Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[stemelbow]

"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.

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?

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

Let me clarify. I'm not giving her a pass. It seems part of what we did get is the bishop is suggesting she has been dishonest about the communication. I don't see any reason to think she's going to change now. if its a concern enough to ask her to publish the whole thing then just go ahead and publish it yourself. Of course doing such would violate some internal standard practice. But then, if you don't want to make a fuss about it, don't publically request something of her. Just drop it. That's my take.

[Buzzard]

Let me clarify. I'm not giving her a pass. It seems part of what we did get is the bishop is suggesting she has been dishonest about the communication. I don't see any reason to think she's going to change now. if its a concern enough to ask her to publish the whole thing then just go ahead and publish it yourself. Of course doing such would violate some internal standard practice. But then, if you don't want to make a fuss about it, don't publically request something of her. Just drop it. That's my take.

Apparently, the full text of the letter is out there somewhere, at least I have read two posts on another site that claim to have read it in it's entirety. Their impression was that the full letter cast the church in a much more favorable light. But that's second-hand information. 

[rockpond]

However, there is a side issue here: john dehlin. He is also facing court, I believe. If john is not treated in the same fashion, there will be heck to pay from the ladies. It would send a message that women must keep silent but the men can say what they want and still be a member. Lets see what happens.

 

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 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?

[ERayR]

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

 

It is so hard to back check what was said in those vocal communications unless they are recorded. 

 

"Written communications also usually keep the discussion civil and professional"   Except on the boards.

[smac97]

The full text of the letter has been released by the OW group: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605659/Ordain-Women-releases-LDS-bishops-letter-giving-reasons-for-Kellys-excommunication.html

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter itself: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2014 by smac97

[ERayR]

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?

 

I think that there just may be some serious reflection when some go for a temple recommend interview and the bishop gets to the question of affiliation with apostate groups.  There will probably not be any further excommunication unless they indulge in active and public dissent.

[Buzzard]

I just read a scan of the entire letter sent by the bishop to the now Ms. Kelly. Since it is marked confidential, I won't post the link, but if you are curious, it's proliferating like mad on the interwebs. It would have had to have been someone from the OW side who scanned and posted it.

Short version is that Ms. Kelly is leaving out some important parts of the timeline. What happened to her could not have in any way been a surprise. 

 

Annnd...I'm a hack. Thanks SMAC!

Edited June 23, 2014 by Buzzard

[Calm]

Full text is here:

http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Notice-of-Decision.pdf

And it makes a difference...

Edited June 23, 2014 by calmoriah

[mnn727]

This is a very, very, very sad day. 

Its always sad when someone does something to merit excommunication, but she did it to herself.

[ERayR]

The full text of the letter has been released by the OW group: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605659/Ordain-Women-releases-LDS-bishops-letter-giving-reasons-for-Kellys-excommunication.html

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter itself: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Sounds to me like much effort and prayer went in to try and dissuade her from the course she chose.

[Calm]

I assumed that the only one they could have received the copy from was Kelly....is there any indication she did not give this out to reporters herself?

Add-on: I see the DN got it from OW which got it fom KK obviously. Interesting she didn't send it herself. Speculation alert: the idea is to present it as happening to all of them.

Edited October 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think that there just may be some serious reflection when some go for a temple recommend interview and the bishop gets to the question of affiliation with apostate groups.  There will probably not be any further excommunication unless they indulge in active and public dissent.

Hopefully they will discontinue the discussuons, at least in the sense of going out and soliciting people to join them.

[bluebell]

The full text of the letter has been released by the OW group: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605659/Ordain-Women-releases-LDS-bishops-letter-giving-reasons-for-Kellys-excommunication.html

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter itself: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

Thanks,

-Smac

That certainly does clear up a few things, mainly issues about how unfair it was that she was tried in absentia as well as never having any contact from her bishop before she was informed of the DC.

And perhaps the biggest in accuracy that she has been claiming-that she was disciplined for disagreeing with the church or having questions.

[mnn727]

Full text is here:

http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Notice-of-Decision.pdf

And it makes a difference...

I urge everyone to read the full text, I am surprised she posted it. It explains why she was excommunicated and is still encouraging her to return to the fold.

[ELF1024]

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.

 

With the media attention, I would not want my comments to be taken out of context or paraphased in such a manner as to harm the church. I believe the Bishop was correct in putting it in writing. That way it was not mis-represented.

[blooit]

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.

 

In today's world, things need to be done in writing.  If he does this by phone call, she can claim he said just about anything.  Email is how he documented things - and if you have been a bishop, you know that disciplinary council notices must be in writing.

[Calm]

I just read a scan of the entire letter sent by the bishop to the now Ms. Kelly. Since it is marked confidential, I won't post the link, but if you are curious, it's proliferating like mad on the interwebs. It would have had to have been someone from the OW side who scanned and posted it.

Short version is that Ms. Kelly is leaving out some important parts of the timeline. What happened to her could not have in any way been a surprise. 

 

Annnd...I'm a hack. Thanks SMAC!

Since the Church told her if she was going to publish some of it, publish all of it (indeed if she ever decides to abide by the instructions to move to rebaptism I thi k she would have to in order to remove the slant) and she published some of it releasing her claim to confidentiality, I don't see an issue, perhaps the mods could weigh in?

[Calm]

In today's world, things need to be done in writing.  If he does this by phone call, she can claim he said just about anything.  Email is how he documented things - and if you have been a bishop, you know that disciplinary council notices must be in writing.

And he sent out a certified letter. The email was a courtesy so she wouldn't have to wait.

Given her representation of the email, as a leader I would at this point never talk to her without a recorder present.

[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.

 

 

It appears he used certified mail in conjunction with e-mail.  I would suspect that the e-mail was a courtesy to KK so that she would not have to wait on the postal service.

[smac97]

Here's a partial transcript:

 

I wish you had taken advantage of my offer to arrange a secure video link where we could have talked face to face or my offer to reschedule the council to a date when you could have attended in person.

 

The decision to hold this disciplinary council was reached only after a period of months and a series of meetings and communications between you and President Wheatley together with me or President Lee:

 

• On December 12, 2013, President Wheatley and I met with you.  We talked with you about the doctrine of the priesthood.  We urged you to dissociate yourself from Ordain Women and to cease your campaign to promote the ordination of women.

 

• In March and April of this year, President Wheatley again reminded you of the counsel given in December.  Nonetheless, you proceeded with your protest on Temple Square during General Conference despite the request of Church leaders that you not do so.

 

• Subsequently, under your leadership and with your direct involvement, Ordain Women announced "Six Discussions" which were intended to proselyte others and to persuade them to support your particular intepretation of Church doctrine.  You reached out to others to persuaded them to joint your movement.

 

• On May 5th, after conferring with me and with my full agreement, President Wheatley again met with you together with President Lee, offered the same counsel previously given and placed you on informal probation in the hope that you still might change your course.  Yet, you have persisted undeterred.

 

The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood.  The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.  You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to promote them and proselyte others to them while remaining in full fellowship in the Church.  This is the basic point that President Wheatley has sought repeatedly to explain to you, but to no avail.  You ahve also heard from President Lee and me on this.  Your disregard of our advice and counsel left us no alternative but to convene last evening's council.

 

If you have any questions or would like to visit with me, please contact me.  You have a right ot appeal the decision to the stake president.  If you want to appeal this decision, you must specify in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision and then present the appeal within 30 days to me as the presiding officer of the bishop's disciplinary council.  I will then forward the materials to President Wheatley who may decide whether to let the decision stand, modify it or direct that the council reconvene.

 

Above all else, please know of my love and respect for you and my earnest desire that you return to good standing in the Church.  I urge you to continue to attend church, read the scriptures and pray daily.  I invite you to strive to come back to full fellowship.  This is an opportunity for you to begin anew, to take full advantage of the great gift of the Atonement, to again qualify for the blessings of the temple, and to enjoy again all of the blessings of the restored gospel.  It is my sincere desire that you will do so.

 

So what do we learn from this?  A few things at least:

 

1. Kate Kelly's narrative about her bishop not communicating with her prior to taking disciplinary measures is patently false.

 

2. Kate Kelly's characterization of her bishop as "cowardly and unchristlike" is difficult/impossible to reconcile with the man who wrote the above letter.

 

3. Kate Kelly's narrative that she was targeted for disciplinary action because she is a woman is patently false.

 

4. Kate Kelly apparently attempted to frustrate the disciplinary process or else challenge its legitimacy by refusing to participate in it.  She had every opportunity to participate and refused to do so.

 

5. Kate Kelly's narrative about her disciplinary council being about "questioning" is patently false.

 

What else?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2014 by smac97

[Calm]

Let me clarify. I'm not giving her a pass. It seems part of what we did get is the bishop is suggesting she has been dishonest about the communication. I don't see any reason to think she's going to change now. if its a concern enough to ask her to publish the whole thing then just go ahead and publish it yourself. Of course doing such would violate some internal standard practice. But then, if you don't want to make a fuss about it, don't publically request something of her. Just drop it. That's my take.

Personally I see it as requiring her to take responsibility for her actions and to avoid her spinning it as being the victim of the Church revealing confidential information.

[The Nehor]

At the risk of being completely tasteless:

 

It was, sorry.

 

~Mods

[ERayR]

At the risk of being completely tasteless:

 

It was, sorry.

~Mods

 

At least you show that you recognize it.

[smac97]

At the risk of being completely tasteless:

 

 

 

Please take this down.  It is not at all appropriate or helpful to be celebratory or snarky about this development.  It is a sad day for Kate Kelly and for the Church.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[cinepro]

This situation is really, really weird, and as I see the reaction to Katy's "supporters", I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.  There are a lot of people out there who seriously misunderstood what the Church is about and how it works.  The ironic thing is that the Church has never misrepresented what it is about and how it works.  It was just this weird group of people who had deluded themselves and created some weird mirage of the Church that they thought was real.

 

And I'm not just talking about the apologists.

 

 

I keed.  I'm talking about this kind of reaction, from JD himself on FB:

 

A few have said, "This is not 1993" -- and I think that they are right. In 1993 the LDS church could excommunicate a half dozen of its members and send a chilling shockwave through the church that would last a generation. But in 2014 the LDS church likely can't get away with what it did back then. In the Internet age...if you cut one of us down...another will rise up....perhaps even more of us will rise up.....and this process will continue until the problems are duly addressed. And that is the endgame here.

 

"Another will rise up" against Church leadership, including the Apostles and Prophet?  "The problems are duly addressed"?  "The endgame is here"?

 

I like MormonStories and a lot of what JD has done, but this is turning into a slow motion train wreck.