Jump to content

Kate Kelly in a Popular Magazine


Recommended Posts

On 5/6/2020 at 5:57 PM, bluebell said:

I honestly didn't know that Kate Kelly was relevant anymore (not saying that in a snarky way) so was surprised to see that she made it into Glamour Magazine (similar to Cosmopolitan but slightly less raunchy).

Kate Kelly Wants to Recruit You

Some interesting points/beliefs about/of Kate Kelly covered in the article:  

  • She's now a lesbian?  When did that happen?
  • She leads spiritual gatherings with a female Imam, baptist preacher, and transgendered woman who is an orthodox Jew.
  • Her excommunication has now become a 'gift' and the church is a cult.
  • The fact that the church refused to ordain women means that we don't believe everyone is a child of God.

The article doesn't have much information, other than to catch us all up on what Kelly has been doing the last few years and provide a platform to say bad things about the church, but I thought some on here might be interested. 

The more time passes, the more than the excommunication was inspired.  We see all the stuff float to the surface.

  • Like 2
Link to post

One wonders whether those self-professed “faithful church members” who rallied to her banner so faithfully seven years ago are now having a “holy fetch, she really was a wolf in sheep’s clothing!” moment.

I’m thinking, generally not.

Link to post

The OW group, according to Rosetti and Park, are still fairly determined in goals if not growing in great numbers.

I think most active female members consider the group, including the regular attending among the OW group, as weirdos.

Link to post
6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Interesting.  This is the first time I've come across her in years, but I don't really pay much attention to twitter.  What type of stuff does she usually post?  Religious, activist, political?

Last I saw her Facebook, it was mostly activist and political with the occasional anti-Mormon snark.  She’s rabidly pro-abortion.  I don’t follow her, but I’ve looked to see what she’s up to a few times. 

Edited by Ginger Snaps
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That was awful. The lyrics did not match the music at all “mothers in blessing circles” is supposed to match “two turtle doves”? They tried to squeeze in seven syllables when there were originally four.

Doggerel. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

In the deliberate sense? Because I am not giving it that much credit.

I never thought of doggerel as being deliberate. Any more than ineptitude is deliberate.

Doggerel is simply bad or amateurish poetry, generally poetry that doesn't scan (fit the meter) or doesn't rhyme well.

 

Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 12:57 AM, bluebell said:

I honestly didn't know that Kate Kelly was relevant anymore (not saying that in a snarky way) so was surprised to see that she made it into Glamour Magazine (similar to Cosmopolitan but slightly less raunchy).

Kate Kelly Wants to Recruit You

Some interesting points/beliefs about/of Kate Kelly covered in the article:  

  • She's now a lesbian?  When did that happen?
  • She leads spiritual gatherings with a female Imam, baptist preacher, and transgendered woman who is an orthodox Jew.
  • Her excommunication has now become a 'gift' and the church is a cult.
  • The fact that the church refused to ordain women means that we don't believe everyone is a child of God.

The article doesn't have much information, other than to catch us all up on what Kelly has been doing the last few years and provide a platform to say bad things about the church, but I thought some on here might be interested. 

Nice article. I can relate to some of Kate Kelly's perspectives. I was defending the benevolent sexism of the church up until I left it. Of course her points about equality are probably very truncated for the purpose of the article, but I think they are valid. Women belong where decisions are being made. When they are excluded, there is an implication that they are not equal to men. As good as intentions are, human beings still hurt each other when they exclude like the church does. 

I really like how she says she wants "to hold Mormonism accountable to the idea that all people are children of God, and are equal." Of course, accountability to human beings is not the way the church itself works, so it's harder to do that from within. As an exmormon, I think that is a valid and worthy goal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/6/2020 at 6:45 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Decades before, Sonia Johnson went the same way.  Ended up somewhere in New Mexico.

@Robert F. Smith @Bernard Gui

Hey, hey, hey, now!  If Hermano Don Bernardo Gui were here, he'd say, don't be raggin' on New Mexico!  (I know you're not: Tongue-in-cheek and all in fun! ;):D)

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 2
Link to post
12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The more time passes, the more than the excommunication was inspired.  We see all the stuff float to the surface.

@carbon dioxide

What color is it?  :huh:  Is it ... ummm, brown? <_< 

;):D

Sorry. :unknw:

I hope nobody was eatin'! :D;)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Nice article. I can relate to some of Kate Kelly's perspectives. I was defending the benevolent sexism of the church up until I left it. Of course her points about equality are probably very truncated for the purpose of the article, but I think they are valid. Women belong where decisions are being made. When they are excluded, there is an implication that they are not equal to men. As good as intentions are, human beings still hurt each other when they exclude like the church does. 

I really like how she says she wants "to hold Mormonism accountable to the idea that all people are children of God, and are equal." Of course, accountability to human beings is not the way the church itself works, so it's harder to do that from within. As an exmormon, I think that is a valid and worthy goal. 

I would guess that almost 100% of exmormons also feel the same.  From a non-believing or critical perspective, Kate Kelly has her fans.

  • Like 1
Link to post
42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would guess that almost 100% of exmormons also feel the same.  From a non-believing or critical perspective, Kate Kelly has her fans.

I don't know about that. Exmormons come in all types. I don't think that many (or almost 100%) are feminist, liberal, or activist.

Link to post
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Nice article. I can relate to some of Kate Kelly's perspectives.

I can understand her perspectives.  I have a harder time considering them to be reasoned, fair-minded, and coherent.  They are, instead, largely based on emotion and anger and resentment rather than evidence and reason and revealed (scriptural) truths, largely influenced by popular sociopolitical ideologies rather than the doctrines of Jesus Christ, and are intended to bully, coerce and shame, rather than to persuade, enlighten and improve.

Quote

I was defending the benevolent sexism of the church up until I left it.

I don't think there is systemic benevolent sexism in the Church.  1 Corinthians 12 has a big influence on my thinking on this point.

Quote

Of course her points about equality are probably very truncated for the purpose of the article, but I think they are valid.

I don't.  Way too many undefined terms.  Way too many assumptions.  Way too much hostility.  Way too little context.

Quote

Women belong where decisions are being made. When they are excluded, there is an implication that they are not equal to men.

So when Jesus Christ selected 12 men to be His apostles, was He implying that women "are not equal to men?"

Quote

As good as intentions are, human beings still hurt each other when they exclude like the church does. 

I'm reminded of a quote from Manhattan, which proposes that people “are constantly creating these real unnecessary neurotic problems for themselves, because it keeps them from dealing with more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe.”

If the Church is what it claims to be (and I acknowledge that this is a big "if"), then I'm sticking with it, regardless of its purported sociopolitically unpopular aspects.  There is no voluntarily-associated community of faith that can survive the sorts of expectations and requirements people like you and Kate Kelly want to impose.  "The Gospel According to Kate Kelly's Personal Politics" is infinitely malleable, capricious, and utterly untethered to God.  I reject it.

Quote

I really like how she says she wants "to hold Mormonism accountable to the idea that all people are children of God, and are equal."

By talking to Glamour?  

Kate Kelly has no cachet, no prestige, no voice of influence with the leaders of the Church, and only a de minimis and increasingly dilluted influence on the members of the Church.  Her only influence, then, is with those who already share her antipathy toward us.  Her "hold{ing} Mormonism accountable" schtick is preaching to the choir.

Don't get me wrong.  There are those who oppose the Church who manage to maintain an enduring antagonistic influence and voice.  Sandra Tanner and John Dehlin are good examples.  These folks are still influencing people in their perspectives on the Church (though Tanner's star has largely waned).

Quote

Of course, accountability to human beings is not the way the church itself works, so it's harder to do that from within.

I don't think this is correct.  I think the Church listens to its members, local leaders, etc.  A lot, actually.

Flagrantly antagonistic critics, particularly the self-aggrandizing ones, not so much.  Sam Young, Kate Kelly, Jeremy Runnells, etc. may receive some attention, but not much in the way of consideration.

Quote

As an exmormon, I think that is a valid and worthy goal. 

I don't.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then opposing and antagonizing and slandering it, as Kate Kelly does, is not "a valid and worthy goal."

If the Church is not what it claims to be, then it is still a wonderful organization and group of people that does not deserve the mistreatment it receives.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 4
Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never thought of doggerel as being deliberate. Any more than ineptitude is deliberate.

Doggerel is simply bad or amateurish poetry, generally poetry that doesn't scan (fit the meter) or doesn't rhyme well.

 

I have heard the term used to mean deliberately bad poetry intended to be funny.

Link to post
47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't know about that. Exmormons come in all types. I don't think that many (or almost 100%) are feminist, liberal, or activist.

I agree.  I didn't mean that all exmormons are feminists or agree with KK's politics.  I meant that almost all ex-mormons probably feel about the church the way that Kate Kelly feels.  Even if they don't agree with her specific issues, most support critical pieces on the church.

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have heard the term used to mean deliberately bad poetry intended to be funny.

Could be, I suppose. But the more common meaning is more generic than that. 
 

One can deliberately feign a dialect with poor grammar to be humorous, but it is poor grammar regardless of whether it is feigned. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I didn't mean that all exmormons are feminists or agree with KK's politics.  I meant that almost all ex-mormons probably feel about the church the way that Kate Kelly feels.  Even if they don't agree with her specific issues, most support critical pieces on the church.

Sorry, I don't mean to be contrary for contrary's sake, but I genuinely don't think this is necessarily the case. Maybe the publicity about and social media for exmormons perpetuates that impression. However, among those I know personally from when we were believing, the majority are not publicly critical and not even a majority seem to support critical pieces. Some frame it as just "not being right for them." 

  • Like 3
Link to post

The above on this page are interesting insights and some, imo, are way off.

Attend a Sunstone Symposium  and you may add to and morph your thinking about what "they" are thinking about critical pieces.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

The above on this page are interesting insights and some, imo, are way off.

Attend a Sunstone Symposium  and you may add to and morph your thinking about what "they" are thinking about critical pieces.

Which "above?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I'm reminded of a quote from Manhattan, which proposes that people “are constantly creating these real unnecessary neurotic problems for themselves, because it keeps them from dealing with more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe.”

If the Church is what it claims to be (and I acknowledge that this is a big "if"), then I'm sticking with it, regardless of its purported sociopolitically unpopular aspects.  There is no voluntarily-associated community of faith that can survive the sorts of expectations and requirements people like you and Kate Kelly want to impose.  "The Gospel According to Kate Kelly's Personal Politics" is infinitely malleable, capricious, and utterly untethered to God.  I reject it.

 

Reflects a real first-world mentality, doesn’t it? 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/8/2020 at 4:57 PM, smac97 said:

I can understand her perspectives.  I have a harder time considering them to be reasoned, fair-minded, and coherent.  They are, instead, largely based on emotion and anger and resentment rather than evidence and reason and revealed (scriptural) truths, largely influenced by popular sociopolitical ideologies rather than the doctrines of Jesus Christ, and are intended to bully, coerce and shame, rather than to persuade, enlighten and improve.

I don't think there is systemic benevolent sexism in the Church.  1 Corinthians 12 has a big influence on my thinking on this point.

I don't.  Way too many undefined terms.  Way too many assumptions.  Way too much hostility.  Way too little context.

So when Jesus Christ selected 12 men to be His apostles, was He implying that women "are not equal to men?"

I'm reminded of a quote from Manhattan, which proposes that people “are constantly creating these real unnecessary neurotic problems for themselves, because it keeps them from dealing with more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe.”

If the Church is what it claims to be (and I acknowledge that this is a big "if"), then I'm sticking with it, regardless of its purported sociopolitically unpopular aspects.  There is no voluntarily-associated community of faith that can survive the sorts of expectations and requirements people like you and Kate Kelly want to impose.  "The Gospel According to Kate Kelly's Personal Politics" is infinitely malleable, capricious, and utterly untethered to God.  I reject it.

By talking to Glamour?  

Kate Kelly has no cachet, no prestige, no voice of influence with the leaders of the Church, and only a de minimis and increasingly dilluted influence on the members of the Church.  Her only influence, then, is with those who already share her antipathy toward us.  Her "hold{ing} Mormonism accountable" schtick is preaching to the choir.

Don't get me wrong.  There are those who oppose the Church who manage to maintain an enduring antagonistic influence and voice.  Sandra Tanner and John Dehlin are good examples.  These folks are still influencing people in their perspectives on the Church (though Tanner's star has largely waned).

I don't think this is correct.  I think the Church listens to its members, local leaders, etc.  A lot, actually.

Flagrantly antagonistic critics, particularly the self-aggrandizing ones, not so much.  Sam Young, Kate Kelly, Jeremy Runnells, etc. may receive some attention, but not much in the way of consideration.

I don't.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then opposing and antagonizing and slandering it, as Kate Kelly does, is not "a valid and worthy goal."

If the Church is not what it claims to be, then it is still a wonderful organization and group of people that does not deserve the mistreatment it receives.

Thanks,

-Smac

To put it simply, benevolent and hostile sexism warrant being called out. I am glad for people who do it, and I am of the mind that, in general, principled expectations will make a difference to principled people.

  • Like 2
Link to post

Like wearing masks when one knows they will be at a Smiths, or RC Willeys, or a gas station, or a restaurant, etc.

It's good manners, and I am sure the Brethren would encourage good behavior.

And, yes, sexism whether benevolent or hostile need to challenged, always.

Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 4:20 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Probably as many people remember that as remember my Linda Ronstadt contribution from earlier in the thread. :D:rofl::D

I think millions of people remember Linda Ronstadt. I infact, have that album.

M

  • Like 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, Maureen said:

I think millions of people remember Linda Ronstadt. I infact, have that album.

M

Well, one has to be of a certain generation, perhaps, to appreciate Linda Ronstadt (though I'm probably not of that generation, but of the one after it :D).  I appreciate her work, though.  I might've even had a bit of a crush on her once. :huh: 

;):D 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...