NYT article: John Dehlin & Kate Kelly face discipline

[Anonymous]

I said this earlier in the thread, but, IF there was a line crossed by Kate and OW, I would say it was when they published six “lessons” that outlined why they believed women must receive the priesthood. It’s not the publication of their view, necessarily, but the call to share those lessons with more orthodox members in order to help them see the error of their current beliefs. It would be like me publishing my opposing views of my company’s employee manual in a manual that modeled the employee manual and asking other employees to share my manual and accept it instead of the company’s manual – and I would have no solid grounds for appealing the subsequent decision to fire me. That action would trigger that response every. single. time.

It’s really important to try to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who initiated the disciplinary action, and those lessons look to those people like attempts to “convert” members from support of the leadership to opposition to the leadership. It looks like a group that is trying to draw people away from acceptance of current doctrine and sustaining / supporting leaders. It’s one thing to publish dissenting views, no matter how factually accurate one believes they are, but it’s another thing entirely to frame what is published in terms mirroring the standard missionary discussions – since doing it that way appears to be an explicit attempt to imitate the Church’s missionary approach, with the conversion activity being directed at Church members.

Then, to say in an appeal asking that the disciplinary action be reversed, “I have done nothing wrong” . . . Again, in the situation I described above with regard to my alternate employee manual, I can’t picture any supervisor seeing that statement as anything but ridiculous.

Again, even if you disagree about the apostasy charge (which I did until the publication of the lessons) – and even if you agree with the central premise of OW that women should be ordained (which I do) – and even if you don’t support the excommunication (which I don’t), if you can try to look as objectively as possible at the big picture, I think it’s really easy to understand why a lot of people would reach the conclusion that Kate crossed a line and started actively opposing the Church leadership in an apostate way. I still want her to be able to remain a member of the LDS Church, but OW’s six lessons and her denial of doing anything wrong are what keeps me from seeing the action as completely unjustified and inexcusable.

[Anonymous]

At the very least it should seem obvious that this action ended up hurting the church more than helping and was ill-advised for that reason alone, if not other ones. My non-member friends who have defended the accusations against us being a cult in their churches can no longer do so and tell me this looks like a cultish thing to do. The “Mormon Moment” has been turned on its head. Public image is awful. And this is to say nothing of the many non-traditional members who this has hurt. Personally I feel like there isn’t a place for people like me in the church now and it’s been very challenging just making it to sacrament meeting since this action. It really was a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. If they go ahead and ex-communicate John after this then things will be ugly.

[Anonymous]

I do understand why many members view the action as justified. The idealist in me wishes truth could exist with no defense, that truth is like diamond and competing ideas are adobe. In my perfect world the church would not need to take action against false doctrine, the position could be stated and members would know that opposing views were out of step. “Apostates” may have their consequences, no TR or similar, but they would not be cast out because the casting would impose a shadow of weakness onto the church itself. Patience and long suffering would be the model, charity the goal. D&C 121 would reign supreme.

…but I also understand the difference between an ideal and real life. While we should work toward the ideal we need to be patient with our human capacity. And yes our humanness will account for both KK genuinely not understanding her mis-step, and also for the local leaders honestly not grasping the heaviness of the hand in their action.

[Anonymous]

eyedempotent wrote:

At the very least it should seem obvious that this action ended up hurting the church more than helping and was ill-advised for that reason alone, if not other ones.

I hear this said a lot, and in some places it might be true. In my little corner of the world (in my little northeastern US stake) I can’t see that it is true.

Quote:

My non-member friends who have defended the accusations against us being a cult in their churches can no longer do so and tell me this looks like a cultish thing to do. The “Mormon Moment” has been turned on its head. Public image is awful.

Likewise, my neighbors and non-member friends/acquaintances seem to know nothing about it – they don’t seem to care.

Quote:

And this is to say nothing of the many non-traditional members who this has hurt. Personally I feel like there isn’t a place for people like me in the church now and it’s been very challenging just making it to sacrament meeting since this action. It really was a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

Yes, we all have personal feelings on the subject. I still believe Pres. Uchtdorf that there is room for all of us.

Quote:

If they go ahead and ex-communicate John after this then things will be ugly.

This looks unlikely to happen at the moment.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Quote:

If they go ahead and ex-communicate John after this then things will be ugly.

This looks unlikely to happen at the moment.

John said he has a meeting on August 7th, I don’t know if it is a personal visit or a disciplinary council.

[Anonymous]

I am organizing all my thoughts here, so some things are being repeated.

First, I’ll tell you all why I care about this issue. I’m concerned that the misrepresentation of Kate Kelly’s activities has caused grief to people who are trying to understand why the church would excommunicate someone for “only asking questions,” and they wonder if they might be next.

1. She founded an organization with teachings that are not in line with the church’s teachings.

a. Emma Smith was ordained to a priesthood office

b. It is their right to hold the priesthood

c. Women cannot be considered equal until they are ordained to the priesthood

d. Joseph Smith intended for women to hold the priesthood

Quote:

Today, Sunday, 17 March 2013, is the 171st anniversary of the establishment of the first Relief Society. In the Relief Society minutes, we read that Joseph Smith said that the Relief Society would be a “Kingdom of Priests.” He also literally ordained its first female leaders…Joseph Smith described the Relief Society as one that would be analogous to the male priesthood organization. We wish to mark this significant day in history with our own act, and the founding of another women’s organization: Ordain Women…

In a church that cherishes the value of restoration, we hope to encourage our leaders to restore women to their rightful place as leaders and priesthood holders. Ordain Women is committed to making our faith a place where we can live up to our full divine potential, and we believe that the only way women will be able to have genuine equality and live up to this potential is by being able to be ordained to the priesthood.

…We ask the brethren to bring to fruition our beloved prophet Joseph Smith’s original vision for the Relief Society sisters to over 7 million female members of the church today. We ask that women be ordained and participate fully in all levels of service within the church….

–http://ordainwomen.org/organizing-the-women-after-the-manner-of-the-priesthood-2/ (emphasis added)

2. The organization seeks to recruit followers.

The page cited above also says, “Join us, as equality missionaries, in making our plea heard.” Spreading the views of Ordain Women is one of the organization’s primary missions. The “OW Conversations” (formerly “OW Discussions”) are designed to convince people that their positions are correct. Whether people are converted to those positions or are already like-minded doesn’t make a big difference; either way, they are still recruited (persuaded to join).

3. The organization is not only asking questions.

People of OW say they are only asking the leaders of the church to request an answer from God. In their eyes, however, there is not really a question as to whether women should be ordained. They already have the answer. Kate Kelly wrote, “The ordination of women would put us on equal spiritual footing with our brethren, and nothing less will suffice” (http://ordainwomen.org/project/my-name-is-kate/). The mission page states:

Quote:

The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday. Priesthood, we are taught, is essential to this process. Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings…

As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood. We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer.

–http://ordainwomen.org/mission/ (emphasis added)

It might even be said that OW is claiming to have received revelation for the whole church. Though they acknowledge that only the prophet can receive revelation for the whole church, they are effectively saying, “We feel inspired by God that priesthood ordination should be extended to women, so the FP/Q12 should pray about it to get the same revelation.”

4. Kate Kelly was persistent after an answer was given.

An answer was given, but it was not the answer desired by OW and wasn’t given in a way they wanted:

Quote:

…even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood…The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood.

–https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng (emphasis added)

5. Kate Kelly has been defiant and even contemptuous.

a. 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.

b. On June 8, she was informed of the disciplinary council.

c. One June 11, she wrote:

Quote:

Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike…When all is said and done, and the deep mourning process for me and for thousands of Mormon women has passed, I feel confident that the joy I have experienced for participating in Ordain Women will vastly outweigh my sorrows. I am proud of what we have done together. We told the truth. I am inspired by the courageous Mormon women and men who have sacrificed so much to advocate for gender equality. We took a stand and will continue to do so.

–http://ordainwomen.org/excommunication/

d. The New York Times article stated “She said she told the stake president and bishop, ‘What you’re asking me to do is to live inauthentically, and that’s not something I’m willing to do.’” –http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/two-activists-within-mormon-church-threatened-with-excommunication.html?_r=0

e. 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.

–http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Defense.pdf

f. In her July 8 post, she wrote:

Quote:

Let me be perfectly clear: what happened to me was wrong. It was abusive. It was unfair. It was unacceptable…

I am appealing the decision to excommunicate me and it is not too late for the leaders involved to do the right thing. In a recent talk Elder Holland said, “however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made … It is never too late…”

–http://ordainwomen.org/carry-on/

g. In her July 23 letter of appeal, she wrote:

Quote:

Inherent in the disciplinary process, given that an option to appeal is provided, is the possibility that mistakes can be made by Church leaders, and rectified. I hope and pray you consider my appeal with humility and openness, and take the matter to the Lord.

I have done nothing wrong. I ask you, President Wheatley, to do the right thing and reinstate me to full membership in the Church…

In retrospect, I now realize you met with me to complete a pro forma requirement of being able to say you gave me “counsel.” Your “counsel” was to take down the website ordianwomen.org and to disassociate myself from the group I founded, Ordain Women. This “counsel” was not given with patience, or designed to persuade me…

However, according to Doctrine & Covenants 121: 37 when any priesthood holder attempts to “exercise control or … or compulsion” we are instructed that, “the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” It is my opinion that you had no authority to control my views, voice or speech and no right to compel me into silence. Therefore, Bishop Harrison had neither justification nor authority to excommunicate me, as his clear aim was compulsion, not persuasion.

I ask you to correct this egregious error and restore me to full membership, President Wheatley…

President Wheatley, it is not too late to do the right thing. It is not too late to undo the damage you have both done to me and to the Church.

–http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Appeal.pdf

My Conclusion

Please know that I don’t derive any happiness from Kate Kelly’s excommunication. While I point out what I have noted in the process, I don’t condemn her. However, she is making her own bed. With the way she responded in her letters, she would have to be stupid to not see what was coming, and I think she is quite smart. At this point, she must know that her appeal will be denied. The bottom line is that she has done much, much more than ask questions.

[Anonymous]

Very well summarized, Shawn, and I agree – I take no pleasure in her excommunication and don’t necessarily support it. BUT, it does seem as though a rational person would have seen it coming, and that is why some of us were not surprised. We could venture farther into her motivations and so forth, but in reality that would be speculation. Thanks for laying out the facts as you have.

I think if we laid out a similar set of facts as we know them, and we know fewer, we would see why John Dehlin is in a different situation and why I believe his excommunication is unlikely.

[Anonymous]

I think that is a good summary Shawn.

I am not surprised, and I get why the church did it. For me, it is merely reconfirmation of what the mormon church really is about IMO, and why I can no longer participate.

It is simply to painful to watch.

[Anonymous]

Ps…I would not have felt this way three years ago. I would have been mad as hell.

So I do understand the frustration that some people are expressing about the excommunication.

Today I just shrug my shoulders and think this is exactly what I would expect the church to do. This is how they treated me and why would they treat the Kate Kellys any different

[Anonymous]

Shawns summary is good. It helps me sort though my feelings on the subject. There is one thing I would like to add.

Kate violated the principle of stewardship. As a member, IMO, she and I can humbly ask questions till the cows come home. But what we can’t to is to speak for the Church. The Q15 have sole responsibility to define and change doctrine. I and she can ask questions about it, but it is not within our scope of responsibility the tell the Church what that doctrine should be, or even what doctrine they should review.

For many years I felt very uncomfortable about the Church’s position on Blacks and the Priesthood. I mentioned my feelings occassionally to a few friends. But I never undertook a campaign to pressure the Brethren to change their policy/doctrine to fit my pre-conceived agenda. Ultimately I was proven right, and the Q15 had to do an about face with McConkie publicly eating crow. Kate may be 100% correct in her stance, but it isn’t her call.

I don’t know that her excommunication was even necessary, but she was warned beforehand, but continued unabated. She has suffered the consequence and still doesn’t seem to have learned anything from the experience. I am sorry for her that she was excommunicated.

[Anonymous]

I can agree dash with most of what you said. Except – do we ever have any rights/responsibilities to influence the organizations we belong to? We can influence organizations in many ways depending on the organization. Vote, excercise our purchasing power, write letters, etc.

“Accept what you cannot change – Change what you cannot accept”

Perhaps KK cannot accept certain things that you and I have no problem with. Perhaps KK has a different vision of the things that she might change.

[Anonymous]

I agree dash. I only hope I would have had the guts to stand up and do something in the 70s to let the church know they were wrong and destroying and hurting so many people over the racial doctrines of not allowing black men and women to receive their endowment and/or get sealed in the temple.

I will not make that mistake when it comes to OW and the gay marriage issues. Kate Kelly will not be the only person excommunicated before this issue is resolved. That is a guarantee.

If the church doesn’t like getting criticized or having its members ask and demand change, they can either make those changes, or kick me/us out. Just don’t expect me to be at the discipline meeting when it happens.

dash1730 wrote:

…

For many years I felt very uncomfortable about the Church’s position on Blacks and the Priesthood. I mentioned my feelings occassionally to a few friends. But I never undertook a campaign to pressure the Brethren to change their policy/doctrine to fit my pre-conceived agenda. Ultimately I was proven right, and the Q15 had to do an about face with McConkie publicly eating crow. Kate may be 100% correct in her stance, but it isn’t her call….

[Anonymous]

Dash – I totally support your point of view on blacks and the priesthood, however, it took bold people writing public articles and making statements – Sterling McMurrin comes to mind – to nudge the final process forward. Lester Bush never returned to the church, but his article played a huge role in the prayers and discussions that overturned it.

Kate Kelly has been bolder than I would have been, I also want an outcome different than hers, but her work – excommunicated or not, too bold or not, will someday be listed as a catalyst – just as Lester Bush’s article is referenced in the new essay on Race and the Priesthood.

Total silence would never have moved the church to change their stance on the Race and the Priesthood.

[Anonymous]

I know it’s been popular to try to compare OW and Blacks and the priesthood, but it really is an apples and oranges comparison. A huge factor in Blacks and the priesthood was the impending temple dedication in Brazil and the recognition that people in Africa were embracing LDS teachings (at least the Book of Mormon) and forming “Mormon” groups that were not connected with the Church. Simply put, they had to do something about the issue of Blacks, leadership, and temples.

No such circumstances exist for OW. The argument could be made that there are some similarities with gay marriage – but perhaps not strong enough. Nearly 1/10th of the Church’s membership lives in Brazil and another nearly 5% in Africa. They will not get those kinds of numbers from gays (no offense intended, just pointing out a fact).

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I know it’s been popular to try to compare OW and Blacks and the priesthood, but it really is an apples and oranges comparison. A huge factor in Blacks and the priesthood was the impending temple dedication in Brazil and the recognition that people in Africa were embracing LDS teachings (at least the Book of Mormon) and forming “Mormon” groups that were not connected with the Church. Simply put, they had to do something about the issue of Blacks, leadership, and temples.

No such circumstances exist for OW. The argument could be made that there are some similarities with gay marriage – but perhaps not strong enough. Nearly 1/10th of the Church’s membership lives in Brazil and another nearly 5% in Africa. They will not get those kinds of numbers from gays (no offense intended, just pointing out a fact).

It is not a number issue. It is a matter of morality and ethics.

There comes a time when one simply has to do the right thing and let the consequences follow.

To remain silent, is an act of immorality, IMO. Whether it’s racists policies of the past, or the OW and gay marriage policies of today, impacts only 1 member, or 1 million, is of no consequence.

[Author]

Posts