Jump to content

Kate Kelly in a Popular Magazine


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps, but, too often, our critics see that as a one-way street.

There is no perhaps: the Brethren counsel us to be polite.  We are not responsible for how our critics act.  We are not red robed sceptre-waving defenders of the faith.

Link to post
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh. I'm sorry. Did Kate Kelly say something?

I think one of the more interesting things about KK is her black and white thinking.  I don't want to put words into her mouth but it seems like she has a very black and white view of morality--mainly

This is horrifying and scary news. Magazines still exist?!?!

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think so.

No.  But you seemed to be suggesting a symmetry, in terms of reasoning and evidence, between "the defenses of the Church" and arguments "against."

That is the point I dispute.  Quite vigorously, in fact.  Some of the influences on my thinking about this point are Owen and Mosser's "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?," Daniel Peterson's "Why I Can't Manage to Disbelieve,"  "'In the Hope that Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for The Book of Mormon," "The Protean Joseph Smith"  and "The Sibling Scandals of the Resurrection," my assessment of various countervailing explanations for the Book of Mormon (see, e.g., here), Neal Rappleye's "'Idle and Slothful Strange Stories': Book of Mormon Origins and the Historical Record" essay, these remarks by Brant Gardner, Michael Ash's "The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship," William Hamblin's "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Warren Aston's work on the NHM altar (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, and here), and many, many other articles, books, etc.

To be sure, there is argument and evidence for the contrary point of view.  I freely acknowledge that.  I've read a lot of it, and have found some of it to be quite good.  Mostly, however, I do not see the sort of symmetry you imply in terms of reasoning, evidence, argument, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see.  

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

There is no perhaps: the Brethren counsel us to be polite.  We are not responsible for how our critics act.  We are not red robed sceptre-waving defenders of the faith.

Okay.  If your goal is to prove to the world that you're better than I [aka Anonymous Internet Guy] am, congratulations!  Mission accomplished! :rolleyes:<_< 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
On 5/6/2020 at 10:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The song quoted in the article is one I’ve never heard of: “When I grow up, I want to be A mom and have a family.”  
 

From a Google search I learned it is from an album called “Songs For a Mormon Child”. I listened to a bit of it on YouTube. The recording seems to have been dubbed from a scratchy vinyl phonograph record, which tells me it must be pretty old and long out of print.  
 

I suspect it is not nearly as “popular” or well known among “Mormons” as Kelly and the author of the article would have everyone believe. In fact, I’m thinking it is rather obscure. 
 

Did I miss something along the line? Is anyone else here familiar with that song?

The claim that a virtually unknown song was popular is all I need to know most of the article has no real substance

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 10:23 AM, smac97 said:

I found one comment by Kate Kelly in the article to be fairly interesting:

To an extent, she is correct.  The doctrines of the Church include some fairly radical ideas.  The scriptures define Zion as the "pure in heart" (D&C 97:21).  The "Zion" to which we aspire contemplates a "no poor among them" (Moses 7:18), "all things in common" (4 Nephi 1:3) sort of society.  See here:

Unfortunately, Kate Kelly doesn't get it.  Zion can and only will be built when we are like the inhabitants of the first iteration who were "of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness" (Moses 7:18), and like the Nephites who, at their apex, had no "contentions and disputations among" them (4 Nephi 1:2), and "deal{t} justly one with another" (id.), and were "partakers of the heavenly gift" (id.).

Kate Kelly has done nothing to advance these ideals in our community.  She wants to use "radical politics" to foist her views on others.  Coercion.  Manipulation.  Misandry.  Usurpation.  Divisiveness.  That's her modus operandi.  Such things are antithetical to Zion.  "{T}he powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness."  (D&C 121:36)

Jesus Christ is at the center of Zion.  For Kate Kelly, political ideology is at the center.  For her, the Savior is tangential.  Her mission was not about proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and was instead her personal journey of political awakening and radicalizing (from the article):

Oi.  Also, gotta love the implication she inserts here - that Latter-day Saints presumptively "hate immigrants and women," but that "some of us" come to a realization that we should not.  What a load of piffle.

God is not part of the equation for her.  Rather, the highest and best objective is the pursuit of imposing her political ideology on others, regardless of what they (and God) have to say about it.  "Nothing less will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

And that’s the problem with a lot of those in apostasy. God isn’t a factor

Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 11:28 AM, bluebell said:

I've never heard of it, but I wasn't baptized until I was 9 when my inactive parents decided to go back to church.  So I missed out on all of the stuff happening in the late 70s and early 80s with kids church music.

I grew up in the 80s. Faithfully attended with my family. Never knew the song existed till I read the article

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 11:31 AM, bluebell said:

I think one of the more interesting things about KK is her black and white thinking.  I don't want to put words into her mouth but it seems like she has a very black and white view of morality--mainly her beliefs are the standard for what is moral and therefore beliefs that don't agree with her's are automatically not moral.

What I find so interesting about that is that she admits that she changes her mind all the time on what she believes.  What she believes is always the morally superior position, but what she believes also changes frequently (because she's superior to most other people in that way).  

I noticed that too. She is superior to most because she changes her mind. Pride just reeks throughout her viewpoints there.

also her take on missionary work. The purpose is to challenge people to change their paradigm. 
 

but that isn’t the purpose of missionary work. It’s to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes changes will come as people come to Christ but the point is to bring people to Christ. He does the changing 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

It looks like their blog is still vaguely active (some repetitive posts in April).  They also have a "12 Days of OW Christmas" that . . . well, I'll let it speak for itself (quoting just the last verse):

No mention of "revelation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Because they don’t believe in revelation

Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 6:49 PM, 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?

I run into her on twitter from time to time. She just doesn’t say anything worth commenting on most of the time

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/10/2020 at 5:38 PM, JamesBYoung said:

People, we live in a free society with a free press.

Our Church is not going to get a pass.  Ever.

So if we are in the true, living church, the best way to counter opposition is to live up to its precepts.

Indeed, opposition is absolutely necessary for growth in the gospel paradigm. That said, it's easy to personally assign goodness or evil to what one perceived as allies and opposition, respectively, but that is not necessarily the case. And that kind of thinking can be a tragic stumbling-block for personal growth and loving relationships.

I'm not saying you're doing this here, though. 

Link to post
On 5/7/2020 at 10:14 PM, mgy401 said:

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.

I’m not sure faithful members ever did

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/8/2020 at 4:22 AM, 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. 

The decisions are being made in the homes of the Saints

Link to post
Just now, Avatar4321 said:

The decisions are being made in the homes of the Saints

Of course some decisions are, but not all decisions.

Link to post
7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There are plenty of unanswered questions.  I don't know anyone refuses to acknowledge that.  

You clearly haven’t had many interactions online;)

Link to post
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps, but, too often, our critics see that as a one-way street.

Or they pretend that disagreeing with them is somehow rude 

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

As for me and my house, we will follow the Brethren, the scientists, and the historians.

And what if they disagree?

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 5/6/2020 at 6:47 PM, teddyaware said:

she finds men to be "boring" and "predictable" and "not as wonderful as women

Hard to argue with that statement.  Men and women of all persuasions feel that same. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

There is no perhaps: the Brethren counsel us to be polite.  We are not responsible for how our critics act.  We are not red robed sceptre-waving defenders of the faith.

Swords are more effective than sceptres;)

Link to post
1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

You clearly haven’t had many interactions online;)

Good point.  Should have transferred my thinking to online posturing.  

Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

People of faith may not be able to answer the sort of existential questions to which I allude in a previous post to the satisfaction of those who are of a more empirical bent.  That's unavoidable.  Such is the nature of mortality.  Each of us sees things, not as they are, but, rather, as he is.  And, while I agree with your implication that I cannot answer those questions for you (nor can you answer them for me), oftentimes in my encounters with the more empirically-minded, they claim to be able to answer those questions for everyone, definitively, and that's not the case. 

Too often, the empirically-minded demand that I use their paradigm simply because they find my paradigm wanting, and that will not do.  With respect to some existential questions, I have received answers that satisfy me.  The answers to other existential questions will, however, have to await their answers in the eternities, I suppose.  Each of us is his own trier of fact with respect to matters of faith: Each of us decides what the Rules of Evidence are, what evidence he will admit according to those rules, what evidence he will exclude according to those rules, and how much weight he will give to any given piece of evidence he decides to admit.

Yes.  I understand you have your answers, Mr Go.  No problem with that here. Just pointing out a "I don't know" approach is the better one for me.  

Edited by stemelbow
Link to post

Thank you, Meadowchik.  I am not trying to be a stumbling block to anyone with the film and articles comments.  I suggest anyone who does think that better check themselves first. Lehi state, “For it must needs to be that there is an opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2:11). We can’t grow without that knowledge.  Those who want to attack the messenger instead of the message are of little importance in the long run.

Avatar, good point.  I am sure some of the ‘faithful’ supporting Kate were really wolves in sheep’s clothing. How one disagrees can be rude, though.  For heaven’s sake, put down your sword: you are not Nephi.  And since I am not David, I will put away my sling.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  I understand you have your answers, Mr Go.  No problem with that here. Just pointing out a "I don't know" approach is the better one for me.  

Don't misunderstand me: There are plenty of things I don't know.  I simply try, the best I can, to not let what I do know be held hostage to what, as yet, I don't know.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 2
Link to post
13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Don't misunderstand me: There are plenty of things I don't know.  I simply try, the best I can, to not let what I do know be held hostage to what, as yet, I don't know.

Winston Churchill said, “It would be an inconvenient rule if nothing could be done until everything could be done.”

I suppose one could draw a corollary from that and say we could not make much progress if we insisted that nothing could be known until everything could be known. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, topcougar said:

Hard to argue with that statement.  Men and women of all persuasions feel that same. 

Understandable coming from a cougar who views men as mere objects. 😉

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...