Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[smac97]

Well, Kate Kelly's post-excommunication opening salvo against the Church is not exactly encouraging:

 

Women’s ordination advocate Kate Kelly said it’s unlikely she will seek rebaptism anytime soon into the LDS Church, which excommunicated her Monday.

"I’ve done nothing wrong and have nothing to repent," Kelly said in an interview. "Once the church changes to be a more inclusive place and once women are ordained, that’s a place I’d feel welcome."

First, she is declaring the Church to be in error, not her.

Second, she is conditioning her rebaptism into the Church on the Church changing "to be a more inclusive place," which place she characterizes as one where "women are ordained." So Kate Kelly's alleged stance on this issue - the one where she was claiming that she has only been wanting the Brethren to inquire of the Lord about the possibility of female ordination - was a sham and a fraud. When she said that she wants the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice," she really meant it.

 

"I honestly thought until the very last minute that they would do the right thing," the Ordain Women founder said Monday evening. "It feels very much like a forced amnesia, where everything you thought you knew was gone and everything you thought you were isn’t the case anymore."

Nonetheless, she encouraged her supporters to stay in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I love the gospel and the courage of its people," she said in a statement. "Don’t leave. Stay, and make things better."

She loves the Gospel, but she is setting conditions on it meeting her expectations before she deigns to re-join it. And she continues to publicly defame her priesthood leaders. This is sad.

 

Kelly vowed to remain active in Ordain Women and on its executive board.

She values the OW group more than the Church. That is sad.

 

In his letter Monday to Kelly, Harrison said it had been his greatest desire to persuade Kelly to "desist from the course on which you have embarked" to keep her in the faith and to protect the "integrity of the church and its doctrine."

...

Kelly said she likely will appeal her excommunication, but will try to take her case directly to the church’s governing First Presidency. Church protocol calls for her to appeal to the president of the stake (region) where she was disciplined.

Kate Kelly has repeatedly demonstrated that she is not ready for the priesthood. Her "I'll-do-what-I-want-to-do-and-when-I-want-to-do-it" approach, rife as it is with contempt for others in authority, is simply not compatible with a structured priesthood organization. She cannot claim to revere the priesthood when she so constantly defies its authorized bearers and its established policies and guidelines.

 

The letter (from her bishop) countered Kelly’s contention that her bishop and stake president had not responded to her repeated overtures to have a conversation about her Ordain Women activities. It mentions a meeting of the three of them in December, which Kelly had acknowledged and blogged about, concluding that she and her lay leaders had agreed to disagree.

Her bishop’s letter Monday, however, said he and the stake president "urged you to dissociate yourself from Ordain Women and to cease your campaign to promote the ordination of women."

The letter also said Wheatley reminded Kelly of that same counsel again in March and April.

Kelly said such conversations never happened. "It’s just not true. Point out the emails. I have all my phone records. There aren’t any [communications]."

So one or the other is lying. I'm going with the bishop on this. I do not think Kate Kelly is trustworthy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2014 by smac97

[carbon dioxide]

I would like to congradulate Kate Kelly on one thing.  If one of her goals was to be a famous person in LDS history.  Mission Accomplished.  

[ERayR]

I'm confused. YOU posed the question as to whether support of OW makes someone unworthy for a TR. I assume that you asked the question because you thought that it might be the case.

I answer that I do think it makes one "unworthy," at least, given that the Church was in the process of ex'ing the leader of OW. Given that I've doubled-down in my support of the movement, how should I have handled it?

Should I have waited for my bishop to get an "anonymous tip" about my OW-leanings? Even then, should I have played a game of keep-away when he asked for it back?

Seriously, if I was guilty of adultery or some other transgression, would you want me to just keep attending the temple until I got caught? Or should I proactively confess my sin and accept the consequences? And in the case where I was unrepentant (say the other woman was REALLY cute), what would you have me do?

 

ERayR, on 23 Jun 2014 - 6:57 PM, said:

That choice is yours. Don't expect me to praise your decision but your temple recommend has no more meaning to you than that, perhaps it is for the best. I sincerely hope you can find your way back. Those temple blessings are indeed precious.

 

1)  Whenever anyone chooses to give up temple worship it is sad and not a praiseworthy action.  I asked the question as a rhetorical question and food for thought, that perhaps we all need to put a little more thought into what we do .

 

2)  It is not up to me to decide how you should handle your life in any way.  If you were a close friend or family member and asked my advice I might give you some but it would probably be couched in the form of questions that would give you something to think about.

 

3)  See # 2 above.  Your bishop would not have to wait for an anonymous tip you would have told him.  It was honorable  to go to him but don't you think it would have been wiser to wait for the heat of the moment to cool and then apply prayer and meditation?

 

4)  First I never suggested that course of action (hiding it till caught).  Now do you think it is wise to make decisions a serious as the one you made in the middle of a fit of pique?

 

5)  If you are actually committing adultery I would ask if it is worth the potential loss?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Rather, I think the point is that she is being inconsistent in deliberately publicizing and sensationalizing her disciplinary proceedings, and then turn on a dime and declare them to be "very, very personal." Not a big deal, really. But she can hardly expect people to suddenly back out of being all up in her business, when she has worked so hard to put people all up in her business.

Thanks,

-Smac

All true.

But it was it was Teancum who used the phrase "very, very personal" as he was complaining about the bishop communicating with Kate Kelly by email. It was he to whom I was responding with my post, a fact that Bikeemiikey apparently, missed, neglected or chose to ignore.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

I've listened to many, many hours of Dehlin's podcasts and I often read his posts on FB. He is not an anti-Mormon. Unless, a failure to believe makes one an "anti". If he was such a wolf in sheep's clothing why would those closest to him (his family) still be active on the church? Why would he support them in that?

Regarding the Church moving forward, you can claim that OW is irrelevant but this week's events say otherwise. OW was at the heart of Kelly's excommunication. She wasn't the only leader of that group who was/is a member of the church. Will church leaders begin the disciplinary process on the remaining leaders? It was also widely reported that Kelly's parents lost their recommends due to their support (namely posted profiles) of OW. Will the rest of those who have profiles on the website face similar action?

And then there is Mormon Stories and all of the active members involved with that website/podcast. Will they also face disciplinary action? Will financial supporters who are members face losing recommends? Members of the FB group?

Where does this end?

I don't know where it will end but if a lot of people have to be disciplined to keep the Church going straight, such will be the case.  There is no reason to believe the Church will not have trials like the Nephite Church had trials.  If the Book of Mormon is a pattern for a day, we should expect more of it but we know who wins in the end.

[Teancum]

The decisions of the council must be delivered in person, at the council, or in writing, preferably hand delivered.  Since Sister Kelly had put herself outside those possibilities the next quickest and best would be e-mail.  I don't see her finding fault with the method of delivery.

A phone call followed by a letter even if the letter was emailed would have worked.

[smac97]

So for all you folks who are calling this a "PR disaster for the Church" (which folks, it seems, are usually rather hostile to the Church, thus making their present concern about the Church's PR optics . . . a bit odd), here is an article on this topic from someone who knows pretty much nothing about the Church. Some excerpts (emphases added):
 

I know next to nothing about Mormon theology, so I don’t know whether or not this action by church leaders was justified. But in principle — which is not the same thing as “in fact” — I support the bishop’s decision. That’s because every church or religious community has the right to decide its own boundaries. Remember the Episcopal priest who decided several years ago that she was also a Muslim? Her bishop ultimately defrocked her...
...
Well, the Episcopal Church cannot have one of its priests trying to help people “sort through and understand their relationship and calling” by telling them that they can belong to another religion and yet affirm Christianity. I may be wrong, but I cannot imagine that the defrocked priest has much luck finding Muslim congregations who buy her shtick. She can call herself citizens of both the United States and Saudi Arabia, but the US and Saudi governments are the ones who ultimately make that call.

Again, I don’t know how these things work within the LDS Church, so I have no idea if her excommunication was justified or not. But I suspect the usual suspects will scream bloody murder over this, on the grounds that religion is entirely an individualistic, subjective thing, that it makes no objective claims. It is understandable to have doubts about one’s faith, and it is permissible, as a general matter, to talk about them publicly. But at some point, if one persists in publicly denying an aspect of one’s faith that is not up for discussion, and if one continues to challenge the legitimate authority of the church on matters of defined doctrine or dogma, one should not be surprised if that authority casts one out of the fold.

At some point, a believer in any religion will dissent so much from the teachings of that religion that they have excommunicated themselves. The act by the religion’s authority may be just a formality. Please correct me if I’m wrong, Mormon readers, but it seems to me that the issue in the Kelly case is not so much women’s ordination as her implicit denial of church teaching and defiance of the church’s legitimate authority. Again, every religion has the right to set its own boundaries, and to defend them.

For someone who knows nothing about the Church, he speaks with remarkable clarity about this issue (far more than Kate Kelly, IMHO).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

A phone call followed by a letter even if the letter was emailed would have worked.

 

Given that Kate Kelly is disputing the contents of her bishop's letter, I don't think a phone call would be appropriate at all.  Someone is not being truthful about the communications between them.  I am inclined to go with the bishop, both because he has corroborating witnesses and because Kate Kelly is, in my view, a less reliable person.

 

Why are we still harping on this?  He sent a letter by email and by certified mail or FedEx.  That's a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[ERayR]

A phone call followed by a letter even if the letter was emailed would have worked.

 

As has been demonstrated verbal communication in a case like this is problematic.  I don't know what you have against e-mail.  It is as fast as a telephone, as secure as a telephone and is not as apt to be misunderstood or misrepresented as a phone call.

[Storm Rider]

She is under no obligation to keep the process confidential.

 

Let go back to what she said; it was something very personal to her.  Does that mean she is under "no obligation" to keep it private?  Of course not; who said anything about an obligation.  The point is that something that is very personal is not paraded about immediately in and to the media. For the more obtuse on the thread, if something is personal what does it mean when it is shared promptly, immediately with the media?

 

Here is a clue; it may not be very personal?  It is evident her church membership was not personal; what are the real objectives of this "faithful member of the Church"?  

Edited June 24, 2014 by Storm Rider

[revelstoked]

I've listened to many, many hours of Dehlin's podcasts and I often read his posts on FB. He is not an anti-Mormon. Unless, a failure to believe makes one an "anti". If he was such a wolf in sheep's clothing why would those closest to him (his family) still be active on the church? Why would he support them in that?

 

I think this post from a blog I've passively followed for years describes John's MO quite well:

 

http://www.millennialstar.org/john-dehlins-comprehensive-list-of-reasons-he-doesnt-believe-in-the-lds-church/

 

What Kate Kelly did was very active.  I fell it was the 6 discussions that made the recent disciplinary action unavoidable.  If she had shown up and co-operated I think she may have been able to get a disfellowship.  But just maybe, actively proselytizing dissent forced her Bishops hand (by design I think).

 

John is more passive aggressive.  Normalizing active disbelief in a manner only the internet could allow.  Rather than displacing patriarchy like a more feminist approach, he looks to me to lay the foundation of the dissolution of hierarchy in total.  And that is what makes it harder for any Judge in Israel to say "this, right here, was too far" and what makes it a more long term threat.  His lack of malice and confrontation are actually the greatest strength in the threat he represents.  This allows him to stay on good terms with his family and friends.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, Kate Kelly's post-excommunication opening salvo against the Church is not exactly encouraging:

 

First, she is declaring the Church to be in error, not her.

Second, she is conditioning her rebaptism into the Church on the Church changing "to be a more inclusive place," which place she characterizes as one where "women are ordained." So Kate Kelly's alleged stance on this issue - the one where she was claiming that she has only been wanting the Brethren to inquire of the Lord about the possibility of female ordination - was a sham and a fraud. When she said that she wants the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice," she really meant it.

 

She loves the Gospel, but she is setting conditions on it meeting her expectations before she deigns to re-join it. And she continues to publicly defame her priesthood leaders. This is sad.

 

She values the OW group more than the Church. That is sad.

 

Kate Kelly has repeatedly demonstrated that she is not ready for the priesthood. Her "I'll-do-what-I-want-to-do-and-when-I-want-to-do-it" approach, rife as it is with contempt for others in authority, is simply not compatible with a structured priesthood organization. She cannot claim to revere the priesthood when she so constantly defies its authorized bearers and its established policies and guidelines.

 

It's becoming more and more apparent that her intent all along was to hijack the Church. Now, she's encouraging her followers to remain and bring about the goal she failed to achieve.

[Scott Lloyd]

Generally speaking, any person who feels unworthy to attend the Temple does the right thing by handing in his Temple Recommend.

Perhaps ERayR got the sense that handing in your TR was a form of "protest" on your part.

 

That was my impression.

 

That or a passive-aggressive temper tantrum.

[BlueDreams]

 

 

It's funny that you mentioned that because I handed my TR over to my bishop yesterday with a note explaining that, as I understand current Church policy, I am no longer "worthy" to hold it because of my vocal support for OW.  I doubt many other members will see it that way, but it seems clear that if members are being ex'd for leading movement, then those of us who follow can't claim to be meeting the Church's highest standard of worthiness.

 

 

 

I answer that I do think it makes one "unworthy," at least, given that the Church was in the process of ex'ing the leader of OW. Given that I've doubled-down in my support of the movement, how should I have handled it?

Should I have waited for my bishop to get an "anonymous tip" about my OW-leanings? Even then, should I have played a game of keep-away when he asked for it back?

 

I won't say to know whether you should have done what you did. I personally think it's a little premature. But on how you should have handled it, discussing it face to face would have been good instead of a note. There seems to be very little of that lately and it's a problem IMO. Our church is built to have personal discussions and to care for each other and to work with each other toward getting us all (including KK, JD, and anyone else...including you ) together as a people united and in communion one with the other. That doesn't happen without sometimes a hard discussion here and there.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Zakuska]

Blue,

 

I wonder how many other Sisters in the church are following what mormonnewwb is doing and handing in their TR?  Are we seeing another wave of public unrest orchestrated by members of OW?  A "sit in" for lack of a better word?

 

Now that she no longer has a TR nor will she be obligated of paying Tithing to get a temple recommend to attend, OWers can move on to the second phaze of their discussion points.

 

Of hitting the church where it hurts  (or so they think)... in the pocket book.

 

Or, Perhaps they are trying to guilt the rest of us into submission?

 

This really isn't anything new and the church will survive. Its been through it before.

 

2 Tim 1:15

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not happy about it. I actually feel sorry for her poor decisions. but it was a bed of her own making.

Edited June 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

 

John is more passive aggressive.  Normalizing active disbelief in a manner only the internet could allow.  Rather than displacing patriarchy like a more feminist approach, he looks to me to lay the foundation of the dissolution of hierarchy in total.  And that is what makes it harder for any Judge in Israel to say "this, right here, was too far" and what makes it a more long term threat.  His lack of malice and confrontation are actually the greatest strength in the threat he represents.  This allows him to stay on good terms with his family and friends.

This is not true, I believe. The church began to lose the narrative because they allowed people like john a free reign to challenge the leadership and the policies of the lds church. We need to remember that john established mormonstories  chapters and held mormonstories conferences. And these conferences and chapters were very critical fo the lds church. Eventually he left them behind but the damage was done at the time. John got away with it. Thus, the church began to lose the narrative when they allowed these members to do what they did against the church. His chapters and conferences and many of his podcasts were not at all pro-mormon. And this was the reason that Greg Smith wrote his piece on john's activities which was to be published in an online journal. So, john has been very aggressive against the church but the church took no action against him. Why? It did seem to set a good example and others followed john's example.

 

Most likely nothing happened  because the church did not want to ruffle the water. But that was a mistake. So, kate comes along and starts an organization too. What was the difference between her organization and john's conferences and MS chapters? Very little. Both led people to not follow their church leaders. So, what does the church do about john? If he again gets off without discipline this will send a bad message to the membership, especially if john continues to advocate what he advocates. The church will need to regain the narrative and take action where action is necessary and not just be seen as silencing women.

 

Bottom-line: john has been very aggressive against the church. However, he seems to flip flop so often that it is difficult to pin the flip flops down onto the frying pan. But his mormonstories podcasts did open up the pandora's box, especially when he became critical of the church and no discipline was forth coming. .

Edited June 24, 2014 by why me

[BlueDreams]

Blue,

 

I wonder how many other Sisters in the church are following what mormonnewwb is doing and handing in their TR?  Are we seeing another wave of public unrest orchestrated by members of OW?  A "sit in" for lack of a better word?

 

Now that she no longer has a TR nor will she be obligated of paying Tithing to get a temple recommend to attend, OWers can move on to the second phaze of their discussion points.

 

Of hitting the church where it hurts... in the pocket book. (or so they think)

 

 

Well....or brothers (newb is a brother). And I have no idea. I hope very few since it does nothing but hurt themselves and maintain a sense of alienation. Though I don't think Newb saw this as any sort of protest anyways, just him doing what he felt was honest (whether I or another thought there were other ways to go about it).   

 

And for tithing.....that's not really going to hurt much....so it ain't going to work....and I doubt they'd do it. 

 

 

Or, Perhaps they are trying to guilt the rest of us into submission?

 

Say what now? That's just stupid. They're just hurt and largely reacting....not necessarily doing much more than that. Kelly's video interview has some definite inflammatory statements (like describing the church as an aggressive serial abuser).... But I don't think it's some sort of crazy method to guilt us into submission.

 

With luv,

BD

[Avatar4321]

For something so "very, very personal," she didn't waste any time in going public with it. Nor has she seemed very disposed throughout this episode to keeping the proceedings confidential.

 

 

Because she wants to get attention over it. If she loved the Church as much as she claims, she would not be sharing this and would probably not have been exed.

[Zakuska]

I don't know if these have been posted or discussed yet or not:  But these are the briefs filed in Sister Kellys defense by herself and by OW.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Defense.pdf

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Brief-Submitted-by-Nadine-Hansen-in-Defense-of-Kate-Kelly.pdf

 

Would be intresting to see the legal nerds on the Board weigh in on OWs use of the 2010 CHI and if any rules or regulations were indeed violated in her disciplinary hearings.

 

Found them on the USA today site coverage of the Excommunication:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/mormon-church-woman-excommunicated/11280769/

 

OK. Never mind,

 

This was intresting:

 

"-Having done so, our determination is that you be excommunicated for conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church."

 

She was not excommunicated for Apostasy. She was excommunicated for disorderly conduct.

 

So its not that what she was teaching is false.  Its the way in which she was teaching it.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Zakuska

[mormonnewb]

I won't say to know whether you should have done what you did. I personally think it's a little premature. But on how you should have handled it, discussing it face to face would have been good instead of a note. There seems to be very little of that lately and it's a problem IMO. Our church is built to have personal discussions and to care for each other and to work with each other toward getting us all (including KK, JD, and anyone else...including you ) together as a people united and in communion one with the other. That doesn't happen without sometimes a hard discussion here and there.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

BD,

 

I did consider a face-to-face but I was doubtful that my bishop had been following this whole saga.  He's not exactly a "bloggernacle" type of guy.  As a result, I wanted to set forth my concerns in writing so that he could look into the situation (if necessary) and get back to me with his considered counsel.  Fortunately, I have a good relationship with my bishop so it should be easily to discuss this in-person when he is ready.

[Avatar4321]

I would like to congradulate Kate Kelly on one thing.  If one of her goals was to be a famous person in LDS history.  Mission Accomplished.  

 

I humbly disagree. She wont be remembered in LDS history. Not unless she repents and turns to Christ. What she is doing is nothing compared to the destiny of the Church.

[Avatar4321]

A phone call followed by a letter even if the letter was emailed would have worked.

 

Unless it was written i get the impression she would be denying it happened. 

[Thinking]

So for all you folks who are calling this a "PR disaster for the Church" (which folks, it seems, are usually rather hostile to the Church, thus making their present concern about the Church's PR optics . . . a bit odd), here is an article on this topic from someone who knows pretty much nothing about the Church. Some excerpts (emphases added):

 

Again, every religion has the right to set its own boundaries, and to defend them.

 

For someone who knows nothing about the Church, he speaks with remarkable clarity about this issue (far more than Kate Kelly, IMHO).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

And sometimes a religion will move those boundaries.

[Rain]

Blue,

I wonder how many other Sisters in the church are following what mormonnewwb is doing and handing in their TR? Are we seeing another wave of public unrest orchestrated by members of OW? A "sit in" for lack of a better word?

Now that she no longer has a TR nor will she be obligated of paying Tithing to get a temple recommend to attend, OWers can move on to the second phaze of their discussion points.

Of hitting the church where it hurts (or so they think)... in the pocket book.

I read something on this from someone who left the church. It shows a lack of the blessings that come from paying tithing - something that I didn't really understand till last year after more than 40 years in the church. It made me understand how great a blessing it is to pay tithing and I understand why that is mentioned in disciplinary proceedings. Those that mock the idea of being able or not able to pay it just don't get it.