The June 1

[Northwestcoug]

I've skimmed this blog post and I think it's actually kind of silly....almost in the same way that the 13 lies post is silly....okay, it's not that bad but there are some serious issues with that rational faith blog post. In fact, if you are using that blog post as any sort of proof that the SP or bishop acted outside church policy, then you should not be taken seriously.

Don't misunderstand me, the SP did some stuff that I'd disagree with from a procedural standpoint, but it's not as bad as the exmo crowd is making it.

Really? I thought it brought up some good points. I don't think it exposes bad systemic behavior, but I agreed that there were a lot of instances where the SP/bishop handled her discipline in direct contravention with the CHOI. The whole putting her records on hold seems very shady to me.

[YOhio]

She's the wife of one of my roommates at BSU. He went to BYU after his mission and met her down there.

Eric is a nice guy. Quick fact. Ally and Eric ran Mark Shurtleff's first campaign for Attorney General.

[Moliere]

Really? I thought it brought up some good points. I don't think it exposes bad systemic behavior, but I agreed that there were a lot of instances where the SP/bishop handled her discipline in direct contravention with the CHOI. The whole putting her records on hold seems very shady to me.

Move restrictions are actually explicitly allowed in the handbook. There's a whole section on them and how/when they should be used. The bishop is well within policy to use a move restriction in this instance.

Again, that blog post was very badly done.

[Surfah]

I haven't listened to any podcasts or interviews in regards to this. You guys need better hobbies. sjbh.

[TripletDaddy]

I haven't listened to any podcasts or interviews in regards to this. You guys need better hobbies. sjbh.

You've got to get in on that. Listening to Church-related podcasts, anti-Church-related podcasts, and podcasts analyzing other Church and anti-Church related podcasts is the bomb!

[wally]

The bad news for the Church is that Doug Fabrizio is a "must listen" program for the orthodox Mormon crowd, who are no doubt humiliated right now at the devastatingly poor showing by Ally, and therefore the Church on his program. I am predicting spirits will be so low after listening to that pitiful interview that Ally gave, that the orthomos' world views will completely implode when they subsequently go online read the exmo/progmo blogs go all Siskel and Ebert (two thumbs down!) on it. Talk about a PR evisceration.

My only question is whether Jesus himself could stand up to Doug's gentle, sincere and probing questions. He is lucky he only faced the Pharisees.

[byu71]

The bad news for the Church is that Doug Fabrizio is a "must listen" program for the orthodox Mormon crowd, who are no doubt humiliated right now at the devastatingly poor showing by Ally, and therefore the Church on his program. I am predicting spirits will be so low after listening to that pitiful interview that Ally gave, that the orthomos' world views will completely implode when they subsequently go online read the exmo/progmo blogs go all Siskel and Ebert (two thumbs down!) on it. Talk about a PR evisceration.

My only question is whether Jesus himself could stand up to Doug's gentle, sincere and probing questions. He is lucky he only faced the Pharisees.

All of my orthodox mormon friends, I do have lots and lots of them, would not know who Doug or Ally is. If I ask them what they think about Katie or Dehlin they look puzzled. When I explain what is going on they wonder why I waste my time concerning myself about this stuff.

[Goatnapper'96]

You've got to get in on that. Listening to Church-related podcasts, anti-Church-related podcasts, and podcasts analyzing other Church and anti-Church related podcasts is the bomb!

Only if each individual podcast motivates me to write yet another letter of resignation!

[Northwestcoug]

Move restrictions are actually explicitly allowed in the handbook. There's a whole section on them and how/when they should be used. The bishop is well within policy to use a move restriction in this instance.

Again, that blog post was very badly done.

Yes, I understand they are allowed. Here's the relevant language:

If a member who needs Church discipline moves to another ward before disciplinary action is taken, the bishops of both wards consult to determine where the action should be taken. They consider such matters as the accessibility of key witnesses and the need for continuing efforts to encourage repentance and restoration to full fellowship. If the bishops determine that the bishop of the former ward should take the disciplinary action, he retains the membership record until the action is taken.

When you listen to her story, I think it's clear that the bishop sprung this on Kelly without any warning. According to her, she told him she was moving, and no notice of a pending court was given her. It seems unlikely that her old bishop consulted with the new one as regards to the disciplinary council.

I'll let the lawyers debate whether or not that article is silly or not. At the very least, it's pretty clear that there was little thought given to reasonably accommodate her in her court of love.

[TripletDaddy]

Only if each individual podcast motivates me to write yet another letter of resignation!

I like to put my phone on shuffle, so I never know which podcast, press conference, or interview will come on next. Keeps it fresh.

[SeattleUte]

Me too.

[Moliere]

Yes, I understand they are allowed. Here's the relevant language:



When you listen to her story, I think it's clear that the bishop sprung this on Kelly without any warning. According to her, she told him she was moving, and no notice of a pending court was given her. It seems unlikely that her old bishop consulted with the new one as regards to the disciplinary council.

I'll let the lawyers debate whether or not that article is silly or not. At the very least, it's pretty clear that there was little thought given to reasonably accommodate her in her court of love.

You are leaving out the next paragraph which says:

If a member moves while Church disciplinary action or another serious concern is pending, the bishop, or the ward clerk with the bishop’s authorization, may contact Church headquarters or the assigned administrative office and ask for a move restriction on the membership record. A record that has a move restriction will not be moved to a new unit until the priesthood leader who requested the restriction authorizes it to be removed.

Clearly there was a serious concern in the eyes of her local leaders. It doesn't even have to be disciplinary action to allow for a move restriction. That blog post made it sound like they were breaking policy left and right...when in actuality they weren't. In fact, there was little they did outside of what is instructed in the CHoI.

I'm not defending the church's actions as I think they are muffing it on this one, but there are a lot more important things going on with his whole fiasco that I find it interesting that the exmo crowd is getting hung up on seemingly technicalities on made up policies.

[Northwestcoug]

You are leaving out the next paragraph which says:



Clearly there was a serious concern in the eyes of her local leaders. It doesn't even have to be disciplinary action to allow for a move restriction. That blog post made it sound like they were breaking policy left and right...when in actuality they weren't. In fact, there was little they did outside of what is instructed in the CHoI.

I'm not defending the church's actions as I think they are muffing it on this one, but there are a lot more important things going on with his whole fiasco that I find it interesting that the exmo crowd is getting hung up on seemingly technicalities on made up policies.

OK, I see what you're saying. It still seems like a dick move, but the move restriction might have been done 'by the book'.

[SeattleUte]

Thanks, I think that is a very honest assessment of the situation. It is easier to lash out at the church than one's own family.

Yet, the real problem lies in the family dynamics. I know many, many families who have members who are no longer active and yet they love them just the same as the active members of the family.

One of my clients who has passed was one of the kindest and most devoted members of the church I have known. He had a son who was gay and he loved that son with as much passion as any of his other children.

Family dynamics don't occur in a vacuum. Humans are social creatures, and this is all about making choices about your social circle, which for practicing Mormons is thoroughly enmeshed with their religion. Are you going to try to tell me that the religious wars going on in Iraq et al. really are about social dynamics and not at all about religion?

I don't care about your anecdotes. There are exceptions, but generally the love is conditional, it continues as long as there is not at least a social price to pay or they do not feel the institution or their standing in it or their personal identities as Mormons (which is really at the root of this) is somehow affected. Clearly there are limits to Kate's SP's "love" for her. Involuntary excommunication is nothing if not a very public shunning.

[Pheidippides]

You are leaving out the next paragraph which says:



Clearly there was a serious concern in the eyes of her local leaders. It doesn't even have to be disciplinary action to allow for a move restriction. That blog post made it sound like they were breaking policy left and right...when in actuality they weren't. In fact, there was little they did outside of what is instructed in the CHoI.

I'm not defending the church's actions as I think they are muffing it on this one, but there are a lot more important things going on with his whole fiasco that I find it interesting that the exmo crowd is getting hung up on seemingly technicalities on made up policies.

One quibble and one point. Rational Faiths is not an exmo blog. The Barker Bros are active progmos, I believe, unless something has changed. As for the point, I think the disciplinary procedures are all arbitrary and cam be changed at any time, so who cares what the handbook says. Similarly, every time Kate starts talking about due process I question whether she paid attention in con law. The church is not a government actor (unless perhaps if you live in Utah) so it has no obligation to have any sort of due process.