Defending Disciplinary Councils: Kate Kelly And Nadine Hansen's Letters

[rongo]

I intended on posting something much earlier in the week, but haven't had time until today (and, I am completely unable to paste anything or use the quote feature on this site, which makes it hard to type something and then paste it. My computer randomly moves the cursor around or highlights everything, making it so I easily lose things I type in the post field here (for example, if everything gets highlighted and I type something, everything is gone, and there's no way to restore it).

 

That said, here is my analysis of Kate Kelly's and Nadine Hansen's letters for Kelly's disciplinary council:

 

1) I initially found Kelly's autobiographical format for her letter to be odd, but on further reflection, found it to be effective for the purpose she intended it for. It was never intended to effectively mount a defense; rather, it was intended for public consumption and advancing of her narrative and PR campaign against the Church.

 

I did find the childhood, BYU and mission pictures to be effective in arousing empathy and compassion for her. They helped me see her in a different light from what I had seen her in.

 

2) Kelly implores her bishopric to "do the right thing and revoke the 'informal probation' that was placed on me." The informal probation was imposed by her stake president, and would have to have been removed by her stake president. Thinking that a ward-level council could overturn and remand a stake president's actions indicates a profound misunderstanding of authority and disciplinary councils from the outset.

 

3) We now know that Kelly's representation of her contact with her priesthood leaders was profoundly misleading. Even before this information emerged, her letter raised questions and red flags for me. "I was in your ward for over three years and faithfully served in callings (emphasis added) for that entire period. While we interacted frequently in passing, none of you know me well. I was saddened by the fact that you never took the time to ask me questions or get to know my heart while I was living in your ward."

 

This didn't add up to me. She held a current temple recommend, which means that she had to have met with a bishopric member and stake presidency member at least once for the interviews during three years. I know of no bishopric or stake presidency members who don't engage in any talk of "so, how is everything going?" during these interviews. Being called to *multiple* callings (by the way, does anyone know what callings she served in during her time in the Vienna Ward?) also necessitates the type of conversations that are typical for calling extension interviews. Also, *most* members "interactions" are overwhelmingly "frequently in passing," unless there are reasons for extended sit-downs (usually initiated by the members themselves). This is usual, and does not preclude ability to "know one's heart."

 

4) "I was raised in a home  with parents who . . . taught me that men and women are equal."

 

I think all active LDS would say the same thing, but we obviously have very different views on what we mean when we say "equal."

 

5) "One of the things I remember most vividly [about her baptism at age 8] is that the only thing to wear in my ward building was a white jumpsuit for an adult man. Even as a small girl . . . I was very upset that no one had thought that a little girl might be getting baptized and prepared something for her to wear."

 

This one is completely bizarre. In the first place, jumpsuits are *unisex*, so the large jumpsuit she presumes was only "for an adult man" was just as much "for an adult woman" who fit it. Second, a shortage of smaller jumpsuits would have affected "little boys" every bit as much as "little girls." And as my wife pointed out, the baptism presumably took place, despite the jumpsuit shortage. How was this thorny issue resolved? Is the hysterical melodrama about this "incident" warranted? This seems to be a classic example of feminist atrocity tale manufacturing, and a strained one (and strange one), at that.

 

6) "Please keep in mind that if you choose to punish me today, you are not only punishing me, you are punishing hundreds of women and men . . . you are punishing thousands of Mormons who have questions or concerns with gender inequality in the Church and want a place to voice those concerns in safety."

 

This is overblown hyperbole, insisting that her DC vicariously punishes hundreds - thousands of others. In addition, she is undervaluing and discounting the roles our classes, societies, and quorums should play (and do, if they are regarded as actual learning places and not just passively attended). I don't know of any (and have a hard time imagining) classes, societies, and quorums where people can't discuss questions and concerns, but tone and motivation are everything. If questioners are rancorous and unwilling to listen and let others voice their views, most aren't going to tolerate that.

 

7) "Over 1,000 of my fellow Saints have submitted letters to you on my behalf. Some are attached and some were sent directly. Please consider each one of their thoughts with due respect."

 

This is an unreasonable tactical ploy (akin to burying the judge in letters in "Miracle on 34th Street") for PR effect, not a serious attempt to provide evidence for the DC. Margaret Toscano's picture is the second one she included in her "random sample," and I wonder what the actual breakdown is of non-ex Mormon to Mormon in OW profiles, and the 1000 + who sent letters on KK's behalf. It would be interesting to run the numbers (inasmuch as it can be determined).

 

8 ) "I want to communicate with perfect candor . . . As I made clear to President Wheatley when we met on May 5th [when informal probation was imposed], I will continue to lead Ordain Women . . . I will not take down the website . . . I will not stop speaking out publicly on the issue of gender inequality in the Church."

 

She wants her informal probation lifted, but refuses to do any of the things required?

 

9) Please do not extinguish [my] hope . . . Again, I ask you to choose 'no action,' revoke the 'informal probation' that was placed on me, and remove the 'move restriction' on my records so that I can participate in my current ward."

 

Again, she wants restrictions lifted while refusing to comply with conditions for their lifting.

 

The larger issue here is the desire to be a martyr without having to undergo any real martyrdom. While insisting earlier in the letter that "integrity means telling the truth, even when you may suffer as a result, and to 'do what is right, let the consequence follow;' " she is not willing/does not want to suffer the consequences for her brave stand in speaking truth to power. That's not much of a martyrdom. 

Edited June 27, 2014 by rongo

[mnn727]

I believe the letter from her Bishop (published online in many places) of the results of her DC refutes pretty much everything KK claimed.

Edited June 27, 2014 by mnn727

[Buzzard]

Regarding her callings: On at least one occasion several months ago, she stated that she had a calling in the Primary, but did not elaborate further.  

[rpn]

1)  The story about the jumpsuits was ironic.   Those of us who  were around before their appearance recall the rejoicing that the jumpsuits meant that little girls didn't have to be subjected to multiple dunks and be worried about keeping the dress between ones legs to avoid it.   The jumpsuits were seen as a way to make girls equal in the practical baptism arena.   And I don't know any place in the church that requires use of the jumpsuits anyway.    If she had talked about that issue back then, there probably would have been someone to let her know that it was a short memory provoking the victim feelings.

 

2)  I think marshaling the letters simply proved that she was leading a movement in opposition to church doctrine.   I found myself wondering  who came up with that idea.

 

3)  I wonder why so many continue to talk as though this was about her thoughts and beliefs, after the decision letter makes it clear it was not.

[rongo]

Nadine Hansen's "Statement in Support of Kathleen Marie Kelly:"

 

1) Hansen emphasizes that she must quote from a "bootlegged" version (wikileaks) of CHI 1 because it is unavailable except to "only nine women in the entire membership of more than 15,000,000 people." This is rhetorical grandstanding, because women can (and do) request to read it from their bishoprics. I had several men and women who asked if they could when I was a bishop (for topics ranging from surgical sterilization to cremation to freemasonry, among other things), and they were allowed and even helped to find things. We had a copy in my desk and another in the clerk's office. This was an unforced error in an ostensible petition in support of Kelly, because it opens up with a "we have to use wikileaks because you misogynistic pigs keep the handbook away from us women" tone.

 

2) Hansen then engages in a broader attack on disciplinary councils in general: "Many aspects of Church disciplinary councils are unfair." She broadens it to include, not just this particular instance, but all cases of formal church discipline. Lack of access to CHI 1 "severely limits a woman's ability to adequately prepare for a disciplinary council."

 

This shows a profound lack of understanding of disciplinary councils. Awareness of the minutiae and procedures for DCs has no bearing on the ability of someone innocent of actionable offense to defend himself in a disciplinary council.

 

3) Hansen's assertion that DCs are unfair to women because no women are involved with them "on the other side of the table" is a common claim, but is not self-evident. She discusses her view at length that men just can't understand, no matter how well-intentioned. One wonders where she stands on Jesus being able to adequately judge us. Sure, He's God and all-knowing, but He was also "fully man." What about His ability to judge during His earth life?

 

4) Hansen goes on at length about "trying her in absentia." This disregards Kelly's active lack of cooperation (which we now know a lot more about) in trying to set up accommodations (including rescheduling) and overt intention not to face the bishopric in person [as an aside, it's interesting that this is the current trend: under no circumstances attending one's own DC. It will be interesting to see if John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, etc. go this route as well]. She also continues the myth (now defunct) that her bishopric made no effort to ever talk to her.

 

5) [The rule to hand-deliver or send via certified mail a summons to a DC] "was completely disregarded by Bishop Harrison . . ." and "demonstrates a troubling willingness to proceed in an irregular and unfair manner."  

 

Hansen later concedes that the purpose for the summons delivery procedure is to ensure that it was delivered and received, and since Kelly has published excerpts, she publicly acknowledges receipt. So, it's a moot point. Yet, she attempts to leverage this as a technicality for dismissing due to a technicality, as if this were a secular trial.

 

6) "By making sure she had left his jurisdiction before initiating Church discipline, Bishop Harrison effectively made certain that Sister Kelly would not be able to face her accuser/judge in person to explain or deny any accusations that might be presented against her."

 

We now have more information. I think most would agree that Kelly wanted to avoid meeting them "face to face" much more than they did (re: the lies she has told about them, how awkward: "What are you talking about, Sister Kelly? Remember when we talked about this and that?"). Interestingly, for all of Hansen's talk about Kelly being deprived of ability to defend herself, she made no defense at all in her letter (the only item she submitted to the DC). She elected to write an autobio for public PR purposes.

 

7) "The failure to transfer the record indicates that either the leaders of her former stake and ward have acted in violation of this rule, or the First Presidency has involved itself in discipline that is purportedly a 'local matter.' Either case is troubling and indicative of bias and an unwillingness to follow the rules set forth in the Church's own governing handbook."

 

*Or*, the move restriction was done in full compliance with Church policy. Hansen doesn't even include this possibility in her "false dilemma." Further, when quoting 6.13.7, she inadvertently undermines her case: "If a member moves while Church disciplinary action or another serious concern is pending  . . ." Hansen's point here falls apart because no one would deny that the priesthood leaders had "another serious concern," even if proceedings hadn't yet been started.

 

8 ) Hansen claims that the stake president's informal probation was "illegal." This is absurd. A stake president can impose that for a member of his stake, just like a bishop can impose it for a ward member.

 

9) "Moreover, Sister Kelly has stated that she contacted Donald Hallstrom, the Area Seventy [sic; he's actually in the Presidency of the Seventy, much higher up than an "Area Seventy"], and he informed her that he could not move her records, suggesting that the decision to retain the records was made at a higher level than Elder Hallstrom."

 

*Or*, that higher officials are hesitant to butt in on local issues. This is actually a good thing, isn't it (unless John Dehlin needs the cavalry)?

 

9a) And if Salt Lake is heavily involved? This would be "in violation of Church policies and procedure."

 

Where does it state *that*? Salt Lake intervening would not be "illegal" in any way.

 

10) Hansen finds fault that the bishop convened a council when he had previously given no indication of doing so. This shows how unfamiliar she and others are about DCs. The stake president *always* authorizes the holding of a DC, even at the ward level. Hansen sees in this "a directed outcome adverse to Sister Kelly," a forgone conclusion. What Hansen doesn't understand is that instructing to hold a DC is the first step in a process that potentially (and sometimes) could result in "no action" as well as action.

 

11) The move restriction on Kelly's records "can only be viewed as a calculated maneuver to make sure that Sister Kelly's name is sullied with the leaders in the new location."

 

Occam's Razor. Wouldn't it be much easier to pick up the phone, email, or send a letter to "sully her name?" Instead of seeing that the records can't arrive?

 

12) Hansen goes on at length about appeals processes being unfair (because the stake president will just reject the appeal out of hand), but then says that even if they make it "up the chain," rejection of the appeal is a forgone conclusion. How convenient, and not a very effective argument.

 

13) Hansen asserts that nothing Kelly has done can be described as apostasy, the only excommunicable offense that applies. She turns to Merriam Webster's definition and complains that the Church's definition is different ("Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority").

 

14) Hansen complains that Kelly's "improperly-delivered notice makes [no] specific claims of her wrongdoing," which makes it impossible to defend herself. Hansen ignores the fact that DCs are part of the investigative process in the Church (not just judgment). People are called to give their account and version of things, answer questions, etc. in consideration of charges and allegations. Because of this, outcomes are not predetermined.

 

15) "[some DCs are] intended to help the individual set his or her life in order via the repentance process, [but] this is not that kind of case. Sister Kelly has not engaged in or confessed to sinful behavior and is not accused of any kind of moral transgression."

 

The elephant in the room is that this is *precisely* "that kind of case." In cases like Sister Kelly, the only thing that can possibly get her attention and communicate the seriousness and need for repentance is formal church discipline. The message to "set her life in order via the repentance process" was effectively communicated in the only way she would take it seriously.

 

16) Hansen engages in the same "Dan Brown" interpretation of the New Testament (Junia, Phoebe, deaconess, etc.). Naturally, the fact that this interpretation is such a minority view as to be completely absent historically is due to patriarchal oppression, no doubt.

 

17) In recounting the shadowy and ill-understood practice of female blessings in the 19th century, Hansen acknowledges that this practice is not done today, conceding that she is agitating against current Church policy.

 

18) Hansen reveals gaping blindspots in characterizing OW activities as benign, and just seeking dialogue.

 

19) Hansen contests the stake president's authority to forbid Kelly from speaking about certain things as a condition of lifting of informal probation. This is completely within a priesthood leader's authority. One can ignore his counsel/command, but can't rightly complain about the consequences for doing so, then. Or that fact that doing so is seen as not keeping conditions of repentance.

 

20) Hansen equates "conviction" for apostasy as akin to formal discipline for inactivity (e.g., inadequate sacrament meeting attendance, WoW, home teaching failure) or political affiliation. What an awful analogy. She sees apostasy "convictions" as similar "unrighteous dominion" in these hypothetical cases.

 

21) Hansen says Kelly is guilty of "insubordination," not "apostasy." She doesn't grasp that when the "insubordination" pertains to refusing to follow priesthood instructions on what is taught and how it is done, that is apostasy. See  #13 above.

 

22) Hansen concludes by stating that this is exactly analogous to people pre 1978 who wanted black ordination, and warns that disciplining Kelly for going against today's current doctrine will put the Church in an embarrassing position of having this become "tomorrow's abandoned, if not 'false' doctrine."

Edited June 27, 2014 by rongo

[MorningStar]

I thought the same thing about the jumpsuit issue.  First of all, it said there was a jumpsuit for adult men.  Yes, I think it's nice to provide for men so they don't have to keep white clothes on hand that won't be see through.  Second, if you want gender equality, shouldn't the boys and girls wear the same thing?    But it sounded like they didn't have clothes for the kids period.  She's just nitpicking with that one. Silly. 

 

And you're absolutely right that she couldn't have callings or a temple recommend without talking to bishopric members. 

[rongo]

One thing I have heard is that a "next move" will be to record a disciplinary council and publish it.

 

I can't think of a worse move for people hoping to "expose" the Church. Especially if the recording device is left to run during the deliberations, when the person is excused and the council considers the factors, details, and different actions. All of the "court of love" boogeymen (kangaroo court, biased, mean-spirited, etc.) would be exposed.

[strappinglad]

I recommend the brethren provide each Stake with a " bug sweeper " to be used prior to and during any DC. Those found in possession of a recording device would be under automatic discipline.

[Garden Girl]

I thought the same thing about the jumpsuit issue.  First of all, it said there was a jumpsuit for adult men.  Yes, I think it's nice to provide for men so they don't have to keep white clothes on hand that won't be see through.  Second, if you want gender equality, shouldn't the boys and girls wear the same thing?    But it sounded like they didn't have clothes for the kids period.  She's just nitpicking with that one. Silly. 

 

And you're absolutely right that she couldn't have callings or a temple recommend without talking to bishopric members. 

 

The thought came to me... it's not as if her baptism came as any surprise to anyone.  Could not her mother have planned with her what  she would wear and see that she had an outfit of her choice, instead of having to wear the unisex jumpsuit...  To take her to her baptism with no preparation of what she would wear is the mother's fault... such a traumatic experience of having to wear a jumpsuit could have been entirely avoided...

 

GG