Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

As one who aspires to be a wordsmith, I am uncomfortable with the application of that term to the ability or disposition to use words to obfuscate meaning.

 

A true wordsmith, as I prefer to regard the term, would do just the opposite.

[ERayR]

As one who aspires to be a wordsmith, I am uncomfortable with the application of that term to the ability or disposition to use words to obfuscate meaning.

 

A true wordsmith, as I prefer to regard the term, would do just the opposite.

 

Any gift or talent has its dark side.

[why me]

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.

First, let me say that I am a simple guy. And I am not active in the church.  I am not worthy for a temple recommend because of the way I lead my life. Now of course, I could gather a group of people like me together and begin a protest movement to allow people like me into the temple. For after all, the church is for sinners why not the temple? Of course, I also don't pay tithing. I tend to keep my 10 percent myself. I could begin a movement that pressures the church to stop this mandatory tithing payment. Why not? What does the church have to lose with my two protest movements.

 

Of course, if I were an active member in Utah, I could begin a movement to restore polygamy. Why not. I would go to my friends who practice polygamy and tell them my plan...for after all if KK can get away with it why not my polygamy movement. My friends and I would begin a six point missionary discussion program among the members about why the church should reinstate polygamy. We could do a very good job in convincing the members. What does the church have to lose? Nothing. Trust me, I would have the backbone to do it,  especially if there are no consequences. I could form many movements within the church. No problem. And I know people would certainly do it if KK got a green light for her movement. But would my organizations be healthy for the church? Or any other protest organization? Maybe not. Too much backbone and division in the church.

 

Finally, I will be honest with you. Since I am a rotten member who exercises his free agency, I don't have much to lose with all this.  However, I did have some pretty powerful spiritual experiences in the church when I was active four decades ago. So, I still trust the leaders of the church. And so, I have no intention of doubting the leaders on this issue.  Now if I ever believed that the church were just led by men and if I were active, I would probably stop paying tithing, I would get rid of my garments, and fight like heck for the vision that I would have for the church. Why not...if it is only lead by men and  not god. But the church does claim god as its leader. So, I would be in the corner for sure. Who would I protest? God?

[thesometimesaint]

I've seen better temper tantrums put on by teenage drama queens. When big bad daddy told them no they can't have sleepover with their teenage boy friends.

[Duncan]

Well, the question here is whether there is an effective procedure for a woman specifically to ask for change.  Change has come about.  The YA program for instance was developed as a result of one of the leaders (I forget who) experience of talking with his wife.  That's haphazard, though beneficial to the YA's of the church.

Sadly, I think that many members who do have questions or issues with church structure are of the opinion that the only way to effect change is to bring the matter into the public domain.  Don't forget that as a human rights attorney Kate will also be aware of the importance of openness, something the church is getting, slowly better at.

Over here in the UK, so many meetings have, by law, to be a matter of public record.  Parish Meetings, council meetings, and even what is debated in parliament. That's not necessarily a bad thing.  Openness brings fresh air to dark places and shadowy corners.  It's good for the soul.

As to your second point, I guess it is all a matter of perspective, but the church chose to excommunicate her.  I've never heard her question the historical narrative in the way John Dehlin has or express the same doubts.   Her beliefs and mission has always been clear.  

Personally, it greatly puzzles me why 3 men who nigh near got a Prophet in court for fraud are still in good standing with the church.  Having said that, this is the danger (from a certain perspective) of the OW movement.  It's influential.  I am well aware of some women over here in the UK who the church are losing over this issue, and where the leaders have been heavy handed in trying to shut them down in terms of their support for the OW movement.   

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

 

 

if you're talking about Tom Phillips I wonder that as well! We have two Brits missionaries serving in our stake, a Scouser and a Geordie, and sounds like the OW movement is the least of their concerns!

[why me]

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.

Like I said, I am a simple guy. The question is rather simple for active and  inactive members to ask: Is the church led by god or by human beings? If it is led by god, then I would need to trust that god is directing this church. If I think that this church is led by human beings without divine direction, I would need to act in another way.

 

When you say the church could have stood up for this or that, who is the church and who is leading this church? Like I said, I could protest against the church for playing it safe but who would I be protesting against? God or human beings or a mixture of both?

Edited June 25, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

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

I guess have not seen her that way given the representations of membership at the beginning as faithful LDS (when it has always been a mix of faithful, non believing, ex and nonmembers...which in itself is not a problem, just claiming otherwise) and her claims about being respectful etc (after saying some nasty things about other feminists, her bishop) be a matter of perspective I suppose.

"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 ..."

Skype is definitely not ideal, but it actually might add a sense of confidence given one is not being confronted with all those people at once.

If the process had begun at her old ward and they were best familiar with it, would it not be best to finish it where it started? The new bishop would have had to judge on what others had told them, lack the additional context of knowing how Kelly interacted at church, her level of participation as opposed to just occupying a seat, he would have heard the testimonies she had given over the years, seen what effect if any her work with OW was affecting (in good or negative ways) not only herself but those around her so he would have a better awareness of the impact her choices were having. Given that apostasy is more about your behaviour towards others and includes the potential effect of one's actions on their involvement in the Church, the former bishop was in a much better place to take all that nuanced context into effect and he would not have developed his first impressions of her with the OW hanging over her as well...a huge benefit the new bishop would not have had.

Removed one claimed misreprentations that I overstated.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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

 

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.

 

"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.

 

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

I've noticed she tends to shift back and forth between passive-aggressiveness and overt attack, depending on her rhetorical needs at the moment.

[Zakuska]

I guess have not seen her that way, but her misreprentations of her interactions at the protests (claiming they weren't requested to leave when they were), the membership at the beginning as faithful LDS (when it has always been a mix of faithful, non believing, ex and nonmembers...which in itself is not a problem, just claiming otherwise) and her claims about being respectful etc (after saying some nasty things about other feminists, her bishop) be a matter of perspective I suppose.

Where are you getting this information Cal? She turned in a video showing otherwise.  I think, or did I miss something/

[Ahab]

We should all mourn. A child of God has lost their way and lost their membership in the Church. As such, baptismal, endowment, and sealing blessings are lost. Her eternal salvation is at risk.

Additionally, we should mourn for the havoc she has wrought upon the image of the Church. No doubt, she has hurt the faith and testimony of others. Critics of the Church are dancing with delight over this affair. Rather than building the kingdom of God, she has wrought controversy and contention.

I think moments like this call for sober and serious reflection, and that doesn't mean we must give up all hope that she will eventually be counted among the saints of God again.

Just as it was before, she must choose to do the right thing if she wants to be rewarded with good things for the works she can do.

[why me]

Smac, Kelly's reference to direct action is an interesting concept. It basically means the ability to protest, agitate and propagate to force change or pressure for change. It is a rather radical concept.

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Direct_action.html

 

Direct action is activity undertaken by individuals, groups, or governments to achieve political, economic, or social goals outside of normal social/political channels. Direct action can include nonviolent and violent activities which target persons, groups, or property deemed offensive to the direct action participant. Examples of nonviolent direct action include strikes, workplace occupations, sit-ins, sabotage, property destruction and graffiti. Violent direct actions include assault and murder. By contrast, grassroots organizing, electoral politics, diplomacy and negotiation or arbitration do not constitute direct action. Direct actions are sometimes a form of civil disobedience, but some (such as strikes) do not always violate criminal law.

The rhetoric of Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi promoted non-violent revolutionary direct action as a means to social change. Names for these include "Satya-Graha", meaning "truth-force" in sanskrit.

Direct action participants aim to either:

• obstruct another political agent or political organization from performing some practice to which the activists object; or,
• solve perceived problems which traditional societal institutions (corporations, governments, powerful churches or establishment trade unions) are not addressing to the satisfaction of the direct action participants.

In general, direct action is often used by those seeking social change, in some cases, revolutionary change. It is central to autonomism and has been advocated by a variety of marxists and anarchists, including syndicalism, anarcho-communism, insurrectionary anarchism, green anarchism, Marxist Humanists, anarcho-primitivist and pacifists.

 

 

Interesting concept. I wrote a scientific article about direction action not too long ago. It always involves struggling or fighting for change against something that is deemed repressive. In her case, she engaged in a radical feminist direct action protest struggle for social change within the church.

Edited June 25, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

Where are you getting this information Cal? She turned in a video showing otherwise. I think, or did I miss something/

Kelly talked about church leaders being two faced because they welcomed them on Temple Square and never asked them to leave by sending over police or security to escort them off and then later (Craydon iirc) making a public statement saying otherwise. It was in one of the many interviews/reports, I will try and find it if you want more precise wording but others here can confirm how good my memory is because it was talked about.

Add-on: I was wrong, it wasn't Kelly. I have not found any comments by her making that, just several other OW participants. My apologies to Kelly for confusing her. I linked to one blog by a Katie that had her and others as examples later to document my mistake.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Like I said, I am a simple guy. The question is rather simple for active and inactive members to ask: Is the church led by god or by human beings? If it is led by god, then I would need to trust that god is directing this church. If I think that this church is led by human beings without divine direction, I would need to act in another way.

When you say the church could have stood up for this or that, who is the church and who is leading this church? Like I said, I could protest against the church for playing it safe but who would I be protesting against? God or human beings or a mixture of both?

Some people believe God should and must act the way they think God should act, as if what they think is what God thinks. And that can lead to some serious repercussions when they are wrong.

And then there are some people who will try to change God's mind or the way he thinks about something when they find out that what God thinks isn't what they want God to think.

Just like a child can be seen to act in this world. Not all of us think all of the thinking is done when our Father lets us know what he thinks.

[smac97]

Where are you getting this information Cal? She turned in a video showing otherwise.  I think, or did I miss something/

 

The OW group was told before General Conference via letter that they would not be permitted to enter onto Temple Square.  They did so anyway.  Here's a potentially relevant bit reported by the Salt Lake Tribune:

 

An LDS Church statement indicated patience is wearing thin with the Ordain Women group’s efforts.

 

"Despite polite and respectful requests from church leaders not to make Temple Square a place of protest, a mixed group of men and women ignored that request and staged a demonstration outside the Tabernacle on General Conference weekend, refusing to accept ushers’ directions and refusing to leave when asked," church spokesman Cody Craynor wrote in an email Saturday evening.

...

The women and men sang "Come, Come, Ye Saints," and prayed that God "would soften the hearts" of those who met them at the gate of Temple Square, in the words of Nancy Ross, who offered the prayer.

...

On Saturday, the women were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square, Kelly said. Instead, they walked onto the square, where they formed a line circling the Tabernacle and, one by one, asked a church spokeswoman for tickets to the priesthood session.

 

Ordain Women had hired police officers as escorts Saturday night.

 

Kelly called the church’s statement after the event "unnecessarily harsh." She said once the women were inside the square, they were not asked to leave.

 

So Kate Kelly and her group repeatedly defied the Church, entered Temple Square against the prior written instructions of its owner and the request given to them at the gate, and protested there.  Technically, "there were not asked to leave," but only after they had already trespassed and protested.  They didn't need to be asked to leave, as they left after their protest was over.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Kelly talked about church leaders being two faced because they welcomed them on Temple Square and never asked them to leave by sending over police or security to escort them off and then later (Claydon iirc) making a public statement saying otherwise. It was in one of the many interviews/reports, I will try and find it if you want more precise wording but others here can confirm how good my memory is because it was talked about.

 

By all accounts there were never "welcomed" on Temple Square.  They were repeatedly told not to enter.  So Kate Kelly found fault with the Church for not calling the police and removing them from Temple Square by force?

 

Regarding their departure from Temple Square, they left as individuals or in small groups after having been turned away from the Tabernacle.  I noticed they were leaving Temple Square, so I spoke with one of the protesters (I was on Temple Square and observed the protest) who advised that they were all meeting at a nearby hotel because the weather had turned cold.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

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.

She went to care for a sick family member in Utah while waiting for the Visas to come through. It is possible the leadership were not aware she was moving so soon, either because the sick relative led to a change in plans or they just assumed she would wait there for the Visas and were not informed otherwise. The SP showed up at her house while she was packing. There is no indication that I recall from Kelly's words (though I was busy during that time period and may have missed them) that she shared with them before that any moving date. We have no information I am aware of where she asked to have this all taken care of before she left. Would be interested to see it if so.

From the bishop's timeline if he is not lying or mistaken they had been working with her on the issue specifically for only a few months even if they had been aware of it likely since her involvement started. I would not be surprised if it was the appearance and content of the discussions that caused them to believe that something needed to be changed. From his letter he seems like a kind man who would want to give someone time to make a decision and not demand an answer right away. Problem was they had less time then first believed most likely.

There are also reports of training in various places informing local leadership that apostasy (I can't remember if that was the phrase used or if it related more to public demonstrations) was a serious matter and needed to taken more seriously by local leadership (which may be why we are hearing of more cases recently) and so the bishop may have changed his mind that informal probation and letting her next leaders deal with it was no longer the best move (if that had been the original decision, who knows).

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[AZ in GA]

The OW group was told before General Conference via letter that they would not be permitted to enter onto Temple Square.  They did so anyway.  Here's a potentially relevant bit reported by the Salt Lake Tribune:

 

An LDS Church statement indicated patience is wearing thin with the Ordain Women group’s efforts.

 

"Despite polite and respectful requests from church leaders not to make Temple Square a place of protest, a mixed group of men and women ignored that request and staged a demonstration outside the Tabernacle on General Conference weekend, refusing to accept ushers’ directions and refusing to leave when asked," church spokesman Cody Craynor wrote in an email Saturday evening.

...

The women and men sang "Come, Come, Ye Saints," and prayed that God "would soften the hearts" of those who met them at the gate of Temple Square, in the words of Nancy Ross, who offered the prayer.

...

On Saturday, the women were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square, Kelly said. Instead, they walked onto the square, where they formed a line circling the Tabernacle and, one by one, asked a church spokeswoman for tickets to the priesthood session.

 

Ordain Women had hired police officers as escorts Saturday night.

 

Kelly called the church’s statement after the event "unnecessarily harsh." She said once the women were inside the square, they were not asked to leave.

 

So Kate Kelly and her group repeatedly defied the Church, entered Temple Square against the prior written instructions of its owner and the request given to them at the gate, and protested there.  Technically, "there were not asked to leave," but only after they had already trespassed and protested.  They didn't need to be asked to leave, as they left after their protest was over.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

All of this also leads me to the simple conclusion that ALL of this was planned. She is a professional agitator, using her tactics against the church. I can't imagine how she is remotely surprised by the outcome. Her followers I get. But all of this is playing out exactly as she planned it to.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

It is hard for KK to humble herself when pride fills her from head to toe. It is not for anyone to say that  God will not give the Priesthood to women.  God can give the Priesthood to cats and dogs if he wants.  God gives it to whoever he wants and sents the conditions for it. 

 

What Kate fails to recognize that the Kingdom of God is a house of order and not confusion.  Change if this magnitude come from the top down.  If God wants women the priesthood, he will initiate that change through his Apostles.  God has not replaced his established order for members of the Church with an idea and an internet connection.  The fruits of Ordain Women is clearly seen.  It is the work of the devil as it seeks change through contention and division.  Christ says in 3 Nephi 11:28-20 that establishes what is Christ and the devil is about.  The fruits set forth in that passage clearly put Ordain Women in the camp of the devil.  On that point, ever single member of the Church should stand up and denounce Ordain Women for what it is.  If people think women should have the priesthood, fast and pray to God for it.  If it is God's will, he will set the ball rolling through the established process that the Church as whole can accept.

[Calm]

By all accounts there were never "welcomed" on Temple Square. They were repeatedly told not to enter. So Kate Kelly found fault with the Church for not calling the police and removing them from Temple Square by force?

Regarding their departure from Temple Square, they left as individuals or in small groups after having been turned away from the Tabernacle. I noticed they were leaving Temple Square, so I spoke with one of the protesters (I was on Temple Square and observed the protest) who advised that they were all meeting at a nearby hotel because the weather had turned cold.

Thanks,

-Smac

The "welcome" was Sister Farah (iirc) being very gracious and loving as she apparently introduced herself to each person and shook their hand and expressed her love for them. I think she was wonderful in doing so as was Ruth Todd the previous year. But as Ruth Todd had made clear the year before, one can be loving and welcoming in the personal sense while still disapproving of someone's actions. Iirc Kim Farah was reported by Kelly or someone as saying she was pleased to have a chance to meet them (which may be true or it may have been something closer to "I am pleased to meet you" which implies something a bit different. Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[smac97]

The "welcome" was Sister Farah (iirc) being very gracious and loving. Iirc she was reported by Kelly or someone as saying she was pleased to have a chance to meet them (which may be true or it may have been something closer to "I am pleased to meet you" which implies something a bit different.

 

Sister Farah kindly turned dozens of protesters away from the Tabernacle after they entered trespassed onto Temple Square and while they were protesting there.  That's a "welcome?"  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[mormonnewb]

Some people believe God should and must act the way they think God should act, as if what they think is what God thinks. And that can lead to some serious repercussions when they are wrong.

And then there are some people who will try to change God's mind or the way he thinks about something when they find out that what God thinks isn't what they want God to think.

Just like a child can be seen to act in this world. Not all of us think all of the thinking is done when our Father lets us know what he thinks.

And some people think that the Brethren are synonymous with God and that they KNOW His will. Given that they don't always agree with each other, I don't see how that can be the case. As holy as they are, they are still MEN who have been molded and shaped by their life experiences.

The race and the priesthood article says as much. It readily it admits that the justifications for the ban were the result of prevailing mores and customs. As a result, they ERRED in knowing God's will in regards to the justifications (if not the ban itself).

Well, if our current society still has vestiges of sexism, do you think that it might be possible that these men might be in error with regards to, say, the justifications for restricting the priesthood to men (if not the restriction itself)?

[Calm]

It would appear I have transplanted another OW's comments on to Kelly herself, I will try and see if it was just random or if there was some reason more than just having read them about the same time, see Risa's comment as well as the two faced remark she is responding to:

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/04/lds-church-pr-and-ordain-women-amputating-the-body-of-christ/

This may be why I got confused, Risa 'speaks' more or less for KK:

"She was asked to go stand with protesters, and she said she was not a protester. She was not asked to leave temple square. There were police officers all over the place and temple square security. If they wanted Kate Kelly gone, they could have escorted the entire group off temple square and had her arrested for trespassing. They screamed at reporters to leave. Not Kate Kelly"

If I can't find anything from Kelly herself, I will go back and edit my posts removing this claim. If I find something, I will replace with her own comments.

Edited June 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

And some people think that the Brethren are synonymous with God and that they KNOW His will. Given that they don't always agree with each other, I don't see how that can be the case. As holy as they are, they are still MEN who have been molded and shaped by their life experiences.

The race and the priesthood article says as much. It readily it admits that the justifications for the ban were the result of prevailing mores and customs. As a result, they ERRED in knowing God's will in regards to the justifications (if not the ban itself).

Well, if our current society still has vestiges of sexism, do you think that it might be possible that these men might be in error with regards to, say, the justifications for restricting the priesthood to men (if not the restriction itself)?

God is a man too so you can't just write off what men say when they have the authority, and the keys, of the priesthood.

Just as it is written in D&C 1, whether by the voice of God himself or by the voice of those with the keys, it is by the same authority.

The issue is simply all about some people trying to get those men to change their minds and follow someone else as their leader.

[Zakuska]

 

The OW group was told before General Conference via letter that they would not be permitted to enter onto Temple Square.  They did so anyway.  Here's a potentially relevant bit reported by the Salt Lake Tribune:

 

An LDS Church statement indicated patience is wearing thin with the Ordain Women group’s efforts.

 

"Despite polite and respectful requests from church leaders not to make Temple Square a place of protest, a mixed group of men and women ignored that request and staged a demonstration outside the Tabernacle on General Conference weekend, refusing to accept ushers’ directions and refusing to leave when asked," church spokesman Cody Craynor wrote in an email Saturday evening.

...

The women and men sang "Come, Come, Ye Saints," and prayed that God "would soften the hearts" of those who met them at the gate of Temple Square, in the words of Nancy Ross, who offered the prayer.

...

On Saturday, the women were met at the gate by a church representative, who asked them to go to the public protest area outside the square, Kelly said. Instead, they walked onto the square, where they formed a line circling the Tabernacle and, one by one, asked a church spokeswoman for tickets to the priesthood session.

 

Ordain Women had hired police officers as escorts Saturday night.

 

Kelly called the church’s statement after the event "unnecessarily harsh." She said once the women were inside the square, they were not asked to leave.

 

So Kate Kelly and her group repeatedly defied the Church, entered Temple Square against the prior written instructions of its owner and the request given to them at the gate, and protested there.  Technically, "there were not asked to leave," but only after they had already trespassed and protested.  They didn't need to be asked to leave, as they left after their protest was over.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I dont think Id count peacefully walking through temple square, singing a hymn and offering a prayer even by a group as much of a Protest.  Christ was asked not to teach on temple grounds too and he and his Apostles still did. Christ screaming and throwing tables over and telling people how wrong they were, thats a Protest.

 

The Apostle Paul was even later arrested at the temple for teaching there and causing a riot..

 

Those are what I call PROTESTS!

Edited June 25, 2014 by Zakuska

[smac97]

I dont think Id count peacefully walking through temple square, singing a hymn and offering a prayer even by a group as much of a Protest.  Christ was asked not to teach on temple grounds too and he and his Apostles still did. Screaming and Throwing tables over and telling people how wrong they were. Paul was even later Arrested at the temple for teaching there and causing a riot..

 

Now that is what I call a PROTEST!

 

It was a protest.  That it was non-violent does make it something other than a protest.

 

As for comparing Kate Kelly to Jesus Christ . . . well, I have nothing to say to that.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac