meaning to you than that, perhaps it is for the best. I sincerely hope you can find your way back. Those temple blessings are indeed precious.

I'm confused. YOU posed the question as to whether support of OW makes someone unworthy for a TR. I assume that you asked the question because you thought that it might be the case.

I answer that I do think it makes one "unworthy," at least, given that the Church was in the process of ex'ing the leader of OW. Given that I've doubled-down in my support of the movement, how should I have handled it?

Should I have waited for my bishop to get an "anonymous tip" about my OW-leanings? Even then, should I have played a game of keep-away when he asked for it back?

Seriously, if I was guilty of adultery or some other transgression, would you want me to just keep attending the temple until I got caught? Or should I proactively confess my sin and accept the consequences? And in the case where I was unrepentant (say the other woman was REALLY cute), what would you have me do?

[name]

Then, with all due respect, Ma'am, one would not be totally out of bounds to ask whether you happen to be a sadomasochist.

Let me see if I have this right:

A fellow LDS woman (until recently excommunicated from the LDS fold) posts a comment concerning her "exceptional pain from the decision that forced her out of her congregation and community" - and you (a LDS Brother of hers) suggest "due respect" when asking her if she derives pleasure/sexual gratification from giving or submitting to physical or emotional abuse?

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!

[Duncan]

I agree, I've de -friended myself from JD (he doesn't know me anyway) and I've left the Mormon Stories Podcast & It's a Thoughtful Faith Support Group on FB. I can't stomach the train wreck.

 

 

the thing is too, for me, is we talk about prophets and enduring to the end but to see JD and OW and other similar movements-this is like real life stuff, not things that happened a hundred years ago in Nauvoo, it's crazy!!! 

[Bikeemikey]

For something so "very, very personal," she didn't waste any time in going public with it. Nor has she seemed very disposed throughout this episode to keeping the proceedings confidential.

She is under no obligation to keep the process confidential.

[smac97]

She is under no obligation to keep the process confidential.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Rather, I think the point is that she is being inconsistent in deliberately publicizing and sensationalizing her disciplinary proceedings, and then turn on a dime and declare them to be "very, very personal." Not a big deal, really. But she can hardly expect people to suddenly back out of being all up in her business, when she has worked so hard to put people all up in her business.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

Let me see if I have this right:

A fellow LDS woman (until recently excommunicated from the LDS fold) posts a comment concerning her "exceptional pain from the decision that forced her out of her congregation and community" - and you (a LDS Brother of hers) suggest "due respect" when asking her if she derives pleasure/sexual gratification from giving or submitting to physical or emotional abuse?

Are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!

If anyone else took me as literally as you did, then I'll concede we have something to discuss.  Until then ...  Leaving that aside, perhaps (unfortunately) Sister Kelly now will turn to trading on her own self-caused pain and playing up the martyrdom angle. She is apt to find a receptive audience for that kind of thing among her acolytes. 

[rockpond]

I always thought Ms Kelly's activities were considerably more benign than Mister Dehlin's. Ms Kelly is advocating, however wrong-headedly, for something she and others see as being good for the Church and its members. In this she is mistaken, but the Church can live with mistaken ideas in its ranks; it is in organising a pressure group, openly flouting the requests of the Brethren not to "protest" at General Conference, and especially in proselytizing among Church members, that she made her fatal error.

Mister Dehlin is more obviously hostile to the Church than Ms Kelly. Once you set aside his marketing hype, he is clearly a fully fledged anti-Mormon, rejecting the Church's truth claims and trying to deceive the unwary. He is a "wolf in sheep's clothing" in the classic sense.

He lives in a different place and answers to a different DC, and they have different issues to examine. But if he doesn't receive a similar sanction, Ms Kelly's supporters will be up in arms.

The Church doesn't need to "move forward with respect to OW." They're not relevant to what the Church is or does.

However, those who claim membership in the Church and who are supporting the OW "movement" may indeed have a decision to make.

Regards,

Pahoran

I've listened to many, many hours of Dehlin's podcasts and I often read his posts on FB. He is not an anti-Mormon. Unless, a failure to believe makes one an "anti". If he was such a wolf in sheep's clothing why would those closest to him (his family) still be active on the church? Why would he support them in that?

Regarding the Church moving forward, you can claim that OW is irrelevant but this week's events say otherwise. OW was at the heart of Kelly's excommunication. She wasn't the only leader of that group who was/is a member of the church. Will church leaders begin the disciplinary process on the remaining leaders? It was also widely reported that Kelly's parents lost their recommends due to their support (namely posted profiles) of OW. Will the rest of those who have profiles on the website face similar action?

And then there is Mormon Stories and all of the active members involved with that website/podcast. Will they also face disciplinary action? Will financial supporters who are members face losing recommends? Members of the FB group?

Where does this end?

[Pahoran]

I'm confused. YOU posed the question as to whether support of OW makes someone unworthy for a TR. I assume that you asked the question because you thought that it might be the case.

I answer that I do think it makes one "unworthy," at least, given that the Church was in the process of ex'ing the leader of OW. Given that I've doubled-down in my support of the movement, how should I have handled it?

Should I have waited for my bishop to get an "anonymous tip" about my OW-leanings? Even then, should I have played a game of keep-away when he asked for it back?

Seriously, if I was guilty of adultery or some other transgression, would you want me to just keep attending the temple until I got caught? Or should I proactively confess my sin and accept the consequences? And in the case where I was unrepentant (say the other woman was REALLY cute), what would you have me do?

Generally speaking, any person who feels unworthy to attend the Temple does the right thing by handing in his Temple Recommend.

Perhaps ERayR got the sense that handing in your TR was a form of "protest" on your part.

It's worth knowing that the Church isn't governed by protests. Its governing councils pretty much ignore pressure groups. And if, in the aftermath of this event, the message gets out that "vigils," public protests and other pressure tactics aren't going to derail Church disciplinary proceedings, then that is an unalloyed good thing.

 

Here is an article that is well worth reading. It's a bit long, and it talks about intellectuals rather than pressure groups; but the point it makes could be applied to both.

The Lord calls, and we sustain, our Priesthood leaders, especially the prophets and apostles. It is a point of revealed doctrine that those who do not give heed to them will be "cut off from among the people." The brethren, and those whom they call at the local level, have a unique responsibility to put an end to dissension, and we sustain them to carry that out.

They've done so.

It's time for us to decide whether we sustain them in fact, or if it's merely a gesture.

Regards,

Pahoran

[carbon dioxide]

I don't know if God will ever give women in the priesthood in this mortal existence but I do believe they will get it in their exalted state.  If this is the case, Kate Kelly is now much further away from gaining what she wants than those women who are faithful in the Church and grateful for what God has given them and don't seek a power grab.  Spoiled brats go to the back of the line.  Humble followers of Christ keep pressing forward to the tree of life.