Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[smac97]

(I accidentally posted this in another thread, so I am duplicating it here.)

 

Here is a link to a YouTube video of an interview of Kate Kelly which was posted by the Salt Lake Tribune as part of this story.  I will refrain from describing the feeling I get from watching this.  Here is a partial transcript of some of her more notable comments from this interview:
 

Kelly: I was surprised by the cruelty (of her bishop's email).

 

...

 

Kelly: The entire (disciplinary) process is extremely abusive.  And I think .. that the language that is used to talk about the process that happened to me is classic abuse.  You know, my mom is a prosecutor and works with special victims and has for over twenty years.  And she works with victims of domestic violence, victims of sexual assault, and a lot of what happens in that dialogue is that the perpetrator of the abuse describes the abuse as something that the victim made them do.  'Why did you make me hit you?  Why did you make me do this?'  Or 'I'm doing this because I love you, and I've doing this out of love.'  And so in our society the most violent situations against women are often shrouded in a cloud of disingenuous love.

 

Interviewer: And that's how you see this action against you?

 

Kelly: Absolutely consistent with abusive, manipulative, patriarchal situations.

 

Interviewer: Do you have any regrets with how you handled the situation?

 

Kelly: No.  I have no regrets.  I acted with complete candor and integrity every step of the way.  And I can't take that back.  Not that I won't take that back.  I can't take that back.

 

Interviewer: Obviously there's some discrepancy between they way you describe their lack of response to you and what they said in the letter alleging that actually you had met several times and you had ...

 

Kelly: That was just point blank a lie.  I challenge them to name the times of those meetings or provide me with a phone log of those phone calls.  I have my phone log and I can prove that they never called me.  I have my emails.  They never emailed me.  We never met.  We met one time in December, which I blogged about on FMH.  The result of that meeting was, in my opinion, we'll have to agree to disagree and you won't be disciplined.  And we met one time on May 5.  Under duress.

 

...

 

Interviewer: What you said yesterday, you know, urging people to stay in the Church and try to make it better.

 

Kelly: Yeah, I think people should stay, but if they stay they should raise hell.

 

...

 

Interviewer: Any advice for young feminists?

 

Kelly: My advise for people in general is, and particularly young feminists, is don't follow me.  Follow your heart.  If you feel you can stay in the Church and you can be yourself and you can actively contribute to making it a better place, then you should.  And if you can't, for your own mental well-being or your own emotional health, then you should find a safer place.

 
The more I listen to Kate Kelly, the more saddened I become.  To some extent it is unfortunate that this is all playing out in real time (due almost entirely to the media efforts of Kate Kelly).  In times past, a painful event like an excommunication would happen, and tears would be shed and angry words vented to family and close friends.  And then, hopefully, the healing can begin.  But with every vituperation given to the news media and posted on YouTube, Kate Kelly is only widening the gap between her and the Church.
 
Thanks,
 
-Smac

[Calm]

At least in the short term.

And possibly only externally.

(I admit being cynical about Dehlin's actual intentions and if there was ever a change of heart. He uses imo the edit function way too much instead of controlling his outbursts at their source. But I am not his judge and probably need to remind myself more often about that.)

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[halconero]

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

Herein lies the problem: telling women that already see themselves as already equal that their definition of equality is wrong.

It's not just a problem with OW, but many feminist movements and other movements around the world. Some try to speak for all women in a given area or time frame, telling them that they should be unhappy or feel unequal in their situation. They speak for them, and having attended more than a few feminist lectures at UofT, there's an evident backlash. Some women say "who are you to speak for me? To tell me what equality means when your cultural definition doesn't fit mine."

It's a problem that Idle No More, an indigenous movement here in Canada, faced. They claimed to be grassroots, not governed by anyone, and representative of all Canadian aboriginals, but when other indigenous Canadians dissented with their viewpoint they were denounced and told that they were not associated with them Idle by any stretch of the imagination. It kind of shook the idea that Idle was grassroots and representative of all indigenous Canadians.

Likewise, who is OW to tell women in the Church that their definition and feelings of equality are false? Kate Kelly has derided those who say they already are equal, place herself in a power position (this is a specific anthropological term) over the definitions that govern their lives.

Edited June 25, 2014 by halconero

[jwhitlock]

 

Here is a link to a YouTube video of an interview of Kate Kelly which was posted by the Salt Lake Tribune as part of this story.  I will refrain from describing the feeling I get from watching this.  Here is a partial transcript of some of her more notable comments from this interview:

 

Not good. At this point her only intent is to pander to those who eat up such rhetoric. If OW doesn't distance themselves from her, they will position themselves clearly as an organization in opposition to the church.

[Calm]

Herein lies the problem: telling women that already see themselves as already equal that their definition of equality is wrong.

It's not just a problem with OW, but many feminist movements and other movements around the world. Some try to speak for all women in a given area or time frame, telling them that they should be unhappy or feel unequal in their situation. They speak for them, and having attended more than a few feminist lectures at UofT, there's an evident backlash. Some women say "who are you to speak for me? To tell me what equality means when your cultural definition doesn't fit mine.".

And the prize goes to....halconero for best performance in the category of defining a fundamental problem.

And it kind of saps the whole "I want women to be equal and have an equal voice" when one is in essence shouting down other women attempting to speak.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

Not good. At this point her only intent is to pander to those who eat up such rhetoric. If OW doesn't distance themselves from her, they will position themselves clearly as an organization in opposition to the church.

 

Yep.  Anyone who says things like "I think people should stay (in the Church), but if they stay they should raise hell" and encouraging women to leave the Church (while elsewhere telling them to stay) is not going to garner a lot of allegiance from observant LDS women.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Nope I learned several decades ago that the Church leaders often have feet of clay.

Or worse (local leaders, don't know enough about the personal lives of GAs to say anything about the current ones, given the interest I would assume any major corruptions would have been exposed by someone and picked up by the press now...there have been a few in the past I wish had never been called).

[why me]

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

 

I believe that the church won this one. It shows that the lds church is not afraid of mass cultural norms. It takes a stand, it has backbone and will not back down to pubic pressure. I believe that there are many people who see values in such a church. Most people understand that no church can accept apostacy or heresy. It comes with the turf that a church would need to take action about it.  .

 

However, for media consumption kate was also decrying the lack of gender equality in the church. as a separate issue from the priesthood. This was great PR and assured more coverage. But at the same time, her website declared that women must have the priesthood to achieve equality. And yet, for public consumption she said that she just wanted the leaders to pray about the issue. In other words, OW wanted to control the conversation even thought the website contradicted the public conversation.

 

The church needed to take back the conversation and acted accordingly.

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted

Edited June 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[BlueDreams]

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

 

What Halcenero said. 

 

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

 

I'm guessing here, but this may have more to do with a foundation of actual community dialogue. The 6 discussions are not really dialogue but presenting their case in a fairly overt proselyting manner.

 

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 I know I've pointed this out before but that is one massive over simplification of history (both civil rights and recent LDS one). I think it's more likely they are parallel branches who find root in a similar setting, time, and need recognized. The expression varies as differing groups try to address the need differently. I can get how you can correlate the change in women and prayer with the petition, but it's far more of a stretch that OW's establishment somehow has even a small causal link to this. OW started off pretty small. I remember it, because I literally read every profile that they initially had on there. There were under 30, it wasn't exactly difficult. The group had little actual effect at that time, they were mostly a blip on the radar. And it ignores the fact that the church issued statements during the letter petition campaign that the assignments had already been handed out months prior. And it ignores the fact that this wouldn't even come close to meeting the interests of OW in the first place. It's like saying Malcolm X inadvertently helped with the passing of Brown v board of edu....ya know....cuz he was alive and kicking at the time. 

 

And lastly this assumes that there are direct parallels between political/civil actions and actions that occur within the church. This, to me, is the crux of what's been a major fault of Kelly's . She keeps interacting like this is some sociopolitical civil action with the U.S. Government than the church. And she uses western geopolitical terms/concepts even now to define the church and it's decisions. She's not just trying to "push for equality," she's trying to push with a governing system and methodology that doesn't even exist in the church. It's like trying to use an american means of government found on american ideals in a foreign country....it's setting up for failure. 

 

 

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.

 

That is only one interpretation. As I mentioned earlier the system and culture of church governance at it's core does not rely on a model best parallel with most governing systems we see, politically. The systems is ideally based on a system of respect, mercy, honor, love, and unity (of course it's not perfect or we'd have been translated by now). It's is a peculiar mix of hierarchical order/deferment with also a horizontal respect for others and overarching desire for love and unity to dominate the church body.  If you've ever gotten to watch the Apostles interact with each other/others you'd see that pretty rapidly. So to say that agitation may slow it down doesn't necessarily assume that they're being petty. It could also assume, that they'd wait until the church decisions could move together with a greater sense of unity and faith to the ultimate purpose/direction of Zion.

 

Changes in practices and cultural ideals have become clouded by the OW movement. You don't have to go far to figure that out. Moving the women on the stand for GC becomes some sort of flimsy move of appeasement for OW rather than a general shift in gender awareness. Prayer becomes a result of petition and push rather than a continual and elongated dialogue among many for far longer than the last year. After all the age change on missionary work happened well before OW was organized....before "let women pray" started or the 'women wear pants to church" day. The only thing that seems fairly causal are an increase in talks about gender....and they weren't exactly condoning the ideals/actions of OW. 

 

What I found happening more was that a change was made and OW/KK would find a way to twist it as somehow a win for their movement.  The church is evolving, more rapidly in recent years about gender....but not in any way that OW actually envisions. And that, to me, is a major chink in the assumptions that these changes were somehow catalyzed by OW's action.  

 

 

With luv,

BD

[why me]

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

 

This statement is too elusive. What exactly is the definition of equality that lds women should be fighting for inside the church? Can we find a common definition that fits all women? I remember this kind of debate among USA feminists in the 70's. Feminists had one vision of equality and that was in the workplace and in adjusting the perceptions among men about women and their role in the workplace. Of course, there were are also sub issues. But even here among NOW supporters, the debate in the women's movement was quite lively. And for the women who were not members of NOW, there was a feeling of who are you to tell me what equality is. So, what to do with a lds women who is perfectly satisfied with her position in the church? Should she be called a dinosaur? Should feminist women begin to hold 'feminst missionary discussions' to convince this sister of the truth?

 

There has never been equality in any society and since the mormon church is a society of individuals, how to foster something that can't happen? Lets look at this way: the ward is a community of people, no different than a village of individuals or even a market place. What kind of village do we want the church to be? what kind of community of equals do we envision for the ward? Eventually this is where the discussion needs to take place. But like I said there is no such thing as equality and equality is a wonderful word but it has many connotations and definitions, depending on the individual.

 

I have no idea why god chose women to have children. A true equal god would have provided a choice for men and women to give birth. I have no idea why Jesus only chose men for his apostleship. A true unsexist individual would have made it a fifty fifty organization. Sad, that equality could not even exist in such instances, right?

Edited June 25, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

I believe that the church won this one. It shows that the lds church is not afraid of mass cultural norms. It takes a stand, it has backbone and will not back down to pubic pressure. I believe that there are many people who see values in such a church. Most people understand that no church can accept apostacy or heresy. It comes with the turf that a church would need to take action about it.  .

 

However, for media consumption kate was also decrying the lack of gender equality in the church. as a separate issue from the priesthood. This was great PR and assured more coverage. But at the same time, her website declared that women must have the priesthood to achieve equality. And yet, for public consumption she said that she just wanted the leaders to pray about the issue. In other words, OW wanted to control the conversation even thought the website contradicted the public conversation.

 

The church needed to take back the conversation and acted accordingly.

Yep, that's how I define courage -- the willingness to stand up to a 110 lb woman. How did they do it?

Seriously, what did the Church have to lose by ex'ing KK? Did they think she was going to lead a horde of angry mothers to Temple Square holding a Malatov cocktail in one hand and a newborn in the other? Or was the danger that the public would see the Church as stodgy and perhaps, a bit archaic? Because we know just how "hip" people thought we were last week.

My definition of backbone is taking a stand when the cost is substantial, perhaps even paying the ultimate price. More often than not, that requires opposing those who have the power to hurt you. Individual Mormons have proven courageous time and again, starting with JS. But that type of fortitude isn't the Church's forte.

The Church could have stood up to the mass cultural norm of slavery as it established the Utah Territory, but it played it safe.

The Church could have stood up to the mass cultural norm of bigotry and apathy and mobilized for Dr. King (like it mobilized against the gays in Prop , but it played it safe.

Just once, the Church could have stood up to the mass cultural norm of war in Iraq, Vietnam or ANYWHERE, but it chose to play it safe.

And don't get caught up in the race thing. I'm not saying that anyone was racist. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that my strange definition of "backbone" involves having the courage to fight FOR the downtrodden, not having the courage to fight against them.

[Calm]

"the willingness to stand up to a 110 lb woman"

If you are suggesting the only measure of her strength is her weight and has nothing to do with any other skills or the intelligence to create attacks out of words and actions....then you might have a point, but you would also be rather sexist.

"Seriously, what did the Church have to lose by ex'ing KK"

Apparently you and possibly others as TR holding members. And that does matter to the leaders.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Or worse (local leaders, don't know enough about the personal lives of GAs to say anything about the current ones, given the interest I would assume any major corruptions would have been exposed by someone and picked up by the press now...there have been a few in the past I wish had never been called).

 

Does a Paul Dunn come to mind?

[ERayR]

Yep, that's how I define courage -- the willingness to stand up to a 110 lb woman. How did they do it?

 

You make it sound so much like WWW when it is more like "here am I send me".

[mormonnewb]

"the willingness to stand up to a 110 lb woman"

If you are suggesting the only measure of her strength is her weight and has nothing to do with any other skills or the intelligence to create attacks out of words and actions....then you might have a point, but you would also be rather sexist.

"Seriously, what did the Church have to lose by ex'ing KK"

Apparently you and possibly others as TR holding members. And that does matter to the leaders.

Okay, you caught me using some KK-like hyperbole. It's catchy!

[ERayR]

Just once, the Church could have stood up to the mass cultural norm of war in Iraq, Vietnam or ANYWHERE, but it chose to play it safe.

 

 

And if it had you would have been one of the first to condemn for meddling in politics.

[Abulafia]

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.

I guess I take her at her word.  She's been pretty honest and upfront about everything else.  

 

There are some issues about holding back a persons records when they move out of the stake, and the distance involved in travelling back to the East.  Skype is hardly the place to conduct a court.  Why not move her records to her new ward and let them deal with it? Given the distance between Kate and her leadership in her eastern ward, it seems like her present ward would have been as good a place as any?  

I do find that puzzling. 

[Abulafia]

I believe that the church won this one. It shows that the lds church is not afraid of mass cultural norms. It takes a stand, it has backbone and will not back down to pubic pressure. I believe that there are many people who see values in such a church. Most people understand that no church can accept apostacy or heresy. It comes with the turf that a church would need to take action about it.  .

 

However, for media consumption kate was also decrying the lack of gender equality in the church. as a separate issue from the priesthood. This was great PR and assured more coverage. But at the same time, her website declared that women must have the priesthood to achieve equality. And yet, for public consumption she said that she just wanted the leaders to pray about the issue. In other words, OW wanted to control the conversation even thought the website contradicted the public conversation.

 

The church needed to take back the conversation and acted accordingly.

Actually, it is interesting to look at how women in Catholicism deal with the issue.  They have a website for educational purposes to indicate why they feel the issue is complex and not black and white.  As far as I know none have been excommunicated for that.

I can find the link if you are interested.  It's a pretty good educational site in terms of historical precedent.

There were women excommunicated in Catholicism, but they were actually being ordained by what the Catholic Church termed as a 'rogue' priest.  

For the outside world, what Kate Kelly and Ordain Women are doing is actually pretty tame.

They aren't throwing themselves under horses or chaining themselves to lamp posts.  They aren't being violent.   They have a website, they have had a few high profile drives to raise awareness (successful I would say), in which they politely waited in line at a priesthood session and walked away when rejected.  

In a way, I have to have a chuckle.  It's like an LDS friend of mine using the word 'numpty'.  What OW have been doing has been incredibly polite.  This is the LDS version of 'protest' when to most outsiders it is a pretty gentle attempt at raising a worthwhile issue of structural and gender inequality in the church.

[ERayR]

I guess I take her at her word.  She's been pretty honest and upfront about everything else.  

 

There are some issues about holding back a persons records when they move out of the stake, and the distance involved in travelling back to the East.  Skype is hardly the place to conduct a court.  Why not move her records to her new ward and let them deal with it? Given the distance between Kate and her leadership in her eastern ward, it seems like her present ward would have been as good a place as any?  

I do find that puzzling. 

 

This was not a spur of the moment thing, it had been ongoing for some time.  It had involved confidential interviews that a new bishop would have no knowledge and would be important to the proceedings. 

[Abulafia]

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?

I'm sorry but you just cannot even begin to compare how the priesthood worked in Ancient Judaism with the modern LDS church.  The  function and purpose of both was/are completely different.  

 

[Abulafia]

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.

Well, in terms of how this whole situation was handled, there are some very unusual elements.  Why wait for her to leave and hold her records.  This just seems very puzzling.

[Abulafia]

This was not a spur of the moment thing, it had been ongoing for some time.  It had involved confidential interviews that a new bishop would have no knowledge and would be important to the proceedings. 

Well, she was clearly asked to take down her website and to disassociate herself from OW.  As I understand it, she was put on probation.  That is all a matter of public record.  Her notification of the intent to excommunicate was sent by mail.  Again, I take her at her word when she says she was floored.

[ERayR]

Well, she was clearly asked to take down her website and to disassociate herself from OW.  As I understand it, she was put on probation.  That is all a matter of public record.  Her notification of the intent to excommunicate was sent by mail.  Again, I take her at her word when she says she was floored.

.

She was counseled that her actions had crossed the line and of the consequences and yet she was "floored" when it happened? 

[Abulafia]

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. 

I think this was Kristine Haglund's point in an interview I watched with Jennifer Napier-Pearce.  It was just a brilliant set of interviews.  Very balanced, and I guess the good thing that has come out of this is that it has lay membership (even over here in the UK) talking.

In dealing with my LDS active friends, none of them even want the priesthood, and what I have tried to do is indicate to them that the role of women historically and even within the LDS church has been more nuanced than perhaps even they recognise.  

I think it is going to be a long hard road to even convince women this is a good thing.  Obviously, I am not an active member so it doesn't affect me, but hopefully there will continue to be changes.  I'd love to see change in the Single Adult program.  Having worked in it at a stake level (and I was very happy to work with a male counterpart), there were inherent problems in the fact that stake leadership (whom I was answerable to) were all men.  It is a problem, not always, and the quality of leadership is obviously uneven throughout the church, but golly, it would have been wonderful to have a woman to answer to up the lines of authority and who understood what it was like to be a woman, and a single woman in the UK church.  (That's just my personal peeve).

Edited to add link to Trib Talk interview.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstribtalk/58095201-231/church-lds-sltrib-apostasy.html.csp

I haven't watched the newest one with Dan Wotherspoon.  That's on my list.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogstribtalk/58105015-231/church-com-comments-excommunication.html.csp

Edited June 25, 2014 by Abulafia