Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Buzzard]

Is there some official definition within the Church as to what constitutes "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church"?

Pretty much fill in the blank for any commandment covered during the TR interview, though in a practical sense stuff like tithing, WofW, and Sacrament Meeting attendance. are not going to be an issue.

[Duncan]

Is there some official definition within the Church as to what constitutes "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church"?

 

yes, stop acting like a drama king or queen

[smac97]

In the criminal justice system, there is a concept known as "the lesser included offense." Essentially it means that a person charged with a crime can be convicted not of that crime per se, but of something less serious that is incorporated within that charge. A judge or jury might find that the facts determined at trial do not sustain the original charge but they do sustain a lesser charge assumed to be incorporated within that charge.

I'm drawing this analogy to suggest that perhaps the disciplinary council found that Kate Kelly did not engage in apostasy as such but her behavior did amount to an element of it that, while not amounting to full apostasy, does warrant excommunication.

I'm only guessing here, and I'm outside my realm. This is drawn from what I recall from my days covering courts for a newspaper. Smac, or someone else with a legal background, can correct me.

I think we are creating a distinction without a difference between "apostasy" and the reference in the text of the bishop's letter to "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church."  Kaimi Wenger, for example, has said this (emphases added):

 

The disciplinary council for Sister Kate Kelly met yesterday. Today, the council announced that they had decided to excommunicate her, for “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church.”

 

This result is very troubling.

 

I have serious doubts about the substantive result here. I will set them aside for this post and instead focus on an important procedural matter: Sister Kelly was never informed that she was to be tried for “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church,” was never given a chance to defend herself from that charge, and was ultimately excommunicated for an offense to which she had no way of responding. This is astounding.

 

As noted on her website and in the media, Sister Kelly was informed by e-mail, on June 8th, that the bishopric was considering church discipline “on grounds of apostasy.”

 

In response, she submitted a letter explaining that she had not committed apostasy. This was necessary as the court was scheduled after she had left the state, so she could not attend in person. In addition, Nadine Hansen wrote an excellent brief, examining the question in detail and concluding that Sister Kelly did not commit “apostasy” as defined in the church handbook.

 

The brief may have been persuasive, since the bishopric did not in fact find Sister Kelly guilty of apostasy. However, they ruled that she should be excommunicated for “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church.”

 

I think this distinction is in error, as the finding of the disciplinary council of "conduct contrary" is a reference to the charge of apostasy, not a separate charge.  

 

The Church identifies the following grounds for disciplinary proceedings:

 

A. Murder

B. Incest

C. Child Abuse

D. Apostasy (see below)

E. Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position ("Serious Transgression" = "a deliberate and major offense against morality" and includes "attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing")

F. Transgressor Who Is a Predator

G. Pattern of Serious Transgressions

H. Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known

I. Serious Transgression

J. Abortion

K. Transsexual Operation

 

Items A-H are "mandatory" (a disciplinary council is required), and Items I-K are discretionary.

Of these, Kate Kelly was charged with "apostasy." Section 6.7.3 of the CHI1 defines "apostasy" as follows:

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

 

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, “but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

 

Did Kate Kelly engage in conduct which could be construed as falling within the parameters of definition #1 ("act(ing) in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders")?  Protesting on Temple Square after being instructed by the Church not to?  Publishing the "Six Discussions?"  Publicly accusing her bishop of being "cowardly and unchristlike?"  Repeatedly refusing to follow the counsel of her local leaders to refrain from protesting against the Church, disrupting sacred convocations with protests, etc., resulting in "clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders?"  

I think there is room for reasonable disagreement about whether Kate Kelly's conduct falls within these parameters.

 

What about definition #2 ("Persist(ing) in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority")?  Do the OW group's comments about "patriarchy" qualify under this definition?  What about publicly demanding the priesthood and saying that "nothing less will suffice?"  What about publicly declaring that women are entitled to the priesthood, or that the Church has improperly deprived them of it?

 

I think there is room for reasonable disagreement about whether Kate Kelly's conduct falls within these parameters as well.

 

It is not within our province to publicly judge Kate Kelly regarding a charge of apostasy.  Such a finding is within the stewardship of her bishop.  I think some people are suggesting either A) that her bishop was utterly wrong in his assessment (which is a problematic position, both because the mantle is his, and also because there are reasonable grounds for him to have made an adverse determination against Kate Kelly), or B) that there is some technical/legal loophole through which Kate Kelly can escape the charge of apostasy (namely, that the bishop's letter did not use the word "apostasy," which seems legalistic and inappropriate for an ecclesiastical setting).

 

To sum up: The charge was apostasy.  The finding was apostasy, which the bishop characterized as "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church."

 

I think Kaimi Wenger's analysis is flawed.  There was no lack of notice to Kate Kelly.  All involved parties were aware of the conduct by Kate Kelly which led to the disciplinary council.  She was not caught unawares.  She was not deprived of due process or of an opportunity to defend herself.  That the bishop in his letter did not use a magic word ("apostasy") and instead gave a somewhat more specific basis for her excommunication for apostasy ("conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church") is a nitpick.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2014 by smac97

[Sleeper Cell]

But aren't the rulings of disciplinary councils assumed to be based on divine revelation and therefore, all other things being equal, wouldn't the ruling be the same regardless of the jurisdiction?

I'm not arguing here, I'm only asking, because I'm uncertain what to conclude on this.

 

Fair point.  However, the fact that there are provisions for appealing the ruling of a dc to a higher jurisdiction suggests that different jurisdictions might reach different conclusions.

 

I should mention that I have only had one experience with a dc -- and that as a last minute substitute for the ward clerk.  (I had only two personal qualifications for the job.  I take good notes, and I keep my mouth shut about confidential matters).  I found it to be an emotionally draining experience, -- even though I had no part in the decision,  and even though the decision was to restore the member to full fellowship.   If, heaven forbid (and fortunately, I am sure it does), I ever were a bishop, I do not think I could bring myself to excommunicate anyone who asked me not to.  That is not to say that I disagree with the KK decision. I just don’t think I have it in me to make it.  On the other hand, I have no problem judging people from the safety of the internet (another reason I will never be called as bishop).  

[Sleeper Cell]

But aren't the rulings of disciplinary councils assumed to be based on divine revelation and therefore, all other things being equal, wouldn't the ruling be the same regardless of the jurisdiction?

I'm not arguing here, I'm only asking, because I'm uncertain what to conclude on this.

 

Fair point.  However, the fact that there are provisions for appealing the ruling of a dc to a higher jurisdiction suggests that different jurisdictions might reach different conclusions.

 

I should mention that I have only had one experience with a dc -- and that as a last minute substitute for the ward clerk.  (I had only two personal qualifications for the job.  I take good notes, and I keep my mouth shut about confidential matters).  I found it to be an emotionally draining experience, -- even though I had no part in the decision,  and even though the decision was to restore the member to full fellowship.   If, heaven forbid (and fortunately, I am sure it does), I ever were a bishop, I do not think I could bring myself to excommunicate anyone who asked me not to.  That is not to say that I disagree with the KK decision. I just don’t think I have it in me to make it.  On the other hand, I have no problem judging people from the safety of the internet (another reason I will never be called as bishop).  

[ksfisher]

 

 I ever were a bishop, I do not think I could bring myself to excommunicate anyone who asked me not to. 

 

If you were called to be a bishop I think that you would do ok.  If a person has broken covenants that they have made, and states that they will continue to do so, then the most merciful thing to do is to release them from the covenant.  God takes these covenants seriously. 

 

My experience with disciplinary councils has been that determining if a person has sinned or broken covenants is not the main point, but finding the most merciful way to bring that person back to Christ.

[Calm]

Oh, I think there were a few more problems than that. Personally the biggie for me was setting up their method of starting 'dialogue' with the church/church body as more of a directive (this is what should be expected by the outcome of you praying/leading the church) than just a statement of personal desire....

But the longer they've gone, the more a number of their ideals, tactics, and words (especially Kate's at times...she's made a number of inflammatory remarks especially toward moderate fem's who don't hold her view about ordination) bothered me. And each turn, pointed less to this idea of dialogue and more of a way to push their position without any acknowledgment that there may be a different way of viewing things and moving forward as a community. Because of that a lot of their tactics became self alienating.

Kelly very much influenced my perception of the group's methods, especially in the interview that was given (recently linked to I believe on the thread, the buzz feed one) where Kelly is quoted as responding to the elder missionaries as "I'm not listening". Really? That is an adult and thoughtful approach to dialogue? (Plus there is the contradiction with her claims of oppression for women in the Church when she is bragging about bulldozing her way through the elders.)

Yes. "Lesser Included Offense" is why plea bargaining works. I can see why they could come to that conclusion with her not appearing and all. But now OW has documented how disciplinary councils work.

you appear to be assuming the OW got things right. Given the incomplete nature of other presentations by OW I would be hesitant in making that assumption myself.

I think Kaimi Wenger's analysis is flawed. There was no lack of notice to Kate Kelly. All involved parties were aware of the conduct by Kate Kelly which led to the disciplinary council. She was not caught unawares. She was not deprived of due process or of an opportunity to defend herself.

Unless Kelly is claiming the bishop lied in stating she was offered a chance to attend by video link and one believes her, she had the chance to respond during the council itself and chose not to take it, instead choosing to attend a public protest of the process, the vigil.

For those who are wondering about the difference between Dehlin and Kelly and why his stuff has gone on for 10 years and hers for 2, that should be a huge clue.

To spell it out, he was apparently open to altering his behaviour in his discussions with his leaders but she has always been clear she would not do as requested.

Edited June 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[frank_jessop]

But aren't the rulings of disciplinary councils assumed to be based on divine revelation

Yes, I believe that is the assumption.

and therefore, all other things being equal, wouldn't the ruling be the same regardless of the jurisdiction?

I'm not arguing here, I'm only asking, because I'm uncertain what to conclude on this.

I can only offer what a person involved with disciplinary councils has told me, and I wish I could adequately relay the situation he told me, but the gist is two people committed the same act (not with each other), one person was given a harsher ruling than the other. The positive side to the story is that person with the harsher ruling returned to full activity. Edited June 24, 2014 by frank_jessop

[mormonnewb]

I think that's the most rep points on one post in my history of MD.  Wow 4, that's way over the top. 

 

I think what has happened is I've finally seen the light.  I think John Dehlin is probably one of the biggest anti Mormons, without meaning to.  His StayLDS site is sort of deceiving, well at least his older format was.  He laid out all the things in the church that cause disbelief, well almost like FairMormon, but doesn't give a good explanation, just that it's a problem.

 

He is the biggest threat IMO, I don't understand why the church has let him keep going this long.  Maybe it was/is because he talks the LDS talk and for the most part walks it, unlike other vocal strugglers, which is exactly why the church shouldn't have let this keep going, sort of a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't think John set out to do this, I like John!  But he let it get out of control, so his bad.  

 

Too many LDS that struggle have found his StayLDS and Mormon Stories sites and it didn't help their belief, just helped them maintain their unbelief and led them to other sites like the NOM board...that happened to me, or it keeps them in the church, but usually they can't maintain that activity with the ongoing information that leads them to this unbelief.  It's not FairMormon in that respect!    

 

If John truly wants LDS strugglers to remain, he needs to just bring back the true believers on Mormon Stories podcasts, discontinue the FB groups that freely complain about the church.  That's the only way he should be allowed to stay in the church as a member, IMO. 

 

And then we have Kate Kelly.  She and OW didn't ask appropriately by leading a protest and asking to be let in on the day of the PH session at the Tabernacle, two years in a row.  That was on the side of starting a fight, not really a way to enact change, especially when that led to getting the world wide media involved.  And if she truly wanted this, she should have known through inspiration the channels to take.  Who knows, maybe John and Kate's actions will lead a bunch of inactives back to the church! 

 

That's why this is a train wreck.  Or for the church, a blessing in disguise.  John and Kate won't get any sympathy from TBM's, the line has been drawn, their eyes & ears will be shut, their hearts will be set in stone. TBM's won't want to be around folks like this. 

 

They for the most part feel anti now, these groups, IMO.  That's not what I wanted to be apart of, I was hoping for something different.  (Sorry to make it personal Mods)     

 

From past postings, I know that you and I share similar concerns about a few issues within the Church.  And in the wake of Kelly excommunication, you seem to have found peace and resolved those issues.  I'm more than a little bit envious.  How did you do it?

 

Specifically, since the Church hasn't changed its stance on any of these issues, what changed in you?  Did Kate becoming an official "apostate" force you to see the light that the Church's rigid gender roles are "as they should be"?  Or did you just come to the conclusion that, right or wrong, we must follow the Prophet because otherwise, it leads to strife, contention and an eventual loss of the Spirit?

 

Quite frankly, I underestimated the power that this action would have upon wavering members (of which I am one).  It never occurred to me that being able to put people outside of the camp of Mormonism would have such a profound effect on how we perceive the truth of their message.  For example, in college, I studied (half-heartedly) ancient Greek and Roman civilization.  It never occurred to me to ask whether the professors were Greek or Italian.  They didn't have to share ancestors with their subjects or even believe in the pagan gods of the days to be able to provide a reliable narrative of the history.

 

In that vein, Dehlin could be the secret love child of Ed Decker and Sandra Tanner and it would have no bearing on how I perceived the information conveyed by Terryl and Fiona Givens on a recent MS podcast episode.  Likewise, the issue of ordaining women has little to do with whether KK is a "good Mormon."  While I admire her tremendously, I would support the cause even if it were being advanced by, say, Wade Englund (whom I admire ALMOST as much).  As I've been told, truth is truth.

 

All that being said, I'm glad you have some renewed peace about your place in the Church.  The saints can never have too many good-hearted people like you.

[Calm]

Yes, I believe that is the assumption.

I can only offer what a person involved with disciplinary councils has told me, and I wish I could adequately relay the situation he told me, but the gist is two people committed the same act (not with each other), one person was given a harsher ruling than the other. The positive side to the story is that person with the harsher ruling returned to full activity.

Since one can only compare different people's rulings and not different rulings on the same person, given that doctrinally we assume that inspiration would include insight into the best response for an individual (which might be different for someone else) I don't see how different people's rulings really address the issue.

[smac97]

Since one can only compare different people's rulings and not different rulings on the same person, given that doctrinally we assume that inspiration would include insight into the best response for an individual (which might be different for someone else) I don't see how different people's rulings really address the issue.

 

There is no set of circumstances which are identical.  Two people may be disciplined for the same transgression, and yet they may receive differing disciplinary measures.  For example, say an unmarried couple (young adults) violates the Law of Chastity.  For the woman, this is the first time she has ever violated this commandment.  She is also four years younger than the man.  She also is a relatively recent convert to the Church.  In contrast, the man has a previous history of violating the Law of Chastity, he is a returned missionary, and he grew up in the Church.

 

Is anyone really going to have heartburn if the bishops involved in disciplining this couple end up meting out differing disciplinary measures (say, for example, that the young man is subjected to more severe discipline than the young woman)?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rockpond]

Apparently this site is too scared to put on it who controls it 

 

I wonder why?

Edited June 24, 2014 by rockpond

[eddie]

Kelly very much influenced my perception of the group's methods, especially in the interview that was given (recently linked to I believe on the thread, the buzz feed one) where Kelly is quoted as responding to the elder missionaries as "I'm not listening". Really? That is an adult and thoughtful approach to dialogue? (Plus there is the contradiction with her claims of oppression for women in the Church when she is bragging about bulldozing her way through the elders.) 

 

That is a big gripe I have.  I have a wife and 3 daughters (one son) at home, and I love all of them very much, and assume they love me.  (They do.)

 

If things ever turn into a man versus woman battle in our home, we lose the Spirit of the Lord in our home.  I have seen marriages wrecked when one spouse decides to become an overly chauvinist individual or a radical feminist that simply wants to pit whatever primal aggression they have against the opposite gender.

 

The fact is that 1/2 of the world's population is male, 1/2 female.   When we operate under ideal circumstances, our strengths and weaknesses compliment one another, and that is spelled out from the very beginning.  Learning to operate, work, and live with one another is what brings us closer to the Lord, not trying to prove who is superior.

[mnn727]

I wonder why?

Yeah cause Wiki knows all

[bluebell]

 

Quite frankly, I underestimated the power that this action would have upon wavering members (of which I am one).  It never occurred to me that being able to put people outside of the camp of Mormonism would have such a profound effect on how we perceive the truth of their message.  For example, in college, I studied (half-heartedly) ancient Greek and Roman civilization.  It never occurred to me to ask whether the professors were Greek or Italian.  They didn't have to share ancestors with their subjects or even believe in the pagan gods of the days to be able to provide a reliable narrative of the history.

 

In that vein, Dehlin could be the secret love child of Ed Decker and Sandra Tanner and it would have no bearing on how I perceived the information conveyed by Terryl and Fiona Givens on a recent MS podcast episode.  Likewise, the issue of ordaining women has little to do with whether KK is a "good Mormon."  While I admire her tremendously, I would support the cause even if it were being advanced by, say, Wade Englund (whom I admire ALMOST as much).  As I've been told, truth is truth.

 

 

 

I have a degree in history, and have taken those same classes.

 

I'm wondering if you remember how often historians disagreed about major topics or issues that occurred in those civilizations.  Heck, there isn't really even a consensus on when Rome 'fell' or what exactly did the Spartans in or whether or not Troy actually existed (though we have a historian on record claiming to be the one who discovered it's exact location), for example. You ask one historian and you will get a very well defended answer, but ask a different one and you'll get the opposite, also very well (and usually hotly) defended, as well.  

 

And when you study the primary sources it's not any better.  There might be a desire to think, hey, this guy was there so surely he can be trusted to be telling it like it was.  Yeah, that wasn't true very often.  Some you could mostly trust, and others, you could not trust at all to be accurate.  Some had a harder time getting past their biases than others.  

 

In other words, what is considered 'reliable' is really in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure you had great professors and that they seemed very reliable (as mine did) but i bet they taught you some things that other great professors would very much disagree with (as mine did for me), because that is just how history works.  Few of us have the means or ability to actually do the research ourselves so we are stuck with sorting through other people's research and seeing if their conclusions work for us and then trying to espouse the one that makes the most sense in our opinion. Even then though we have to remember that their conclusions (and thus ours if we agree with them) might still be wrong, even if think they seem pretty compelling.   

 

So yes, truth is truth, but that doesn't mean that every source which claims to be teaching truth is right.  Neither does it mean that sincerity in wanting to be truthful keeps people from being tainted by their biases.

[ksfisher]

Since one can only compare different people's rulings and not different rulings on the same person, given that doctrinally we assume that inspiration would include insight into the best response for an individual (which might be different for someone else) I don't see how different people's rulings really address the issue.

 

Exactly!!!  Disciplinary councils seek to find the best path for that person to return to Christ.  Even when the conclusion is the same (excommunication for example) the conditions for reinstatement are tailored to the individual.  It's all about saving the soul of that person. 

[escott3564]

That is a big gripe I have.  I have a wife and 3 daughters (one son) at home, and I love all of them very much, and assume they love me.  (They do.)

 

If things ever turn into a man versus woman battle in our home, we lose the Spirit of the Lord in our home.  I have seen marriages wrecked when one spouse decides to become an overly chauvinist individual or a radical feminist that simply wants to pit whatever primal aggression they have against the opposite gender.

 

The fact is that 1/2 of the world's population is male, 1/2 female.   When we operate under ideal circumstances, our strengths and weaknesses compliment one another, and that is spelled out from the very beginning.  Learning to operate, work, and live with one another is what brings us closer to the Lord, not trying to prove who is superior.

I LOVE this comment!!!

 

I feel the exact same way.  And I think that what Juliann and I have both voiced in other threads echos this sentiment as well. 

 

What has been discouraging for those of us "moderate" LDS women, is that we see the broader picture, and where positive change can be made, and, frankly, is already starting to be made which will impact female members and further their opportunities to both lead and minister.

[sdc999]

Duncan,

  "Yes, stop acting like a drama king or queen."

 

I love that....  you unknowingly just excommunicated the bishop's wife and the relief society presidency as a whole in the local ward.....  but I love it.

[Calm]

I think we are creating a distinction without a difference between "apostasy" and the reference in the text of the bishop's letter to "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church."  

I have also been informed that letters informing recipients of excommunication due to apostasy used to phrase it as "conduct unbecoming a member…" and that now it is "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church".  IOW, this is a typical letter and there is nothing 'distinct' about it.  "boilerplate language" was one way it was referred to.  Not quite a form letter, but I think a necessary aid for bishops and stake presidents given the inherent emotion and complexity of such an event.

[rockpond]

Yeah cause Wiki knows all

 

In this case, it was the easiest way to quickly provide you with all of the source material.  The wiki page for the Strengthening Church Members Committee is fairly well documented.

[mnn727]

In this case, it was the easiest way to quickly provide you with all of the source material.  The wiki page for the Strengthening Church Members Committee is fairly well documented.

By anti-mormons

[rockpond]

By anti-mormons

 

CFR.  Are you claiming that the SCMC does not exist?  Or just that some of the sources on the wiki page are incorrect?  If so, which ones?

[mtomm]

Duncan,

  "Yes, stop acting like a drama king or queen."

 

I love that....  you unknowingly just excommunicated the bishop's wife and the relief society presidency as a whole in the local ward.....  but I love it.

 

Ahem, would you say that to the bishop's wife or the R.S. presidency if they were in the room?  Consider them "in the room."  I'm glad you loved it.  Duncan wasn't insulting but you certainly were.

[sdc999]

mtomm,  yes, I would say that to them directly and I have done so in the past to people in church.   Maybe you wouldn't have that courage. I do.  Maybe that's part of our problem in society today.   When kids are walking with their pants half way down their butt and enter my business, 'oh, don't say anything, you may hurt their self esteem',  It's the same within a church or any organization, too many people look the other way when someone acts like the drama king or queen like Duncan put it.  If you call them on it, you would be surprised at how many people will come up to you later and thank you for standing against stupidity.

[frank_jessop]

There is no set of circumstances which are identical. Two people may be disciplined for the same transgression, and yet they may receive differing disciplinary measures. For example, say an unmarried couple (young adults) violates the Law of Chastity. For the woman, this is the first time she has ever violated this commandment. She is also four years younger than the man. She also is a relatively recent convert to the Church. In contrast, the man has a previous history of violating the Law of Chastity, he is a returned missionary, and he grew up in the Church.

Is anyone really going to have heartburn if the bishops involved in disciplining this couple end up meting out differing disciplinary measures (say, for example, that the young man is subjected to more severe discipline than the young woman)?

Thanks,

-Smac

We should get heartburn anytime we lean to our own understanding concerning matters of God.

I think it wrong for us to assume that the brother in your hypothetical should get harsher punishment. Gods ways are not our ways, and we should leave matters of the Spirit, to the Spirit. We set ourselves up for disappointment when we rely on our limited knowledge and mortal understanding of fairness when it comes to matters of God.

The situation I mentioned was a situation, that an outsider would say was not fair, because the harsher punishment went to the person who, in our mortal understanding, we would say was less culpable than the other offender who received the lighter ruling.