The June 1

[Pheidippides]

In her Tribune interview that's on youtube now, she says in one sentence the Bishop is outright lying about their communication, and then in the very next statement acknowledges that she met with them both in December and in May, exactly as the Bishop's letter states.

I haven't paid any attention to the time line being claimed by either side, but only one of Kate and the Church have directly lied to me on the past, so if there's an issue I know who I believe.

[creekster]

Isn't that typical?

No.

[kccougar]

Isn't that typical?

Just as typical as the result of such a meeting (we've all had sit downs with both the Bishop and Stake President at the same time, right?) being "we agreed to disagree."

[kccougar]

I haven't paid any attention to the time line being claimed by either side, but only one of Kate and the Church have directly lied to me on the past, so if there's an issue I know who I believe.

Red herring.

[LVAllen]

What are the odds that the December "meeting" was tithing settlement?

Depends. Do people typically blog about how they met with their bishop and stake president (who wanted to talk about her involvement with Ordain Women) after tithing settlement?

http://www.feministmormonhousewives....cating-sexism/

Now, it's possible that the conversation was one-sided and that the SP did all of the talking, so maybe that's how she can justify her claim that there was never any open dialogue, and that they had "agreed to disagree." It's also possible that the March and April conversations with the stake president were nothing more than hallway chats. The May meeting was different - that was the one where she was informed of the disfellowshipment / probation just a few days before she moved.

[Pelado]

Depends. Do people typically blog about how they met with their bishop and stake president (who wanted to talk about her involvement with Ordain Women) after tithing settlement?

http://www.feministmormonhousewives....cating-sexism/

Now, it's possible that the conversation was one-sided and that the SP did all of the talking, so maybe that's how she can justify her claim that there was never any open dialogue, and that they had "agreed to disagree." It's also possible that the March and April conversations with the stake president were nothing more than hallway chats. The May meeting was different - that was the one where she was informed of the disfellowshipment / probation just a few days before she moved.

Certainly looks like the bishop is right about the December meeting:

December 30, 2013

by: Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women

Recently I met with my stake president and my bishop at their request. They wanted to discuss my involvement with Ordain Women.

The most important, immediate takeaways from my encounter with leadership were:

1) They explicitly and emphatically assured me that I was not facing any type of disciplinary action for my founding of, and participation in, Ordain Women.

2) They told me there was no directive from any area authority or higher-level Church leader instructing them to meet with me, interview me or punish me in any way. Hence, they assured me when I asked, there is no concerted effort on the part of the Church to “crack down” on members of Ordain Women or target us specifically for our unequivocal calls for female ordination.

[imanihonjin]

I haven't paid any attention to the time line being claimed by either side, but only one of Kate and the Church have directly lied to me on the past, so if there's an issue I know who I believe.

We all could have guess as much.

[creekster]

Certainly looks like the bishop is right about the December meeting:

Look like phiddipesws is back to square one

[cougjunkie]

Certainly looks like the bishop is right about the December meeting:

Oh No! Who is Nik going to believe now? The church and Kate have both lied to him.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Oh you caught me. I made it up. Shit you guys are so smart.

I just thought the people in your office used old time vernacular. I don't think you are lying, and I'm not very smart.

[kccougar]

Certainly looks like the bishop is right about the December meeting:

And in her interview she acknowledges the May meeting as well. But for some reason it doesn't count because it was "under duress?"

[Pelado]

Another clip from her blog post:

I find the words of LDS Church spokeswoman Ruth Todd to be both calculated and comforting.

When she met us on Temple Square as we attempted to attend the priesthood session in October she said although she felt many would find our efforts divisive, “these are our sisters and we want them among us.” What a glorious day when the official spokesperson of the Church can look a group of feminists directly confronting sexism on church property in the eyes and tell us we are wanted. Any church that can constructively coexist with those who persistently ask difficult questions and openly examine its own systematic inequality is a healthy and beautiful institution.

[Pelado]

And in her interview she acknowledges the May meeting as well. But for some reason it doesn't count because it was "under duress?"

I don't think she's ever denied the May meeting with the Stake President.

[Moliere]

In her Tribune interview that's on youtube now, she says in one sentence the Bishop is outright lying about their communication, and then in the very next statement acknowledges that she met with them both in December and in May, exactly as the Bishop's letter states.

I agree mostly with this. The more I listen to her the more she seems to selectively practice some form of self deception. I'd bet the meeting was held but it was probably very brief and informal. She's probably defining a meeting by a formal meeting with a full agenda and one that lasts more than 5 minutes.

The more I see groups like this, the more interesting I find their groupthink. It's the same thing that happens in the church. You surround yourself with only like minded people and the next thing you know you are saying weird stuff. Granted there are many in her group and the church that don't fall into this, but it's clear she does.

I still don't agree with the verdict and I don't like the way the bishop handled it all.

[Pheidippides]

I don't think she's ever denied the May meeting with the Stake President.

Or December. she mentioned the December meeting weeks ago in a podcast. seriously don't any of you effing listen?