The June 1

[LVAllen]

So what is she claiming the Bishop has lied about in regard to their communications? She's said it multiple times now.

Kelly said that the result of the December meeting was that they agreed to disagree, but she was told emphatically that she was not under threat of discipline for her work with OW. OTOH, the bishop claimed that during that meeting, she was told to disassociate herself from OW. Also, that she was counseled regarding the "doctrine of the priesthood" - this is an important point. The bishop also claimed that the Stake President reminded her of that conversation in March and again in April. She's claiming the stake president didn't talk to her in March and April. So when she was put on probation, it was partially because she "persisted in teaching as doctrine information that is not doctrine after having been counseled regarding the doctrine of the priesthood."

[ERCougar]

Kelly said that the result of the December meeting was that they agreed to disagree, but she was told emphatically that she was not under threat of discipline for her work with OW. OTOH, the bishop claimed that during that meeting, she was told to disassociate herself from OW. Also, that she was counseled regarding the "doctrine of the priesthood" - this is an important point. The bishop also claimed that the Stake President reminded her of that conversation in March and again in April. She's claiming the stake president didn't talk to her in March and April. So when she was put on probation, it was partially because she "persisted in teaching as doctrine information that is not doctrine after having been counseled regarding the doctrine of the priesthood."

And she contemporaneously recorded this December conversation.

My 10% chance that the stake president and bishop are correctly recalling things just dropped to 1%.

[Moliere]

Didn't Kelly initially say that her bishop never talked to her ever before the email sent about the council? That's funny given that her own post from Dec contradicts her initial story. Then she changed her story a bit after the evidence of that meeting was noted. It just makes me wonder if she's just telling half truths in other areas.

I'd also believe the content of her December post over the bishops account, however given the groupthink in OW in also thinking she heard what she wanted to hear during the December meeting.

[Medfordcoug]

So if a bishop gets his excommunication overruled by an higher "court of love" does that mean he has little chance of becoming a SP or something?

Does anyone really want to be a SP?

[Uncle Ted]

Kelly said that the result of the December meeting was that they agreed to disagree, but she was told emphatically that she was not under threat of discipline for her work with OW. OTOH, the bishop claimed that during that meeting, she was told to disassociate herself from OW. Also, that she was counseled regarding the "doctrine of the priesthood" - this is an important point. The bishop also claimed that the Stake President reminded her of that conversation in March and again in April. She's claiming the stake president didn't talk to her in March and April. So when she was put on probation, it was partially because she "persisted in teaching as doctrine information that is not doctrine after having been counseled regarding the doctrine of the priesthood."

What do you expect? She is a lawyer.

Was she teaching so called "doctrine" or history? Of course, the September six were pretty much all excommunicated for teaching history so it may all just depend on one's definition.

She should just let Tom Phillips take over the OW website. Apparently the church can't touch him because he has a "golden ticket".

[ERCougar]

Didn't Kelly initially say that her bishop never talked to her ever before the email sent about the council? That's funny given that her own post from Dec contradicts her initial story. Then she changed her story a bit after the evidence of that meeting was noted. It just makes me wonder if she's just telling half truths in other areas.

I'd also believe the content of her December post over the bishops account, however given the groupthink in OW in also thinking she heard what she wanted to hear during the December meeting.

No, she said they did not respond to repeated invitations to engage in an open dialogue in person. Now, maybe they would be justified in considering that December meeting an open dialogue, but she clearly didn't see it as that. More importantly, however, the claim that they told her to dissociate from OW is almost certainly not true, given the fact that her contemporaneous account almost praises her local leaders and counts herself fortunate. I think the May meeting blindsided her.

[Donuthole]

I'd also believe the content of her December post over the bishops account, however given the groupthink in OW in also thinking she heard what she wanted to hear during the December meeting.

And/or blogged what she whatever she wanted her OW peeps to know/think about the December meeting. Just because it was written soon after the meeting doesn't mean it was an entirely forthcoming blog post. As a litigator, I see this all the time. In fact, I just responded to a letter from opposing counsel who completely misrepresented a phone conversation in his memorializing letter. How did he misrepresent? He failed to mention the quid pro quo which provided the entire basis for my stipulation to anything in the first place.

[Moliere]

And/or blogged what she whatever she wanted her OW peeps to know/think about the December meeting. Just because it was written soon after the meeting doesn't mean it was an entirely forthcoming blog post. As a litigator, I see this all the time. In fact, I just responded to a letter from opposing counsel who completely misrepresented a phone conversation in his memorializing letter. How did he misrepresent? He failed to mention the quid pro quo which provided the entire basis for my stipulation to anything in the first place.

Yep, I've interviewed a lot of people as an auditor and it's clear she's not giving the whole truth with everything, which is completely normal for a human in this situation. The bishop is likely doing the same. I trust neither of them as they both have face to save.

[ERCougar]

Here's the part in question from her post:

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.

Clearly the power dynamic was not balanced, but I came away from the meeting feeling proud and satisfied. While they do not agree with me, I felt I spoke clearly and the discussion was a productive one. My friend Suzette, and my dad also recently met with their leaders. They both discussed their Ordain Women participation with candor and had their temple recommends renewed.

However, the results may not be this positive for every person. We have all known from the start of this movement, reactions from individual local Church leaders are impossible to predict or control. Recently, other members of Ordain Women have had less fruitful interactions with their leaders. In fact, feedback from different leaders has varied widely. Some women, due to geography, personal circumstances or just rotten luck, are at much greater risk than others. It is precisely this element of Russian-roulette-like unpredictability that has led to disparate results in the past and great trepidation today among many of my valiant sisters who dare to speak out.

She calls her results "positive", but warns that people may not be so lucky. She's almost praising her local leaders. Does this sound like someone who was just threatened with church discipline if she didn't cease and desist?

[ERCougar]

Yep, I've interviewed a lot of people as an auditor and it's clear she's not giving the whole truth with everything, which is completely normal for a human in this situation. The bishop is likely doing the same. I trust neither of them as they both have face to save.

The bishop has a lot more face to save here.
Why would she bring up this lack of warning issue in her letter to her bishop? It's only going to piss him off if it's a lie and it's really not central to her cause--I've seen almost no discussion on this outside of this forum.

Here's what I think happened:
December meeting - Bishop and SP decide to meet with her to figure out where she stands vis a vis the Church. They're reassured, they probably express their different opinions regarding the priesthood, maybe even ask her to become less involved in OW. She says she can't do that and asks if she's under threat of discipline. They say no. They agree to disagree on the point.
March/April - limited interaction between bishop and Kate. Maybe a little remark "you're still doing the website thing, huh?" "Yes" "Okay...<shakes head>"
May - training from GA labeling OW an apostate group. They call her in to notify her of impending council. This blindsides her, as it's been casual conversation to this point.
June - letter to Bishop asking why they haven't ever really discussed this? Bishop, under a lot of pressure due to involvement in something he never really chose, selectively remembers December, March, and April meetings.

[Donuthole]

Here's the part in question from her post:


She calls her results "positive", but warns that people may not be so lucky. She's almost praising her local leaders. Does this sound like someone who was just threatened with church discipline if she didn't cease and desist?

It sounds like someone who is smart enough to lay some foundation for whatever happens later on.

[ERCougar]

It sounds like someone who is smart enough to lay some foundation for whatever happens later on.

Wrong!
71 says she's not smart.
Next idea?

(Honestly, I think that's a stretch. That's foreseeing a lot.)

[Pelado]

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

But she seems to deny the Bishop's involvement prior to his delivering notice of her disciplinary council 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.

Given her contemporaneous record of the alleged December meeting with her bishop and stake president:

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

the claim in the defense letter appears blatantly and demonstrably untrue.

[CJF]

Wrong!
71 says she's not smart.
Next idea?

(Honestly, I think that's a stretch. That's foreseeing a lot.)

lol. She knew from the very beginning she was eventually going to be confronted with some form of potential Church discipline. She also knew she would be able to fight her case in the full view of her supporters without being countered by the Church. I don't disagree that your scenario is very possible, and maybe even likely. However believing she wasn't going full speed ahead with her eyes wide open seems naive.

[Donuthole]

Wrong!
71 says she's not smart.
Next idea?

(Honestly, I think that's a stretch. That's foreseeing a lot.)

lol. She knew from the very beginning she was eventually going to be confronted with some form of potential Church discipline. She also knew she would be able to fight her case in the full view of her supporters without being countered by the Church. I don't disagree that your scenario is very possible, and maybe even likely. However believing she wasn't going full speed ahead with her eyes wide open seems naive.

Right. It's a win-win for her. If nothing ever happens, great. If something happens--and by her own story, she was expressing some concern about a HQ-mandated crack down on OW at the December meeting with her bishop--she can later claim she was blindsided.