Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[Teancum]

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.

I assume you Are only interested in maligning me because as your posts to me show you are incapable of dealing honestly with my comments. Hence your personal attacks.

[Analytics]

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.

 

The question isn't what constitutes news.  The question is, was the title of this post misleading?

 

The alleged legal threat was a small part of her letter, and the analysis of that legal threat was a small part of the OP. Both of these things were burried in the body of their respective documents.

 

The title is in fact misleading.  Kate threatened that if the bishop divulged confidential information, she could sue.  That might be newsworthy (although this thread appears to be the only place on the internet that is aware of this news).  However, people on this board who only skimmed the long OP came across believing that she threatened, "Put me back in the church or I'll sue."  That is most definitely NOT what she threatened.

 

The fact the title falsely conveys the idea that she threatened, "put me back in the church or I'll sue" is what I take issue with.

[sheilauk]

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.

My answer is also yes.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Yes it is.  Excommunication is never a sudden unpredictable action.  It follows months of counseling with a person so they know where the problem is and what remedial action needs take place.  If chooses to ignore the path of reconciliation they are willfully walking away.

 

You seem to forget church membership is by invitation and approval, either of which can be withdrawn for one or more of several reasons. That invitation and approval does not bestow the right for one to come in and start reordering the house.  Just for a minute lets say you invited me for an extended stay at your house.  I move in and in a couple of months I decide I don't like your furniture and I want a big bay window in the front of the house.  You tell me no the house is fine so I organize some of your neighbors and other house guests and we come to your office and picket you and won't leave even when asked to do so.  I have surely worn out my welcome as your house guest.  What would you do?

[Teancum]

As any honest poster knows my comments about bullying were in direct reply to ERay when he said Kate Kelly was using bullying tactic and when QUOTING him I said it was the church who is bully and I likened excommunication to a bullying tactic. For some reason that put Jwhitlock into an some sort of hissy fit where he accuses me of painting a picture I never did.

Of course the church is voluntary if one converts as an adult. Not so much when baptized as a child and reared in it. Excommunication simply is a tool that can be used to keep members obedient as well as within orthodoxy. And it can be viewed as a heavy handed tool. That is a simple fact.

I have noted on other Kate Kelly threads that she should no have been surprised at her outcome knowing what the church she belongs to is and how it operates. Good or bad, right or wrong it is what it is and it does not long tolerate open dissent. Even with all I don't like about the church I would never choose her course if I wanted to stay a member. And also, Mr. Whitlock, I do not hate the church. That sir is another bald face lie. I may express some of my dissenting thoughts here on this discussion board....that is what this place is for is it not? To discuss? Or do you prefer just to talk with only like mind folk slapping each other on the back and high fiving it. For some here it seems the latter because dissent seems to send them over the edge.

[ERayR]

Does the church not use excommunication as a tool to remove someone it feels has stepped over the line?

 

Yes they do.  What other method do they have to remove willful dissidents?  Church membership is not a right but is conditioned on following its teachings.

 

Does that not help keep dissent lower than it might otherwise be?

 

I have no way of knowing for sure but I suspect it mightgive pause to some who would break up the furniture to know that if they do they will be tossed out of the house.

 

Does such approach foster open and honest discussions about difficult things?

 

Open and Honest discussion is never discouraged and was not in this case.  However, when one begins to break up the furniture and break out the windows, as was done in this case, then it has progressed beyond open and honest discussion.

[ERayR]

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.

 

I know she tells it differently.  To her it all started when they hit her back.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The question isn't what constitutes news.  The question is, was the title of this post misleading?

 

The alleged legal threat was a small part of her letter, and the analysis of that legal threat was a small part of the OP. Both of these things were burried in the body of their respective documents.

 

The title is in fact misleading.  Kate threatened that if the bishop divulged confidential information, she could sue.  That might be newsworthy (although this thread appears to be the only place on the internet that is aware of this news).  However, people on this board who only skimmed the long OP came across believing that she threatened, "Put me back in the church or I'll sue."  That is most definitely NOT what she threatened.

 

The fact the title falsely conveys the idea that she threatened, "put me back in the church or I'll sue" is what I take issue with.

It got you to read the thread didn't it?

Mission accomplished.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Yes it is.  Excommunication is never a sudden unpredictable action.  It follows months of counseling with a person so they know where the problem is and what remedial action needs take place.  If chooses to ignore the path of reconciliation they are willfully walking away.

 

You seem to forget church membership is by invitation and approval, either of which can be withdrawn for one or more of several reasons. That invitation and approval does not bestow the right for one to come in and start reordering the house.  Just for a minute lets say you invited me for an extended stay at your house.  I move in and in a couple of months I decide I don't like your furniture and I want a big bay window in the front of the house.  You tell me no the house is fine so I organize some of your neighbors and other house guests and we come to your office and picket you and won't leave even when asked to do so.  I have surely worn out my welcome as your house guest.  What would you do?

Although I am firmly on the LDS Church side on the KK thing- you example doesn't work. LDS leaders are not the homeowner, God is. KK is saying she believes there needs to be new chandeliers and she wants the owner, not the caretaker to decide if she is right.

[Teancum]

Yes it is.  Excommunication is never a sudden unpredictable action.  It follows months of counseling with a person so they know where the problem is and what remedial action needs take place.  If chooses to ignore the path of reconciliation they are willfully walking away.

 

You seem to forget church membership is by invitation and approval, either of which can be withdrawn for one or more of several reasons. That invitation and approval does not bestow the right for one to come in and start reordering the house.  Just for a minute lets say you invited me for an extended stay at your house.  I move in and in a couple of months I decide I don't like your furniture and I want a big bay window in the front of the house.  You tell me no the house is fine so I organize some of your neighbors and other house guests and we come to your office and picket you and won't leave even when asked to do so.  I have surely worn out my welcome as your house guest.  What would you do?

 

 

Church membership is by invitation to a certain extent.  Not so much when one is brought up and indoctrinated into it.   Then it is one's tribe, culture, etc.  That is the way it was for me and I believe for Kate Kelly.  A better analogy is growing up in a house and having your parents make you leave because you are not willing to obey their rules.  Perhaps it is the same. either way.

[Teancum]

 

Does the church not use excommunication as a tool to remove someone it feels has stepped over the line?

 

Yes they do.  What other method do they have to remove willful dissidents?  Church membership is not a right but is conditioned on following its teachings.

 

Does that not help keep dissent lower than it might otherwise be?

 

I have no way of knowing for sure but I suspect it mightgive pause to some who would break up the furniture to know that if they do they will be tossed out of the house.

 

Does such approach foster open and honest discussions about difficult things?

 

Open and Honest discussion is never discouraged and was not in this case.  However, when one begins to break up the furniture and break out the windows, as was done in this case, then it has progressed beyond open and honest discussion.

 

 

 

Can the church grow beyond the need to remove dissidents?  Is there a better way to deal with them?  You say open and honest discussion is never discouraged?  Really?  Try having  a discussion like this in Sunday school.  Bring up any variety of controversial topics discussed on this board in priesthood or RS and see how far you get.  At least where I go to church the ward and stake members just like to agree pretty much.  Any thing outside the group think it pretty frowned upon at least in an open group.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

And now, knowing nothing about me, you can make statements such as this. Still exercising that vivid imagination of yours,evidently. Maybe my counterpart in your imaginary Church of the Big Bully is that way; say hi to him for me when you see him.

[jwhitlock]

I assume you Are only interested in maligning me because as your posts to me show you are incapable of dealing honestly with my comments. Hence your personal attacks.

 

Actually, I dealt very honestly with your comments about this Big Bully Church you want so badly to believe in. I identified them for what they were. I realize that it can get ugly when the imaginary world meets the real world, but I'm here for you if you want to make the transition back.

 

I'm trying hard to understand why you would consider the fact that the church can and does excommunicate unrepentant members nothing more than a Big Bully stick to keep all of us in line. It's rather obvious to most of us in the real church that it's not used that way. I can't remember the last time that someone at the pulpit said "keep in line, you people, or we'll excommunicate you". Maybe I'm sleeping during that part of Sacrament meeting.

 

Maybe you believe in the Big Bully doctrine because if it were your church, that's the way you would run it. Who knows?

[ERayR]

Can the church grow beyond the need to remove dissidents?  Is there a better way to deal with them?  You say open and honest discussion is never discouraged?  Really?  Try having  a discussion like this in Sunday school.  Bring up any variety of controversial topics discussed on this board in priesthood or RS and see how far you get.  At least where I go to church the ward and stake members just like to agree pretty much.  Any thing outside the group think it pretty frowned upon at least in an open group.

 

No dissidents if not removed can destroy the house from within.  The thing about removing them from the Church that when they are ready they are always welcome to return. 

 

Priesthood and RS along with other church meetings are for strengthening the members and preparing them for the saving ordinances, not for fomenting discord.  When you sow discord you destroy the harmony in the body of Christ.

[jwhitlock]

As any honest poster knows my comments about bullying were in direct reply to ERay when he said Kate Kelly was using bullying tactic and when QUOTING him I said it was the church who is bully and I likened excommunication to a bullying tactic. For some reason that put Jwhitlock into an some sort of hissy fit where he accuses me of painting a picture I never did.

Of course the church is voluntary if one converts as an adult. Not so much when baptized as a child and reared in it. Excommunication simply is a tool that can be used to keep members obedient as well as within orthodoxy. And it can be viewed as a heavy handed tool. That is a simple fact.

I have noted on other Kate Kelly threads that she should no have been surprised at her outcome knowing what the church she belongs to is and how it operates. Good or bad, right or wrong it is what it is and it does not long tolerate open dissent. Even with all I don't like about the church I would never choose her course if I wanted to stay a member. And also, Mr. Whitlock, I do not hate the church. That sir is another bald face lie. I may express some of my dissenting thoughts here on this discussion board....that is what this place is for is it not? To discuss? Or do you prefer just to talk with only like mind folk slapping each other on the back and high fiving it. For some here it seems the latter because dissent seems to send them over the edge.

 

For someone who claims "I do not hate the church" you certainly have a way of denigrating it whenever possible.

 

Interesting that you should use the term "dissenting" in describing your thoughts here on the board concerning the church and its members. First thing that came to mind was how the Book of Mormon describes "dissenters". Of course, they often engaged in the same kind of doublespeak you've been demonstrating here. You clearly paint a picture of the church as a bully and when I respond to that false picture, you tell us you never did paint that picture - after telling us again that the church is a bully.

 

As I've mentioned before in my "hissy fit" posts, you're painting the church as a bully that uses excommunication as a bludgeon to keep members in line. You do it again here. The problem is, that's not the church I belong to. It must be something in your imagination, because the church doesn't use excommunication in that manner. And it certainly didn't do so in the case of Kate Kelly, though you seem to want to believe her claims that the church has also bullied her.

 

Maybe you two should get together and compare notes. Write a book or something. It would make good fiction, if it was well written.

 

Perhaps I need to apologize to you for pointing your inconsistencies out to you. Then again, the only other alternative would be to high five you for your observations, and you seem to be uncomfortable with that, too. So what's a person to do?

[Bikeemikey]

The question isn't what constitutes news. The question is, was the title of this post misleading?

The alleged legal threat was a small part of her letter, and the analysis of that legal threat was a small part of the OP. Both of these things were burried in the body of their respective documents.

The title is in fact misleading. Kate threatened that if the bishop divulged confidential information, she could sue. That might be newsworthy (although this thread appears to be the only place on the internet that is aware of this news). However, people on this board who only skimmed the long OP came across believing that she threatened, "Put me back in the church or I'll sue." That is most definitely NOT what she threatened.

The fact the title falsely conveys the idea that she threatened, "put me back in the church or I'll sue" is what I take issue with.

Hi!

Good job, thanks for a small amount of reason in a thread that should be a case study in reading comprehension.

[jwhitlock]

Hi!

Good job, thanks for a small amount of reason in a thread that should be a case study in reading comprehension.

 

Glad that you think this thread is a case study in reading comprehension. Smac has shown great comprehension in his analysis not only of what Kate Kelly has written, but also in selecting the title for the thread.

 

Speaking of comprehension, perhaps you can point out how the title conveys the idea of "put me back in the church or I'll sue" as Analytics so ironically claimed. It almost looks like it wasn't only Teancum whose imagination has run a bit wild.

 

You started the insult derail and you are leaving the thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

The question isn't what constitutes news. The question is, was the title of this post misleading?

The alleged legal threat was a small part of her letter, and the analysis of that legal threat was a small part of the OP. Both of these things were burried in the body of their respective documents.

The title is in fact misleading. Kate threatened that if the bishop divulged confidential information, she could sue. That might be newsworthy (although this thread appears to be the only place on the internet that is aware of this news). However, people on this board who only skimmed the long OP came across believing that she threatened, "Put me back in the church or I'll sue." That is most definitely NOT what she threatened.

The fact the title falsely conveys the idea that she threatened, "put me back in the church or I'll sue" is what I take issue with.

A good title captures the attention of potential readers by highlighting a point in the treatise that is expected to appeal to the interest of those readers. I grant that the title also honestly reflects what is therein. Contrary to your false accusation, this one did not fail in that respect. As has been amply pointed out, a phrase used in Kelly's letter does indeed constitute an implied threat to bring a lawsuit. Edited July 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[rpn]

I too think the title of this thread was sensationalized.   My answer is no she did not threaten to sue.  She said she thought she COULD sue.  Materially different things.  (I think she is wrong on the could sue too: the SP's statement was that he could  not let the world continue thinking she was a member in good standing when she had received the disciplinary letter disfellowshipping her and had been notified of disciplinary proceedings.   She was told that if she didn't admit to the change in her membership status, he would have to reveal it.  In my view, his need to protect the flock would trump the normal confidentiality expectations.   It is not defamation to say something that is true.  It is not a privacy violation to disclose membership status in any group, absent some binding contract among the members and the group, which is pretty hard to get in any voluntary organization, must less from God which is how we view our Leader.)

 

I am one who believes that her discipline should be overturned on procedural grounds (insufficient notice of the exact things she had done to put her membership in question, not following handbook, disfellowshipping without a disciplinary proceeding, retaining the records before any disciplinary proceeding had been started, holding the meeting in VA when she had moved and there was NO evidentiary reason to hold it there, apparently not following the procedure giving the new bishop the right to decide whether it should be held in new ward or old ward, especially when that prevented her attendance --- the church has enough money to have flown her and her dh back if they insisted on having it in VA).  (True, I'm basing my review on what I have read in the correspondence from her leaders and her statements that do not contradict them.  There may be things I don't know.  I just know that we can and should do better in the due process department.) 

 

But the way she framed her appeal made that virtually impossible.   And even if it was overturned on procedural grounds, her current leaders could themselves do it over, and reachthe same conclusion.

Edited July 27, 2014 by rpn

[stemelbow]

Sheesh...I know I didn't read this whole thread, but it seems silly to accuse her of threatening the Church, no? I mean she's been sensational and made a spectacle of herself too, no doubt, but this seems to fall in that camp, I'm afraid.

[Teancum]

And now, knowing nothing about me, you can make statements such as this. Still exercising that vivid imagination of yours,evidently. Maybe my counterpart in your imaginary Church of the Big Bully is that way; say hi to him for me when you see him.

Yawn....

[Teancum]

No dissidents if not removed can destroy the house from within.  The thing about removing them from the Church that when they are ready they are always welcome to return. 

 

Priesthood and RS along with other church meetings are for strengthening the members and preparing them for the saving ordinances, not for fomenting discord.  When you sow discord you destroy the harmony in the body of Christ.

So where do open and honest discussions get to take place? Is discussing priesthood for women in a Sunday meeting sowing discord? In her interview on Radio West the church spokesperson implied such a discussion is quite fine in her RS meeting. How about the recent statement on the BoA on the church web site? Is that a fair topic? Or is it only the plain vanilla correlated curriculum that church provides that is fair game. I know what the church says about this. Stick to the manuals.

There really is no forum for open and honest discussion about difficult issues in a church setting. Maybe a few friends can do so or a in a meeting with a leader. But not much else.

[Teancum]

Glad that you think this thread is a case study in reading comprehension. Smac has shown great comprehension in his analysis not only of what Kate Kelly has written, but also in selecting the title for the thread.

 

Speaking of comprehension, perhaps you can point out how the title conveys the idea of "put me back in the church or I'll sue" as Analytics so ironically claimed. It almost looks like it wasn't only Teancum whose imagination has run a bit wild.

This is getting old really.

My main point is I believe that church discipline can be and is often used as a bullying tactic as much as ERay thinks KKs tactics are bullying. But hey you think I am simply making this up. Just because I view it differently than you does not mean some view it that way. Ask Kate Kelly, John Dehiln, Alan Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer and the list can go on as to wether they view the use of threatened excommunication as a bullying tactic. Then tell them it is all in their imagination.

 

Move on. jwitlock has been removed.

[jwhitlock]

This is getting old really.

My main point is I believe that church discipline can be and is often used as a bullying tactic as much as ERay thinks KKs tactics are bullying. But hey you think I am simply making this up. Just because I view it differently than you does not mean some view it that way. Ask Kate Kelly, John Dehiln, Alan Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer and the list can go on as to wether they view the use of threatened excommunication as a bullying tactic. Then tell them it is all in their imagination.

 

You're right. It is getting old.

 

So let me get this straight. You're saying that excommunication used as a bullying bludgeon is pretty much the norm. All of these people you mention were innocent individuals who were bullied out of the church by their heavy handed excommunications. It didn't really have anything to do with what they said or did; the mere fact that they're excommunicated is prima facie evidence that they were bullied by a heavy handed church that uses the threat of discipline to keep all of us cowed members in line.

 

Does your imagination go into overdrive as the night gets older? And will you be attending this imaginary church of yours tomorrow? It sure doesn't look like the one I attend.

[smac97]

So this thread has pretty much played out in terms of substantive commentary on Kate Kelly's letter, and has largely devolved into bickering. Does anyone have anything substantive to say regarding Kate Kelly's letter? If not, I will request that the mods lock this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac