The June 1

[SeattleUte]

Is this her stake president? I wonder why he has a picture of Monticello instead of his offices on his web site.

http://executivesettlements.com/aboutus.html

[Northwestcoug]

A new NYT article is out, and it paints a much broader picture than Kate and John:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us...y.html?hp&_r=1

My mom will dismiss this article outright, because it's from the NYT. But it sure doesn't paint a good picture for church discipline. Especially about Kloosterman, a recent bishop who is still active.

[Donuthole]

You make no sense Vic.

That's rich.

[Moliere]

So what exactly did she do? The identity of her bishop and SP have not been secret for some time.

The Guy that posted it has a public profile so I copied and pasted it below:

From Kate Kelly's recent Facebook status.

"These are the men who will "judge" me this coming Sunday:

My Bishop: Lawyer for Exxon http://www.martindale.com/Mark-Harri...691-lawyer.htm who donated almost $20k to the Romney campaign http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...n.asp?cycle=12

1st Counselor: Lobbyist/ Public Relations firm http://capstonenationalpartners.com/....26P58P7m.dpbs who, ironically, was "instrumental in passage of the International Religious Freedom Act."

2nd Counselor: Church’s D.C. Public and International Affairs Director http://svu.edu/news/archives/2011/lance-walker who, I will reiterate, works full-time for the Church"

Kate Kelly responded with:

If everyone knows who the accused is (& everything about her life) ... no reason why the accusers should not be known

While I agree to a point with her comment, I think she crossed the line by giving employment information. Sure that is available to people that want to search for it, but it makes her post seems like a threat and her bishopric is the target. It's not too much unlike posting details of prop 8 supporters in one place. This was a very unclassy move by Kate Kelly and I lost some respect for her for doing it.

[myboynoah]

Strange logic. She's the one that let everyone know who the "accused" is.

[Green Monstah]

Strange logic. She's the one that let everyone know who the "accused" is.

This is getting ridiculous. Both sides are handling this poorly.

[Pheidippides]

The Guy that posted it has a public profile so I copied and pasted it below:



Kate Kelly responded with:



While I agree to a point with her comment, I think she crossed the line by giving employment information. Sure that is available to people that want to search for it, but it makes her post seems like a threat and her bishopric is the target. It's not too much unlike posting details of prop 8 supporters in one place. This was a very unclassy move by Kate Kelly and I lost some respect for her for doing it.

I think you'd like that she did that, since the bishop is probably about to be part of your stake and maybe ward.

[Moliere]

I think you'd like that she did that, since the bishop is probably about to be part of your stake and maybe ward.

He's moving to Texas?

The further along this thing goes, the better I think it would be to have her council held in Kenya....

[Green Monstah]

He's moving to Texas?

The further along this thing goes, the better I think it would be to have her council held in Kenya....

Eventually, the old Mobil folks in Virginia will relocate to the new campus in Montgomery County.

[Pheidippides]

He's moving to Texas?

The further along this thing goes, the better I think it would be to have her council held in Kenya....

Everybody associated with Exxon is moving to Texas. Or haven't you noticed that huge campus just south of The Woodlands.

I think Kate's mad (obviously) and feels betrayed by her bishop in particular. I also think she has this crazy obsession with due process and constitutionality given her background (as I pointed out before, the church isn't bound by due process). I also think she is crazy if she expects a (likely) transactional attorney to give a rip about any of that. I also would guess that she'd make a distinction between posting about the panel on facebook and posting about them on OW or the NYT (although she should be smart enough to know that just about anything she says these days is going to go viral within a certain group).

And I think that she and John think the excommunication is a done deal and are going scorched earth. I would do the same, to be honest, if I were in the same position with the same set of beliefs and circumstances. That doesn't mean it's a good idea - it just means I'd do it.

I have a hard time believing this isn't orchestrated by one or more members of the 12 at a minimum. But if it's not, the church got a raw PR deal.

[Northwestcoug]

The Guy that posted it has a public profile so I copied and pasted it below:



Kate Kelly responded with:



While I agree to a point with her comment, I think she crossed the line by giving employment information. Sure that is available to people that want to search for it, but it makes her post seems like a threat and her bishopric is the target. It's not too much unlike posting details of prop 8 supporters in one place. This was a very unclassy move by Kate Kelly and I lost some respect for her for doing it.

I agree. Adding the part about the political donation is petty. I understand her frustration, but she should have stopped at just naming the bishopric.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yep. Really dumb move.

[Coach McGuirk]

The whole thing was just a ploy to get into commercial acting

[DrumNFeather]

Everybody associated with Exxon is moving to Texas. Or haven't you noticed that huge campus just south of The Woodlands.

I think Kate's mad (obviously) and feels betrayed by her bishop in particular. I also think she has this crazy obsession with due process and constitutionality given her background (as I pointed out before, the church isn't bound by due process). I also think she is crazy if she expects a (likely) transactional attorney to give a rip about any of that. I also would guess that she'd make a distinction between posting about the panel on facebook and posting about them on OW or the NYT (although she should be smart enough to know that just about anything she says these days is going to go viral within a certain group).

And I think that she and John think the excommunication is a done deal and are going scorched earth. I would do the same, to be honest, if I were in the same position with the same set of beliefs and circumstances. That doesn't mean it's a good idea - it just means I'd do it.

I have a hard time believing this isn't orchestrated by one or more members of the 12 at a minimum. But if it's not, the church got a raw PR deal.

I think that one of the problems she has had all along is that she's getting bad advice on how to proceed here (and look, were I in her position I'd probably be scrambling too). I know that OW likes to push forward the idea that everyone running the show is a faithful all in member of the church, but there are also those that support the organization that have already made their decision with regard to their own church membership and as such are advising Kelly as people with "nothing to lose." So I think that's partially where she's strategically missing the mark.

As for the article, I'm interested to know what Bishop actually has time to hunt down the internet activity of the members of their ward. I remember specifically an incident in our ward when I was exec sec where several people emailed the Bishop fb posts of some women who had gone to a concert on Sunday. He dismissed those emails outright without even reading them citing it as "none of his business." My guess is that these activities are being reported by other members of the ward and the bishops have to then decide if it is an issue. (Obviously not the case with Dehlin or Kelly, but more low-profile folks).

[Moliere]

Everybody associated with Exxon is moving to Texas. Or haven't you noticed that huge campus just south of The Woodlands.

Ah, gotcha. I had no idea they were moving out of state people into the new complex. Of course I've noticed the huge campus since it now takes me twice as long to get to 45 and don't even try going through that area around rush hour. Total nightmare until they get the Grand Parkway completed.

I think Kate's mad (obviously) and feels betrayed by her bishop in particular. I also think she has this crazy obsession with due process and constitutionality given her background (as I pointed out before, the church isn't bound by due process). I also think she is crazy if she expects a (likely) transactional attorney to give a rip about any of that. I also would guess that she'd make a distinction between posting about the panel on facebook and posting about them on OW or the NYT (although she should be smart enough to know that just about anything she says these days is going to go viral within a certain group).

And I think that she and John think the excommunication is a done deal and are going scorched earth. I would do the same, to be honest, if I were in the same position with the same set of beliefs and circumstances. That doesn't mean it's a good idea - it just means I'd do it.

I have a hard time believing this isn't orchestrated by one or more members of the 12 at a minimum. But if it's not, the church got a raw PR deal.

I think the bolded part is most true and is causing a lot of the issue. There is no formal due process in the church. Due process only exists to the extent that a local leader allows it to exist...which I'll admit is most of the time given that most local leaders would rather not hold disciplinary councils.

One thing Kate Kelly can do is appeal the decision, however since she's a woman and is being tried by her bishopric she can only appeal to the stake president (I think we obviously know where that appeal will get her since the SP was the one who initiated the thing). I have no idea if she can appeal twice (once to SP and once to First Presidency as the CHoI doesn't explicitly or implicitly indicate she can...but of course she can try). If she were a man (MPH holder) then she'd be tried by the stake and that decision could be appealed to the first presidency.

Just another example of the unfairness or misogyny that exists in the church.