The June 1

[creekster]

Can't even keep up with this. When you guys get this sorted out can someone give me an executive summary? TIA.

I can do that right now.

--kelly was ex'd
--there are strong feelings on both sides
--arguments can be made that each side is being disingenuous or dissembling.
--regardless, she remains ex'd.

[myboynoah]

I can do that right now.

--kelly was ex'd
--there are strong feelings on both sides
--arguments can be made that each side is being disingenuous or dissembling.
--regardless, she remains ex'd.

No, no, no. That's not good enough. We need a chart noting dates and times of meetings, whether or not refreshments were served, if prayers were offered and by whom, categorizing all post-meeting blog entries or podcast interviews (and summaries of the same), the weather at the time of the meetings, and finally, whether or not any meeting participants' shoulders were bare.

Note on bare shoulders: a bare shoulder will result in great discomfort when put to the wheel.

[CardiacCoug]

When Kate says:

Today is a tragic day for my family and me as we process the many ways this will impact us, both in this life and in the eternities.

I can't decide if this is just a way to manipulate people and garner sympathy or if she truly believes that her eternal salvation and eternal togetherness as a family are in jeopardy.

I go back and forth alternatively either thinking that Kate did a great job bringing some attention to this issue of sexism in the Church or that she screwed up by coming on way too strong, not understanding what would work for her Mormon audience.

[Pelado]

I'm with ERCougar on this. I initially believed the Bishop's letter was particularly troublesome for Kelley's claims. But then I read her December blog post, and I think the pendulum's swung the other way. It's persuasive that her blog post was made in December, right after the meeting. She certainly did not seem to come away from the meeting feeling she'd been instructed to disassociate from Ordain Women. Does anyone really believe she just completely lied back in December to set herself up for potential excommunication? Why is the Bishop not being questioned by the same people questioning Kelley on this? I think his characterization of the meeting is completely different from hers. It's honestly pretty self-serving, and clearly made without knowledge that Kelley has publicly posted her thoughts contemporaneously.

I think in order to discount Kelley's contemporaneous post, and accept at face value the Bishop's letter, it has to be based on an assumption that the Bishop is telling the truth. Therefore, Kelley's contemporaneous blog post is not truthful. Take this out of the religious context and put it in the middle of a normal civil dispute, and that blog post is a huge mark in favor of Kelley's credibility, and against the Bishop's.



The explanation of the meeting by the Bishop just smacks of an after-the-fact attempt to spin the result of a meeting in your favor. If they truly tried to dissuade her of her involvement, how could she really have come out of the meeting feeling discipline is out of the question, and feeling positive about it.

Had her blog post been made after excommunication was on the table, it would have completely lost credibility. But a contemporaneous description of the meeting has some measure of credibility.



Wasn't the December meeting at the Bishop or Stake President's request? Looking at her letter, this is what she actually said: "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." The December meeting doesn't make that statement false. It appears she made several attempts over the course of a year. Finally in December she had that one meeting with the Bishop and Stake President in which she noted the imbalance in power, with her main takeaways being she wasn't under threat of discipline, and that there wasn't a concerted crackdown on OrdainWomen.org.

A single meeting with the takeaway being she's not being targeted for discipline doesn't really strike me as an open and honest dialogue. They seemed to just agree to disagree. Had there been other meetings, it could have been part of a continuing open dialogue, but I get the impression from her letter that multiple emails went ignored. I don't see evidence of a continuing open dialogue. Her letter doesn't seem to me to be disingenuous on that point.

I guess I take

you never bothered to respond or follow-up

to mean that the bishop never engaged in open dialogue with her even once. I don't read into that a need for consistent, repeated, or on-going open dialogue. One instance of open dialogue would be enough to disprove the statement. Her contemporaneous description of the meeting being a productive discussion (in spite of the perceived imbalance of power) leads me to believe that a reasonable person would include at least that meeting under the umbrella of open dialogue.

As in my earlier post, she should not have said he never responded to her. At best, it's ambiguous. At worst, it's a lie. I think her case would have been strengthened both in the disciplinary hearing as well as the court of public opinion had she related her recollection of the December meeting ("you said you wouldn't ex me over this; what has changed?") in her defense letter instead of making the apparent claim that she'd never met with her bishop over the matter.

[UVACoug]

By vindicated, I mean none of our grandchildren will look on this excommunication as a good decision.

I highly doubt any of our grandchildren will know a thing about it.

[CardiacCoug]

As in my earlier post, she should not have said he never responded to her. At best, it's ambiguous. At worst, it's a lie. I think her case would have been strengthened both in the disciplinary hearing as well as the court of public opinion had she related her recollection of the December meeting ("you said you wouldn't ex me over this; what has changed?") in her defense letter instead of making the apparent claim that she'd never met with her bishop over the matter.

Yeah I gotta agree it seems very dishonest to me too. I think this is one of those tricks that lawyers learn in school -- sure she met with the Bishop and SP but there was never an "open dialogue."

[creekster]

Yeah I gotta agree it seems very dishonest to me too. I think this is one of those tricks that lawyers learn in school -- sure she met with the Bishop and SP but there was never an "open dialogue."

But her brief was BRILLIANT!

That is the sort of trick that bad or inexperienced lawyers try to employ. Doing so quickly undercuts your credibility, however, and if you have half the sense god gave a rock you will stop pulling that crap.

[myboynoah]

When Kate says:

I can't decide if this is just a way to manipulate people and garner sympathy or if she truly believes that her eternal salvation and eternal togetherness as a family are in jeopardy.

I go back and forth alternatively either thinking that Kate did a great job bringing some attention to this issue of sexism in the Church or that she screwed up by coming on way too strong, not understanding what would work for her Mormon audience.

If her target audience was mainstream Mormons, then I think she didn't understand that audience or she might have tried to change course when she saw that the message wasn't getting the traction it would need with that target audience. She is the face of OW, but not likely the full brain trust behind the movement. I wouldn't think she was making all the OW decisions on her own. She says everyone but her expected her to get exed. I wonder if they counseled her to disassociate to save her membership? Creating a public martyr can provide a nice win for the OW movement, but with whom? Certainly not mainstream Mormons.

[Pelado]

But her brief was BRILLIANT!

That is the sort of trick that bad or inexperienced lawyers try to employ. Doing so quickly undercuts your credibility, however, and if you have half the sense god gave a rock you will stop pulling that crap.

The statement at issue was in her defense letter, not the brief. The brief could still be considered BRILLIANT by erudite Northwest attorneys in spite of the problems with the defense letter.

[creekster]

The statement at issue was in her defense letter, not the brief. The brief could still be considered BRILLIANT by erudite Northwest attorneys in spite of the problems with the defense letter.

I defer to your expertise. But in the face of such brilliance does it really matter?

[Pelado]

I defer to your expertise. But in the face of such brilliance does it really matter?

I appreciate your deference. What were we talking about?

[FMCoug]

I think it's a great idea to use a racist figure of speech in the title of an article defending the Church's stance on women.

http://johnadamscenter.com/2014/06/o...spade-a-spade/

[SeattleUte]

I guess I take



to mean that the bishop never engaged in open dialogue with her even once. I don't read into that a need for consistent, repeated, or on-going open dialogue. One instance of open dialogue would be enough to disprove the statement. Her contemporaneous description of the meeting being a productive discussion (in spite of the perceived imbalance of power) leads me to believe that a reasonable person would include at least that meeting under the umbrella of open dialogue.

As in my earlier post, she should not have said he never responded to her. At best, it's ambiguous. At worst, it's a lie. I think her case would have been strengthened both in the disciplinary hearing as well as the court of public opinion had she related her recollection of the December meeting ("you said you wouldn't ex me over this; what has changed?") in her defense letter instead of making the apparent claim that she'd never met with her bishop over the matter.

I think there was another gunman on the grassy knoll.

[Green Monstah]

I think it's a great idea to use a racist figure of speech in the title of an article defending the Church's stance on women.

http://johnadamscenter.com/2014/06/o...spade-a-spade/

I had no idea that was a racist term.

[Pelado]

I think it's a great idea to use a racist figure of speech in the title of an article defending the Church's stance on women.

http://johnadamscenter.com/2014/06/o...spade-a-spade/

I had no idea that was a racist term.

Me either. I do find some humor in the fact that the article in question was written by a women for an organization led entirely by men.

http://johnadamscenter.com/board-of-advisors/