Letter from the Office of the First Presidency

[Bini]

Out of curiosity I visited OWE, and despite their preface claiming to expose the false teachings of Ordain Women, I feel it is a page dedicated to slamming Kate Kelly and belittling her supporters. There are plenty of people that don't agree with Kate Kelly and Ordain Women, my parents and most of my family feel this way, but none of them are feeding into this vicious cycle of belittlement. I think the OWE page harbours a lot of hate.

[Suzie]

Out of curiosity I visited OWE, and despite their preface claiming to expose the false teachings of Ordain Women, I feel it is a page dedicated to slamming Kate Kelly and belittling her supporters. There are plenty of people that don't agree with Kate Kelly and Ordain Women, my parents and most of my family feel this way, but none of them are feeding into this vicious cycle of belittlement. I think the OWE page harbours a lot of hate.

 

They do. They deleted all my messages and blocked me after I kindly requested them to remove the page out of respect for Kate and her family. And they told me the page can be whatever they want it to be. I replied by saying that one thing is to disagree with OW and their views, another is cyber bullying Kate Kelly. Criticizing her every move, the way she dresses, the way she talks, calling her a bold liar, an idiot and that she will burn in hell isn't "exposing" the OW movement, it is bullying.

[The Folk Prophet]

They do. They deleted all my messages and blocked me after I kindly requested them to remove the page out of respect for Kate and her family. And they told me the page can be whatever they want it to be. I replied by saying that one thing is to disagree with OW and their views, another is cyber bullying Kate Kelly. Criticizing her every move, the way she dresses, the way she talks, calling her a bold liar, an idiot and that she will burn in hell isn't "exposing" the OW movement, it is bullying.

 

Agreed. I guess you must have been "CMC" that they're talking about. I know we've had our differences but I agree with you here. Their method is not the way. To be fair, the "idiot" comments and making fun is more the posters, which anyone can be, but if they're going to censor you and not censor the "what an idiot" comments, it pretty clearly shows what they're supporting.

 

You and I don't agree on the OW issues. But Kate Kelly is a child of God and deserves our love and compassion, not belittlement and hate.

[Suzie]

Agreed. I guess you must have been "CMC" that they're talking about. I know we've had our differences but I agree with you here. Their method is not the way. To be fair, the "idiot" comments and making fun is more the posters, which anyone can be, but if they're going to censor you and not censor the "what an idiot" comments, it pretty clearly shows what they're supporting.

 

You and I don't agree on the OW issues. But Kate Kelly is a child of God and deserves our love and compassion, not belittlement and hate.

 

Yes, I used an anonymous profile. I thought of that too but the administrator "likes" the comments which means he/she supports such behavior and encourages it. And by the way, I did not call anyone any names. I simply asked questions, quoted one scripture and I asked kindly if out of respect they could remove the page, then they proceed to delete all my comments, blocked me and now criticizing me for asking them to do that. I am sure they think I am part of OW or something, they are so wrong in their assumption.

 

As someone who enjoys debating, I don't have a problem with someone making a blog and going point by point and debate and refute OW. But that's not what has been happening. They are cyber-bullying her.

[MarginOfError]

Does "temporal" organization include Goverment? ...because you always struck me as a huge fan. 

I am a huge fan of government.  I'm a huge fan of roads and schools and police departments and militaries.  I'm a huge fan of the Church too.  That doesn't mean that they don't often times suck.  They're run by people.  Suckiness is something I expect.

 

So what, exactly, was your point?

[Just_A_Guy]

Something similar to what they did with Steve Benson and the interview he had with two Apostles. He went with a list of all his questions and two apostles sat down with him and went through them. Granted, he chose differently but I believe he was given a good chance. I suppose because he was the grandson of Benson himself, he had that golden opportunity.

 

On the other hand, it didn't really change Benson's mind or reconcile him to the Church . . . also, as I recall, Benson's concerns included the alleged "propping up" of his infirm grandfather by the rest of the apostles for public display; so it wasn't really a policy disagreement so much as it was a personal/family issue that happened to involve the highest echelons of the Church authorities.

 

And if such a discussion were to happen re women's ordination:  why must it take place with the leadership of OW rather than with--say--the General Relief Society Presidency?

 

 

Criticizing [Kelly's] every move, the way she dresses, the way she talks, calling her a bold liar, an idiot and that she will burn in hell isn't "exposing" the OW movement, it is bullying.

 

Boy, I've got to tread softly here.  I think (hope!) I've been pretty clear with my disapproval of the tone OWE is striking.  Outright name-calling is the province of the witless.  (Irony alert!)  However . . .

 

I do not think that Kate Kelly's individual conduct, or beliefs, are completely off-limits in this discussion.  To the degree that Kelly has misrepresented historical facts, misled her following as to her current Church disciplinary status, or withheld pertinent information about her disciplinary process--she should be called out on that; and openly so.  If she's going to claim that her bishop had no just cause to excommunicate her, then she's inviting a very close scrutiny of her personal conduct.  If she's going to claim that due to a unique revelation she has more insight into the mind of God than the First Presidency and the Q12 do, then she'd better be ready to demonstrate that her righteousness is on a par with theirs.

[onethatislazy]

Suzie I agree. We are told to use persuasion, long-suffering, etc..
 
I have seen way to much of it to think otherwise with close friends. 

 

If she's going to claim that due to a unique revelation she has more insight into the mind of God than the First Presidency and the Q12 do, then she'd better be ready to demonstrate that her righteousness is on a par with theirs.

Sorry but church office means nothing about ones spiritual state. The qualification is the same to receive the manifestations of the spirit. This LDS belief I believe is very dangerous.

 

• God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them...
  • Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 150-151

 

 

 

"There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own, say they, to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem....Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them, They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course." - (Brigham Young, JD 1:312, Salt Lake Tabernacle on February 20, 1853,)

[Str8Shooter]

I've got to speak my peace on this matter, particularly to those who are members of the Church and are sympathetic to the cause of Ordain Women.

 

Please, be careful.  I am not here to tell you how to think.  I am not any kind of authority figure to anyone here.  I am simply a fellow saint that cares and knows where this road often ends.  

 

Ordain Women and Kate Kelly are apostate.  I have read a small amount of Kate Kelly's writings, and from the small amount I have read it is exactly what the adversary uses to lead people astray.  It is true scripture and carefully placed half-truths mixed with the philosophies of a fallen world.  It is some of the best "anti" I have ever seen.  

 

Just yesterday, Ordain Women issued a statement that said, "We sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles..."(1), yet their website still says that "God is male and female..."(2), and that "Mormon women must be ordained."(3)  Clearly this is repudiating the Brethren, not sustaining them.  It also demonstrates hypocrisy and heresy.

 

Satan is very, very smart.  He sets traps then waits.  He manipulates well-intentioned people with cunning and sophistry to do that which is contrary to the will of God.  He knows that the journey of 1000 miles starts with one step and he wants that first step really bad.  One of my best friends probably going to be facing excommunication, and it breaks my heart.  This person went from stalwart to apostate in just a few short years, and it can happen to any one of us if we're not careful.

 

Jeffery R. Holland said, "It is imperative to note that this mist of darkness descends on all the travelers—the faithful and the determined ones (the elect, we might even say) as well as the weaker and ungrounded ones."(4) 

The mists of darkness obscure and blind everyone and that's why it is so important to stick with the doctrine and listen to the Prophet.  For those that are struggling with the topic of women and priesthood, please hold to the iron rod.

 

-Str8shooter

 

 

 

(1)-  OW blog, 29 June 2014

(2)-  OW mission statement

(3)-  OW FAQ, 4th Question, 5th para.

(4)-  "Safety for the Soul", Jeffrey R Holland, Oct 2009 

[Just_A_Guy]

Sorry but church office means nothing about ones spiritual state. The qualification is the same to receive the manifestations of the spirit. This LDS belief I believe is very dangerous.

 

Of course Church office isn't a direct indicator of spiritual state.  However, church office is a direct indicator of whether one is authorized to disseminate the revelations one claims to have had.  And, more to the point of this discussion--spiritual state is a direct indicator of whether or not a purported "revelation" is likely to be a true one.

 

The Brigham Young quote you cite is geared towards Church members who won't bother to seek their own revelation.  I know that OW dearly, desperately wants to believe that assertion to be true of the entire orthodox wing of the Church--but frankly, they're basing that smear on nothing more than the fact that the orthodox Church (including its divinely appointed leadership) disagrees with them.  Whatever happened to "reasonable people can disagree"?

 

 

God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them...

• Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 150-151

 

There's a difference between saying we can know what the 1st Pres/Q12 know, versus saying we can know more than them (and are authorized to teach that additional purported knowledge).

[The Folk Prophet]

And . . . here we go again.  Mormons who don't support OW are unquestioning sheeple.

 

It's quite the logical fallacy, isn't it? Those who follow blindly are "sheeple" (as you so eloquently put it) = All who follow must be blind. It doesn't quite equate, does it?

[Just_A_Guy]

It's quite the logical fallacy, isn't it? Those who follow blindly are "sheeple" (as you so eloquently put it) = All who follow must be blind. It doesn't quite equate, does it?

 

Oi, vey.  I didn't realize I'd actually posted the earlier draft (which I thereafter toned down and removed the "sheeple" reference).

 

But, yes.  I'm afraid the veil is really starting to come off of the condescension/borderline contempt that OW holds for Mormons who support the status quo.

[mordorbund]

 

Suzie I agree. We are told to use persuasion, long-suffering, etc..

 

I have seen way to much of it to think otherwise with close friends. 

 

Sorry but church office means nothing about ones spiritual state. The qualification is the same to receive the manifestations of the spirit. This LDS belief I believe is very dangerous.

 

• God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them...
  • Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 150-151

 

 

Oh, it means something with respect to stewardship. I think we would do well to follow the example of Lorenzo Snow:

 

 

EARLY in the spring of 1840 I was appointed to a mission in England and I started on or about the twentieth of May. I here record a circumstance which occurred a short time previous one which has been riveted on my memory never to be erased so extraordinary was the manifestation. At the time I was at the house of Elder HG Sherwood he was endeavoring to explain the parable of our Savior when speaking of the husbandman who hired servants and sent them forth at different hours of the day to labor in his vineyard.

 

While attentively listening to his explanation the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me the eyes of my understanding were opened and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday with wonder and astonishment the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation as it was shown me and explains Father Smith's dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple prior to my baptism as previously mentioned in my first interview with the Patriarch.

 

As man now is God once was:

As God now is man may be.

 

I felt this to be a sacred communication which I related to no one except my sister Eliza until I reached England when in a confidential private conversation with President Brigham Young in Manchester I related to him this extraordinary manifestation.  (Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 46–47; “Glory Awaiting the Saints,” Deseret Semi-Weekly News, Oct. 30, 1894, 1.)

 

Elder Snow received a revelation that wasn't known to the saints at large. So he sat on it until it was revealed through the proper channels a few years later.

 

 

I did not know but that I had come into possession of knowledge that I had no business with; but I knew it was true. Nothing of this kind had ever reached my ears before. It was preached a few years after that; at least, the Prophet Joseph taught this idea to the twelve apostles. Now, however, it is common property.

[Maureen]

...I do not think that Kate Kelly's individual conduct, or beliefs, are completely off-limits in this discussion.  To the degree that Kelly has misrepresented historical facts, misled her following as to her current Church disciplinary status, or withheld pertinent information about her disciplinary process--she should be called out on that; and openly so.  If she's going to claim that her bishop had no just cause to excommunicate her, then she's inviting a very close scrutiny of her personal conduct.  If she's going to claim that due to a unique revelation she has more insight into the mind of God than the First Presidency and the Q12 do, then she'd better be ready to demonstrate that her righteousness is on a par with theirs.

 

There are two sides to every story:

 

Kate Kelly wrote on FMH on December 30, 2013:

 

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.

 

Her Excommunication letter from her Bishop said:

 

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.

 

Kate Kelly denies that the March and April reminder by President Wheatley ever happened; and why should she not. If her recollection of the meeting that she wrote down 2 weeks after it happened is correct and there was no counsel to dissociate herself from Ordain Women, why would she need to be reminded of something that never happened.

 

So either Kate Kelly or her former Bishop is lying. From everything that has transpired in such a short span of time, I'm giving Kate Kelly the benefit of the doubt. I believe her story and am suspicious of her former Bishop and SP.

 

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Maureen, you seem to be basing your conclusion on a vary shaky foundation given how utterly inappropriate it would have been for Kelly's leaders to go public with the content of that December meeting in December or, indeed, at any time prior to Kelly's actual excommunication.  It does appear, from the notice of probation, that there were concerns about Kelly misrepresenting her conversations with priesthood authorities, certainly as early as that May 22 letter and very likely at least as early as her meeting with her stake president on May 5.

 

Moreover, Kelly's and her leaders' versions of the December meeting (as you recite them here) are not explicitly contradictory.  Kelly concedes, in her FMH post, that the meeting was held at her leaders' request.  She further concedes that her leaders "do not agree with me" in the immediate aftermath of that meeting. 

 

Now, they are implicitly contradictory in that Kelly suggested that her leaders had essentially green-lit her activities whereas her leaders maintain that they actually encouraged her to desist.  But to accept Kelly's version of events (and her analysis of their meaning) is to believe that a Mormon bishop and stake president would time out of their personal schedules and call a random Church member in for a discussion with the two of them, together (I have never had this happen to me, and have never heard of it happening to anyone else) merely to say "we don't agree with what you're doing--but by all means, keep on doing it and we promise you'll never, ever be disciplined for it no matter what you might do hereafter in furtherance of your goals!"  A non-Mormon who believes that bishops and stake presidents are inherently a group of vacillating ogres might buy into that notion; but It's an idea that is completely foreign to most of our experiences as Mormons. 

 

And even more bizarre is the suggestion that Kelly's stake leadership--whom she has acknowledged disagreeing with her--would seek a meeting with her in December of 2013, when not a lot was happening with OW; but would not seek another meeting with her in March or April of 2013 right when Conference time was approaching, the Church had publicly asked OW to desist, and things generally were really heating up. 

 

Now, we Mormons are happy to believe rather unlikely fact scenarios (God appearing to a fourteen-year-old farm boy.  Really!)--if the Holy Spirit confirms to us that we should.  But that hasn't happened; and in its absence, I'm going to stick with the old "out of the mouths of two or three witnesses" routine.

[The Folk Prophet]

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..

 

Let's presume this is true. So what? They can't later say, "After consideration we've changed our mind and we need you to comply now or stand in jeopardy"?

 

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.

 

Could this not also have changed. How long would it take for an area authority to notify a bishop or stake president that they needed to take action? Months? We're talking a phone call here. If the church decided to "crack down" on OW, then a phone call and, boom. Bob's yer uncle.

 

So either Kate Kelly or her former Bishop is lying. From everything that has transpired in such a short span of time, I'm giving Kate Kelly the benefit of the doubt. I believe her story and am suspicious of her former Bishop and SP.

 

Just like that, huh? Okay.

 

Well, let's say this is true as well. The Bishop is lying. That may play into the bishop's salvation. It doesn't play into the excommunication. The compliance rules were clearly set. She did not comply. Whether her bishop warned her previously or not isn't really important. She was asked to make changes that she refused to change, and that is what set her excommunication. Bringing up discussions (or lack thereof) prior to that are diversionary arguments.

 

Anyone who intentionally skips their hearing is pretty much going to lose their membership. A disciplinary court is held to judge humility and willingness to change and obey. Not showing up (in this case by Skype or phone -- both entirely reasonable means) pretty clearly answers that. She showed herself rebellious.

[Maureen]

JAG, this whole excommunication has been discussed on a variety of Mormon-related forums. From reading this forum and others, here is what I have come to understand.

 

Kate Kelly (KK) met with her Bishop and SP at their request in Dec. 2013. They discussed her involvement with OW and she came away from the meeting with the idea that her leaders and herself have agreed to disagree. No requests for her to stop her involvement, nothing to suggest that her leaders were seeing her involvement as sinful.

 

Fast forward to May 2014 after the April GC. KK meets with her SP and one of his counsellors and her SP puts her on informal probation. Per the CHI, the Bishop has jurisdiction with informal probation, so why was her SP involved instead of her Bishop? Per the CHI, no official record is made or kept of informal probation. So why did the SP send KK a letter (dated May 22nd) about her informal probation if no written record is required?

 

Shortly after this meeting (I believe May 9th) KK moves to Utah.

 

Around May 17th, two GAs (Elders Ballard and Clayton) visit KK's old stake in Virginia and hold a training meeting with local leaders. It is said that Elder Clayton said that female ordination is against church doctrine, therefore advocating female ordination is an act of apostasy. Could this meeting be why KK's former SP sent her the letter dated May 22nd about her informal probation? Is this why KK was notified in early June 2014 that there was to be a hearing before a disciplinary council regarding her OW activities?

 

The LDS church's PR dept. said that decisions made to discipline a member is decided by the local leaders and not coordinated by higher leaders. Did these GAs influence KK's former local leaders to finally crack down on her activities? And by this time she had already moved to Utah.

 

Because of all of this, I can't help but think the LDS church is not being totally honest.

 

M.

[Maureen]

I would also like to recommend, since I can't link the blog to this site, a blog on Rational Faiths, titled Did Kate Kelly's Local Leaders Follow the Handbook? It is very informative.

 

M.

[Palerider]

I will just comment on my experience of church courts. I do not think or believe the church has totally released or quoted what was said or what took place in that Church Court. I also don't think the press will ever get their hands on the content or records of that court. All I see taking place everyone has a opinion.

[Just_A_Guy]

Kate Kelly (KK) met with her Bishop and SP at their request in Dec. 2013. They discussed her involvement with OW and she came away from the meeting with the idea that her leaders and herself have agreed to disagree. No requests for her to stop her involvement, nothing to suggest that her leaders were seeing her involvement as sinful.

 

Her leaders apparently "came away" with a very different idea.  And as I mentioned in my prior post--your view that there were "no requests for her to stop her involvement, nothing to suggest that her leaders were seeing her involvement as sinful" strains the credulity of practicing Mormons who are going to ask why the flip a bishop and a stake president are going to bother convening a joint meeting with a church member whose activities they disagree with, if they aren't going to ask that member to actually stop those activities.

 

 

Fast forward to May 2014 after the April GC. KK meets with her SP and one of his counsellors and her SP puts her on informal probation. Per the CHI, the Bishop has jurisdiction with informal probation, so why was her SP involved instead of her Bishop?

 

Not quite.  The CHI does not say that certain forms of probation are the sole province of certain types of local leaders.  Rather, at section 6.2.1, the CHI (book 1) states that "The Stake President has authority over Church discipline in the stake.  However, Bishops normally [emphasis added] administer Church discipline unless evidence indicates that a man who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood is likely to be excommunicated." 

 

Even if you accept the CHI as a legal code (which I don't--see below), there is no hard-and-fast rule giving the bishop exclusive jurisdiction over non-MP-holding members or otherwise pre-empting the Stake President's prerogatives.

 

 

Per the CHI, no official record is made or kept of informal probation. So why did the SP send KK a letter (dated May 22nd) about her informal probation if no written record is required?

 

Not quite.  CHI 6.8: 

 

"A bishop normally [emphasis added] does not inform anyone of a decision to place a member on informal probation.  No official record is made of such decisions, but the bishop may make private notes for his own use. . . .

 

When a member on informal probation makes specified progress and meets prescribed conditions, the presiding officer may end the probation.  If the member does not make this progress and meet the conditions, additional disciplinary action may be needed." 

 

The doublespeak in Kelly's apologists with regard to this argument is almost staggering.  If her leaders had failed to keep a record of what expectations were placed on Kelly as terms of her probation--or failed to provide her with a written copy of those expectations--and then proceeded to discipline her for failing to observe those terms; there would have been accusations of lack of due process.  But such a notification was provided to her, and now you're objecting because her leaders actually providing a written notification on Church letterhead was an "official record" in contravention of the CHI?

 

Really, Maureen? 

 

Really?

 

Around May 17th, two GAs (Elders Ballard and Clayton) visit KK's old stake in Virginia and hold a training meeting with local leaders. It is said that Elder Clayton said that female ordination is against church doctrine, therefore advocating female ordination is an act of apostasy. Could this meeting be why KK's former SP sent her the letter dated May 22nd about her informal probation? Is this why KK was notified in early June 2014 that there was to be a hearing before a disciplinary council regarding her OW activities?

 

The LDS church's PR dept. said that decisions made to discipline a member is decided by the local leaders and not coordinated by higher leaders. Did these GAs influence KK's former local leaders to finally crack down on her activities? And by this time she had already moved to Utah.

 

Because of all of this, I can't help but think the LDS church is not being totally honest.

 

M.

 

Well, let's be thorough.  "It is said" that the statement attributed to Clayton, was a response to a question from an unnamed local leader.

 

It is another testament to Kelly's and her apologists' gift for half-truth and misdirection, that a bishop's asking (in the midst of a Q and A session) "this looks like apostasy to me.  Is it apostasy?  Should I act?" and getting an off-the-cuff "looks like apostasy to me, Bishop", somehow gets transliterated into "Bishop, I'm here all the way from Salt Lake and I'm telling you to take this woman out" (or even a "will no one rid me of this turbulent feminist?!").

 

And at any rate, to my knowledge Kelly has not denied a) that she was already on probation before that training meeting ever happened and before she left Virginia, b ) that the May 22 letter accurately summed up the terms of her probation, or c) she did not comply with those terms. 

 

I would also like to recommend, since I can't link the blog to this site, a blog on Rational Faiths, titled Did Kate Kelly's Local Leaders Follow the Handbook? It is very informative.

 

M.

 

The CHI is not a legal code, and I can't find any evidence that it was never intended to be one.  As I recently observed earlier in this thread:

 

 

[C]onformance with some sort of legal code doesn't immunize one from excommunication.  Nor, IMHO, should it.  If the Holy Ghost tells a bishop or stake president that a Church member's heart is not right before the Lord, I don't think that bishop/stake president's hands should be tied in perpetuity while the member keeps the council bogged down in legal procedures.  There should be fair play and adequate notice; sure.  But this business of Kate Kelly acting like she has absolutely no idea why she was excommunicated is just silly.  Babylon may buy it, and the sympathetic LDS intelligentsia may split hairs over it; but to most rank-and-file Mormons it's pretty clear cut:  she demanded something that the Church leadership said the Lord was unwilling to give, and she wouldn't take "no" for an answer and tried to shame the leadership into giving her what she wanted anyways.

[Maureen]

JAG, I'm not sure what you mean by "Kelly's apologist" but just to be sure; my understanding of what has transpired is based on information I have read on other forums. The only things I've read from Kate Kelly is her FMH blog and her denial of the March/April reminders.

 

Regarding disciplinary actions - I think there are different levels of discipline so that due process is followed. Informal probation is just that, informal. It does not require a disciplinary council for it to be determined. Informal probation is between the Bishop and the member. Any other level of discipline; probation, disfellowship or excommunication requires a council.

 

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Regarding disciplinary actions - I think there are different levels of discipline so that due process is followed. Informal probation is just that, informal. It does not require a disciplinary council for it to be determined.

 

I'm confused by this tangent.  Kelly's informal probation was not the result of a formal council.

 

But, tell me, Maureen:  is it your position that Kelly should not have been given written notice of the terms of her informal probation, and that it nevertheless would have been proper thereafter to excommunicate her for violating those terms?

 

Informal probation is between the Bishop and the member.

 

I have already cited the Church Handbook of Instructions to disprove this assertion.  The bishop's jurisdiction over informal probation is concurrent with that of the stake president.

[Suzie]

Two little comments before going to rest, tomorrow I will reply to other points:

 

1. Due to the fact that OW became so popular online and they are all over the media, Is it really that impossible to imagine that a few phone calls were made from Church headquarters to Kelly's bishop as well as John's to deal with this issue?

 

2. Why put her through an informal probation and yet impose the same restrictions as someone who has been disfellowshipped?

[Just_A_Guy]

Two little comments before going to rest, tomorrow I will reply to other points:

 

1. Due to the fact that OW became so popular online and they are all over the media, Is it really that impossible to imagine that a few phone calls were made from Church headquarters to Kelly's bishop as well as John's to deal with this issue?

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that the Strengthening the Church Membership Committee had forwarded dossiers on Kelly and Dehlin to their respective local leaders, as the Church has already said (in general) that the SCMC does.  Nor would I be surprised to hear that Kelly's or Dehlin's leaders had asked SLC for further guidance--I doubt Kelly's leaders relished the idea of wandering into this cesspool; and Dehlin has openly boasted that he has friends in high places (Q12) who were responsible for getting Dan Peterson shunted out of FARMS after Peterson was about to approve an article critical of Dehlin.

 

But when the Church says that "Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters":  I believe them; and I don't think the above types of activities contradict the Church's explanations of how the disciplinary process operates. 

 

 

2. Why put her through an informal probation and yet impose the same restrictions as someone who has been disfellowshipped?

 

You mean, about not praying, speaking in church, etc? 

 

Suzie, I've been on informal probation and had those exact same restrictions, with one exception--I was permitted to keep functioning in my calling.  But I was on probation for pornography use, not for allegedly teaching false doctrine; so that extra restriction makes sense in Kelly's case.

 

There aren't as many hard-and-fast rules about this kind of thing as Kelly's apologists are arguing; and the written rules in very many cases are more precatory than mandatory.  Church discipline generally follows a "Liahona" paradigm, not an "iron rod" paradigm.  That, IMHO, is as it should be--because you can't out-lawyer the Spirit.

[The Folk Prophet]

But when the Church says that "Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters":  I believe them; and I don't think the above types of activities contradict the Church's explanations of how the disciplinary process operates.

 

There is a distinct difference, in my mind, between directing and coordinating excommunications, and generally mandating that action against public apostates be taken. I believe the church means that they do not go directly to a bishop and say, "Excommunicate Kate Kelly!" But that doesn't mean that there was no general expression from headquarters to take these matter into hand, etc... That's only my take, of course. We really don't know.

 

Actually, I wonder about the oft repeated mantra of the church that excommunications are only handled at a local level. By that I mean to say, I wonder why. I'm not sure what would be so wrong about headquarters determining that a public figure needed to be dealt with, as compared to leaving it to the local leaders. Either way, those who are against church discipline are going to throw fits, and either way, those who trust in the church process would equate the discipline to the will of the Lord. I'm not sure there's any diplomatic advantage to the high-ups staying out of it.

[Meerkatarmy]

I'm sorry, but the church leadership has left far more unanswered questions than they have answered.  To me, it feels like they have gone into the business of creating ambiguity.  And I'm frustrated by it.

 

I find it frustrating that they won't engage in the simplest discussions.  They could have taken a lot of wind out of OW movement by stating something as simple as "we do not believe the the word 'ordain' as used in 1838 is equivalent to how we use it in 2014."  There's no arguing with that.  Instead, I feel very much like this is an issue of: "You asked questions, we didn't answer.  You continued to ask: we didn't answer.  You organized like-minded individuals to show a broader desire for answers, and because we're embarrassed by your actions, we're kicking you out of our club and we still won't answer."

 

As I've watched the saga, I've felt like the Church is far more interested in appearances than it is in truth.  It makes me very sad.

This is how I feel. I don't know if women should or shouldn't hold the priesthood but this side steeping the issue like politicians is driving me crazy. If the leadership don't want to address the issue I wish they would just say so; it's like dealing with politicians.

 

My opinion on the priesthood is it is worthless because it is so easily obtained. It's like in school sports teams where every one gets a trophy, accept at least they have to play the sport. The priest hood is given to you if you happen to be born with a penis. That's it, you don't have to do anything other than have a penis and grow up or convert to the church. Yes people say well it comes with responsibilities but so does being a woman in the church.

 

In other churches you have to earn the right to hold a priesthood you have to live by certain standards have an above average knowledge of your reliigion and have people skills to deal with the people in your care. I do not understand why the LDS is different, it makes us and our leadership look like a bit of a joke, 

 

I want my bishop to be the best person for the job not some one who just happens to have a penis.