The June 1

[Topper]

I think they said "We'll pray about whether we should pray about it." And then they said "no dice."

Or, "you can't make us do that."

[LA Ute]

I saw this yesterday in an essay byEugene England (my old Institute teacher at the U.) and somehow it seems to fit in this thread:

In the life of the true Church, there are constant opportunities for all to serve, especially to learn to serve people we would not nor*mally choose to serve—or possibly even associate with—and thus opportunities to learn to love unconditionally. There is constant encouragement, even pressure, to be “active”: to have a calling” and thus to have to grapple with relationships and management, with other peoples ideas and wishes, their feel*ings and failures; to attend classes and meetings and to have to listen to other people’s sometimes misinformed or prejudiced notions and to have to make some constructive response; to have leaders and occasionally to be hurt by their weakness and blindness, even unrighteous dominion; and then to be made a leader and find that you, too, with all the best intentions, can be weak and blind and unrighteous. Church involvement teaches us compassion and patience as well as courage and dis*cipline. It makes us responsible for the personal and marital, physical, and spiritual welfare of people we may not already love (or may even heartily dislike), and thus we learn to love them. It stretches and challenges us, though disappointed and exasperated, in ways we would not otherwise choose to be— and thus gives us a chance to be made better than we might choose to be, but ultimately need and want to be.

[Nakoma]

Prior to May 4 - claims she had apprised her bishop of her Ordain Women activity by email in March, August, and October 2013 and again in April 2014 and that he never responded or followed up on her invitation to speak in person on the matter

May 4 - Stake President requests "move restriction" placed on her membership records

May 5 - She meets with Stake President in which he places her on informal probation

May 9 - She physically moves to Utah

May 22 - Stake President emails letter detailing conditions of informal probation

June 8 - Bishop notifies her by email of disciplinary council scheduled in Virginia for June 22

June 11 - NYT article published concerning upcoming disciplinary councils on John & Kate: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us...=tw-share&_r=1

Church response to questions about NYT article: "Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior." http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...line-questions

June 22 - Bishopric holds disciplinary council in Virginia

June 23 - Bishopric excommunicates her

Her representation of having no prior contact with her SP and bishop prior to May 2014 regarding her OW activities seems at odds with the bishop's excommunication letter.

http://img.ksl.com/slc/2526/252687/25268764.pdf

[Joe Public]

The news feed screen in the elevator at work says Kelly(sp?) was excommunicated.

[Nakoma]

I thought that was interesting as well but apparently they told her that no one else could attend...


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us...n-Founder.html

I thought it was possible to have witnesses present their testimonies in these sort of things but apparently that wasn't an option for her?

Maybe the rule of exclusion was invoked since it was a quasi-legal proceeding or, more likely, witnesses could be utilized, but not in the room at the same time. Just a guess.

[Pelado]

Her representation of having no prior contact with her SP and bishop prior to May 2014 regarding her OW activities seems at odds with the bishop's excommunication letter.

http://img.ksl.com/slc/2526/252687/25268764.pdf

Interesting. Here's what she wrote in her defense letter:

I was in your ward for over three years and faithfully served in callings for that entire period.
While we interacted frequently in passing, none of you know me well. I am saddened by the fact
that you never took the time to ask me questions or get to know my heart while I was living in
your ward. Despite the fact that I emailed you in March 2013, August 2013, October 2013 &
again in April 2014 regarding my Ordain Women activities, you never bothered to respond or
follow-up on my repeated invitation to engage in an open dialogue in person.

And here's what was in the Bishop's excommunication letter:

On December 12,2013, President Wheatley and I met with you. We talked with
you about the doctrine of the priesthood. We urged you to dissociate yourself
from Ordain Women and to cease your campaign to promote the ordination of
women.

In March and April of this year, President Wheatley again reminded you of the
counsel given in December. Nonetheless, you proceeded with your protest on
Temple Square during General Conference despite the request of Church leaders
that you not do so.

Her claim only referenced the bishop (not the stake president), but it does seem to be refuted by the bishop having met with her in December. Perhaps she didn't consider that meeting to qualify as "open dialogue."

[Nakoma]

Interesting. Here's what she wrote in her defense letter:



And here's what was in the Bishop's excommunication letter:



Her claim only referenced the bishop (not the stake president), but it does seem to be refuted by the bishop having met with her in December. Perhaps she didn't consider that meeting to qualify as "open dialogue."

The bishop's letter states Kelly went forward with OW despite "a series of meetings and communications" with the SP and bishop regarding disassociation from OW. These series of meetings and communications all preceded May 2014 according to the bishop. Perhaps it is just semantics and quibbling over the definition of "open dialogue," but Kelly's letter makes it sounds as if the SP and bishop were completely unresponsive to her overtures to meet with her whereas the bishop's excommunication letter states there was a least one meeting in December 2013 and follow-up meetings (or communications) in March and April 2014. It's hard to reconcile Kelly's account and the bishop's account.

[SeattleUte]

“In the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality around the world.”

― Nicholas D. Kristof, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide

[YOhio]

“In the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for gender equality around the world.”

― Nicholas D. Kristof, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide

I think LDS women in the first world is exactly what Kristoff had in mind when he wrote that.

[Pheidippides]

Facebook is getting really, really ugly right now. I just watched a brother go nuclear on a cousin.

[FMCoug]

The bishop's letter states Kelly went forward with OW despite "a series of meetings and communications" with the SP and bishop regarding disassociation from OW. These series of meetings and communications all preceded May 2014 according to the bishop. Perhaps it is just semantics and quibbling over the definition of "open dialogue," but Kelly's letter makes it sounds as if the SP and bishop were completely unresponsive to her overtures to meet with her whereas the bishop's excommunication letter states there was a least one meeting in December 2013 and follow-up meetings (or communications) in March and April 2014. It's hard to reconcile Kelly's account and the bishop's account.

I think it's probably a pretty fair assumption that neither side is being totally forthcoming about the events leading up to this.

[TripletDaddy]

SeattleUte is slaying it, as usual. I got a kick out of his claim that if he were Kate Kelly's attorney, he would have her get breast implants.

[Pelado]

The bishop's letter states Kelly went forward with OW despite "a series of meetings and communications" with the SP and bishop regarding disassociation from OW. These series of meetings and communications all preceded May 2014 according to the bishop. Perhaps it is just semantics and quibbling over the definition of "open dialogue," but Kelly's letter makes it sounds as if the SP and bishop were completely unresponsive to her overtures to meet with her whereas the bishop's excommunication letter states there was a least one meeting in December 2013 and follow-up meetings (or communications) in March and April 2014. It's hard to reconcile Kelly's account and the bishop's account.

Not to get too technical, but I believe both Kate and her bishop are attorneys. I didn't see her claim anything about limited contact from the stake president, only that the bishop had not taken up her request for "open dialogue" (whether or not the December meeting qualifies as open dialogue). I can definitely see your point that she intends for those not privy to the situation to infer that contact from her stake president was just as limited, though it appears he met with her several times.

I think it's probably a pretty fair assumption that neither side is being totally forthcoming about the events leading up to this.

Yip.

[Pelado]

SeattleUte is slaying it, as usual. I got a kick out of his claim that if he were Kate Kelly's attorney, he would have her get breast implants.

Was that only as her attorney?

[Nakoma]

Not to get too technical, but I believe both Kate and her bishop are attorneys. I didn't see her claim anything about limited contact from the stake president, only that the bishop had not taken up her request for "open dialogue" (whether or not the December meeting qualifies as open dialogue). I can definitely see your point that she intends for those not privy to the situation to infer that contact from her stake president was just as limited, though it appears he met with her several times.

This is what Kelly wrote on the OW website about her interaction with her SP and bishop prior to any disciplinary action being taken against her:

I was informed on June 8 that there will be a disciplinary council held in absentia by my former bishopric on June 22 to try me for “apostasy.” I have moved away from the Washington, DC area, and after I left my former Stake President sent me a letter outlining what he called “informal probation” after meeting with me one time, while I was packing to move. The trial will be held in my former ward and I am not able to return.

I was open and honest with my bishop from the day we launched ordainwomen.org on March 17, 2013. I communicated with him each and every time Ordain Women did an action and asked that he come to me if he had any questions. While I was living in his ward, he never once personally called me in to meet with him. Nor did he email or call me with any questions regarding Ordain Women. Three weeks after I had moved out of his ward, he sent me this letter. Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike.

http://ordainwomen.org/excommunication/

The Daily Beast quoted her as stating the following:

“I was shocked,” she told The Daily Beast. “While I was in that congregation that bishop never called me or took me aside. He never asked me a single question in person about my beliefs. I said goodbye. I gave him a hug. He said ‘good luck in your move.’”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...oo-courts.html

I'm sure attorneys can parse the language of Kelly's posting and representation to the Daily Beast, but she leaves the average reader with the impression she only met once with the SP shortly before her move from DC and writes her bishop never personally met with her during the time she was involved in OW activities. Maybe she can claim her December 2013 meeting with the SP and bishop was the result of a request she made. She also writes a narrative that portrays her bishop as completely disengaged regarding OW, never having once called her to meet with him and not having any questions regarding her OW activities. Unless the bishop is lying, there is a series of meetings/communications months prior to May 2014 where counsel was being given by the SP and bishop to disassociate from OW. She rejected that counsel and then claimed she was "shocked" to have a disciplinary council initiated against her. Sorry, but I'm skeptical of her account.