Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[sethpayne]

 

 

• I wonder why Kate Kelly is publicly announcing her bishop's employer. Is she trying to get him in trouble with Exxon?

 

I don't see how personal religious activity would get him in trouble with Exxon.  If Exxon did take action against him, wouldn't he have a strong case to sue for religious discrimination?

 

Kate had announced the employers of all three Bishopric members noting that after she did so, one of the counselors -- who works for the Church as PR rep in DC IIRC -- recused himself and was replaced by a former member of the Bishopric.

 

I have no idea why this info was made known -- with the exception of the Church PR employee.  There would seem to be a conflict of interest and so I think it's good he excused himself -- even if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

 

And FWIW, I'm only repeating what I have seen posted by Kate and others.  I could absolutely be getting details wrong because  I'm not intimately familiar with any of the details.

 

 

• When she speaks of a "handful of women" who have been "courageously speaking out" and "agitating" in support of female ordination, I think she is speaking of excommunicated apostates like Margaret Toscano and Lavina Fielding Anderson (she has previously publicly declared her admiration of them).

 

Well, technically speaking from a sociological PoV, Toscano and Anderson are whistleblowers, not Apostates.  Sociological apostates would be people like the Tanners who set out to harm the Church institution.  But I'm just being technical here.  If we define apostates as anyone who has been excommunicated, then sure, these women are apostates.  

 

See:  

 

Bromley, David G. 1998. "The Social Construction of Contested Exit Roles: Defectors, Whislteblowers and Apostates." In The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, edited by David G. Bromley, 19-48. Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger.

 

 

• Her comment about there not being a means of taking questions to the senior leadership is true. I actually don't have a problem with the Church's policy, as leapfrogging over local and regional leadership to go "to the top" with questions and concerns is simply not a workable solution. That said, I would like to see a general conference talk given about the appropriate way to express concerns and present ideas to the Church. While I don't think this would have made a difference for a person like Kate Kelly (whom I no longer believe has been acting in good faith), such a clarification could help others in the Church with sincere questions and proposals.

 

 

I think that is a great idea, Smac.

 

 

 

• Her comments about the disciplinary process is fairly inaccurate. The decision regarding discipline at the stake level is made by three people: the stake presidency. That is the same number as are involved in the decision at the ward level (the bishopric). The High Council sustains the disciplinary decision, but does not make it. Also, the disciplinary process is not decided on gender, but on jurisdiction over the Priesthood. So men can be tried at the ward level.

 

She certainly needs to be more clear.  Only MP-holding men are tried at the Stake level, as you say.  But actually, I think this supports her argument than *certain men* -- but not all men --  receive :special" treatment and that women are not tried at the stake level -- even if the SP must give approval.

 

 

 

• I think she comes close to bearing false witness when she states that the Church can't take away her faith in God or her testimony, thus intimating that the Church has attempted to do those things (instead of the exact opposite, as stated in the bishop's letter).

 

Do you think Kate may have been using a rhetorical device here?  Meaning that of course, the Church was not literally trying to take away these things.  I'm thinking Whitney Houston here.  "No matter what they take from me, they can't take away my dignity."  Certainly no one, in any literal sense, was trying to take Whitney's dignity.  Just a rhetorical device.

 

Just spitballing.

 

 

 

• Her attitude toward the Church seems evident by her response to the reporter's question about her bishop's encouragement to attend church, read scriptures, and pray. Kate Kelly turned even this utterly benevolent counsel into a power struggle, a grudge match ("He has no control over that...").

 

I think that's the point she's trying to make is that the problem, as she sees it, is that a man believes he has the right/duty to tell her what do do even though he just cut her off from the Church.

 

Did she mention the Bishop's counsel on the type of undergarments she is no longer "allowed" to wear?  For outsiders to Mormonism I imagine that these instructions may come off as a little odd.

 

 

 

• Her response to the "Why don't you just go somewhere else" question is interesting. She makes no reference to have a testimony of the Restored Gospel and its truth claims, or of any spiritual aspect of it. Instead, she talks about Mormonism simply as a social construct, a "community" or club. I think this may indicate why the OW group has paid lip service to the Church being guided by revelation, but why they have then proceeded to disregard revelation and demand female ordination and saying "and nothing less will suffice."

 

Depending on the setting I will speak of the Church as a social organization and in others, such as F&T meeting, I will share my spiritual beliefs.  I'm not sure we can conclude anything about Kate's beliefs from an argument from silence.  In fact, I've heard her bear her testimony in a spiritual fireside-like setting.  In fact, I've heard several OW women supporters bear very strong testimonies.  Sure, they may differ from yours or mine, but they are testimonies of the restoration nonetheless.

Edited June 27, 2014 by sethpayne

[smac97]

I don't see how personal religious activity would get him in trouble with Exxon.

What do you know about a fellow named Brendan Eich?

There is no legitimate reason to publicly identify her bishop's employer. There is, however, a possible illegitimate reason: To arrange a Brendan Eich-type scenario.

 

If Exxon did take action against him, wouldn't he have a strong case to sue for religious discrimination?

That is quite a separate question from whether Kate Kelly is trying to get him in trouble with his employer.

 

Well, technically speaking from a sociological PoV, Toscano and Anderson are whistleblowers, not Apostates.

These are not mutually exclusive categories. David Bromley's say-so notwithstanding, both were excommunicated for apostasy, thus making them apostates.

 

If we define apostates as anyone who has been excommunicated, then sure, these women are apostates.

No. We define apostates as anyone who has been excommunicated for apostasy.

 

She certainly needs to be more clear. Only MP-holding men are tried at the Stake level, as you say. But actually, I think this supports her argument than *certain men* -- but not all men -- receive :special" treatment and that women are not tried at the stake level -- even if the SP must give approval.

First, her argument is not about "certain men," but men as a category being treated differently than women in the disciplinary process. That's not so.

Second, her argument is specious to the extent she is suggesting that there are 15 voices in the disciplinary descision at the stake level while only three at the ward level. There are three persons who make the decision at each level.

Third, I fail to see how a disciplinary council at the stake level is "special treatment." If anything, I would say that a stake-level disciplinary council is more unpleasant than a ward level one, not less. At the ward level there are four people involved (the bishop, two counselors, and the court clerk, with the clerk not participating in the process except to take notes). At the stake level there are usually sixteen people involved (the stake president, his counselors, 12 high council members, and the stake clerk). In what world is a person having their transgressions presented to sixteen people preferable to having them presented to four people?

 

Do you think Kate may have been using a rhetorical device here?

Yes. She is falsely characterizing her opponent for rhetorical advantage.

 

I think that's the point she's trying to make is that the problem, as she sees it, is that a man believes he has the right/duty to tell her what do do even though he just cut her off from the Church.

I don't agree. I think she took his words and put the most tendentious, uncharitable spin possible on them.

 

Did she mention the Bishop's counsel on the type of undergarments she is no longer "allowed" to wear? For outsiders to Mormonism I imagine that these instructions may come off as a little odd.

Yes, well, those instructions were not intended for "outsiders," were they? And those instructions are definitely not "a little odd" for any Latter-day Saint who has attended the temple.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2014 by smac97

[sethpayne]

 

Yes. She is falsely characterizing her opponent for rhetorical advantage.

 

 

If I ever need a lawyer, I'm calling you!  You answered a question I didn't ask.  

 

Of course she's working for a rhetorical advantage.  My question was about her use of a rhetorical device.  Meaning that she does not *literally* mean that the Church is trying to take away belief, faith etc...

 

I'm not defending the statement.  I'm just wondering if your initial interpretation was overly-literal.

Edited June 27, 2014 by sethpayne

[smac97]

If I ever need a lawyer, I'm calling you!  You answered a question I didn't ask.  

You asked: "Do you think Kate may have been using a rhetorical device here?" I answered it.

 

Of course she's working for a rhetorical advantage.

I get that. But falsely characterizing one's opponent for rhetorical advantage is contemptible. That's my point.

My question was about her use of a rhetorical device.  Meaning that she does not *literally* mean that the Church is trying to take away belief, faith etc...

The Church is also not trying to figuratively take away her faith, either. It is contemptible for her to suggest that it is.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

My bishop is a lawyer for Exxon.

 

 

This concerns me greatly.  There has been a concerted effort to destroy people's careers because they came out on the wrong side of Prop. 8. This is an uncomfortable echo of that for no other reason that there no reason to be mentioning this detail.

[Scott Lloyd]

If I ever need a lawyer, I'm calling you!  You answered a question I didn't ask.  

 

Of course she's working for a rhetorical advantage.  My question was about her use of a rhetorical device.  Meaning that she does not *literally* mean that the Church is trying to take away belief, faith etc...

 

I'm not defending the statement.  I'm just wondering if your initial interpretation was overly-literal.

If she's working for rhetorical advantage, she likely wouldn't mind if hearers took her words literally.

 

It's an example of using words to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

[smac97]

This concerns me greatly.  There has been a concerted effort to destroy people's careers because they came out on the wrong side of Prop. 8. This is an uncomfortable echo of that for no other reason that there no reason to be mentioning this detail.

I just sent the following email to the OW group via their website:

Dear OW Group:

Kate Kelly gave an interview with NPR recently: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/27/326158669/excommunicated-mormon-says-church-cant-cant-take-away-her-faith

In this interview she identifies her bishop's employer (Exxon). I am struggling to understand why she would include such a detail in a media interview. The only reason I can think of is that she is hoping to damage her bishop's career by fomenting public sentiment against his employer (not unlike what happened recently to Brendan Eich at Mozilla - see here: http://tinyurl.com/l86v727).

As your group prides itself on encouraging discussion, I hope you will respond to this inquiry.

Thank you,

I will post any response I receive. I invite anyone else who is curious about why Kate Kelly is publicly announcing the identity of her bishop's employer to also contact the OW group.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

This concerns me greatly.  There has been a concerted effort to destroy people's careers because they came out on the wrong side of Prop. 8. This is an uncomfortable echo of that for no other reason that there no reason to be mentioning this detail.

I wonder also if there may be an oblique effort here at playing to an anti-capitalist mindset among her listeners, as in "Look what was done to this feminist crusader by this guy who is entrenched in the big, bad corporate world." I recall that Exxon has had some bad PR in the recent past such that bringing up the bishop's employment would touch a nerve among individuals of a liberal political bent.

[Scott Lloyd]

If I ever need a lawyer, I'm calling you!  You answered a question I didn't ask.  

 

You might want to consider calling Kate Kelly, if you're looking for someone who has demonstrated a capacity for using words as weapons.

[smac97]

I wonder also if there may be an oblique effort here at playing to an anti-capitalist mindset among her listeners, as in "Look what was done to this feminist crusader by this guy who is entrenched in the big, bad corporate world." I recall that Exxon has had some bad PR in the recent past such that bringing up the bishop's employment would touch a nerve among individuals of a liberal political bent.

Mozilla was likewise sensitive to "bad PR," hence Brendan Eich's situation.

Is Kate Kelly looking for the same sort of thing? I think that's a fair question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

I just sent the following email to the OW group via their website:

I will post any response I receive. I invite anyone else who is curious about why Kate Kelly is publicly announcing the identity of her bishop's employer to also contact the OW group.

Thanks,

-Smac

Honestly, it seemed to me that noting her Bishop's job and employer was just an observation. OW has about 1/1,000,000 of the power and notoriety of the LGBT movement, and the idea that a fringe group of Mormon women would ever cross the radar of a $400 billion company to the point that they would take action against their own employee (in the legal department no less) seems a little absurd.

But I could be wrong. I suspect if there is a more retaliatory motive at work, it won't be a mystery for very long.

[smac97]

Honestly, it seemed to me that noting her Bishop's job and employer was just an observation.

I can see it that way (plausible deniability and all that). But it seemed like she shoe-horned this information into the interview. It is one thing to talk about the Church having a lay ministry. It seemed unnecessary to specifically use her bishop as an example of that, and to further explain that he is an attorney, and that he is an attorney that works for Exxon.

I'm not willing to dismiss this as mere inadvertence. However, I have also contacted the OW group and asked for an explanation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

You might want to consider calling Kate Kelly, if you're looking for someone who has demonstrated a capacity for using words as weapons.

 

Zing!!!   

[Scott Lloyd]

Mozilla was likewise sensitive to "bad PR," hence Brendan Eich's situation.

Is Kate Kelly looking for the same sort of thing? I think that's a fair question.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair indeed.

[why me]

Honestly, it seemed to me that noting her Bishop's job and employer was just an observation. OW has about 1/1,000,000 of the power and notoriety of the LGBT movement, and the idea that a fringe group of Mormon women would ever cross the radar of a $400 billion company to the point that they would take action against their own employee (in the legal department no less) seems a little absurd.

But I could be wrong. I suspect if there is a more retaliatory motive at work, it won't be a mystery for very long.

It would not be surprising for her to mention his employer so that people could write in to the company to complain about their employee's decision of 'discrimination' or to state that they will not buy the company's product or use the company for business. This is also direct action by Kate,  if she did it for this reason. It would be a passive-aggressive action by her because it would go under the radar of most people but not by those who would get the message loud and clear: the feminist activists.

[mormonnewb]

It would not be surprising for her to mention his employer so that people could write in to the company to complain about their employee's decision of 'discrimination' or to state that they will not buy the company's product or use the company for business. This is also direct action by Kate, if she did it for this reason. It would be a passive-aggressive action by her because it would go under the radar of most people but not by those who would get the message loud and clear: the feminist activists.

We can't sneak anything past you. This was KK's first step in her plan for world domination. First, her legion of a few hundred Mormon housewives were going to take down Exxon by refusing to use its gas in the morning carpools to school. The $100 a month or so in lost sales will send the company into a fiscal tailspin. But now, that you've caught her, she'll have to move to Plan B -- a dual boycott of motorcycles and black hair care products. We'll have Harley Davidson and hair weave sellers shaking in their boots.

Edited June 28, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Sevenbak]

Honestly, it seemed to me that noting her Bishop's job and employer was just an observation. OW has about 1/1,000,000 of the power and notoriety of the LGBT movement, and the idea that a fringe group of Mormon women would ever cross the radar of a $400 billion company to the point that they would take action against their own employee (in the legal department no less) seems a little absurd.

But I could be wrong. I suspect if there is a more retaliatory motive at work, it won't be a mystery for very long.

Well, having covered both marches/protests, I can tell you that many of the same players I've seen at the various LGBT protests in SLC, counted themselves as part of the OW protests.   Frankly, the whole situation has stuck in my craw from the first year they did it.   Kelly, who said she was the ward music director, didn't know the words to The Spirit of God, which she led the group in as a opening hymn in the park.  She used her phone to read then lyrics, and they repeated the first verse instead of using the right lyrics.  There were several other "fishy" situations that can't help but make me think this whole thing stinks to high heavens, and was a set up from the beginning.  She is a Human Rights Lawyer after all.  I admit I was played like a fiddle as I'm in the media, but I knew that going in, and had a job to do, and they knew that going in.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Sevenbak

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................    

• Her comment about there not being a means of taking questions to the senior leadership is true. I actually don't have a problem with the Church's policy, as leapfrogging over local and regional leadership to go "to the top" with questions and concerns is simply not a workable solution. That said, I would like to see a general conference talk given about the appropriate way to express concerns and present ideas to the Church. While I don't think this would have made a difference for a person like Kate Kelly (whom I no longer believe has been acting in good faith), such a clarification could help others in the Church with sincere questions and proposals.

• ................................................................   

-Smac

There are now and always have been ways of taking issues to the senior leadership (the "Brethren").  I have done so a few times and have never had my comments returned to local leaders.  Such comments should be serious, sincere, and confidential.  Naturally, ordinary everyday, run-of-the-mill matters should be dealt with locally.  The Brethren simply don't have the time to deal with every single comment a member may have.  There are simply too many of us.

[Rain]

It wouldn't even phase me that she was a choir director and didn't know the words to the Spirit of God. My husband was choir director for awhile and is unlikely to know them all either. I sing quite a few songs without the hymn book when others need it, but I am not sure I could sing that one.

Some hymns just don't get sung very often in some wards. If I were a music leader I would rarely choose that song because it is hard for me to sing.

What are we hoping to gain from all of this analyzing of what KK said or did? Serious question.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Rain

[sethpayne]

What are we hoping to gain from all of this analyzing of what KK said or did? Serious question.

 

The more we can cast doubt on her motives and character, the easier  it is to ignore the substantive issues she raised.  

[Sevenbak]

It's not a random song out of the book.  It's one of the most known and polular hymns for Mormons.  It has a long history with the saints, is sung at temple dedications today as was in Kirtland, is listed as number 2 in the hymnal, etc, etc.,  The song is to Mormons what peanuts and hot dogs are to baseball.

But that wasn't the only thing, just part of a list of what I noticed that didn't seem right.  Another was when they went back to the park after their hour long one-by-one-deny-me-at-the-door-of-the-Tabernacle. Their repeated stated intent was to all watch the streaming session on their smart phones.  None of them did, until the cameras showed back up at the park.  Then they came out.  Just another of the things that make you go hmmmmmm….

[Calm]

Well, having covered both marches/protests, I can tell you that many of the same players I've seen at the various LGBT protests in SLC, counted themselves as part of the OW protests. Frankly, the whole situation has stuck in my craw from the first year they did it. Kelly, who said she was the ward music director, didn't know the words to The Spirit of God, which she led the group in as a opening hymn in the park. She used her phone to read then lyrics, and they repeated the first verse instead of using the right lyrics.

Music could have been nerves or just not being used to sing without music. I would have a hard time remembering. I am going blank now because I am trying to remember lyrics and music at the same time. There is other problematic stuff but I wouldn't rate this one high.

The playing to the cameras is high.

Edited June 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

It's not a random song out of the book. It's one of the most known and polular hymns for Mormons. It has a long history with the saints, is sung at temple dedications today as was in Kirtland, is listed as number 2 in the hymnal, etc, etc., The song is to Mormons what peanuts and hot dogs are to baseball.

But that wasn't the only thing, just part of a list of what I noticed that didn't seem right. Another was when they went back to the park after their hour long one-by-one-deny-me-at-the-door-of-the-Tabernacle. Their repeated stated intent was to all watch the streaming session on their smart phones. None of them did, until the cameras showed back up at the park. Then they came out. Just another of the things that make you go hmmmmmm….

I happen to agree with you, I don't want to, but I do. The way they handled that does seem insincere, whereas they cared nothing of what was spoken at that given moment in the PH meeting, unless they figured they'd just watch it later. But for sure they don't seem as dedicated to the church as some of the women leaders in the church. And there does seem to be a few disaffected or on the fringe members in the group,and some that might have a bone to pick. I think a few may just be angry enough to leave the church altogether, possibly her parents. I hope they never read Mormon Dialogue.

[Abulafia]

The more we can cast doubt on her motives and character, the easier  it is to ignore the substantive issues she raised.

Yep. I think the assumption being that a truly faithful and honourable woman (set of women) wouldn't challenge the brethren on the issue of female ordination specifically. She's really gone for the jugular. Know your place woman!

[Pahoran]

Yep. I think the assumption being that a truly faithful and honourable woman (set of women) wouldn't challenge the brethren on the issue of female ordination specifically. She's really gone for the jugular. Know your place woman!

That's right. Because we all assume that a truly faithful and honourable man (set of men) would challenge the brethren on the issue of female ordination specifically.

And frequently, too.

They do it all the time.

It's only women who can't get away with it.

Isn't that what you are saying?

Regards,

Pahoran