Kate Kelly Is At It Again

[wenglund]

So you want to facilitate bad behavior with bad behavior?

 

No. I was simply acknowledging how victim scams work--i.e. perpetrators claim victim status, and when they are called out on their scam they and/or their sympathizers will point to the calling out as more evidence of being victimized.

 

In other words, I was subtly intimating that you were feeding the KK victim scam, whether you intended to or not.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Storm Rider]

I always find it surprising that Satanic influence is looked upon as something for the really wicked; like it is only Hitler on a blue moon that really experiences it or is susceptible to satanic influence.  Honestly, where does this exclusive, highly select group susceptible to Satan's influence thought process come from?  Do you that propagate this idea find scriptural support for this position?

 

Do you think few are ever tempted by Satan?  How did Satan get such a bad name if he only tempts one person every few decades?

 

Even more surprising is the idea that stating that someone who is in open revolt against the Church. lies almost every time she talks with the media about her excommunication, is influenced by Satan is wrong or an offense against God.  Where does this concept come from?  What Church teaching supports this position or is this some new revelation that I missed?

 

I would find it disconcerting if I heard someone say, "Ms. KK, filled the Spirit of God, got up on the temple roof, pointed her inspired finger toward the prophet and twelve apostles and called them to repentance.  She was so filled with the Holy Spirit that she glowed and angels stood by her sides while concourses of angels sang because of her clarion call to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."  This is not her image she has attempted to portray to the world; she consciously has chosen a very different image to propagate. 

Edited August 28, 2014 by Storm Rider

[Tacenda]

Went to the trailer park?  Or that other unmentionable forum and saw this.  http://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-states-for-women-equality/5835/

 

There is a stark contrast to Utah's equality of women to the rest of the country.  You'd think we'd have come farther than this.  And yes this does reflect the COJCLDS, because there are a lot of LDS that run our state. 

 

I like the fact that we believe in families and mothers stay home and raise their children if at all possible.  But there are women that don't feel that's their calling all the time.  I read the other day that the PH is more administrative and whatever the current LDS want it to be, coming from a TBM noteworthy individual.  Therefore, can't we give some of it to a woman too?  When my RS president has to have the bishop on board every step of the way, how is she ever going to feel going forward with something she feels strongly about.  It's unequal people.  No way we can have a prophetess out of that system.

[Scott Lloyd]

Went to the trailer park?  Or that other unmentionable forum and saw this.  http://wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-states-for-women-equality/5835/

 

There is a stark contrast to Utah's equality of women to the rest of the country.  You'd think we'd have come farther than this.  And yes this does reflect the COJCLDS, because there are a lot of LDS that run our state. 

 

I like the fact that we believe in families and mothers stay home and raise their children if at all possible.  But there are women that don't feel that's their calling all the time.  I read the other day that the PH is more administrative and whatever the current LDS want it to be, coming from a TBM noteworthy individual.  Therefore, can't we give some of it to a woman too?  When my RS president has to have the bishop on board every step of the way, how is she ever going to feel going forward with something she feels strongly about.  It's unequal people.  No way we can have a prophetess out of that system.

I wonder how much of this is driven by the possibility that women in Utah -- due to the influence of the Church -- value the role of full-time homemaker to an unusual extent and, hence, are apt, by their own choice, to seek fulfillment in that role as opposed to pursuing prestige or monetary prosperity in the workplace.

 

Just glancing at the website, I don't see WalletHub using a metric that would adequately account for that phenomenon: i.e. what might appear under one person's frame of reference as forced gender inequality is really a manifestation of significant numbers of women making choices based on their own religious and social values.

 

Just a thought for consideration.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

No. I was simply acknowledging how victim scams work--i.e. perpetrators claim victim status, and when they are called out on their scam they and/or their sympathizers will point to the calling out as more evidence of being victimized.

 

In other words, I was subtly intimating that you were feeding the KK victim scam, whether you intended to or not.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Oh, let's get this straight.  I am in NO way a KK sympathizer, but I agree with the things senator has said on this thread, though often I disagree with him.  From what I have read so far I am one of the more conservative women, gospel-wise, of this board.  I don't have any problem discussing what is going on and I usually think there is value in it.   What I don't condone are the insults flung at her and making fun of her.  

 

I see others reading things like that and thinking, "when people say they are shunned from families when they leave the church I can believe it now. I can see why women would have a hard time in this church" The funny thing is we don't need to mock and insult her for others to see the truth. If people spend any time at all with this they will see that she has gone over the top, but when we insult her they have all the evidence they need to convict us as a church and church members.    

 

Sometimes Heavenly Father puts his children in time out, but he extends forth his hand and sends Christ to the one again and again till he deems that nothing more can be done. He doesn't scream at the back of the person as they go out the door, "Don't come back to me!" 

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is one part of the article linked to in which I think deserves mention:

 

I think this is right. This may also help explain the occasional alarmingly vicious response to Kate Kelly we see from otherwise decent and kindhearted Latter-day Saints. I live in Utah and work as an attorney. I have noticed how some litigants in family law settings really let the claws come out in ways that they would otherwise never demonstrate. Divorce can bring out the worst in people. There is something viscerally upsetting about the termination of a marriage, so much so that a Latter-day Saint who is regularly kind and kindhearted in his/her interactions and communications in other situations can immediately turn harsh and angry in their tone and outlook when dealing with a former spouse. I think the feelings of betrayal in such dealings become acute.

Perhaps so it is with Kate Kelly. She is seen as having betrayed the Church, as being disloyal. Frankly, that seems like a fair and objectively accurate assessment. Latter-day Saints do not align themselves with apostates, or take unto themselves authority to make doctrinal demands of the Brethren, or to publicly defy the Church and its leaders, or to trespass onto and protest on sacred ground, or to protest with the calculated intent of disrupting and distracting from the Church's sacred convocations, or repeatedly publicly malign and defame local leaders, or call the Church to repentance, and on and on and on.

That said, attributing satanic motives to Kate Kelly is wholly inappropriate. Although she has done many things which are very inappropriate and wrong, she is still a daughter of our heavenly father. She is still a good person in many ways. I think at present she is extremely angry and is lashing out again and again, not unlike a person going through a divorce. So we are catching her at her worst. Or, to be more precise, she is publicizing herself at her worst. Were she to rage against the Church with just her family and trusted friends (as people going through a divorce normally do), we would not be having this discussion. But occasionally people going through a divorce take their grievances public, and in so doing alienate from themselves people who would otherwise be sympathetic.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is merit to what you say here.

 

On the other hand, I think there is method to her madness, so to speak. That is to say, KK and her ideology-driven associates in the OW movement are not about to let an excommunication go to waste. They are determined to draw whatever PR advantage they can from it for as long as they can, and to some extent they are succeeding, as reflected in the BBC report and elsewhere. What strikes us as irrational, annoying, petulant and outrageous behavior is not making the same impression in the outside world and is, in fact, yielding some degree of sympathy for Kelly et al and, at the same time ramping up the public pressure on the Church to cave in to the ideological demands of OW.

 

In the end, I do believe a combination of factors and dynamics are at play here.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Oh, let's get this straight.  I am in NO way a KK sympathizer, but I agree with the things senator has said on this thread, though often I disagree with him.  From what I have read so far I am one of the more conservative women, gospel-wise, of this board.  I don't have any problem discussing what is going on and I usually think there is value in it.   What I don't condone are the insults flung at her and making fun of her.  

 

I see others reading things like that and thinking, "when people say they are shunned from families when they leave the church I can believe it now. I can see why women would have a hard time in this church" The funny thing is we don't need to mock and insult her for others to see the truth. If people spend any time at all with this they will see that she has gone over the top, but when we insult her they have all the evidence they need to convict us as a church and church members.    

 

Sometimes Heavenly Father puts his children in time out, but he extends forth his hand and sends Christ to the one again and again till he deems that nothing more can be done. He doesn't scream at the back of the person as they go out the door, "Don't come back to me!" 

 

Personal insults are out of line but actions and statements that are over the top really are fair game and invite such responses. 

[Senator]

Personal insults are out of line but actions and statements that are over the top really are fair game and invite such responses. 

 

Really?

 

I recall a wise man once saying, just "Stop it!"

[ERayR]

Really?

 

I recall a wise man once saying, just "Stop it!"

 

I might have erred when I said that. 

[smac97]

There is merit to what you say here.

 

On the other hand, I think there is method to her madness, so to speak. That is to say, KK and her ideology-driven associates in the OW movement are not about to let an excommunication go to waste.

I'd agree with that. She is attempting to sensationalize her excommunication to aggrandize herself and to the detriment of the Church.

 

They are determined to draw whatever PR advantage they can from it for as long as they can, and to some extent they are succeeding, as reflected in the BBC report and elsewhere.

Yep.

 

What strikes us as irrational, annoying, petulant and outrageous behavior is not making the same impression in the outside world and is, in fact, yielding some degree of sympathy for Kelly et al and, at the same time ramping up the public pressure on the Church to cave in to the ideological demands of OW.

I'm not sure how big an effect Kate Kelly has had on the Church. I think the Church was exploring and examining the role of women in the Church before she came along. She may have hastened some change and developments, or not. In any event, I give no plaudits to apostates like Kate Kelly, nor do I thank them for any change in the Church which may be partially attributed to them. Brigham Young once said: “Every time you kick ‘Mormonism’ you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941, p. 351.). I think this is right, but that doesn't mean we applaud the people doing the kicking (I know, of course, that you are not suggesting otherwise - this is just a general observation).

 

In the end, I do believe a combination of factors and dynamics are at play here.

Agreed.  There is an excellent talk given by Elder Carlos Asay in 1981 that is appropriate to this topic: Opposition to the Work of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

She unfortunately has become the type of individual that having her ten seconds of fame now hungers and thirsts for just one more second, any second to regain her perceived importance in the world.  

 

She is someone to be pitied because she has lost touch with reality and is firmly in the grasp of anyone/anything but the Holy Spirit. 

  YOu may be correct but Ms. Kelly believes that  the Holy Ghost was and is guiding her and from listening to her she is just as fervant that she is being directed as you may be.  So how can you judge?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

I'm not sure how big an effect Kate Kelly has had on the Church. I think the Church was exploring and examining the role of women in the Church before she came along.

 

I'm not certain of the extent of her impact on the Church either, or whether she has had any impact at all.

 

But it is unquestionable that there is public pressure being exerted on the Church as a result of the publicity she has generated.

 

I'm confident the Church as an institution and its leaders can and will withstand the pressure. I'm not so certain about individual members. Probably there have already been casualties among them and will continue to be some.

[Teancum]

Uh huh. Especially that she believes she deserves the holy priesthood.

  CFR where she says she DESERVES the priesthood. Let's not put words in her mouth.

[Scott Lloyd]

Really?

 

I recall a wise man once saying, just "Stop it!"

There is an interesting dynamic here.

 

In invoking the words of someone -- in this case, a member of the First Presidency -- against  a specific instance of alleged judgmentalism, one must unavoidably make a judgment himself regarding the behavior he is invoking the quoted words against. Hence this question: To what degree do the quoted words apply to the behavior of the person applying them?

Edited August 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Oh, let's get this straight.  I am in NO way a KK sympathizer, but I agree with the things senator has said on this thread, though often I disagree with him.  From what I have read so far I am one of the more conservative women, gospel-wise, of this board.  I don't have any problem discussing what is going on and I usually think there is value in it.   What I don't condone are the insults flung at her and making fun of her.

I agree with you. I think criticisms ("a remark or comment that expresses disapproval of someone or something") of Kate Kelly's more outrageous behaviors are okay. Insults ("an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark") are not.

 

I see others reading things like that and thinking, "when people say they are shunned from families when they leave the church I can believe it now. I can see why women would have a hard time in this church"

Well, I think we need some introspection here. While I completely agree that women should not be treated in an inferior manner as compared to men, I reject the notion that they should be immune from criticism for their behaviors because they are women. My sense is that the overwhelming bulk of the criticisms aimed at Kate Kelly have been because of her conduct not her gender. Denver Snuffer was likewise criticized for his inappropriate behaviors relating to his excommunication, yet nobody suggested that he should be immunized from criticism because of he is male.

I am reminded of the time I criticized Jana Reiss on her blog for her comments about a particular topic.  I did not make a single reference to her gender, nor did I question her character or integrity.  I just strongly disagreed with her remarks and explained in detail the basis for my disagreement.  There was an immediate torrent of blowback of my comments, many of which took exception to me, a man, disagreeing with Jana, a woman because I am a man and she is a woman.  In fact, even Jana herself chimed in and said: "One might wonder also how the reputation of the Church is negatively affected when a male member of that Church suggests to a female member that she has no right to express opinions in the public square, and would do better to keep them to herself." I responded as follows: "Oh brother. Don’t hide behind your gender. First, I have said nothing about your comments that pertain one whit to you being a woman. Second, I would have said the same things to a male church member posting remarks such as yours. Third, I have said nothing to the effect that you have 'no right to express opinions in the public square,' or that you should keep them to yourself."

Women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views and expect that those views be put on equal footing with the views of men (a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse), but then turn around and expect deferential and privileged treatment for their views because those views come from women.  If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.

The funny thing is we don't need to mock and insult her for others to see the truth. If people spend any time at all with this they will see that she has gone over the top, but when we insult her they have all the evidence they need to convict us as a church and church members.

First, I quite agree with you that insults are inappropriate. Second, I'm not sure I've seen any gender-based insults or criticisms leveled at Kate Kelly.

 

Sometimes Heavenly Father puts his children in time out, but he extends forth his hand and sends Christ to the one again and again till he deems that nothing more can be done. He doesn't scream at the back of the person as they go out the door, "Don't come back to me!"

Agreed. We should all hope that Kate Kelly changes her stance and becomes reconciled with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[wenglund]

I wonder how much of this is driven by the possibility that women in Utah -- due to the influence of the Church -- value the role of full-time homemaker to an unusual extent and, hence, are apt, by their own choice, to seek fulfillment in that role as opposed to pursuing prestige or monetary prosperity in the workplace.

 

Just glancing at the website, I don't see WalletHub using a metric that would adequately account for that phenomenon: i.e. what might appear under one person's frame of reference as forced gender inequality is really a manifestation of significant numbers of women making choices based on their own religious and social values.

 

Just a thought for consideration.

 

It is a thought that is supported by a 2009 reports from Obama's Department of Labor of all places: "This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.” (Quoted HERE.)

 

Granted, the above statement is made in relation to the gender gap in wages, but I believe it also applies to other gender issue in the work place. 

 

For a more expanded analysis of the misleading gender wage gap, see my blog post HERE.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

YOu may be correct but Ms. Kelly believes that  the Holy Ghost was and is guiding her and from listening to her she is just as fervant that she is being directed as you may be.  So how can you judge?

First, by listening to her.

Second, by comparing and contrasting her position with that of the Scriptures and the prophets and apostles.

Third, by analyzing and pondering the foregoing steps.

Fourth, by seeking spiritual guidance and enlightenment.

At no point should we "judge" Kate Kelly as a person in the eyes of God. That's beyond our province. But she is presenting arguments and ideas and attempting to persuade her fellow Latter-day Saints to adopt her her viewpoint ("nothing less will suffice," remember?). So can we judge that? Of course. Absolutely. It is imperative that we do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

There is an interesting dynamic here.

 

In invoking the words of someone -- in this case, a member of the First Presidency -- against  a specific instance of alleged judgmentalism, one must unavoidably make a judgment himself regarding the behavior he is invoking the quoted words against. Hence this question: To what degree do the quoted words apply to the behavior of the person applying them?

 

The full degree.

 

Tell you what. I'll stop it, if you'll stop it.

 

Deal?

[Scott Lloyd]

The full degree.

 

Tell you what. I'll stop it, if you'll stop it.

 

Deal?

Stop what?

[wenglund]

Oh, let's get this straight.  I am in NO way a KK sympathizer, but I agree with the things senator has said on this thread, though often I disagree with him.  From what I have read so far I am one of the more conservative women, gospel-wise, of this board.  I don't have any problem discussing what is going on and I usually think there is value in it.   What I don't condone are the insults flung at her and making fun of her.  

 

I see others reading things like that and thinking, "when people say they are shunned from families when they leave the church I can believe it now. I can see why women would have a hard time in this church" The funny thing is we don't need to mock and insult her for others to see the truth. If people spend any time at all with this they will see that she has gone over the top, but when we insult her they have all the evidence they need to convict us as a church and church members.    

 

Sometimes Heavenly Father puts his children in time out, but he extends forth his hand and sends Christ to the one again and again till he deems that nothing more can be done. He doesn't scream at the back of the person as they go out the door, "Don't come back to me!" 

 

You are missing my point--which is that KK is the one doing the insulting and mocking. She is the perpetrator, not the victim. Those of us in this thread are simply calling her on her out on her perpetration.  And, even with as nice and conservative as you may be, you, along with those you quote about "shunning,"  do her and us a disservice by making her the victim. It merely serves to feed the victim fraud.

 

At least that is the way I see it. You are free to see it otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Stop what?

 

Oh geez...

 

I'm out of here.

 

Take care.

[wenglund]

  YOu may be correct but Ms. Kelly believes that  the Holy Ghost was and is guiding her and from listening to her she is just as fervant that she is being directed as you may be.  So how can you judge?

 

CFR that Kelly believes the Holy Ghost was and is guiding her.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 27, 2014 by wenglund

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh geez...

 

I'm out of here.

 

Take care.

The question was serious.

 

I don't cop to any wrongdoing with regard to the discussion at hand. Nor do I believe it wrong to evaluate actions, behavior and advocacy. Indeed, I think it unavoidable.

 

In essence, I agree with Smac's post #67 above.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

I agree with you. I think criticisms ("a remark or comment that expresses disapproval of someone or something") of Kate Kelly's more outrageous behaviors are okay. Insults ("an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark") are not.

 

Well, I think we need some introspection here. While I completely agree that women should not be treated in an inferior manner as compared to men, I reject the notion that they should be immune from criticism for their behaviors because they are women. My sense is that the overwhelming bulk of the criticisms aimed at Kate Kelly have been because of her conduct not her gender. Denver Snuffer was likewise criticized for his inappropriate behaviors relating to his excommunication, yet nobody suggested that he should be immunized from criticism because of he is male.

I am reminded of the time I criticized Jana Reiss on her blog for her comments about a particular topic.  I did not make a single reference to her gender, nor did I question her character or integrity.  I just strongly disagreed with her remarks and explained in detail the basis for my disagreement.  There was an immediate torrent of blowback of my comments, many of which took exception to me, a man, disagreeing with Jana, a woman because I am a man and she is a woman.  In fact, even Jana herself chimed in and said: "One might wonder also how the reputation of the Church is negatively affected when a male member of that Church suggests to a female member that she has no right to express opinions in the public square, and would do better to keep them to herself." I responded as follows: "Oh brother. Don’t hide behind your gender. First, I have said nothing about your comments that pertain one whit to you being a woman. Second, I would have said the same things to a male church member posting remarks such as yours. Third, I have said nothing to the effect that you have 'no right to express opinions in the public square,' or that you should keep them to yourself."

Women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views and expect that those views be put on equal footing with the views of men (a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse), but then turn around and expect deferential and privileged treatment for their views because those views come from women.  If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.

First, I quite agree with you that insults are inappropriate. Second, I'm not sure I've seen any gender-based insults or criticisms leveled at Kate Kelly.

 

Agreed. We should all hope that Kate Kelly changes her stance and becomes reconciled with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I appreciate that you can see a difference in criticism and insults. I also agree that this is much like a divorce.

 

I didn't see gender based insults (not sure if I have seen them anywhere I have read actually when referring to KK), nor did I talk about them.  What I was saying was that because she is all about the role of gender and the priesthood, other people, who are not members* of the church, will see insulting her as a way of slamming women.  

 

You are missing my point--which is that KK is the one doing the insulting and mocking. She is the perpetrator, not the victim. Those of us in this thread are simply calling her on her out on her perpetration.  And, even with as nice and conservative as you may be, you, along with those you quote about "shunning,"  do her and us a disservice by making her the victim. It merely serves to feed the victim fraud.

 

At least that is the way I see it. You are free to see it otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not missing your point.  I caught it loud and clear.  

 

When members insult her, others will see her as the underdog or the victim.  Those who are the real victims are those who watch all of this and choose not to have something to do with the church - after all they have heard about shunning of those who have left the church they will now feel like they are seeing it with their own eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

* and some members who struggle with women/priesthood concepts 

[smac97]

I appreciate that you can see a difference in criticism and insults. I also agree that this is much like a divorce.

 

I didn't see gender based insults (not sure if I have seen them anywhere I have read actually when referring to KK), nor did I talk about them.  What I was saying was that because she is all about the role of gender and the priesthood, other people, who are not members* of the church, will see insulting her as a way of slamming women.

Okay. I see where you are coming from.

Thanks,

-Smac