Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[sethpayne]

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

 

I think it was an issue for both.  Certainly Gentiles didn't want to undergo it but Paul refers to the Jerusalem "circumcision faction" which, apparently, was made up of Jewish Christians set on adhering to this aspect of the Law of Moses.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I'm not angry with her. I do feel sorry for her poor choices in demonstrating against stated Church beliefs. The issue was never about the Church. Our doctrines are what they are. But her apparent willingness to organize opposition to the Church. 

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

The Peter and Paul exchanges were not made in public. Paul didn't attempt to stir the pot of discontent within the Church.

[sethpayne]

I'm not angry with her. I do feel sorry for her poor choices in demonstrating against stated Church beliefs. The issue was never about the Church. Our doctrines are what they are. But her apparent willingness to organize opposition to the Church. 

 

I understand this view but I'm yet to be persuaded by it.  That's not to say I don't see the logic in it, but I suppose I wonder about the necessary assumptions to support it.

 

Is Kate Kelly aggressive and outspoken?  Yes.  Is she confrontational?  Absolutely.  Does this mean she is not sincere and does not truly believe her work is important?  I'm not so sure.  

 

Of course, I'm influenced by several friends who are involved with OW -- friends whom I know to be faithful, sincere, and wonderful Church members.

[Abulafia]

"18Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20Each man must remain in that position in which he was called."

from 1 Corinthians 7.

[sethpayne]

The Peter and Paul exchanges were not made in public. Paul didn't attempt to stir the pot of discontent within the Church.

 

You wouldn't consider a letter written to the Galatian church as public?

 

And yes, I agree stirring up contention was not Paul's purpose.  Bringing the Gospel to Gentiles was Paul's top priority.  Calling out Peter, in public, was part of him pursuing that priority.

[Abulafia]

The Peter and Paul exchanges were not made in public. Paul didn't attempt to stir the pot of discontent within the Church.

They were public, and discussed by later followers.

[sethpayne]

"18Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20Each man must remain in that position in which he was called."

from 1 Corinthians 7.

 

This reads as if Paul is agreeing with the first Jerusalem council.  I don't see anything here that shows the Jerusalem Christians were unconcerned with circumcision.  That's what the whole council was about, right?

[jwhitlock]

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.  

 

One can be both a heretic and an apostate. I think we can readily agree that Kate Kelly is at least a heretic.

 

We then need to ask what Kate Kelly has said or done that would indicate apostasy, or a rejection of belief, as you put it.  Indeed, teaching false doctrine that directly undermines the belief system of the church crosses over the line into apostasy. So what do we have to work with?

 

Does KK accept the 15 men called as prophets, seers, and revelators to be the only ones authorized to receive revelation for the whole church? I suspect not. Telling us that ordaining women to the priesthood is non-negotiable, coupled with a demand that they ask the Lord about it (as if the current policy isn't the result of revelation in the first place) sends a distinct message that she doesn't accept the current church leadership as authoritative.

 

Does KK think that the church has gone astray from the days of Joseph Smith concerning the policy of not ordaining women? It sure seems like it. There are rationalizations given by OW about how things were at the time of Joseph and how what Joseph wanted is not being done by the church today. When someone says that the church has gone astray, that is a sign of apostasy, not heresy.

 

What are we supposed to think about the "discussions" generated by OW? If you read those, there's not only false doctrine, but outright opposition to the church contained in them. They are designed to draw people away from the church and to embrace OW's POV. That falls under apostasy.

 

How about the free use of the term "patriarchy" with all it's negative feminist connotations? The term is clearly defined to denote opposition to male-dominated hierarchies, and is a rejection of the belief that a priesthood dominated by men can in any way meet the spiritual needs of women in the church.

 

I think there are plenty of examples of Kate Kelly's apostasy and of that same influence in OW. One of the interesting things I noted from her was that when she received notice of her excommunication, her first response was claiming that they were (and I paraphrase) denying her the community and associations that she wanted. Though this is false, it was odd to me that the real effect of excommunication, which is the nullifying of the ordinances of salvation in her life, wasn't even mentioned. Those are the most important things one loses when there is apostasy, and I'm not detecting any real concern on her part for that loss. One very possible explanation for that was that she had, indeed, ceased to believe in the church and in the ordinances of salvation the church provides.

 

Since she's expressed admiration for apostates, and has expressed no admiration (as far as I can tell) for church leadership, I think that she has planted herself clearly on the apostate side of things. 

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Yet we have the inconsistency of "espousing" openness and honesty in ways that are not particularly honest or open. As has been noted on this thread, it's becoming very difficult to trust the accuracy of much of what Kate Kelly is saying.

[jwhitlock]

I understand this view but I'm yet to be persuaded by it.  That's not to say I don't see the logic in it, but I suppose I wonder about the necessary assumptions to support it.

 

Is Kate Kelly aggressive and outspoken?  Yes.  Is she confrontational?  Absolutely.  Does this mean she is not sincere and does not truly believe her work is important?  I'm not so sure.  

 

Of course, I'm influenced by several friends who are involved with OW -- friends whom I know to be faithful, sincere, and wonderful Church members.

 

I think that we need to get rid of "sincerity" as some kind of test of validity. People can be sincere about all kinds of things, without regard as to whether they're right or wrong.

 

Out of curiosity, do your friends who are involved with OW agree with the non-negotiable demand that women be given the priesthood? 

[halconero]

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.

Paul is my favourite character in the New Testament aside from Christ. I think the word that could be used to describe used to describe him best is "realist." As much as we like to portray Paul as the arch-enemy of all Judaizers, in reality that view is mostly concentrated in Galatians. In most cases he's ambivalent towards it, especially in Romans. The reason being that Galatians is written to an exclusively gentile audience made up of converts being proselyted by Jewish-Christians.

In Romans, Paul is teaching a mixed congregation and treads far more carefully. He maintains that circumcision can be useful for those who actually keep the commandments, and then strives to demonstrate that Gentiles who kept the commandments were actually de-facto circumcised in the heart.

Paul himself states that if being Jewish (following Torah law) means winning converts to Christ, he'll be Jewish. If being a Gentile wins converts to Christ, he'll be a gentile. Paul changed his tone and his teachings all the time to match his audience.

Furthermore, I think it's more accurate to say that James is directed towards a caricature of Paul, rather than Paul himself. A true reading of Pauline writings renders a doctrine far closer to James' epistle than not. Where the conflict arises is in the use of the word Pistis. We render this word as "faith" or "belief" in English, but in Pauline writings it's far closer to "loyalty", "adherence", "faithfulness", and "devotion". By the time James was written it has a far looser meaning of "intellectual assent." People were misrepresenting Paul's teachings (something actually addressed in Peter) and it is to this misrepresentation of Paul that James writes.

[Duncan]

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

 

 

one of my Religion prof's called it "lowering the price of admission"! I can't imagine that having to come up in conversation, "oh by the way...."!

[Abulafia]

This reads as if Paul is agreeing with the first Jerusalem council.  I don't see anything here that shows the Jerusalem Christians were unconcerned with circumcision.  That's what the whole council was about, right?

Paul's account and the Acts account are interesting.  I would go with Paul rather than Acts because his is first hand.  He came out of that meeting a lot more unsatisfied than is reflected in the Acts account.

Given the Roman/Greek abhorrence for circumcision, it is understandable that there were many Jews (I think including James and Jesus) who saw it as fundamental to a covenant life.   (like the word of wisdom or wearing of garments in Mormonism)

I think there was a great tension over this issue for gentile converts, and also actually for Jews who were more liberal because of societal pressures.  Having said that, there seems to be a wide understanding at the time that circumcision was a fundamental aspect of Jewishness amongst devout Jews.

The issues were therefore complex.

This article was really good and an easy read.

http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/

[sethpayne]

Paul is my favourite character in the New Testament aside from Christ. I think the word that could be used to describe used to describe him best is "realist." As much as we like to portray Paul as the arch-enemy of all Judaizers, in reality that view is mostly concentrated in Galatians. In most cases he's ambivalent towards it, especially in Romans. The reason being that Galatians is written to an exclusively gentile audience made up of converts being proselyted by Jewish-Christians.

In Romans, Paul is teaching a mixed congregation and treads far more carefully. He maintains that circumcision can be useful for those who actually keep the commandments, and then strives to demonstrate that Gentiles who kept the commandments were actually de-facto circumcised in the heart.

Paul himself states that if being Jewish (following Torah law) means winning converts to Christ, he'll be Jewish. If being a Gentile wins converts to Christ, he'll be a gentile. Paul changed his tone and his teachings all the time to match his audience.

Furthermore, I think it's more accurate to say that James is directed towards a caricature of Paul, rather than Paul himself. A true reading of Pauline writings renders a doctrine far closer to James' epistle than not. Where the conflict arises is in the use of the word Pistis. We render this word as "faith" or "belief" in English, but in Pauline writings it's far closer to "loyalty", "adherence", "faithfulness", and "devotion". By the time James was written it has a far looser meaning of "intellectual assent." People were misrepresenting Paul's teachings (something actually addressed in Peter) and it is to this misrepresentation of Paul that James writes.

 

This post was very insightful.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[sethpayne]

I think that we need to get rid of "sincerity" as some kind of test of validity. People can be sincere about all kinds of things, without regard as to whether they're right or wrong.

 

There is absolutely no question that sincerity is not an indication of "validity" or of "right or wrong."  However, I think recognizing sincerity helps us to gain empathy and compassion.  How many times have I been sincere and absolutely incorrect or wrong?  Many times.  But I've always appreciated when folks have recognized my sincerity and been patient and empathetic with my view regardless of their specific opinion.  Sincerity is also a strong indicator of motive, I think.  And motive, at least according to how I conceive of ethics and morals, is a key aspect (but of course not the ONLY aspect) to consider when determining the *morality* of a given action.  This is all separate from questions of being right or wrong.

 

Out of curiosity, do your friends who are involved with OW agree with the non-negotiable demand that women be given the priesthood? 

 

 

To be honest, I see a split.  Yes, there are some friends who believe the only way to gender equality (a concept, I'll admit, that has yet to clearly defined) within the Church is by ordaining women.  But I would say that most of my friends involved with OW have much less specific desire:  they want to feel like their needs/desires/pain is being taken seriously because, for one reason or another, they feel like outsiders.  They feel that the Church doesn't value them as women.  Regardless of whether you or I think this is a reasonable position is beside the point because it is how they feel.  So for these friends, they just want to be heard and felt the only way to get the Church's attention was to make noise as well as some waves.  Now that Kelly has been exxed, they have expressed feelings of hurt and interpret this as just another example of men not caring about women's needs etc...  Again, I'm not arguing for the validity or rationality of such views, rather, I am simply reporting what has been expressed to me.  And so that is why I am sympathetic to OW generally.  Not necessarily because I find their position -- or even their tactics -- rational or expedient.  (but to be clear, I don't find them necessarily irrational or unfounded, either)

 

And I should add that many of my friends have been impressed by -- and have taken very seriously -- the thoughtful response offered by David Holland.  This is what they are yearning for.  To feel that their concerns are being taken seriously and deserve serious and thoughtful response.

 

As you know, I've dedicated a lot of time to studying and trying to understand what motivates people to leave the Church.  Of course, the simple answer is that most stop believing in the overall truth of the Church.  But a common theme in the exit stories told by women is that they did not feel their needs/pain/desires -- were recognized in the Church.  Frankly, I was a little surprised to read some of the comments by men on a now-closed thread.  Even more surprising was how women on this board reacted to a specific post (that generated a lot of heated debate) much differently than did men.  Reading the views of the women on this board -- regarding the contents of this specific post -- showed *me* that things I may see as benign may, in fact, be incredibly hurtful or offensive to a woman.  

 

Anyway, overly long answer to your very simple question.  

Edited June 29, 2014 by sethpayne

[jwhitlock]

There is absolutely no question that sincerity is not an indication of "validity" or of "right or wrong."  However, I think recognizing sincerity helps us to gain empathy and compassion.  How many times have I been sincere and absolutely incorrect or wrong?  Many times.  But I've always appreciated when folks have recognized my sincerity and been patient and empathetic with my view regardless of their specific opinion.  Sincerity is also a strong indicator of motive, I think.  And motive, at least according to how I conceive of ethics and morals, is a key aspect (but of course not the ONLY aspect) to consider when determining the *morality* of a given action.  This is all separate from questions of being right or wrong.

 

 

To be honest, I see a split.  Yes, there are some friends who believe the only way to gender equality (a concept, I'll admit, that has yet to clearly defined) within the Church is by ordaining women.  But I would say that most of my friends involved with OW have much less specific desire:  they want to feel like their needs/desires/pain is being taken seriously because, for one reason or another, they feel like outsiders.  They feel that the Church doesn't value them as women.  Regardless of whether you or I think this is a reasonable position is beside the point because it is how they feel.  So for these friends, they just want to be heard and felt the only way to get the Church's attention was to make noise as well as some waves.  Now that Kelly has been exxed, they have expressed feelings of hurt and interpret this as just another example of men not caring about women's needs etc...  Again, I'm not arguing for the validity or rationality of such views, rather, I am simply reporting what has been expressed to me.  And so that is why I am sympathetic to OW generally.  Not necessarily because I find their position -- or even their tactics -- rational or expedient.  (but to be clear, I don't find them necessarily irrational or unfounded, either)

 

And I should add that many of my friends have been impressed by -- and have taken very seriously -- the thoughtful response offered by David Holland.  This is what they are yearning for.  To feel that their concerns are being taken seriously and deserve serious and thoughtful response.

 

As you know, I've dedicated a lot of time to studying and trying to understand what motivates people to leave the Church.  Of course, the simple answer is that most stop believing in the overall truth of the Church.  But a common theme in the exit stories told by women is that they did not feel their needs/pain/desires -- were recognized in the Church.  Frankly, I was a little surprised to read some of the comments by men on a now-closed thread.  Even more surprising was how women on this board reacted to a specific post (that generated a lot of heated debate) much differently than did men.  Reading the views of the women on this board -- regarding the contents of this specific post -- showed *me* that things I may see as benign may, in fact, be incredibly hurtful or offensive to a woman.  

 

Anyway, overly long answer to your very simple question.  

 

Appreciate your response and insight, seth. I recognize that it's a very complex situation and a doubt any specific answer is going to satisfy everyone.

 

One note about the women on this board. They are a rather diverse group. I didn't find that all of them agreed with the interpretations of the most outspoken ones on this issue, yet they tended to remain in the background rather than get into the arguments. Nor did they necessarily agree with the interpretations of the men.

 

On the other hand, as has been noted, men and women think very differently. It's difficult to determine with an perceived offense is really valid or not. Because of that, I think it's going to be difficult for many on each side to come to an agreement on whether needs are being met or recognized.

[Sevenbak]

From Kelly's response to the First Presidency statement:

 

"Kelly cheered Saturday’s statement, calling it "monumental" and "an extremely positive step...

 

..."they defined apostasy as "people who speak out against leaders of the church, or those who teach false doctrine," she said. "Given that I have always sustained leaders of church, and Ordain Women doesn’t teach any doctrine — let alone false doctrine — this clearly exonerates me. I am not guilty of either of those charges."

 

 

She's not going away, and sadly, she will keep proselytizing converts to her cause.

[Stone holm]

From Kelly's response to the First Presidency statement:

 

"Kelly cheered Saturday’s statement, calling it "monumental" and "an extremely positive step...

 

..."they defined apostasy as "people who speak out against leaders of the church, or those who teach false doctrine," she said. "Given that I have always sustained leaders of church, and Ordain Women doesn’t teach any doctrine — let alone false doctrine — this clearly exonerates me. I am not guilty of either of those charges."

 

Yeah that was a little silly. The Church statement was not worth responding to, not sure why she did that.

 

She's not going away, and sadly, she will keep proselytizing converts to her cause.

[Pahoran]

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

As Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the primary meaning of "apostasy" is "rebellion."

Was Ms Kelly called into a DC because she opposed the leaders of the Church in a sustained and systematic public campaign (rebellion) or because she doesn't believe in a global flood (heresy)?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

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.

You jumped the shark first. I was just trying to plot out the coordinates of where you would land.

NO ONE has even hinted that anyone contact the bishop's employer. What would we say? "One or your employees made a decision at church that we don't like and so we think you should do without his services that you apparently value?"

And this is not a straw man. This is what you are suggesting is our plan. An employer who received this letter would have to take the rest of the day off to recover from his laughing fit. He would then place the letter in the pile of letters complaining about the 100,000 or so Exxon employees who have cut people off in traffic, blown calls as soccer referees and had 11 items or more in the express supermarket lane.

You might think that KK is Satan herself but she is not STUPID. So if you are going to speculate about nefarious activity, at least, give her the benefit of a brain.

[Abulafia]

As Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the primary meaning of "apostasy" is "rebellion."Was Ms Kelly called into a DC because she opposed the leaders of the Church in a sustained and systematic public campaign (rebellion) or because she doesn't believe in a global flood (heresy)?Regards,Pahoran

Well, I guess the church gets to define the word apostasy anyway it wants.

The dictionary defintion is that it means a renunciation or abandonment of a faith. As I understand it, KK is doing neither.

There are a number of the OW movement who are now being targeted and punished by their local leaders

which I find really worrying. It has the feel of a witch hunt, (sexist label there) and makes me incredibly sad.

Pahoran, I still don't understand why Tom P, Chris Ralph and Steve Bloor (the last two whom I know personally) are not being targeted by the church, when they almost got a prophet in court for fraud.

I'm baffled by all this.

[Pahoran]

Well, I guess the church gets to define the word apostasy anyway it wants.

The dictionary defintion is that it means a renunciation or abandonment of a faith. As I understand it, KK is doing neither.

Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt.

Ms Kelly's organisation is revolting. (You may take that however you like.)

 

There are a number of the OW movement who are now being targeted and punished by their local leaders

which I find really worrying. It has the feel of a witch hunt, (sexist label there) and makes me incredibly sad.

I don't think we're going to see a "witch hunt." For a start, I don't think very many of the OW people are actual Church members who attend often enough to be known to their local leaders.

 

Pahoran, I still don't understand why Tom P, Chris Ralph and Steve Bloor (the last two whom I know personally) are not being targeted by the church, when they almost got a prophet in court for fraud.

I'm baffled by all this.

FWIW, I agree with you; that crowd should be tossed out.

However, these matters are handled locally (despite the speculations of the conspiracy theorists) and since they ended up with egg all over their spotty faces, it's probably more of a punishment to let them stew in their own apostate juices.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

Well, I guess the church gets to define the word apostasy anyway it wants.

The dictionary defintion is that it means a renunciation or abandonment of a faith. As I understand it, KK is doing neither.

There are a number of the OW movement who are now being targeted and punished by their local leaders

which I find really worrying. It has the feel of a witch hunt, (sexist label there) and makes me incredibly sad.

Pahoran, I still don't understand why Tom P, Chris Ralph and Steve Bloor (the last two whom I know personally) are not being targeted by the church, when they almost got a prophet in court for fraud.

I'm baffled by all this.

 

 

I am under the impression that they aren't active in the Church? I don't see the Church rounding up all inactive people who are jack the lad. Whereas KK was or is active and she too caused ruckus

[Robert F. Smith]

As Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the primary meaning of "apostasy" is "rebellion."

Was Ms Kelly called into a DC because she opposed the leaders of the Church in a sustained and systematic public campaign (rebellion) or because she doesn't believe in a global flood (heresy)?

Regards,

Pahoran

Lack of belief in a global flood is not heresy.  It is merely an interpretation of the biblical text, which is quite vague.