Article About Kate Kelly

[smac97]

The Tribune has an article about Kate Kelly today: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2653329-155/year-after-her-mormon-excommunication-where?fullpage=1

 

I have previously spoken my piece about Kate Kelly and the OW movement.  And at times I think I have been intemperate in my remarks.  I will therefore abstain from substantive comment in this thread.  I just found the article interesting and thought some of you may feel it worth a read.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[why me]

It seems that kate has been rather marginalized now. No longer a voice in the media, except in the trib every now and again, she seems not to have relevance now. Her tactics were too confronatational and she bought a radical feminist mindset into the dialogue, discussion and protest. Too much focus on patriarchy and not enough awarneness that her message was alienating most mormon women. And this is what we have today with some of these women having their profiles taken off the website or resigning from the board. Her movement is dead but other less radical groupings could be formed.

 

I am sure that she now feels just a little isolated after so much media attention and importance. I do believe that in this john must be feeling the same way even though he still has his podcasts. Interestingly, if she would just see the errrors she made and attempt to repent or change course, she would be welcomed back as a member.

[smac97]

It seems that kate has been rather marginalized now. No longer a voice in the media, except in the trib every now and again, she seems not to have relevance now. Her tactics were too confronatational and she bought a radical feminist mindset into the dialogue, discussion and protest. Too much focus on patriarchy and not enough awarneness that her message was alienating most mormon women. And this is what we have today with some of these women having their profiles taken off the website or resigning from the board. Her movement is dead but other less radical groupings could be formed.

 

I am sure that she now feels just a little isolated after so much media attention and importance. I do believe that in this john must be feeling the same way even though he still has his podcasts. Interestingly, if she would just see the errrors she made and attempt to repent or change course, she would be welcomed back as a member.

 

I hope she returns to the Church.  I think she could contribute a lot to it, and she would receive benefits and blessings from it.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2015 by smac97

[Duncan]

Someone who I haven't seen a tic on is Joanna brooks, I haven't heard her opinion on any of these excommunicants

[bluebell]

It's a very good article, well balanced and tries to tell the whole story instead of just being in full support of OW or fully against (not that i ever say a news article that was biased against OW but i suppose it could have happened somewhere).
 
In my opinion, Kelly does not come across very good.  She's as over-the-top and upset about not getting her way as she ever was.  Talking about an OW board member who resigned rather than lose her temple recommend she says-
 

"It's not the decision I would have made, but what a ...terrible position [she was in]," Kelly says. "That is the stuff of totalitarian regimes."

Kelly made a similar point in February 2015, writing in The Guardian that "since strict obedience is demanded and harshly enforced, only the least talented, least articulate, least nuanced thinkers, least likely to take a stand against abuse, and the least courageous people thrive in the church today."

Though the statement alienated some LDS supporters, Kelly stands by it. "It was taken as an insult to all active members, but it was intended as more of a statement about the institution."

Kelly withdrew from the "Voices for Equality" book, explaining that she felt she wouldn't have "enough input."
 
"If you have experienced a traumatic event, part of taking back your power is the ability to control your narrative and own that story," Kelly says.

Sometimes it amazes me out little insight she has into other people.  How could she think that she could say all that about those who thrive in the church and not realize that church members would take that as an insult?  Does she not understand that there is no 'institution of the church' that is separate from the members?

 

Also, she has always controlled (or tried to control) the narrative in her story.  It's how often the narrative did not match reality that caused her to lose power.

 

It's also interesting how quickly she stopped going to church in Africa.

Edited June 23, 2015 by bluebell

[Calm]

I never saw her as a radical feminist. She was committed to herown causes and not particularly interested in others. That they happened to align at times seems more because she doesn't like hearing "no" than a lot of other reasons (see interviews of her mother and self when she first came into public view.)

She couldn't be bother to support the feminist cause by wearing pants one day to church, for goodness sakes, because she doesn't like pants. And she is not going to join her voice with others to promote equality and OW itself because she doesn't have enough input/control? Otoh, she is telling people to risk losing temple recommends and even membership to stand with her.

Having said that, her line of work does mean to me she cares about others greatly in her way. She is passionate about what she cares about and is willing to sacrifice herself in many ways.

Edited June 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[tonie]

The Tribune has an article about Kate Kelly today: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2653329-155/year-after-her-mormon-excommunication-where?fullpage=1

 

I have previously spoken my piece about Kate Kelly and the OW movement.  And at times I think I have been intemperate in my remarks.  I will therefore abstain from substantive comment in this thread.  I just found the article interesting and thought some of you may feel it worth a read.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Thanks you for your vigilance on bringing this to our attention. Yet another article about Kate Kelly. Without your diligence in posting articles about her, we would be at such a loss as to what is going on in her life.

Edited June 23, 2015 by tonie

[Calm]

So they start out with the scene of women crying again and Kelly is noted for her quirky fashion sense. (imagine the shoot in head or roll eyes emoticon, on iPad so no option)

[bluebell]

Thanks you for your vigilance on bringing this to our attention. Yet another article about Kate Kelly. Without your diligence in posting articles about her, we would be at such a loss as to what is going on in her life.

Ordain Women is still a very relevant topic of conversation. Kate Kelly is the most notorious member of their board of directors and remains in the media, granting interviews and writing articles.

Why is linking to an article about both the group and her worthy of snarkiness?

[bluebell]

So they start out with the scene of women crying again and Kelly is noted for her quirky fashion sense. (imagine the shoot in head or roll eyes emoticon, on iPad so no option)

Even articles about her and OW are sexist!

[Calm]

One day when there is nothing else to do, I may count up the percentage of Stack's OW articles that mention crying.

Reporters have it so much harder going for the emotional gut twister with guys...But isn't it nice to know they are helping perpetuate that the standard immediate feminine response to opposition is crying?

Edited June 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[smac97]

Thanks you for your vigilance on bringing this to our attention. Yet another article about Kate Kelly. Without your diligence in posting articles about her, we would be at such a loss as to what is going on in her life.

 

If you are not interested in this topic, then feel free to disregard the thread.

 

Sheesh.

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Ordain Women is still a very relevant topic of conversation. Kate Kelly is the most notorious member of their board of directors and remains in the media, granting interviews and writing articles.

Why is linking to an article about both the group and her worthy of snarkiness?

 

I think the snark was directed at me personally, as I have previously had a lot to say about Kate Kelly and the OW group.

 

Thanks,

 

-SMac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ordain Women is still a very relevant topic of conversation. Kate Kelly is the most notorious member of their board of directors and remains in the media, granting interviews and writing articles.

Why is linking to an article about both the group and her worthy of snarkiness?

Because we can't justify rightly criticizing the queen of women's rights in the church.  So this is a tactic to get you to shut up.

[why me]

I never saw her as a radical feminist. She was committed to herown causes and not particularly interested in others. That they happened to align at times seems more because she doesn't like hearing "no" than a lot of other reasons (see interviews of her mother and self when she first came into public view.)

She couldn't be bother to support the feminist cause by wearing pants one day to church, for goodness sakes, because she doesn't like pants. And she is not going to join her voice with others to promote equality and OW itself because she doesn't have enough input/control? Otoh, she is telling people to risk losing temple recommends and even membership to stand with her.

Having said that, her line of work does mean to me she cares about others greatly in her way. She is passionate about what she cares about and is willing to sacrifice herself in many ways.

She is definitely a radical feminist. Unfortunately, it was her radical feminist philosophy toward the lds church that was her downfall. She would have been better off applying a different feminism to mormonism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

 

We need to put what the wiki said into her persepectives of the lds church. And she seems to fit into that wiki definition very well when she put her radical feminism to mormonism.

Edited June 23, 2015 by why me

[HappyJackWagon]

Another woman from the OW board has had her recommend taken away and it sounds like was put on informal probation for refusing to resign as a board member. She is not allowed to speak in classes etc. Her story is here. http://ordainwomen.org/board-member-dis ... resigning/

[smac97]

Another woman from the OW board has had her recommend taken away and it sounds like was put on informal probation for refusing to resign as a board member. She is not allowed to speak in classes etc. Her story is here. http://ordainwomen.org/board-member-dis ... resigning/

 

Your link doesn't work.  Here it is: http://ordainwomen.org/board-member-disciplined-not-resigning/

 

Again, I will refrain from substantive comment.  Ironically, people like Tonie apparently want me to not speak on this issue.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2015 by smac97

[tonie]

Your link doesn't work.  Here it is: http://ordainwomen.org/board-member-disciplined-not-resigning/

 

Again, I will refrain from substantive comment.  Ironically, people like Tonie apparently want me to not speak on this issue.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Nice try. You are self censoring.

 

I find it facinating that you devote so much attention to Kate Kelly, her comings and goings. It is also facsinating that you have called her a dishonest - which amounts to calling her a liar; yet all the while you appear to claim neutrality.

 

Post what you want, just remember your own words "I think I have been intemperate in my remarks"

[Storm Rider]

Nice try. You are self censoring.

 

I find it facinating that you devote so much attention to Kate Kelly, her comings and goings. It is also facsinating that you have called her a dishonest - which amounts to calling her a liar; yet all the while you appear to claim neutrality.

 

Post what you want, just remember your own words "I think I have been intemperate in my remarks"

 

Yes, and we should burn that honest bugger to the stake right now.  How dare he be honest in his dealings.  He should either tow the line or shut up!  Ah, yes, the tolerant positions of enlightened liberals never fails. 

[smac97]

Nice try. You are self censoring.

And despite my self-censoring, you still managed to find fault with me for merely posting a link to the story about Kate Kelly. Like I said, ironic.

 

I find it facinating that you devote so much attention to Kate Kelly, her comings and goings.

I devote time and attention to LDS-related news items.

 

It is also facsinating that you have called her a dishonest - which amounts to calling her a liar; yet all the while you appear to claim neutrality.

First, your suggestion that I "appear to claim neutrality" is bizarre.  I have never claimed "neutrality" when discussing the LDS Church.  I am an advocate and defender of the LDS Church, its doctrines, leaders and members.  I try to be reasonable and even-handed when discussing the Church, but "neutral?"  No way.

 

Second, when I have questioned Kate Kelly's honesty, it has been about specific statements she has made. I do not think I have made generalized accusations of her being "dishonest" (let alone "calling her a liar"). For example, in this post I took exception to Kate Kelly making a big deal of her disciplinary council having proceeded in absentia.  I said (quoting Kate Kelly's letter to her stake president):

 

 

On May 5th you gave an ultimatum. On June 8, Bishop Harrison informed me he had decided to convene a disciplinary council in absentia in order to compel me to comply with that ultimatum: take down your website, or face exommunication.

Well, this seem quite dishonest. The disciplinary council was held in absentia because Kate Kelly refused to participate in it, despite being given various options to do so. To complain about her absence and to blame it on her bishop is a flagrant distortion of the facts. She should be ashamed.

 

And here:

 

 

The entire process conducted against me was fundamentally unfair. As Bishop Harrison admitted in his June 8 letter, I had already moved, I was unable attend the disciplinary council in person.

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

 

Second, I have quoted, chapter and verse, the statements Kate Kelly has made with which I have taken issue. This allows readers to decide for themselves if those statements have been "dishonest."

Third, I started this thread by acknowledging that I have at times been intemperate in my critiques of Kate Kelly and the OW movement, hence my present abstention from substantive comment.

Fourth, for all the talk about how great it is that the OW group has started a "discussion," apparently the only "discussions" you seem to be able to accommodate are those which agree with Kate Kelly and the OW group. Funny, that.

Fifth, I'd be curious as to your published criticisms of Kate Kelly where she has publicly berated her bishop (publicly describing him as "cowardly" and "unchristlike") and her stake president. And then there are the humdingers from her husband:

 

Your and Bishop Harrison’s collusion to excommunicate Kate in absentia from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and your behavior throughout the process is dishonorable, a breach of ecclesiastical trust, and unworthy of a Melchizedek priesthood holder.

...

As a Melchizedek priesthood holder myself, I am ashamed of your and Bishop Harrison’s malicious conduct and the magnitude of dishonesty you have demonstrated throughout the process.

...

As lay leaders for the Church and as Melchizedek priesthood holders you are required to use your authority not “to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness” (D&C 121:37), yet you and Bishop Harrison have done so.

The steps you have taken to cover up your true motives and obfuscate Kate’s disciplinary process suggests the disciplinary council was rotten to the core.

Have you likewise taken public exception to such language? If so, please provide a reference. If not . . . well, then ...

 

Post what you want, just remember your own words "I think I have been intemperate in my remarks"

I admit I was tempted to comment on the linked blog post by Kristy Money. But at present I think it best to abstain from substantive comment about this topic.

 

Speaking of the topic, let's get back to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2015 by smac97

[tonie]

Yes, and we should burn that honest bugger to the stake right now.  How dare he be honest in his dealings.  He should either tow the line or shut up!  Ah, yes, the tolerant positions of enlightened liberals never fails. 

 

Who claims to be an enlightened?  Who claims to be a liberal?

 

As for smac97 being honest; that is for Christ to judge and for smac to reflect on.

[tonie]

First, when I have questioned Kate Kelly's honesty, it has been about specific statements she has made. I do not think I have made generalized accusations of her being "dishonest" (let alone "calling her a liar").

Second, I have quoted, chapter and verse, the statements Kate Kelly has made with which I have taken issue. This allows readers to decide for themselves if those statements have been "dishonest."

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Search your own post to find where you have labeled Kate Kelly dishonest - which does amount to calling someone a liar.  Yes, you do quote Kate Kelly, and you follow the quote with your own spin, you poison the well before the reader can even make a non-biased assessment.

 

No doubt you are well versed in leading a jury to water and getting them to drink; you put considerable effort into it when it comes to Kate Kelly.

 

 

And despite my self-censoring, you still managed to find fault with me for merely posting a link to the story about Kate Kelly. Like I said, ironic.

 

Fourth, for all the talk about how great it is that the OW group has started a "discussion," apparently the only "discussions" you seem to be able to accommodate are those which agree with Kate Kelly and the OW group. Funny, that.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Nice false arguement there. I suppose you will next falsely accuse me of associating with apostates.  As for "funny that", CFR that I agree with Kate Kelly or Ordain Women.

Edited June 24, 2015 by tonie

[smac97]

Search your own post to find where you have labeled Kate Kelly dishonest - which does amount to calling someone a liar.

No, it doesn't. I have found certain statements of Kate Kelly to be dishonest. I have never called Kate Kelly "a liar," nor have I said anything about her that connotes habitual dishonesty.

 

Yes, you do quote Kate Kelly, and you follow the quote with your own spin, you poison the well before the reader can even make a non-biased assessment.

Huh? So Kate Kelly is free to say what she likes, but responding to her is verboten? Is her position so weak that it cannot bear critique?  Are you suggesting Kate Kelly is such a pantywaist that chivalry requires you to come running to her rescue?  What sort of Fainting Couch Feminist do you take her for?

No doubt you are well versed in leading a jury to water and getting them to drink; you put considerable effort into it when it comes to Kate Kelly.

Again, the irony of your complaint is significant. For all the talk about how great it is that the OW group has started a "discussion," apparently the only "discussions" you seem to be able to accommodate are those which agree with Kate Kelly and the OW group. Funny, that.

 

Nice false arguement there.

Agh! You said my argument is "false!" Which is just like calling me a liar! Oh, the humanity!

Are you really so oblivious to the irony of your statements?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Skylla]

Tonie has been removed from the thread.

 

Skylla

[smac97]

So they start out with the scene of women crying again and Kelly is noted for her quirky fashion sense. (imagine the shoot in head or roll eyes emoticon, on iPad so no option)

I've been wondering about this. Here are a few excerpts from the article (emphases added):

 

"Kelly began to tear up at the email from her Mormon bishop, and soon most of the nine or so board members around the table were weeping as well."

"They were hopeful and, they conceded, naive."

"They were shocked, horrified and discouraged that their carefully constructed building blocks of progressive LDS history seemed to have been toppled with a single blow."

"'It's taken me about a year to really recover emotionally and spiritually,' Ross says."

"A year ago, though, Kelly had by far the loudest, most quoted voice — and she suffered the deepest wound."

"Kelly, a returned Mormon missionary and D.C.-based human-rights lawyer sporting signature specs and a conservative but quirky fashion sense..."

"Kelly made a similar point in February 2015, writing in The Guardian that 'since strict obedience is demanded and harshly enforced, only the least talented, least articulate, least nuanced thinkers, least likely to take a stand against abuse, and the least courageous people thrive in the church today.'"

Such melodramatic hyperbole does not do much to impress. The OW folks constantly draw attention to things like their "tears" and "weeping" and "wounds," to their dainty selves feeling "shocked" (a la Captain Renault) and "horrified," and to their self-proclaimed and self-serving status as victims of the big ol' mean LDS Church.  All of this seems to reinforce the perception that they are not quite ready for Prime Time, that they can't handle the vicissitudes of life, and the natural and shoulda-seen-'em-coming-from-a-mile-away consequences of their more outrageous statements and antics.

I recently came across a phrase that I think encapsulates this phenomenon: Fainting Couch Feminism (defined as "A common kind of feminism, that sees women as too weak and sensitive for normal adult interaction.").  Here's an interesting YouTube video by Christina Hoff Sommers on the subject (focusing on FCF on college campuses).  Here's the takeaway quote:

 

All of this psychodrama is massively embarrassing.  To women.  To feminism. ... I don't see these 'safe space feminists' as all that admirable.  And I don't believe they are taking us to some bright new future where women are going to be secure and respected.  This is a reactionary movement that is taking us back to a time when women were viewed as delicate flowers.  This is Fainting Couch Feminism.

 

I think similar criticisms can be directed at the OW folks who constantly publicize their daintiness ("delicate flowers" indeed).

 

I work in an industry (lawyering) where women have reached significant levels of "equality" with men.  For example, right now I am working on a case that may end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, so the litigants are spending a lot of time and effort on it.  We have a hearing scheduled in state court for July 1.  One of the parties, who is already represented in the litigation by one of the most competent attorneys I know (a man) at one of the finest firms in Utah, has asked that the hearing be postponed so that an out-of-state attorney (a woman) can make an appearance and replace the local counsel during the hearing.  The interesting thing is that nobody, not the attorney being replaced, nor the judge (a woman) nor I, nor anyone else involved in the litigation, is blinking an eye at this development.  It simply doesn't matter that the out-of-state attorney is a woman.  It's not remarkable.

 

So that's where I'm coming from.  In my experience, female lawyers in an adversarial setting neither expect nor receive any preference or deference to their gender.  Perhaps this is why I have a hard time stomaching the melodramatic twaddle we've come to expect from Kate Kelly, who is a lawyer.  Any female lawyer (or male lawyer, for that matter) who tried to present an argument based on self-proclaimed "tears" and "weeping" and "wounds" would be excoriated in court.  So it is, or so I think it should be, in the "court of public opinion."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

P.S. I guess my decision to abstain from comment about the OW group was short lived.  

Edited June 24, 2015 by smac97