Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[Gray]

 

Here's a partial transcript:

 

I wish you had taken advantage of my offer to arrange a secure video link where we could have talked face to face or my offer to reschedule the council to a date when you could have attended in person.

 

The decision to hold this disciplinary council was reached only after a period of months and a series of meetings and communications between you and President Wheatley together with me or President Lee:

 

• On December 12, 2013, President Wheatley and I met with you.  We talked with you about the doctrine of the priesthood.  We urged you to dissociate yourself from Ordain Women and to cease your campaign to promote the ordination of women.

 

• In March and April of this year, President Wheatley again reminded you of the counsel given in December.  Nonetheless, you proceeded with your protest on Temple Square during General Conference despite the request of Church leaders that you not do so.

 

• Subsequently, under your leadership and with your direct involvement, Ordain Women announced "Six Discussions" which were intended to proselyte others and to persuade them to support your particular intepretation of Church doctrine.  You reached out to others to persuaded them to joint your movement.

 

• On May 5th, after conferring with me and with my full agreement, President Wheatley again met with you together with President Lee, offered the same counsel previously given and placed you on informal probation in the hope that you still might change your course.  Yet, you have persisted undeterred.

 

The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood.  The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.  You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to promote them and proselyte others to them while remaining in full fellowship in the Church.  This is the basic point that President Wheatley has sought repeatedly to explain to you, but to no avail.  You ahve also heard from President Lee and me on this.  Your disregard of our advice and counsel left us no alternative but to convene last evening's council.

 

If you have any questions or would like to visit with me, please contact me.  You have a right ot appeal the decision to the stake president.  If you want to appeal this decision, you must specify in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision and then present the appeal within 30 days to me as the presiding officer of the bishop's disciplinary council.  I will then forward the materials to President Wheatley who may decide whether to let the decision stand, modify it or direct that the council reconvene.

 

Above all else, please know of my love and respect for you and my earnest desire that you return to good standing in the Church.  I urge you to continue to attend church, read the scriptures and pray daily.  I invite you to strive to come back to full fellowship.  This is an opportunity for you to begin anew, to take full advantage of the great gift of the Atonement, to again qualify for the blessings of the temple, and to enjoy again all of the blessings of the restored gospel.  It is my sincere desire that you will do so.

 

So what do we learn from this?  A few things at least:

 

1. Kate Kelly's narrative about her bishop not communicating with her prior to taking disciplinary measures is patently false.

 

2. Kate Kelly's characterization of her bishop as "cowardly and unchristlike" is difficult/impossible to reconcile with the man who wrote the above letter.

 

3. Kate Kelly's narrative that she was targeted for disciplinary action because she is a woman is patently false.

 

4. Kate Kelly apparently attempted to frustrate the disciplinary process or else challenge its legitimacy by refusing to participate in it.  She had every opportunity to participate and refused to do so.

 

5. Kate Kelly's narrative about her disciplinary council being about "questioning" is patently false.

 

What else?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

I'm not sure his comments about her "interpretations of doctrine" are fair. Where has she done that?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's clear, members should not publically oppose the Church's policy, practice and doctrine. Being one who holds opposing views regarding policy, practice and doctrine, in some cases, this is a tough pill to swallow, in a sense. But it's good to see defined lines.

I don't hold any significant views opposing policy, practice or doctrine. But if I did, I would have to weigh how strongly I held those views against my dedication to and love for the gospel and the Church. That would determine whether I decided to go to the media and potentially bring the Church into disrepute or subject it to disparagement from an uncomprehending public.

 

So, to me, it's a matter of how highly you regard the Church and the cause of bringing forth the kingdom of God.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

I'm not sure his comments about her "interpretations of doctrine" are fair. Where has she done that?

 

I think it is fair to say that Kate Kelly's bishop has had private communications with her.  Plus I think some of her public remarks could be fairly characterized as "interpretations of doctrine."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2014 by smac97

[california boy]

In today's world, things need to be done in writing.  If he does this by phone call, she can claim he said just about anything.  Email is how he documented things - and if you have been a bishop, you know that disciplinary council notices must be in writing.

I agree that putting the decision in writing is an important part of the procedure.  It gives the recipient an exact wording of what transpired and an outline of how to return to the church.  But I have issues with doing it by email also.  Come on, that is tacky and really puts the thing in a less serious light.

 

Has the church never heard of FedEX?  Or certified mail?  Could not an envelop been sent to her current bishop and have him hand deliver it?  Email was just bad form.

 

I also have a few more question.  She is moving to Kenya right?  Just how effective of leader of this movement can one be from Kenya??  Could the church have waited a bit longer to see how this was going to pan out?  Now they have created a martyr and a face for national and international news.  Does anyone seriously believe we will never hear from Kate Kelly or OW again?  Is there going to be a monthly excommunication of each member of OW until they are all weeded out?  Does the church think this issue is such a small issue for these women that they will all rollover and never be heard of again?  Ultimately OW will fail.  But how they fail I would think would be of big importance to the church.  In my opinion, I think the whole thing is a huge disaster for the church.  

 

Edit: I guess now a certified letter has been reported.  They still should not have sent the email.  Next day delivery is plenty of time to have delivered the message properly.  Just my opinion

Edited June 23, 2014 by california boy

[cinepro]

I will also add that while I understand the policy of having these thing handled at the local level, the absence of public involvement by the Apostles and Prophet on this is really, really weak sauce. 

 

Fine, if you want to just leave it at the local level, leave it there, but don't get the PR department in SLC involved then.  Once it's a big enough deal for a PR spokesperson to weigh in on, it's a big enough deal for a real spokesperson to weigh in on. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Here's a partial transcript:

 

I wish you had taken advantage of my offer to arrange a secure video link where we could have talked face to face or my offer to reschedule the council to a date when you could have attended in person.

 

The decision to hold this disciplinary council was reached only after a period of months and a series of meetings and communications between you and President Wheatley together with me or President Lee:

 

• On December 12, 2013, President Wheatley and I met with you.  We talked with you about the doctrine of the priesthood.  We urged you to dissociate yourself from Ordain Women and to cease your campaign to promote the ordination of women.

 

• In March and April of this year, President Wheatley again reminded you of the counsel given in December.  Nonetheless, you proceeded with your protest on Temple Square during General Conference despite the request of Church leaders that you not do so.

 

• Subsequently, under your leadership and with your direct involvement, Ordain Women announced "Six Discussions" which were intended to proselyte others and to persuade them to support your particular intepretation of Church doctrine.  You reached out to others to persuaded them to joint your movement.

 

• On May 5th, after conferring with me and with my full agreement, President Wheatley again met with you together with President Lee, offered the same counsel previously given and placed you on informal probation in the hope that you still might change your course.  Yet, you have persisted undeterred.

 

The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood.  The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.  You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to promote them and proselyte others to them while remaining in full fellowship in the Church.  This is the basic point that President Wheatley has sought repeatedly to explain to you, but to no avail.  You ahve also heard from President Lee and me on this.  Your disregard of our advice and counsel left us no alternative but to convene last evening's council.

 

If you have any questions or would like to visit with me, please contact me.  You have a right ot appeal the decision to the stake president.  If you want to appeal this decision, you must specify in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision and then present the appeal within 30 days to me as the presiding officer of the bishop's disciplinary council.  I will then forward the materials to President Wheatley who may decide whether to let the decision stand, modify it or direct that the council reconvene.

 

Above all else, please know of my love and respect for you and my earnest desire that you return to good standing in the Church.  I urge you to continue to attend church, read the scriptures and pray daily.  I invite you to strive to come back to full fellowship.  This is an opportunity for you to begin anew, to take full advantage of the great gift of the Atonement, to again qualify for the blessings of the temple, and to enjoy again all of the blessings of the restored gospel.  It is my sincere desire that you will do so.

 

So what do we learn from this?  A few things at least:

 

1. Kate Kelly's narrative about her bishop not communicating with her prior to taking disciplinary measures is patently false.

 

2. Kate Kelly's characterization of her bishop as "cowardly and unchristlike" is difficult/impossible to reconcile with the man who wrote the above letter.

 

3. Kate Kelly's narrative that she was targeted for disciplinary action because she is a woman is patently false.

 

4. Kate Kelly apparently attempted to frustrate the disciplinary process or else challenge its legitimacy by refusing to participate in it.  She had every opportunity to participate and refused to do so.

 

5. Kate Kelly's narrative about her disciplinary council being about "questioning" is patently false.

 

What else?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I think it unfair that she and/or Ordain Women continue to characterize this as a trial held "in abstentia," implying that it was conducted without allowing her to be present. As can be seen here, she was given a reasonable opportunity to be there in person or to attend via electronic link-up.

[Calm]

I'm not sure his comments about her "interpretations of doctrine" are fair. Where has she done that?

Have you read the discussions referred to?

[ttribe]

At the risk of being completely tasteless:

 

It was, sorry.

 

~Mods

Wow. I am very disappointed in you, Nehor.

[Calm]

I think it unfair that she and/or Ordain Women continue to characterize this as a trial held "in abstentia," implying that it was conducted without allowing her to be present. As can be seen here, she was given a reasonable opportunity to be there in person or to attend via electronic link-up.

The OW discussions was a big hit to their credibility for me.

I have significant doubts that it will ever recover after this exposure.

[ERayR]

I'm not sure his comments about her "interpretations of doctrine" are fair. Where has she done that?

 

It has been explained at least a dozen times over the past week in the various threads that are running.  I don't see the profitability of trying to explain again.  insert something about heads and rocks or about insanity.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that putting the decision in writing is an important part of the procedure.  It gives the recipient an exact wording of what transpired and an outline of how to return to the church.  But I have issues with doing it by email also.  Come on, that is tacky and really puts the thing in a less serious light.

 

Has the church never heard of FedEX?  Or certified mail?  Could not an envelop been sent to her current bishop and have him hand deliver it?  Email was just bad form.

 

I also have a few more question.  She is moving to Kenya right?  Just how effective of leader of this movement can one be from Kenya??  Could the church have waited a bit longer to see how this was going to pan out?  Now they have created a martyr and a face for national and international news.  Does anyone seriously believe we will never hear from Kate Kelly or OW again?  Is there going to be a monthly excommunication of each member of OW until they are all weeded out?  Does the church think this issue is such a small issue for these women that they will all rollover and never be heard of again?  Ultimately OW will fail.  But how they fail I would think would be of big importance to the church.  In my opinion, I think the whole thing is a huge disaster for the church.  

You apparently missed the posts that pointed out a certified letter was indeed sent. The email spared her the suspense of waiting for it to arrive.

 

And I don't get the hyperventilating about email being "in bad form." To me, a message is a message, whether delivered electronically or on paper.

[Scott Lloyd]

I will also add that while I understand the policy of having these thing handled at the local level, the absence of public involvement by the Apostles and Prophet on this is really, really weak sauce. 

 

Fine, if you want to just leave it at the local level, leave it there, but don't get the PR department in SLC involved then.  Once it's a big enough deal for a PR spokesperson to weigh in on, it's a big enough deal for a real spokesperson to weigh in on. 

Well now, when the activists do all they can to bring the Church as an institution into public disrepute, you can hardly expect the Church not to weigh in, be it through Public Affairs representatives or in other ways. All this is separate and apart from the convening of a disciplinary council which is and probably always will be a matter to be handled by the local-level priesthood leadership.

[ERayR]

You apparently missed the posts that pointed out a certified letter was indeed sent. The email spared her the suspense of waiting for it to arrive.

 

And I don't get the hyperventilating about email being "in bad form." To me, a message is a message, whether delivered electronically or on paper.

 

Especially in 2014

[sdc999]

Does not surprise me in the least from everything I read it was inevitable.

 

Disagree with the Church all you want, write letters or talk to the Church leaders abut your disagreement. but don't try to lead others astray 

I led my family astray and didn't resign for many years.  It's subjective or I just had a weak bishop. 

[MorningStar]

You know it really bothers me that his bishop did this all by email.  He could have at least called and discussed the decision with her.  Bad form in my opinion.

 

You think I am harsh on this?  I was a bishop.  I may be disillusioned about the Church these days but I was as much as a beleiver as anyone here when I was a bishop.   I did DCs.   I never, ever would have used email for anything like this that was so very very personal.  A formal letter, not email would follow.  But not email.  Really Bishop Harrison? Why did you not commune in real time at least?

 

This part of it just bothers me immensely.

But what suits her agenda is having everything in writing so she can post it publically to outrage people. 

[Calm]

.

 

I also have a few more question.  She is moving to Kenya right?  Just how effective of leader of this movement can one be from Kenya??  Could the church have waited a bit longer to see how this was going to pan out?  Now they have created a martyr and a face for national and international news.  Does anyone seriously believe we will never hear from Kate Kelly or OW again?  Is there going to be a monthly excommunication of each member of OW until they are all weeded out?  Does the church think this issue is such a small issue for these women that they will all rollover and never be heard of again?  Ultimately OW will fail.  But how they fail I would think would be of big importance to the church.  In my opinion, I think the whole thing is a huge disaster for the church.  

 

Edit: I guess now a certified letter has been reported.  They still should not have sent the email.  Next day delivery is plenty of time to have delivered the message properly.  Just my opinion

Given that she had apparently carried on email communication with him in the past and given that she had made clear her expectation to hear the news last night, it would hardly surprise me if she herself wanted an email exchange. If sent last night she would have announced it right then and there at the vigil. How else could she have learned of it? And she had plenty of time to ask for it not to be done that way.

As to Kenya, do you think it appropriate given that this was an ongoing issue of discussion that had been taking place where the leaders knew there were valid concerns including of her representing herself as a faithful active member, to allow her to appear without the branch/ward members knowing her history and potentially being told lies by her or at least highly edited versions and stirring up trouble there when the leaders here were already well aware of the issues and had a chance to discuss it with her (contrary to her claims).

[smac97]

I agree that putting the decision in writing is an important part of the procedure.  It gives the recipient an exact wording of what transpired and an outline of how to return to the church.  But I have issues with doing it by email also.  Come on, that is tacky and really puts the thing in a less serious light.

Has the church never heard of FedEX?  Or certified mail?  Could not an envelop been sent to her current bishop and have him hand deliver it?  Email was just bad form.

Almost as tacky as publicizing and sensationalizing this entire matter. And the one who did that was . . . wait for it . . . Kate Kelly.

If the bishop had sent the letter via FedEx, you could just as easily have found fault with that as well ("Her bishop was so callous, sending her the results of the disciplinary council and making her wait for it to arrive, when he could instead email it to her and have her receive it immediately..."). That's the problem with faultfinding - you'll always succeed at it.

 

I also have a few more question.  She is moving to Kenya right?  Just how effective of leader of this movement can one be from Kenya??  Could the church have waited a bit longer to see how this was going to pan out?

Woulda coulda shoulda speculation has little value. She has repeatedly stated that she will continue to work with the OW group. The Church took her at her word. And your suggestion is what, that the Church should have assumed she was being untruthful?

Now they have created a martyr and a face for national and international news.

Kate Kelly has created this situation. To the extent it has adverse effects on the Church, the fault for those lies pretty much entirely with Kate Kelly. I think the Church has handled the situation as well as it could given Kate Kelly's shameful efforts to publicize and sensationalize it and make the Church look bad. And frankly, the bishop's letter goes a long way to undercut Kate Kelly's narrative.

Does anyone seriously believe we will never hear from Kate Kelly or OW again?

Oh, probably we will. But the more germane question is whether Kate Kelly's harmful influence on other church members will, from this point on, increase or decrease. I think the latter.

Kate Kelly told the Tribune last week or the week before that she greatly admires two excommunicated apostates: Margaret Toscano and Lavina Fielding Anderson. Do these women have significant influence in the Church? I don't think so. The vast majority of the Saints don't even know who they are.

Is there going to be a monthly excommunication of each member of OW until they are all weeded out?  Does the church think this issue is such a small issue for these women that they will all rollover and never be heard of again?  Ultimately OW will fail.  But how they fail I would think would be of big importance to the church.  In my opinion, I think the whole thing is a huge disaster for the church.

Quit salivating. I think speculation about the pending demise of the Church is greatly exaggerated.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

"You may not wear temple garments..."

[Erin15]

This is a very, very, very sad day. 

I disagree.  Repentance and forgiveness are beautiful things.  The Lord has given one of his daughters a chance to redress and reassess her life.  She is welcome back into the fold on conditions that are easily met, and quite merciful.  Opportunities to improve ourselves are gifts, and are wonderful things.

 

I pray that Kate Kelly takes this opportunity to right herself with the Lord and gain the blessings that come with it.

[Tacenda]

This situation is really, really weird, and as I see the reaction to Katy's "supporters", I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. There are a lot of people out there who seriously misunderstood what the Church is about and how it works. The ironic thing is that the Church has never misrepresented what it is about and how it works. It was just this weird group of people who had deluded themselves and created some weird mirage of the Church that they thought was real.

And I'm not just talking about the apologists.

I keed. I'm talking about this kind of reaction, from JD himself on FB:

"Another will rise up" against Church leadership, including the Apostles and Prophet? "The problems are duly addressed"? "The endgame is here"?

I like MormonStories and a lot of what JD has done, but this is turning into a slow motion train wreck.

I agree, I've de -friended myself from JD (he doesn't know me anyway) and I've left the Mormon Stories Podcast & It's a Thoughtful Faith Support Group on FB. I can't stomach the train wreck.

[juliann]

I disagree.  Repentance and forgiveness are beautiful things.  The Lord has given one of his daughters a chance to redress and reassess her life.  She is welcome back into the fold on conditions that are easily met, and quite merciful.  Opportunities to improve ourselves are gifts, and are wonderful things.

 

I pray that Kate Kelly takes this opportunity to right herself with the Lord and gain the blessings that come with it.

 Don't fall off your ramp or you might have to follow a gospel principle of mourning with those who mourn.

[Bsix]

Well anyone can disagree but I think a personal discussion of the results was in order.  This was a big deal. Any DC is a big deal for a member.

 

Given that OW and Ms. Kelly seem to be a conduit for distorted versions being published in the media, I think that the Bishop was correct in formal communication. Who knows how she may have represented her side of the conversation. (Which is frequent tactic for excommunicated dissidents to spin their excommunication process.)

 

The Bishop's "confidential" letter notifying Ms.Kelly of her excommunication is already available in the media. HMMMMMM...I wonder how they got their hands on that?

 

Regards,

 

Six

[Thinking]

Given that OW and Ms. Kelly seem to be a conduit for distorted versions being published in the media, I think that the Bishop was correct in formal communication. Who knows how she may have represented her side of the conversation. (Which is frequent tactic for excommunicated dissidents to spin their excommunication process.)

 

The Bishop's "confidential" letter notifying Ms.Kelly of her excommunication is already available in the media. HMMMMMM...I wonder how they got their hands on that?

 

Regards,

 

Six

 

Kate Kelly has every right to divulge the contents of the letter.

[Erin15]

 Don't fall off your ramp or you might have to follow a gospel principle of mourning with those who mourn.

I am unfamiliar with the term "don't fall off your ramp."

 

Regardless, my desire is to see Kate Kelly enter the celestial kingdom, and that would have been impossible had she continued on the path she was on.  Now, with the Lord's mercy, she has an opportunity to achieve celestial glory if she will but choose to do what the Lord requires of her.  And I rejoice that He is giving her another chance.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Erin15

[jwhitlock]

The full text of the letter has been released by the OW group: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605659/Ordain-Women-releases-LDS-bishops-letter-giving-reasons-for-Kellys-excommunication.html

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter itself: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

Thanks,

-Smac

 

There's a lot to learn from BIshop Harrison's letter. It was the correct decision, supported well and communicated in a loving manner.