Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[mfbukowski]

Does happen.

Dang you caught me!  I was waiting for the comeback "But the church threw her out- she didn't leave voluntarily!" and THEN come back with that article!  You beat me in my own game! 

[mfbukowski]

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

Honestly, in my experience I have seen none of this, in my little non-Utah stake.  In fact there are probably no more than 10 people in my whole stake that are even aware of it, much less sympathetic to her position.   I can't prove that, but I have heard ZERO discussion about it and am fortunate to know most of the active members of the stake and can't imagine any of the sisters caring, much less the brethren.

 

Just speaking from my totally subjective experience

[ERayR]

Honestly, in my experience I have seen none of this, in my little non-Utah stake.  In fact there are probably no more than 10 people in my whole stake that are even aware of it, much less sympathetic to her position.   I can't prove that, but I have heard ZERO discussion about it and am fortunate to know most of the active members of the stake and can't imagine any of the sisters caring, much less the brethren.

 

Just speaking from my totally subjective experience

 

Pretty much the same in my south central Idaho community of saints. 

[readstoomuch]

I am so tired of her endless public tirades. Bully your leaders and then act surprised when they.get backed into a corner. unfortunately, my daughter is surprised and disgusted that she was excommunicated. Excommunication seems to be a ruthless, violent action while marching onto temple square (but being nice) to protest is okay. I don`t understand. It is actually all depressing to me. I am trying to just love my daughter, but somewhere along the line women getting the priesthood became more important than anything else the Church does or believes in.

[mormonnewb]

Continued from the previous post:

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.

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.

"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?

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 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.

"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.

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

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.

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

 

Wow! I take back everything I have ever suspected about a lack of exogetical skills in our Church. Your dissection of every jot and tittle of her letter was ... ummm ... interesting.

I would disagree that her comment that the breach of her confidentiality was actionable is a threat to sue the Church over her excommunication (as opposed to a POSSIBLE threat to sue her local leaders for privacy violations). However, putting that aside, do you think that you MIGHT be a little fixated on this Sister Kelly controversy?

While I disagree with your conclusions about the propriety of her actions, I do understand your position, What I don't understand is how her actions seem to cause YOU such concern.

Do you own property adjacent to Temple Square and her protests have reduced rental rates in the area? Did you bet the family farm on the maintenance of an all-male priesthood on betonanything.com? Seriously, what has you CONSTANTLY raising the alarm, "One if by blog post. Two if by Facebook. Kate Kelly is coming! Kate Kelly is coming!"

You seem to have a lot of faith in the Brethren to guide the Lord's Church without KK's help, but not so much faith in The Lord to protect his Church from the KK Menace without you raising the alarm. Oh ye of little faith!

Edited July 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[ERayR]

I am so tired of her endless public tirades. Bully your leaders and then act surprised when they.get backed into a corner. unfortunately, my daughter is surprised and disgusted that she was excommunicated. Excommunication seems to be a ruthless, violent action while marching onto temple square (but being nice) to protest is okay. I don`t understand. It is actually all depressing to me. I am trying to just love my daughter, but somewhere along the line women getting the priesthood became more important than anything else the Church does or believes in.

 

Sorry to hear your daughter has been taken in.

[bluebell]

Wow! I take back everything I have ever suspected about a lack of exogetical skills in this Church. Your dissection of every jot and tittle of her letter was ... ummm ... interesting.

I would disagree that her comment that the breach of her confidentiality was actionable is a threat to sue the Church for her excommunication (perhaps, a threat to sue her local leaders for sole privacy right violation). However, putting that aside, do you think that you MIGHT be a little fixated on this Sister Kelly controversy?

Now, don't get me wrong. We all have our pet issues. I'm probably too fixated on the issue of blacks and the priesthood because I am OFTEN asked by friends and families to defend my decision to join "such a racist church."

What is it about Sister Kelly and OW that has you so incensed? Yes, I know that you think she has been wrong in her actions and has been rightly ex'd, but we ex people ALL of the time. I'd guess that dozens of people have been ex'd in the last month alone for adultery, criminal offenses and even apostasy.

So what is it about Sister Kelly that would compel you to write the equivalent of a doctoral thesis on this board in regards to her

Wow! I take back everything I have ever suspected about a lack of exogetical skills in our Church. Your dissection of every jot and tittle of her letter was ... ummm ... interesting.

I would disagree that her comment that the breach of her confidentiality was actionable is a threat to sue the Church over her excommunication (as opposed to a POSSIBLE threat to sue her local leaders for privacy violations). However, putting that aside, do you think that you MIGHT be a little fixated on this Sister Kelly controversy?

While I disagree with your conclusions about the propriety of her actions, I do understand your position, What I don't understand is how her actions seem to cause YOU such concern.

Do you own property adjacent to Temple Square and her protests have reduced rental rates in the area? Did you bet the family farm on the maintenance of an all-male priesthood on betonanything.com? Seriously, what has you CONSTANTLY raising the alarm, "One if by blog post. Two if by Facebook. Kate Kelly is coming! Kate Kelly is coming!"

You seem to have a lot of faith in the Brethren to guide the Lord's Church without KK's help, but not so much faith in The Lord to protect his Church from the KK Menace without you raising the alarm. Oh ye of little faith!

Smac is a lawyer, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason he is so methodical and thorough when he posts.

I've been a member of this board since 2006 and his replies on news articles or blog posts have always been this in depth and pointed. It's not something that has anything to do with KK personally.

[smac97]

Wow! I take back everything I have ever suspected about a lack of exogetical skills in this Church. Your dissection of every jot and tittle of her letter was ... ummm ... interesting.

I would disagree that her comment that the breach of her confidentiality was actionable is a threat to sue the Church for her excommunication (perhaps, a threat to sue her local leaders for sole privacy right violation). However, putting that aside, do you think that you MIGHT be a little fixated on this Sister Kelly controversy?

Nope. I have given it virtually no thought to Kate Kelly since the first few days after her excommunication. Providing a detailed analysis of a news item is not reasonable described as being "fixated."

Now, don't get me wrong. We all have our pet issues. I'm probably too fixated on the issue of blacks and the priesthood because I am OFTEN asked by friends and families to defend my decision to join "such a racist church."

What is it about Sister Kelly and OW that has you so incensed?

I'm not incensed.

Yes, I know that you think she has been wrong in her actions and has been rightly ex'd, but we ex people ALL of the time. I'd guess that dozens of people have been ex'd in the last month alone for adultery, criminal offenses and even apostasy.

So what is it about Sister Kelly that would compel you to write the equivalent of a doctoral thesis on this board in regards to her

A few comments posted to an online message board, based on two articles I read this morning, is not reasonably described as a "doctoral thesis." You are exaggerating. A lot.

Do you own property adjacent to Temple Square and her protests have reduced rental rates in the area?

No. But Temple Square is sacred to me, as are all of the Church's temples. Protests on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, in violation of the law and of the Church's specific and repeated instructions, are offensive to me.

Did you bet the family farm on the maintenance of an all-male priesthood on betonanything.com? Seriously, what has you CONSTANTLY raising the alarm, "One if by blog post. Two if by Facebook. Kate Kelly is coming! Kate Kelly is coming!"

Speaking of fixated . . .

Kindly cease your efforts to change the topic of this thread. This thread is not about me.

You seem to have a lot of faith in the Brethren to guide the Lord's Church without KK's help,

I do.

but not so much faith in The Lord to protect his Church from the KK Menace without you raising the alarm. Oh ye of little faith!

Yawn.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

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

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:

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

Suppose the Brethren were to report that they had met in session where they put the specific question to God and gotten a clear answer of "No."

Suppose further that this were to result in a written revelation that was canonized and added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

Does anyone seriously believe this would placate Kelly and her band? Would they say, "OK. Well, thanks for asking."?

I trow not.

I think the reaction would be more unseemly accusations.

[smac97]

Smac is a lawyer, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason he is so methodical and thorough when he posts.

Yeah, my experience as a lawyer probably affects my analysis of and outlook on topics which interest me.

I've been a member of this board since 2006 and his replies on news articles or blog posts have always been this in depth and pointed. It's not something that has anything to do with KK personally.

I was similarly pointed in my analysis and critique of Denver Snuffer during his disciplinary proceedings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

No. But Temple Square is sacred to me, as are all of the Church's temples. Protests on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, in violation of the law and of the Church's specific and repeated instructions, are offensive to me.

Put me down as one who found the antics of the Kelly band extremely offensive.

Since early childhood I have regarded Temple Square as a place of sanctity where peace and reverence should prevail.

May it ever be so.

[cinepro]

Time to call out the Danites.

 

I'm sure you mean the Danettes.

[teddyaware]

Smac is a lawyer, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason he is so methodical and thorough when he posts.

I've been a member of this board since 2006 and his replies on news articles or blog posts have always been this in depth and pointed. It's not something that has anything to do with KK personally.

As your post powerfully demonstrates: presumptions, assumptions and surmisings stand among the great enemies of equanimity, justice and truth.

Edited July 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[smac97]

As you post powerfully demonstrates: presumptions, assumptions and surmisings stand among the great enemies of equanimity, justice and truth.

Um, what? Could you explain what you mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2014 by smac97

[mormonnewb]

Nope. I have given it virtually no thought to Kate Kelly since the first few days after her excommunication. Providing a detailed analysis of a news item is not reasonable described as being "fixated."

I'm not incensed.

A few comments posted to an online message board, based on two articles I read this morning, is not reasonably described as a "doctoral thesis." You are exaggerating. A lot.

No. But Temple Square is sacred to me, as are all of the Church's temples. Protests on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, in violation of the law and of the Church's specific and repeated instructions, are offensive to me.

Speaking of fixated . . .

Kindly cease your efforts to change the topic of this thread. This thread is not about me.

I do.

Yawn.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I am certainly not qualified to determined whether you are "fixated" with Sister Kelly.  However, I can say that EVERY thread in which you have participated over the last three months has involved OW.  And this time, I'm not exaggerating (as you know, the board keeps stats on that stuff).

 

In that time, the Church has issued a few essays on controversial topics, like the translation of the Book of Abraham.  Yet, you didn't feel the need to share your textual analysis with us.  Several courts have released decisions on SSM.  Yet, despite being a lawyer, no legal analysis?  The Hobby Lobby case thread could have certainly benefited from someone with the acumen to read through the majority and dissenting opinions.

 

Now, this could all be just one big coincidence or PERHAPS, the KK/OW affair is a REALLY big deal to you.  I'm just curious as to why.

[smac97]

I am certainly not qualified to determined whether you are "fixated" with Sister Kelly.  However, I can say that EVERY thread in which you have participated over the last three months has involved OW.  And this time, I'm not exaggerating (as you know, the board keeps stats on that stuff).

You are incorrect. I have participated in the "How Faithful Do You Feel Today?" thread, the "How Many Children Do You Want?" thread, the "Mass Resignation" thread (which references, but is not directly about, Kate Kelly), the "Mormons, Mandela And The Race And Priesthood Statement" thread, the "John Swallow & Mark Shurtleff - Does This Form Of Criminal Activity Warrant Excommunication??" thread (which involved legal stuff), and the "How Many Temples Have You Been Through?" thread. And that's just in the last few weeks.

In that time, the Church has issued a few essays on controversial topics, like the translation of the Book of Abraham.  Yet, you didn't feel the need to share your textual analysis with us.  Several courts have released decisions on SSM.  Yet, despite being a lawyer, no legal analysis?  The Hobby Lobby case thread could have certainly benefited from someone with the acumen to read through the majority and dissenting opinions.

 

Now, this could all be just one big coincidence or PERHAPS, the KK/OW affair is a REALLY big deal to you.  I'm just curious as to why.

For the second time: Kindly cease your efforts to change the topic of this thread. This thread is not about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2014 by smac97

[Nofear]

Honestly, in my experience I have seen none of this, in my little non-Utah stake.  In fact there are probably no more than 10 people in my whole stake that are even aware of it, much less sympathetic to her position.   I can't prove that, but I have heard ZERO discussion about it and am fortunate to know most of the active members of the stake and can't imagine any of the sisters caring, much less the brethren.

 

Just speaking from my totally subjective experience

Same for my ward here in a non-Utah stake. But it did effect some elsewhere. Yet another example of the long tail*.

* Understanding of this term should be required for anybody engaging in internet discussions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For the second time: Kindly cease your efforts to change the topic of this thread. This thread is not about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, if we can make you look stupid then we can just ignore anything you say,

[Scott Lloyd]

I am certainly not qualified to determined whether you are "fixated" with Sister Kelly. However, I can say that EVERY thread in which you have participated over the last three months has involved OW. And this time, I'm not exaggerating (as you know, the board keeps stats on that stuff).

In that time, the Church has issued a few essays on controversial topics, like the translation of the Book of Abraham. Yet, you didn't feel the need to share your textual analysis with us. Several courts have released decisions on SSM. Yet, despite being a lawyer, no legal analysis? The Hobby Lobby case thread could have certainly benefited from someone with the acumen to read through the majority and dissenting opinions.

Now, this could all be just one big coincidence or PERHAPS, the KK/OW affair is a REALLY big deal to you. I'm just curious as to why.

I'm curious as to why you're so bothered by it. Participants on this board, within the parameters of the board guidelines, have the freedom to make their participation as broad or as focused as they wish. They're not beholden to you for their choices.

And Smac is right: Your endeavor to make him the focus of the thread is getting really boring and, I suspect, violates some board guideline or another. I know posters may not make themselves the focus; I imagine that applies by logical extension to making other posters the focus.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

Um, what? Could you explain what you mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

As per bluebell's comments, Newb's misplaced zeal impelled him to make a rash and erroneous assumption about you; an assumption that given your background in law is demonstrably false.

Edited July 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[smac97]

As per bluebell's comments, Newb's misplaced zeal impelled him to make a rash and erroneous assumption about you; an assumption that given your background in law is demonstrably false.

Understood. Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mormonnewb]

You are incorrect. I have participated in the "How Faithful Do You Feel Today?" thread, the "How Many Children Do You Want?" thread, the "Mass Resignation" thread (which references, but is not directly about, Kate Kelly), the "Mormons, Mandela And The Race And Priesthood Statement" thread, the "John Swallow & Mark Shurtleff - Does This Form Of Criminal Activity Warrant Excommunication??" thread (which involved legal stuff), and the "How Many Temples Have You Been Through?" thread. And that's just in the last few weeks.

For the second time: Kindly cease your efforts to change the topic of this thread. This thread is not about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I stand corrected.  I was reading the list of all the recent threads you have STARTED; and not those that you have participated in.

 

As for derailing the thread, that is not my intention.  As a lawyer, you know that a legitimate area of inquiry is a participant's potential bias or self-interest.  As a judge in MormonDialogueal, I'm simply trying to determine if there is some reason to be suspicious of the case you have made against Sister Kelly.

 

I now see no reason for such suspicion.  Neutral third parties have confirmed that you are usually VERY thorough in your analysis of these matters.  Furthermore, you aren't unduly focused on just this one matter.  Please accept my apologies for asking the questions in the first place.  I jumped to an erroneous conclusion on limited evidence (there's a first time for everything)

[Calm]

do you think that you MIGHT be a little fixated on this Sister Kelly controversy?

!

Smac has always been thorough with any controversy he has investigated. He spends a lot less time on the board debating all things endlessly than most posters. What he pays attention to he pays close attention to. I think that is appropriate...inform yourself before commenting and keep yourself informed.

[smac97]

I stand corrected.  I was reading the list of all the recent threads you have STARTED; and not those that you have participated in.

Oh, I'll own that, I suppose.

 

As for derailing the thread, that is not my intention.  As a lawyer, you know that a legitimate area of inquiry is a participant's potential bias or self-interest.

Actually no, I'm not sure that's a legitimate area of inquiry, at least not the type of inquiry you have been pressing. As a lawyer, I may need to inquire about documentation pertaining to the opposing parties contract claim, but I would not need to inquire about his taste in movies. The former topic is clearly my business, the latter is clearly not.

 

As a judge in MormonDialogueal, I'm simply trying to determine if there is some reason to be suspicious of the case you have made against Sister Kelly.

I have never heard of "MormonDialogueal," nor have I submitted my personal life for public inspection by its judges.

 

I now see no reason for such suspicion.  Neutral third parties have confirmed that you are usually VERY thorough in your analysis of these matters.  Furthermore, you aren't unduly focused on just this one matter.  Please accept my apologies for asking the questions in the first place.  I jumped to an erroneous conclusion on limited evidence (there's a first time for everything)

Sounds good.

I'm not much of a mystery, really.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2014 by smac97

[VideoGameJunkie]

What if it goes to court and the judge is Mormon?