Kate Kelly Now Encouraging Others To Leave The Lds Church

[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

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.

I wonder now if this type of behavior is what led to a mutually agreed upon departure from the OW board. What's going on behind the scenes? How much disillusionment has there been from what is pretty unpalatable behavior for professed Church members.

[smac97]

This is what she once said:

 

 

 

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/

 

Wow.  A lot of her comments from that Reddit thread apparently had a pretty short shelf life and/or illustrate a rather marked lack of self-awareness:

 

> 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.

 

> I feel very certain that I will not be disfellowshipped or excommunicated because of OW.

 

> I think this is a really good question & an important one. I think that women & men should have both the same priesthood and the same offices (separate but equal is not equal!) but, I really value single-sex spaces.  I don't think I could get through Church each week without Relief Society!!!

 

> But, that is our desire that they "prayerfully consider the ordination of women."

 

> I have carefully, and prayerfully weighed the consequences of my actions and I do not believe in any way they might be counterproductive.

 

> I always start with "This is the way that I invest in the Church that I love."

 

> I have suggested to my Bishop & Stake President that we hold a Stake Conference about gender inequality in the Church... so far they are not amenable to the suggestion, but they love me (as a daughter of God).

 

This thread is apparently only a bit over a year old.  How sad it is to see how quickly her words, attitude and action deteriorated in the intervening time.  She went from speaking optimistically of sacred, spiritual things to dropping f-bombs on people who disagree with her (language warning).

 

I hope she has a change of heart.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[JAHS]

"but, I really value single-sex spaces.  I don't think I could get through Church each week without Relief Society!!!"

 

If women held the priesthood they would have to meet together with the brethren otherwise efforts might be duplicated. And all the girls would have to meet with the boys. I suppose it would cut down on the number of teachers that need to be called.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow. A lot of her comments from that Reddit thread apparently had a pretty short shelf life and/or illustrate a rather marked lack of self-awareness:

> 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.

> I feel very certain that I will not be disfellowshipped or excommunicated because of OW.

> I think this is a really good question & an important one. I think that women & men should have both the same priesthood and the same offices (separate but equal is not equal!) but, I really value single-sex spaces. I don't think I could get through Church each week without Relief Society!!!

> But, that is our desire that they "prayerfully consider the ordination of women."

> I have carefully, and prayerfully weighed the consequences of my actions and I do not believe in any way they might be counterproductive.

> I always start with "This is the way that I invest in the Church that I love."

> I have suggested to my Bishop & Stake President that we hold a Stake Conference about gender inequality in the Church... so far they are not amenable to the suggestion, but they love me (as a daughter of God).

This thread is apparently only a bit over a year old. How sad it is to see how quickly her words, attitude and action deteriorated in the intervening time. She went from speaking optimistically of sacred, spiritual things to dropping f-bombs on people who disagree with her (language warning).

I hope she has a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

The brazen ugliness of it was appalling. Maybe I'm naive but until this moment, I never would have considered her capable of it. Is this the person hundreds of women in the Chuch are holding up as a hero?

[smac97]

Mormonnewbe is out of the thread, but I'll respond anyway. For the record.

> Wow!  Stalk much?

==Only if "stalking" consists of doing a Google search for "Kate Kelly" and "faith" (or some similar boolean search). I was actually looking for recent comments from Kate Kelly about her stance on religious faith and came across the FB thread (I found the link in a thread on the RfM board which was criticizing Kate Kelly for some of her behaviors).

==So nope. No "stalking."

> 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?

==It seems increasingly clear that A) you are a big fan of Kate Kelly (you've gushingly said so a few times now), and B) you really don't like people doing basic Google searches about Kate Kelly.  I understand that Kate Kelly's remarkably immature and profane FB rant is not something you want out there (language warning!), but the Internet is forever.
 
> Seriously, you really need to back up off the woman.  
 
==This is really strange.  Kate Kelly gets plaudits up the yingyang for being all bold and brassy, but if someone dares criticize her, then her burly man friends have to come along and protect her.  You aren't the only one doing this.  See here:
 

 

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?

 

 

==See also here and here.

 

==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, solely 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.

 

> Given that she isn't thinking about you AT ALL (trust me on this one), perhaps you should take a Kate-cation.  

 

==Given the way she treats people who dare to disagree with her, I suppose I should be grateful to have escaped her attention.

 

> One week without starting a thread about her or reading through FB discussions about her.  

 

==How about you go for a month without trying to tell other people what they should or should not write about.  Mote, meet beam.

 

> Then go for two weeks, then three.  I'll be praying for you.

 

==I don't believe you.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 23, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

The brazen ugliness of it was appalling. Maybe I'm naive but until this moment, I never would have considered her capable of it. Is this the person hundreds of women in the Chuch are holding up as a hero?

 

Yes, it is.

 

And you are obsessed because you read about it.  Bad, Scott!  Bad!

 

I find it more than a little odd to be repeatedly castigated by supporters of Kate Kelly for paying attention to her and commenting about her words and actions.  Don't they want Kate Kelly to be getting attention?  If Kate Kelly doesn't want her words/actions critiqued, why on earth does she keep publicizing her words/actions?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[JAHS]

Yes, it is.

 

And you are obsessed because you read about it.  Bad, Scott!  Bad!

 

I find it more than a little odd to be repeatedly castigated by supporters of Kate Kelly for paying attention to her and commenting about her words and actions.  Don't they want Kate Kelly to be getting attention?  If Kate Kelly doesn't want her words/actions critiqued, why on earth does she keep publicizing her words/actions?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Really showing her true colors. Do we know that her swearing tirade was not manufactured by someone else???

[Tacenda]

I can't stand it when the ex LDS go this route. Keeps me in the church, my safe zone. I don't know what to think of this phenomenon. Why can't these people stay how they were before in the LDS church, not really Molly or Peter, but atleast have a better use of the English language. Drives me crazy, it's a pet peeve, when people swear like Kate did/does. I see where it may be appropriate, rare though. But in a public setting it's wrong to me.

I met Kate at a Sunstone Symposium once, ran into her in the ladies room. She was probably nervous, it was right before she was presenting and before her getting ex'd but just didn't feel good around her. Not like I have when I'm around some of the sisters in the ward. It would be much easier to make a decision about the church if it weren't for this. Maybe I'm just weird but don't feel the spirit with a lot of the ex LDS, or I've been conditioned and have wrong perceptions of people, or meeting the wrong people.

[smac97]

Really showing her true colors. Do we know that her swearing tirade was not manufactured by someone else???

I thought about that. In fact I initially suspected it, as it just seemed too bad to be true.  But the image next to her FB comments in the objectionable thread (see here) is the same one she uses on her FB page (see here).  Plus, if it was a set-up to make Kate Kelly look bad, you would think she would hop to and disavow it as such.  But I don't think she has.  On balance, I'm sadly inclined to think that it's legit.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 21, 2015 by smac97

[Duncan]

I can't stand it when the ex LDS go this route. Keeps me in the church, my safe zone. I don't know what to think of this phenomenon. Why can't these people stay how they were before in the LDS church, not really Molly or Peter, but atleast have a better use of the English language. Drives me crazy, it's a pet peeve, when people swear like Kate did/does. I see where it may be appropriate, rare though. But in a public setting it's wrong to me.

I met Kate at a Sunstone Symposium once, ran into her in the ladies room. She was probably nervous, it was right before she was presenting and before her getting ex'd but just didn't feel good around her. Not like I have when I'm around some of the sisters in the ward. It would be much easier to make a decision about the church if it weren't for this. Maybe I'm just weird but don't feel the spirit with a lot of the ex LDS, or I've been conditioned and have wrong perceptions of people, or meeting the wrong people.

 

 

I've felt like that too, some people just give off bad mojo or something. This one guy that comes around to our ward is bad news, he looks evil and he is not a good guy etc. He just has this massive ick factor going on. The MP has banned the missionaries twice from anything to do with him.

[jkwilliams]

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.

 

What strikes me about this thread is that no one has said, "Well, of course you should do what brings you joy. The church is what brings me and everyone I know a fullness of joy." Rather, most people seem to be saying that church is something you do as an obligation, like doing the laundry, that doesn't necessarily bring you joy at all. I hope that's not the case.

[Gray]

What strikes me about this thread is that no one has said, "Well, of course you should do what brings you joy. The church is what brings me and everyone I know a fullness of joy." Rather, most people seem to be saying that church is something you do as an obligation, like doing the laundry, that doesn't necessarily bring you joy at all. I hope that's not the case.

 

Honestly I think the church COULD be a source of joy, but we've filled it up with so much busy work and redudant meetings that the joy kind of gets sucked out. Also due to the lay ministry thing we've ensured that a lot of talks and lessons will be pretty hard to sit through.

[jkwilliams]

Honestly I think the church COULD be a source of joy, but we've filled it up with so much busy work and redudant meetings that the joy kind of gets sucked out. Also due to the lay ministry thing we've ensured that a lot of talks and lessons will be pretty hard to sit through.

 

I had moments of joy in the church, but I would say my commitment to church came from my testimony, not because it necessarily brought me joy. 

[Bobbieaware]

Honestly I think the church COULD be a source of joy, but we've filled it up with so much busy work and redudant meetings that the joy kind of gets sucked out. Also due to the lay ministry thing we've ensured that a lot of talks and lessons will be pretty hard to sit through.

The above is very close to some of Kelly's elitist rants. When I see what Church progressives have to say, and how often they seem to appear largely uninformed when it comes to the teachings found in the scriptures, I wonder to myself if most progressive members ever even bother to study the scriptures? Or is scripture study beneath the dignity of those with so-called "superior intellects?" Or if some of those members with superior attitudes do study the scriptures, are they not understanding what they read because of those superior attitudes? After all, the Book of Mormon teaches us God pours out His Spirit of revelation and understanding upon believers in direct proportion to how deeply they come down in the depths of humility. Here's what the Apostle Paul has to say in answer to elitists who complain the Church isn't being taught and lead by an intellectual "elite:"

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1)

Edited to add: When one possesses the Spirit, he or she will never find any lesson or address boring.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[busybee]

When in Gethsemane, if the Savior followed his own will and took the easy way out, so that he could pursue his own path to "happiness," we'd still be in lost our sins. Kelly's advocacy of the "do whatever makes you happy" attitude is evidence of a mind that's ignorant of things of deep spiritual import. Christ said if we are to be like him we must first PICK UP OUR OWN CROSS and follow in his footsteps, the footsteps of the Man of Sorrows. In other words, live lives of personal sacrifice, lives of deep humility and submissiveness to the divine will. And Paul said we will be glorified with Christ if we first suffer with him. Meaning, in part, that God's chosen path for us is a difficult journey where through faith in Christ we learn to how overcome and eventually conquer our own selfish carnal desires. Kelly's advocacy for a version of the "if it feels good do it" philosophy is evidence she seems to be ignorant of some of important principles that are essential to know for successful gospel living.

I'm out of points!!!!    

[Gray]

The above is very close to some of Kelly's elitist rants. When I see what Church progressives have to say, and how often they seem to appear largely uninformed when it comes to the teachings found in the scriptures, I wonder to myself if most progressive members ever even bother to study the scriptures? Or is scripture study beneath the dignity of those with so-called "superior intellects?" Or if some of those members with superior attitudes do study the scriptures, are they not understanding what they read because of those superior attitudes? After all, the Book of Mormon teaches us God pours out His Spirit of revelation and understanding upon believers in direct proportion to how deeply they come down in the depths of humility. Here's what the Apostle Paul has to say in answer to elitists who complain the Church isn't being taught and lead by an intellectual "elite:"

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1)

Edited to add: When one possesses the Spirit, he or she will never find any lesson or address boring.

 

Yea, Zion prospereth. All is well!

 

Maybe it's just my elitism that makes me imagine all the bored faces on sunday, and the sleeping dads, and others occupying themselves with their phones.

 

I know that we're supposed to put on a brave face and pretend we're never find church dull or boring or joyless. But unfortunately I think all that's served to do is put up a barrier to improving the quality of meetings.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Gray

[Mars]

c'mon bobbie.  even the spirit can't help a droning i've-heard-this-story-a-kajillion-times-before lesson feel less painful.

 

the gospel and temple worship and the blessings i have as a result of my dedication bring me joy.  but sometimes it's boring and sometimes it's a pain and sometimes i just can't stand all the meetings.

[Mars]

it's not that either, gray.  it's not like everyone's just sitting there, TRULY bored, but ssh- don't tell!  gotta keep up the appearance!

 

sometimes it's boring

 

sometimes your kid kept you up the night before and you're just exhausted so you nod off

 

sometimes you're fighting with your spouse because money is tight and it's weighing on you

 

sometimes you perk up and hear a line during a talk that cuts you to the core and reminds you of your covenants

 

sometimes you're tired of the teaching style that brother or sister blahblah have so instead of following the lesson you're researching historical background for the scriptures - or different translations

 

sometimes you don't really get along with that guy because he's a bit of a jerk.  and that guy is thinking 'sometimes i don't get along with mars because he's a bit of a jerk'

 

sometimes you're really happy to see people

 

sometimes you really are genuinely interested in how someone is struggling and hope it gets better

 

sometimes when you look at the young men breaking bread at the altar, you pause and reflect that they are breaking the body of Christ anew, alongside our wills, on the altar, and the symbolism hits you so hard you turn around and look and see if anyone else is as surprised as you are

 

and sometimes you're bored and you're derping on your phone

Edited July 21, 2015 by Mars

[ERayR]

I had moments of joy in the church, but I would say my commitment to church came from my testimony, not because it necessarily brought me joy. 

 

There are times when the joy comes later, sometimes much later.

[jkwilliams]

There are times when the joy comes later, sometimes much later.

 

It makes sense to wait if one believes the church is true. 

[jkwilliams]

Seems to me there are two issues in deciding whether to stay in the church or not, and Kate Kelly is addressing only one of them:

 

1. Does being in the church spark joy?

2. Do you believe the church is God's true church?

 

If the answer to #2 is "yes," then the answer to #1 is much less important. My brother-in-law, who is a stake president, tells me he finds church meetings "brutal" and "excruciating," and he says he would jump ship in a heartbeat if he didn't have a testimony. But he does have a testimony. He says he knows the church is true, and therefore it's worth the boring meetings, the bureaucracy, and some things he finds wrongheaded in the church.

 

If the answer to #2 is "no," then the only reason to stay would be if participating in the church brought you joy. I know quite a few people who don't believe the church is what it claims to be, but they do find joy and peace in serving in the church, so they stay.

 

I can't argue with my brother-in-law, or my unbelieving active LDS friends. Staying or going depends on your perspective.

Edited July 21, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

It makes sense to wait if one believes the church is true.

We call that faith.

It's what motivated Joseph Smith to continue searching in the midst of confusion and discouragement, ultimately to receive the First Vision.

[jkwilliams]

We call that faith.

It's what motivated Joseph Smith to continue searching in the midst of confusion and discouragement, ultimately to receive the First Vision.

 

Hence, loss of faith is called loss of faith.

 

What would be the point in waiting for something you don't believe in to bring you joy?

Edited July 21, 2015 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

Here: Kate Kelly: If staying in LDS Church doesn’t ‘spark joy,’ it’s OK to leave

Will the next step be to encourage people to elave the Church alone?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

This seems like emotional blackmail to me (just saying). And yes this post is also emotional blackmail.