Kate Kelly Now Encouraging Others To Leave The Lds Church

[smac97]

It's pretty simple: the dust has settled, and her feelings have changed. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

I think I understand Kate Kelly.  What I don't understand is the reaction from her supporters.  "LDS membership is important?  Great!  We support Kate Kelly!  LDS membership is trivial and unimportant?  Great!  We support Kate Kelly!"

 

What is the lodestar, the guiding principle here?  That whatever Kate Kelly says is right?  That whatever makes the LDS Church look bad is good?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 21, 2015 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

I think I understand Kate Kelly.  What I don't understand is the reaction from her supporters.  "LDS membership is important?  Great!  We support Kate Kelly!  LDS membership is trivial and unimportant?  Great!  We support Kate Kelly!"

 

What is the lodestar, the guiding principle here?  That whatever Kate Kelly says is right?  That whatever makes the LDS Church look bad is good?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I'm not a Kate Kelly supporter. I just don't think there's anything wrong with what she wrote.

[smac97]

It is the right thing to do sometimes.

 

I have a hard time conceptualizing when this is the case.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Bobbieaware]

She reduced the painful experience of leaving the church to "if it feels good, do it." Sorry, but that is really cold.

No cigar. My reference is to what Kelly is now telling other Church members THEY should do if they want to find happiness. After her initial noble-sounding advice, she's now switched over to the "misery loves company" stage of apostasy.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[smac97]

I'm not a Kate Kelly supporter. I just don't think there's anything wrong with what she wrote.

 

Fair enough.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Calm]

This is what she once said:

 

 

I hope you can take me at my word that I am sincere in wanting to communicate to you how I feel. My philosophy is much the same as Shadrach, Meshach & Aded-nego in Daniel Ch. 3:18. They had no doubt that the Lord would deliver them from the fiery furnace & a full expectation that it would happen, "But if not..." they said, their faith in the Lord would continue on unwavering. 

 

I feel the same way about Ordain Women. I have no doubt in my heart that women will someday be ordained, but...if...not, I will still remain faithful. I don't think that pure hope indicates a lack of faith, quite the contrary. I think it illustrates a true and unwavering desire.

 

Not seeing this now in my opinion.

 

She was telling people to believe in her and Ordain women and their desires for the LDS Church to change were pure and righteous and faithful on the basis of this level of commitment to the LDS faith and her belief that the Church would eventually give women the Priesthood.  I don't see evidence that she was that committed after all.  She has stepped out of the furnace so to speak.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1ztvk9/hi_im_kate_kelly_founder_of_ordain_women_ama/

[Analytics]

 

That's why I am taking issue with Kate Kelly's "does it 'spark joy'?" silliness.  She seems to be advocating abandonment of the Church for trivial reasons.

 

Nobody would laud Kate Kelly for encouraging others to abandon their spouse or children simply over a "rough patch" (which seems the semantic equivalent of "absence of sparked joy").....

 

I'll state for the record that a "rough patch" is not semantically equivalent to "the absence of sparked joy."  Lacking joy in this context is not an ephemeral state.  It is not trivial decision.  Acting on it is not whimsical.  Claiming that it is misrepresents what Kelly actually said and trivializes very real, serious, long, deep, and broad issues that sober people have with the gulf between the church's claims and the reality of it they experience in their lives. 

 

Yes, according to the Church's paradigm none of this matters; a lifelong commitment was made at the age of eight, and all that is left is enduring it, regardless of how profoundly joyless, to the end.  Integrity means being loyal to a dead church and having your force scattered.  Integrity to your own heart?  That's just petty selfishness.

 

But from the outside view, the sun is bright and the air is fresh.  Who would blame somebody for wanting to share this with others?

[MorningStar]

A lot of things don't spark joy for me, but I know they're still important.

 

Laundry

Being in horrific labor

Dishes

Getting the kids ready for church

Cooking dinner that my family complains about

Paying bills

Etc.

 

But I feel good after the laundry is (mostly) done (it's never done)

I feel a huge sense of accomplishment and joy when my babies arrive.

Dishes are stupid.

I'm always glad we made it to church and happy to have heard the lessons there.  Or I'm happy I visited with whoever I talked to in the mothers lounge or hallway.

When I pay the bills, I'm glad to have it out of the way and know people are being paid for services given to me. 

 

Kate Kelly has never struck me as someone who truly had a testimony of the church.  It seemed more like she viewed it as the club of her choice - the one that was familiar to her and made her feel the best.  If she truly believed in the saving ordinances of the Gospel, I don't see how she could tell people it's OK to walk away if it doesn't "spark joy".  Women tell me, "Don't worry about cleaning your house!  The dishes can wait!"  Um, no they can't.   In order to eat, there have to be dishes.  If we don't clean, we'll have sugar ants.  If she thought what she was doing was so right and that she was just trying to improve the church, she would be devastated and she would be desperate for people to stay.

 

In short, I haven't trusted her motives from the beginning. 

[Analytics]

I think I understand Kate Kelly.  What I don't understand is the reaction from her supporters.  "LDS membership is important?  Great!  We support Kate Kelly!  LDS membership is trivial and unimportant?  Great!  We support Kate Kelly!"

 

What is the lodestar, the guiding principle here?  That whatever Kate Kelly says is right?  That whatever makes the LDS Church look bad is good?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I don't follow her much, other than reading the occasional thread dedicated to her that I see here.  I do like what she says, though.  From what I've read the guiding principle is that people should be free to take control of their own lives, follow their own revelations, and do what they think is right.  If you want to be a Mormon and want to make the Church better, great!  Make it better!  If you realize you have no power to change the Church and decide you and your family would be happier on the outside, great!  Leave.  And of course if you find joy in the church, great! Staying in the church is an honorable choice too.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just provided a link, Scott. It's not like I put words in your mouth and then refused to retract them once shown to be false. That would be pretty nasty if you ask me.

You should consider your image. This sort of behavior does not reflect well on you.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think I understand Kate Kelly. What I don't understand is the reaction from her supporters. "LDS membership is important? Great! We support Kate Kelly! LDS membership is trivial and unimportant? Great! We support Kate Kelly!"

What is the lodestar, the guiding principle here? That whatever Kate Kelly says is right? That whatever makes the LDS Church look bad is good?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds like a form of priestcraft.

[smac97]

For me the problem is she was asking people to trust she wanted what was best for the Church and really cared about it because she had a testimony of the Church and believed she had been inspired to know what God wanted for women.  She was demanding a major change from an organization and the people in it on the grounds that faithful women like her were desiring it and were desperate for it and it was essential to them for the Church to do this because the Church meant so much in their life and was an integral part of it.  

 

Then it turns out that it wasn't that big of a deal for her to not be a member after all?  That her life is actually much better outside the Church?

 

If she didn't have this deep belief in the Church that would have sustained her commitment even through excommunication (as I have seen in others) to begin with, why in the world should church leaders or any member ever had listen to her claims?

 

I am not sure I explained that well.

 

No, you did.  Quite well, in fact.

 

Here's my theory: I am willing to give Kate Kelly the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I think she really did start out with a testimony of the Restored Gospel.  An actual, meaningful, based-on-the-Spirit testimony.  But then she tried to meld it with leftist feminist political theory, which spawned the OW movement.  Her approach to this effort apparently privileged the latter (her preferred flavor of feminism) over the former (devotion to and faith in the Restored Gospel), which is how we ended up with her doing screwy, boneheaded things like protesting on Temple Square, publicly slurring her local leaders, demeaning her fellow Saints, and so on.  By the time she painted herself into a corner vis-à-vis retaining her membership in the Church, her feminist/political ideology trumped spiritual/doctrinal considerations on pretty much every front.  And then fast forward a year and what do we get in the article in the OP?  Not even a veneer of faith.  Nary a mention of God, or Jesus Christ, or The Book of Mormon, or an open canon and continuing revelation, or prophets and apostles.  The only references to "faith" are A) a disparaging reference to the LDS Church as "a faith community that devalues" women, and B) "faith" as a synonym for female self-confidence ("Put your faith in yourself and in women").  In fact, there isn't even any mention of the very thing that created all the hullabaloo in the first place: the Priesthood.

 

So I can cut Kate Kelly some slack here, as her faith journey, such as it is, is perhaps understandable (though also lamentable).  But I don't get her followers, those who have praised her efforts to characterize the Priesthood and membership in the LDS Church as A) things to be highly cherished and sought after, and then, later, B) to be disregarded as irrelevancies if the mood suits you.  I know we Latter-day Saints are accused of following the prophets "no matter what."  But can't the same charge be directed at the followers of Kate Kelly?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

EDIT TO ADD: Wow.  I just came across what appears to be a FB discussion involving Kate Kelly and regarding her please-give-me-money-so-I-can-buy-a-top-of-the-line-laptop kerfuffle.  WARNING, there be much cussin' by Ms. Kelly at the link.  It really does not paint a flattering portrait, and in fact it seems to solidify my assessment of Ms. Kelly's downward spiral.  I hope she recovers some day.

Edited July 21, 2015 by smac97

[ttribe]

You should consider your image. This sort of behavior does not reflect well on you.

Wow...just, wow.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow...just, wow.

OK, it's this kind of drive-by stuff that caused Smac to close his thread earlier. I'm not going to get sucked further into thread derailment except to say I was offering some friendly advice to Sethpayne. He -- and perhaps you -- ought to set aside for the moment who's saying it and consider it on its intrinsic merits.

[sethpayne]

You should consider your image. This sort of behavior does not reflect well on you.

 

That's probably good advice.  For both of us.

 

ETA:  No, not probably.  It is good advice.  I was just talking to my wife about how I should be more of a gentleman in the midst of our -- specifically yours and mine -- disagreements.  

Edited July 21, 2015 by sethpayne

[Scott Lloyd]

No, you did.  Quite well, in fact.

 

Here's my theory: I am willing to give Kate Kelly the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I think she really did start out with a testimony of the Restored Gospel.  An actual, meaningful, based-on-the-Spirit testimony.  But then she tried to meld it with leftist feminist political theory, which spawned the OW movement.  Her approach to this effort apparently privileged the latter (her preferred flavor of feminism) over the former (devotion to and faith in the Restored Gospel), which is how we ended up with her doing screwy, boneheaded things like protesting on Temple Square, publicly slurring her local leaders, demeaning her fellow Saints, and so on.  By the time she painted herself into a corner vis-à-vis retaining her membership in the Church, her feminist/political ideology trumped spiritual/doctrinal considerations on pretty much every front.  And then fast forward a year and what do we get in the article in the OP?  Not even a veneer of faith.  Nary a mention of God, or Jesus Christ, or The Book of Mormon, or an open canon and continuing revelation, or prophets and apostles.  The only references to "faith" are A) a disparaging reference to the LDS Church as "a faith community that devalues" women, and B) "faith" as a synonym for female self-confidence ("Put your faith in yourself and in women").  In fact, there isn't even any mention of the very thing that created all the hullabaloo in the first place: the Priesthood.

 

So I can cut Kate Kelly some slack here, as I her faith journey, such as it is, is perhaps understandable (though also lamentable).  But I don't get her followers, those who have praised her efforts to characterize the Priesthood and membership in the LDS Church as A) things to be highly cherished and sought after, and then, later, B) to be disregarded as irrelevancies if the mood suits you.  I know we Latter-day Saints are accused of following the prophets "no matter what."  But can't the same charge be directed at the followers of Kate Kelly?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I'm about to have an identity crisis. Come join me. It'll be a thrilling ride. Plenty of ups and downs and twists and turns. And who knows where we'll end up. That fear of the unknown -- it's what makes it a thrill.

[ttribe]

OK, it's this kind of drive-by stuff that caused Smac to close his thread earlier. I'm not going to get sucked further into thread derailment except to say I was offering some friendly advice to Sethpayne. He -- and perhaps you -- ought to set aside for the moment who's saying it and consider it on its intrinsic merits.

Yeah, Scott. You never, ever, contribute to derails and a decline in both the civility and quality of the conversation. You are above reproach and without fault in these matters.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's probably good advice.  For both of us.

 

ETA:  No, not probably.  It is good advice.  I was just talking to my wife about how I should be more of a gentleman in the midst of our -- specifically yours and mine -- disagreements.

I'll consider it thoughtfully.

[smac97]

That's probably good advice.  For both of us.

 

ETA:  No, not probably.  It is good advice.  I was just talking to my wife about how I should be more of a gentleman in the midst of our -- specifically yours and mine -- disagreements.  

 

What about being a gentleman to others?  

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, Scott. You never, ever, contribute to derails and a decline in both the civility and quality of the conversation. You are above reproach and without fault in these matters.

Probably not.

President Kimball once wrote: "We would not have much motivation to improvement if all speakers and writers postponed discussing and warning until they themselves were perfected."

[carbon dioxide]

A lot of things don't spark joy for me, but I know they're still important.

 

Laundry

Being in horrific labor

Dishes

Getting the kids ready for church

Cooking dinner that my family complains about

Paying bills

Etc.

 

But I feel good after the laundry is (mostly) done (it's never done)

I feel a huge sense of accomplishment and joy when my babies arrive.

Dishes are stupid.

I'm always glad we made it to church and happy to have heard the lessons there.  Or I'm happy I visited with whoever I talked to in the mothers lounge or hallway.

When I pay the bills, I'm glad to have it out of the way and know people are being paid for services given to me. 

 

Kate Kelly has never struck me as someone who truly had a testimony of the church.  It seemed more like she viewed it as the club of her choice - the one that was familiar to her and made her feel the best.  If she truly believed in the saving ordinances of the Gospel, I don't see how she could tell people it's OK to walk away if it doesn't "spark joy".  Women tell me, "Don't worry about cleaning your house!  The dishes can wait!"  Um, no they can't.   In order to eat, there have to be dishes.  If we don't clean, we'll have sugar ants.  If she thought what she was doing was so right and that she was just trying to improve the church, she would be devastated and she would be desperate for people to stay.

 

In short, I haven't trusted her motives from the beginning. 

Holding the priesthood often does not spark joy for me.  Meetings and more meetings.  I think Kelly should not want it as the quick joy of ordination would be replaced by meetings and more meetings.

[Tacenda]

Holding the priesthood often does not spark joy for me.  Meetings and more meetings.  I think Kelly should not want it as the quick joy of ordination would be replaced by meetings and more meetings.

It should be a volunteer job/calling.

[carbon dioxide]

 

EDIT TO ADD: Wow.  I just came across what appears to be a FB discussion involving Kate Kelly regarding her please-give-me-money-so-I-can-buy-a-top-of-the-line-laptop kerfuffle.  WARNING, there be much cussin' by Ms. Kelly at the link.  It really does not paint a flattering portrait, and in fact it seems to solidify my assessment of Ms. Kelly's downward spiral.  I hope she recovers some day.

It is amazing how SOME people who leave the church go on an incredible downward spiral.  I had a coworker at work whose brother left the Church.  Not only did he protest LDS general conferences ( i can handle that) but he joined a swinger group with his wife and his family life just went downhill. 

[Duncan]

It is amazing how SOME people who leave the church go on an incredible downward spiral.  I had a coworker at work whose brother left the Church.  Not only did he protest LDS general conferences ( i can handle that) but he joined a swinger group with his wife and his family life just went downhill. 

 

when Mormons go off the deep end....it's sad

[mormonnewb]

EDIT TO ADD: Wow.  I just came across what appears to be a FB discussion involving Kate Kelly regarding her please-give-me-money-so-I-can-buy-a-top-of-the-line-laptop kerfuffle.  WARNING, there be much cussin' by Ms. Kelly at the link.  It really does not paint a flattering portrait, and in fact it seems to solidify my assessment of Ms. Kelly's downward spiral.  I hope she recovers some day.

 

Wow!  Stalk much?

 

The other day, I questioned your "interest" in Ms. Kelly and everyone chimed in to explain that your interest was purely "current eventical".  Or to be clear, that you were interested in news stories involving Mormonism and this was one of them.  So are FB discussions now part of the Google media search that you run each day to keep abreast of Mormonism?

 

Seriously, you really need to back up off the woman.  Given that she isn't thinking about you AT ALL (trust me on this one), perhaps you should take a Kate-cation.  One week without starting a thread about her or reading through FB discussions about her.  Then go for two weeks, then three.  I'll be praying for you.

 

P.S.  Before you dismiss me completely out of hand, I am ... what ... the third person TODAY to suggest that you're obsessed with Kate Kelly.  Isn't that just a little clue that you MIGHT have a problem here?

 

You're done in this thread.  Do not attack members regarding which subjects they take an interest in.