- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
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. Tactical errors aside, what did she do wrong?
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 Why so you believe him over her? Just curious.
hawkgrrrl wrote: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.
If he says he called and met and she has no objective record of either, how do you believe both?
I agree that the whole truth may be somewhere in the middle between both sides of the story. The tactics may be the only problem here. I like the way Neylan puts it
“we can see her discipline as a specific caution against tactics that promote different doctrine (on any subject) than what is being taught from the pulpit in our day, and then recruiting others to rally around that new doctrine too. If we take this second approach, Kelly’s disciplinary council is not a condemnation of the conversation about women but a caution for those of us involved in it to choose a different strategy.”
http://www.neylanmcbaine.com/2014/06/how-the-conversation-about-women-can-go-on.html I think it is also important to note that no one but the council and Kate Kelly have the stewardship and thus the discernment to know the whole story. So any comment anyone makes is much speculation.
I came across Kate’s defense letter that she wrote to her Bishop rather than attending the council. She does come across as a bit defiant at the end of it, which may have influenced their decision, indicating she was going to keep on doing what she was doing.
Could be enlightening to read.
I personally felt she was right to show her long, supportive history in the church. I do think she might have argued her position as the leader of Ordain Women better, though — giving reasons for doing what she’s doing that are reasonable. She came off a bit defiant at the end of it.
http://ordainwomen.org/my-defense-against-the-charge-of-apostasy/ Quote:Tactical errors aside, what did she do wrong?
Nothing, I think – but “tactical errors”, “active opposition” and “defiant rejection” are in the eyes of the beholders. I tend to classify what she did wrong as tactical errors (because I think her heart was in the right place and still probably is) – but I see some of those errors as so egregious that I understand completely why lots of people would see them as defiant rejection and active opposition. I also see an escalation in the magnitude of tactical errors over time – and, again, I understand completely why people would see that escalation as increased apostasy. I think that is the primary reason I know quite a few people who supported her and OW initially who no longer support her and it now.
As with the entire situation, I think it’s more complicated than simply classifying everything as tactical errors – and, importantly, not using a solely escalted, harsh level of language when talking about the PR Department and her local leaders. I see humans on both sides making mistakes and contributing to an over-escalation that saddens me deeply.
I agree that there were indeed “tactical errors” and have said all along that it’s not her thoughts/beliefs that got her into trouble, it’s how she went about expressing them. I have read the letter referenced by SD and agree there is an element of defiance there as well as in other things she has said. I think the outcome of the DC may have been different had she: 1) attended, even by video or phone as was offered
2) shown some glimmer of hope that she might comply with what they were asking (otherwise lesser discipline would have ended in excommunication eventually anyway).
I also read the letter her bishop wrote – nowhere is the word apostasy used.
I agree with Dark Jedi. Instead of indicating that she is going to continue advocating, and not making some attempt to attend the Disciplinary council, she came off as more defiant than she may have intended. I personally (as the accused) would have attended the council, potentially in person or definitely by some form of technology — video conferencing or maybe conference call.
I would not have pre-empted their decision as she did, by indicating she would keep up what she was doing in spite of the council’s decision — I would have stated my reasons for why I was doing what I was doing, and cast them in a different light. I might have quoted words of the prophets which provide some form of support for my case, such as pointing out the conflicts between Church claims of equal gender partnerships yet clear hierarchical relationships that require wifely obedience to husbands, which is confusing.
I probably would not have asked for 1000 letters of support, as this only underscores the size of the movement — and the church doesn’t like movements. I might have included letters that indicate the OW concept has given certain women hope and faith, or strengthened them in some way — and avoided letters that appear to be a petition or yet another instance of protest.
Just to repeat what I said previously in different words, it is relatively easy for us to comment about what we would have done in her situation, since we are somewhat removed from it (not being faced with possible excommunication ourselves). People do things in highly stressful situations that they would not do normally – although I have to say that I see an escalation of confrontation rather than a sudden, atypical shift to confrontation in this case. I just want to reiterate that, right now, I think the primary issue is mourning with those who mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comforting – and, as analytical as I tend to be, sometimes analysis is the wrong approach at any given time. Particularly outside this forum (but even here), sometimes a shoulder and an ear and a caring heart are of utmost importance.
Old-Timer wrote:Just to repeat what I said previously in different words, it is relatively easy for us to comment about what we have done in her situation, since we are somewhat removed from it (not being faced with possible excommunication ourselves). People do things in highly stressful situations that they would not do normally – although I have to say that I see an escalation of confrontation rather than a sudden, atypical shift to confrontation in this case.
I just want to reiterate that, right now, I think the primary issue is mourning with those who mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comforting – and, as analytical as I tend to be, sometimes analysis is the wrong approach at any given time. Particularly outside this forum (but even here), sometimes a shoulder and an ear and a caring heart are of utmost importance.
Well said, Ray, and you are right – none of us were in this exact position on either side of the issue so in reality we don’t know what we would or wouldn’t do. Despite anything else I might say here, I do mourn for Sr. Kelly and others and I do sincerely hope she can rejoin the saints at some point when she is ready to do so. Even if she doesn’t, I am not of the belief that she is damned.
SilentDawning wrote:The Church was within its rights to hold a disciplinary council for Kate. Church members don’t have the same rights in the church as citizens do in American society. The church’s perogative to deal with its membership as it sees fit (within he bounds of the law) is a feature of all organizations in a free society.
However, trying Kate in her former Ward and moving to swift excommunication lacked mercy and regard for Kate, the individual. I believe the local leaders didn’t exhibit the kind of patience and longsuffering that continued meetings and formal probation might have achieved…
It does appear that the local leaders did meet with her a few times before threatening discipline…
I still would have rather seen a more progressive approach to disciplining her, rather than moving directly from informal probation to excommunication. In light of all the press, and the need to appear far less stuffy and proud, I think this would have looked much better on the church.
SD, I hope you don’t mind me pointing out where I disagree.-Since the beginning of the Ordain Women organization in March 2013, Kate Kelly has called for the ordination of women and said “nothing less will suffice.”
-On May 5, 2014 she was placed on “informal probation” and a letter issued later that month indicated how the probation could come to an end.
-On June 8, she was informed of the disciplinary council.
“Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike.”
“I am proud of what we have done together. We told the truth.”
“We took a stand and will continue to do so.”
-The
New York Times articles-She gathered letters of support and said in her June 21 letter:
Quote:As I made clear to President Wheatley when we met on May 5th, I will continue to lead Ordain Women, the group I founded. I will not take down the website ordainwomen.org. I will not stop speaking out publicly on the issue of gender inequality in the church. These things President Wheatley instructed me to do, I cannot do in good conscience. I cannot repent of telling the truth, speaking what is in my heart and asking questions that burn in my soul.
I don’t see where it would have been beneficial to prolong the process. It seems there wasn’t much left to say and no room for compromise.
I agree with you Shawn. If one takes the approach that God gave the priesthood to men and will never give it women – then action against Kate was inevitable. I suppose that’s the big question. 50 or 100 years from now will women have the priesthood and women like Kate come across as ahead of their time? Time will tell.
At one time, disagreement via the text-based medium used to bother me, but no more as long as its respectful as your comments are. No problem. Hope you don’t mind a rebuttal, though. Yes. She did make those statements. She did box herself into a bit of a corner, but I do believe that there are two issues here — the behavior of Kate, and the larger message being sent to the corners of the church membership that feels the leadership is not inclusive and tends to be heavy-handed.
More progressive discipline may have ended in the same outcome — excommunication for Kate– but at least it would have addressed the second issue here — the command and control, one size fits all personality the church appears to be trying to shake. It would have appeared more merciful.
SD, I certainly don’t mind the rebuttal. I see your point about how a more gradual approach could have been beneficial. I believe women already have the priesthood, that Joseph Smith set up Relief Society as a priesthood organization, and that this can be demonstrated through orthodox Mormon theology. Women are referred to as priestesses in Mormon literature too. That is what we should emphasize perhaps rather than a new ordination.
Bishop gave a sister the topic to speak on today of priesthood authority. One of her sources was Elder Oaks talk. I’ve got to admit it’s very hard to sit through this today. Feels like they’re rubbing it in. They are in a firm position on this one to retrench. 90% of women don’t want the priesthood. They are on firm ground rubbing it in (if they even are). it’s not really a fight for me right now, other than the overarching traditionalism brought on by our gerontocracy that keeps us stuck in the past, and makes culture very hard to change in general. Although I do like to imagine what life in the church would be like if women had that priesthood. First, I think it would be easier as there would be more leaders to go around. Most of the women I’ve reported to have been better leaders than men, so the whole experience would likely be better. I think missionary work would be easier, although people would hold our late entry into the female equality arena against us for years, just as they do polygamy and racial discrimmination. But it would help. I think we’d see potentially higher activity rates from women in the feminist camp. There would be less boredom like you see when women have served in every single female leadership calling available to them in the Ward and stake, over and over again. Activity rates would go up.
You might see lesser activity rates in men though, as the pressure the priesthood puts on men tends to make them step up and get paradigm shifts due to new roles.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.