Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[rhythm]

She wants to make The First Presidency "ultimately accountable" to whom? Did she say?

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe she implied making them accountable before God. It was clear that she believes she is in the right and by going through the appeal process she is giving her local leaders, and then the First Presidency a chance to "do the right thing" (reverse the excommunication decision, in her view).  I think she said the FP is already responsible because it is their duty to oversee, be involved, etc. but an appeal to them will just clarify that more.  So in her opinion she did the right thing and should not have been excommunicated, and it is her local leaders and the FP/church who is wrong.

[Rain]

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.

 

But you could expect him to give a personal answer to those who ask with a sincere heart. You don't ask if you shouldn't steel because you have no reason to ask.  If however, you were in a war zone and your family was literally starving to death and all other methods had failed including asking someone for food you may feel the need to ask if you should steel.

 

There are more reasons a couple could sincerely ask than medical and many of those reasons are quite too personal to share with most people.  There really is no way to know that a couple is going against the Lord's will in this matter unless you are part of the couple or they tell you they know they are going against his will.   

[ksfisher]

But you could expect him to give a personal answer to those who ask with a sincere heart. You don't ask if you shouldn't steel because you have no reason to ask.  If however, you were in a war zone and your family was literally starving to death and all other methods had failed including asking someone for food you may feel the need to ask if you should steel.

 

There are more reasons a couple could sincerely ask than medical and many of those reasons are quite too personal to share with most people.  There really is no way to know that a couple is going against the Lord's will in this matter unless you are part of the couple or they tell you they know they are going against his will.   

 

Living in a war zone is an extraordinary circumstance.

 

Having a medical condition that prevents you from having children is an extraordinary circumstance (I have a daughter who cannot so I can understand).

 

Not wanting to do something is not.

 

I'm not speaking about Kelly's family situation in particular, but the idea that God would exempt us from a commandment or his counsel because we find it difficult.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe she implied making them accountable before God. It was clear that she believes she is in the right and by going through the appeal process she is giving her local leaders, and then the First Presidency a chance to "do the right thing" (reverse the excommunication decision, in her view).  I think she said the FP is already responsible because it is their duty to oversee, be involved, etc. but an appeal to them will just clarify that more.  So in her opinion she did the right thing and should not have been excommunicated, and it is her local leaders and the FP/church who is wrong.

That would explain the insolence in her appeal letter to the stake president.

[teddyaware]

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.

 

Is it not true one of the most important tenets of the LDS religion is that one of the main purposes of life is for men and women to marry in the temple and have a children, thereby forming family bonds that will endure for eternity? Is it also not true God's commandment to multiply has never been rescinded? And is it not true that in one of our most sacred ordinances the commandment to multiply is renewed upon the participants in that ordinance by most solemn commandment and covenant (I believe KK was sealed to her husband in the temple)?

 

While there are special circumstances, acknowledged and understood by a sympathetic by compassionate God, wherein some are unable to fulfill the divine commandment to multiply in this life, nevertheless all faithful Latter-day Saints should have as a goal a burning desire to be eternally married and have a family when the opportunity presents itself and the time is right.

 

I believe it's likely one of the reasons KK has gone down the wrong road is because she didn't have her priorities straight, even thought those correct priorities were no doubt taught to her over and over again throughout the years. I acknowledge, though,  that since by her own admission she doesn't like children, she may actually be doing herself a favor by not having children of her own as long as she continues to feel this way.

Edited July 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

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

You bend over backwards to be fair and circumspect, Smac. That is a good thing, and I mean it as a compliment.

 

But speaking of the matter in principle and not applying it to any specific individual or family, I would say there is a difference between a heartfelt and God-inspired decision not to have children due to personal circumstance and such a decision driven merely by lifestyle or ideology.

 

The general principle (and granted, there are justifiable exceptions) is that husband and wife should cleave to each other and that they should multiply and replenish the earth.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

I'm not speaking about Kelly's family situation in particular, but the idea that God would exempt us from a commandment or his counsel because we find it difficult.

You were not speaking of KK specifically, but teddyaware was and I first replied to him. I was suggesting reasons why we cannot speak of specific situations without more knowledge.

[smac97]

That would explain the insolence in her appeal letter to the stake president.

I think it's worse than that. Kate Kelly is an attorney. I assume she has some experience in litigation, in appearing before a judge and arguing on behalf of a client. Such appearances are predominantly in writing, though personal appearances before the judge in hearings or at trial also occur. In all such attorney-judge communications, attorneys treat the judge with a lot of respect. Honorifics are the norm ("Your Honor," for example). The attorneys stand up when the judge takes the bench and again when the judge leaves it. The attorneys defer to the Court to provide instruction as to who will talk, and in what order, for how long, about what, and so forth. The attorneys stand at a specific place in the courtroom when addressing the Court, unless instructed otherwise. The attorneys moderate their voices, phrasing, vocabulary, etc. when addressing the Court. Courtesy and professionalism are not merely expected. They are required. They are required in order to maintain the decorum and dignity of the court, its proceedings, and the judicial system in general. Without such observances, respect for the institution would diminish amongst attorneys, litigants and the general population.

On occasion a judge will make a mistake in a point of procedure, a point of law or fact, or some combination thereof. These mistakes vary in severity. On occasion, a judge will go beyond making a mere "mistake" and engage in actual misconduct. Nevertheless, at no point would an attorney ever be justified in breaching the standards of professionalism and decorum by publicly criticizing the judge, or by berating the judge in the courtroom or otherwise misbehaving by breaching the behavioral standards described above. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. As a matter of principle, the decorum of the judicial system must be maintained if it is to fulfill its function in our society and government. As a matter of practicality, it would be boneheaded-nigh-unto-asinine for an attorney to antagonize and disrespect the person wearing the robe and the system that put him/her there by maligning a judge.

It just doesn't make sense for an attorney to imperil his client's rights interests by misbehaving in the proceedings intended to determine those rights and interests. This is so even when the judge has clearly made an error. The attorney facing such a circumstance (I have, on rare occasion, found myself on the receiving end of a demonstrably incorrect ruling from a judge) has remedies available to correct the error. The attorney can, in some circumstances, figure out a way to get the judge to reconsider his/her ruling. If the judge declines to do so, then the attorney files an appeal. Statements made during the appeal will necessarily be expected to adhere to the same basic measures of decorum and civility as are expected of statements made to the trial court. In fact, it is not unheard of for appellate courts to strongly correct attorneys who make intemperate statements about the trial court.

I assume Kate Kelly has at least some awareness of the foregoing considerations. She knows that the calumnies she has spewed out at her bishop and stake president would not for an instant be tolerated in a secular judicial proceeding. Frankly, I do not think she would imperil her standing before the bar and the legal community by embarrassing herself with such venomous bile as we have seen her direct at her bishop and stake president. We would not see this because, I think, she values her membership in the attorney's bar. It is a group of self-selected people who agree to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than is required of the general populace. Continued membership in that group requires adherence to this standard, so for a rational person, mouthing off to a judge is simply not worth the risk of imperiling one's reputation in that group or membership in that group.

To some extent, these same principles apply to membership in the LDS Church. It is a voluntary association of like-minded individuals who agree to adhere to certain standards of conduct. Kate Kelly is clearly a well-educated and seemingly intelligent person in many respects. Although this is conjecture on my part, I must conclude that any rational Latter-day Saint would know that the vicious, slanderous, contemptible verbiage such as that used by Kate Kelly in her communications with her bishop and her stake president would be entirely inappropriate and counterproductive in terms of seeking a reversal of disciplinary proceedings.

So this leaves me with an unhappy conundrum: I must decide for myself whether Kate Kelly is either not rational ('cuz rational people don't behave the way she has been), or else she is rational but does not value her membership in the Church ('cuz rationable people who value membership in the Church don't behave the way she has been).

What a depressing spectacle Kate Kelly has become. She is becoming the Mormon version of Lindsey Lohan, spiraling downward and screaming for attention and lashing out all the while. Unfortunately, Lindsey Lohan didn't go around trying to persuade others to emulate her misconduct. Kate Kelly, on the other hand, is actively seeking to "raise hell" in the Church and encourage others to join her in that endeavor.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 28, 2014 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's worse than that. Kate Kelly is an attorney. I assume she has some experience in litigation, in appearing before a judge and arguing on behalf of a client. Such appearances are predominantly in writing, though personal appearances before the judge in hearings or at trial also occur. In all such attorney-judge communications, attorneys treat the judge with a lot of respect. Honorifics are the norm ("Your Honor," for example). The attorneys stand up when the judge takes the bench and again when the judge leaves it. The attorneys defer to the Court to provide instruction as to who will talk, and in what order, for how long, about what, and so forth. The attorneys stand at a specific place in the courtroom when addressing the Court, unless instructed otherwise. The attorneys moderate their voices, phrasing, vocabulary, etc. when addressing the Court. Courtesy and professionalism are not merely expected. They are required. They are required in order to maintain the decorum and dignity of the court, its proceedings, and the judicial system in general. Without such observances, respect for the institution would diminish amongst attorneys, litigants and the general population.

On occasion a judge will make a mistake in a point of procedure, a point of law or fact, or some combination thereof. These mistakes vary in severity. On occasion, a judge will go beyond making a mere "mistake" and engage in actual misconduct. Nevertheless, at no point would an attorney ever be justified in breaching the standards of professionalism and decorum by publicly criticizing the judge, or by berating the judge in the courtroom or otherwise misbehaving by breaching the behavioral standards described above. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. As a matter of principle, the decorum of the judicial system must be maintained if it is to fulfill its function in our society and government. As a matter of practicality, it would be boneheaded-nigh-unto-asinine for an attorney to antagonize and disrespect the person wearing the robe and the system that put him/her there by maligning a judge.

It just doesn't make sense for an attorney to imperil his client's rights interests by misbehaving in the proceedings intended to determine those rights and interests. This is so even when the judge has clearly made an error. The attorney facing such a circumstance (I have, on rare occasion, found myself on the receiving end of a demonstrably incorrect ruling from a judge) has remedies available to correct the error. The attorney can, in some circumstances, figure out a way to get the judge to reconsider his/her ruling. If the judge declines to do so, then the attorney files an appeal. Statements made during the appeal will necessarily be expected to adhere to the same basic measures of decorum and civility as are expected of statements made to the trial court. In fact, it is not unheard of for appellate courts to strongly correct attorneys who make intemperate statements about the trial court.

I assume Kate Kelly has at least some awareness of the foregoing considerations. She knows that the calumnies she has spewed out at her bishop and stake president would not for an instant be tolerated in a secular judicial proceeding. Frankly, I do not think she would imperil her standing before the bar and the legal community by embarrassing herself with such venomous bile as we have seen her direct at her bishop and stake president. We would not see this because, I think, she values her membership in the attorney's bar. It is a group of self-selected people who agree to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than is required of the general populace. Continued membership in that group requires adherence to this standard, so for a rational person, mouthing off to a judge is simply not worth the risk of imperiling one's reputation in that group or membership in that group.

To some extent, these same principles apply to membership in the LDS Church. It is a voluntary association of like-minded individuals who agree to adhere to certain standards of conduct. Kate Kelly is clearly a well-educated and seemingly intelligent person in many respects. Although this is conjecture on my part, I must conclude that any rational Latter-day Saint would know that the vicious, slanderous, contemptible verbiage such as that used by Kate Kelly in her communications with her bishop and her stake president would be entirely inappropriate and counterproductive in terms of seeking a reversal of disciplinary proceedings.

So this leaves me with an unhappy conundrum: I must decide for myself whether Kate Kelly is either not rational ('cuz rational people don't behave the way she has been), or else she is rational but does not value her membership in the Church ('cuz rationable people who value membership in the Church don't behave the way she has been).

What a depressing spectable Kate Kelly has become. She is becoming the Mormon version of Lindsey Lohan, spiraling downward and screaming for attention and lashing out all the while. Unfortunately, Lindsey Lohan didn't go around trying to persuade others to emulate her misconduct. Kate Kelly, on the other hand, is actively seeking to "raise hell" in the Church and encourage others to join her in that endeavor.

Thanks,

-Smac

Very eloquently expressed. And it verbalizes quite well why I found her letter to the stake president so repugnant, as much as or more than anything she has said or done up to now.

[USU78]

I think it's worse than that. Kate Kelly is an attorney. I assume she has some experience in litigation, in appearing before a judge and arguing on behalf of a client. Such appearances are predominantly in writing, though personal appearances before the judge in hearings or at trial also occur. In all such attorney-judge communications, attorneys treat the judge with a lot of respect. Honorifics are the norm ("Your Honor," for example). The attorneys stand up when the judge takes the bench and again when the judge leaves it. The attorneys defer to the Court to provide instruction as to who will talk, and in what order, for how long, about what, and so forth. The attorneys stand at a specific place in the courtroom when addressing the Court, unless instructed otherwise. The attorneys moderate their voices, phrasing, vocabulary, etc. when addressing the Court. Courtesy and professionalism are not merely expected. They are required. They are required in order to maintain the decorum and dignity of the court, its proceedings, and the judicial system in general. Without such observances, respect for the institution would diminish amongst attorneys, litigants and the general population.

On occasion a judge will make a mistake in a point of procedure, a point of law or fact, or some combination thereof. These mistakes vary in severity. On occasion, a judge will go beyond making a mere "mistake" and engage in actual misconduct. Nevertheless, at no point would an attorney ever be justified in breaching the standards of professionalism and decorum by publicly criticizing the judge, or by berating the judge in the courtroom or otherwise misbehaving by breaching the behavioral standards described above. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. As a matter of principle, the decorum of the judicial system must be maintained if it is to fulfill its function in our society and government. As a matter of practicality, it would be boneheaded-nigh-unto-asinine for an attorney to antagonize and disrespect the person wearing the robe and the system that put him/her there by maligning a judge.

It just doesn't make sense for an attorney to imperil his client's rights interests by misbehaving in the proceedings intended to determine those rights and interests. This is so even when the judge has clearly made an error. The attorney facing such a circumstance (I have, on rare occasion, found myself on the receiving end of a demonstrably incorrect ruling from a judge) has remedies available to correct the error. The attorney can, in some circumstances, figure out a way to get the judge to reconsider his/her ruling. If the judge declines to do so, then the attorney files an appeal. Statements made during the appeal will necessarily be expected to adhere to the same basic measures of decorum and civility as are expected of statements made to the trial court. In fact, it is not unheard of for appellate courts to strongly correct attorneys who make intemperate statements about the trial court.

I assume Kate Kelly has at least some awareness of the foregoing considerations. She knows that the calumnies she has spewed out at her bishop and stake president would not for an instant be tolerated in a secular judicial proceeding. Frankly, I do not think she would imperil her standing before the bar and the legal community by embarrassing herself with such venomous bile as we have seen her direct at her bishop and stake president. We would not see this because, I think, she values her membership in the attorney's bar. It is a group of self-selected people who agree to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than is required of the general populace. Continued membership in that group requires adherence to this standard, so for a rational person, mouthing off to a judge is simply not worth the risk of imperiling one's reputation in that group or membership in that group.

To some extent, these same principles apply to membership in the LDS Church. It is a voluntary association of like-minded individuals who agree to adhere to certain standards of conduct. Kate Kelly is clearly a well-educated and seemingly intelligent person in many respects. Although this is conjecture on my part, I must conclude that any rational Latter-day Saint would know that the vicious, slanderous, contemptible verbiage such as that used by Kate Kelly in her communications with her bishop and her stake president would be entirely inappropriate and counterproductive in terms of seeking a reversal of disciplinary proceedings.

So this leaves me with an unhappy conundrum: I must decide for myself whether Kate Kelly is either not rational ('cuz rational people don't behave the way she has been), or else she is rational but does not value her membership in the Church ('cuz rationable people who value membership in the Church don't behave the way she has been).

What a depressing spectable Kate Kelly has become. She is becoming the Mormon version of Lindsey Lohan, spiraling downward and screaming for attention and lashing out all the while. Unfortunately, Lindsey Lohan didn't go around trying to persuade others to emulate her misconduct. Kate Kelly, on the other hand, is actively seeking to "raise hell" in the Church and encourage others to join her in that endeavor.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Nicely put together.

 

This is why I very early on concluded that KK is about the provocation in everything she does.  Her (and her organization's) words and actions are designed to provoke a hoped-for response.

 

I see lawyers do this all the time:  engage in behavior X, hoping for Y response.  There are always clues in the words and in the behavior that give this away, however, unless the particular attorney is extraordinarily highly skilled.

 

And when I read the response from KK's bishop, I could not help but give enthusiastic respect for their not rising to the bait at any time.

 

These are really, really smart and, by all reports, kind and patient people taking on a perverse and vicious person with a decidedly anti-Mormon agenda.  They have covered their own and the Church's butts with skill and reserve in the face of undeserved calumny.

 

Bravo to them.

 

A pox on that sniveling coward, KK.   This comment is not welcome on this board.

[Mystery Meat]

I think it's worse than that. Kate Kelly is an attorney. I assume she has some experience in litigation, in appearing before a judge and arguing on behalf of a client. Such appearances are predominantly in writing, though personal appearances before the judge in hearings or at trial also occur. In all such attorney-judge communications, attorneys treat the judge with a lot of respect. Honorifics are the norm ("Your Honor," for example). The attorneys stand up when the judge takes the bench and again when the judge leaves it. The attorneys defer to the Court to provide instruction as to who will talk, and in what order, for how long, about what, and so forth. The attorneys stand at a specific place in the courtroom when addressing the Court, unless instructed otherwise. The attorneys moderate their voices, phrasing, vocabulary, etc. when addressing the Court. Courtesy and professionalism are not merely expected. They are required. They are required in order to maintain the decorum and dignity of the court, its proceedings, and the judicial system in general. Without such observances, respect for the institution would diminish amongst attorneys, litigants and the general population.

On occasion a judge will make a mistake in a point of procedure, a point of law or fact, or some combination thereof. These mistakes vary in severity. On occasion, a judge will go beyond making a mere "mistake" and engage in actual misconduct. Nevertheless, at no point would an attorney ever be justified in breaching the standards of professionalism and decorum by publicly criticizing the judge, or by berating the judge in the courtroom or otherwise misbehaving by breaching the behavioral standards described above. There are both principled and practical reasons for this. As a matter of principle, the decorum of the judicial system must be maintained if it is to fulfill its function in our society and government. As a matter of practicality, it would be boneheaded-nigh-unto-asinine for an attorney to antagonize and disrespect the person wearing the robe and the system that put him/her there by maligning a judge.

It just doesn't make sense for an attorney to imperil his client's rights interests by misbehaving in the proceedings intended to determine those rights and interests. This is so even when the judge has clearly made an error. The attorney facing such a circumstance (I have, on rare occasion, found myself on the receiving end of a demonstrably incorrect ruling from a judge) has remedies available to correct the error. The attorney can, in some circumstances, figure out a way to get the judge to reconsider his/her ruling. If the judge declines to do so, then the attorney files an appeal. Statements made during the appeal will necessarily be expected to adhere to the same basic measures of decorum and civility as are expected of statements made to the trial court. In fact, it is not unheard of for appellate courts to strongly correct attorneys who make intemperate statements about the trial court.

I assume Kate Kelly has at least some awareness of the foregoing considerations. She knows that the calumnies she has spewed out at her bishop and stake president would not for an instant be tolerated in a secular judicial proceeding. Frankly, I do not think she would imperil her standing before the bar and the legal community by embarrassing herself with such venomous bile as we have seen her direct at her bishop and stake president. We would not see this because, I think, she values her membership in the attorney's bar. It is a group of self-selected people who agree to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than is required of the general populace. Continued membership in that group requires adherence to this standard, so for a rational person, mouthing off to a judge is simply not worth the risk of imperiling one's reputation in that group or membership in that group.

To some extent, these same principles apply to membership in the LDS Church. It is a voluntary association of like-minded individuals who agree to adhere to certain standards of conduct. Kate Kelly is clearly a well-educated and seemingly intelligent person in many respects. Although this is conjecture on my part, I must conclude that any rational Latter-day Saint would know that the vicious, slanderous, contemptible verbiage such as that used by Kate Kelly in her communications with her bishop and her stake president would be entirely inappropriate and counterproductive in terms of seeking a reversal of disciplinary proceedings.

So this leaves me with an unhappy conundrum: I must decide for myself whether Kate Kelly is either not rational ('cuz rational people don't behave the way she has been), or else she is rational but does not value her membership in the Church ('cuz rationable people who value membership in the Church don't behave the way she has been).

What a depressing spectable Kate Kelly has become. She is becoming the Mormon version of Lindsey Lohan, spiraling downward and screaming for attention and lashing out all the while. Unfortunately, Lindsey Lohan didn't go around trying to persuade others to emulate her misconduct. Kate Kelly, on the other hand, is actively seeking to "raise hell" in the Church and encourage others to join her in that endeavor.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think there is a third option. Granted, it is an option I do not like to mention but the further down this rabbit hole we go and the more KK does and says the more I am inclined to believe it. That option is this: KK has not been honest or sincere about her belief in the Church or its truth claims. She may have had a testimony at one point. But I am not sure she does now or has for a long time.

[Tacenda]

She isn't going to sue, IMO.  She is appealing as has been said, of course.  Maybe if some on here would listen to each podcast they could weigh in objectively.  Instead of jumping to conclusions like what has been happening from day one with KK.  I don't approve of what she's done, but I don't discount her if she is truly authentic and doesn't want to just bash or hurt the church in the long run.  She comes from a family of lawyers, she's not afraid to speak her mind.  Just let her and move on, that's what the church should have done.  If they believe in freedom in religion.  But I don't think they really do or they definitely have stipulations for that freedom. 

 

She mentions that there is a special fast called "Equal in Faith" coming up on August 26th.  So actions like this will continue to occur.  She wants to reach out to the world.  I'm still not saying what she's doing is right, but what she's doing shouldn't hurt the church if the church is true. 

 

She did mention they are moving somewhere that she thinks no one will know her and she would like to go to church.  She also said she will have to give more time to her career, so her involvement will slow down, I can hear shouts of joy right now!  Her OW board is still committed to furthering the movement, and she and they are not giving up.

 

She ended with her testimony and said she knows what she did was right, she still feels the spirit and no one can take that away from her.  She doesn't believe Mormonism has the monopoly on that.   

 

She feels wonderful things are in store for all religions when they are more inclusive and that's what Zion would be.  She's hoping Mormonism will be a part of that, and will progress.  Mormonism is her spiritual home.  She doesn't want to go anywhere else for a faith tradition. 

 

She's learned a lot from this experience and feels this has made her better, she wants to keep the good in spite of the bad. 

 

I guess she'll be in Africa and who knows what can happen there, IMO the women could use a feminist like her there.  Though I hope she is careful and stays safe. 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

Except the decision rests in the Lord. That's the problem with her whole mindset.

[ksfisher]

I think there is a third option. Granted, it is an option I do not like to mention but the further down this rabbit hole we go and the more KK does and says the more I am inclined to believe it. That option is this: KK has not been honest or sincere about her belief in the Church or its truth claims. She may have had a testimony at one point. But I am not sure she does now or has for a long time.

 

I understand what you are saying here, but in a sense don't we all believe in a different church?  We all have beams in our eyes that prevent us from fully seeing ourselves and from seeing Christ as he really is.  I think that she sincerely believes in what she believes the church to be (if that makes sense). 

 

It also seems as though she has been deeply hurt by the fact that the leaders of the church are not conforming to her ideas of what the church is. 

 

We all have the challenge of removing the beams from our eyes so that we may worship God as he truly is, and not a god that we have constructed out of our own beliefs about who god is.

[Avatar4321]

Did Moses have kids?

 

Not reading the scriptures much?

[ksfisher]

  Just let her and move on, that's what the church should have done.  If they believe in freedom in religion.  But I don't think they really do or they definitely have stipulations for that freedom. 

 

 

The problem though, for the church, is that Kelly is doing more than just speaking her mind.  She's also trying to convert others to her cause.  That's what the whole Ordain Women website is about. 

[Bikeemikey]

Bikeemikey subsequently conceded that KK threatened to sue. So I think we needn't press this point further. Just my two bits.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey Smac,

Not sure I conceded that KK threatened to sue but given the thread is moving on past that point of discussion I have followed the requests to leave it be.

[smac97]

I think there is a third option. Granted, it is an option I do not like to mention but the further down this rabbit hole we go and the more KK does and says the more I am inclined to believe it. That option is this: KK has not been honest or sincere about her belief in the Church or its truth claims. She may have had a testimony at one point. But I am not sure she does now or has for a long time.

Kate Kelly has constantly represented herself to the media and to her acolytes as a "faithful" Latter-day Saint. I have therefore not previously been willing to consider the possibility of the depths of craven mendacity, dishonesty, and bad faith which would necessarily underlie the option you describe above.

Frankly, I am not yet at a point where I am willing to consider it. In all candor, I considered including it as an option in my previous post, but it just requires too many abhorrent findings about the character of Kate Kelly, so I wasn't willing to go there. I'm still not. Not yet, anyway.

For me, I think the most likely candidate is Option 2: Kate Kelly is rational, but does not value her membership in the LDS Church. That is not to say it has zero value to her, but rather that other things have become much more important to her, and therefore take priority over a testimony of the Restored Gospel. She has, for the moment, the adulation of her acolytes and fellow adherents to the defective mixture of pop culture causes célèbres, legalism, and all-about-me media attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

" If they believe in freedom in religion"

No leader ever told her she had to believe a certain way. She has a choice to believe and act in her faith in whatever way that pleases her...as long as it is legal, but that is the government interfering not church leaders. However, just like in the rest of life, she is not free to choose the consequences of her action.

Others have the right to determine who they will and will not associate with as much as she does. And given that church members have sustained their leaders, leadership has the right and responsibility to define that for the group as a whole.

And the idea that one can believe whatever one wants, yet maintain membership in a church that defines membership by certain conditions has never been a part of what freedom of religion means.

"But I don't think they really do or they definitely have stipulations for that freedom."

Just as KK has, her stipulation being women have a right to the priesthood.

The difference is she hasn't been called and sustained in leadership so her stipulation has not been included.

"what she's doing shouldn't hurt the church if the church is true."

But it may hurt individuals and families in and out of the Church.

Edited July 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

A pox on that sniveling coward, KK.

Given that this thread has now devolved into direct personal attacks on KK and her husband regarding their aspirations or non-aspirations for children, accusations about their orthodoxy or non-orthodoxy and other attacks I will leave you all to it.

[smac97]

She isn't going to sue, IMO.

Frankly, I think the jury is still out. I thought, prior to April General Conference, "She isn't going to publicly defy the Church, violate its property rights, and trespass onto and protest on Temple Square during a sacred convocation." But . . . that is exactly what she did.

She is appealing as has been said, of course.  Maybe if some on here would listen to each podcast they could weigh in objectively.  Instead of jumping to conclusions like what has been happening from day one with KK.  I don't approve of what she's done, but I don't discount her if she is truly authentic and doesn't want to just bash or hurt the church in the long run.  She comes from a family of lawyers, she's not afraid to speak her mind.

No rational, legitimate, experienced lawyer would behave the way she has. She has gone far and above merely "speaking her mind."

If you were a client and Kate Kelly your attorney, would you really want her acting this way when she addresses the judge in your case?

Just let her and move on, that's what the church should have done.  If they believe in freedom in religion.  But I don't think they really do or they definitely have stipulations for that freedom.

What on earth are you talking about? How has the Church (a private party, and hence pretty much incapable of violating the First Amendment) infringed on Kate Kelly's First Amendment rights? If anything, the only possible infringement of rights would be by Kate Kelly, who has threatened to sue the LDS Church for exercising its First Amendment rights.

 

She mentions that there is a special fast called "Equal in Faith" coming up on August 26th.  So actions like this will continue to occur.  She wants to reach out to the world.  I'm still not saying what she's doing is right, but what she's doing shouldn't hurt the church if the church is true.

There are dozens of people who have resigned their membership directly because of Kate Kelly. She is the sine qua non of many, many people turning against the Church. She has also worked hard at making the Church look bad, and she has not been entirely unsuccessful. And she is encouraging her followers to "raise hell" in the Church.

So she's not going to destroy the Church, but neither are her actions utterly benign and without injury, either.

 

She did mention they are moving somewhere that she thinks no one will know her and she would like to go to church.

Africa. I hope she does. I hope she stops striving for media attention and returns to the ongoing nurturing of her testimony of the Restored Gospel. I hope she abandons her crusade against the Church.

She also said she will have to give more time to her career, so her involvement will slow down, I can hear shouts of joy right now!  Her OW board is still committed to furthering the movement, and she and they are not giving up.

 

She ended with her testimony and said she knows what she did was right, she still feels the spirit and no one can take that away from her.  She doesn't believe Mormonism has the monopoly on that.

 

She feels wonderful things are in store for all religions when they are more inclusive and that's what Zion would be.  She's hoping Mormonism will be a part of that, and will progress.  Mormonism is her spiritual home.  She doesn't want to go anywhere else for a faith tradition. 

 

She's learned a lot from this experience and feels this has made her better, she wants to keep the good in spite of the bad. 

 

I guess she'll be in Africa and who knows what can happen there, IMO the women could use a feminist like her there.  Though I hope she is careful and stays safe.

I think the Saints in Africa will be amused at her rantings. I hope her influence there is minimal, as she has demonstrated no capacity whatsoever for leadership in the Church. But I think the African Saints could teach her much about what the Gospel really means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I understand what you are saying here, but in a sense don't we all believe in a different church?  We all have beams in our eyes that prevent us from fully seeing ourselves and from seeing Christ as he really is. 

This seems a bit like the old claim from evangelicals that Mormons believe in "a different Jesus." There is only one Jesus. We can have differing (and, perhaps, erroneous) conceptions of Him, but in reality, there can be only one.

 

Likewise, the Church is what it is. Kate Kelly can have her own conception of Mormonism (and, based on what I'm reading here, it's striking me as a strange and alien conception) but that in no way changes the character of Mormonism. We can either approach that true character in our personal relationship to and conception of it or distance ourselves from it.

 

The real problems come when she and others endeavor to redefine it to meet their own notions and to impose that redefinition on everyone else.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Hey Smac,

Not sure I conceded that KK threatened to sue but given the thread is moving on past that point of discussion I have followed the requests to leave it be.

You previously: "I will go with majority of legal opinion and concede that KK did indeed threaten to sue the church."

 

You now: "Not sure I conceded that KK threatened to sue..."

 

I just need to work on my reading comprehension, I suppose.

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 28, 2014 by smac97

[Bikeemikey]

You previously: "I will go with majority of legal opinion and concede that KK did indeed threaten to sue the church."

You now: "Not sure I conceded that KK threatened to sue..."

I just need to work on my reading comprehension, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well if that is what the majority has decided I will respect that professional assessment. I was not aware that such a finding had actually occurred.

In the mean time... im bailing out of this thread that has become a vitriolic personal attack on KK and her husband... I personally encourage you to shut it down as it is unbecoming and no longer dealing with the subject it lead with.

Rather it is dealing with personal snipes at KK and her husbands interest in kids and other inappropriate topics.

[rhythm]

Transcription of a couple comments from part 3 starting around 1:36:52:

JD: Do you feel like this has affected your ability to feel the spirit, or your relationship with Christ?

KK: No, and I don't think that's something they can take away from me, you know? That's again, maybe in their minds that's something they can take away from me, but that's not my experience.  I've felt just as moved and just as directed and just as comforted as I ever did, by the spirit and that's how I think things will go moving forward.  Like, again, I don't think Mormonism has the monopoly on that, and so I think I'll continue as I did before.  I mean - don't get me wrong - that's not to minimize my experience or say it wasn't terrible - it was terrible, but life goes on.

JD: So your final testimony is?

KK: I just - I think that wonderful things are in store, not just for Mormonism, but all faith traditions as they become greater, more inclusive places and I think that's inevitable.  I think that is Zion.  Zion isn't a place where certain people are excluded because of beliefs they hold or because of how they were born, and so there's nowhere to go but up, I think, and I hope that Mormonism will be part of that.  And that's what, when I see heaven, that's what heaven is.  Amen.