The June 1

[SeattleUte]

So do you think Kate Kelly is nothing but a fraud? Do you think that when she does these TV and radio interviews where she weeps as she describes how much she loves the church and how much she values her membership in the church, that it is nothing more than a cynical and manipulative act? So do you believe that she is shamelessly allowing all of those candlelight vigils and prayer meetings to be carried out in her behalf tonight when she really doesn't want to retain her membership after all?

You sound just like Dan Peterson or Bill Hamblin.

I think it's a complicated situation and she's a complicated person (not wholly unlike you). She has hit on a powerful notion in getting the LDS church to concede that there is no canonical support for its patriarchy. That is something I would not have been certain of (though, to be sure, it's not my habit to consult scripture for moral guidance). Having established no canonical support for the women ban she has a potent precedent with the "negro ban".

So I'll take her at her word that she loves the LDS church; after all, she's what in her forties and it's been the social and familial fulcrum of her life if nothing else. But at the same time the LDS church as presently constituted is intolerable to her. It's simply a matter of degree between where she is and where other progmos are.

Let me add, however, that like Nixon and China, the fact that she assails the LDS Church patriarchy from a position of someone who claims to love the Church and not want to be excommunicated makes her argument infinitely more resonant. So even if she's an SU in sheep's clothing I'd urge her to keep that fleece on.

I think she'd rather reform the LDS church or move it in that direction and have that as her legacy than remain a member. Thus, the brief was right for her.

[creekster]

You are being as condescending and pretentious as President Wheatley in simply dismissing it. I have addressed substantively what I find impressive about the brief. I have only alluded to the conclusion, which as I said, is a harvest of low hanging fruit. But let's start there with the easy part. Do you find fault with her reasoning in analogizing to the ban on blacks holding the priesthood and contrasting the LDS Church's unwillingness to reevaluate the ban on female priesthood holders with its ex post facto and self-serving assertion of repeated entreaties to God to allow them to ordain blacks sand give them full access to the temple?

I have no interest in dissecting the brief or the conclusion (and given your well-known and admitted penchant for skimming and reading only summaries, I find it amusing and perhaps even telling that you keep referencing the conclusion). In general, I think JL described it well. If the purpose of the brief is to try to encourage consideration of her point of view from an insider's perspective, the brief is a disaster. Not only will it be ineffective, it will be highly counter-productive. If the point is to promote some sort of agenda that seeks to undermine the LDS church (which is exactly what gets you so excited here) then it might work, although the writing is, IMO, turgid and too long. But the brilliance you claim for it, that it is a marvelous send up of the very nature of the proceedings, is something you imagined. I dont think it works on that level at all.

[SeattleUte]

I have no interest in dissecting the brief or the conclusion (and given your well-known and admitted penchant for skimming and reading only summaries, I find it amusing and perhaps even telling that you keep referencing the conclusion). In general, I think JL described it well. If the purpose of the brief is to try to encourage consideration of her point of view from an insider's perspective, the brief is a disaster. Not only will it be ineffective, it will be highly counter-productive. If the point is to promote some sort of agenda that seeks to undermine the LDS church (which is exactly what gets you so excited here) then it might work, although the writing is, IMO, turgid and too long. But the brilliance you claim for it, that it is a marvelous send up of the very nature of the proceedings, is something you imagined. I dont think it works on that level at all.

I didn't discuss the merits of the conclusion until my latest post responding to you. The part of the brief that I have previously focused on is her dissection of the proceeding's inherent unfairness to women (like a southern all white jury passing judgment on a black man) and the patriarchy's failure to follow their own flawed due process where they pretend a person's very salvation is at stake.

It works as a send up for the very reason that it renders unto this LDS court the nonsense of it being some kind of legal proceeding, this memo itself pretending to be a legal brief including using the style and voice of a lawyer's legal argument, and also both exposing the inherent unfairness of the process and their pretzel logic if you look to the precedent of the priesthood ban on blacks. It works on the merits and as parody.

[Moliere]

Honestly, the brief reads like it was written by someone with no legal training (but training to sound official) and too much bias. It was probably a Progmo accountant.

[SeattleUte]

Honestly, the brief reads like it was written by someone with no legal training (but training to sound official) and too much bias. It was probably a Progmo accountant.

It was written by a lawyer.

[SeattleUte]

Honestly, the brief reads like it was written by someone with no legal training (but training to sound official) and too much bias. It was probably a Progmo accountant.

If the brief makes you uncomfortable about your lifelong commitment to the LDS Church and the personal legacy you are leaving for your children in that respect, I can understand why you would not like it. Granted each of us is a partisan here. But since the LDS Church pretends this is some kind of real legitimate proceeding and clothed it in legal trappings, I don't know how you can criticize the author for making it sound like a legal brief. I know most people here are lawyers, but some of you are making me think you haven't read many legal arguments tackling complicated subject matter. Whatever one thinks of this tribunal, human interactions get complicated very quickly and the brief in 16 pages does cover a lot of ground including the LDS Court procedural rules, due process concepts, LDS doctrine or absence thereof including the "negro ban", and Kelly's and even the author's own specific facts that are relevant to this "legal" dispute.

[creekster]

I didn't discuss the merits of the conclusion until my latest post responding to you. The part of the brief that I have previously focused on is her dissection of the proceeding's inherent unfairness to women (like a southern all white jury passing judgment on a black man) and the patriarchy's failure to follow their own flawed due process where they pretend a person's very salvation is at stake.

It works as a send up for the very reason that it renders unto this LDS court the nonsense of it being some kind of legal proceeding, this memo itself pretending to be a legal brief including using the style and voice of a lawyer's legal argument, and also both exposing the inherent unfairness of the process and their pretzel logic if you look to the precedent of the priesthood ban on blacks. It works on the merits and as parody.

It was not intended as a parody. And you seem to be saying it is so bad it is good. I think it is so bad it's just bad.

[SeattleUte]

It was not intended as a parody. And you seem to be saying it is so bad it is good. I think it is so bad it's just bad.

The problem begins with the LDS Church trying to make this into some kind of an arbitration. I myself was taken aback by the procedural rules. Since you won't address the merits except by making conclusory statements it seems to me it may seem awkward to you that she's writing in a style and structure that is very out of place in an ecclesiastical setting. I agree! But I credit her for -- like a good science fiction novel -- fully meeting the terms of this oddball and surreal "court". She does so even to the point of saying essentially -- you're giving her the "spiritual" death penalty, so much worse than killing her bodily, you're sending her to hell, but your system is rigged and even the rules you do have you're not following.

[Uncle Ted]

So now Kate Kelly is not a ProgMo? Funny.

And do you think anyone but a very small handful of people is going to read this complete brief? 99.99% of the public will just see the outcome and a few brief facts about the process. This brief is no different than literally thousands of blog posts on the same topic. If you think this brief will have any significant reach or impact beyond what has already been said, you are really out of touch.

Yes, I don't think but a small handful will read this. In fact, I have to wonder if those assigned to be a "judge" on Kate Kelly's "court" will read it. Of those who will read it may be in the press especially if Kate Kelly gets excommunicated. If she does get excommunicated then I suspect the press may ask for the church court's "ruling". When no ruling is produced this may result in a good amount of negative PR in the press about women in the church and how these so called church "courts" really work. In short, very few will have to read this brief because they will most likely get a nice one-sided summary of it by the press. I am guessing that their summary of the "ruling" will be something like a scene from the movie Gladiator...

Gladiator_Thumb_Down_01.jpg

The next thing that may happen is that even members of Wyoming women's basketball team will refuse to play BYU. Those in SLC might want to get involved and put a stop to all of this. Of course, they may already be involved.

[ERCougar]

That's funny. Scroll up and you will see that everybody else (even those cheering for her) thought it was a poorly-written mess.

I didn't think it was a mess. in fact, I think it did a rather complete job of demonstrating why her actions don't meet the definition of apostasy (skip to page 10 if you haven't read it). I suspect that the men on the council came into this with the dismissive creek-esque attitude of "well of course they do", without really considering her actions or the definition very carefully. I suspect this brief gave them pause (I think they read it--they're going to have to answer to a lot of people) and that's the reason for the completely unprecedented "let's sleep on it" outcome.

[ERCougar]

I really wish Kate had stayed out of the limelight yesterday. She could have flown out to the council (several offered to pay her way) but she claimed to be needed to care for a sick relative. So she spends the day in front of cameras? I respect her decision not to fly back, but I think it would have been more effective to lie low until after the decision.

[Moliere]

I was hoping to wake up to a verdict but now we have to wait a few more days. I guess that is a good thing in the scheme of things.

Even if she doesn't get exed and is put on formal probation or disfellowshipped it'll likely be permanent as I bet one stipulation will be to take down the site and I doubt she does that.

[Mormon Red Death]

I thought the brief did two things.

1. Showed how unfair the "court" was. From not following procedure to the no women representation on the counsel.

2. That she didn't commit apostasy

They are sleeping on this because the press is going to have a field day with this if they excommunicate her.

[SoonerCoug]

I thought the brief was interesting and thorough.

[Pheidippides]

I didn't think it was a mess. in fact, I think it did a rather complete job of demonstrating why her actions don't meet the definition of apostasy (skip to page 10 if you haven't read it). I suspect that the men on the council came into this with the dismissive creek-esque attitude of "well of course they do", without really considering her actions or the definition very carefully. I suspect this brief gave them pause (I think they read it--they're going to have to answer to a lot of people) and that's the reason for the completely unprecedented "let's sleep on it" outcome.

The problem with the brief is that it addressed stuff that made no sense to address, not that the points were wrong. I agree with the point that the church disciplinary process is ridiculous and highlights the institutional sexism, but that's not the point to be made when you're going into a council yourself. "Hey, guys, you know this court you're holding for me? Totally bullshit." The other problem is that it was too wordy, which is the same critique I have with most resignations letters. Say what you have to say and be quick about it.

I don't know what to make of the delay. The cynical side of me says that it's the bishop needing to consult with SLC and/or the PR group after a robust discussion of the negative PR that will result. The not-so-cynical side of me says it's the bishop wondering if he really should excommunicate her.