Kate Kelly Verdict Is In...

[rockpond]

I respect your perspective on this. Perhaps we can concede that reasonable minds can disagree about John Dehlin. The fact that he has been "on the radar" of his local leaders for ten years, and yet still retains his membership in the Church, would seem to indicate that the Church is fairly patient with folks vis a vis questions about "apostasy."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes, reasonable minds can disagree about Dehlin.

 

I would add to your perspective that the ten years "on the radar" indicates either patience on the part of the Church or lack of apostasy on the part of Dehlin (or some combination thereof).

[CA Steve]

So back to the topic, Kelly's Verdict instead of John D. Water, hooser whats it, She's excommunicated not for "Apostasy" nor "teaching false doctrine." But...

 

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

 

Basically Disorderly Conduct. Santa knows if you've been naughty or nice!

 

The question is... if the Tribunal didn't follow the correct procedures as outlined in the by laws of the church and Scriptures.  Should we excommunicate them for "conduct contray to the laws and order of the church?"

Forgive me for asking if it has been stated elsewhere, but keeping up with all the threads is difficult, was KK notified in advance that she faced the charges for which she was convicted? Or were the charges for which she was convicted introduced during the actual trail?

[smac97]

No not "really". And it is absurd and completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

Wow! Stow the hostility, dude. It's a legitimate question.

So we can agree that "discrimination" is an ambiguous term, right? That some forms of gender discrimination are unacceptable, but some are?

What forms of gender discrimination are acceptable, in your view?

Thanks,

-Smac

[frank_jessop]

What's this "us," kemosabe?

The OW group has analogized the gender-based restriction on the priesthood with the race-based restriction on the priesthood. The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination deserves attention.

See also here for a brief discussion of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Saying "See this verse, see that verse, only men were mentioned.", is similarly as tendentious of a reading used to exclude blacks from the Priesthood.

By comparison as to what was taught about the Priesthood and blacks and what has currently been taught about women and the Priesthood.

First Presidency, regarding blacks the Priesthood - 1969:

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

...

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

Elder Oaks, regarding women and the Priesthood - 2014:

"But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood."

While, statements concerning blacks were explicit that the restriction would be lifted according to Gods will, there has not been such an explicit statement concerning women and the Priesthood.

[Zakuska]

Forgive me for asking if it has been stated elsewhere, but keeping up with all the threads is difficult, was KK notified in advance that she faced the charges for which she was convicted? Or were the charges for which she was convicted introduced during the actual trail?

From my limited reading. She was being charged with "Apostasy". Which was not what she was convicted of. But don't quote me.

 

In the OW brief they outline several places where the Bishop and his counselors  failed to follow church Guidlines in the CHI and D&C. I think if she would have went there might have been a different outcome.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Zakuska

[frank_jessop]

Wow! Stow the hostility, dude. It's a legitimate question.

It was not a "legitimate question". Gray spoke of a very specific issue, specifically of gender discrimination.

You responded with "All form of discrimination? Really?". Your response was not "legitimate". Your response, was, as is said a "moving of the goal post" to address "all forms of discrimination".

So we can agree that "discrimination" is an ambiguous term, right?

No I do not agree that Gray use of the term was ambiguous. Gray was very clearly UNambiguous with the type of discrimination he was referring too.

That some forms of gender discrimination are unacceptable, but some are?

What forms of gender discrimination are acceptable, in your view?

Thanks,

-Smac

And now, you have moved the goal post back to address the specific discrimination addressed by Gray. Edited June 24, 2014 by frank_jessop

[smac97]

And now, you have moved the goal post back to address the specific discrimination addressed by Gray.

Good. So let's have a discussion. What forms of gender discrimination are acceptable, in your view?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Yes, reasonable minds can disagree about Dehlin.

 

I would add to your perspective that the ten years "on the radar" indicates either patience on the part of the Church or lack of apostasy on the part of Dehlin (or some combination thereof).

Agreed. I have no particular position on Dehlin, nor have I characterized him as an apostate. In my view, "innocent until proven guilty," although a creation of secular law, is the appropriate stance for us to take in most instances.

Kate Kelly, on the other hand, may now be properly described as an apostate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sleeper Cell]

Ten years? Why are they so patient with him and not with her?

 

 What “Storm Rider” said.  

 

Also, there is not just one  “they.”  Disciplinary councils are a local matter.  KK and JD live in two different church jurisdictional areas. Even in our secular justice system, it is not all that unusual  for different professional judges (to say nothing of juries) to make different judgments based on a similar  set of facts.  (A good argument, btw, for having one central disciplinary body for high profile apostasy cases).

 

In addition, local church leaders usually know their local members personally (at least to some degree) and are more likely to be sensitive to individual human factors, including the probable effect of excommunication on the ability of the individual to repent and eventually return to the church.  (a good counter argument to having one centralized disciplinary body).   

[Scott Lloyd]

From my limited reading. She was being charged with "Apostasy". But don't quote me.

In the criminal justice system, there is a concept known as "the lesser included offense." Essentially it means that a person charged with a crime can be convicted not of that crime per se, but of something less serious that is incorporated within that charge. A judge or jury might find that the facts determined at trial do not sustain the original charge but they do sustain a lesser charge assumed to be incorporated within that charge.

I'm drawing this analogy to suggest that perhaps the disciplinary council found that Kate Kelly did not engage in apostasy as such but her behavior did amount to an element of it that, while not amounting to full apostasy, does warrant excommunication.

I'm only guessing here, and I'm outside my realm. This is drawn from what I recall from my days covering courts for a newspaper. Smac, or someone else with a legal background, can correct me.

[frank_jessop]

Good. So let's have a discussion. What forms of gender discrimination are acceptable, in your view?

Thanks,

-Smac

No thank you. Whether there should be rational discrimination is best served in for Law Reviews, briefs, and Court rooms.

Perhaps we can discuss how a reading of the scriptures to exclude women is not as tendentious as a reading of the scriptures as was used to exclude others.

Edited June 24, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Tacenda]

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.

I think that's the most rep points on one post in my history of MD.  Wow 4, that's way over the top.   

 

I think what has happened is I've finally seen the light.  I think John Dehlin is probably one of the biggest anti Mormons, without meaning to.  His StayLDS site is sort of deceiving, well at least his older format was.  He laid out all the things in the church that cause disbelief, well almost like FairMormon, but doesn't give a good explanation, just that it's a problem.

 

He is the biggest threat IMO, I don't understand why the church has let him keep going this long.  Maybe it was/is because he talks the LDS talk and for the most part walks it, unlike other vocal strugglers, which is exactly why the church shouldn't have let this keep going, sort of a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't think John set out to do this, I like John!  But he let it get out of control, so his bad.  

 

Too many LDS that struggle have found his StayLDS and Mormon Stories sites and it didn't help their belief, just helped them maintain their unbelief and led them to other sites like the NOM board...that happened to me, or it keeps them in the church, but usually they can't maintain that activity with the ongoing information that leads them to this unbelief.  It's not FairMormon in that respect!    

 

If John truly wants LDS strugglers to remain, he needs to just bring back the true believers on Mormon Stories podcasts, discontinue the FB groups that freely complain about the church.  That's the only way he should be allowed to stay in the church as a member, IMO. 

 

And then we have Kate Kelly.  She and OW didn't ask appropriately by leading a protest and asking to be let in on the day of the PH session at the Tabernacle, two years in a row.  That was on the side of starting a fight, not really a way to enact change, especially when that led to getting the world wide media involved.  And if she truly wanted this, she should have known through inspiration the channels to take.  Who knows, maybe John and Kate's actions will lead a bunch of inactives back to the church!   

 

That's why this is a train wreck.  Or for the church, a blessing in disguise.  John and Kate won't get any sympathy from TBM's, the line has been drawn, their eyes & ears will be shut, their hearts will be set in stone. TBM's won't want to be around folks like this. 

 

They for the most part feel anti now, these groups, IMO.  That's not what I wanted to be apart of, I was hoping for something different.  (Sorry to make it personal Mods)     

[Scott Lloyd]

What “Storm Rider” said.

Also, there is not just one “they.” Disciplinary councils are a local matter. KK and JD live in two different church jurisdictional areas. Even in our secular justice system, it is not all that unusual for different professional judges (to say nothing of juries) to make different judgments based on a similar set of facts. (A good argument, btw, for having one central disciplinary body for high profile apostasy cases).

In addition, local church leaders usually know their local members personally (at least to some degree) and are more likely to be sensitive to individual human factors, including the probable effect of excommunication on the ability of the individual to repent and eventually return to the church. (a good counter argument to having one centralized disciplinary body).

But aren't the rulings of disciplinary councils assumed to be based on divine revelation and therefore, all other things being equal, wouldn't the ruling be the same regardless of the jurisdiction?

I'm not arguing here, I'm only asking, because I'm uncertain what to conclude on this.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Saying "See this verse, see that verse, only men were mentioned.", is similarly as tendentious of a reading used to exclude blacks from the Priesthood.

Again:

The OW group has analogized the gender-based restriction on the priesthood with the race-based restriction on the priesthood. The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak.

...

In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men.

I am willing to discuss scriptural provisions regarding priesthood ordination, but you apparently are not, and are instead dismissing them out of hand.  Oh, well.

 

There are many points of doctrine which require some scriptural exegesis when applied in our day. For example, Doctrine & Covenants does not specifically prohibits recreational use of drugs like methamphetamine or cocaine. Neither of these substances are referenced anywhere in scripture. And yet is there any observant Latter-day Saint in the world which takes the position of "Hey! Snorting crack cocaine is fine and dandy because crack cocaine is not specifically itemized in D&C 89!"?

It is not "tendentious" for the Church to point to D&C 89 as the revealed basis for the Word of Wisdom, and then extrapolate, analogize and and, under the direction of the Spirit, reasonably apply that text to meth and coke. Our society asks secular judges to the the same thing when it comes to applying statutes and common law principles to specific legal questions. They do so all the time, including situations in which the application of a statute or common law doctrine is ambiguous, in which case the judges are given some measure of discretion. And that discretion is generally respected. I think we likewise owe a measure of deference to the discretion given to, and appropriately exercised by, local leaders in the Church.

It is likewise not tendentious to review the scriptural references to priesthood ordination, and then extrapolate, analogize and, under the direction of the Spirit, reasonably apply those texts to the question of female ordination. Further, I believe the Brethren are operating on more than just the published scriptures. I sustain the Brethren. I believe they are guided by both scripture and the Spirit. I do not assume the worst about them (that the Church's position is borne of antiquated misogyny).

In contrast, it is "tendentious" to demand a specific canonized scriptural verse which limits the priesthood to men, and then declare that the absence of such a specific verse means that women are entitled to the priesthood.

We could play this game all day long.

"There is no specific canonized scriptural verse which authorizes female ordination."

"There is no specific canonized scriptural verse which limits the priesthood to members of the Church. Therefore, non-LDS are entitled to the priesthood."

 

While, statements concerning blacks were explicit that the restriction would be lifted according to Gods will, there has not been such an explicit statement concerning women and the Priesthood.

Oh, I agree with you there. As I have said many, many times. I am open to a revelation extending the priesthood to women.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2014 by smac97

[Zakuska]

In the criminal justice system, there is a concept known as "the lesser included offense." Essentially it means that a person charged with a crime can be convicted not of that crime per se, but of something less serious that is incorporated within that charge. A judge or jury might find that the facts determined at trial do not sustain the original charge but they do sustain a lesser charge assumed to be incorporated within that charge.

I'm drawing this analogy to suggest that perhaps the disciplinary council found that Kate Kelly did not engage in apostasy as such but her behavior did amount to an element of it that, while not amounting to full apostasy, does warrant excommunication.

I'm only guessing here, and I'm outside my realm. This is drawn from what I recall from my days covering courts for a newspaper. Smac, or someone else with a legal background, can correct me.

Yes.  "Lesser Included Offense" is why plea bargaining works. I can see why they could come to that conclusion with her not appearing and all.  But now OW has documented how disciplinary councils work.. They have a whole list of things where this council violated Church By laws. Will the Brethren intervene?  Remains to be seen. And is It not the 12 Apostles Job in SLC to make sure that the Church By laws are followed by the local congregations? 

 

If By laws have been broken... this may not be the end Of Ms. Kelly

Edited June 24, 2014 by Zakuska

[smac97]

No thank you. Whether there should be rational discrimination is best served in for Law Reviews, briefs, and Court rooms.

Perhaps we can discuss how a reading of the scriptures to exclude women is not as tendentious as a reading of the scriptures as was used to exclude others.

So you're going to dodge the discussion. Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2014 by smac97

[frank_jessop]

 

In the criminal justice system, there is a concept known as "the lesser included offense." Essentially it means that a person charged with a crime can be convicted not of that crime per se, but of something less serious that is incorporated within that charge. A judge or jury might find that the facts determined at trial do not sustain the original charge but they do sustain a lesser charge assumed to be incorporated within that charge.

I'm drawing this analogy to suggest that perhaps the disciplinary council found that Kate Kelly did not engage in apostasy as such but her behavior did amount to an element of it that, while not amounting to full apostasy, does warrant excommunication.

I'm only guessing here, and I'm outside my realm. This is drawn from what I recall from my days covering courts for a newspaper. Smac, or someone else with a legal background, can correct me.

You reasoning is close.

Consider "murder". Generally described as "unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought". Even if a person unlawfully killed a human being, it is not always murder. A jury could find the person guilty of the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter.

Personally, (and this is no statement against you Scott or your response. More so against those who want to nick-pick the process and find "errors" to submit appeals)

I do not think we should try to apply the legal understanding of the Courts of man to an Ecclesiastical Court.

Edited June 24, 2014 by frank_jessop

[escott3564]

I think that's the most rep points on one post in my history of MD.  Wow 4, that's way over the top. 

 

I think what has happened is I've finally seen the light.  I think John Dehlin is probably one of the biggest anti Mormons, without meaning to.  His StayLDS site is sort of deceiving, well at least his older format was.  He laid out all the things in the church that cause disbelief, well almost like FairMormon, but doesn't give a good explanation, just that it's a problem.

 

He is the biggest threat IMO, I don't understand why the church has let him keep going this long.  Maybe it was/is because he talks the LDS talk and for the most part walks it, unlike other vocal strugglers, which is exactly why the church shouldn't have let this keep going, sort of a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't think John set out to do this, I like John!  But he let it get out of control, so his bad.  

 

Too many LDS that struggle have found his StayLDS and Mormon Stories sites and it didn't help their belief, just helped them maintain their unbelief and led them to other sites like the NOM board...that happened to me, or it keeps them in the church, but usually they can't maintain that activity with the ongoing information that leads them to this unbelief.  It's not FairMormon in that respect!    

 

If John truly wants LDS strugglers to remain, he needs to just bring back the true believers on Mormon Stories podcasts, discontinue the FB groups that freely complain about the church.  That's the only way he should be allowed to stay in the church as a member, IMO. 

 

And then we have Kate Kelly.  She and OW didn't ask appropriately by leading a protest and asking to be let in on the day of the PH session at the Tabernacle, two years in a row.  That was on the side of starting a fight, not really a way to enact change, especially when that led to getting the world wide media involved.  And if she truly wanted this, she should have known through inspiration the channels to take.  Who knows, maybe John and Kate's actions will lead a bunch of inactives back to the church! 

 

That's why this is a train wreck.  Or for the church, a blessing in disguise.  John and Kate won't get any sympathy from TBM's, the line has been drawn, their eyes & ears will be shut, their hearts will be set in stone. TBM's won't want to be around folks like this. 

 

They for the most part feel anti now, these groups, IMO.  That's not what I wanted to be apart of, I was hoping for something different.  (Sorry to make it personal Mods)     

 

I really enjoyed your post here.  I went through my own "trial of faith" about 8 years ago.  During that time, I read Dehlin's initial PowerPoint presentation involving the "middle way".  It is too bad that he didn't simply stick to his original message.  That PowerPoint actually allowed me to feel like I still had a place within the Church even though I had questions.  For me, it was very helpful.

 

I am not, however, on the same page with John on a lot of his later advocacy programs like his charge for gay marriage, etc. 

 

I like John, too, and as I have said on other threads on other boards, I am glad that he did not get excommunicated.  (Although, I understand that he has another meeting coming up, so it is still a possibility.)  However, I honestly feel that what Kelly did was much more benign than what Dehlin's actions have been over the last decade.  If Dehlin does not receive the same treatment as Kelly, I think there are going to be a lot of conflicting questions regarding fairness by members.

Edited June 24, 2014 by escott3564

[frank_jessop]

So you're going to dodge the discussion. Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I will do my best to do as Nemesis has instructed "Stick to the opening topic or just stay out of the thread period if you feel the need to derail it.", will you do the same?

The opening topic is about very short and does not address gender discrimination. Though, gender discrimination in the Church might make for an interesting topic in a dedicated thread.

The scriptural basis for limiting the Priesthood to only men, is no different that as a reading of the scriptures used to exclude Blacks. In order to exclude blacks one took the scriptures and "extrapolate, analogize and, under the direction of the Spirit, reasonably apply those texts" to blacks. Such was done for a very long time. The scriptures were used as a basis for excluding blacks. And you use the scriptures to exclude women; I do not see a difference, in your use of the scriptures to exclude women and a pre-OD2 use of the scriptures to exclude blacks.

But "extrapolate, analogize and, under the direction of the Spirit, reasonably apply those texts" is not something the Church has officially done or presiding authorities, correct?

Elder Oaks did state that who may be ordain is a decision for God to make. That God makes the decision on who is ordain has been a consistent message from the presiding authorities.

Edited June 24, 2014 by frank_jessop

[why me]

Agreed. I have no particular position on Dehlin, nor have I characterized him as an apostate. In my view, "innocent until proven guilty," although a creation of secular law, is the appropriate stance for us to take in most instances.

Kate Kelly, on the other hand, may now be properly described as an apostate.

Thanks,

-Smac

The problem smac is in the perception that all this has on people. There is no question that john has done more damage to the church. In fact,  greg has written a sort of 'master's thesis' on it. His MS conferences and MS chapters were not exactly pro-church. I think that they were just the opposite. And many people left the church because of his podcasts and activities. And yet, no discipline was given to him. This set a big example for others to follow. If john could do it why not me would be the line. And as such, we saw much more freedom for the lds actives to be critical of the lds church.  Bloggers were critical of the leadership, critical of the way the church was being run, challenging certain doctrinal issues and drawing close to john on other issues when he was hostile of the church. No disciplne was given.

 

So what does this have to do with anything about kate? Much. Along comes kate, a women calling for women to get the priesthood, organizing chapters and video chats on the topic. John did the same thing about his own issues. Kate gets a following as john got a following. Of course there were differences but  these differences were not that huge in policy. Both wanted change in the church and both challenged the leaders to change. The difference: kate the woman is silenced. John the man is not. See the picture? John set the example about what to do and he showed that one can get away with it. He sat the example and gave hope that there would be no discipline for one's activities that may be contrary to the church.

 

And if true, it is a big deal. The church cannot just discipline women and leave the men alone when it comes to organizing groups or video chats to oppose certain issues of the church.

 

Escott, I just saw your post and you are right. There will be many questions to be asked if one goes 'free' and the other is exed. And the issue will be around the label of sexist, I believe.

 

For people's reading. John and kate are mentioned in this article in NYdailynews.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mormon-excommunication-sets-boundaries-questioning-church-article-1.1841566

Edited June 24, 2014 by why me

[CA Steve]

Is there some official definition within the Church as to what constitutes "conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church"?

[juliann]

The last thing I'll say on this topic is so far no one has been able to point out a scripture that bans women from priesthood to me. The church's PR spokeswoman couldn't do that either, when asked by Doug Fabrizio. So I think we're on similar shaky ground as we we were with blacks and the priesthood.

 

It's been nice discussing these issues with everyone. I wish you all the best on your spiritual journeys. I hope we can all seek to find ways of communicating with greater kindness and love, if not always agreement.

 

Goodbye!

Oh, pbbbbbttttt.   Don't leave.  

[Buzzard]

I think that's the most rep points on one post in my history of MD.  Wow 4, that's way over the top. 

 

I think what has happened is I've finally seen the light.  I think John Dehlin is probably one of the biggest anti Mormons, without meaning to.  His StayLDS site is sort of deceiving, well at least his older format was.  He laid out all the things in the church that cause disbelief, well almost like FairMormon, but doesn't give a good explanation, just that it's a problem.

 

He is the biggest threat IMO, I don't understand why the church has let him keep going this long.  Maybe it was/is because he talks the LDS talk and for the most part walks it, unlike other vocal strugglers, which is exactly why the church shouldn't have let this keep going, sort of a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I don't think John set out to do this, I like John!  But he let it get out of control, so his bad.  

 

Too many LDS that struggle have found his StayLDS and Mormon Stories sites and it didn't help their belief, just helped them maintain their unbelief and led them to other sites like the NOM board...that happened to me, or it keeps them in the church, but usually they can't maintain that activity with the ongoing information that leads them to this unbelief.  It's not FairMormon in that respect!    

 

If John truly wants LDS strugglers to remain, he needs to just bring back the true believers on Mormon Stories podcasts, discontinue the FB groups that freely complain about the church.  That's the only way he should be allowed to stay in the church as a member, IMO. 

 

And then we have Kate Kelly.  She and OW didn't ask appropriately by leading a protest and asking to be let in on the day of the PH session at the Tabernacle, two years in a row.  That was on the side of starting a fight, not really a way to enact change, especially when that led to getting the world wide media involved.  And if she truly wanted this, she should have known through inspiration the channels to take.  Who knows, maybe John and Kate's actions will lead a bunch of inactives back to the church! 

 

That's why this is a train wreck.  Or for the church, a blessing in disguise.  John and Kate won't get any sympathy from TBM's, the line has been drawn, their eyes & ears will be shut, their hearts will be set in stone. TBM's won't want to be around folks like this. 

 

They for the most part feel anti now, these groups, IMO.  That's not what I wanted to be apart of, I was hoping for something different.  (Sorry to make it personal Mods)     

Don';t know you other than your postings on the board. It seems you fit the bill almost perfectly of someone who really wants to be a part of the church, but is agonizing over some nagging questions that won't leave you alone. And here comes a group like OW proclaiming to all within hearing that they are faithful members, but doggone it, some things have got to change around here. And then they hop over the line from disagreement to going against direct counsel from the brethren. Heck, I would come up with a few questions if I thought I could get an apostle to all but call me by name in General Conference. And then, once having crossed over that line, it becomes difficult to cross back over, and now KK and her group are  officially persona non grata in the LDS world. So Sister Tacenda, while we probably disagree on more than a few fine points of doctrine, I (to go all Clintonesque on you) feel your pain. Hopefully this board and other venues can serve as a way to negotiate your journey to and through a testimony of Christ's church. 

[mnn727]

http://www.nearingkolob.com/coordination-list-members-facing-church-discipline/

Apparently this site is too scared to put on it who controls it 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

You reasoning is close.

Consider "murder". Generally described as "unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought". Even if a person unlawfully killed a human being, it is not always murder. A jury could find the person guilty of the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter.

Personally, (and this is no statement against you Scott or your response. More so against those who want to nick-pick the process and find "errors" to submit appeals)

I do not think we should try to apply the legal understanding of the Courts of man to an Ecclesiastical Court.

Oh, I agree with that. I think legal loopholes have no place in a disciplinary council.