Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[Mystery Meat]

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.

 

Arc steadying at its finest. Please read the quote in my signature line. I will repeat, if you see the Church tipping and ready to fail if YOU don't do something about it, I think the Lord does actually want you to do nothing about it. If he wanted you to "save" his Church you would be called to a position of such authority. Stepping in to steady the Church, even if you love it dearly, shows a lack of faith in the Lord to call the right people to lead His Church forward.

 

It really is that simple. Let the Lord do His thing.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Again, public speculation about Kate Kelly's mental state is inappropriate. Please do not do it, at least not in this thread.

Thanks

-Smac

It is only inappropriate if you cling to the old views of mental disorders stigmatizing the person, instead of viewing it as simply an aspect of a persons personality.

But, since the moderators have taken your side, I will refrain from further comment

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Do not speculate on psychological state of mind. Keep discussion based on the facts.

She, in this thread, has been accused of purposefully lying, seeking attention, seeking to defame the church and it's leaders, and a myriad of other things- my comment of her possibly having Asperbegers is the least defaming things speculated about her on this thread.

But, ce la vie, it's your board.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some years ago I heard a discussion about the power newspaper editors have to sway public opinion. One person said it was the editor in charge of the editorial section that had the most influence. The person in-the-know said no, it's the title editor that has the most power. By carefully choosing the title of articles, you can sharply influence what people think and what they feel.

This thread is a perfect example of that. Buried in the letter is a sentence that says, that if the church were to publicly releases confidential information about her, that might be actionable (and the whole purpose of that section of the letter is to explain why she didn't want to attend the excommunication via a video link). Smac says that the only confidential information that the Stake President threatened to publicly divulge was whether or not Kate Kelly is a member in good standing. Does he really think that Kate Kelly was threatening, "If you let the world know that I'm no longer a member in good standing, I'll sue you!" Give me a break.

An honest title would be: Kate Kelly Appeals Her Excommunication. Instead, Smac chose one that demonstrably leads casual readers to believe she said something to the effect, "put me back in the church or I'll sue." Well done Smac, well done.

That you lack background in journalism is clear from your use of the word "titles" to refer to headlines and your reference to the "title editor" when no such position exists in a typical newsroom.

As one with some background in the profession, perhaps I can fill you in on the matter of what constitutes news.

Often, the news is not found facially in the news releases and for-public-consumption statements put out by a news maker. To find the news, one often must look below the surface.

In this case, it wasn't really news that Kelly was appealing her excommunication. We all knew early on that was going to happen.

I submit that the news here is the inherent and appalling impudence with which she is approaching that appeal, including a scarcely veiled threat to sue the stake president, the very man who holds the immediate success of her appeal in his hands.

[Bob Crockett]

Finally, it would be EXTREMELY poor legal strategy to publish her threat on the Internet.

Indeed. It was. But I see it done all the time. Some people can't help it. It is a way to lash out at an entity that won't do likewise.

[Mystery Meat]

Are any of the people claiming KK did not threaten a law suit attorneys? I will be honest, as I read through her letter I was starting to get frustrated with Smac. I thought he had pulled the threat out of nowhere. Then I read the potentially actionable language and I said, "wow there it is. clears as day." I am also an attorney. This is legalese for a threat of suit (albeit a stupid threat and a meritless lawsuit. In fact, I think you could make a pretty strong argument for malicious prosecution. Not to mention my guess is she would lose a lot of support from some of her followers...).

 

I don't know how any attorney could not interpret this as a threat (even if it is empty). Sister Kelly knew it would be interpreted as a threat by her lawyer Stake President because she is an attorney as well.

 

In fact I would be interested to have all board attorneys respond to this post with a simple yes or no to the question did KK threaten a lawsuit?

 

My answer: yes.

[Teancum]

You mean like somebody jabbing at your eyes with a sharp stick.  Are you going to put your hands in your pocket and stand there or are you going to push them away in any way available to you?

No ERayR. It is not lie that at all. Kate Kelly was more like a bothersome fly that the church smashed with a fly swatter. The church is the ultimate bully for anyone who concedes to its authority, For them it holds the keys of salvation, exaltation and eternal life. The threat of excommunication for publicly speaking out has helped keep people in their place. That is a big stick the church wields. Get out of line too much and you may put your eternal well being at risk, Plus add to that HUGE social stigma, the potential to lose friends, alienate family and so on.

And you really think Kate Kelly is the bully?

Also keep in mind Kate Kelly getting the boot may keep other people from speaking out that may have been emboldened which of course was one of the reasons the church kicked her out.

One wonders how much of a threat she was. According to Smac she was a horrible protester, of you can really call the polite and calm way she and, what, maybe a hundred other women politely asking for admittance to priesthood meeting a protest. A protest is what I saw last night with a few hundred people screaming on the street with signs and bullhorns condemning the US and Israel for the Gaza bombings. Oh and yes she associated,...gasp....with an evil apostate. Sort of like Jesus hanging out with sinners.

[Teancum]

No she was warned and she chose to walk away in defiance with her head held high.

No ERayR. She was told to shut up or she would be kicked out, she choose not to be silenced. Excommunication is not typically walking away.

[jwhitlock]

No ERayR. It is not lie that at all. Kate Kelly was more like a bothersome fly that the church smashed with a fly swatter. The church is the ultimate bully for anyone who concedes to its authority, For them it holds the keys of salvation, exaltation and eternal life. The threat of excommunication for publicly speaking out has helped keep people in their place. That is a big stick the church wields. Get out of line too much and you may put your eternal well being at risk, Plus add to that HUGE social stigma, the potential to lose friends, alienate family and so on.

And you really think Kate Kelly is the bully?

Also keep in mind Kate Kelly getting the boot may keep other people from speaking out that may have been emboldened which of course was one of the reasons the church kicked her out.

One wonders how much of a threat she was. According to Smac she was a horrible protester, of you can really call the polite and calm way she and, what, maybe a hundred other women politely asking for admittance to priesthood meeting a protest. A protest is what I saw last night with a few hundred people screaming on the street with signs and bullhorns condemning the US and Israel for the Gaza bombings. Oh and yes she associated,...gasp....with an evil apostate. Sort of like Jesus hanging out with sinners.

 

Odd. I'm a member of the church and I don't feel bullied at all by the church. I don't feel like I'm being kept in "my place". And I'm pretty sure that there are many, many more people who feel the same way.

 

Perhaps you feel a need to make things up in order to rationalize your own antipathy towards the church. It sure seems like that from your post.

 

Just like you're telling us ErayR called her a bully. I must have missed that somewhere.

[Teancum]

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.

Well those are your rather biased and unfounded speculations. You may be correct but who knows?

As for your scenario about a revelation, that would be great and would put the matter to rest.

[Teancum]

Odd. I'm a member of the church and I don't feel bullied at all by the church. I don't feel like I'm being kept in "my place". And I'm pretty sure that there are many, many more people who feel the same way.

 

Perhaps you feel a need to make things up in order to rationalize your own antipathy towards the church. It sure seems like that from your post.

 

Just like you're telling us ErayR called her a bully. I must have missed that somewhere.

Perhaps you should read post 20 where ERay said she used the tactics of a bully.

Perhaps you should also not bear false witness against me. Show me what I made up? Does the church not use excommunication as a tool to remove someone it feels has stepped over the line? Does that not help keep dissent lower than it might otherwise be? Does such approach foster open and honest discussions about difficult things?

I don't need to make anything up to justify what you term as my antipathy towards the church. The church does plenty on its own to create antipathy.

[Garden Girl]

No ERayR. She was told to shut up or she would be kicked out, she choose not to be silenced. Excommunication is not typically walking away.

 

No Teancum... that's your interpretation of events... 

She wasn't ex'd for speaking her mind.  It was her actions and trying to influence others to join her etc etc.  And she knew the consequences for those actions, but continued right on...  She continues to seek sympathy as a victim by mis-stating the Church's decision and actions, which have been posted on this board, including the letter to her explaining the decisions by the Church.

 

GG

[Teancum]

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.

Hmmm that is sort of poisoning the well is it not? Do you have the credentials to analyze her from afar? I think that is just wrong.

[Storm Rider]

Please GardenGirl, T has a good head of steam recreating history and it is not fair that you come along and throw cold water all over his parade.  Teancum, I am listening exclusively you to, please go on.  I am enraptured with your telling of the lie, I mean story of the little, timid girly girl that was abused by the big, bad, old wolf.

[jwhitlock]

Well those are your rather biased and unfounded speculations. You may be correct but who knows?

As for your scenario about a revelation, that would be great and would put the matter to rest.

 

No, Teancum, that wouldn't put the matter to rest. Those who hate the church or want to remold it in their own image are never satisfied with what God has to say about His church.

 

Especially since it's already been said.

[Teancum]

No Teancum... that's your interpretation of events... 

She wasn't ex'd for speaking her mind.  It was her actions and trying to influence others to join her etc etc.  And she knew the consequences for those actions, but continued right on...  She continues to seek sympathy as a victim by mis-stating the Church's decision and actions, which have been posted on this board, including the letter to her explaining the decisions by the Church.

 

GG

Sure those are my interpretations just as what you wrote above are yours. Mine is likely in line with how she interprets it. Yours are more in line with her judges. But from the communications from he SP she was told to take her web site down and stop speaking publicly about her position. That sure seems an awful lot like shut up to me.

[Teancum]

Please GardenGirl, T has a good head of steam recreating history and it is not fair that you come along and throw cold water all over his parade.  Teancum, I am listening exclusively you to, please go on.  I am enraptured with your telling of the lie, I mean story of the little, timid girly girl that was abused by the big, bad, old wolf.

Oh now people are getting cutsie. Yawn!

Enjoy yourselves.

[Teancum]

No, Teancum, that wouldn't put the matter to rest. Those who hate the church or want to remold it in their own image are never satisfied with what God has to say about His church.

 

Especially since it's already been said.

Kate Kelly claims not to hate the church but rather to love it. You and Mr. Lloyd have no way of knowing a that a revelation that men only should have the priesthood would not satisfy her. But believing it helps you all feel better about maligning her.

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps you should read post 20 where ERay said she used the tactics of a bully.

Perhaps you should also not bear false witness against me. Show me what I made up? Does the church not use excommunication as a tool to remove someone it feels has stepped over the line? Does that not help keep dissent lower than it might otherwise be? Does such approach foster open and honest discussions about difficult things?

I don't need to make anything up to justify what you term as my antipathy towards the church. The church does plenty on its own to create antipathy.

 

Then Teancum, maybe you should have quoted post #20 when you started puffing about bullies.

 

Of course, I've borne no false witness against you. Those of us who have open and honest discussions about difficult things within the church are evidence against what you say. Those of us who don't feel bullied by the church or kept in our place are evidence against your accusations. Those of use with experience in the church know that excommunication is not used as a bludgeon to keep people in line. Such accusation are simply the empty type of puffery that people like you and Kate Kelly engage in.

 

I guess that some people are deluded by such accusations as yours. Perhaps you subscribe to the notion that if you shout something loud or long enough, some people will start to believe you.

 

I don't believe you. You're talking about some other organization than the church I belong to. As far as I can tell, it's an imaginary church that your hatred is directed against. People make up all kinds of things in order to justify what they do against the church - a bullying church that exists only in your mind.

 

Those of us who are members of the real church know better.

[jwhitlock]

Kate Kelly claims not to hate the church but rather to love it. You and Mr. Lloyd have no way of knowing a that a revelation that men only should have the priesthood would not satisfy her. But believing it helps you all feel better about maligning her.

 

Interesting that of the two aspects I posted (those who hate the church and those who want to remold it in their own image) you automatically projected your own attitude towards the church onto Ms. Kelly.

 

Actually, I'm only really interested in maligning you - since you deserve it. Kate Kelly is doing a more than adequate job of maligning herself with what she's writing.

[Tiki]

This is no big deal. She's a lawyer. By merely existing, all lawyers threaten to sue.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, the notion that Kelly has been bullied indicates an entitlement mentality.

Membership in the Church is not an entitlement but a privilege to be earned through continuing adherence to requirements pertaining to personal conduct.

She is no more being bullied than am I or anyone else who has accepted those requirements by agreeing to be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Are any of the people claiming KK did not threaten a law suit attorneys? I will be honest, as I read through her letter I was starting to get frustrated with Smac. I thought he had pulled the threat out of nowhere. Then I read the potentially actionable language and I said, "wow there it is. clears as day." I am also an attorney. This is legalese for a threat of suit (albeit a stupid threat and a meritless lawsuit. In fact, I think you could make a pretty strong argument for malicious prosecution. Not to mention my guess is she would lose a lot of support from some of her followers...).

 

I don't know how any attorney could not interpret this as a threat (even if it is empty). Sister Kelly knew it would be interpreted as a threat by her lawyer Stake President because she is an attorney as well.

 

In fact I would be interested to have all board attorneys respond to this post with a simple yes or no to the question did KK threaten a lawsuit?

 

My answer: yes.

USU78, another attorney, has already weighed in and said Kate Kelly's statement was obviously a threat of litigation.

What I am struggling to understand, though, is why this is a big deal. Kate Kelly has aligned herself with excommunicated apostates. She has defied the Church and protested on sacred ground, during a sacred convocation, with the specific and deliberate intent to distract from and disrupt that convocation. She has encouraged her followers to "raise hell" in the Church. She has publicly called the Church to repentance. She has repeatedly and publicly slandered her bishop and her stake president. She has publicly demanded the priesthood and said that "nothing less will suffice." All of these seem far more offensive than a specious threat of litigation against her stake president, and yet folks in this thread are having a proverbial hissy fit that I had the nerve to point out that threat.

What makes Kate Kelly's threat to sue her stake president more egregious than the foregoing offenses?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Some years ago I heard a discussion about the power newspaper editors have to sway public opinion.  One person said it was the editor in charge of the editorial section that had the most influence.  The person in-the-know said no, it's the title editor that has the most power.  By carefully choosing the title of articles, you can sharply influence what people think and what they feel.

 

This thread is a perfect example of that.  Buried in the letter is a sentence that says, that if the church were to publicly releases confidential information about her, that might be actionable (and the whole purpose of that section of the letter is to explain why she didn't want to attend the excommunication via a video link).  Smac says that the only confidential information that the Stake President threatened to publicly divulge was whether or not Kate Kelly is a member in good standing.  Does he really think that Kate Kelly was threatening, "If you let the world know that I'm no longer a member in good standing, I'll sue you!"  Give me a break.

 

An honest title would be: Kate Kelly Appeals Her Excommunication.  Instead, Smac chose one that demonstrably leads casual readers to believe she said something to the effect, "put me back in the church or I'll sue."   Well done Smac, well done.

That Kate Kelly was going to appeal her excommunication is well known on this board. "Kate Kelly Appeals Her Excommunication" is about as newsworthy as "Kate Kelly Demands to Be Ordained to the Priesthood."

On the other hand, the content of her appeal, and some specific facets of it, are, I think, newsworthy. Her overall venomous tone, for example. But her threat of litigation against her stake president seemed noteworthy, so I pointed it out.

I can't speak as to what "casual readers" think. That's why I provided a detailed fisking of Kate Kelly's letter, so that "casual readers" would be informed as to its content generally, and also as to the specific threat of litigation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

Then Teancum, maybe you should have quoted post #20 when you started puffing about bullies.

 

Of course, I've borne no false witness against you. Those of us who have open and honest discussions about difficult things within the church are evidence against what you say. Those of us who don't feel bullied by the church or kept in our place are evidence against your accusations. Those of use with experience in the church know that excommunication is not used as a bludgeon to keep people in line. Such accusation are simply the empty type of puffery that people like you and Kate Kelly engage in.

 

I guess that some people are deluded by such accusations as yours. Perhaps you subscribe to the notion that if you shout something loud or long enough, some people will start to believe you.

 

I don't believe you. You're talking about some other organization than the church I belong to. As far as I can tell, it's an imaginary church that your hatred is directed against. People make up all kinds of things in order to justify what they do against the church - a bullying church that exists only in your mind.

 

Those of us who are members of the real church know better.

Like it or not I am a member of the church with as much if not more experience than you have with it. And I did quote ERay when I first responded. Practice your reading skills. As for the rest of your post it is nothing more than an ad hominem rant.

Good day.