Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Mystery Meat]

The problem is we will never know who anyone in KK's position TRULY is. I admire the fact that many of you are willing to take her at her word when she says she is a believing member who loves the gospel. I think KK would have known that most people would look at her resume and give her the benefit of the doubt. After the most recent interviews...I don't think I can take her at her word anymore. In fact, I am not so sure she didn't want exactly this to happen. I think she has been dishonest about what happened with her bishop/SP, has intentionally tried to talk out of both sides of her mount (we just want them to pray about it vs. nothing less than ordination will suffice), and based on these facts and others I don't think it is a stretch to say she could just as easily be deceiving on her true feelings about the Church and its "patriarchy." I think she knew that most of us (myself included for a while) would assume she was motivated be her love of the gospel and used that to her benefit. Now I am pretty sure she was always a wolf in sheep's clothing. Always intent on stirring up trouble. For goodness sake, she just encouraged every person who stays to "raise hell" knowing full well that that will result in a lot more excommunications. 

 

Needless to say, I think she has been less than genuine this entire time. 

[awyatt]

I thought about writing a blog post about KK and her excommunication. I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

 

Instead, I wrote a blog post that has bearing on the recent events, but is from a deeply personal perspective. It is way, way too long to include here.

 

Some might enjoy it.

 

My heart really goes out to Sister Kelly and her bishop. Really.

 

-Allen

[gtaggart]

(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:

 

. . .

 

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. (emphasis supplied)

 

. . .

 

. . .

 

 

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

I notice that in this interview, she admits to meeting one more time--May 5--one of the times mentioned in the letter she received from her bishop. Isn't this a new admission, one also contrary to the narrative that she never met with her bishop or stake president?

[Abulafia]

Trying is not the problem (at least with me).  It is that after being warned where the boundaries are she deliberately crossed them repeatedly.  If she had someone working for her that did not recognize their boundaries she would not allow it to go unchecked.  Perhaps she had enough of an ego to think the boundaries did not apply for her.  I don't know but it appears that way to me.  If so she is not alone,.  There are some male contemporaries who seem to be of the same opinion, one of which keeps bouncing back and forth across them.  Kind of like they won't ex me I repent too fast.

Well, for me, I think the deeper issue is whether her leaders should be telling her or even had the right to tell her, to disassociate herself from the OW movement or to take down the website.

I've watched the OW movement since it's inception, and personally I can see nothing there that is damaging to the faith of any member.  To be frank, the vitriol that has been pointed her way by some of my (closest) friends has been far more damaging, not only for non-members to see (who watch on facebook for instance), but also for my friends.  I've seen a lot of unkindness.  It's been very disappointing to watch how Mormon Women are reacting to her.  

 

[USU78]

Well, for me, I think the deeper issue is whether her leaders should be telling her or even had the right to tell her, to disassociate herself from the OW movement or to take down the website.

 

 

Words fail:  how can someone possibly claim not to accept the authority of Bishops and Stake Presidents and still maintain membership?

[Abulafia]

I thought about writing a blog post about KK and her excommunication. I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

 

Instead, I wrote a blog post that has bearing on the recent events, but is from a deeply personal perspective. It is way, way too long to include here.

 

Some might enjoy it.

 

My heart really goes out to Sister Kelly and her bishop. Really.

 

-Allen

Allen, this is a sincere question, and I guess you don't have to answer it if you don't want to, but how do you square a disciplinary council with the narrative in the Gospels whereby Jesus tells the men (interesting that it is the woman and not the man held up for adultery), that are without sin to cast the first stone.

I don't know.  It just seems to me that excommunication within the LDS framework, is such a harsh step to take.   

I guess, going back to KK, that in the pastorals, (Timothy) it was an anonymous writer (not Paul) who was aiming his ire most deeply at those whom he felt were teaching false doctrine as the church was developing in the decades after the destruction of Jerusalem.  Which I guess goes to the point that Ally Isom made, which was to state that there is no doctrine concerning the ordination of women.  I took that to mean that there was a cultural and historical precedent, but not necessarily a doctrinal one.   

So, in that sense KK is espousing a change to policy rather than doctrine.  Is that really an excommunicable offence?

[Abulafia]

Words fail:  how can someone possibly claim not to accept the authority of Bishops and Stake Presidents and still maintain membership?

USU, because Bishops and S P's don't always get things right, and everyone has a god given conscience to tell the difference between right and wrong, and KK obviously feels they were wrong.   

This sounds more like the world of Ignatius (The bishop is as God) than the early communities..

[Bob Crockett]

Words fail:  how can someone possibly claim not to accept the authority of Bishops and Stake Presidents and still maintain membership?

I certainly agree with that.

 

Having read biographies of major dissidents in LDS history, the facts are often quite similar.   They challenge the jurisdiction of the disciplining authority.  They claim lack of notice.  They often refuse to appear for their hearings.  They claim a belief in the restored Gospel.  Now, ELT Harrison (Godbeite) and Edward Tullidge and Moses Thatcher are not quite the same as Kelly and Dehlin, but those three all claimed a belief in the Church and later became table-rappers. 

[DJBrown]

Well, for me, I think the deeper issue is whether her leaders should be telling her or even had the right to tell her, to disassociate herself from the OW movement or to take down the website.

I've watched the OW movement since it's inception, and personally I can see nothing there that is damaging to the faith of any member.  To be frank, the vitriol that has been pointed her way by some of my (closest) friends has been far more damaging, not only for non-members to see (who watch on facebook for instance), but also for my friends.  I've seen a lot of unkindness.  It's been very disappointing to watch how Mormon Women are reacting to her.  

 

 

 

I can't tell you how many posts on blogs I have read from members who now state they are considering handing in their letters of resignation as a result, in part, to KKs excommunication.  This all most certainly has negatively affected the faith of many who are struggling with these issues.

[Abulafia]

I certainly agree with that.

 

Having read biographies of major dissidents in LDS history, the facts are often quite similar.   They challenge the jurisdiction of the disciplining authority.  They claim lack of notice.  They often refuse to appear for their hearings.  They claim a belief in the restored Gospel.  Now, ELT Harrison (Godbeite) and Edward Tullidge and Moses Thatcher are not quite the same as Kelly and Dehlin, but those three all claimed a belief in the Church and later became table-rappers. 

I think there is a tension there.   Yes, authority in any organisation helps for smooth running and order, but surely the leaders are not God, it isn't a perfect system. Thinking that leaders are God's representatives and will always enact his will perfectly on earth, can be so dangerous.  I've seen the dangers up close.   We must use our own conscience in these matters surely?  

My SP was against my attending college.  I knew he was wrong.  

 

[DJBrown]

Allen, this is a sincere question, and I guess you don't have to answer it if you don't want to, but how do you square a disciplinary council with the narrative in the Gospels whereby Jesus tells the men (interesting that it is the woman and not the man held up for adultery), that are without sin to cast the first stone.

I don't know.  It just seems to me that excommunication within the LDS framework, is such a harsh step to take.   

I guess, going back to KK, that in the pastorals, (Timothy) it was an anonymous writer (not Paul) who was aiming his ire most deeply at those whom he felt were teaching false doctrine as the church was developing in the decades after the destruction of Jerusalem.  Which I guess goes to the point that Ally Isom made, which was to state that there is no doctrine concerning the ordination of women.  I took that to mean that there was a cultural and historical precedent, but not necessarily a doctrinal one.   

So, in that sense KK is espousing a change to policy rather than doctrine.  Is that really an excommunicable offence?

 

Consider the words of Christ in Matthew 18:

 

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."  Matthew 18:15-17

 

or Mosiah 26:36:

 

"And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out."

[juliann]

Well, for me, I think the deeper issue is whether her leaders should be telling her or even had the right to tell her, to disassociate herself from the OW movement or to take down the website.

I've watched the OW movement since it's inception, and personally I can see nothing there that is damaging to the faith of any member.  To be frank, the vitriol that has been pointed her way by some of my (closest) friends has been far more damaging, not only for non-members to see (who watch on facebook for instance), but also for my friends.  I've seen a lot of unkindness.  It's been very disappointing to watch how Mormon Women are reacting to her.  

 

I agree that taking websites down sounds a little too controlling.  More specifics would be helpful but knowing how much I use the computer is has a feeling of house arrest or something.

 

Reactions from women are just another indication of what I think was the fatal flaw in this enterprise.  She was very hard on women who didn't meet her ideological requirements even when they met most of them.  I have said this over and over, she made no attempt to bring along the "masses" and that has to happen before change will occur. 

 

The amount of "TBM" bashing on feminist sites was shocking and alienating to those of us who consider ourselves "TBMs" even while advocating for more inclusion of women....that must be built on a foundation of awareness of the need to treat women as complete and individual human beings rather than a " gender role."  I would consider myself far more liberal on these things than most LDS women but I have never felt comfortable with them as the condemnations of those like me rang out. There was no one there to temper harsh messages. It may not be right or fair, but there must be a well developed sense of trust in the Mormon community and that usually takes many years to build when beginning to go a little off script.  Without that trust, it is a wasted effort because it is almost a ritualistic dance with every step of vital importance, to gain the freedom of being able to go off script without being met with "the sermon."  And it is almost always the sermonizer that begins the contention you will be blamed for if your dance steps are botched.

 

I should add that this is just group dynamics not specific to any particular organization.

Edited June 25, 2014 by juliann

[Abulafia]

I can't tell you how many posts on blogs I have read from members who now state they are considering handing in their letters of resignation as a result, in part, to KKs excommunication.  This all most certainly has negatively affected the faith of many who are struggling with these issues.

But that is not what KK is advising.  FWIW it's not what John Dehlin is advising either.  It's one of the reasons I admire them.  For them, staying is as valid a choice as leaving.  That's not the case with many members or ex members I know.

[USU78]

USU, because Bishops and S P's don't always get things right, and everyone has a god given conscience to tell the difference between right and wrong, and KK obviously feels they were wrong.   

This sounds more like the world of Ignatius (The bishop is as God) than the early communities..

 

Here is what you had said: 

 

 

 

Well, for me, I think the deeper issue is whether her leaders should be telling her or even had the right to tell her, to disassociate herself from the OW movement or to take down the website.

 

Are you or are you not suggesting a disciplinary council has no "right to tell" a person being subjected to discipline what behaviors are expected from him during the time he is being worked with by the disciplinary council"?

Edited June 25, 2014 by USU78

[awyatt]

Allen, this is a sincere question, and I guess you don't have to answer it if you don't want to, but how do you square a disciplinary council with the narrative in the Gospels whereby Jesus tells the men (interesting that it is the woman and not the man held up for adultery), that are without sin to cast the first stone.

Every disciplinary council I've been in has, in one form or another, included the counsel to "go and sin no more." Stoning a person isn't analogous to a disciplinary council. What Christ did -- helping accusers see their errors and sinners to repent -- is a better analogy.

In the world we see disciplinary councils as punishment. They aren't. The are, more often than not, a step in repentance.

-Allen

[juliann]

But that is not what KK is advising.  FWIW it's not what John Dehlin is advising either.  It's one of the reasons I admire them.  For them, staying is as valid a choice as leaving.  That's not the case with many members or ex members I know.

 

That works until KK said if they stay they should raise hell.  She is saying so many, many self-damaging things right now.  There is a myth building that she has never been anything but respectful. This works about as well as claiming the church was never racist because its intentions were good.  At some point, either the negative and accusatory comments have to stop or there has to be at least minimal recognition that they are there and still coming.  It is a just admit it and move on that defenders of the church had to learn.

 

And...I just got off the phone with a friend who considers herself a "middle" in the Rosalynde Welch kind of way but had reserved judgment on OW.  She was disgusted by KK comparing church leaders to rapists and criminal cases her mother prosecutes in yesterday's interview.  Her words were "I'm done with her."  So for those wanting to leave the church now , there is another sizable population that wants to leave her as she vilifies leaders. This leads me to wonder if OW can recover with her at the helm at this point.

[ELF1024]

As to your second point, I guess it is all a matter of perspective, but the church chose to excommunicate her. 

 

 

As a formerly excommunicated member, I disagree. The Church did not excommunicate KK, she excommunicated herself by her actions, and the church reacted as it was forced to by her actions and unwillingness to abide council.

 

The Church did not decide that some person, innocent of wrong doing, was suddently unworthy of membership. KK, willfully and knowingly chose to put her own judgement over that of those men she feely choose to sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

 

She purposefully chose to not abide by council and chose to go her own way and do her own thing. That kind of hubris is a killer, I would know.

 

It is my opinion, that if KK and OW were truely concerned with effecting change, they would not be doing so in such an antagonistic manner. Change cannot be forced upon the Church, not matter how well intended or how "correct" the change may be. When you put yourself above the bretheren, when you try and force change; you put the leadership up against a wall. At that point, they cannot allow change, and if such a change is even possible, it has been pushed back years because of her arrogance and methods. Any real progress that was made, has been set back by years because of her.

 

Should at some point in time, KK follow in the example of the Prodical Son and return to church, humble and willing to recieve and act upon council, then I am sure she will be embraced once more by the Church and it's membership. However, as long as she is determined to dig in her heels and demand that people do it her way, the less likely any change she represents will be done in her lifetime.

 

 

From the church's point of view, I would have thought it would have been better to try and work with them?

 

It would have been far better for KK to humble herself, and work with the church instead of taking an activist stand and trying to force her will upon the membership.

 

Discussions around the 1978 Preisthood Revelation were ongoing for 20 years before the Church had the revelation. Why should anyone expect that this discussion will take any less time. While it is my personal belief that women will not be ordained to the priesthood in this life, I could very well be wrong; and should such a relevation happen; I would be willing to put my own pride aside and follow the men who I have sustained.

 

Patience, the Lord's ways are not our ways, and his time is not our time.

Edited June 25, 2014 by ELF1024

[gtaggart]

That works until KK said if they stay they should raise hell.  She is saying so many, many self-damaging things right now.  There is a myth building that she has never been anything but respectful. This works about as well as claiming the church was never racist because its intentions were good.  At some point, either the negative and accusatory comments have to stop or there has to be at least minimal recognition that they are there and still coming.  It is a just admit it and move on that defenders of the church had to learn.

 

And...I just got off the phone with a friend who considers herself a "middle" in the Rosalynde Welch kind of way but had reserved judgment on OW.  She was disgusted by KK comparing church leaders to rapists and criminal cases her mother prosecutes in yesterday's interview.  Her words were "I'm done with her."  So for those wanting to leave the church now , there is another sizable population that wants to leave her as she vilifies leaders. This leads me to wonder if OW can recover with her at the helm at this point.

 

Juliann, I agree. My impression a week ago was that it would just be a matter of time before Sister Kelly became the feminist blogosphere's Clive Bundy. 

[cinepro]

I notice that in this interview, she admits to meeting one more time--May 5--one of the times mentioned in the letter she received from her bishop. Isn't this a new admission, one also contrary to the narrative that she never met with her bishop or stake president?

 

I think she has different definitions of what a "meeting" is.  From what I can tell, what she wanted was a get-together with leaders where they gave equal time and consideration to her views, in an amicable roundtable format.  I suspect a big component of this meeting would be her being able to educate and instruct the leaders about women and the priesthood, and their being receptive to her message.

 

So while she may have been in a "meeting" with the leaders in the sense that they were in the same room, privately, and at a pre-arranged time, I suspect the format of those meetings was more of a one-way line of communication where the leaders set the tone and subject matter, and she was expected to be more receptive to what she was being told.

[ERayR]

Well, for me, I think the deeper issue is whether her leaders should be telling her or even had the right to tell her, to disassociate herself from the OW movement or to take down the website.

I've watched the OW movement since it's inception, and personally I can see nothing there that is damaging to the faith of any member.  To be frank, the vitriol that has been pointed her way by some of my (closest) friends has been far more damaging, not only for non-members to see (who watch on facebook for instance), but also for my friends.  I've seen a lot of unkindness.  It's been very disappointing to watch how Mormon Women are reacting to her.  

 

 

It was her actions associated with OW that got her outside the boundaries.  It was, in the judgement, of those whose purview it was to hold and make judgements in this case that OW was an organization whose aims and efforts were opposed to and harmful to the Church.  From what I have seen of it I agree with that assessment.  They did not tell her she had to disassociate herself.  What they said was that if she wished to remain a member of the Church.  She then had a choice, either the Church or OW.  She made the choice deciding in favor of OW.  This makes the protestations of great loss ring somewhat hollow.

 

You may not see anything damaging to someones faith but then you do not profess to have faith in the Church or its teachings so it would be difficult for you to see.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think she has different definitions of what a "meeting" is.  From what I can tell, what she wanted was a get-together with leaders where they gave equal time and consideration to her views, in an amicable roundtable format.  I suspect a big component of this meeting would be her being able to educate and instruct the leaders about women and the priesthood, and their being receptive to her message.

 

So while she may have been in a "meeting" with the leaders in the sense that they were in the same room, privately, and at a pre-arranged time, I suspect the format of those meetings was more of a one-way line of communication where the leaders set the tone and subject matter, and she was expected to be more receptive to what she was being told.

 

A normative definition of meeting is "a coming together of two or more persons by chance or prearrangement." Denying that it's a meeting if it doesn't go how you want it to -- and thereby denying that a meeting took place -- strikes me as being blatantly disingenuous.

[gtaggart]

I think she has different definitions of what a "meeting" is.  From what I can tell, what she wanted was a get-together with leaders where they gave equal time and consideration to her views, in an amicable roundtable format.  I suspect a big component of this meeting would be her being able to educate and instruct the leaders about women and the priesthood, and their being receptive to her message.

 

So while she may have been in a "meeting" with the leaders in the sense that they were in the same room, privately, and at a pre-arranged time, I suspect the format of those meetings was more of a one-way line of communication where the leaders set the tone and subject matter, and she was expected to be more receptive to what she was being told.

 

You may be right; however, in her letter to her bishopric of June 21, 2014, she wrote:

 

While we interacted frequently in passing, none of you know me well. I am saddened by the fact that you  never took the time to ask me questions or get to know my heart while I was living in your ward. Despite the fact that I emailed you in March 2013, August 2013, October 2013 & again in April 2014 regarding my Ordain Women activities, you never bothered to respond or follow-up on my repeated invitation to engage in an open dialogue in person.

 

 

On her blog on June 11, 2104, she wrote:

 

I was open and honest with my bishop from the day we launched ordainwomen.org on March 17, 2013. I communicated with him each and every time Ordain Women did an action and asked that he come to me if he had any questions. While I was living in his ward, he never once personally called me in to meet with him. Nor did he email or call me with any questions regarding Ordain Women. Three weeks after I had moved out of his ward, he sent me this letter.  Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike. (emphasis supplied)

 

 

Whatever else she meant by these statements, she surely meant to leave the impression that her bishop and stake president never talked to her about her Ordain Women activities--except for her December 12, 2013 meeting with her bishop--which she says she blogged about--and her meeting with her stake president on May 5, 2014.

 

By the way, if she did meet with her bishop and stake president on December 12, 2103, what are we to make of the bolded statement in the second quote above? That is, do we need to parse every word to get at her meaning?

Edited June 25, 2014 by gtaggart

[smac97]

Here's an interesting interview with Kate Kelly the day after she was excommunicated. Some excerpts (emphases added):

 

‘They’ve Kicked Me Out of Heaven’: Meet Kate Kelly, the Mormon Feminist Who Was Excommunicated by Her Church

By Mary Emily O’Hara

June 25, 2014 | 10:30 am

VICE News: What are the events that led up to this moment? Tell us about your work with Ordain Women and when you began advocating for gender equality in the church.

Kate Kelly: I’m an international human rights attorney and was doing work with men and women all over the world. My clients were in Zimbabwe and Western Sahara and Cuba and Peru, and I came to a point in January last year when frankly I just felt like a hypocrite. I was doing this work in different places but I realized I wasn’t standing up for myself and the people I most loved, the people surrounding me in my immediate community. So I said, I’ve got to do something about this. I called and researched people who had written about ordination of women in the church and I got a group of women together and we decided to commit ourselves to direct action. I’m an activist in other ways in my life, and I was very committed to the idea of bringing direct action in a Mormon context.

We launched the website on March 2013. It features profiles and testimonials of Mormon men and women who want the priesthood for women, female ordination. We also have a Facebook page, Twitter account, Pinterest. Mormon women really love Pinterest for some reason.

She "called and researched people who had written about ordination of women in the church and I got a group of women together and we decided to commit ourselves to direct action."

We already know about Margaret Toscano, who was probably in this group. I wonder who else was involved, and why Kate Kelly is keeping their identities from public view.
 

VICE News: How does the ordination of women play into the deeper gender inequality in the Mormon community you hope to change?

Kate Kelly: We want full equality and ordination. Total parity is our goal. The way the Mormon Church hierarchy is structured, you have to be ordained to the priesthood to have any leadership capacity, to perform ordinances, to participate in rites — that kind of thing. That’s why we’re focusing on the ordination of women.

"We want full equality and ordination." Her previous claims about merely wanting to ask the Brethren to seek a revelation about it seem increasingly flimsy and pretextual.
 

VICE News: Tell us about your excommunication.

Kate Kelly: On Monday I was informed by my church that the result of a trial for the charge of apostasy was returned against me and I was excommunicated from the Church of Latter-Day Saints. I was sent a letter that lists all the restrictions. I’m no longer a member of the church, I cannot participate in any local congregation, I can’t have an assignment within the church, I can’t pray out loud, I can’t tithe, I can’t go to the temple — I basically can’t do anything Mormons do. Aside from all of those day-to-day things that I’ve now been barred from doing, all of the ordinances that have been performed are now null. My baptism is canceled. My marriage is canceled. All of the ordinances that have been performed throughout my lifetime are now void. It’s hard to understand, but in Mormonism we believe that marriages are eternal, so you’re with your husband not only in this life but also in heaven. Essentially what they’ve done is, they’ve not only kicked me out of church, they’ve also kicked me out of heaven. If I had children, we would no longer be together in heaven. My parents are also now being targeted for continuing to support me.

VICE News: Is your excommunication essentially a warning to other Mormon progressives to not to speak out publicly against the church?

Kate Kelly: I think the church is trying to scare people away from asking questions out loud, particularly women. I don’t think that’s going to be successful. Mormon women are getting much bolder. We have more courage than we used to. We’re extremely talented and extremely capable, so even though that’s what they’re attempting to do, I don’t think it’s going to be successful.

VICE News: When did your work first begin to receive opposition from church leaders?

Kate Kelly: Right away. When we launched the website we got pushback from a lot of average Mormons. I received my notice that I was put on what’s called informal probation, which is like the precursor to excommunication, on May 22. And it said that the trial would be held on June 8.

VICE News: Is there a long tradition of women fighting for equality in the Mormon church? Have many been excommunicated?

Kate Kelly: It goes in waves. The last big wave — or what people call “the purge” — was in 1993, and it was a group of people called the September Six. Some of them were excommunicated for the exact same thing we’re doing, for speaking out in favor of gender equality. The actual excommunication is carried out on the local level…. September Six was the last time it was a real attack on a specific group of people. I think this is sort of a repetition of that history. Really, this is a 15th Century solution to a 21st Century problem.

VICE News: What happens now? How will you continue to exercise your faith outside of the church now that you’ve been excommunicated?

Kate Kelly: I do not acknowledge that God recognizes this decision. I don’t think that I’m not going to be in heaven with my family. I don’t think these men have control over that. But as far as my everyday worship, it’s going to be severely impacted and limited. I’m now seen as a complete outsider in the community, so it’s going to very, very negatively impact my everyday worship. Honestly, I don’t know… it’s only been 24 hours! I don’t know what the future holds. Yesterday was awful. I felt very dejected. I felt like when I was telling people what was happening to me, I was telling them about a dead person. But that person was me. And I’m still here.

She's sort of schizophrenic on the effect of her excommunication. At first she says "they’ve not only kicked me out of church, they’ve also kicked me out of heaven" and that if she had children "we would no longer be together in heaven." But at the end of the intervie she says that she "do(es) not acknowledge that God recognizes this decision," and that she thinks she will "be in heaven with (her) family."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Whatever else she meant by these statements, she surely meant to leave the impression that her bishop and stake president never talked to her about her Ordain Women activities--except for her December 12, 2013 meeting with her bishop--which she says she blogged about--and her meeting with her stake president on May 5, 2014.

 

By the way, if she did meet with her bishop and stake president on December 12, 2103, what are we to make of the bolded statement in the second quote above? That is, do we need to parse every word to get at her meaning?

Honestly yes, I think we'll have to parse out every word.  Note how carefully her denials pertain to email and telephone communications (but apparently not in-person discussions).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[ERayR]

By the way, if she did meet with her bishop and stake president on December 12, 2103, what are we to make of the bolded statement in the second quote above? That is, do we need to parse every word to get at her meaning?

 

At the risk of offending my attorney friends i am going to say yes.  She is an attorney after all and attorneys are word smiths.