Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Rain]

I thought it was odd about the email as well, but now I'm wondering is there anything that says she did not also get a phone call?  

[ksfisher]

This part is very interesting, because it sounds like her bishop is saying that she has not been honest in relaying the particulars concerning the DC, or her leaders.  

 

...and I don't think that the bishop would have included that unless he felt there had be some dishonesty in the immediate past.

[stemelbow]

...and I don't think that the bishop would have included that unless he felt there had be some dishonesty in the immediate past.

I think its safe to say he took exception to some of the things she had said about him and about what they've spoken about.

[smac97]

Well, this development is interesting:

“The Church’s response to this situation is in the letter that was sent to Sister Kelly, which explained the decision and the reason for it,” according to a statement from the LDS Church. “Since Ordain Women has chosen to publish only selected excerpts with their interpretation, we suggest that Sister Kelly make the full letter available in the interests of transparency.”

Are there portions of the letter which may be less than helpful to the media narrative Kate Kelly has been trying to construct?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[ERayR]

You know it really bothers me that his bishop did this all by email.  He could have at least called and discussed the decision with her.  Bad form in my opinion.

 

You think I am harsh on this?  I was a bishop.  I may be disillusioned about the Church these days but I was as much as a beleiver as anyone here when I was a bishop.   I did DCs.   I never, ever would have used email for anything like this that was so very very personal.  A formal letter, not email would follow.  But not email.  Really Bishop Harrison? Why did you not commune in real time at least?

 

This part of it just bothers me immensely.

 

The decisions of the council must be delivered in person, at the council, or in writing, preferably hand delivered.  Since Sister Kelly had put herself outside those possibilities the next quickest and best would be e-mail.  I don't see her finding fault with the method of delivery.

[bluebell]

Well, this development is interesting:

“The Church’s response to this situation is in the letter that was sent to Sister Kelly, which explained the decision and the reason for it,” according to a statement from the LDS Church. “Since Ordain Women has chosen to publish only selected excerpts with their interpretation, we suggest that Sister Kelly make the full letter available in the interests of transparency.”

Are there portions of the letter which may be less than helpful to the media narrative Kate Kelly has been trying to construct?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

It makes it seem so.

[stemelbow]

Well, this development is interesting:

“The Church’s response to this situation is in the letter that was sent to Sister Kelly, which explained the decision and the reason for it,” according to a statement from the LDS Church. “Since Ordain Women has chosen to publish only selected excerpts with their interpretation, we suggest that Sister Kelly make the full letter available in the interests of transparency.”

Are there portions of the letter which may be less than helpful to the media narrative Kate Kelly has been trying to construct?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Then ask the bishop to make it public, I guess. She can make public what she wants. Maybe this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps there is nothing more int he letter.

[ERayR]

Maybe a little too hasty. Not sure what is in this bishop's heart. Since we're getting all the news I wonder if we'll get the whole email?

 

Not from the bishop.

[stemelbow]

Not from the bishop.

Why not? The Church is asking Kelly to put the whole letter out there?

[jbarm]

Just a thought: How do you know that the Bishop didn't call Kate on the phone, or attempt to call her?  All we have is KK's well-crafted martyr narrative.

 

If I was the bishop, I would be very wary of making any phone call to KK, because of a very high likelihood of a recording being made of a confidential conversation.

 

jb

[Buzzard]

Then ask the bishop to make it public, I guess. She can make public what she wants. Maybe this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps there is nothing more int he letter.

The church NEVER releases anything publicly about DC's. Sometimes, but rarely, they will announce the result, but usually only when a GA or other high profile leader is involved. My guess is that if KK had not released the result, the church would not have, either. 

[GingerRed]

I'm curious about something. And this is an in general question....what does an excommunication do to the other spouse's temple sealing and eternal status?

 

Are they still sealed , but the blessings are no more?  

[smac97]

Then ask the bishop to make it public, I guess. She can make public what she wants. Maybe this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps there is nothing more int he letter.

 

It's a private communication, and the Church does not generally release such communications to the public.

 

Why isn't Kate Kelly releasing the letter in its entirety?  What does she have to hide?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2014 by smac97

[Rain]

I'm curious about something. And this is an in general question....what does an excommunication do to the other spouse's temple sealing and eternal status?

 

Are they still sealed , but the blessings are no more?  

He, and any children that may have been sealed to them, still get the blessings and promises except for the obvious one of being sealed to her.

[stemelbow]

The church NEVER releases anything publicly about DC's. Sometimes, but rarely, they will announce the result, but usually only when a GA or other high profile leader is involved. My guess is that if KK had not released the result, the church would not have, either.

I agree. But she presented what she wanted. Then the Church, through a spokesperson, asked her to make the full letter public. Does the Church spokesperson know the contents of the letter? Hopefully not. But why make such a plea unless there is suspicion that the contents are misrepresented a little?

She has an agenda (not even commenting on whether it's a bad agenda). You can ask her, but it won't happen. If her agenda is all the more exposed and you want the letter out there for transparency, then you do it.

[cinepro]

 

 

Your thread was merged with this one because it beat you by 2 seconds.

 

 

[stemelbow]

It's a private communication, and the Church does not generally release such communications to the public.

 

Why isn't Kate Kelly releasing the letter in its entirety?  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Beats me. Why is a spokesperson asking her to release it in its entirety? Is the spokesperson or the Church suspicious? If the Church wants to see it, contact the bishop. If the Church already knows what's in it and feels the needs to make it public to clear things up, then do it yourself. Don't ask another. The bishop in this case is representing the Church after all.

[smac97]

Just a thought: How do you know that the Bishop didn't call Kate on the phone, or attempt to call her?  All we have is KK's well-crafted martyr narrative.

 

If I was the bishop, I would be very wary of making any phone call to KK, because of a very high likelihood of a recording being made of a confidential conversation.

 

jb

 

My two bits: Lawyers regularly refrain from using the telephone to communicate important messages, particularly in adversarial situations.  They instead resort to written communications, as this eliminates the risk of miscommunications, after-the-fact misrepresentations about what was said, and so forth.  Written communications also usually keep the discussion civil and professional, and avoid emotional back-and-forth type things that can come up in a telephone call.

 

In the present case, Kate Kelly is a lawyer, and so is her bishop.  And Kate Kelly has publicized and sensationalized every communication she has had on this issue.  She has also publicly defamed her bishop.  Given these considerations, I think a written communication was a very sensible way to go about notifying Kate Kelly (also, it may be the procedure set forth in the CHI).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Your thread was merged with this one because it beat you by 2 seconds.

 

 

Curses!  Foiled again!

[stemelbow]

My two bits: Lawyers regularly refrain from using the telephone to communicate important messages, particularly in adversarial situations.  They instead resort to written communications, as this eliminates the risk of miscommunications, after-the-fact misrepresentations about what was said, and so forth.  Written communications also usually keep the discussion civil and professional, and avoid emotional back-and-forth type things that can come up in a telephone call.

 

In the present case, Kate Kelly is a lawyer, and so is her bishop.  And Kate Kelly has publicized and sensationalized every communication she has had on this issue.  She has also publicly defamed her bishop.  Given these considerations, I think a written communication was a very sensible way to go about notifying Kate Kelly (also, it may be the procedure set forth in the CHI).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Good points. Seems hasty to be concerned about the communication being made by email, although now that it is on our minds someone will surely make a big case about the communication being conducted by email.

Edited June 23, 2014 by stemelbow

[ERayR]

Why not? The Church is asking Kelly to put the whole letter out there?

 

IMNSO it would violate confidentiality.  Since KK has waived confidentiality on her end the Church is asking her to be honest. 

[cinepro]

You know it really bothers me that his bishop did this all by email.  He could have at least called and discussed the decision with her.  Bad form in my opinion.

 

 

Breaking up by email is always a tacky thing to do.  At least it wasn't by text...

 

Hey Kte, How'r thingz.  We tlked bout it and we r xing you.  GGP. Buhbye.

[smac97]

Beats me. Why is a spokesperson asking her to release it in its entirety?

"In the interests of transparency" was the rationale given. Frankly, I think the Church would have preferred for Kate Kelly to not publicize and sensationalize her disciplinary process. But given her current posture against the Church, all the Church can do is request that if she is going to publicize communications, that she do so without hiding certain aspects of them.

Is the spokesperson or the Church suspicious? If the Church wants to see it, contact the bishop.

The Church is not publicizing/sensationalizing this. Kate Kelly is. If that is her preferred course of action, then transparency would be appropriate, would it not?

Are you suggesting that Kate Kelly should hide certain things from public view?

If the Church already knows what's in it and feels the needs to make it public to clear things up, then do it yourself. Don't ask another. The bishop in this case is representing the Church after all.

So you're giving Kate Kelly a pass to hide parts of the letter? Why? She's released parts of it, so why not all of it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

Breaking up by email is always a tacky thing to do.  At least it wasn't by text...

 

...or tweet

[stemelbow]

Hey Kte, How'r thingz. We tlked bout it and we r xing you. GGP. Buhbye.

lol

Edited June 23, 2014 by stemelbow