- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The best advice is to treat the church like Kim Jong Il. They aren’t like Kim Jong Il (maybe more like the politburo, but that’s an archane reference), but treating them that way will keep things in perspective in terms of your power relative to theirs to change their policies. I feel sorrow that John and Kate got the ax, but it wasn’t very surprising. One lesson in life I have learned is never challenge or embarrass any authority figure who has power over you. Messy power struggles and/or losses frequently follow. That lesson applies at school or work, with family, traffic police, and of course ecclesiastical authorities. I believe the story of Martin Luther’s excommunication for challenging Catholic doctrine is instructional. His defense, though it failed to exonerate him, is considered a classic
Quote:Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.
I suspect both John and Kate argued similarly. While the logic may appeal to the StayLDS crowd, and even if it may be sound, it is ineffectual when powerful authorities (including Mormon bishops and stake presidents) feel challenged or embarrassed.
Just to clarify Dash, John has not been excommunicated and as far as we know doesn’t have a council scheduled at this point. I think Hawgrrl is right — you have to look at the church the same way you would look at a powerful organization that has a lot of latitude to discipline their constituents. They don’t bow to pressure, and they don’t tolerate organized dissent. As I also said once before, I think the bloggernacle provides a very good way of influencing the church — but only when it is not organized as a movement — just a place for members to share their disjointed opinions and issues — including faith crises.
The church can sit back, not feel threatened, and can use the information almost like survey data to see themes. I believe that many of the positive changes we’ve seen may have been a result of sites like StayLDS. Here, we don’t see movements to attack the church — the leaders see members and their struggles, and on their own time, and terms, the church leaders make adjustments.
Keep blogging, keep sharing opinions, keep sharing struggles, keep sharing perceptions of church governance, and be patient, and we’ll see change come gradually.
SilentDawning wrote:The actual excommunication letter is posted on the OW site.
It does appear that the local leaders did meet with her a few times before threatening discipline. I also believe the reason they didn’t announce their decision immediately (as I have seen happen at every disciplinary council I’ve been involved in), was possibly because they wanted to explain/validate the decision, and their letter to the SP and maybe Area Presidency.
I had been wondering about the discrepancy between the letter and Kelly’s account of lack of contact with her bishop. In an article and video just up on the SLTrib she disputes the letter and says that they’re lying.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58110298-78/church-kelly-mormon-women.html.csp Now it becomes a matter of who do you believe. For me she is believable and whoever it was that signed the letter isn’t until I see evidence to the contrary. Part of this whole business seems to be a manifestation of the prime directive of any large organization, survival by any means.
Quote:Now it becomes a matter of who do you believe.
I think most people will choose to believe whichever person with whom they identify the most.
I’ve tried hard to be as objectively analytical as I can be, and I have a hard time believing there was a former probation decision without any contact between Kate and the person who would make that decision, but there simply is no way to be sure whose version is accurate – or if there is a semantic difference in their views that actually makes both believe they are telling the truth and the other person is being dishonest.
I know I have seen that SO many times with other people in other situations that it is a distinct possibility.With the two varying accounts, I choose to believe both of them. I can very easily fathom a situation in which leaders, using their Mormon passive aggressive niceness, think they were crystal clear that she was in trouble and needed to stop yet without conveying anything direct enough to be understood, particularly not by someone who wasn’t that familiar with being on the receiving end of that stuff from the church. SD:
Quote:As I also said once before, I think the bloggernacle provides a very good way of influencing the church — but only when it is not organized as a movement — just a place for members to share their disjointed opinions and issues — including faith crises.
I really love this thought, and I suspect you are right. Plus, less pressure. I’m not generally 100% convinced I’m right anyway.
Like Hawkgrrrl I can believe both of them, too. I will point out that both the stake president and bishop have said this has been discussed with her in the past, however – it’s not just the bishop. Of course, that does not discount in any way what Hawkgrrrl said – we can still believe them both. In my experiences as a school administrator I always took the stance that neither involved party was actually telling me the whole truth and that the real truth was somewhere in the middle – it always seemed to work. That doesn’t mean I thought either or both were lying – they were presenting things from their points of view and with whatever self preservation and face saving they needed. Thoughts on the video interview above. I watched it. 1. As others have pointed out, there are discrepancies in the accounts of whether there were repeated meetings prior to the excommunication. Kate says there was one in December and the outcome was no discipline. The excommunication letter says there were four meetings, although its not clear if some of them were merely communications via email, or perhaps phone. Hard to know which is true. The excommunication letter did imply Kate hasn’t been truthful in the past, and therefore, should be truthful in the future, which makes me wonder if she’s telling the truth.
2. When asked what advice she had for people who stay in the church, she said they should stay, but should “Raise Hell”.
3. She did accept the title of martyr, comparing herself to Joseph Smith, and agreeing the excommunication has polarized people, just as they did JS and Jesus Christ even.
4. She also described the whole process and language of the excommunication letter to be typical of language that domestic abusers use when they hurt women. For example, she said abusers tend to say “you brought this on yourself” “you made me do this to you” and comment that the punishment is for the abused person’s own good and its because the abuser loves the person.
5. She felt it was cruel that the council shared the decision via email rather than voice to voice.
My thoughts:
a) that fact that there was very little face to face communication may well be the reason for all the discrepancies in what happened leading up to the disciplinary council. As someone who has led a lot of remote work teams over the years, I don’t understand why no one considered a conference call or phone call with the news, followed by a letter at any stage of the escalation. They did invite video conferencing, and she refused,so perhaps that’s why a conference call never made it to the table. As a veteren of the online world, I have found that people who are steeped in the face to face way of doing things don’t seem to embrace conference calls, when in my world, you can feel the Spirit on them, and get a lot done. Certainly better than written communciation which conveys even less emotion and nuance than voice to voice communication.
b) I felt that was a mistake for Kate to tell the women who stayed in the church to “Raise Hell”. The use of language was wrong in an ecclesiastical context where we talk about matters of heaven and hell regularly. I also think such language would also alienate the people most likely to support her — the Feminist Mormon Housewives group. She might have said “Stay in the church, but keep searching for ways to effect positive change” or something like that.
c) I’m not convinced you can call the abuse (as she calls it) something that is leveled only at women. Men get it too. I’ve seen it.
But I do think it’s time our leaders stopped telling people who are subject to discipline it’s because they “love the person”. The fact that the “Courts of Love” moniker appears to be disappearing supports this idea. It’s far too much like Geoge Orwell’s 1984 where the ministry of truth was rewriting history, the ministry of love was the penal system, etcetera.
Expressions of love DURING punishment send a confusing message and feel evil to me — perhaps with the exception when the person is there because they are truly sad for what they have done, want to change, and the see the penalty/councile as a good thing that will help them. But for someone who doesn’t agree with the council, the charges or the penalty, it’s a strange mix. Similar to extreme movies where you see brutal violence with peaceful classical music playing in the background.
However, increases in love AFTER punishment are consistent with scripture and are more effective for either type of person — the person who does not agree with the council or punishment, and the person who wants/accepts the discipline as just.
d) I think if the church had moved her records to her local Ward, and had given a lesser punishment with the possibility of furhte escalation,it would have made a kinder impression to the world. This was not a private matter, no matter what anyone says. And as far as I know, you can reconvene a council and impose a harsher penalty if you want. There as no need to go this fast.
Lots of mistakes made in how the decision-makers handled this situation, in my view.
I think the points you labeled 2, 3, and 4 really detract from her cause and her case. #2 is the spirit of contention. Your adjustment to the statement is much better… stay in the church, but keep searching (and praying) for ways to effect positive change. Short, simple, and you aren’t even saying what “positive change” means, it’s left up to interpretation which is a softer message.
#3 I’d stick to letting others draw comparisons where they may. Try to follow Jesus’ example. Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
#4 sounds like she’s been working on that one for a while. She does have a point but I don’t think that her trials come anywhere close to the trials of people dealing with domestic abuse, not even on the same scale. I wouldn’t draw the comparison myself, it’s just inflammatory.
I haven’t seen any video but based on those points alone for me the scales start to tip heavily in favor of the church’s actions. She really damaged her case with that IMO.
I agree with your analysis, SD (and I would add her SL Tribune quote, “ I have donenothingwrong ,” to the list of mistakes) – but I try to cut people slack when they are in the midst of a highly emotional event. The key for me is how she talks and acts moving forward. SGoodman wrote:I’m really somewhat surprised, not by the excommunication, but by the reactions I read here. There is no doubt that this constitutes negative PR for the Church but I hear this criticism levied as though this were a PR decision. It isn’t. This decision was made without any consideration for the public relations aspect and the Church will just have to deal with whatever publicity comes its’ way. If the Church is what it claims to be then negative PR isn’t going to sink it.
I’m also very surprised at how many people are willing to pass judgement. I’ve heard lots of Mormons insist that Kate doesn’t belong in the Church, that she should have been excommunicated long ago, that she should go start her own Church. And this from people who have never even met the woman. I’ve heard an equal number who have taken it upon themselves to judge and concluded that Kate Kelly has done nothing wrong and they condemn the Church for all sorts of things. I’ve heard the terms “boundary maintenance”, “cleaning house”, and “suppression of critical thinking”.
None of us is in a position to know enough to pass judgement, and even if we felt we had all the facts, none of us has the
authorityto pass judgement. Mark Harrison is her Bishop and the responsibility is his. I pray he got it right, and if he didn’t, I pray that God protects and comforts those he may have wounded. Though I don’t have all the facts and I have no authority to pass judgement, here are the judgements I choose to make:
Kate Kelly is sincere in her belief that women lack equality in the Church, that ordination has been unfairly denied them, and that this must change.
Whatever unnamed General Authority approached her Bishop (Mark Harrison) and pushed for a disciplinary council did so thinking he was doing the right thing (probably, in his view, protecting the Church).
Mark Harrison (remember this is my own judgement based on zero authority and insufficient information) acquiesced to the council out of respect for the authority of the one who asked him but insisted that the judgement of the council would be determined by the Spirit through revelation. The excommunication was as much a surprise to him as it was to everyone else.
I have heard criticism of Thomas S Monson for not resolving the entire issue. “Since he’s the prophet he could easily settle the whole matter once and for all. Just give us a revelation Yes or No.” Pres Monson doesn’t have the power to dictate to God what revelations He must hand down and when. Also, there are roughly 4000 disciplinary counsels per month. Though this one is particularly high profile, Pres. Monson can’t allow himself to become personally involved in them.
(still more of my own judgements)
Kate Kelly is absolutely correct that women lack equality. I think that the Church agrees with her as evidenced by the tiny incremental changes that we’ve seen over the past year. What Kate didn’t understand is that campaigning for change is a secular model and we don’t follow that model. For those activities she was excommunicated.
I agree
I don’t think she had a SilentDawning wrote:swift excommunication
If you believe the letter from her bishop, and I do, then there has been a process over many months to try and resolve this.
nibbler wrote:Who is to say that god hasn’t inspired the OW group to bring about his purposes?
In the case of what Kate Kelly has done, the bishop has said that it is not what she should have done. Even opposition to the church of God can be part of the Lord’s purposes though.
richalger wrote:I don’t think she had a
SilentDawning wrote:swift excommunication
If you believe the letter from her bishop, and I do, then there has been a process over many months to try and resolve this.
http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf First of all, it’s unclear whether the local leaders were patient with her. There seemed to be a lot of arm’s length, text-based communication and there isn’t agreement on both sides about how often they met.
The decision-makers did start off well — with informal probation. but then, they went straight to excommunication. That, to me, is swift.
They might have gone through a slower, gentler escalation process with progressive warnings, such as a formal probation or disfellowshipment. This might have given Kate a chance to reflect on the methods she was using. So, my use of the term
swiftrefers to skipping the levels of punishment the council might have imposed before going to the harshest punishment possible. With John Dehlin, they have been meeting with him off and on for years now, which strikes me as far more patient, inclusive, longsuffering and merciful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.