Kate Kelly Now Encouraging Others To Leave The Lds Church

[sethpayne]

Sorry, but no.  They may be completely faithful to their beliefs, but by rejecting the true gospel they also reject the God that gave it.

 

 

Wow.

 

So Pope Francis, Mother Teresa, Ghandi, and Billy Graham all reject(ed) God.  Sure.

[Avatar4321]

There is one path. That's why the work for the dead will give everyone access to the path.

[Teancum]

There is one path. That's why the work for the dead will give everyone access to the path.

Nah ..,,there really isn't. Edited July 19, 2015 by Teancum

[Avatar4321]

Oh really? Ok. Well I find it so and there are a number here who I think are incredibly toxic. You can guess who I think they are,

If it's so toxic why expose yourself to it?

I've been in toxic environments. I get myself out of them and clean myself out. Reconnect with the spirit.

Makes life more enjoyable. Christ has the balm for our wounds.

[Kenngo1969]

... As for how toxic certain message boards are I guess it is a matter of perspective. I think there is plenty of toxicity here as well as on that other board. ... 

You know what?  You're right: this place is toxic.  But then, everyplace is "toxic" when one carries around one's very own barrel of hazardous waste.

[why me]

Yeah, I wonder where you got that "my way or the highway" mentality. Perhaps, growing up in the "one true church," you know, the only church that isn't an abomination in the sight of God. Perhaps, that is why she thinks of other feminists as being counterfeits (much like Elder Perry described families headed by gay and single parents as "counterfeits"). So do you have a problem (for lack of a better term) with the Brethren?

I  see that you have a problem with the lds church. You also seem to be more strident in your posts when you discuss the lds church. Why put the quotations around one true church? Do you believe that the lds church is the one true church? Do you have a testimony of the book of mormon? Kate said in her statement that those who do not find joy in the church should leave. I see no joy in your post. It is unfortunate that you seem to have lost your tesimony. I wish you peace.

 

To my knowledge the other churches were not an abomination but their creeds were. However, when one looks at christian history up until the first vision, there was much abomination going on. Christian history has been also a history of spilling blood whether in europe, latin america, the US etc.

Edited July 19, 2015 by why me

[Bobbieaware]

Nah ..,,there really isn't.

I've come to realize the apostates and near apostates on this board are, without realizing it, providing a very important service to those of us who seek to remain true and faithful to the Lord and his restored Church: Through the vitriolic postings of these apostates, the faithful are supplied with regular reminders of how things could end up if THEY turn from the truth. It's upsetting to realize some have to turn to the dark side in order to provide the faithful with these disturbing examples of what could happen if they too turn to the dark side. Even so, by this means the faithful are regularly provided with potent reminders of what can happen if a believer allows the mists of darkness Lehi saw in his vision of the tree of life to gain entry into the human heart and mind.

[Duncan]

Sorry but is false? Some may have rejected God. Others are searching. Other have found a new path to God. One thing is certain. The LDS church is not the only way to God or to truth and enlightenment.

 

while it's true there are many ways to get to Rome there is only one way to see Caesar, how do you know your way is the right way?

[Calm]

Feminism that stands up against (forgive me for bringing this up! ) such things as female genital mutilation, subjugation to the point, essentially, of slavery, women existing merely to sate the physical appetites of men, and so on, is one thing; she would have a hard time making the case to anyone who experienced horrors such as those that anything experienced by women by virtue of their membership in the Church of Jesus Christ is in any way comparable.

I would agree, but given her history of who she was working for before she was in OW as well as during, it seems likely to me she is very aware of those types of difficulties.

From her own website (katekellyesq.org sorry if that doesn't link, going off memory)

" I have had a career of various and sundry amazing jobs including as an Ella Baker Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights; a law clerk at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; a research assistant to the Chair of the United Nations Committee Against Torture in Geneva, Switzerland; a post-grad fellow at the Women’s Refugee Commission and an attorney at the RFK Center for Justice & Human Rights. I am currently working in Nairobi, Kenya as Legal Advisor for Legal Action Worldwide on sexual violence legislation in Somalia, and litigating before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights."

Edited July 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Oh really? Ok. Well I find it so and there are a number here who I think are incredibly toxic. You can guess who I think they are,

If so, for your own health, please stop posting. I cannot understand why anyone would hangout in a place they saw as toxic anymore than intentionally eating something you knew would probably give you food poisoning. Edited July 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Yeah, I wonder where you got that "my way or the highway" mentality. Perhaps, growing up in the "one true church," you know, the only church that isn't an abomination in the sight of God. Perhaps, that is why she thinks of other feminists as being counterfeits (much like Elder Perry described families headed by gay and single parents as "counterfeits").

So you think this is an appropriate way to teach one's own position since you are supporting her doing it?

[jkwilliams]

I've come to realize the apostates and near apostates on this board are, without realizing it, providing a very important service to those of us who seek to remain true and faithful to the Lord and his restored Church: Through the vitriolic postings of these apostates, the faithful are supplied with regular reminders of how things could end up if THEY turn from the truth. It's upsetting to realize some have to turn to the dark side in order to provide the faithful with these disturbing examples of what could happen if they too turn to the dark side. Even so, by this means the faithful are regularly provided with potent reminders of what can happen if a believer allows the mists of darkness Lehi saw in his vision of the tree of life to gain entry into the human heart and mind.

For some reason Teancum doesn't seem like someone who is on the dark side.

[mfbukowski]

For some reason Teancum doesn't seem like someone who is on the dark side.

That happens.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that wasn't your claim. You claimed that critics accuse us of not following Jesus. You said nothing of the larger overarching criticism that Mormons aren't' Christian. Cal provided some excellent examples of some folks online saying that we do not follow Christ. But I'd still love to see some of the specific examples you had in mind given board rules.

I'm just glad that the EV/Christian critics I have discussed this with acknowledge that Mormons do *follow* Jesus and that this is precisely the problem -- salvation through works etc... But as Cal demonstrated, there are some dishonest nuts out there. Heck, even Ed Decker acknowledges Mormons try to do the works of Jesus -- again, this being the very issue he's attacking.

My claim is what it is. Calmoriah got it and responded accordingly. I'm not obligated to answer a CFR to support your misperceptions.

[mormonnewb]

So you think this is an appropriate way to teach one's own position since you are supporting her doing it?

 

Now, that is a great question and something that I have struggled with recently.  One of the reasons for my fondness of Kate Kelly is that we are very much alike.  I also have a tendency to be quite strident, dismissive and insulting in making my case (I try to hide it, so it probably escaped your notice ...  ).  There are some pluses to this style of engagement.  For one, it makes it pretty difficult for your opposition to ignore you.  Second, it can endear you to those who already share your position (i.e., I love me some Kate).  The drawback, however, is that it doesn't endear you to those who disagree with you nor, and this is the important part, to those in the middle.  After a while, people began to see you as a "hot head," "smart aleck," "malcontent," [fill-in-your-favorite-phrase] and either: (1) begin to reflexively oppose EVERYTHING you say (e.g., why me) or (2) they don't take you seriously.

 

That being said, I'm not about to ask Sister Kate to change her ways because there is a place in every movement (and should be a place in every CHURCH) for people like her.  While you will reject the analogy, I thank HF for Malcolm X.  Without his fiery rhetoric and thinly-veiled hostility to oppression, the powers that be would have been less willing to consider the milder demands of Martin Luther King.  I think we're seeing the same thing in Mormon feminism.  I stridently, dismissively and insultingly contend that there has been more progress for women in the Church in the last two years than in the previous 30 years COMBINED.  "Reasonable, moderate and respectful" feminists like yourself stand on the shoulders of "hot-head loud mouths" like Kate Kelly.  As her (un)duly and (un)appointed representative on the board, I accept your thanks on her behalf!  You're welcome!

[mormonnewb]

I  see that you have a problem with the lds church. You also seem to be more strident in your posts when you discuss the lds church. Why put the quotations around one true church? Do you believe that the lds church is the one true church? Do you have a testimony of the book of mormon? Kate said in her statement that those who do not find joy in the church should leave. I see no joy in your post. It is unfortunate that you seem to have lost your tesimony. I wish you peace.

 

To my knowledge the other churches were not an abomination but their creeds were. However, when one looks at christian history up until the first vision, there was much abomination going on. Christian history has been also a history of spilling blood whether in europe, latin america, the US etc.

 

I put quotations around the "one true church" for the same reason that I put quotes around "abominable" -- to make it explicit that these are actual teachings of our Church.  I was not doubting our one true churchiness anymore than I was doubting that the "abominability" of the other church's creeds.  I was simply trying to point out that Kate isn't the only Mormon who speaks in very black and white terms about what she believes in.

 

As for leaving the Church, why would I do so when I find so much joy in serving my callings, attending Sunday services and being in community with my beloved ward family?  In fact, I'd recommend that you try these things sometimes.  It's actually quite a rush.  Believe it or not, I even prefer it to criticizing the Church online (although that is a pretty close second).

[sethpayne]

My claim is what it is. Calmoriah got it and responded accordingly. I'm not obligated to answer a CFR to support your misperceptions.

 

You are obligated to provide a CFR when one is requested.  Please do so.

[Calm]

" I stridently, dismissively and insultingly contend that there has been more progress for women in the Church in the last two years than in the previous 30 years COMBINED. "Reasonable, moderate and respectful" feminists like yourself stand on the shoulders of "hot-head loud mouths" like Kate Kelly"

And I think you have been paying more attention to the headlines instead of what has been happening in the congregations themselves. I was around the last thirty years and experienced personally changes of attitude, etc. and the last two years was nothing in comparison.

I disagree but it is in part based on various stuff that doesn't get shared on public message boards so it can only be given as my opinion.

I see groups such as Wear Pants to Church day as much more effective in the long run. I think OW actually slowed change down even if they got people talking. Unfortunately I see the talking then leading to deeper entenched positions then before. People ignored the more moderate visible groups who then pretty much disappeared and instead you got major blowback like the formation of Mormon Women Stand.

There was a lot of stuff going on both publicly and privately before OW got going. They are the most visible and worked to drown out the moderate voices, rather successfully for a time too given by amount of reporting, but many are now giving them the credit for the years of work the more moderate voices put in.

For example, from Tacenda:

"The other change I believe OW brought out was women giving prayers in GC"

OW wasn't organized when this was being pushed by Let Women Pray. I wonder how much more could have been accomplished if they had kept moving with small cultural changes that brought recognition without a huge longlasting negative response instead of moving to immediately demanding a massive cultural and doctrinal change in female ordination which led to many at the member level being leary of any change, the very group needed to be persuaded in order to move forward as a culture.

That is where the analogy to MLK breaksdown.

Edited July 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[why me]

 

As for leaving the Church, why would I do so when I find so much joy in serving my callings, attending Sunday services and being in community with my beloved ward family?  In fact, I'd recommend that you try these things sometimes.  It's actually quite a rush.  Believe it or not, I even prefer it to criticizing the Church online (although that is a pretty close second).

I am afraid that I have opted out years and years ago when it comes to callings etc. However, I may recommend that you do tone down your rhetoric. For a guy who enjoys his lds community and his beloved ward family, you may just be leading others out of the church with your rhetorical statements. We all must be responsible for either building faith or lessening faith. And this is something that kate didn't quite understand.

[why me]

I disagree but it is in part based on various stuff that doesn't get shared on public message boards so it can only be given as my opinion.

I see groups such as Wear Pants to Church day as much more effective in the long run.

 

Women can certainly wear pants to church if they choose to. No rule against it at all. So, I had no idea what exactly was the point of  the wearing pants to church movement. I see no sign on ward doors that men must wear ties and white shirts and women must wear skirts and dresses. However there is a cultural tradition I suppose. As for myself, I never wear a white shirt to church when I attend. Perhaps I should start of movement for men: No white shirt sunday. But it does sound a little immature when we consider the state of the world and how christians are being killed in Syria etc for being christians and for not denouncing their faith. Not to mention the rape of christian women and children. I think that such movements as wear pants to church and wear purple sunday to be a mockery of the lds members. It shows just how immature mormons are when it comes to the world and what exactly is important when it comes to protest.

Edited July 19, 2015 by why me

[bluebell]

Sorry but is false? Some may have rejected God. Others are searching. Other have found a new path to God. One thing is certain. The LDS church is not the only way to God or to truth and enlightenment.

Yes, it's false.  You said that no one who leaves the church has rejected God and that's not true.

 

An atheist has rejected God, therefore, anyone who leaves the church and becomes an atheist has rejected God.  Beyond that, I'm not even sure i understand your reply because the part in bold says the same thing that i said in the post you replied to.

[bluebell]

But you cannot reject the true gospel and accept God.  If the Church has it, accepting the Church is mandatory to accepting God.

 

I have to disagree with this.

 

I'll quote Stephen E. Robinson's article from the 1988 Ensign.  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng

 

Individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

 

There are people who are not members of the church who belong to the Church of the Lamb and people who belong to the Church of the Lamb have not rejected God.  

[Calm]

Women can certainly wear pants to church if they choose to. No rule against it at all. So, I had no idea what exactly was the point of the wearing pants to church movement. I see no sign on ward doors that men must wear ties and white shirts and women must wear skirts and dresses. However there is a cultural tradition I suppose. As for myself, I never wear a white shirt to church when I attend. Perhaps I should start of movement for men: No white shirt sunday. But it does sound a little immature when we consider the state of the world and how christians are being killed in Syria etc for being christians and for not denouncing their faith. Not to mention the rape of christian women and children. I think that such movements as wear pants to church and wear purple sunday to be a mockery of the lds members. It shows just how immature mormons are when it comes to the world and what exactly is important when it comes to protest.

I am not agreeing with that particular protest, I think it is inappropriate to turn Sacrament Meeting into a protest rally. However, iirc, they were the first to draw a public recognition from church leaders...which was a statement that there was no rule against women wearing pants. It may not have been what was intended but it did bring attention to the fact there was a lot in the Church available to women that they weren't yet taking advantage of or that leaders weren't incorporating as thoroughly as they should (such as auxilaries' participation in ward councils). This in turn imo helped expand conversations that had been going on about what was available (see for example a FM presentation by Neylan McBaine several years ago).

Turning it into a conversation about female ordination was damaging.

 

I don't think the way the Pants protest was handled was very good, the Let Women Pray was a bit better in that they were not intending a protest that intruded, but were instead asking for a minor but highly visible cultural change that had no doctrinal impact (a change that may have occurred already given the announcement in response to them that the schedule had already been determined, I believe that there is plenty of awareness of conversation that has been going on for years about women's issues in the Church and conference prayer for women was one of the topics in discussion before the group organized so both the Church's change and the group may have been formed out of the same cause as opposed to it being something like discussion-Let Women Pray group forms and promotes-Church makes changes).

 

Even given that though, if the jump to extreme position had not occurred, I think the more moderate approach could have matured and become more aware of how to effectively effect change and various discussions that had been going on privately might have become public and the cultural change that is not only acceptable at leadership level, but desired could have occurred quicker.  It would have been quite interesting to see how far it would have gone.

Edited July 19, 2015 by calmoriah

[Bobbieaware]

I have to disagree with this.

I'll quote Stephen E. Robinson's article from the 1988 Ensign. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng

Individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

There are people who are not members of the church who belong to the Church of the Lamb and people who belong to the Church of the Lamb have not rejected God.

You're both right, There is a way where these two seemingly opposing points of view can be reconciled and harmonized. But rather than "spoon feed" the answer, I'll wait to see if someone is cares to come up with the solution on their own.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[bluebell]

Yeah, I wonder where you got that "my way or the highway" mentality. 

 

As i said in an earlier post, it's from her own words and actions-things i've read that's she's written, quotes by her, and experiences she and her mother have shared in interviews.  Her mother said herself that KK always got her way.  

 

These are things i've read by her over a few years time so i can't guarantee i'd be able to provide any references to support that (though i might be able to find them so i'll try if you request it) but those are the things that have formed my opinion of her.

 

Perhaps, growing up in the "one true church," you know, the only church that isn't an abomination in the sight of God. Perhaps, that is why she thinks of other feminists as being counterfeits (much like Elder Perry described families headed by gay and single parents as "counterfeits"). So do you have a problem (for lack of a better term) with the Brethren?

 

 

I'm a convert so only part of my growing up was in the church.  

 

But don't be confused.  It's not the fact that she thinks she's right that i have a problem with, nor that she speaks her opinion.  It's that she insults everyone who doesn't agree with her.  There's a difference between saying "these people are good people but their beliefs are not correct or o.k. with God" and "these people are not courageous, are weak, abusive, mindless, oppressors,  etc."  

 

She loves to try to shame anyone who disagrees with her.  It's her MO.  That is not the Brethren's MO.