Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Scott Lloyd]

"After the appearance of the Father and the Son, other heavenly messengers, or angels, were sent to Joseph Smith and his associate Oliver Cowdery. John the Baptist appeared and conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to perform the ordinance of baptism. Peter, James, and John (three of Christ’s original Apostles) appeared and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, restoring the same authority given to Christ’s Apostles anciently. With this priesthood authority, Joseph Smith was directed to organize the Church of Jesus Christ again on the earth. Through him, Jesus Christ called twelve Apostles."

This is what I taught as a missionary. This is what I was referring to. I think other threads have dealt with this topic. I don't want to derail, but as far as I understand, KK does not question the historical narrative, only the cultural and traditional assumption that women are to be excluded.

This is what is contained in Preach My Gospel. And just as I assumed, it does not contradict fact, nor does it mislead. The events as recounted here did indeed happen and in the sequence given. There is detail that is not included, but that is to be expected in a summary account or outline of this nature. There are references within the chapter to other sources that contain more detail, if needed.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

Abulafia said: I'm not arguing from a faith position here, but from a historical one. One has to read the texts as they were written and not through the lens of the rightness of LDS, Catholic or Evangelical doctrine and practice.

The complexity is all there in plain site.

 

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

That's not a comprehensive list of questions, but a flavour.

And historians have taken stock of the various flavours to be found in the stages of LDS Church development and have come up with divergent conclusions.  That and the random and happenstantial development of the NT Canon is an additional element in the confusion about the true nature of the early church(es) and how that might relate to any modern church.

 

However, as Joseph Fitzmyer points out in light of evidence from Qumran cave 11:

 

If we had not recovered this text about Melchizedek . . , would we ever have understood correctly what was meant by Heb 7:3 and its affirmation about him?  If Melchizedek were indeed thought of by pre-Christian Jews as a heavenly redemption figure who performed a priestly function (expiation) for the men of his lot, then one can see how the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could depict Christ, . . as a “priest according to the order of Melchizedek.” ¹

 

¹  Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Eerdmans, 2000), 39.

 

I have mentioned to you before the importance of the nuances which often escape our notice, as with the formal recognition by the LDS Church of the authentic and programmatic nature of the Aaronic priesthood continuing in our own time among the Jews via direct lineage² – quite a different notion than that of the modern ordination of a different sort of Levitical priesthood (which many Mormons erroneously think of as the only Aaronic priesthood).  What other church officially recognizes that?  Aren’t all of them supercessionist?  What might seem extraordinary to us is that modern Mormon bishops are high priests of the order of Melchizedek (even Roman Catholic priests are ordained after this order) who merely substitute as bishops “when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found” (D&C 107:17).

 

²  D&C 68:15-21, 84:18-26,30-34, 107:13-17,68-76.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[smac97]

The Trib has an article today about Kate Kelly:

 

It’s been two weeks since her local Mormon leaders excommunicated Kate Kelly from the LDS Church. So what has the Ordain Women founder been up to since then?

Well, besides a series of media interviews, Kelly says she’s been "focusing on positive self-care."

Hmm. "Direct action." "Faithful agitation." "Positive self-care." What is the source of this odd lexicon?

 

"I have made it a point to spend time with family, go on many bike rides, and surround myself with true and stalwart friends," she writes in a blog posted Tuesday on the Ordain Women website. "Amid the sadness and pain I have experienced, I’ve been reminding myself of the beauty and magic of life, and all that is wonderful on this Earth. There is so much to be joyful and hopeful about."

Despite her upbeat outlook, Kelly, who has been pushing for female ordination to the all-male LDS priesthood, leaves no doubt that she still is hurting and offended.

"Let me be perfectly clear: What happened to me was wrong. It was abusive. It was unfair. It was unacceptable," she writes. "But my reaction is mine to choose. I choose to move forward with grace in the face of brutality, unkindness and the sometimes hideous reaction of human beings to someone else’s tragedy."

She's publicly accusing the Church - again - of being "abusive." And now of "brutality." Sigh.

 

Her blog goes on to clarify several points. She insists, for instance, that she hoped to keep her disciplinary action private and blames her LDS leaders for forcing the issue into the headlines.

"On May 6, I received an email from my stake [regional] president," she explains, " ... that said, ‘because you have carried your campaign for ordination far beyond the boundaries of our stake, and have previously told the media and the public that you are a member in good standing, it may be necessary at some point in the future to correct the public record regarding your standing in the church.’ "

That remark, Kelly says, forced her hand. "I felt I only had control of how the information about me was conveyed, and the power to tell my story myself, not whether or not it would be made public."

It seems that the Stake President was not threatening to publicize her disciplinary process, except to the extent which may have become necessary "at some point in the future" to update/clarify Kate Kelly's standing in the Church if she was disciplined because she had been constantly touting herself publicly as a faithful Latter-day Saint in good standing with the Church.

As it turned out, she was disciplined. And she publicized the entire event to the world. The stake president did not "force her hand." She was the one who chose to take the entire matter public, to solicit 800-1000 letters, to tell The New York Times that her bishop was "cowardly and unchristlike," and so on.

So I'm not buying the "my stake president made me do it." That's just not so.

 

Excommunicated for "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church," Kelly notes she is appealing that decision to her stake president and, if she loses at that level, to the faith’s governing First Presidency.

"Regardless of the outcome of my appeal, my heart will go on beating and I will move forward, confident that I did the right thing," she writes. "I spoke the truth, with love. I acted with integrity."

Kate Kelly telling The New York Times that her bishop is "cowardly and unchristlike" was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Kate Kelly comparing the disciplinary proceedings against her to rape, to her bishop (or, if you prefer, the Church) to a rapist, and to herself as a rape victim was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Kate Kelly encouraging Church members that if they stay in the Church they should "raise hell" in it was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Kate Kelly publicly accusing the Church of "brutality" and being "abusive" was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Well . . . okay. Reasonable minds will have to disagree about what it means to speak "the truth, with love," I suppose. Me, I'm not seein' it.

Also, she made these comments today, so it's getting kinda hard to give her the benefit of the doubt based on a previous "she only said those awful things about the Church in the heat of the moment immediately after her excommunication" type of justification.

 

Kelly says she is encouraging Mormons who, like herself, "see problems with gender inequality" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to stick with the faith and, if at all possible, work for change from within.

"Work for change from within" has a somewhat nicer ring than her previous instruction for Church members to say in the Church and "raise hell" in it. But I think she's expressing the same sentiment, really. She's just using honeyed words this time around.

 

"I do not know what the future holds for me," she concludes, "but can assure you of one thing going forward: Firm as the mountains around us, Ordain Women will carry on!"

With Peggy Fletcher Stack and her exclamation marks in a news article carrying the OW banner ever forward!

In all seriousness, I do appreciate the Trib's coverage of this issue. But I would like to receive my news with less heaping spoonfuls of sensationalism, even propaganda.

The next time someone disses the Deseret News for being insufficiently objective about the Church as compared to the Trib, just remember the last line of this Trib news article: "Firm as the mountains around us, Ordain Women will carry on!"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2014 by smac97

[ksfisher]

Kelly: "I choose to move forward with grace in the face of brutality, unkindness and the sometimes hideous reaction of human beings to someone else’s tragedy."

Smac97: "She's publicly accusing the Church - again - of being "abusive." And now of "brutality." Sigh."

In this sentence Kelly may be referring to the reaction of individual church members, and not the church itself or it's leadership.

[smac97]

Kelly: "I choose to move forward with grace in the face of brutality, unkindness and the sometimes hideous reaction of human beings to someone else’s tragedy."

Smac97: "She's publicly accusing the Church - again - of being "abusive." And now of "brutality." Sigh."

In this sentence Kelly may be referring to the reaction of individual church members, and not the church itself or it's leadership.

You're right. She could be saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

She's publicly accusing the Church - again - of being "abusive." And now of "brutality." Sigh.

 

Agreed. Personally I think this point of discussion is, for me, one of the points that I continue to lose respect for her, the more she insists on this. It maintains a victim dialogue and frankly discredits those who really have and do experience abuse, violence, and brutality in their lives. Though, also I think the brutality was more toward various public reactions she's received and not solely the church or even the Bishop/SP.

 

Still, the language to me is emotionally manipulative and I'm not a fan. (She's often framed this in a way that most disagreements are seen as invalidating her emotions or maintaining abusive posturing. If the church maintains her excommunication, it won't be her fault, it'll just show the level of abuse that's being maintained/permitted against women). Since she's so apt for using relational terms/analogy in therapy we have a term for redirecting interactions between partners called catching bullets. Basically you work to catch harmful or invalidating phrases from the other and reframe/direct them to soften them so that they don't damage potential progress in their relational interactions. KK is sometimes more like a machine gun some days... she seems to spit out adverse phrases that only maintain divides again and again. And I feel bad for her because it seems that she only partially aware that she does it. She seems genuinely surprised everytime things seem to go bad.

 

It seems that the Stake President was not threatening to publicize her disciplinary process, except to the extent which may have become necessary "at some point in the future" to update/clarify Kate Kelly's standing in the Church if she was disciplined because she had been constantly touting herself publicly as a faithful Latter-day Saint in good standing with the Churc

As it turned out, she was disciplined. And she publicized the entire event to the world. The stake president did not "force her hand." She was the one who chose to take the entire matter public, to solicit 800-1000 letters, to tell The New York Times that her bishop was "cowardly and unchristlike," and so on.

So I'm not buying the "my stake president made me do it." That's just not so.

 

 

 

Yeah.....again I'll probably believe she felt like she "had to"....but only because it kinda fits her general hyperbole about the letters. She had a tendency of jumping to conclusions that weren't there in the first place and ascribing those conclusions as fact when dealing with the letters, among other things. A dumb example outside of the letters was when she asserted, because she couldn't find a place to buy the NYT on BYU, that the church culture/structure maintains insular ideals and tries to shut out the world...when the truth was that the paper isn't sold on BYU....it's given out for free in 2 specific spots on campus. In this process I haven't seen much evidence where she's tried to directly interact and dialogue with anybody but the media and church headquarters about her concerns. 

 

 

Hmm. "Direct action." "Faithful agitation." "Positive self-care." What is the source of this odd lexicon?

 

Self-care is a very common term in psychology. A self-help book would probably use it. Crap, Dr. Phil would probably use it. Faithful agitation is a pretty common term in the activist end of the bloggernacle...no idea about direct action

 

Kate Kelly telling The New York Times that her bishop is "cowardly and unchristlike" was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Kate Kelly comparing the disciplinary proceedings against her to rape, to her bishop (or, if you prefer, the Church) to a rapist, and to herself as a rape victim was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Kate Kelly encouraging Church members that if they stay in the Church they should "raise hell" in it was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Kate Kelly publicly accusing the Church of "brutality" and being "abusive" was speaking "the truth, with love?"

Well . . . okay. Reasonable minds will have to disagree about what it means to speak "the truth, with love," I suppose. Me, I'm not seein' it.

Also, she made these comments today, so it's getting kinda hard to give her the benefit of the doubt based on a previous "she only said those awful things about the Church in the heat of the moment immediately after her excommunication" type of justification.

 

"Work for change from within" has a somewhat nicer ring than her previous instruction for Church members to say in the Church and "raise hell" in it. But I think she's expressing the same sentiment, really. She's just using honeyed words this time around.

 

 

For her credit, I think the shock really got to her. She really wasn't expecting something like this to actually happen. Her words when she first spoke after the Ex-ing were in a posture of defense. Kinda like how a wounded animal will try to look bigger/fiercer than they are. People do the same thing all the time. They use their (often verbal) posturing to attack back defensively. Calming down after the initial shock can usually help anyone's message to soften. But she was always kinda bad with communicating her message "with love" per se. I still like to believe at least half of those weren't intentional, but her tone has consistently maintained us/them boundaries....where if you weren't for ordination you were wrong (often for those who were more verbose in their disagreement it could get pretty inflammatory....the one that comes to mind was when she had an interview with Dehlin and more moderate fems and she more than insinuated, among other things, that Neylan McBane/others had traits linked to narcissism....the "dialogue" that followed was later asked to be edited by both KK and Neylan if I remember correctly). 

 

With luv and incredulity, 

BD

Edited July 9, 2014 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

Agreed. Personally I think this point of discussion is, for me, one of the points that I continue to lose respect for her, the more she insists on this. It maintains a victim dialogue and frankly discredits those who really have and do experience abuse, violence, and brutality in their lives. Though, also I think the brutality was more toward various public reactions she's received and not solely the church or even the Bishop/SP.

Perhaps this time, yes. But let's not forget that she previously drew a direct comparison between the text of her bishop's letter with "classic abuse" by "perpetrators" of "abuse" such as rapists, wife-beaters, etc.  She said, speaking of her bishop's letter, "In our society, the most violent situations against women are often shrouded in a cloud of disingenuous love," and that this is "absolutely" how she views the disciplinary proceedings against her, and that these proceedings were "absolutely consistent with abusive, manipulative, patriarchal situations."

I have tried to excuse these appalling statements by dismissing them as being said in the heat of the moment (the linked interview above was, IIRC, conducted the day after her excommunication). But now here she is, a few weeks later, not only maintaining the vitriol but pouring more onto the flame. Her use of the passive voice ("What happened to me was wrong ... was abusive...") is, I think, merely obfuscatory. So in one breath she is defaming the Church ("was wrong . . . was abusive") and in the next is decrying "brutality" and "unkindness."  Now, she could be attributing these things either to the Church or to online reactions to her excommunication. At this point, given her behavior I am not really willing to give her the benefit of the doubt any more.

I also can't help but find unseemly her excessive use of self-congratulatory rhetoric ("I choose to move forward with grace", "I did the right thing", "I spoke the truth, with love", "I acted with integrity"), particularly in contrast to vile epithets she deploys against the Church and her local leaders ("cowardly", "unchristlike", "abusive", "manipulative", akin to rapists, etc.).

 

Still, the language to me is emotionally manipulative and I'm not a fan. (She's often framed this in a way that most disagreements are seen as invalidating her emotions or maintaining abusive posturing. If the church maintains her excommunication, it won't be her fault, it'll just show the level of abuse that's being maintained/permitted against women). Since she's so apt for using relational terms/analogy in therapy we have a term for redirecting interactions between partners called catching bullets. Basically you work to catch harmful or invalidating phrases from the other and reframe/direct them to soften them so that they don't damage potential progress in their relational interactions. KK is sometimes more like a machine gun some days... she seems to spit out adverse phrases that only maintain divides again and again. And I feel bad for her because it seems that she only partially aware that she does it. She seems genuinely surprised everytime things seem to go bad.

I guess this may be where our assessments of her may differ a bit. You can accommodate Kate Kelly being "only partially aware" of what she is doing, and of being "genuinely surprised" at the consequences of her rhetoric and actions. I struggle to accommodate that. I have a hard time believing someone as plainly intelligent as Kate Kelly could be so utterly clueless, even boneheaded as to the content and effect of her words and deeds. I share my profession with her (we are both attorneys), and so that probably colors my perception of her behavior. I occasionally see attorneys who say/do outrageous things, but such antics generally have a very brief lifespan because, well, sooner or later a misbehaving attorney is going to end up being called on it by a judge or by the bar. So outrageous antics are usually just an interim sort of thing, a diversionary tactic hastily utilized and hastily thrown away. But here we have Kate Kelly, saying and doing outrageous things for months and months on end, over and over again.

 

Yeah.....again I'll probably believe she felt like she "had to"....but only because it kinda fits her general hyperbole about the letters. She had a tendency of jumping to conclusions that weren't there in the first place and ascribing those conclusions as fact when dealing with the letters, among other things. A dumb example outside of the letters was when she asserted, because she couldn't find a place to buy the NYT on BYU, that the church culture/structure maintains insular ideals and tries to shut out the world...when the truth was that the paper isn't sold on BYU....it's given out for free in 2 specific spots on campus. In this process I haven't seen much evidence where she's tried to directly interact and dialogue with anybody but the media and church headquarters about her concerns.

I have yet to see a single instance of Kate Kelly engage in a substantive exchange of ideas with someone who is directly challenging her on her more outrageous actions (although there was a Trib webcast a few months back that sort of touched the edges of this). Kate Kelly has largely reserved her remarks for friendly/fawning media types. I have not seen her address the many reasonable and legitimate criticisms of her actions. Instead, we get hit over our collective heads with copious amounts of her self-congratulatory rhetoric ("I choose joy. I choose passion. I choose the delicious freedom of authenticity"), equaled in vigor only with the pile of offensive slurs she has leveled against her bishop, her stake president, and the Church.

 

Self-care is a very common term in psychology. A self-help book would probably use it. Crap, Dr. Phil would probably use it. Faithful agitation is a pretty common term in the activist end of the bloggernacle...no idea about direct action

Okay. Good to know.

 

For her credit, I think the shock really got to her. She really wasn't expecting something like this to actually happen. Her words when she first spoke after the Ex-ing were in a posture of defense. Kinda like how a wounded animal will try to look bigger/fiercer than they are. People do the same thing all the time. They use their (often verbal) posturing to attack back defensively.

I'd like to think her shock at her excommunication a few weeks ago was genuine, rather than a theatrical, melodramatic, ham-it-up-for-the-media, Captain Louis Renault type of "shock." But that wouldn't account for the continued viciousness in her remarks a few weeks later. So frankly I don't know what I think about that.

 

Calming down after the initial shock can usually help anyone's message to soften. But she was always kinda bad with communicating her message "with love" per se.

Here's a link to the vid of her the day after she was excommunicated.  I see nothing to do with "love" anywhere in it. Granted, this was the day after her excommunication, so she could perhaps be excused for saying some pretty horrendous things in the heat of the moment. But here she is, a few weeks later, maintaining the same self-congratulatory posture while vilifying everyone else (including the Chruch, which she specifically and repeatedly calls to repentance not only for her excommunication, but for the excommunications of Margaret Toscano and Lavina Fielding Anderson). I sense no "love" at all in her remarks for anyone but herself and those who agree with her.

I appreciate your insights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2014 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

Perhaps this time, yes. But let's not forget that she previously drew a direct comparison between the text of her bishop's letter with "classic abuse" by "perpetrators" of "abuse" such as rapists, wife-beaters, etc.  She said, speaking of her bishop's letter, "In our society, the most violent situations against women are often shrouded in a cloud of disingenuous love," and that this is "absolutely" how she views the disciplinary proceedings against her, and that these proceedings were "absolutely consistent with abusive, manipulative, patriarchal situations."

 

I haven't forgotten in the least. And I think she still pretty much believes it, but is softening her rhetoric just a little, realizing that even some of those that support her do not appreciate the words. She sticks to her guns, even when what she's saying is obviously wrong or insulting. The example I gave earlier can be found here....hers is the first comment. What was stated by them, though not agreeing with KK, obviously, was also not critical to her as a person (from what I remember). Yet she went immediately into character attack and refused to substantially change her means of dialogue. It's a pretty solid pattern to her behavior well before this event. 

 

 

 

I guess this may be where our assessments of her may differ a bit. You can accommodate Kate Kelly being "only partially aware" of what she is doing, and of being "genuinely surprised" at the consequences of her rhetoric and actions. I struggle to accommodate that. I have a hard time believing someone as plainly intelligent as Kate Kelly could be so utterly clueless, even boneheaded as to the content and effect of her words and deeds. I share my profession with her (we are both attorneys), and so that probably colors my perception of her behavior. I occasionally see attorneys who say/do outrageous things, but such antics generally have a very brief lifespan because, well, sooner or later a misbehaving attorney is going to end up being called on it by a judge or by the bar. So outrageous antics are usually just an interim sort of thing, a diversionary tactic hastily utilized and hastily thrown away. But here we have Kate Kelly, saying and doing outrageous things for months and months on end, over and over again.

 

Maybe it's because I've had some truly boneheaded friends. In fact I had a friend that I decided it would be better if we weren't friends a while back. He was intelligent (studies Law at a good school) and enjoyed intellectual pursuits of any sort. I was careful not to attack him, but was stern in my decision, I wasn't going to change on this. He did not take it well....and not just for a moment, but for (I kid you not) over 2 years. Though largely with no contact during this a few times in that period contact was reestablished due to this or that event. He'd usually state something about how I had acted unchristlike, immaturely, or something along those lines and then defend his own position or what he thought I must see wrong in him. A number of times his points heavily overstepped spiritual boundaries, were unintentionally bullying, and he couldn't alter his perception that what I did may not have been wrong. Actually this really reminds me of KK....because what made this difficult for him could be similar for her....it really attacked some major self- and spiritual- concepts and altered their worldview. For him, it was a far far smaller alteration. For her this would be astronomically impactful.

 

 

 

I have yet to see a single instance of Kate Kelly engage in a substantive exchange of ideas with someone who is directly challenging her on her more outrageous actions (although there was a Trib webcast a few months back that sort of touched the edges of this). Kate Kelly has largely reserved her remarks for friendly/fawning media types. I have not seen her address the many reasonable and legitimate criticisms of her actions. Instead, we get hit over our collective heads with copious amounts of her self-congratulatory rhetoric ("I choose joy. I choose passion. I choose the delicious freedom of authenticity"), equaled in vigor only with the pile of offensive slurs she has leveled against her bishop, her stake president, and the Church.

 

 

She doesn't usually warrant that capacity through her actions/words when things are less emotionally close to her heart. Plus I doubt she's really at a place to really deal with opposing voices at this moment. 

 

I'd like to think her shock at her excommunication a few weeks ago was genuine, rather than a theatrical, melodramatic, ham-it-up-for-the-media, Captain Louis Renault type of "shock." But that wouldn't account for the continued viciousness in her remarks a few weeks later. So frankly I don't know what I think about that.

...

Here's a link to the vid of her the day after she was excommunicated.  I see nothing to do with "love" anywhere in it. Granted, this was the day after her excommunication, so she could perhaps be excused for saying some pretty horrendous things in the heat of the moment. But here she is, a few weeks later, maintaining the same self-congratulatory posture while vilifying everyone else (including the Chruch, which she specifically and repeatedly calls to repentance not only for her excommunication, but for the excommunications of Margaret Toscano and Lavina Fielding Anderson). I sense no "love" at all in her remarks for anyone but herself and those who agree with her.

 

 

 

Yeah....2 weeks is not enough in my book. This is probably coming from my (relatively short) background in therapy/psychology. Whatever this event was for her, it was definitely on the end of traumatic. (Trauma does not have to be intentional or, in her words "abusive or brutal or even unfair"). People are not that amazingly resilient...trauma does not heal that quickly. From what I've seen, people may not "fully" heal for years. And this one cuts deep, it's a major part of who she conceptualizes herself as....she's a mormon, one who was active and largely believes in the faith and wanted active participation in that community (albeit, often in a way she dictated). Suddenly an unexpected action stripped that major part of her identity away. Kate's also pretty stubborn, she's a go-getter, and she's probably use of having goals and really accomplishing them.

 

Basically she's a woman who's used to taking the lead and being empowered in controlling her narrative...sexism has probably come up, but she's been able to push through it and become the woman she wants to be.  To suddenly have an action where some of the main methods she's learned to do just that become useless would leave KK in a place that she's not used to: feeling powerless and vulnerable. Part of that powerlessness, is, IMO of her own making. She can be an unintentional bully...my guess from what I've seen is that she has little to no idea how much dialogue is prematurely cut off through her tactics/phrasing. This carries over to when she was unwilling to work within the parameters set (not even the ultimatum with the bishop/SP, but simply opening a channel of direct communication with them, asking for a delay, a chance to skype...anything....instead she worked to change the system). And her "forced hand" led to massive national media coverage/shaming of not only the church structure but these 2 men.   

 

And there's still no room for opposing voices. Part of it I understand. No one this raw is really ready to open up and prod at their wounds. She needs to feel whole again. But part of it is continuing the problem she's always had. She assumes she knows the right answers, uses dialogue that shuts down any conversation that's not similar to her own, and moves forward with those that are like-minded. Ironically, her position has made her experience remarkably insular. And until she is able to take in other viable messages about women in the church I really doubt that any of her narrative will substantially alter.

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[stemelbow]

This has been ugly and it seems to only get uglier. Accusing her bishop of abuse and brutality is beyond juvenile.

[Abulafia]

This has been ugly and it seems to only get uglier. Accusing her bishop of abuse and brutality is beyond juvenile.

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

[stemelbow]

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

By all means convince me.

[BlueDreams]

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

 

Does that make the experience actually accurate of what occurred? To me the language and the context she uses it is hyperbole, pure and simple. And uses words of violence so flippantly that most of them lose part of their actual meaning.

 

With luv,

BD

[Sleeper Cell]

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

 

And another way of looking at this is that you may have been a tad premature in characterizing her words and actions as: “a matter of conscience from a good woman.” (your post 606). 

 

To me, a “matter of conscience” implies a high degree of integrity and a willingness to put principle above self (and certainly above self interest).  Frankly,  the more she talks, the more I am getting the impression that it is all about her.     

[USU78]

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

 

No, it's not.

[USU78]

 

And another way of looking at this is that you may have been a tad premature in characterizing her words and actions as: “a matter of conscience from a good woman.” (your post 606). 

 

To me, a “matter of conscience” implies a high degree of integrity and a willingness to put principle above self (and certainly above self interest).  Frankly,  the more she talks, the more I am getting the impression that it is all about her.     

 

 

One could make the case that she orchestrated events in order to provoke arrests on temple square, intemperate words during conference by highly provoked members of the 12 and others, inevitable disciplinary action by local authorities with or without input from 50 E No Temple, and her wished-for excommunication . . . all in order to raise her profile and credibility amongst professional plaintiffs and plaintiff advocacy groups in order to get a better job.

 

One could make this case . . .

 

And nobody ever has . . .

 

Because, unlike KK, most folks live not in the land of hyperbolic screechism, but rather in the real world.

[smac97]

I haven't forgotten in the least. And I think she still pretty much believes it, but is softening her rhetoric just a little, realizing that even some of those that support her do not appreciate the words. She sticks to her guns, even when what she's saying is obviously wrong or insulting. The example I gave earlier can be found here....hers is the first comment. What was stated by them, though not agreeing with KK, obviously, was also not critical to her as a person (from what I remember). Yet she went immediately into character attack and refused to substantially change her means of dialogue. It's a pretty solid pattern to her behavior well before this event.

I see what you mean.

Also, I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but my comments consisted primarily of "You raise a good point" and "Hmm, I hadn't thought of that" and "This is a great insight." So I'll just cut to the chase and thank you for your remarks. They have been very helpful to me.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think the Church's position on priesthood ordination is accurately described as being merely based on "cultural and traditional assumptions."

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh boy not this argument again. JS didn't ordain women because of "cultural and traditional assumptions." But he did practice plural marriage and he was sealed to other men's wives. "Cultural norm" for sure.

[awyatt]

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

 

Here we go:

• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies doesn't matter in the long run.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies is a three-ring circus.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies is a "power play" by the Church.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies is a chance to play victim.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies is a way to gain martyr status.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies real love for the individual.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies a merciful removal of covenant obligations from the individual.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies is that the conclusion was decided by nameless individuals in SLC.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies is that the local leadership is inept.
• Another way of looking at it is that excommunication and all that it implies ______________ (fill in the blank).

The point is, there are a myriad of ways to "look at it." As someone who has been through disciplinary councils dozens of times on the Church's side of the fence and participated several times from the other side of the fence, I personally have first-hand knowledge of their purpose, intent, composition, spirit, and influences. That first-hand experience is in a half-dozen different wards and stakes in different parts of the country over a 25-year time frame.

I know whereof I speak based on that experience, and that experience tells me that Kate Kelly does not know whereof she speaks.

Now the choice is *yours* as to which voice of experience you will listen to, as it is the option, right, and responsibility of all to choose.

-Allen

[Calm]

 

And there's still no room for opposing voices. Part of it I understand. No one this raw is really ready to open up and prod at their wounds. She needs to feel whole again. But part of it is continuing the problem she's always had. She assumes she knows the right answers, uses dialogue that shuts down any conversation that's not similar to her own, and moves forward with those that are like-minded. Ironically, her position has made her experience remarkably insular. And until she is able to take in other viable messages about women in the church I really doubt that any of her narrative will substantially alter.

 

And this appears to be a habitual approach to  dissent for her if her description of her interactions with elders on her mission is accurate.  She just ignores the other person, even admitted to not listening to them as if that was a good thing and not juvenile and goes ahead with what she wants to do/thinks is right.  And according to her mom it has always worked for her so it is hardly surprising this is the approach she constantly using now…I've wondered how it could, I can think of a few ways of how it could pay off emotionally even when it didn't end the way she wanted which surely it must have happened before to her or she's led a magic life but that gets into suggesting psychological motivations so while I can't help myself thinking about them being what I am, I can refrain from going there in the discussion….at least any more than I already have.

Edited July 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

And this appears to be a habitual approach to  dissent for her if her description of her interactions with elders on her mission is accurate.  She just ignores the other person, even admitted to not listening to them as if that was a good thing and not juvenile and goes ahead with what she wants to do/thinks is right.  And according to her mom it has always worked for her so it is hardly surprising this is the approach she constantly using now…I've wondered how it could, I can think of a few ways of how it could pay off emotionally even when it didn't end the way she wanted which surely it must have happened before to her or she's led a magic life but that gets into suggesting psychological motivations so while I can't help myself thinking about them being what I am, I can refrain from going there in the discussion….at least any more than I already have.

Some people seem to live charmed lives, but I guess this just goes to show that sooner or later, one's habits catch up with him/her.

[BlueDreams]

And this appears to be a habitual approach to  dissent for her if her description of her interactions with elders on her mission is accurate.  She just ignores the other person, even admitted to not listening to them as if that was a good thing and not juvenile and goes ahead with what she wants to do/thinks is right.  And according to her mom it has always worked for her so it is hardly surprising this is the approach she constantly using now…I've wondered how it could, I can think of a few ways of how it could pay off emotionally even when it didn't end the way she wanted which surely it must have happened before to her or she's led a magic life but that gets into suggesting psychological motivations so while I can't help myself thinking about them being what I am, I can refrain from going there in the discussion….at least any more than I already have.

 

I'm trying (and failing) to do the same. It's where my head just naturally goes. I want a dang road map to her mind and oh what I'd do to have more of the story from the bishop/SP....considering what's happen, I don't trust her story in parts, particularly with interactions with them.

 

And I agree, even when it doesn't end as we expect, I think there's still value that she (and all of us really) can have from the experience with it if a different approach was at least attempted on her part. But I guess there's things we'll never really know.

 

With luv,

BD  

[why me]

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

Not really. All mormons know of excommunication, disfellowshipment and probation. And all know that such can happen to them if they step over the line. Kate knew this very well. And she was probably warned about it. She must have known that she could end up with such a fate when she protested on temple square when being asked not to. Why disobey a request? Maybe she thought that she was getting too big to be exed. But she must have known of the possiblity.

 

All churches use excommunication, especially in the past. Maybe people were made of harder skin back then and did not see themselves as victims when they were excommunicated because they knew that they broke the rules. Paul also exed members as did the early church. Life is tough and we need to take responsibilty for our actions and not blame others for our own doings.

[why me]

Does that make the experience actually accurate of what occurred? To me the language and the context she uses it is hyperbole, pure and simple. And uses words of violence so flippantly that most of them lose part of their actual meaning.

 

With luv,

BD

This should be of no surprise. It is all about her and she wants to be in the focus and she wishes to play the victim. She also uses words of a radical feminist who just experienced abuse from a patriarchal order. So, these men have emotionally abused her and commited violence against her person. So far she has left out the word rape I believe. But I would not put it passed her if she considered what happened to her as emotional rape. And I am sure that she would love to use the word but doesn't for fear of causing offense to rape victims. It is a word that has been used by female stars when discribing how the papparazzi harasses them etc.

 

Like many people who experienced the limelight, she is finding it hard to remain in the background. The media seems to be ignoring her now....the story is spent and no longer interesting for the mainstream media.

Edited July 10, 2014 by why me

[Stargazer]

I've been following this thread without commenting, but suddenly I find that I have acquired an Insight.

 

What is the Priesthood in LDS doctrine?  It is the delegation of Heavenly Father's authority.  It is not the delegation of Heavenly Mother's authority.  

 

As to men and women, we sit on opposite sides of the ordinance room during the presentation of the Endowment. Certain of the covenants we make there are distinguished according to gender. We serve as proxies only for those of our own gender. 

 

So how can the authority to act in Heavenly Father's place, in other words, as a proxy for Him, be conferred upon someone of the female sex?

 

I know this probably doesn't sound very profound to you, but it does to me.  It just sort of popped in there.  That's why I say it was an Insight.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, another way of looking at this is that excommunication and all that it implies can be experienced as brutal and abusive.

Reminds me of scholars who speak loosely of "text abuse," as citing proof-texts out of context, etc.  Anyone can speak metaphorically about this matter, claiming perhaps that Kate or her bishop is having a conniption fit, or is throwing a tantrum, etc.

 

We could psychologize it all New Age fashion by citing the late psychiatrist Elizabeth Kübler-Ross' model of the five stages of grief:

Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

 

Or we could declare in bellicose fashion:  "Get over it, already!!"

 

What is tragic (in my view) is that OW has very little sophistication to show us on the nature of priesthood.  They might have gotten more mileage (positive mileage) by addressing the subject of priesthood in a systematic, practical, and scholarly way.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Robert F. Smith