Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Abulafia]

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

Well, they wouldn't need to on the subject of male priesthood? Since they have a right to hold office all the way up the chain of responsibility anyway.

Although, looking at the OW profiles, there are many (relatively speaking) men who would like full parity in office and responsibility.

Didn't a survey come back indicating that there were more men who agreed with the idea of women and priesthood office than women?

In a way I feel for the men. Often, they have a full time job, responsibilities as a father and priesthood responsibilities. Something's got to give.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Abulafia

[Pahoran]

Well, they wouldn't need to on the subject of male priesthood? Since they have a right to hold office all the way up the chain of responsibility anyway.

Although, looking at the OW profiles, there are many (relatively speaking) men who would like full parity in office and responsibility.

Didn't a survey come back indicating that there were more men who agreed with the idea of women and priesthood office than women.

In a way I feel for the men. Often, they have a full time job, responsibilities as a father and priesthood responsibilities. Somethings got to give.

Abu, the point is that you seem to suppose that Ms Kelly wasn't allowed to "challenge the brethren" about Priesthood ordination because she was a woman.

I was making fun of that rather silly assumption by taking it to its logical conclusion: you must clearly assume that she'd have gotten away with it if only she were a bloke named Ken Kelly.

(This is a technique called reductio ad absurdum. I didn't have to reduce your claim very far before its absurdity became apparent, did I?)

Incidentally, did you ever hear of "Lord" Douglas Wallace? He "challenged the brethren" about Priesthood ordination. In fact, he performed a number of attention-seeking publicity stunts, just like Ms Kelly.

And, just like Ms Kelly, he was ex'ed.

Was that also an example of "Know your place woman?"

Because all of the information I have about Sister Wallace shows that he was male.

Regards,

Pahoran

[teddyaware]

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.

This impertinent straw man response does not speak well for your sense fair play. The concern here is not over QW trying to "take down Exxon." The actual concern is over Kate Kelly, OW and accommodating members of the media -- who have demonstrated they have the power and means to get the word out -- trying to take down her bishop's career al la what happened to Brendan Eich. Argumentum ad absurdum is the rhetorical tool of choice for the dishonest when they're loosing an argument. Hopefully you were just trying to be funny.

Edited June 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[Abulafia]

Abu, the point is that you seem to suppose that Ms Kelly wasn't allowed to "challenge the brethren" about Priesthood ordination because she was a woman.

I was making fun of that rather silly assumption by taking it to its logical conclusion: you must clearly assume that she'd have gotten away with it if only she were a bloke named Ken Kelly.

(This is a technique called reductio ad absurdum. I didn't have to reduce your claim very far before its absurdity became apparent, did I?)

Incidentally, did you ever hear of "Lord" Douglas Wallace? He "challenged the brethren" about Priesthood ordination. In fact, he performed a number of attention-seeking publicity stunts, just like Ms Kelly.

And, just like Ms Kelly, he was ex'ed.

Was that also an example of "Know your place woman?"

Because all of the information I have about Sister Wallace shows that he was male.

Regards,

Pahoran

Never heard of him. I will go check. Thanks.

How does a woman ask for change then Pahoran. Given that those who are in the position to effect change are all men, and given that Kk's letters were simply passed back to local leadership who have no authority to make global changes?

Edited June 28, 2014 by Abulafia

[jwhitlock]

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

 

I don't get any indication that this is being done. Can you point to a place where someone has said, in effect "let's slander Kate Kelly so we don't have to pay attention to women's issues"?

 

Or is this just a throw-away statement designed to cast doubt on the motives and character of those who have sincere and well-founded concerns about Kate Kelly's clearly demonstrated apostasy?

[Abulafia]

Isn't heresy a better term to use? KK still believes in the restoration narrative as far as I can tell.

[jwhitlock]

One of the interesting arguments being used in favor of OW is that they've done a lot (through their vocal opposition to the church and its leaders) to advance awareness of women's issues in the church - as if this somehow validates them as an organization. After all is said and done, OW is ultimately an organization that opposes the church and its leaders in certain things.

 

The principle contained in the Book of Mormon teaches us that there must be opposition in all things. That opposition is used by God to assist in keeping His people on the correct path.

 

However, that's all the purpose it serves. The opposition demonstrated by OW has served, like all opposition does, to remind members to look at current policies in the church as they relate to women, and to better understand what they, as individuals, need to do in their relationships to be acceptable to the Lord. It has also helped us to better identify worldly agendas that stand in opposition to the gospel.

 

The opposition has also served in demonstrating the lines between faithful membership and apostasy.

 

So it's important to recognize OW for what it really is, to learn from its opposition to the church, and to keep it in its proper perspective as a worldly organization. There's much to learn from observing it. There's much to lose by participating in it.

[jwhitlock]

Isn't heresy a better term to use? KK still believes in the restoration narrative as far as I can tell.

 

Given the volume of utterances we have from Kate Kelly, I fail to understand how anyone can consider her a well-intentioned individual when it comes to the church. While one could claim she still might "believe" if there were an absence of evidence to the contrary, that's not the case. It is difficult to say that she believes when she tells us the church is a "serial abuser", for instance.

 

Apostasy is the most valid term. You have to set aside a great deal of what she has said in order to consider anything else.

[Kenngo1969]

... I was making fun of that rather silly assumption by taking it to its logical conclusion: you must clearly assume that she'd have gotten away with it if only she were a bloke named Ken Kelly. ...

 

Why is my good name (at least my first name) being dragged into this and sullied by an attempted association with Ms. Kelly?!!  

 

[Kenngo1969]

I think this is a worthwhile contribution to the whole debate about female ordination, excommunication, faithfulness, et cetera.  (I will probably cross-post it on some of the other OW-related threads, as well.  (Please pardon the duplication):

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/anderson-v10-2014-pp161-173-PDF.pdf

[Stone holm]

While I ceased to sympathize with Kate Kelly after the serial abuser comment, I do agree that OW has heighten discussion of women issues in the Church. I do not buy into the opposition in all things argument when used against the OW. The OW is not opposing the Church moving forward, it is not opposing a Church project, it's not even opposing the Church. It's trying to change Church policy. Those who advocated for a change in Church policy towards Africans were not part of the opposition in all things, unless you consider voicing one's conscience which does not coincide with the Brethren to be somehow automatically Satanic.

[Sevenbak]

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.

Possibly, and I'm sure there were nerves, but when everyone is using smart phones to sing what is arguably one of the most popular songs in Mormondom, it raised red flags for me at the time.  It's just what I felt in my gut, and I'm calling it like I saw it.  And Yes, the playing to the cameras was high.

[jwhitlock]

While I ceased to sympathize with Kate Kelly after the serial abuser comment, I do agree that OW has heighten discussion of women issues in the Church. I do not buy into the opposition in all things argument when used against the OW. The OW is not opposing the Church moving forward, it is not opposing a Church project, it's not even opposing the Church. It's trying to change Church policy. Those who advocated for a change in Church policy towards Africans were not part of the opposition in all things, unless you consider voicing one's conscience which does not coincide with the Brethren to be somehow automatically Satanic.

 

OW has demonstrated clear opposition to the church, from the non-negotiable demand for ordination to the priesthood, to their protest on church property when asked not to do so. In between are accusations of patriarchy (with all the negative feminist connotations), serial abuse by the church, etc.

 

There's a difference between disagreeing with a policy, and actively opposing that policy. Many members of the church opposed the priesthood ban, but did not actively campaign against the church in a way that demonstrated opposition to the church - as others did. There are many in the church that recognize that there are real women's issues that need to be addressed, but are doing so productively without opposition to the church or its leaders. OW does not fit in that category. Demanding priesthood ordination in the manner OW is doing can be construed as nothing less than outright opposition to the church, especially since it's phrased as non-negotiable.

 

They have demonstrated opposition in their actions, which is something you don't consider in your post.

[jwhitlock]

I think this is a worthwhile contribution to the whole debate about female ordination, excommunication, faithfulness, et cetera.  (I will probably cross-post it on some of the other OW-related threads, as well.  (Please pardon the duplication):

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/anderson-v10-2014-pp161-173-PDF.pdf

 

Indeed. Highly recommended.

[teddyaware]

OW has demonstrated clear opposition to the church, from the non-negotiable demand for ordination to the priesthood, to their protest on church property when asked not to do so. In between are accusations of patriarchy (with all the negative feminist connotations), serial abuse by the church, etc.

 

There's a difference between disagreeing with a policy, and actively opposing that policy. Many members of the church opposed the priesthood ban, but did not actively campaign against the church in a way that demonstrated opposition to the church - as others did. There are many in the church that recognize that there are real women's issues that need to be addressed, but are doing so productively without opposition to the church or its leaders. OW does not fit in that category. Demanding priesthood ordination in the manner OW is doing can be construed as nothing less than outright opposition to the church, especially since it's phrased as non-negotiable.

 

They have demonstrated opposition in their actions, which is something you don't consider in your post.

For Yours Truly, this is the bottom line on this contentious issue: Under the organization of the Church, exactly as that organization exists today, all faithful women have been given every teaching, ordinance, endowment of power and service opportunity needed in order for them to be eternally exalted in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. What more is needed? If the through the LDS Church the Lord has given every possible blessing needed in order for women to be called up and anointed to be queens and priestesses in eternity, where is the reasonable rational for a faithful person to complain and cry out because of perceived injustices? For example, the following promised blessings pertain to the Church's women exactly as the Church organization exists today:

5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end.

6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.

7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.

8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.

9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.

10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man. (D&C 76)

 

The above clearly sets forth the proposition that every woman of the Church has a wide-open opportunity to be a great prophetess in her own right if she will only faithfully and diligently apply herself to doing those things that really matter  most -- like applying herself to diligent and prayerful scripture study for instance...

It appears that what OW is doing is taking cues from the trends of the secular humanist world, and seeing in these trends a sort of prophetic bellwether that they fanatically believe should inform the leaders as to where the Church needs to change in order to be compliant and in harmony with the world's perceptions of justice and reason, thereby gaining popularity with those who mock and scorn the saints of God from the windows of a large and spacious building built upon the corrupt and unstable foundations of the vanity and pride of fallen man.

 

Fire away...

Edited June 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[sethpayne]

I don't get any indication that this is being done. Can you point to a place where someone has said, in effect "let's slander Kate Kelly so we don't have to pay attention to women's issues"?

 

Or is this just a throw-away statement designed to cast doubt on the motives and character of those who have sincere and well-founded concerns about Kate Kelly's clearly demonstrated apostasy?

 

I'm, of course, being over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek.  Heck, I'm even being hyperbolic.  I do not doubt the sincerity of those who may have well-founded concerns about Kelly. 

 

However, if one did want to avoid engaging her ideas by casting Kelly as a pernicious and cunning women seeking to undermine the Brethren through the clever use of social media, this would be one way to do so.  Perhaps it is a valid/relevant ad hominem.  Perhaps not.  I honestly don't have a dog i this fight but I will admit to being fascinated by the anger Kelly seems to evoke on one side and devotion on the other.  I don't find myself in either camp but the back and forth here is fascinating, enlightening, and troubling all wrapped into one.

Edited June 28, 2014 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

Given the volume of utterances we have from Kate Kelly, I fail to understand how anyone can consider her a well-intentioned individual when it comes to the church. While one could claim she still might "believe" if there were an absence of evidence to the contrary, that's not the case. It is difficult to say that she believes when she tells us the church is a "serial abuser", for instance.

 

Apostasy is the most valid term. You have to set aside a great deal of what she has said in order to consider anything else.

 

I think this is a cultural thing.  Some Churches would consider this heresy but -- socially speaking -- we would consider it apostasy.  

 

I'm not, however, following your logic.  I agree that the term "serial abuse" is loaded and over-the-top.  Certainly not the phrase I would have chosen.  But stepping back from Kelly, isn't it possible to think that a Church policy/action is harmful (however one defines that...) without being an apostate?

 

Paul thought Peter was a hypocrite and he openly chastised him in his letter to the Galatian saints.  Was Paul an apostate for speaking evil of Peter, the head of the Church?  Of course not.  

 

Again, stepping back from Kelly, I don't think we can say that criticism of Church leaders/policy/action alone, qualifies as apostasy.  Apostasy is rejection of belief.  Heresy is the teaching of false doctrine.  IMO, Kelly is more akin to a heretic than an apostate.  

 

Other such cases right now, I think, are more appropriately labeled apostasy.  

Edited June 28, 2014 by sethpayne

[jwhitlock]

I'm, of course, being over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek.  Heck, I'm even being hyperbolic.  I do not doubt the sincerity of those who may have well-founded concerns about Kelly. 

 

However, if one did want to avoid engaging her ideas by casting Kelly as a pernicious and cunning women seeking to undermine the Brethren through the clever use of social media, this would be one way to do so.  Perhaps it is a valid/relevant ad hominem.  Perhaps not.  I honestly don't have a dog i this fight but I will admit to being fascinated by the anger Kelly seems to evoke on one side and devotion on the other.  I don't find myself in either camp but the back and forth here is fascinating, enlightening, and troubling all wrapped into one.

 

Or it could just as possibly be people who are frustrated - not angry - with Kate Kelly's actions, and are trying to figure out what on earth she and OW are up to.

 

In reality, I don't see many people who are at either extreme - anger / devotion - as you say here. Most are somewhere in between. I wouldn't mistake some of the heated exchanges that have taken place for those extremes, but more as evidence of how divisive OW has been. That divisiveness has been a significant negative effect from what they've been doing.

[Abulafia]

I'm, of course, being over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek. Heck, I'm even being hyperbolic. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who may have well-founded concerns about Kelly.

However, if one did want to avoid engaging her ideas by casting Kelly as a pernicious and cunning women seeking to undermine the Brethren through the clever use of social media, this would be one way to do so. Perhaps it is a valid/relevant ad hominem. Perhaps not. I honestly don't haveaa dog i this fight but I will admit to being fascinated by the anger Kelly seems to evoke on one side and devotion on the other. I don't find myself in either camp but the back and forth here is fascinating, enlightening, and troubling all wrapped into one.

Personally, I'm not devoted to Kate Kelly any more than I am devoted to John Dehlin. What I am devoted to is the combined issues of openness, honesty, and equality which they are espousing, and would and do feel the same about Catholics, Jews and Muslims that are bringing about awareness of the same issues. Edited June 28, 2014 by Abulafia

[sethpayne]

One of the interesting arguments being used in favor of OW is that they've done a lot (through their vocal opposition to the church and its leaders) to advance awareness of women's issues in the church - as if this somehow validates them as an organization. After all is said and done, OW is ultimately an organization that opposes the church and its leaders in certain things.

 

The principle contained in the Book of Mormon teaches us that there must be opposition in all things. That opposition is used by God to assist in keeping His people on the correct path.

 

 

Great observations.  Paul's criticism of Peter and the ideas of the "circumcision faction" certainly brought about great change in the Church -- confirmed by inspiration and revelation.  Paul was the perfect opposition to Peter in order to affect positive change.

[sethpayne]

Or it could just as possibly be people who are frustrated - not angry - with Kate Kelly's actions, and are trying to figure out what on earth she and OW are up to.

 

In reality, I don't see many people who are at either extreme - anger / devotion - as you say here. Most are somewhere in between. I wouldn't mistake some of the heated exchanges that have taken place for those extremes, but more as evidence of how divisive OW has been. That divisiveness has been a significant negative effect from what they've been doing.

 

I think you are probably right about this.

[sethpayne]

Personally, I'm not devoted to Kate Kelly any more than I am devoted to John Dehlin. What I am devoted to is the combined issues of openness, honesty, and equality which they are espousing, and would and do feel the same about Catholics, Jews and Muslims that are bringing about awareness of the same issues.

 

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  I think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the loudest voices represent large numbers.  Such is often not the case.

[Abulafia]

Great observations.  Paul's criticism of Peter and the ideas of the "circumcision faction" certainly brought about great change in the Church -- confirmed by inspiration and revelation.  Paul was the perfect opposition to Peter in order to affect positive change.

Certainly for the orthodox position which won out. Not sure about the Jewish Christian communities who's voice appears to have been lost!

[Abulafia]

Circumcision was an issue for gentile converts, not for Jewish converts....Paul makes this clear.

[sethpayne]

Certainly for the orthodox position which won out. Not sure about the Jewish Christian communities who's voice appears to have been lost!

 

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there were still some law-of-moses types still hanging on after Paul really got into the swing of his long Gentile ministry.

 

But Acts, while apparently written for a Roman/Hellenistic audience, still appears very "Jewish" to me.  I say this because Acts seems to take on the issue very evenhandedly.  Initially, there were partisan factions.  Paulites, if you will, vs the circumcision faction.  But the way the issue is resolved in Chapter 15 is still very true to the law of moses -- treating Gentile converts as ancient Israel would have treated welcome visitors.

 

ETA:  It is a real shame we don't have more of the "Jewish Christian" records likely destroyed in 70 AD.  But the differences between James, and Paul, are striking.  The epistles of Peter certainly read very Paul-like and I know there is some debate as to who wrote 1 & 2 Peter.  Of course, people debate whether Paul wrote Hebrews.  So who knows.  Regardless, it would be great to have more of the Jerusalem Church records.

Edited June 28, 2014 by sethpayne