Kate Kelly Now Encouraging Others To Leave The Lds Church

[Bobbieaware]

No, Smac97 is right. It's one thing to be able to stand the heat (and stench) of a mostly unmoderated board, such as The Sty; it's quite another to regard such a place as a benign environment.It isn't.

I'm just having fun yanking on chains. I've seen some of the stuff on poorly moderated boards an it's enough to sicken the soul and offend the Spirit. By comparison, this board is haven of decorum and mutual respect. This is the only board on which I will participate.

[Thinking]

Members of stake presidencies and bishoprics have to attend a lot of meetings.  A lot of meetings.  And they are in these callings for very long times (10 years for SPs, 5+ years for bishops).  Some (many) of these can be not well-managed time-wise.  Some are time-managed just fine, but the sheer number of meetings can nevertheless be fatiguing.  So while characterizing such meetings, which almost always take place sitting in climate-controlled offices, as "brutal" and "excruciating" seems a bit overwrought, I get his point.  I also get his point about being able to endure these many meetings because he has a testimony of the Restored Gospel.

 

My wife is very TBM and has two callings. Sometimes she will meet with her group in our living room. During one of these meetings it was obvious that they were planning another meeting. After the meeting I asked my wife if she realized that the objective of the meeting that just ended was to plan another meeting.

[smac97]

My wife is very TBM and has two callings. Sometimes she will meet with her group in our living room. During one of these meetings it was obvious that they were planning another meeting. After the meeting I asked my wife if she realized that the objective of the meeting that just ended was to plan another meeting.

 

That's not the experience in my ward.  The bishop keeps meetings as brief as possible, and cancels meetings whenever possible.  And the content of the meetings are substantive.  If an issue arises in a large group meeting (such as Ward Council) that only requires the input of a very few people, the bishop postpones discussion of that issue until after the meeting and then cuts the meeting short so that those in the meeting who do not need to participate can be on their way.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

That's not the experience in my ward.  The bishop keeps meetings as brief as possible, and cancels meetings whenever possible.  And the content of the meetings are substantive.  If an issue arises in a large group meeting (such as Ward Council) that only requires the input of a very few people, the bishop postpones discussion of that issue until after the meeting and then cuts the meeting short so that those in the meeting who do not need to participate can be on their way.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

You should give thanks every day for having a bishop like that. 

[Thinking]

That's not the experience in my ward.  The bishop keeps meetings as brief as possible, and cancels meetings whenever possible.  And the content of the meetings are substantive.  If an issue arises in a large group meeting (such as Ward Council) that only requires the input of a very few people, the bishop postpones discussion of that issue until after the meeting and then cuts the meeting short so that those in the meeting who do not need to participate can be on their way.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

The bishop was not involved in this meeting. Perhaps I should invite your bishop next time.

[jkwilliams]

The bishop was not involved in this meeting. Perhaps I should invite your bishop next time.

 

I was elders quorum president and then executive secretary to the same bishop for a period of about 5 years in total (3 as EQP and 2 as exec. sec.). My bishop was and is a good man, and I count him as a friend. But he does not know how to run an efficient meeting. PEC meetings usually started late because bishopric meetings ran over, and ward council meetings could go for more than 2 hours, sometimes. His problem was that every subject brought up reminded him of a story or something he'd read or seen or done, so ward business happened in between the stories and tangents. Sometimes he even showed slides from his vacation or mission in meetings. I told him directly to his face that I thought we needed to be more focused and efficient in the meetings, but he said he felt prompted to make our meetings a teaching experience where we could feel the spirit. 

 

A few years later, I ended working for the same company he did, and his corporate meetings were the same. We once spent an entire hour of an engineering meeting looking at his photos from a vacation to the South Pacific.

[KevinG]

I'm just having fun yanking on chains. I've seen some of the stuff on poorly moderated boards an it's enough to sicken the soul and offend the Spirit. By comparison, this board is haven of decorum and mutual respect. This is the only board on which I will participate.

 

So's your mother!  

[smac97]

I was elders quorum president and then executive secretary to the same bishop for a period of about 5 years in total (3 as EQP and 2 as exec. sec.). My bishop was and is a good man, and I count him as a friend. But he does not know how to run an efficient meeting. PEC meetings usually started late because bishopric meetings ran over, and ward council meetings could go for more than 2 hours, sometimes. His problem was that every subject brought up reminded him of a story or something he'd read or seen or done, so ward business happened in between the stories and tangents. Sometimes he even showed slides from his vacation or mission in meetings. I told him directly to his face that I thought we needed to be more focused and efficient in the meetings, but he said he felt prompted to make our meetings a teaching experience where we could feel the spirit. 

 

A few years later, I ended working for the same company he did, and his corporate meetings were the same. We once spent an entire hour of an engineering meeting looking at his photos from a vacation to the South Pacific.

 

Oi!  Our ward schedules ward council 1.5 hours before Sacrament Meeting starts, as this guarantees the meeting will only be one hour.  The same goes for PEC/BYC (PEC 1.5 hours before Sacrament Meeting, and BYC 1.0 hour before Sacrament Meeting).  

 

Our bishop has said that he wants to be as serious a steward of the ward members' time as he is with fast offerings.  I agree with this sentiment.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 24, 2015 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

It wouldn't bother me in the least to have someone assert that the richest concentration of truth is found in his own faith tradition. In fact, if he didn't think that, I would wonder why he bothers being an adherent to it. This kneejerk condemnation of someone who declares he has found truth in his faith strikes me as wrongheaded and overbearing.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least in part, because I believe that God's richest and most bounteous blessings can be found therein, and I won't hesitate to tell someone that if he asks.  That said, if someone tells me he has found truth, faith, peace, happiness, joy, et cetera inside or outside of this or of another faith tradition, my response is, "Great! More power to you!" Moroni wrote, "Whatsoever is good ... cometh of God."  If someone wants to know why you think you're right, by all means, tell 'em.  But life's too short to spend too much time trying to convince someone he's wrong: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still."  (Maybe that means I oughta spend less time on this board? )

 

[Kenngo1969]

Oi!  Our ward schedules ward council 1.5 hours before Sacrament Meeting starts, as this guarantees the meeting will only be one hour.  The same goes for PEC/BYC (PEC 1.5 hours before Sacrament Meeting, and BYU 1.0 hour before Sacrament Meeting). [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]  

 

Our bishop has said that he wants to be a serious a steward of the ward members' time as he is with fast offerings.  I agree with this sentiment.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Freudian slip?

[smac97]

Freudian slip?

 

Go, Cougs!

[Scott Lloyd]

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least in part, because I believe that God's richest and most bounteous blessings can be found therein, and I won't hesitate to tell someone that if he asks.  That said, if someone tells me he has found truth, faith, peace, happiness, joy, et cetera inside or outside of this or of another faith tradition, my response is, "Great! More power to you!" Moroni wrote, "Whatsoever is good ... cometh of God."  If someone wants to know why you think you're right, by all means, tell 'em.  But life's too short to spend too much time trying to convince someone he's wrong: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still."  (Maybe that means I oughta spend less time on this board? )

 

Indeed. I may not agree that another's faith constitutes the richest repository of truth on earth, but I'm not going to get huffy at him for saying so.

 

I just don't get this contempt some have for Mormons for professing the veracity and truthfulness of their faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

Freudian slip?

Maybe smac97 had BYU on his mind because he had been visiting the thread where rockpond and others are holding forth about how "morally indefensible" the school's enrollment policy is.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least in part, because I believe that God's richest and most bounteous blessings can be found therein, and I won't hesitate to tell someone that if he asks.  That said, if someone tells me he has found truth, faith, peace, happiness, joy, et cetera inside or outside of this or of another faith tradition, my response is, "Great! More power to you!" Moroni wrote, "Whatsoever is good ... cometh of God."  If someone wants to know why you think you're right, by all means, tell 'em.  But life's too short to spend too much time trying to convince someone he's wrong: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still."  (Maybe that means I oughta spend less time on this board? )

 

No, you better not quit posting, especially after this post!

[smac97]

Maybe smac97 had BYU on his mind because he had been visiting the thread where rockpond and others are holding forth about how "morally indefensible" the school's enrollment policy is.

 

Nah.  I generally avoid Mormonnewbe's threads.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Nah.  I generally avoid Mormonnewbe's threads.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I do too, but this one seemed to get my dander up in an unusual way. The audacity of it got to me.

[sheilauk]

I may not agree that another's faith constitutes the richest repository of truth on earth, but I'm not going to get huffy at him for saying so.

 

I just don't get this contempt some have for Mormons for professing the veracity and truthfulness of their faith.

Me neither.  One of the things that attracted me to the CoJCoLDS when i was investigating was the strength of their belief in the truth of the Church and the way they espoused it, especially coming from churches which seemed to me to never profess to be true and which, to me, seemed rather luke warm about the wonder and beauty of the Gospel (which led me to drift away from them).

[omni]

A few thoughts:

1. Overall I have found immense "joy" in the Restored Gospel, chiefly in applying its precepts in my daily life, both in formal observances, such as spirit-infused Sacrament Meetings, Gospel Doctrine lessons, Priesthood meetings, baptismal services, attending the temple, FHE, home teaching, etc. "Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest." (D&C 84:20), and also in "boots on the ground", "where the rubber hits the road"-type efforts, such as service projects, Gospel-influenced, uplifting discussions with family members and friends, missionary work, family history work, etc. All of these are vital sources of "joy."

2. I have had times where attending Sunday services has been "boring" or otherwise less than edifying. Most of the time this is due to my attitude, my lack of spiritual preparation, etc. And on rarer occasions this may have been due to the attitude and/or lack of preparation of others, such as a teacher who clearly did not spend much time on the lesson or was not invested in teaching it well. This happened a lot during during my teenage years, where priesthood meetings were unpleasant and a chore to be endured.

3. There are also times when life is hard. I have dear friends who recently lost a baby to SIDS. Another friend had her son killed in a horrific car accident over a year ago and is still mired in grief. Another friend was recently sexually assaulted. Another friend, a mother of four, has been fighting cancer for three years. Another was divorced, re-married, and divorced again the space of little more than a year. Another friend has severe psychological/emotional issues. Such tremendous adversities can require pretty much every ounce of strength just to endure. Finding "joy" in the midst of such terrible hardships can be a pretty tall order.

4. Put another way, in my experience "joy" is to be found in the deploying of the Restored Gospel in one's life, and the absence of "joy" is generally attributable to either transitory circumstances we can control and fail to (see #2 above), or else circumstances, transitory or otherwise, which we cannot control (see #2 and #3 above).

I'm a little late to the party, so I apologize if this has already been said. With all do respect Smac, these (and others you've mentioned) simply aren't valid comparisons. IMO, a much better comparison would involve an individual leaving an organization or ideology followed/proceeded by a paradigm shift in which the individual no longer believed in the mission of the organization or the fundamentals of the ideology.

For example, if a former Muslim who had experienced a loss of faith stated essentially the same thing about Islam as KK did about the church, would that upset you? What if it was a former athiest turned Christian who was encouraging others to leave atheism if it no longer "sparked joy" in them?

I get some people's reaction to KK, she's abrasive and her methods are certainly unorthodox within the church, but this really is a non issue. I think it's quite clear that KK no longer believes that the LDS Church is the "one true church", so why would she encourage others to stay if they don't find joy in it. What would be truly noteworthy would instead be if she was actually encouraging others to stay.

[smac97]

Omni,

> I'm a little late to the party, so I apologize if this has already been said. With all do respect Smac, these (and others you've mentioned) simply aren't valid comparisons.

==I think they're quite valid. The basis for your say-so to the contrary is not self-evident. I'd be interested in your explanation for your position.

> IMO, a much better comparison would involve an individual leaving an organization or ideology followed/proceeded by a paradigm shift in which the individual no longer believed in the mission of the organization or the fundamentals of the ideology.

==But that's not what Kate Kelly is talking about. She hasn't mentioned loss of faith, or "paradigm shifts" or whatever. She compares abandoning one's faith with abandoning one's knick knacks found about the house. She is proposing abandonment of religious belief on trivial grounds.  

 

==According to Kate Kelly, if that Eiffel Tower snow globe you found at a swap meet last summer is on your shelf and not presently "sparking joy" with you, then toss it out "with your head held high!"

 

==And also according to Kate Kelly, if membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not presently sparking joy, then "leave with your head held high!"

 

==Don't you think that just might be a less-than-apt comparison?

 

==And keep in mind, Kate Kelly grew up in the Church.  She served a full-time mission for the Church.  She attended and graduated from BYU.  She was married in the Sale Lake Temple.  She professed faith and belief in the LDS Church before, during and after her excommunication.

> For example, if a former Muslim who had experienced a loss of faith stated essentially the same thing about Islam as KK did about the church, would that upset you?

==It would not "upset" me per se. I am not Muslim. But it would still be poorly-reasoned and ill-conceived advice. Again, Kate Kelly is trivializing the abandonment of sincere, devout religious belief. Regardless of the religion at issue, abandonment of it - particularly where the adherent has spent a lifetime in it - over trivialities is just bad, bad advice.

> What if it was a former athiest turned Christian who was encouraging others to leave atheism if it no longer "sparked joy" in them?

==Atheism is a religion? It's a belief system with tenets and principles?

> I get some people's reaction to KK, she's abrasive and her methods are certainly unorthodox within the church, but this really is a non issue.

==LOL. A bit over a year ago she was publicizing her faithfulness and devotion to the Church. And then about a year ago she called for (and received) many hundreds of letters of support, candlelight vigils, a detailed supporting "briefs" from her compatriots, gave many interviews, etc., all of which efforts were designed to help her retain her membership in the Church. Fast forward to now, where she is presently encouraging Latter-day Saints to leave the Church over trivialities ("leave with your head held high" if adhering to your faith does not, in the moment, "spark joy," she said).

==Apparently whatever Kate Kelly says is right. Or whatever makes the LDS Church look bad is right. Take your pick.

==I disagree with you. I think Kate Kelly encouraging apostasy is a very serious issue. In the LDS paradigm, she will have a lot to answer for. And until fairly recently, Kate Kelly strongly believed in and espoused that paradigm.

> I think it's quite clear that KK no longer believes that the LDS Church is the "one true church", so why would she encourage others to stay if they don't find joy in it.

==But that's not the question, is it? None of us are faulting Kate Kelly for failing to "encourage others to stay if they don't find joy in (the LDS Church)."  We are criticizing her for publicly encouraging others to follow her out of the Church, and to do so for trivial reasons.

> What would be truly noteworthy would instead be if she was actually encouraging others to stay.

==Well, she kinda sorta had previously done that. But "staying" came with a caveat. She previously encouraged her followers to stay in the Church "if at all possible," but also to "raise hell" within it.

 

==I hope Kate Kelly has a change of heart.  Truly I do.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 24, 2015 by smac97

[california boy]

Omni,

> I'm a little late to the party, so I apologize if this has already been said. With all do respect Smac, these (and others you've mentioned) simply aren't valid comparisons.

==I think they're quite valid. The basis for your say-so to the contrary is not self-evident. I'd be interested in your explanation for your position.

> IMO, a much better comparison would involve an individual leaving an organization or ideology followed/proceeded by a paradigm shift in which the individual no longer believed in the mission of the organization or the fundamentals of the ideology.

==But that's not what Kate Kelly is talking about. She hasn't mentioned loss of faith, or "paradigm shifts" or whatever. She compared abandoning one's faith with abandoning one's knick knacks found about the house. She compares membership in the LDS Church and a testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with "de-cluttering" the shelves in your home. Don't you think that just might be a less-than-apt comparison?

> For example, if a former Muslim who had experienced a loss of faith stated essentially the same thing about Islam as KK did about the church, would that upset you?

==It would not "upset" me per se. I am not Muslim. But it would still be dumb, banal advice. Again, Kate Kelly is trivializing the abandonment of sincere, devout religious belief. Regardless of the religion at issue, abandonment of it - particularly where the adherent has spent a lifetime in it - over trivialities is just bad, bad advice.

> What if it was a former athiest turned Christian who was encouraging others to leave atheism if it no longer "sparked joy" in them?

==Atheism is a religion? It's a belief system with tenets and principles?

> I get some people's reaction to KK, she's abrasive and her methods are certainly unorthodox within the church, but this really is a non issue.

==LOL. A bit over a year ago she was publicizing her faithfulness and devotion to the Church. And then about a year ago she called for (and received) many hundreds of letters of support, candlelight vigils, a detailed supporting "briefs" from her compatriots, gave many interviews, etc., all of which efforts were designed to help her retain her membership in the Church. Fast forward to now, where she is presently encouraging Latter-day Saints to leave the Church over trivialities ("leave with your head held high" if adhering to your faith does not, in the moment, "spark joy," she said).

==Apparently whatever Kate Kelly says is right. Or whatever makes the LDS Church is right. Take your pick.

==I disagree with you. I think Kate Kelly encouraging apostasy is a very serious issue. In the LDS paradigm, she will have a lot to answer for. And until fairly recently, Kate Kelly strongly believed in and espoused that paradigm.

> I think it's quite clear that KK no longer believes that the LDS Church is the "one true church", so why would she encourage others to stay if they don't find joy in it.

==But that's not the question, is it? None of us are faulting Kate Kelly for failing to "encourage others to stay if they don't find joy in (the LDS Church)."  We are criticizing her for publicly encouraging others to follow her out of the Church, and to do so for trivial reasons.

> What would be truly noteworthy would instead be if she was actually encouraging others to stay.

==Well, she kinda sorta had previously done that. But "staying" came with a caveat. She previously encouraged her followers to stay in the Church "if at all possible," but also to "raise hell" within it.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

It is not really a surprising development. Sometimes stepping away from the culture and ritual of the church brings clarity to what is causing the disagreement one may have with the church.

[smac97]

It is not really a surprising development. Sometimes stepping away from the culture and ritual of the church brings clarity to what is causing the disagreement one may have with the church.

 

In the present case, Kate Kelly was espousing belief in and faithfulness to the Church throughout her OW phase.  She repeatedly characterized herself as "faithful" and "believing."

 

As recently as last May she said this: "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."  

 

And this: "There is no way to actually communicate our desires to the leaders of the Church. Letters to them are returned, often unopened, and sent to local leaders. Public, strategic faith-affirming direct action is the only way for us to communicate the desires of our hearts to them and to show the Lord that we are ready for this change!"

 

And this: "I think direct, in-person, grassroots (en masse), faith-affirming action with concrete, actionable goals has not yet ever been tried within the Mormon community."

 

And this: "I think the 9th AoFaith is one of the most precious doctrines of Mormonism: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

 

Even after she was excommunicated, she said: "I think I've acted with integrity at every step of the way and I'm proud of our group for continuing to ask hard questions.  They took away my membership but they can't take away my testimony."

 

And this: "Kelly plans to move forward with the group she founded that advocates for the ordination of women to the LDS priesthood.  'We're going to continue, as we have done, to participate in faith- affirming action,' she said."

 

Sadly, I agree with you that this is not a "surprising development," though I suspect we each arrived at that conclusion via separate means.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[omni]

Omni,

> I'm a little late to the party, so I apologize if this has already been said. With all do respect Smac, these (and others you've mentioned) simply aren't valid comparisons.

==I think they're quite valid. The basis for your say-so to the contrary is not self-evident. I'd be interested in your explanation for your position.

> IMO, a much better comparison would involve an individual leaving an organization or ideology followed/proceeded by a paradigm shift in which the individual no longer believed in the mission of the organization or the fundamentals of the ideology.

==But that's not what Kate Kelly is talking about. She hasn't mentioned loss of faith, or "paradigm shifts" or whatever. She compares abandoning one's faith with abandoning one's knick knacks found about the house. She is proposing abandonment of religious belief on trivial grounds.  

 

==According to Kate Kelly, if that Eiffel Tower snow globe you found at a swap meet last summer is on your shelf and not presently "sparking joy" with you, then toss it out "with your head held high!"

 

==And also according to Kate Kelly, if membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not presently sparking joy, then "leave with your head held high!"

 

==Don't you think that just might be a less-than-apt comparison?

 

==And keep in mind, Kate Kelly grew up in the Church.  She served a full-time mission for the Church.  She attended and graduated from BYU.  She was married in the Sale Lake Temple.  She professed faith and belief in the LDS Church before, during and after her excommunication.

> For example, if a former Muslim who had experienced a loss of faith stated essentially the same thing about Islam as KK did about the church, would that upset you?

==It would not "upset" me per se. I am not Muslim. But it would still be poorly-reasoned and ill-conceived advice. Again, Kate Kelly is trivializing the abandonment of sincere, devout religious belief. Regardless of the religion at issue, abandonment of it - particularly where the adherent has spent a lifetime in it - over trivialities is just bad, bad advice.

> What if it was a former athiest turned Christian who was encouraging others to leave atheism if it no longer "sparked joy" in them?

==Atheism is a religion? It's a belief system with tenets and principles?

> I get some people's reaction to KK, she's abrasive and her methods are certainly unorthodox within the church, but this really is a non issue.

==LOL. A bit over a year ago she was publicizing her faithfulness and devotion to the Church. And then about a year ago she called for (and received) many hundreds of letters of support, candlelight vigils, a detailed supporting "briefs" from her compatriots, gave many interviews, etc., all of which efforts were designed to help her retain her membership in the Church. Fast forward to now, where she is presently encouraging Latter-day Saints to leave the Church over trivialities ("leave with your head held high" if adhering to your faith does not, in the moment, "spark joy," she said).

==Apparently whatever Kate Kelly says is right. Or whatever makes the LDS Church look bad is right. Take your pick.

==I disagree with you. I think Kate Kelly encouraging apostasy is a very serious issue. In the LDS paradigm, she will have a lot to answer for. And until fairly recently, Kate Kelly strongly believed in and espoused that paradigm.

> I think it's quite clear that KK no longer believes that the LDS Church is the "one true church", so why would she encourage others to stay if they don't find joy in it.

==But that's not the question, is it? None of us are faulting Kate Kelly for failing to "encourage others to stay if they don't find joy in (the LDS Church)."  We are criticizing her for publicly encouraging others to follow her out of the Church, and to do so for trivial reasons.

> What would be truly noteworthy would instead be if she was actually encouraging others to stay.

==Well, she kinda sorta had previously done that. But "staying" came with a caveat. She previously encouraged her followers to stay in the Church "if at all possible," but also to "raise hell" within it.

 

==I hope Kate Kelly has a change of heart.  Truly I do.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I think we're looking at this from two different perspectives.  Based on some of KK's older statements you seem to feel she still believe's the Church is "true" in the traditional sense of being the "one true church".  Whereas, I don't believe she still has a testimony - certainly not a traditional testimony.  I base this off of her later statements in which she has become more antagonistic.  As people gain new information and new experiences their views can and often do change - why wouldn't we expect to see this happen with KK?  I've seen individuals go from strong "I know without a shadow-of-a-doubt" testimonies to atheism in days, and vice versa.

 

That being said, I would agree with you that it would be odd and perhaps even irresponsible for someone who maintained a traditional LDS testimony to encourage others to leave if the Church no longer "sparked joy".  However, seeing as I believe her views have evolved, I feel her statement makes perfect sense and is in fact a good bit of advice.

[smac97]

Omni,

> I think we're looking at this from two different perspectives.  

==Maybe, maybe not.

> Based on some of KK's older statements you seem to feel she still believe's the Church is "true" in the traditional sense of being the "one true church".  

==Well, no, I don't think that. To be frank, I'm not sure where Kate Kelly is, testimony-wise. I think it could be inferred that she has lost her testimony, or not. On the one hand, she is actively encouraging others to leave the LDS Church. But on the other, she has not publicly repudiated her testimony or otherwise stated that she no longer believes. Adding to the ambiguity is that she states that both staying in and leaving the Church are "honorable."

==I think this ambiguity is calculated. And I'm actually okay with that. The optimistic side of me thinks that there may still be within her embers of faith in the Restored Gospel. Her most recent tirade under discussion here may simply be her way of rationalizing her estrangement from the Church (and, perhaps, satiating her apparent appetite for publicity / notoriety).

> Whereas, I don't believe she still has a testimony - certainly not a traditional testimony.  I base this off of her later statements in which she has become more antagonistic.  

==You may be right. Or her testimony may be currently stifled under layers and layers of anger, resentment, it's-all-about-me-ism, and so on. In any event, whether or not she currently has a testimony of the Restored Gospel is not the point I am making.

> As people gain new information and new experiences their views can and often do change - why wouldn't we expect to see this happen with KK?  

==I agree with you. But again, this is not my point.

> I've seen individuals go from strong "I know without a shadow-of-a-doubt" testimonies to atheism in days, and vice versa.

==An interesting phenomenon, but that's a discussion for another time.

> That being said, I would agree with you that it would be odd and perhaps even irresponsible for someone who maintained a traditional LDS testimony to encourage others to leave if the Church no longer "sparked joy".  

==I agree with that.

> However, seeing as I believe her views have evolved, I feel her statement makes perfect sense and is in fact a good bit of advice.

==But here's the thing: She does not seem to be encouraging others to leave the LDS Church because "her views have evolved" (vis-à-vis a testimony of or belief in the truth claims of the LDS Church).  Instead, she is encouraging others to leave the Church for trivial reasons (such as a present lack of "sparked joy", or to punish the leaders of the Church), or even no reason whatsoever.

 

==By way of analogy: If a person, who has recently gone through a divorce, went around encouraging others to divorce their spouse if the marriage is currently not "sparking joy," then that would be irresponsible and unwise advice.  I say this not because all marriages everywhere are perfect, but because marriage is an important institution, and ought not to be terminated for trivial reasons or no reason whatsoever.  

 

==Here's another one: Let's say there is a man who has been divorced for several years and is presently estranged from both his ex-wife and his children (most of whom are now young adults).  The estrangement has been going on for quite a while, so it is somewhat entrenched in the fellow, but he still feels a desire to have some relationship with his children.  However, due to prior arguments, slights and acrimonies, he presently feels no "spark" of "joy" in relation to his children.  By Kate Kelly's rationale, he should abandon his role as father to his children "with (his) head held high."  But this would be bad / unwise / irresponsible advice.

 

==This is why I have been bringing up Kate Kelly's professed strong beliefs in the past.  Not because she still holds those beliefs now (I can't really tell what she presently believes), but because belief in the Restored Gospel is an important thing (as repeatedly attested to by Kate Kelly), and not something to be abandoned based on a rationale as banal, as puerile, as limited in perspective and proportion as "does it, at this moment, 'spark joy?'"

 

==As I write this I sit in my home's front room.  To my right is a piano, and on it are a few knick-knacks, such as a candle, a lamp, and a glass vase with small stones in it.  Whether I keep or discard any of these things is of spectacularly little importance to me.  I really couldn't care less if my wife were to decide one day to get rid of any or all of them.  They are trivial, unimportant possessions.  They are so utterly irrelevant to my life that I cannot even bring myself to bother applying the "does it spark joy?" question proposed by Kate Kelly's home organizing guru.  These items do not "spark joy," but they don't really seem to be "clutter," either.  I just don't care about these items because they are not important in any way to me.  

 

==I readily concede that a home filled with knick-knacks and other stuff can and should be de-cluttered, and that the "does it spark joy" question can be a good framework for deciding whether to retain or discard a particular item.  But I utterly, utterly reject the notion that this simplistic advice, originally given in regards to household knick-knacks, can in any meaningful or useful way be applied to the question of a person abandoning his/her testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Such a thing deserves far, far more thought, attention, analysis, introspection, prayer, fasting, and so on.

 

==This the the point to which I take exception.  Kate Kelly is encouraging others to leave the LDS Church if, at a given moment, it does not "spark joy."  Such advice applied to any other important facet of life (such as abandoning marriage or parenthood if, in the moment, a person is not feeling "joy" in them) would be roundly condemned.  So, I think, should Kate Kelly's advice be condemned as applied to the question of abandoning the Restored Gospel.  This applies whether or not she herself still has some semblance of a testimony.

 

==All of that having been said, I hope Kate Kelly has a change of heart (or at least a softening of it).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2015 by smac97

[Jeanne]

In the present case, Kate Kelly was espousing belief in and faithfulness to the Church throughout her OW phase.  She repeatedly characterized herself as "faithful" and "believing."

 

As recently as last May she said this: "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."  

 

And this: "There is no way to actually communicate our desires to the leaders of the Church. Letters to them are returned, often unopened, and sent to local leaders. Public, strategic faith-affirming direct action is the only way for us to communicate the desires of our hearts to them and to show the Lord that we are ready for this change!"

 

And this: "I think direct, in-person, grassroots (en masse), faith-affirming action with concrete, actionable goals has not yet ever been tried within the Mormon community."

 

And this: "I think the 9th AoFaith is one of the most precious doctrines of Mormonism: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

 

Even after she was excommunicated, she said: "I think I've acted with integrity at every step of the way and I'm proud of our group for continuing to ask hard questions.  They took away my membership but they can't take away my testimony."

 

And this: "Kelly plans to move forward with the group she founded that advocates for the ordination of women to the LDS priesthood.  'We're going to continue, as we have done, to participate in faith- affirming action,' she said."

 

Sadly, I agree with you that this is not a "surprising development," though I suspect we each arrived at that conclusion via separate means.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

This may sound so contrary..but I don't think you have to be a member to be faithful. 

[smac97]

This may sound so contrary..but I don't think you have to be a member to be faithful. 

 

I can see that.  "Faith" is not a have-it-all-or-have-nothing-at-all proposition.  

 

Jews have faith in the Old Testament, but not the New Testament.  

 

The ancient Jews had faith in Abraham and the other ancient prophets ("And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." - Matthew 3:9), but not in Jesus Christ as a prophet among them.  

 

Non-LDS Christians have faith in The Bible, but not The Book of Mormon.  

 

Schismatic sects of Mormonism have faith in most of the LDS scriptural canon and in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets, but not in their successors.  

 

Some Latter-day Saints profess belief in The Book of Mormon, but that belief is based on a rejection of what the text claims and is claimed to be.

 

Some Latter-day Saints profess belief in God, in Jesus Christ, and in the Restored Gospel, but then disregard or even openly flout significant points of clear and appropriate counsel given by those in authority.

 

I'm not denying that all of the folks described above have faith, even a significant, meaningful faith.  I'm sure many of them do.  The Restored Gospel is not accepted and understood all at once.  "But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."  (Isaiah 28:13).  So I am happy whenever the children of God, wherever they are and however they are situated, absorb and incorporate as much of the Restored Gospel as possible.  "And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged."  (Moroni 7:18).

 

But the metrics change a bit for the covenant people of God, as explained in Alma 12:10:

 

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

 

 10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

 

 11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

 

And Alma 37:15: 

 

And now behold, I tell you by the spirit of prophecy, that if ye transgress the commandments of God, behold, these things which are sacred shall be taken away from you by the power of God, and ye shall be delivered up unto Satan, that he may sift you as chaff before the wind.

 

And 2 Nephi 28:

 

29 Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!

 

30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.

 

And D&C 9:5:

 

And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.

 

And D&C 60:

 

1 Behold, thus saith the Lord unto the elders of his church, who are to return speedily to the land from whence they came: Behold, it pleaseth me, that you have come up hither;

 

 2 But with some I am not well pleased, for they will not open their mouths, but they hide the talent which I have given unto them, because of the fear of man. Wo unto such, for mine anger is kindled against them.

 

 3 And it shall come to pass, if they are not more faithful unto me, it shall be taken away, even that which they have.

 

And Luke 9:62:

 

And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

 

And Alma 38:2:

 

And now, my son, I trust that I shall have great joy in you, because of your steadiness and your faithfulness unto God; for as you have commenced in your youth to look to the Lord your God, even so I hope that you will continue in keeping his commandments; for blessed is he that endureth to the end.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2015 by smac97