smac97 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Just to clarify, did your lawyers say what KK did mean by “potentially actionable?"Bikeemikey subsequently conceded that KK threatened to sue. So I think we needn't press this point further. Just my two bits.Thanks,-Smac Edited July 28, 2014 by smac97
Sleeper Cell Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Bikeemikey subsequently conceded that KK threatened to sue. So I think we needn't press this point further. Just my two bits.Thanks,-SmacFair enough. I withdraw my request.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 It was Kate Kelly's idea to "stare down the Patriarchy." (Inter alia, the "Patriarchy" as personified by a teenage boy trying to walk into a meeting which he was actually entitled to attend. I call that bullying.)I confess I haven't followed the background closely. Does this refer to something that happened on her mission where, I understand, she was kind of a pill?
Popular Post smac97 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Popular Post Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Kate is not good with kids. Kate's own words.Kate Kelly has repeatedly publicly maligned her bishop and stake president. Viciously. With venom and bile. She has publicly threatened to sue her stake president and the Church in relation to her excommunication. She has encouraged her acolytes to "raise hell" in the Church.But it's kids she's not good with?Thanks,Smac Edited July 28, 2014 by smac97 5
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 From the time of Abraham and prior to that, the priesthood has been all about endless posterity through which all the nations (kindreds, families) of the earth would be blessed. That Kate Kelly is not interested in having any posterity because she "doesn't think she is good with kids" deepens my impression that, in demanding the priesthood, she is seeking something that she really doesn't understand very well. 3
Stargazer Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Bikeemikey subsequently conceded that KK threatened to sue. So I think we needn't press this point further. Just my two bits.Thanks,-Smac As often and as vehemently as this was denied, we needn't press the point further? I got to the point where I was cussing at every single post he made denying that this was threat to sue. I cussed a lot. He's a day late and a dollar short. But oh well. I'll shut up about it. 1
why me Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Kate will always be seeking pubicity and she will receive it among the exmormon community and by those who wish the church harm. It comes with the turf. It was no different in the past, when people who were once members spoke out publically against the church and these people were also used by the media back then. However, on the grand scale of things, kate is a nobody. Very few people in this world are concerned with the workings of exmembers of anything, especially of religions. Even born again christians may find her difficult to support and the catholics will not be in her corner nor the orthodox christians or jews nor the moderate muslims. In other words, her audience is rather small, only among the lds community and only a certain section of that community. She will not submit to her discipline but then again it was never her intention to do if disciplined, But for a radical feminist to suddenly take the poor me defense against the big bad boogy men is beneath her. She should stop playing the victim and be strong as she claims women are. She should set an example. 2
Tacenda Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Why Me, what you said sparked my memory, John Dehlin will pay for the food of any students at BYU if they to get together as a group and discuss important, I guess important, issues. I heard this on the first podcast of the interview. I may need to listen again to make sure I heard right but thought this was quite alarming if true. Why does this not sit well with me? What issues would he want them to discuss? Did anyone else hear this? I have yet to listen to the last podcast to hear if Kate is actually thinking of suing, I'll do that after I listen to a portion of the first podcast to verify the offer John made to BYU students.ETA: When I played the 1st podcast on my phone it had issues where I couldn't fast forward to the place I needed, I re-listened and they discuss Neil living in a country with great poverty and that made him want to help with change for a better world, I gather this is what John wants the students at BYU to do, help make the change. The podcast all the sudden stopped playing before it got to the part and I'm too tired to start over. So what John probably offered had really nothing to do with the church, so I had no reason to worry it was something else like creating another generation of MS fans that learn something negative about the church. Edited July 28, 2014 by Tacenda
Storm Rider Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 As often and as vehemently as this was denied, we needn't press the point further? I got to the point where I was cussing at every single post he made denying that this was threat to sue. I cussed a lot. He's a day late and a dollar short. But oh well. I'll shut up about it. You foul-mouthed sun-of-a-gun. I am shocked and I am certain that you are the only one. For shame, for shame, for shame.
rhythm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I listened to part 1 and am almost done with part 2. Some parts I think are interesting:Neil (her husband) believes there are many paths to heaven - you can be a mormon or a hindu, etc. He doesn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.Kate Kelly doesn't believe you have to be mormon to get to the celestial kingdom (or "super VIP heaven" as she refers to it). She completely rejects the doctrine of polygamy. Kate and Neil are childless by choice, they prefer to leave a legacy through their work instead of by having children. She seems convinced that her excommunication won't have an effect on her salvation (which I thought seemed at odds with the pain/trauma she has publicly talked about). She mentioned that she cried for an afternoon after she was excommunicated, but essentially got over it and moved on. She says the only time she disobeyed a leader is by not taking the website down when she was told to. She doesn't include the letter asking her not to protest on Temple Square because it wasn't signed by church leaders.
Calm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 "this is what John wants the students at BYU to do, help make the change"Is he planning on being there? I can just imagine what changes he would be prodding them towards.
Stargazer Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You foul-mouthed sun-of-a-gun. I am shocked and I am certain that you are the only one. For shame, for shame, for shame. Yes, I am ashamed of myself. "D A N G" is a pretty bad word, after all!
rhythm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 In part 3: Ordain Women plans to continue direct actions, and expand their focus internationally - not just in Utah. They're planning a fast in August.No mention of a lawsuit - just that she plans to appeal the excommunication decision all the way to the First Presidency, in an effort to make them ultimately accountable for the decision.
Calm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 " just that she plans to appeal the excommunication decision all the way to the First Presidency, in an effort to make them ultimately accountable for the decision"Is that the way she phrased it?If so, she really likes forcing people into a corner by structuring the conversation so it can only go one way...or else. Never ever negotiate must be her motto.
Bikeemikey Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 From the time of Abraham and prior to that, the priesthood has been all about endless posterity through which all the nations (kindreds, families) of the earth would be blessed.That Kate Kelly is not interested in having any posterity because she "doesn't think she is good with kids" deepens my impression that, in demanding the priesthood, she is seeking something that she really doesn't understand very well.Did Moses have kids?
Bikeemikey Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Yes.You you have a CFR for that? I been able to find references to kids for all other OT prophets, I obviously have just missed the reference for him.My bad: exodus 18:2 Edited July 28, 2014 by Bikeemikey
teddyaware Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) I listened to part 1 and am almost done with part 2. Some parts I think are interesting:Neil (her husband) believes there are many paths to heaven - you can be a mormon or a hindu, etc. He doesn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.Kate Kelly doesn't believe you have to be mormon to get to the celestial kingdom (or "super VIP heaven" as she refers to it). She completely rejects the doctrine of polygamy. Kate and Neil are childless by choice, they prefer to leave a legacy through their work instead of by having children. She seems convinced that her excommunication won't have an effect on her salvation (which I thought seemed at odds with the pain/trauma she has publicly talked about). She mentioned that she cried for an afternoon after she was excommunicated, but essentially got over it and moved on. She says the only time she disobeyed a leader is by not taking the website down when she was told to. She doesn't include the letter asking her not to protest on Temple Square because it wasn't signed by church leaders.Based on what I'm learning from the podcast, it seems KK and her husband were way outside the mainstream of the Church well before her excommunication.Now that I see her distorted and incomplete view of things, her actions with OW are easier to understand: Against the counsel of the Lord, she and her pliant husband decide to not have a family. So to give her life some meaning and purpose she launches into a quixotic quest to fill the emptiness in her soul, an emptiness she brought upon herself due to her decision to have no children, with ordination to a priesthood that will somehow make up for the eternal family she's elected not to create.15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2) Edited July 28, 2014 by teddyaware
Rain Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Based on what I'm learning from the podcast, it seems KK and her husband were way outside the mainstream of the Church well before her excommunication.Now that I see her distorted and incomplete view of things, her actions with OW are easier to understand: Against the counsel of the Lord, [\b]she and her pliant husband decide to not have a family. So to give her life some meaning and purpose she launches into a quixotic quest to fill the emptiness in her soul, an emptiness she brought upon herself due to her decision to have no children, with ordination to a priesthood that will somehow make up for the eternal family she's elected not to create.15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2)Please be very careful of saying that unless she actually said they prayed about it and went against the answer He gave them. We don't know everything that goes on in a couple's life and I do couples who have prayed about it and felt not to have children and have later found out why. So unless she stated this then we cannot KNOW it was against the counsel of the Lord. 1
Rain Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Based on what I'm learning from the podcast, it seems KK and her husband were way outside the mainstream of the Church well before her excommunication.Now that I see her distorted and incomplete view of things, her actions with OW are easier to understand: Against the counsel of the Lord, [\b]she and her pliant husband decide to not have a family. So to give her life some meaning and purpose she launches into a quixotic quest to fill the emptiness in her soul, an emptiness she brought upon herself due to her decision to have no children, with ordination to a priesthood that will somehow make up for the eternal family she's elected not to create.15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2)Please be very careful of saying that unless she actually said they prayed about it and went against the answer He gave them. We don't know everything that goes on in a couple's life and I do know couples who have prayed about it and felt not to have children and have later found out why. So unless she stated this then we cannot KNOW it was against the counsel of the Lord. Edited July 28, 2014 by Rain 2
rhythm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 She mentioned as a humorous aside that her decision to be childless is probably more controversial than Ordain Women. " just that she plans to appeal the excommunication decision all the way to the First Presidency, in an effort to make them ultimately accountable for the decision"Is that the way she phrased it?Yes. She also said she wanted to give them a chance to do the right thing.
smac97 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 Please be very careful of saying that unless she actually said they prayed about it and went against the answer He gave them. We don't know everything that goes on in a couple's life and I do know couples who have prayed about it and felt not to have children and have later found out why. So unless she stated this then we cannot KNOW it was against the counsel of the Lord. I have to concur with this. I think Kate Kelly's public actions and statements against the Church are fair game for critical assessment and commentary. Her family's decision relating to having children is not. It is too personal and private, too individualized and subjective a topic. Even if Kate Kelly injects this topic into the public sphere, I do not think we should talk about it. Let's treat that topic with a healthy measure of respect and sanctity. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) She mentioned as a humorous aside that her decision to be childless is probably more controversial than Ordain Women. Gadzooks! It's almost as if she is looking to goad Latter-day Saints into critiquing her family planning decisions so that she can further burnish her I'm-a-victim credentials by decrying invasive commentary on her personal life. "Oh, those mean Mormons! Some of them have lectured me about my decision to not have children!" Kate Kelly, your decision to have children or not is a sacred and intensely personal topic. Treat it that way, and I think the vast majority of the Latter-day Saints will do the same. If you insist on injecting such personal topics into the public discourse, you come across as inviting commentary on such topics. Stop it. "just that she plans to appeal the excommunication decision all the way to the First Presidency, in an effort to make them ultimately accountable for the decision" Is that the way she phrased it? Yes. She also said she wanted to give them a chance to do the right thing. She wants to make The First Presidency "ultimately accountable" to whom? Did she say? Thanks, -Smac Edited July 28, 2014 by smac97
smac97 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) DELETE Edited July 28, 2014 by smac97
ksfisher Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 So unless she stated this then we cannot KNOW it was against the counsel of the Lord. Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. Having this counsel in the scriptures I'm not sure that we should expect the Lord to give a personal answer to everyone. I don't ask him if I shouldn't steal or if I should obey the Word of Wisdom. With the exception of couples with medical problems I think the counsel from the scriptures as well as modern prophets is very clear.
Recommended Posts