Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[mfbukowski]

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!

I certainly don't see you missing an opportunity spouting off in her favor, on the other hand.

 

Oh well I guess she needs a man to protect her.

[tonie]

She said that the stake president's conduct is "potentially actionable" (she did not say "legally actionable").

Thanks,

-Smac

What did the stake president do that she labeled "potentially actionable"? Is defamation of character potentially actionable?

[Storm Rider]

Defamation of character demands a public statement.  The only, as in no one else, has taken it public but this individual, Ms. KK.  

 

What you have for breakfast?  The sun is shining her in Doha and Ramadan is almost done.  Just prior to Eid many people will travel on vacation.  There are not many birds that fly about here and I miss that.  As I write this I am at the computer wearing a lot of blue.  What is your favorite color?

 

There are just so many more important subjects to discuss.

[tonie]

I stand corrected on the terminology.

Perhaps some real world examples would serve to demonstrate the threat implied by "potentially actionable".

If the mods on this board tell me something I don't like about one of my posts and I tell them that what they did was "potentially actionable", I wonder how fast I'd get banned.

If I told my boss at work that something he did or said to me was "potentially actionable", I wonder how fast I'd get reprimanded or fired.

If I tell a TSA worker at the airport that what they're doing is "potentially actionable", I wonder when I'm going to be able to catch another flight because I'm going to miss mine.

If I have a nasty disagreement with someone doing work for me on my house, and I tell them that what they've done is "potentially actionable", I wonder if they're going to do anything else for me without getting their lawyer involved.

You're correct that Kate Kelly has made a threat. That's more than clear. You're also correct that it's most likely an empty threat, but it is still a threat. Most likely it's simply being used for effect and to play to the home crowd who are more than willing to applaud what she is doing.

No he is not correct. She did not threaten to sue the Church. She did not threaten to sue the stake president. And, all your examples demonstrate that you do not understand the context in which the "potentially actionable" statement was made. Each of your examples involves conduct that was committed, and your "potentially actionable" comments refer to past actions or present actions being committed (TSA example). Has the stake president gone to the media "to correct the public record regarding your standing in the Church." (allegedly the stake president made this statement to kate kelly via email) If the stake president did not go to the media then the stake president has not committed the conduct; which means Smac also error with this statement "Kate Kelly, a lawyer, told her stake president, another lawyer, that his conduct was "potentially actionable." There was no conduct on the part of the stake president, so she was not stating "that his conduct" was potentially action. She was quite clearly stating that the alleged potential future actions were "potentially action".

[mormonnewb]

I certainly don't see you missing an opportunity spouting off in her favor, on the other hand.

 

Oh well I guess she needs a man to protect her.

 

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am NOT objective here.  I am very much in Sister Kelly's corner.  I am incredibly impressed by her courage and tenacity.  I'm also impressed by her ability to organize and mobilize.

 

Now, as for her needing a man to protect her, if that is true, then what does it say for the 20-30 MEN on this board protecting the Brethren for this MERE woman?  I guess they need YOUR protection even more.

 

And it's a good thing that the Brethen have such a valiant group of saints to help them in this great work.  I will confess that it takes a lot of courage to stand with the institution against the individual.  Perhaps, that is why Christ continually preached about the importance of casting out the 1 to protect the 99.  He was trying to give us the courage to stand with the rich and powerful because He knew that true progress only comes when people blindly follow the calls of their leaders.

 

It must have taken a lot of courage for those Jewish brothers and sisters to side with the Pharisees and Sadducees and clamor for the crucifixion of Christ.  It would have been so easy to pick up their crosses and follow the Savior, but they had the courage to listen to their leaders.  Of course, their courage must have only been matched by that of the Roman citizens who cheered while their leaders threw the early saints to the lions.  How easy it would have been to raise their voices in defense of religious liberty and risk being thrown into the lion's den themselves.  But let's not forget the courage of that mob that descended on four defenseless men in a jail in Carthage.

 

And I would be remiss in pointing out the great courage of Latter-day Saints who parroted now defunct theories of racial superiority as an act of fidelity to this Church's policy of segregation.  It would have been so easy to face the criticism and ridicule of those who believed the truth about ancient curses and "fence sitting."  Yet, these brave folks had the courage to resist the "philosophies of men" and embrace justifications that turned out to actually be false (at least, according to the Church's most recent statement on the matter).  However, that's not the important thing.  The important thing is that they had the courage to blindly follow error.

 

So yes, I am terribly biased in favor of those who will stand up to the majority to fight for their vision of truth.  These cowardly folks can use all of the support they can get.

[readstoomuch]

It's not a narrow interpretation. You tell somebody something they've done is "potentially actionable" as an accusation that he has violated civil law and with the intent to make him stew with worry over whether you intend to take him to court.

Kelly's use of that phrase reflects hostility in this context, especially when she has no reasonable chance of prevailing in court, as she surely must realize.

 

I was listening to a podcast with Maxine Hanks.  I think it was on Mormon Matters.  She mentioned that those (September 6) who actually went to their Church court avoided excommunication.  Sending a thousand support letters and strongly worded demands/pronunciations to the council and refusing to appear (even by Skype) do not bode well for someone who wants to avoid discipline.  It is almost like a someone daring you to do something and the Church loses either way.   If she were to appear in person to her appeals and show any signs of remorse or faith-it might make a difference in her appeal.  Since this seems to be more about other opportunities to demean the Church in the court of public opinion, I doubt she will be showing up to an appeal.  

 

As far as a lawsuit or legalese, the legalese drenches her communications with the Church.  She hash`t threatened a lawsuit, but she is constantly making judgements and implying that she will continue to push and drag the Church through the mud in any means at her disposal.  Since legal means are at her disposal, it raises the possibility.  It is so sad and so obvious that she is trying to extort the Church bending to her cause or else.  

[mfbukowski]

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am NOT objective here.  I am very much in Sister Kelly's corner.  I am incredibly impressed by her courage and tenacity.  I'm also impressed by her ability to organize and mobilize.

 

Now, as for her needing a man to protect her, if that is true, then what does it say for the 20-30 MEN on this board protecting the Brethren for this MERE woman?  I guess they need YOUR protection even more.

 

And it's a good thing that the Brethen have such a valiant group of saints to help them in this great work.  I will confess that it takes a lot of courage to stand with the institution against the individual.  Perhaps, that is why Christ continually preached about the importance of casting out the 1 to protect the 99.  He was trying to give us the courage to stand with the rich and powerful because He knew that true progress only comes when people blindly follow the calls of their leaders.

 

It must have taken a lot of courage for those Jewish brothers and sisters to side with the Pharisees and Sadducees and clamor for the crucifixion of Christ.  It would have been so easy to pick up their crosses and follow the Savior, but they had the courage to listen to their leaders.  Of course, their courage must have only been matched by that of the Roman citizens who cheered while their leaders threw the early saints to the lions.  How easy it would have been to raise their voices in defense of religious liberty and risk being thrown into the lion's den themselves.  But let's not forget the courage of that mob that descended on four defenseless men in a jail in Carthage.

 

And I would be remiss in pointing out the great courage of Latter-day Saints who parroted now defunct theories of racial superiority as an act of fidelity to this Church's policy of segregation.  It would have been so easy to face the criticism and ridicule of those who believed the truth about ancient curses and "fence sitting."  Yet, these brave folks had the courage to resist the "philosophies of men" and embrace justifications that turned out to actually be false (at least, according to the Church's most recent statement on the matter).  However, that's not the important thing.  The important thing is that they had the courage to blindly follow error.

 

So yes, I am terribly biased in favor of those who will stand up to the majority to fight for their vision of truth.  These cowardly folks can use all of the support they can get.

You seem to miss the fact that we are the ones who are to be in the world but not of it.

It is you who are standing with the world's majority. Your continuous race bating is really getting tiresome.

And I know it is impossible for you to conceive, but sometimes the majority is right.

Edited July 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

It would be nice if it was always the underdog who was in the right, would make it very easy to know who to stand with.

I think life tends to be a little more complicated than that.

[smac97]

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am NOT objective here.  I am very much in Sister Kelly's corner.  I am incredibly impressed by her courage and tenacity.  I'm also impressed by her ability to organize and mobilize.

Okay. I profess I am not impressed with Kate Kelly. At all. I find her conduct largely offensive, disappointing, divisive, misguided, and increasingly malicious.

 

And it's a good thing that the Brethen have such a valiant group of saints to help them in this great work.  I will confess that it takes a lot of courage to stand with the institution against the individual.  Perhaps, that is why Christ continually preached about the importance of casting out the 1 to protect the 99.  He was trying to give us the courage to stand with the rich and powerful because He knew that true progress only comes when people blindly follow the calls of their leaders.

Your continuing efforts at playing the provocateur are wearing thin. Your vilifying the Brethren has lost its shock value.

 

It must have taken a lot of courage for those Jewish brothers and sisters to side with the Pharisees and Sadducees and clamor for the crucifixion of Christ.

Yawn. Kate Kelly is not a Christ figure, and the Brethren are not the Pharisees and Sadducees. Your provocateur schtick is stale.

 

It would have been so easy to pick up their crosses and follow the Savior, but they had the courage to listen to their leaders.  Of course, their courage must have only been matched by that of the Roman citizens who cheered while their leaders threw the early saints to the lions.  How easy it would have been to raise their voices in defense of religious liberty and risk being thrown into the lion's den themselves.  But let's not forget the courage of that mob that descended on four defenseless men in a jail in Carthage.

Nonsensical. And tendentious. And unworthy of a meaningful response.

Goading the Latter-day Saints. Stirring up ire and contention. Provoking animosity. Fomenting ill will. Accusing falsely. These are the fruits of Kate Kelly and her ilk. I see nothing praiseworthy or of good report in these efforts.

 

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2014 by smac97

[Daimao]

If she's appealing and she's using legal language, it shows she thinks her approach might work. 

 

Speaking of the language she's using, "ordianwomen.org"? "exommunication"? I would be embarrassed to send a letter on a matter I felt was of some moment and not at least run a spell check on it first, let alone publish it for the world to see. 

 

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

[readstoomuch]

Mormonnewb,

That was over the top, out of context and just mean-spirited.

KK deserves compassion, the Church has issues in its past, the lawsuit potential seems overstated, and we should try to be measured. It is still the restored gospel-even with its warts.

This is not a victimless movement and I am watching helplessly as my daughter exits the Church over OW. When does the healing start? When does it become about building the kingdom of God instead of disparaging it with further actions and threats? This isn't how the wonderful black members in my mission acted about the pruesthood. I know them, I was there.

Edited July 26, 2014 by readstoomuch

[mormonnewb]

You seem to miss the fact that we are the ones who are to be in the world but not of it.

It is you who are standing with the world's majority. Your continuous race bating is really getting tiresome.

And I know it is impossible for you to conceive, but sometimes the majority is right.

 

While I admit that I probably was over the top in my last post, even more "tiresome" is your continuous charge of "race baiting."  What does that even mean?

 

I am simply pointing our past blind reliance on prophetic pronouncements led us to boldly defend the denial of the priesthood based on grounds that later proved to be baseless.  The fact that it was a racial ban is not material.  It could have been a ban on people with green eyes.  The point is that they felt security in relying on justifications that later turned out to be WRONG (even if the ban was of God, the Church has admitted that its justifications were dead wrong).

 

Let me be clear.  I don't believe that the saints of the past were racist (at least, not more than anyone else of their age).  In fact, if they were anything like current saints, they were probably LESS racist (being imbued with the Holy Spirit tends to do that for a person).  Yet, even though our scriptures are filled with wonderful teachings on equality, we steadfastly defended a policy of dubious origin.

 

There was no OB equivalent to OW back then, but I imagine that the leaders of any such movement would have been vilified as "arrogant" and "unrepentant trouble makers."  And why?  Because they were wrong to advocate for equality?  Or because they opposed the now-debunked theories of the Brethren?

 

Would they have been more righteous to have known the truth and yet professed error to be in line with the Church?  For those in OW, should they profess what they believe to be error so that they can stay "true" to the Church?  And is that an act of loyalty?

 

It is my BELIEF (and it holds no more weight than that) that it is not an act of valor to sit by quietly and watch your beloved church engage in a policy that you believe will lead to long-term harm.  And while I know many of you object to how Sister Kelly went about raising the issue, if the choice is between someone who is rude and right or someone who is polite and wrong, I choose the former.  So while disagreements about tactics are fair game (and even occur WITHIN the movement), vilifying Sister Kelly and others as "enemies" of the Church goes too far; and might provoke an equally over-the-top response from us Katites.

Edited July 26, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

Goading the Latter-day Saints. Stirring up ire and contention. Provoking animosity. Fomenting ill will. Accusing falsely. These are the fruits of Kate Kelly and her ilk. I see nothing praiseworthy or of good report in these efforts.

 

-Smac

 

Yet, as we discussed earlier today, the last FIVE threads you have started have been about Kate Kelly "and her ilk."  And to my knowledge, Sister Kelly has not started (or participated) in a single one of them.  So exactly WHO is goading the Latter-day Saints and stirring up ire and contention?  Is she fomenting ill will towards smac97 or is it the other way around?

 

There are literally hundreds of things in the world to bring to our attention and yet, YOU choose us to repeatedly bring up a topic in which you see "nothing praiseworthy or of good report."  Is there an apostate exception to the 13th Article of Faith that I don't know about that makes it okay to focus on things of "bad report" for people who trespass on church property?

 

And in Sister Kelly's defense, she believes (even if wrongly) that her contention will bring the Church closer to Zion by engaging ALL of its members in bringing the blessings of the priesthood to the world.  Do you really believe that continually pointing out Sister Kelly's "flaws" will bring about Zion?

[Calm]

"Now, as for her needing a man to protect her, if that is true, then what does it say for the 20-30 MEN on this board protecting the Brethren for this MERE woman? I guess they need YOUR protection even more."

I would be surprised if there are that many making any significant defence. Even in this thread there are maybe 10-15 even just posting in support. "Protecting" I think requires a bit more effort and aggressiveness. Those of us making relatively simple observations...I don't think of those posts as protecting anyone, I am definitely not trying to have that kind of an impact. I would like to examine the controversy created by Kelly publishing her letter and I think it will be interesting to see what she follows it up with, but that is pretty much all I am doing here and now.

I don't know if she is courageous, it is not an assumption i would make at this point. People are courageous not because they are willing to do something hard and unlikely, but because it may come at a very high cost to them.

It is not going to impact her work and financial security it would seem. Might even help given her chosen field. Clients may go to her because they know she won't back down. And her name is likely much better known in the general public in the US at least so better for fundraising, getting high powered people to talk to her and she has a lot of personal contacts with the press now.

As far as emotional, she has now a large group of personal friends and supporters who can offer her a community that appears to appeal to her without needing change in her view. She appears to be very emotionally committed to them as well. People think of her as a hero, she is getting constant extreme positive feedback fron the up close and personal crowd, the more distant voices of attack appear to me to be easily ignored by her when she wants (or even the closer more mild disagreements since she has developed the ability to ignore them (she reports herself as "not listening" to those who protest her methods) and she gets to see herself as a "saint" in their eyes (she describes herself as either being seen as a saint or a devil) and given her rhetoric, she sees herself as unrighteously persecuted...which can be horrible if physical or over a long period of time someone forcing themselves into one's life, but it likely is very rewarding as well to play the role of a martyr for a just and noble cause....especially if there is no real discomfort involved such as being tarred and feathered, etc. there is some nasty verbal abuse being thrown at her and others in OW and I would be highly concerned about how that affected her....save for the same stuff (not to the level of death threats but since she gave out the private information of her local leaders, she appears to think intrusions into personal lives as no big deal) is coming from her and her people so it would appear like she doesn't see anything inherently wrong in those kinds of attacks...nothing truly damaging except perhaps reputation.

It might have been very intimidating to challenge in person her leaders. She was eager to speak with them so must have felt comfortable in the beginning at least. Her reports of the interactions, iirc, seemed pretty civil and she was at first under the impression there was no real issue for them and so she reports herself as shocked when they showed up with more stringent requirements to maintain her standing. Her move removed her from direct contact with them, she was able to challenge them from an emotionally safe distance with a emotionally safe method...writing a letter. During the time the council was held, she did not have to face it alone, she not only choose not to listen to anyone's reaction to her challenge, but she choose to spend that time surrounded by a mass of her supporters at a vigil. And when she heard the final news the next day she was in beautiful surroundings doing what she does with the people who do it with her, so while painful, it would likely have been very emotionally comforting as well. I don't remember anyone going through the process who has had a more enthusiastic and consistent there for her support group, both on the smaller, more intimate scale as well as the larger attending the various demonstrations. I usually think of an underdog as having to be much more independent and draw on inner strength rather than always having someone there to act as a pep squad or even shoulder to cry on. Constant reinforcement from those you care about that you are doing the right thing tends not to leave a lot of room for self doubt...and I think a healthy dose of self doubt is an essential part of courage.

I think given all the significant positives she has been able to experience in her environment from the beginning, the potential pain and thus perceived risk necessary for courage to be present really depends on the level of spiritual commitment she has towards the faith and if she really believes it is the one path for her and if she believes her leaders' requirements really affect her ability to worship. If she didn't believe she would be disciplined as it appears from what she has said, not sure acting when certain of a positive outcome is all that courageous. OTOH, It is possible she is very courageous in that she truly realized on all levels from the beginning that she might be excluded from something that perhaps means as much as breathing to her (as i have heard some devoted members describe their own sense of connection to their faith and their ability to act upon it) or she may be simply bullheaded in that she views the Church as a community that belongs to the members (rather than its members giving themselves to God to belong to him), belongs to her because it is her choice and with her past successes she only needs to be persistent and hardworking to get what she wants as she always does (according to her mom).

She has been very capable in expressing her commitment to her cause and the people joined with her. There is passion there for sure. It makes me wonder why I don't feel coming from her the same level of commitment to the Church. I expected to see that passion in her for both of her claimed allegiances, but I don't. Since I don't know her personally and she has only shared with the world a limited view of herself (thank goodness, I don't get people who think everyone wants to know all the details of their existence to the point of what they are wearing that day, eating that day, breathing that day, etc and even less those who do), I haven't a clue why there is this unexpected difference...but it is consistent and it seems to me has made her actions very predictable. And I don't at this time see a good outcome for anyone involved. There will be costs and little recompense for damage done, at least on the spiritual side of things. Could be great benefits for Kelly on the secular side of her life (in no way am I claiming that this was her purpose, I just see it as a natural byproduct of the way she handles things).

At this point I would love to see something positively unexpected from her. Even if it wasn't exactly 'prochurch' so to speak, It would give me hope that she wasn't so certain as to become fixed and rigid and single eyed on her goals and method and that maybe the path could be eventually leading to more workable and acceptable to all solutions.

Edited July 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Yet, as we discussed earlier today, the last FIVE threads you have started have been about Kate Kelly "and her ilk." And to my knowledge, Sister Kelly has not started (or participated) in a single one of them. So exactly WHO is goading the Latter-day Saints and stirring up ire and contention? Is she fomenting ill will towards smac97 or is it the other way around?

There are literally hundreds of things in the world to bring to our attention and yet, YOU choose us to repeatedly bring up a topic in which you see "nothing praiseworthy or of good report." Is there an apostate exception to the 13th Article of Faith that I don't know about that makes it okay to focus on things of "bad report" for people who trespass on church property?

And in Sister Kelly's defense, she believes (even if wrongly) that her contention will bring the Church closer to Zion by engaging ALL of its members in bringing the blessings of the priesthood to the world. Do you really believe that continually pointing out Sister Kelly's "flaws" will bring about Zion?

Are you suggesting because she is not present on the board we can confident discard her as having any influence here? Why then are you here defending her? Have you not be motivated by her actions elsewhere to take up her cause here? Are you suggesting her public comments to her followers and sympathisers and just those who were troubled and questioning to stay in the Church to "raise hell" are not in anyway stirring up contention?

In the D&C there is a commandment to keep a record of all those who fight against Zion. Smac believes the result of Kelly's acts is a fight even if the original intent wasn't. Demonstrating clearly the pattern of behaviour and the consequences of such behaviour is in a sense scripturally mandated. I can't remember how it is phrased but it is why the HBL Library (I believe ) has a massive collection of antimormon materials going back to the early days of the Church.

So Kelly's intentionally attempting to create contention among the Saints ( stay and "raise hell") because it will bring the Church closer to a Zion society and spreading her ideas as widely as she can is a saint worthy action even if wrong while Smac's efforts to limit her ability to cause contention among the Saints by pointing out to others in his own sphere of influence where she has been wrong and will actually in his opinion have a negative, divisive effect on the Saints if people choose to follow her does not for some reason also qualify as working toward a Zion potential (whether rightly or wrongly)?

I am not getting your reasoning, especially given what we are taught about contention not being a quality of a Zion people and we have here two people, one now intentionally pushing her followers to engage in contentious behaviour ("raise hell"...a particularly significant phrase in a community whose intent is to create/bring down heaven to earth and she is dramatically telling them to do the opposite) and another challenging her claims and behaviour in order to minimize that contention by limiting her converts through showing those that he has contact with who are following her, tempted to follow her or may have friends and family who do her inappropriate methods through reasoned analysis.

Edited July 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"And while I know many of you object to how Sister Kelly went about raising the issue, if the choice is between someone who is rude and right or someone who is polite and wrong, I choose the former"

But that wasn't the choice. There is a huge range of possible behaviours between the two, including IMO persistent and right and effective. There was already in operation a group of moderate feminists not only working hard at educating women to expand their horizons as we are taught to by God, but were successfully working with leadership to bring greater awareness there and help with ideas on how to more effectively use women in ways that cause more growth in the individual and in the community. These women were willing to work with Kelly and helped her become better known (Neylaine posted Kelly's profile on the Mormon Women Project---a wonderful site which could have gone a long way towards helping her group become more acceptable to the general population, especially those already involved in their own projects) tried to help out by providing information from their own experiences. For that she labeled them narcisstic, sell outs for privileged positions given to them by the patriarchy and fake feminists...simply because they disagreed that ordaining women was not the route to go (in part because asking and receiving power from men is not empowering oneself at all, but simply perpetuating the status quo).

Kelly could have educated herself first on what was going on, made the right contacts and then jump in and throw her weight towards an already successful method. She probably would have been a lot of help to them with her enthusiasm, but she listened to other advisers and took what was in my opinion the short and easy route, short because it is based on dramatic grand gestures that demand immediate responses and easy because coming up with the ultimate goal and not considering anything else is intellectually very uncomplicated. No involved policies or programs or discussions having to examine where the good is that shouldn't be change much as well as some areas that needed significant work and others that needed to be dispensed with. No need to come up with workable programs to achieve these changes. All one has to do is come up with ways to publicize one's demands, a very simple dynamic really...so easy in my view, especially easy because there is no need for patience. Since you have one and only one requirement that there is no negotiating about, there are no weeks or months at the negotiating table trying to work out acceptable changes followed by years to see if it's working all the while analysing it constantly in hopes of improving. Organizing pep rallies are thing many women learn to do in high school. Getting the media on board may be harder work but once critical mass gets there needs prodding only now and then.

And if you think it is right to "raise hell" within the community trying to grow into a Zion community, I think a better example is Christ among the soon to be Zion community he belonged to as their God in the Americas when he visted them and how he treated them. He saved his hell and damnation comments for those outside his community...who should have been inside but chose not to be by their actions if not public allegiances.

Edited July 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Okay. I profess I am not impressed with Kate Kelly. At all. I find her conduct largely offensive, disappointing, divisive, misguided, and increasingly malicious.

 

Your continuing efforts at playing the provocateur are wearing thin. Your vilifying the Brethren has lost its shock value.

 

Yawn. Kate Kelly is not a Christ figure, and the Brethren are not the Pharisees and Sadducees. Your provocateur schtick is stale.

 

Nonsensical. And tendentious. And unworthy of a meaningful response.

Goading the Latter-day Saints. Stirring up ire and contention. Provoking animosity. Fomenting ill will. Accusing falsely. These are the fruits of Kate Kelly and her ilk. I see nothing praiseworthy or of good report in these efforts.

 

-Smac

There is a possible element to this whole KK saga that's been prodding its way into my consciousness lately and I've decided I'm finally going to bring it out into the open. Could it be KK is suffering from some sort of personality disorder? I ask this question quite compassionately and sincerely because though I'm not a medical professional, I've had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with some folks with personality disorders, and what I've learned is a real eye-opener. If there are any professionally qualified board participants willing to comment, it would be interesting to get their input on this possible angle.

It's important to understand that, generally speaking, personality disorders (10 in number) are not considered mental illnesses. Here's the mental health community's official definition of a personality disorder:

"an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)”

 

If KK is suffering from a personality disorder, it could turn out to be a game changer. For each personality disorder there is a list of diagnostic criteria that must be met before a qualified mental health professional can make a diagnosis.

 

Again, please note I bring up this point in a spirit of respectfulness. From my vantage point, KK's behavior seems so irrational and self-destructive that it begged the asking of  the question.

 

Edited July 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

There is a possible element to this whole KK saga that's been prodding its way into my consciousness lately and I've decided I'm finally going to bring it out into the open. Could it be KK is suffering from some sort of personality disorder? I ask this question quite compassionately and sincerely because though I'm not a medical professional, I've had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with some folks with personality disorders, and what I've learned is a real eye-opener. If there are any professionally qualified board participants willing to comment, it would be interesting to get their input on this possible angle.

It's important to understand that, generally speaking, personality disorders (10 in number) are not considered mental illnesses. Here's the mental health community's official definition of a personality disorder:

"an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)”

 

If KK is suffering from a personality disorder, it could turn out to be a game changer. For each personality disorder there is a list of diagnostic criteria that must be met before a qualified mental health professional can make a diagnosis.

 

Again, please note I bring up this point in a spirit of respectfulness. From my vantage point, KK's behavior seems so irrational and self-destructive that it begged the asking of  the question.

 

 

I've wondered that myself, this whole thing sounds like a gigantic drama queen scene. I am related to two different ones in my family. My Aunt thinks the world revolves around her and her needs and if you stand up to her she'll back down, whereas my BIL's Mum won't, she digs in her heels and throws an even bigger fit-it's embarrassing really

Edited July 26, 2014 by Duncan

[Bikeemikey]

So you "have no idea what her intentions are," but you know for a fact that her intentions do not include suing the Church. Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

And yes, she did threaten to sue. The threat was directed against her stake president, who was acting solely in his capacity as a stake president, and hence as an agent for the Church. General principles of agency law, specifically the doctrine of respondeat superior, would, I think, require the Church to be named as a party in any anticipated litigation.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know what her intentions are, but I do know that she has not threatened to sue the church.

In order to arrive at the conclusion she has threatened to sue the church you first have to engage in an "interpretation" of what is at best an ambiguous single couplet of words in a much larger letter.

The letter is entirely about challenging her discipline via the internal church process. It is also pointing out all the ways Kate Kelly feels the action taken against her was unfair.

You say it was a threat, I say it is more likely to be illustrative of her broader concern with her discipline process.

[Calm]

" Could it be KK is suffering from some sort of personality disorder? "

It may be more comfortable to place the responsibility for her actions on something she may not be able to control, but it is not IMO appropriate to speculate about someone's psychological condition.

Reminds me of people trying to attribute epilepsy or some sort of temporal lobe disorder or a fondness for mind altering drugs to explain Joseph's visions. Evidence for the disorder...the visions themselves, couldn't be an actual encounter with God.

[Bikeemikey]

I "imagined" one lawyer telling another that his conduct is "potentially actionable?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Many have to added "legally" in front of actionable as discussion grew. Thanks for correcting that.

How about this, a couple of lawyers from the same firm talking and one of them reviews a situation and makes the comment, you really need to be careful, this is potentially actionable". Is that lawyer attempting to threaten the other lawyer, or simply making an observation.

Context matters, it is not the case that all instances where using the phrase "potentially actionable" constitute a threat of pending lawsuit.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

I certainly don't see you missing an opportunity spouting off in her favor, on the other hand.

Oh well I guess she needs a man to protect her.

It is entirely possible to not be in her favor but also not wish to have people engaging in criticism of her for something she never did.

[Bikeemikey]

No he is not correct. She did not threaten to sue the Church. She did not threaten to sue the stake president. And, all your examples demonstrate that you do not understand the context in which the "potentially actionable" statement was made. Each of your examples involves conduct that was committed, and your "potentially actionable" comments refer to past actions or present actions being committed (TSA example). Has the stake president gone to the media "to correct the public record regarding your standing in the Church." (allegedly the stake president made this statement to kate kelly via email) If the stake president did not go to the media then the stake president has not committed the conduct; which means Smac also error with this statement "Kate Kelly, a lawyer, told her stake president, another lawyer, that his conduct was "potentially actionable." There was no conduct on the part of the stake president, so she was not stating "that his conduct" was potentially action. She was quite clearly stating that the alleged potential future actions were "potentially action".

This is another relevant observation regarding the context of this.

And it is still the case that pointing out the "potentially actionable" nature of future actions is still not a threat to sue, even if future actionable actions take place.

[Calm]

" you really need to be careful, this is potentially actionable"

Since Kelly is the only one who could bring a suit, are you suggesting her comment means something like "you need to be really careful, I would hate to have to sue you"?

Since she is the only one capable of having standing to sue, if she didn't have a possible lawsuit in mind, why would she even bring it up as potentially actionable?

It is only potentially actionable for her. The context is of her being a potential suitor (no sleep for way too long, this is mean being lazy, not funny...what is the right word? Plaintiff?) and the other being the potential suitee.

Edited July 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

" Could it be KK is suffering from some sort of personality disorder? "

It may be more comfortable to place the responsibility for her actions on something she may not be able to control, but it is not IMO appropriate to speculate about someone's psychological condition.

Reminds me of people trying to attribute epilepsy or some sort of temporal lobe disorder or a fondness for mind altering drugs to explain Joseph's visions. Evidence for the disorder...the visions themselves, couldn't be an actual encounter with God.

Point well taken. But my main thought is that if she were shown to be suffering from a personality disorder, many of her followers would likely take a step or two back and do some serious rethinking. Enough said. Will 'see' everyone in about 5 hours.