Kate Kelly Excommunicated

In addition to "true to oneself" the word "authentic" is also problematic and tends to be used by those when leave the Church over moral teachings: "I wouldn't be authentic" if I stayed in a church that keeps me from being who I really am."



Let's not assume a serial killer or a pedofile or an abusive spouse. Rather, assume a woman or man who wants to have premarital or extramarital sex. I have no doubt the desires are real. Even biologically designed an unable to be changed. But are they supressable? Can they be reigned in to live by a moral code?



Much of the world would say there's no reason to do so, that humans aren't designed for monogamy. In this case does "authentic" really mean "to live as the Natural Man"... as an enemy to God?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I've spent a bit of time looking at Ms. Kelly and her Ordain Women site, including all the linked letters/materials she provided detailing the circumstances of her excommunication. A few observations:



1) Kathryn Marie Kelly (aka Kate Kelly) has gone to great lengths to obscure her professional history. She is, in fact, a career feminist, most recently working with the RFK Center in D.C. to promote womens rights in Africa through public demonstrations aimed at securing the backing of the U.N. She selected her law school particularly because of its offerings in activism.



2) Mrs. Kelly has been less-than-honest, if not outright dishonest, about her interactions with her priesthood leaders in Virginia leading up to her excommunication. First, we find out she was put on informal probation in early May with a warning that a council could be convened if she continued her path--this is counter to her assertion that she had no warning prior to moving to Utah in June. Next, we find out in later disclosures that she initially met with the Stake President and Bishop as long ago as December where they informally asked her to disassociate from OW. The most recent lie is her "they won't even let me attend to face my accusers" line. In fact, we now find out that they offered to postpone the council until later in July when she will be back in Virginia and can attend in person, and they also offered to let her participate via a secure video feed. She refused both offers, choosing instead to attend a candlelight vigil at Church Headquarters and to speak to the media instead of availing herself of the opportunity to defend herself in person--something she claims to prize.



3) Her letter to the council as well as the "legal brief" she submitted in her defense make it clear to anyone with half of a wit that Kate Kelly wanted this excommunication. There is nothing humble or pentitent there. Those documents look more like the groundwork of an ill-advised discrimination lawsuit against the church more than a good faith defense against charges of apostasy. It will be interesting to see if in fact she chooses to sue the Church for discrimination on the basis of gender, because that appears to be the direction she is trying to steer this.



4) This woman has lost her testimony of church leadership. Her statement about the discliplinary council reveal the fact that she does not believe her bishop, Stake President, nor even the First Presidency (whom she acknowledges is at least tangentally involved with the records hold) operate by revelation or the gift of discernment. Instead, she propogates the divisive idea that these men cannot fairly judge her by reason of their lack of femininity. She forecloses on any idea that the spirit may be involved, but instead paints them, and all other men in the church who do not subscribe to the screed of OW, as misogynists incapable of fairness.

That pretty much sums it up, Sno. Great post.



My wife will attest that a few years ago, I predicted where the whole wear pants to church thing was going. They said then that it was only about wearing pants to church. I said that after the pants thing, they would escalate to something else more public, and more eventually demanding the Priesthood.



After the pants debacle, they went on their tirade about women praying in General Conference. After that it escalated to Priesthood.



This isn't about equality. It's about control. Kate Kelly wants to be the first prophetess of the Church. She doesn't just want to exercise Priesthood authority, she wants to exercise control over the men she obviously hates so much. She wants to fundamentally change Church doctrine, not just regarding the Priesthood, but regarding the nature of God himself. Quotes such as "I can more clearly see the face of God, and she is beautiful." and "God is male and female, father and mother." She is trying to change who we worship.

Oh... my... heck...



They just cannot let it go.



Ordain Women responds to First Presidency statement:



http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/ordain-women-responds-to-first-presidency-statement/article_af305788-a410-5379-9889-6beca6599e7a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



A few gems...

"They have released a statement that describes current church policy on priesthood, as follows: 'Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices.' There is no mention of why women cannot be ordained or that they will not be in the future."

"Further, the statement is an improvement in transparency for the Church, as it publicly discloses the official definition of apostasy from Church Handbook of Instructions Volume 1, a volume of church policy that is restricted from all but nine female church members. We affirm that we are not acting in opposition to the prophet or the Church, have not taught false doctrine, and do not meet any definition of apostasy."

They have taken this issue and gone full on stupid on the Church.



Their ignorance and dishonesty in regard to their actions and demands is a slap in the face of anyone who actually has half a brain.

Did she join the church just to do this? Is she a convert?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

scott715 wrote:
Did she join the church just to do this? Is she a convert?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

One account said she served a mission where she learned of the churches discrimination toward women.



I'd like to know what her husband is thinking.

nuk13 wrote:
I'd like to know what her husband is thinking.

He's not allowed to think. He would risk thinking differently than his wife, which is, by contemporary progressive standards, misogynist.

It is interesting that they insist on the "cannot" argument, wondering aloud why Women "cannot" hold the priesthood. They are smart people, and know full well that the priesthood is not given on the basis of ability. It is not a question of whether they "can" hold the priesthood, but "do." Just because they are not given the priesthood, does not mean that God in any way questions their ability. They know that very well, and are intellectually dishonest in hanging on to that losing argument. Stated another way, there are many women who would do a “better” job at being Bishop, Sunday school president or ward clerk in my ward, but there are also a number of men who do a better job too. This is not a question of ability, and more of a question of the Lord’s will. They know that, but choose to ignore it because they simply want to advance their wrong-headed agenda

ABYUFAN wrote:
It is interesting that they insist on the "cannot" argument, wondering aloud why Women "cannot" hold the priesthood. They are smart people, and know full well that the priesthood is not given on the basis of ability. It is not a question of whether they "can" hold the priesthood, but "do." Just because they are not given the priesthood, does not mean that God in any way questions their ability. They know that very well, and are intellectually dishonest in hanging on to that losing argument. Stated another way, there are many women who would do a “better” job at being Bishop, Sunday school president or ward clerk in my ward, but there are also a number of men who do a better job too. This is not a question of ability, and more of a question of the Lord’s will. They know that, but choose to ignore it because they simply want to advance their wrong-headed agenda

They do not ackknowledge, and I thikn it is with full knowledge, that every day women are granted and exercise priesthood authority in their service as auxilary presdents, temple workers, missionaries etc. Elder Oaks made that clear last conference. What they really want is power, which they perceive to come only from holding certain offices in the priesthood. But when we seek after power, well, the scriptures teach what happens: we get an Amen to that person's authority

BoiseBYU wrote:

It is interesting that they insist on the "cannot" argument, wondering aloud why Women "cannot" hold the priesthood. They are smart people, and know full well that the priesthood is not given on the basis of ability. It is not a question of whether they "can" hold the priesthood, but "do." Just because they are not given the priesthood, does not mean that God in any way questions their ability. They know that very well, and are intellectually dishonest in hanging on to that losing argument. Stated another way, there are many women who would do a “better” job at being Bishop, Sunday school president or ward clerk in my ward, but there are also a number of men who do a better job too. This is not a question of ability, and more of a question of the Lord’s will. They know that, but choose to ignore it because they simply want to advance their wrong-headed agenda

They do not ackknowledge, and I thikn it is with full knowledge, that every day women are granted and exercise priesthood authority in their service as auxilary presdents, temple workers, missionaries etc. Elder Oaks made that clear last conference. What they really want is power, which they perceive to come only from holding certain offices in the priesthood. But when we seek after power, well, the scriptures teach what happens: we get an Amen to that person's authority

As someone else has staed, they are choosing to be excommunicated over the issue of middle management.

One position that I haven't seen too much in the pro or con arguments is that the process of the disciplinary council, and ultimately excommunication, protect Sister Kelly from her covenants. For some reason I've been thinking a lot about covenants lately, so maybe it's my bias, but here's my thought process (though I may not be as succinct or eloquent as some of you):



As long as Sister Kelly remained a member of the Church (whether in good standing or under some type of discipline) she was bound by the convenants she made (baptismal, temple, marriage, etc.) By excommunicating her from the Church, her Bishopric released her from those covenants, so that she is no longer subject to the downside of violation. (Clearly, she cannot be saved without those covenants, so there's some repentance and reconciliation required for exaltation, but she also cannot be damned for further violations of coventants that no longer apply.)



This is a very "justice-and-mercy" kind of situation: her actions merited her disassociation from the Church. Her leaders lovingly & mercifully released her from the covenants she could not endure.



I don't say this to imply that "she got what she deserved". Rather, she got what she most needed to be able to return to the strait and narrow. Had she continued these actions under covanent, she would have brought upon herself further condemnation.

Great point

Ungoy wrote:
That pretty much sums it up, Sno. Great post.



Quotes such as "I can more clearly see the face of God, and she is beautiful." and "God is male and female, father and mother." She is trying to change who we worship.

I do not believe the being she refers to is pleased with her.

HoosierCougar wrote:
One position that I haven't seen too much in the pro or con arguments is that the process of the disciplinary council, and ultimately excommunication, protect Sister Kelly from her covenants. For some reason I've been thinking a lot about covenants lately, so maybe it's my bias, but here's my thought process (though I may not be as succinct or eloquent as some of you):



As long as Sister Kelly remained a member of the Church (whether in good standing or under some type of discipline) she was bound by the convenants she made (baptismal, temple, marriage, etc.) By excommunicating her from the Church, her Bishopric released her from those covenants, so that she is no longer subject to the downside of violation. (Clearly, she cannot be saved without those covenants, so there's some repentance and reconciliation required for exaltation, but she also cannot be damned for further violations of coventants that no longer apply.)



This is a very "justice-and-mercy" kind of situation: her actions merited her disassociation from the Church. Her leaders lovingly & mercifully released her from the covenants she could not endure.



I don't say this to imply that "she got what she deserved". Rather, she got what she most needed to be able to return to the strait and narrow. Had she continued these actions under covanent, she would have brought upon herself further condemnation.

I'd never thought of it that way before and it makes sense.

mizzoucoug wrote:

One position that I haven't seen too much in the pro or con arguments is that the process of the disciplinary council, and ultimately excommunication, protect Sister Kelly from her covenants. For some reason I've been thinking a lot about covenants lately, so maybe it's my bias, but here's my thought process (though I may not be as succinct or eloquent as some of you):



As long as Sister Kelly remained a member of the Church (whether in good standing or under some type of discipline) she was bound by the convenants she made (baptismal, temple, marriage, etc.) By excommunicating her from the Church, her Bishopric released her from those covenants, so that she is no longer subject to the downside of violation. (Clearly, she cannot be saved without those covenants, so there's some repentance and reconciliation required for exaltation, but she also cannot be damned for further violations of coventants that no longer apply.)



This is a very "justice-and-mercy" kind of situation: her actions merited her disassociation from the Church. Her leaders lovingly & mercifully released her from the covenants she could not endure.



I don't say this to imply that "she got what she deserved". Rather, she got what she most needed to be able to return to the strait and narrow. Had she continued these actions under covanent, she would have brought upon herself further condemnation.

I'd never thought of it that way before and it makes sense.

I concur. Excommunication is hopefully a temporary status that changes upon sincere repentance of the individual. Though the ordinance of baptism and confirmation must be performed again to renew the baptismal covenants and re-enter the church, the rest of the ordinances are restored through a restoration of blessings ordinance--a Priesthood blessing carried out under the direction of a General Authority, usually by a Stake President.

I served a part of my mission in a little branch that was struggling mightily. The branch president was a senior missionary couple since the local members were not very strong. We were not finding anyone to teach and the branch was pretty draining. 2 of the members made some very poor choices which led to church discipline from the Mission President (it was a mission branch). It was sad to go through it and many of the other members were angry because they felt the church was kicking a few people when they were down. We tried to teach the reasoning and purpose of church discipline but there were a few that couldn't accept that.



Fast forward a few weeks and there was such a change in the branch. The attendance dropped significantly but the spirit there was completely different. We all of a sudden started finding people to teach and baptize. It was sad that it had taken some excommunications to shake up and move the branch forward but it did.



As far as the Kate Kelly excommunication, I am not happy that it came to that. I do see that a lot of people have had to reconcile their testimonies and that is never a bad thing. These siftings are nothing new and sadly I think there will be more in the coming days.

I got asked to substitute for an institute class on false prophets before the second coming of Christ so I felt I had to read up on Sister Kelly. It's a sad case.



Unfortunately, she doesn't understand the church disciplinary process (the authors of the Herald and DN don't seem to either). It's really too bad she didn't work with the high councilors chosen to support her. It can make a big difference, even to someone who isn't very penitent initially, to see they have someone on their side.