Who is Lying? Kate Kelly or her Bishop?

[_consiglieri]

goddamnit. this is getting better and better for otterson. damn.

I know, and I don't like where it is leading one bit, either.

But there is this weird thing Mormonism taught me about trying to follow the truth no matter where it leads . . .

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I appreciate your educated speculations, Tim.

IF what the Bishop says in his letter is true, THEN your speculation would seem to be the most charitable explanation for what Kate said.

BUT I had hoped that Kate would be above this sort of thing; and that I wouldn't have to be watching both sides play hide-the-ball; then trying to parse their statements to see how closely to the truth they cut.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Absolutely she should be above it and it reflects very poorly on her if she's playing the game of "it depends on what the definition of is is."

Dammit Kate, I want answers! I am inclined to support you but you can't say you were surprised and it came out of the blue if they counseled you months previously to stop. You can't say they met with you one time when you were planning to move when they met with you months earlier in December. Is the Bishop lying Kate? Is he just making all those meetings up?

I'm headed full bore into "a pox on all their houses" mode.

[_Bazooka]

The evidence suggests to me that Kate has deliberately mis-portrayed events to suit a narrative she wanted to tell.

It is clear there was far more than just one meeting.
It is clear the Bishop made efforts to not hold the hearing in absentia.

I'm afraid that's more than being disingenuous, that's being deliberately misleading.

[_Mayan Elephant]

But there is this weird thing Mormonism taught me about trying to follow the truth[/facts] no matter where it leads . . .

i made a small edit, consig. i am with you.

the only thing i have found myself leaning on that cannot be factual, is kate's claim that she is a believer. she believes in the restoration and that she is fighting to have the one true priesthood. i believe her. there are no facts or truths to rely on for my position there. but i believe her.

the facts are pointing to a good decision on the part of the bishop and otterson. perhaps they are morally bankrupt by our standards, but that doesn't mean anything.

[_cinepro]

To me, this is starting to look like a smoking gun.

But it's pointed at Kate.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I agree. Frankly I don't have any problem with the idea of women being ordained, and found her "movement" to be an interesting recent development in Mormonism.

That being said, my BS meter is off the charts whenever I hear or read anything Kelly says. And I think if she thought this was going to end any other way, she is completely delusional.

[_Stumpy Pepys]

I was able to read the bishop's letter excommunicating Kate Kelly. (It is linked to over at Common Consent in a comment, though it appears to come from the Deseret News.)

http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

I note from the letter that Kate was offered a number of reasonable alternatives that would have enabled her to represent herself at the hearing in person. That seems to grind against Kate's complaint about the hearing being held in absentia.

I only see one reasonable alternative--the secure video. Asking that somebody fly across the country while they are caring for a family member with a medical emergency and preparing to move to a third world country doesn't sound reasonable to me.

[_Tobin]

To me, this is starting to look like a smoking gun.

But it's pointed at Kate.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I agree. Frankly I don't have any problem with the idea of women being ordained, and found her "movement" to be an interesting recent development in Mormonism.

That being said, my BS meter is off the charts whenever I hear or read anything Kelly says. And I think if she thought this was going to end any other way, she is completely delusional.

Yes. That is pretty much how I feel too. I really don't have a problem with female leaders in the LDS Church. My view is if that is what God wants to have happen, then do it. And I also don't buy Kate's comments. She should have realized this would have been the outcome.

[_Equality]

Consiglieri,
Check out these two links:
http://ordainwomen.org/excommunication/
http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploa ... -Kelly.pdf

But for further fun, let's set out a timeline according to OW and these letters:
March 17, 2013- OW launched
December 12, 2013- KK meets with Bishop and President Wheatley, telling her to stop
March and April, 2014- Meeting again, telling her not to march on Temple Square
April, 2014- KK marches on Temple Square (I'm sure there were other marches in there, at other general conferences)
APRIL 2014: OAKS SLAMS THE DOOR ON FEMALE ORDINATION IN GENERAL CONFERENCE
May 5, 2014- Meets with President Wheatley and Bishop again, placed on INFORMAL probation
MAY 17, 2014: WHITNEY AND BALLARD VISIT THE DC AREA AND SAY OW ARE APOSTATES AND SHOULD BE DEALT WITH
May 22, 2014- Letter to confirm INFORMAL probation.
June 8, 2014- Notified of disciplinary council
June 22, 2014- Excommunicated.

To me, the timeline seems odd. After all that she "did", even after the last general conference, the local leadership went from nothing, to INFORMAL probation, to excommunication? In about 7 weeks? When OW had been around, and active, for over a year? Seems odd to me.

You forgot a couple key dates. I put them in, in bold caps.

[_Kevin Graham]

Having read the communication of the decision from the Bishop, he provides clear dates and attendee's for meetings that Kate states did not happen.
December 12th 2013 - President Wheatley & Bishop Harrison
March 2014 - President Wheatley
April 2014 - President Wheatley
May 5th 2014 - President Wheatley & President Lee

I doubt that the Bishop is lying, I could be wrong, but it seems highly unlikely.

Excuse me, but no one have provided any references to Kelly denying these meetings took place.

I suspect people are getting confused over what she actually said. She said from the beginning that the Bishop never tried to meet with her UNTIL SHE MOVED AWAY. When she was living in the ward, she tried to get the Bishop involved in what she was doing but he just ignored her.

Then many weeks later after she moved away, in June of 2013, he sends her that letter urging her to stop what she's doing. How can you say Kate denies those meetings after December 2013 when she explicitly blogged about it?

[_Equality]

Having read the communication of the decision from the Bishop, he provides clear dates and attendee's for meetings that Kate states did not happen.
December 12th 2013 - President Wheatley & Bishop Harrison
March 2014 - President Wheatley
April 2014 - President Wheatley
May 5th 2014 - President Wheatley & President Lee

I doubt that the Bishop is lying, I could be wrong, but it seems highly unlikely.

Excuse me, but no one have provided any references to Kelly denying these meetings took place.

I suspect people are getting confused over what she actually said. She said from the beginning that the Bishop never tried to meet with her UNTIL SHE MOVED AWAY. When she was living in the ward, she tried to get the Bishop involved in what she was doing but he just ignored her.

Then many weeks later after she moved away, in June of 2013, he sends her that letter urging her to stop what she's doing. How can you say Kate denies those meetings after December 2013 when she explicitly blogged about it?

I am not really seeing major inconsistencies from her on the meetings. I do think she was disingenuous in feigning surprise at getting the summons. But naïvété is not entirely absent in the world of Mormonism, to say the least (even among edumacated lawyer types).