Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[Duncan]

Whatever happened to this sick relative in Utah that she had that she couldn't leave but had ample time for the media and stuff?

[ERayR]

It is all about her. But public opinion could care less. No one is really interested in kate.

 

Can you visualize it now.  Kate Kelly in pigtails in the middle of a dusty yard, fists clenched, stomping her feet and screaming and threatening those around her.

 

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A86.JyCmjdJTvU0A7CcPxQt./RV=2/RE=1406336551/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3dIkmSmXu8qgs/RK=0/RS=Ljy9sDgijm03.S45odNvvu89emA-

Edited July 25, 2014 by ERayR

[Bikeemikey]

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.

 

 

She is not making this portion up. This has had a negative impact for many members.

[MorningStar]

She is not making this portion up. This has had a negative impact for many members.

And she created the situation with her actions.  That's not a valid reason for the church to change its mind.

[smac97]

I'm surprised she's still getting attention.

I don't think she would be getting much attention, but for her recent theatrics. Hence her recent theatrics.

I can't help but think of Cindy Sheehan, the political activist who enjoyed a stint in the media and public spotlight for her theatrics aimed against specific politicians (the Bush II Administration). Bush's political opponents expressed all sorts of solidarity with and support for Ms. Sheehan, but only while she was in the spotlight, and only while she was a useful tool against Bush. But once the spotlight shifted away from her, her notoriety plummeted and she now has no appreciable voice or influence on any of the issues which are seemingly so important to her.

Sonja Johnson is another example of such flash-in-the-pan activism against the Church. So are Margaret Toscano, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Lynne Whitesides, and Deborah Laake. While I concede that it is possible for an excommunicated person to do damage to the Church, such damage does not appear to be longlasting. There are individual and anecdotal exceptions, of course. A married couple of my somewhat faint acquaintance left the Church based on Grant Palmer's book. And more recently we are seeing some resignations as a show of "solidarity" with Kate Kelly, so it would seem she gets to count those scalps. But overall the work of the Lord is moving forward, and excommunicated persons end up where they put themselves: on the wayside. They can re-join the Church, of course. Maxine Hanks did. Avraham Gileadi did, too.

 

Bro. Gileadi is an interesting example, as he was excommunicated and then had his excommunication expunged, which he therefore - and perhaps with some justification - characterizes as "a tacit admission that the church had made a mistake." But look at his approach to his erroneous excommunication and compare it with the combative, defiant, slanderous, litigious, rebellious, in-your-face approach taken by Kate Kelly (emphases added):

 

Having attempted over the years to correct erroneous statements about me that others have made under my name on Wikipedia—only to have them intentionally or non-intentionally replaced by the same ones as before—I feel constrained to clarify several things...

...

Third, although I was excommunicated in 1993 from the LDS church in a disciplinary council that began a wave of several thousand excommunications on the Wasatch Front in the 1990s, in my case—as not a single charge was true or supported by evidence—all record of it was expunged from the church’s records nearly a decade ago in a tacit admission that the church had made a mistake. In other words, as my excommunication from the church was a non-event so far as the church is concerned, it doesn’t define me as a person. Yet there are those who take it on themselves to define me as such throughout the current Wikipedia article, attaching it even to my listed name.

Fourth, while several prominent writers who were excommunicated in 1993 pleaded their cause in the media at that time and thus embarrassed the church, I never did so, even though my family, reputation, work, etc. were adversely affected by the church’s action. Yet those same prominent writers were evidently glad to see me among their number and to ascribe to me the very same questioning of the church’s authority and “speaking against church doctrine or leadership” in which they engaged, as the current Wikipedia write-up asserts. As I have never been asked to change my conclusions that derive from applying several methodologies of literary analysis to researching scriptural texts, my supposedly “challenging the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine” is a non sequitur. In short, the above writers have no evidence of any such spurious claims and I ask them to desist from their calumnies.

I would have hoped that if Kate Kelly truly believed that her excommunication was wrongful, and if she truly valued her membership in the Church, she would have taken the approach which Bro. Gileadi did: he defended himself without pleading his case in the media or attempting to stir public rancor against the Church, which are precisely what Kate Kelly is doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

And she created the situation with her actions.  That's not a valid reason for the church to change its mind.

 

Her excommunication has created a lot of negative sentiment among many active and faithful LDS members.

 

The church has a clear and handbook directed process for disputing discipline. She can dispute at each level authority all the way to the quorum of the 12. That is her religious right as per our LDS policy. That right is not contingent on a "Valid Reason". Anyone who is disciplined has the right to dispute it, whether their reason for disputation is valid or not.

 

Can some one here actually show me the portion of the letters where legal action was threatened... I skimmed the links but was not able to find it.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[JAHS]

Her excommunication has created a lot of negative sentiment among many active and faithful LDS members.

 

The church has a clear and handbook directed process for disputing discipline. She can dispute at each level authority all the way to the quorum of the 12. That is her religious right as per our LDS policy. That right is not contingent on a "Valid Reason". Anyone who is disciplined has the right to dispute it, whether their reason for disputation is valid or not.

 

Can some one here actually show me the portion of the letters where legal action was threatened... I skimmed the links but was not able to find it.

 

"Your statement denying me confidentiality was shameful, and potentially actionable. "

[Bikeemikey]

I would have hoped that if Kate Kelly truly believed that her excommunication was wrongful, and if she truly valued her membership in the Church, she would have taken the approach which Bro. Gileadi did: he defended himself without pleading his case in the media or attempting to stir public rancor against the Church, which are precisely what Kate Kelly is doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I still don't have any issue with Kate engaging in public conversation about her experiences in the church. Why should she not? I'm an active member of the church and have been for decades. I am still confused why she can't say what she wants to say and be left alone.

[Bikeemikey]

 

 

"Your statement denying me confidentiality was shameful, and potentially actionable. "

 

 

Then this threads title is intentionally spreading misinformation. There is no threat to sue the church from Kate Kelly. 

 

As a lawyer she accurately stated that breach of ecclesiastical confidentiality is "potentially actionable".

 

She has not threatened to bring such action. A distinction that the thread has fundamentally failed to engage. 

 

This thread is a dishonest response to these letters.

[MorningStar]

Her excommunication has created a lot of negative sentiment among many active and faithful LDS members.

 

The church has a clear and handbook directed process for disputing discipline. She can dispute at each level authority all the way to the quorum of the 12. That is her religious right as per our LDS policy. That right is not contingent on a "Valid Reason". Anyone who is disciplined has the right to dispute it, whether their reason for disputation is valid or not.

 

Can some one here actually show me the portion of the letters where legal action was threatened... I skimmed the links but was not able to find it.

And I think it's a silly reason to ask the church to change its mind - because it upsets people.  Some people think excommunication should never happen for any reason. 

[smac97]

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.

Kate Kelly in this article quotes her grandmother as follows:

That same day we launched ordainwomen.org my grandmother posted her deep disappointment online, saying, "This is a sad day for the Church, a sad day for our family, and a sad day for me personally." May people had similar negative reactions to our cause but along with the steady flow of hate mail that flowed in came messages of joy and courage...

First, her grandmother's comment hardly seems to merit a description of "hate mail."

Second, I can't help but think we as a society are seriously erring when we post too much personal stuff online. Kate Kelly has done this in spades, but I can't help think that her grandmother - if she posted the above statement publicly - also erred. It must have stung to have a family member publicly denounce Kate's OW project. Although I agree with the sentiment expressed by Kate Kelly's grandmother, perhaps a private communication would have been more appropriate (unless the online posting was private, and if so, shame of Kate for publicizing it).

Third, I think the grandmother's statement was prescient, perhaps even prophetic. It appears that she knows her granddaughter, and she understood what her granddaughter's actions would be and correctly discerned the consequences which would come from those actions.

Kate Kelly has harmed the Church. She has not strengthened it or made it better in any material sense. Kate Kelly's family has also been harmed. She has lost her membership. Her husband appears to be bucking to be excommunicated, and her mother is not far behind that. And now Kate Kelly is threatening to sue the Church and continues to attempt to coerce the Church into capitulating to her "imperative" of female ordination.

Kate Kelly's grandmother was quite right: the launching of the OW movement was "a sad day for the Church, (and) a sad day for (their) family."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

I still don't have any issue with Kate engaging in public conversation about her experiences in the church. Why should she not? I'm an active member of the church and have been for decades. I am still confused why she can't say what she wants to say and be left alone.

 

She could if she would leave it at that.  Nobody is/was bothering her.  Unfortunately she can not seem to leave it that way and continues to, ostentatiously,  make public accusations and threats.

[smac97]

Her excommunication has created a lot of negative sentiment among many active and faithful LDS members.

So has her activism. So is she going to change course because of that?

The church has a clear and handbook directed process for disputing discipline. She can dispute at each level authority all the way to the quorum of the 12. That is her religious right as per our LDS policy. That right is not contingent on a "Valid Reason". Anyone who is disciplined has the right to dispute it, whether their reason for disputation is valid or not.

I don't think anyone is disputing her right to contest her excommunication.

 

Can some one here actually show me the portion of the letters where legal action was threatened... I skimmed the links but was not able to find it.

Here you go:

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." The precise nature of the potential lawsuit is unclear, but would appear to relate to the priest-penitent privilege (or, rather, the stake president's alleged intention to breach the privilege).

It's a hokey theory, but we'll see if Kate Kelly follows through with it. Filing a lawsuit would, under most circumstances, be too audacious and brazen for me to take seriously as a likely prospect. But Kate Kelly has a track record of trashing boundaries, relishing the spotlight, and seeking to harm the Church. So I will not be surprised if it happens.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mystery Meat]

So has her activism. So is she going to change course because of that?

I don't think anyone is disputing her right to contest her excommunication.

 

Here you go:

So here she's threatening to sue the Church. "Potentially actionable" is lawyerspeak for "I am thinking about suing you." The precise nature of the potential lawsuit is unclear, but would appear to relate to the priest-penitent privilege (or, rather, the stake president's alleged intention to breach the privilege).

It's a hokey theory, but we'll see if Kate Kelly follows through with it. Filing a lawsuit would, under most circumstances, be too audacious and brazen for me to take seriously as a likely prospect. But Kate Kelly has a track record of trashing boundaries, relishing the spotlight, and seeking to harm the Church. So I will not be surprised if it happens.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You can also see her trying to build a case for IIED in the letter. Which would also be flimsy.

[MDalby]

I do wonder why the husband wasn't held to the same standard that she was.  It seems like he was doing the same actions as his wife.

 

It seems like both are hand in glove in this campaign and both should be ex-ed.

 

Both have the same venom in their letters.  

 

Not a smidge of Godly sorrow or humility on their end.

Edited July 25, 2014 by MDalby

[ERayR]

I do wonder why the husband wasn't held to the same standard that she was.  It seems like he was doing the same actions as his wife.

 

It seems like both are hand in glove in this campaign and both should be ex-ed.

 

I did not hear public proclamations and demands from him nor see him leading demonstrations defying requests to keep their demonstrations out of temple square.

[smac97]

Then this threads title is intentionally spreading misinformation. There is no threat to sue the church from Kate Kelly.

Yes, there is. When a lawyer says that action X is "potentially actionable," the word "actionable" is a reference to legal proceedings, and nothing else.

 

As a lawyer she accurately stated that breach of ecclesiastical confidentiality is "potentially actionable".

First, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that her statement is not a reference to legal action, and then in the next sentence say that her statement is a reference to legal action and that it is "accurately stated."

Second, the only way an "actionable" lawsuit would arise would be a civil one by Kate Kelly against her stake president and the church. So her reference to action X being "potentially actionable" is a reference to her "potentially" pursuing a legal "action" against the her stake president and the Church. That's the only way to read her statement (which, as you note, is coming from "a lawyer").

Third, I would like to hear your thoughts about how the stake president's actions are "potentially actionable." What causes of action do you think she could pursue?

 

She has not threatened to bring such action. A distinction that the thread has fundamentally failed to engage.

Yes, she has so threatened. A lawyer telling another party that the other party's conduct is "potentially actionable" is threatening a lawsuit. That is the only feasible interpretation of this statement.

 

This thread is a dishonest response to these letters.

No, it's not. You yourself have conceded that her letter refers to potential litigation against the stake president and the Church. Nobody has claimed that she is saying she will sue to the Church, only that she has threatened to do so. "As a lawyer," her statement to her stake president - who is also a lawyer - about his "potentially actionable" conduct is a threat to sue him, and almost certainly the Church as well. And nothing else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2014 by smac97

[Nofear]

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

 

Now give me some money.

 

Does happen.

[smac97]

I do wonder why the husband wasn't held to the same standard that she was.  It seems like he was doing the same actions as his wife.

I do not recall reading a single interview with Kate Kelly's husband. Shoot, I don't even know his name. In contrast, I have read many dozens of interviews of Kate Kelly and articles about her. (UPDATE: So his name is Neil Ransom. Now I know his name. But I have never read a public statement from him, despite having read extensively on this topic.)

Her husband has either not attempted or not achieved the notoriety of his spouse. His conduct has not been the same. There are many, many members of the OW group, both male and female, who have also not been disciplined. However, there was another church member, a lawyer by trade who was publishing things about the Church and refusing to abide by the counsel of local leaders, who was excommunicated last Fall. His name was Denver Snuffer. So the claim that disciplinary proceedings are "sexist" because Kate Kelly is female is facially absurd.

 

It seems like both are hand in glove in this campaign and both should be ex-ed.

I do not think we should speculate or publicly comment on whether specific individuals should be excommunicated. That is not within out province.

 

Both have the same venom in their letters.

Well, yes, his letter may put him on his local leader's radar. It seems as if excommunication is being looked upon as a badge of honor, and now he wants one.

 

BTW, did you serve a mission in Taiwan?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2014 by smac97

[Calm]

I still don't have any issue with Kate engaging in public conversation about her experiences in the church. Why should she not? I'm an active member of the church and have been for decades. I am still confused why she can't say what she wants to say and be left alone.

Because she is insisting on getting attention from leadership for what she wants to say perhaps?

When someone attempts to attract attention, should they be shocked when they get it?

[mnn727]

Time to call out the Danites.

[MDalby]

ERayR and Smac97,

 

You are both correct that it definitely is not my place to speculate on what the church status should be for another.  That can only be done by those that have the keys for that individual.

 

But, I have been in way too many counsels and have seen those that are starting the repentance process where they show the signs of starting to have the desires for returning to being close to their Savior and are remorseful for their actions etc.  Both the husband and wife's letters show zero accountability for their actions on their parts and are shifting all accountability onto the Lord's servants.

 

Smac97, no I served in  the Oakland, CA mission.

[ERayR]

Time to call out the Danites.

 

We are considering it.

[bluebell]

I still don't have any issue with Kate engaging in public conversation about her experiences in the church. Why should she not? I'm an active member of the church and have been for decades. I am still confused why she can't say what she wants to say and be left alone.

 

I think one issue is that she believes she should have the right to say whatever she wants about her experiences in the church, as well as whatever she wants about her stake president and bishop, while at the same time telling her stake president that his admission that he can't promise he won't reveal she's no longer a member of the church "was shameful, and potentially actionable."

 

Regardless of anything else, her actions seem to suggest that she is very comfortable with double standards.  

[mnn727]

Her excommunication has created a lot of negative sentiment among many active and faithful LDS members.

 

 

Who? I know of no one that was affected outside of her very limited circle of family and followers

 

Certainly no one that actually read the press release the Church put out to counter her irrational claims.

Edited July 25, 2014 by mnn727