Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Zakuska]

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.

No assumption Cal,  Im actually feeling a little ashamed and sullied for having participated in such a vile set of threads full of gossip, posturing and un-ladder-day Siant like behavior. (Yes my personal assessment that Im guilty of too)

 

I find it funny, that our side of the fence automatically jumps to the conclusion that ANYTHING the church or its Officers says are by fiat, God Speaking to the Earth.and Gods, Honest Truth every Jot and Tittle. But then we sit here and make list after list, page after page of posts, high lighting, cross linking, bolding every little piece of intel we can gather to insinuate and input malice into the hearts of Other Ladder Day Saints and fellow Soujurners on the earth.

 

I think I've learned a lesson of motes and Beams. (Leaving town so I may not reply)

[ELF1024]

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.

 

As someone who used to be excommunicated, let me just say that never a Stake President, or a Bishop, or any church Official has ever excommunicated anyone. The only person who can truely excommunicate someone is the person themselves.

 

The Church simply reacts to what has already been done by your own actions.

[Calm]

 

I find it funny, that our side of the fence automatically jumps to the conclusion that ANYTHING the church or its Officers says are by fiat, God Speaking to the Earth.and Gods, Honest Truth every Jot and Tittle. )

Well, I for one do not jump to that conclusion so while you are working on not making broad generalisations about those who disagree, you probably should add in a few moments to dothe same for those who do.

[smac97]

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.

I didn't say we should "assume" that. I said: "Is anyone really going to have heartburn if the bishops involved in disciplining this couple end up meting out differing disciplinary measures..."

It was a hypothetical situation to explain why different people might receive different discipline for the same transgression, not a declaration of what should happen.

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.

Agreed. I have no idea why you would think I wouldn't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

Oh, I agree with that. I think legal loopholes have no place in a disciplinary council.

 

Tell that to Paul Toscano . . .

[frank_jessop]

 

I didn't say we should "assume" that. I said: "Is anyone really going to have heartburn if the bishops involved in disciplining this couple end up meting out differing disciplinary measures..."

It was a hypothetical situation to explain why different people might receive different discipline for the same transgression, not a declaration of what should happen.

I acknowledge the hypothetical. And I didn't suggest that your hypothetical was what "should happen". My point, is apparently, difficult to convey.

I agree with your hypothetical, in that not too many people would be upset over the man getting a harsher discipline. I think that people would not be upset about it is because we apply our own standards to the situation and automatically just think "yep, that man deserved the harsher treatment because X,Y,Z". I think this illustrate the tendency of the "natural man", so to speak.

For instance if the results of your hypothetical were reserved, we could make a fairly accurate assumption that people would be heartburn over the results; this would be a natural reaction, which would be based on our own understanding.

If I could adequately explain myself, I believe we would be in agreement; as we agree on the latter part of my prior post.

[mtomm]

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.

 

Insulting stereotypes of our Sisters.  Perhaps you need to take a little bit of your own medicine   and "thank [me] for standing against stupidity."  

(Ugh, is this me being  a board nanny? I'm doing what I'm complaining about.)

[Abulafia]

For those that believe OWs actions have brought the church into disrepute, I couldn't disagree more.

It showed that the church was a vibrant community of believers who were confident enough and secure enough in their own faith that they could tolerate and accept diversity.

Internationally the church has been known for it's deeply patriarchal stance, that factor brings the church into disrepute and will continue to do so in my opinion. As a college student back in the 80s it was mentioned to me by one of my tutors in a less than positive manner. It's a long held perception.

For me, this is a sad day not only for Kate Kelly but also for the church. There are no winners here.

For those who suggest that Kate has been less than honest about her dealings with local leadership, she states categorically that she received no communication in March and April. Has anyone thought that she didn't want to publish this section because she didn't want to accuse her leaders of lying and thus inflame the situation further?

[USU78]

Internationally the church has been known for it's deeply patriarchal stance

 

"Deep" patriarchal is worse than "shallow" patriarchal?

[thesometimesaint]

As someone who used to be excommunicated, let me just say that never a Stake President, or a Bishop, or any church Official has ever excommunicated anyone. The only person who can truely excommunicate someone is the person themselves.

 

The Church simply reacts to what has already been done by your own actions.

 

Agreed.

[Calm]

Insulting stereotypes of our Sisters.  Perhaps you need to take a little bit of your own medicine   and "thank [me] for standing against stupidity."  

(Ugh, is this me being  a board nanny? I'm doing what I'm complaining about.)

Would you have been okay with it if he had said EQ Pres rather than RS?

He seems to (he can confirm it) agree with Duncan that it applies to both men and women, it just so happens in his ward at that moment two women are the best examples.

[Calm]

Has anyone thought that she didn't want to publish this section because she didn't want to accuse her leaders of lying and thus inflame the situation further?

Are you assuming the bishop would have released the letter if she or someone she gave it to hadn't?

It does not have to be receiving communication. It could have been face to face.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[mtomm]

Would you have been okay with it if he had said EQ Pres rather than RS?

He seems to (he can confirm it) agree with Duncan that it applies to both men and women, it just so happens in his ward at that moment two women are the best examples.

 

 

It's just tiresome, and yes, I'm am completely defensive about it.  It would have been fair had he included other callings but then that doesn't fit the stereotype does it?

[teddyaware]

For those that believe OWs actions have brought the church into disrepute, I couldn't disagree more.

It showed that the church was a vibrant community of believers who were confident enough and secure enough in their own faith that they could tolerate and accept diversity.

Internationally the church has been known for it's deeply patriarchal stance, that factor brings the church into disrepute and will continue to do so in my opinion. As a college student back in the 80s it was mentioned to me by one of my tutors in a less than positive manner. It's a long held perception.

For me, this is a sad day not only for Kate Kelly but also for the church. There are no winners here.

For those who suggest that Kate has been less than honest about her dealings with local leadership, she states categorically that she received no communication in March and April. Has anyone thought that she didn't want to publish this section because she didn't want to accuse her leaders of lying and thus inflame the situation further?

The Church of Jesus Christ, in all previous dispensations, under the same patriarchal priesthood leadership which you lament, succeeded magnificently in its mission in helping Christ to bring to pass the exaltation of hundreds of thousands of women. If in former dispensations the patriarchally led Church of Christ achieved its divine goal of assisting the Lord in bringing to pass the eternal life of great multitudes of women, empowering them to "enter into a state of happiness that has no end," then what possible eternal benefit would today's Latter-day Saint women gain over their sisters in bygone dispensations by ordaining them to the priesthood? It seems to me the only possible benefit gained would be the very temporary placation of some progressive critics of the Church (like the ones you cite) who would respond by saying "that's nice" and 10 minutes later begin bashing the Church all over again, this time joining OW in demanding 6 women in the Quorum of the Twelve and a female Church president.

 

If the Church, as organized today, has sufficient power, authority and keys and to exalt its women into the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, then there is nothing at all lacking in today's Church insofar as the sisters are concerned. Would it be inaccurate to characterize the ordain women movement as a politically progressive wolf in sheep's clothing, a movement that substitutes the doctrines and fashions of the fallen world for the saving teachings and eternal doctrines of the kingdom of God?

Edited June 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

Has anyone thought that she didn't want to publish this section because she didn't want to accuse her leaders of lying and thus inflame the situation further?

 

Since she had previously accused him publicly of being both a coward and unChristlike, it doesn't make sense to believe that she would have any problem accusing him of lying as well.

 

We obviously don't know, but the evidence does not favor the idea that she just didn't want to speak ill of her leader since she was willing to do that in the days previous.

[sdc999]

Insulting stereotypes of our Sisters.  Perhaps you need to take a little bit of your own medicine   and "thank [me] for standing against stupidity."  

(Ugh, is this me being  a board nanny? I'm doing what I'm complaining about.)

Stereotypes?  not in the least.  I know many LDS ladies that are beyond great, exceedingly compassionate, Christlike and more.  I know some LDS men that fit that description as well.  I know some really rotten ones as well.  I could pick several whom I have been in wards with over the years to stand before the world as representatives of the church and  the LDS community itself would probably say, 'hey, if that's us, we are a cult."  It is okay to have some bad apples within the bunch though.  Heck,  I have a few in my own family (and I call them out as well- even had one put in jail for dangerous stupidity).   

[juliann]

For those that believe OWs actions have brought the church into disrepute, I couldn't disagree more.

It showed that the church was a vibrant community of believers who were confident enough and secure enough in their own faith that they could tolerate and accept diversity.

Internationally the church has been known for it's deeply patriarchal stance, that factor brings the church into disrepute and will continue to do so in my opinion. As a college student back in the 80s it was mentioned to me by one of my tutors in a less than positive manner. It's a long held perception.

For me, this is a sad day not only for Kate Kelly but also for the church. There are no winners here.

For those who suggest that Kate has been less than honest about her dealings with local leadership, she states categorically that she received no communication in March and April. Has anyone thought that she didn't want to publish this section because she didn't want to accuse her leaders of lying and thus inflame the situation further?

 

My concern is that OW has missed a golden opportunity to make an ongoing and lasting difference. The personal tragedy aside, this is what it comes down to for me. Demanding the priesthood and nothing but was too far reaching without first building the foundation for it.  I think KK's downfall was in alienating,to the point of calling them names,the moderate feminists who have the best chance of being taken seriously.

 

I think editing that letter, no matter what she was trying to do, severely damaged her credibility.  I noticed that she challenged with her phone records and emails. She said nothing about personal meetings which is where most Mormons would think the communication occurred. It would be very odd if all communication in her own ward was through email or phone. So I believe the leaders on this one.

 

I suspect the hole left by OW will be filled by moderates who know how to effectively communicate with the church as well as mainstream members. So I am very hopeful that there will be continued change, even if it is too slow.  As you can see just on this board, it is attitudes toward women that have to change as much as policies. It isn't outside perceptions that I am concerned about. 

[sdc999]

It's just tiresome, and yes, I'm am completely defensive about it.  It would have been fair had he included other callings but then that doesn't fit the stereotype does it?

Okay, here's your 'fair' post so everybody can have a trophy, get a medal, get a reward for participating.   Everything in life MUST be fair and equal.

Branch President was given a blessing by me (thursdayish),  gets  a blessing from a high priest on Saturday and Sunday stands before the congregation and tells of the miracle of the high priesthood and how he was healed.  All the while sniffling and coughing over the front row.  A week later, i'm in his office (wife there as well and I don't remember the exact circumstances) but I told him he was full of crap and that I really didn't like him.  Yes, I called him out as well as my wife sat in the chair with her jaw on the floor.  

If I didn't know any better, with your 'fair' comment, I would think you're advocating for women, in all fairness, to be equal with the men and obtain the priesthood.   

[mormonnewb]

My concern is that OW has missed a golden opportunity to make an ongoing and lasting difference. The personal tragedy aside, this is what it comes down to for me. Demanding the priesthood and nothing but was too far reaching without first building the foundation for it.  I think KK's downfall was in alienating,to the point of calling them names,the moderate feminists who have the best chance of being taken seriously.

 

I think editing that letter, no matter what she was trying to do, severely damaged her credibility.  I noticed that she challenged with her phone records and emails. She said nothing about personal meetings which is where most Mormons would think the communication occurred. It would be very odd if all communication in her own ward was through email or phone. So I believe the leaders on this one.

 

I suspect the hole left by OW will be filled by moderates who know how to effectively communicate with the church as well as mainstream members. So I am very hopeful that there will be continued change, even if it is too slow.  As you can see just on this board, it is attitudes toward women that have to change as much as policies. It isn't outside perceptions that I am concerned about. 

 

You are so right that an important step for female equality in the church is for women to actually WANT it.

 

Interestingly, it seems like her effort to build that "foundation" (the discussions) was the last straw that led to her excommunication.

 

As for "moderates who know how to effectively communicate with the church," I'm not sure I'm with you there.  It seems that "radical" KK moved the ball forward more in one year than Team Moderate did in the last 20 years.  A woman prayed in GC for the first time in 2013 -- the same year that Ordain Women was established (yes, I know, correlation does not equal causation).  I think the last conference was a first in some way -- women being pictured in the conference center or something.  This could be another coinky dink, but I think the radicals had something to do with it.

 

As I've pointed out before, Dr. King benefited greatly from strident voices like Malcolm X and those in the Black Panthers.  LBJ was more than happy to sit down with him when faced with the alternative.  Perhaps, for that reason, I'm not sure that King EVER said a bad word about Malcolm X (although Brother Malcolm had plenty to say about King's "tepidness" and "cowardice").  King understood that every good cop needs to have a bad cop.

 

And for those that say that agitators just make the Brethren less likely to act, that argument turns our leaders into petty and vindictive overlords.  It has them saying, "Yes, I would take this action that would be in the best interests of the Church and it's members, but since I don't like the way you asked, I'm going to make us all suffer to prove my power over you."  Even I'm not cynical enough to ever suggest that the Brethren would let their egos stand in the way of building Zion.

 

If, as many of you suggest, the Lord is truly in charge then agitation is, at its worst, ineffective.  However, if revelation comes from urgently seeking answers to questions, then I'm glad that KK (and those that follow) have the courage to ask those questions, even if it means that they ask rudely.

[Calm]

"It has them saying, "Yes, I would take this action that would be in the best interests of the Church and it's members, but since I don't like the way you asked, I'm going to make us all suffer to prove my power over you"

Or it has them saying "yes, I would take that action before it was demanded, but now it is not in the best interests of the Church because if done now it will appear as a reward for apostasy (or whatever) and that will encourage more to use that approach then the appropriate channels."

There were significant changes prior to the appearance of OW such as the change in missionary age, removal of sealing inequality language in the CHI along with completely parallell application for the dead and the (a much more important changes IMO) the inclusion of women in the Ward Council and the allowance of unmarried women to get their endowment without marriage or a mission.

I think OW speeded up some changes and slowed down others.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

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.

 

At least in the short term.

[ERayR]

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?

 

No it exist but its mission is not the one you attribute to it.

[ERayR]

I find it funny, that our side of the fence automatically jumps to the conclusion that ANYTHING the church or its Officers says are by fiat, God Speaking to the Earth.and Gods, Honest Truth every Jot and Tittle.

 

Nope I learned several decades ago that the Church leaders often have feet of clay.  I also learned that the more I fussed and fretted about their shortcomings the more dissatisfied I became.  I came to the conclusion that it was the Gospel as promulgated by the Church that I believed in and not one or another of the leaders.  It has brought much more satisfaction and peace to my life.

[ERayR]

For those that believe OWs actions have brought the church into disrepute, I couldn't disagree more.

It showed that the church was a vibrant community of believers who were confident enough and secure enough in their own faith that they could tolerate and accept diversity.

Internationally the church has been known for it's deeply patriarchal stance, that factor brings the church into disrepute and will continue to do so in my opinion. As a college student back in the 80s it was mentioned to me by one of my tutors in a less than positive manner. It's a long held perception.

 

Insert something here about great and spacious building and its mocking inhabitants.

For me, this is a sad day not only for Kate Kelly but also for the church. There are no winners here.

For those who suggest that Kate has been less than honest about her dealings with local leadership, she states categorically that she received no communication in March and April. Has anyone thought that she didn't want to publish this section because she didn't want to accuse her leaders of lying and thus inflame the situation further?

[AZ in GA]

I believe that the result was not only expected by KK, but it was planned and desired. The way each step was reported to the NY Times, the immediate posting of pictures of her "anguish".

She planned to put the church in this position and then profit from either result:

1. Excommunicate her, and she becomes a martyr to her followers, who use the result as validation of their position.

2. Let her retain fellowship, and she becomes a hero to her followers, who use the result as validation of their position.

Either way, she wins in her mind.

I don't believe that anything the general authorities could say or do would/could placate her and her followers, unless it included full ordination. They absolutely would not accept any answer but the one they want to hear.