Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[smac97]

See here:

 

In a letter posted Wednesday, Kelly argues that she should not have been cast out of the Mormon church — officially The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — last month. Kelly was excommunicated after publicly advocating for female ordination to the church’s all-male lay priesthood.

Here are some excerpts from the letter linked to above:

 

The decision to excommunicate me has had a deleterious effect on me and on my family. It has also been an extremely negative experience for thousands of other Mormons with questions and concerns about gender inequality in the Church who have felt wounded, alongside me, by your actions.

So her actions are not to be under discussion in the letter. The public demonstrations, the public speaking out against the Church and its leaders, the trespass and protest on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, none of that is on the table.

 

I hope and pray you consider my appeal with humility and openness, and take the matter to the Lord.

I have done nothing wrong. I ask you, President Wheatley, to do the right thing and reinstate me to full membership in the Church.

Note the total absence of any discussion of what she has done, just a declaration shat she has "done nothing wrong."

Note also the declaration that the "right thing" is to do what she wants, which rather negates her statement about taking this "matter to the Lord." Why take anything to the Lord, when we have already been told by Kate Kelly what the "right thing" is and what to do about it ("reinstatement me to full membership")?

 

As you know, during my time in the Vienna Ward, Bishop Harrison literally never asked me one single question regarding my feelings about female ordination.

Her "feelings about female ordination" are not the basis for her excommunication. She knows that. Bishop Harrison knows that and told her as much in his preious letter to her regarding her excommunication.

Which makes the current letter an exercise in grandstanding and preaching to her followers. That's all.

 

While I met with you twice, once in December 2013 and once in May 2014 while I was moving, here are some questions you never thought to ask me:

This is followed by a laundry list of questions, some potentially germane to the reasons for the disciplinary action against her, some are not.

Here is one which sounds like a veiled threat: "How can we keep the droves of young sisters in our Stake and in our Church from leaving?"

Given recent developments, perhaps this isn't so veiled after all. People are leaving the Church because of Kate Kelly. People are attempting to "raise hell" in the Church per the instruction from Kate Kelly.

 

If you, or Bishop Harrison, truly cared about my wellbeing or eternal salvation you would have spoken to me more than twice and you would have asked me questions. You didn’t.

Here we have Kate Kelly publicly accusing her priesthood leaders of not "truly car(ing) about (her) well being or eternal salvation."

Yuck. What a crass, vicious, unpleasant letter this is.

 

In retrospect, I now realize you met with me to complete a pro forma requirement of being able to say you gave me “counsel.” Your “counsel” was to take down the website ordianwomen.org and to disassociate myself from the group I founded, Ordain Women.  This “counsel” was not given with patience, or designed to persuade me.

Frankly, I do not believe this is the sum total of the counsel given.

More in the next post.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post:
 

On May 5th you gave an ultimatum. On June 8, Bishop Harrison informed me he had decided to convene a disciplinary council in absentia in order to compel me to comply with that ultimatum: take down your website, or face exommunication.

Well, this seem quite dishonest. The disciplinary council was held in absentia because Kate Kelly refused to participate in it, despite being given various options to do so. To complain about her absence and to blame it on her bishop is a flagrant distortion of the facts. She should be ashamed.
 

However, according to Doctrine & Covenants 121:37 when any priesthood holder attempts to “exercise control or … or compulsion” we are instructed that, “the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” It is my opinion that you had no authority to control my views, voice or speech and no right to compel me into silence. Therefore, Bishop Harrison had neither justification nor authority to excommunicate me, as his clear aim was compulsion, not persuasion.

This is an interesting point, but I do not think we are getting the whole story from Kate Kelly. I suspect there were many efforts at persuasion. And to suggest that excommunication for a person in open rebellion amounts to unrighteous "compulsion" in violation of D&C 121:37 is to wrest that scripture.

In any event, what a mountain of hypocrisy Kate Kelly is building when she quotes this verse. Her tactics and statements against the Church have been nothing but compulsory and coercive.

Demanding the Priesthood and saying "nothing less will suffice" is compulsory and coercive.

Protesting on Church properties during sacred convocations is compulsory and coercive.

Seeking to foment public opinion against the Church is compulsory and coercive.

Encouraging her followers to "raise hell" in the Church is compulsory and coercive.
 

When you forced me to meet with you under duress on May 5th, 2014, despite the fact that I was in the middle of moving, I looked you in the eye and spoke with absolute candor.

"Force?" "Under duress?" Did her stake president threaten her with physical violence? Threaten to break her kneecaps or something? Did he kidnap her husband and threaten him unless she met with the stake president? If not, then no person claiming to be an attorney could in good faith use words like "force" and "under duress" to describe the situation.

Moreover, in previous paragraphs she complained about a lack of sufficient inquiry by her priesthood leaders, but here she complains about being "forced," "under duress" to meet with a priesthood leader. So which is it? Did she want to communicate or not?
 

I looked you in the eye and spoke with absolute candor. I told you that I am not going to take down the website ordainwomen.org and I am not going to dissociate myself from the group Ordain Women. You unperturbedly replied that you hoped I would have a “Paul on the road to Damascus” experience, and change my mind, despite all evidence to the contrary.

What, exactly, is wrong with the stake president's statement? In his judgement she has been acting inappropriately, and he has been proceeding accordingly. And she faults him for this?
 

I am, and have always been, a faithful Mormon. My only “sin” elucidated by you has been speaking my mind and pushing for gender equality in the Church.

I think this is also a significant distortion. The disciplinary action against her has been about much more than just "speaking (her) mind." It is about the content of what she has been saying, and how she has been saying it, and to whom, and where, and when, and what actions she has taken to further her "speaking (her) mind."

As for her being a "faithful Mormon," I will leave that issue to her priesthood leaders and to God. For me, however, I would have a hard time reconciling a claim that I am a "faithful Mormon" when I have previously protested against the Church, defied its instructions, trespassed and protested on its property, repeatedly defamed my priesthood leaders, called the Church to repentance, encouraged other Church members to "raise hell" in the Church, and so on.
 

Far from being wrong, I believe I am following the pattern of revelation taught by Christ in the scriptures: ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you.

"The pattern of revelation" includes protesting on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation? It includes public accusations against your priesthood leaders? It includes aligning with excommunicated apostates against the Church? It includes a self-appointed lay member calling the Church to repentance?

I think not.
 

The entire process conducted against me was fundamentally unfair. As Bishop Harrison admitted in his June 8 letter, I had already moved, I was unable attend the disciplinary council in person.

Flagrant dishonesty. She was given every opportunity to attend, and affirmatively chose not to.
 

Given that you, President Wheatley, had already said to me in an email on May 6: “because you have carried your campaign for ordination far beyond the boundaries of our Stake, and have previously told the media and the public that you are a member in good standing, it may be necessary at some point in the future to correct the public record regarding your standing in the Church. For these reasons, I cannot agree to the request in your email for absolute confidentiality.” (emphasis added) Your statement denying me confidentiality was shameful, and potentially actionable.

So here she's threatening to sue the Church. "Potentially actionable" is lawyerspeak for "I am thinking about suing you."

It appears that the stake president's comment pertained to "absolute confidentiality" regarding her membership status in the Church. That is, that is the then-pending disciplinary action against her resulted in her no longer being "a member in good standing," then he would not be an accomplice in deceiving the public by failing to correct public perceptions about her standing in the Church.

Put another way, he was not going to lie by omission by letting her continue to claim to be a member in good standing when he knew better.

Is that legally "actionable?" I don't think so. Will Kate Kelly sue the Church anyway? Frankly, I would not put it past her. It would get her more media attention.
 

Because of your statements threatening to disclose confidential information, I did not feel that any type of video link that the Church would potentially be able to record, edit and share could truly be “secure.” Therefore, I did not trust it would not be shared against my will with others, or even with the media.

So she is now accusing "the Church" of planning to record and deceitfully edit her disciplinary proceedings. How utterly absurd.

Plus she could have attended in person.

Read the rest if you like. For me, though, the hope I previously had that Kate Kelly would become more conciliatory and reasonable in her approach is shrinking.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2014 by smac97

[Duncan]

So, I don't know American law but when you sue someone it's typically for cash, or is what she wants is to be reinstated without the dosh?

Edited July 25, 2014 by Duncan

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Put me back in the church or I'll sue.  "Are you threatening me?"  She has really gone of the deep end here. She cannot sue for being ex'd. I mean she can try I just don't think she, as a lawyer, has really thought this one through. And no, "It has also been an extremely negative experience for thousands of other Mormons with questions and concerns about gender inequality"

 

She is making this up.
 

[smac97]

Kate Kelly's letter includes references to a letter written by her husband, and a separate letter written by Nadine Hansen, a supporter and fellow attorney. Here are the links:

Kate Kelly_Letter of Support_Neil Ransom

Kate Kelly_ Statement in Support of Appeal _Nadine Hansen

 

Here are some excerpts from the letter from the husband of Kate Kelly (which letter, we should note, they are publishing to the world) (emphases added):

 

Your and Bishop Harrison’s collusion to excommunicate Kate in absentia from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and your behavior throughout the process is dishonorable, a breach of ecclesiastical trust, and unworthy of a Melchizedek priesthood holder.  This was evidenced by your misuse of your position as Stake President to compel Kate to meet with you days before we moved – not to show compassion or love unfeigned for her, not to engage her in conversation about her feelings toward to Church or her involvement with Ordain Women, nor to mediate or attempt efforts for resolution – but only as a step in your excommunication strategy.

 

As a Melchizedek priesthood holder myself, I am ashamed of your and Bishop Harrison’s malicious conduct and the magnitude of dishonesty you have demonstrated throughout the process.

 

As lay leaders for the Church and as Melchizedek priesthood holders you are required to use your authority not “to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness” (D&C 121:37), yet you and Bishop Harrison have done so.

 

The steps you have taken to cover up your true motives and obfuscate Kate’s disciplinary process suggests the disciplinary council was rotten to the core.

 

Targeting Kate alone without attempting to contact me regarding my involvement in Ordain Women further demonstrates the corruption in the disciplinary process and the systematic gender inequality rampant in the Church.

 

Gender inequality is one of many topics within Mormonism I have questions about and your and the Bishop’s efforts to silence my wife and the Ordain Women movement demonstrates to me that the Church is not a place for those with sincere questions and who are honestly seeking the truth.

 

As a Melchizedek priesthood holder your failure to discipline me regarding my actions with Ordain Women demonstrates the inherent sexism in the disciplinary process taken against my wife.

 

The letter from Nadine Hansen is quite a bit more temperate, but largely echoes the points made in Kate Kelly's letter and in the letter from Kate Kelly's husband.

 

I am not sure what to make of the quasi-legal approach taken by Ms. Hansen.  It could simply be that she is trained as an attorney, and the disciplinary process used by the Church has some facets of it which echo the common law legal system (the appeal process, for example), so she chose to to emulate the straightforward briefing mannerisms which attorneys use when filing appellate briefs.

 

Or, this could be an opening salvo to a lawsuit against the Church.  Such a lawsuit has no chance of succeeding.  In fact, I do not think it would even survive the earliest stages of a lawsuit, and would be dismissed under the "ecclesiastical abstention" doctrine.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

So, I don't know American law but when you sue someone it's typically for cash, or is what she wants is to be reinstated without the dosh?

 

She may seek both money and compulsory reinstatement in the Church.  She would lose at both.

 

But let's remember she is only threatening to sue the Church at present, she has not yet actually done so. 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Duncan]

when is all this supposed to hit the fan? is their a court date?

 

edit to add-we posted at the same time, answers me question! 

Edited July 25, 2014 by Duncan

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

when is all this supposed to hit the fan? is their a court date?

 

edit to add-we posted at the same time, answers me question! 

This is all a ruse to keep here in the spot light and keep the movement going. This sort of tactic gets old fast. But I guess for some people it is effective.

[smac97]

Put me back in the church or I'll sue.  "Are you threatening me?"  She has really gone of the deep end here. She cannot sue for being ex'd. I mean she can try I just don't think she, as a lawyer, has really thought this one through. And no, "It has also been an extremely negative experience for thousands of other Mormons with questions and concerns about gender inequality"

 

She is making this up.

 

 

A lawsuit would bring more media attention to her and her cause.  "Lawfare," they call it.  Winning it would not be the objective.  Presenting meritorious legal disputes to a secular court for adjudication would not be the objective.  The objective would be to continue coercive efforts against the Church, to turn public opinion against the Church.  She wants the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice."  Lawfare against the Church would be an understandable and anticipated tactic for her to utilize.

 

We'll see, I suppose.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

I don't know her husband, but it seems identical to her writing.

 

Sad thing if his letter reflex his feelings, he is on the road to apostasy as well.

[Avatar4321]

A lawsuit would bring more media attention to her and her cause.  "Lawfare," they call it.  Winning it would not be the objective.  Presenting meritorious legal disputes to a secular court for adjudication would not be the objective.  The objective would be to continue coercive efforts against the Church, to turn public opinion against the Church.  She wants the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice."  Lawfare against the Church would be an understandable and anticipated tactic for her to utilize.

 

We'll see, I suppose.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I humbly disagree. She doesn't want the priesthood. She wants to destroy it. Despite her claim.

[MorningStar]

Reading these letters, I can't help thinking of a toddler telling their parent to go in time out. 

[JAHS]

In her letter she said:

"according to Doctrine & Covenants 121: 37 when any priesthood holder 

attempts to “exercise control or … or compulsion” we are instructed that, “the Spirit of 

the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of 

that man.”

 

Notice the ellipses and breaks in the scripture where she conveniently left something out? The most important thing she left out was that if anyone did these things

"in any degree of unrighteousness," "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”

 

meaning of course that if the person (Bishop) was doing it in righteousness it would be OK. So I guess she is calling her Bishop unrighteous?

[mfbukowski]

Mommy, I'm running away because I don't like you anymore.

 

Now give me some money.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A lawsuit would bring more media attention to her and her cause.  "Lawfare," they call it.  Winning it would not be the objective.  Presenting meritorious legal disputes to a secular court for adjudication would not be the objective.  The objective would be to continue coercive efforts against the Church, to turn public opinion against the Church.  She wants the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice."  Lawfare against the Church would be an understandable and anticipated tactic for her to utilize.

 

We'll see, I suppose.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

So I was right, this is a ruse.

[why me]

We need to remember that this is all about her and her tribulations. It has nothing to do with what got her excommunicated to begin with. It is about her being in the center of the controversy and not about what she did. I suppose that everyone who is excommunicated from any church could attempt to sue that church for duress and stress. But they would of course lose. However, this may give kate some more publicity and what she only now has is her self promotion in the whole affair. It shows that she believes that she has some importance and some influence. But I am afraid for the media in general, she doesn't because the average person who is engaged in the struggle to pay the bills, her problems is the least of their problems.  

 

That being said, I have to feel sorry for her. She got the blanket pulled out from under her. She was surprised by the court and her excommunication because she thought that she was too important to excommunicate. She wasn't.

[Mystery Meat]

Poor Kate. I truly feel bad for her and her family. She is a victim. Not a victim of patriarchy, but a victim of herself and satan.

[MorningStar]

Kate Kelly's husband:  It's not fair that I wasn't excommunicated too! 

 

That pretty much sums it up. 

[smac97]

Hmm.  I just noticed something interesting.  Nadine Hansen's brief includes the following statement (emphases added):

 

On March 17, 2013, a group of women, including Sister Kelly, launched the website, www.ordainwomen.org, with the stories of approximately 20 profiles from individuals who introduced themselves and stated the reasons that they believe Mormon women should be ordained. Sister Kelly has been prominent among those involved with Ordain Women and is, in some ways, the founder of the group. The mission statement expressed support for the leadership of the Church and asked that Church leaders pray and ask the Lord if ordination could be conferred on women. The website made no demands, contradicted no existing Church doctrine and in fact did not teach anything as “doctrine.” The leaders of Ordain Women did not tell anyone what to say, they simply provided a place for people to post their individual stories.

This statement, that the OW folks aren't demanding anything from the Church, and instead are only asking "that Church leaders pray and ask the Lord if ordination could be conferred on women," has been a constant refrain from the OW group and its supporters. But it is simply not squareable with their many other statements and actions in which they do/i] present demands. Publicly declaring that they want the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice" is the most obvious example. But take a look at this recent article from Kate Kelly:

 

I am one of the founding mothers of the Ordain Women movement. I decided to start Ordain Women in January of 2013. I wanted the name of the group to be a clear and unequivocal imperative. "Ordain Women" was actionable. We would know when our goal had come to fruition."

An "imperative" is, by definition, "a command," "something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity."

So when Kate Kelly says that she wanted the name of her group to be "a clear and unequivocal imperative," she was, by definition issuing a "command" to the Church. Not a "request" that "that Church leaders pray and ask the Lord if ordination could be conferred on women." There is no "if" in the OW group's "goal." They want the priesthood, "and nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

She may seek both money and compulsory reinstatement in the Church.  She would lose at both.

 

But let's remember she is only threatening to sue the Church at present, she has not yet actually done so. 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

She is using the tactics of a bully.  Give me what I want or I will hurt you.  I read somewhere (can't find it now) she has never been one to accept no as an answer.

[Avatar4321]

Poor Kate. I truly feel bad for her and her family. She is a victim. Not a victim of patriarchy, but a victim of herself and satan.

 

I feel bad for them too, not because they are victims of satan or even herself, but because she doesn't see how she is hurting herself or her family.

[why me]

A lawsuit would bring more media attention to her and her cause.  "Lawfare," they call it.  Winning it would not be the objective.  Presenting meritorious legal disputes to a secular court for adjudication would not be the objective.  The objective would be to continue coercive efforts against the Church, to turn public opinion against the Church.  She wants the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice."  Lawfare against the Church would be an understandable and anticipated tactic for her to utilize.

 

We'll see, I suppose.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

It is all about her. But public opinion could care less. No one is really interested in kate. And even in the church, she has lost her momentum. But she can't give it a rest because it is not about the church but it is about her. Sadly, she just needs to get her act together and return to the fold and she will be readmitted. But she can't do this. So, she must keep herself in the spotlight. But...really, who is interested? The millions of americans who are struggling to put food on the table? The millions of americans who are

struggling to earn a living? She needs to see that the world is still spinning around regardless if she has been exccommunicated.

 

Her mission statement on her website says that women must have the priesthood. No prayer is necessary. From her mission statement:

 

Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/mission/

 

I see no reference to prayer.

 

Edited July 25, 2014 by why me

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm surprised she's still getting attention.

[Avatar4321]

It is all about her. But public opinion could care less. No one is really interested in kate. And even in the church, she has lost her momentum. But she can't give it a rest because it is not about the church but it is about her. Sadly, she just needs to get her act together and return to the fold and she will be readmitted. But she can't do this. So, she must keep herself in the spotlight. But...really, who is interested? The millions of americans who are struggling to put food on the table? The millions of americans who are struggling to earn a living? She needs to see that the world is still spinning around regardless if she has been exccommunicated.

 

What's the line, they can leave the church but not leave it alone.

[ksfisher]

 

Kate Kelly's letter includes references to a letter written by her husband, and a separate letter written by Nadine Hansen, a supporter and fellow attorney. Here are the links:

Kate Kelly_Letter of Support_Neil Ransom

Kate Kelly_ Statement in Support of Appeal _Nadine Hansen

 

Here are some excerpts from the letter from the husband of Kate Kelly (which letter, we should note, they are publishing to the world) (emphases added):

 

 

 

The letter from Nadine Hansen is quite a bit more temperate, but largely echoes the points made in Kate Kelly's letter and in the letter from Kate Kelly's husband.

 

I am not sure what to make of the quasi-legal approach taken by Ms. Hansen.  It could simply be that she is trained as an attorney, and the disciplinary process used by the Church has some facets of it which echo the common law legal system (the appeal process, for example), so she chose to to emulate the straightforward briefing mannerisms which attorneys use when filing appellate briefs.

 

Or, this could be an opening salvo to a lawsuit against the Church.  Such a lawsuit has no chance of succeeding.  In fact, I do not think it would even survive the earliest stages of a lawsuit, and would be dismissed under the "ecclesiastical abstention" doctrine.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

A lot of the letter sounds like something I'd hear from one of my teenagers.  "If you really loved me you'd give me what I want."  And by not giving them their way it's showing what a bad person I am.