What did Kate Kelly do between May 22 and June 8?

[_Kishkumen]

As long as there are no set procedures and things are carried on in the dark, then only submission to authority prevents one from being excommunicated.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think you may be asking the wrong question. I think it's not what she did, but that she didn't do. The letter putting her on informal probation states that, if she did not repent, she would be subject to disciplinary action. It also listed several things she needed to do to repent. One of those things was to take down the OW website (or do everything she could to take it down) and disassociate herself from OW. She did neither. I think failure to act is a sufficient explanation for the issuance of a disciplinary notice.

[_Kishkumen]

I think you may be asking the wrong question. I think it's not what she did, but that she didn't do. The letter putting her on informal probation states that, if she did not repent, she would be subject to disciplinary action. It also listed several things she needed to do to repent. One of those things was to take down the OW website (or do everything she could to take it down) and disassociate herself from OW. She did neither. I think failure to act is a sufficient explanation for the issuance of a disciplinary notice.

My question is whether those are the same conditions that were set down May 5.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think you may be asking the wrong question. I think it's not what she did, but that she didn't do. The letter putting her on informal probation states that, if she did not repent, she would be subject to disciplinary action. It also listed several things she needed to do to repent. One of those things was to take down the OW website (or do everything she could to take it down) and disassociate herself from OW. She did neither. I think failure to act is a sufficient explanation for the issuance of a disciplinary notice.

My question is whether those are the same conditions that were set down May 5.

Has Kate indicated otherwise?

[_Kishkumen]

Has Kate indicated otherwise?

There are many things both sides have not addressed. I don't know that the fact this has not been raised means it is a pointless question.

[_Res Ipsa]

Has Kate indicated otherwise?

There are many things both sides have not addressed. I don't know that the fact this has not been raised means it is a pointless question.

There are lots of facts floating around. I'm just trying to see if there is any factual reason to believe that the contents of the letter differ from what Kate was told in the meeting. I don't recall any such reason, but there may be information I haven't looked at.

[_Kishkumen]

There are lots of facts floating around. I'm just trying to see if there is any factual reason to believe that the contents of the letter differ from what Kate was told in the meeting. I don't recall any such reason, but there may be information I haven't looked at.

How about the fact that a letter for an informal probation exists, and that it was written over two weeks after the meeting during which it was imposed? How about the intervention of General Authorities in a meeting in Virginia just a few days before the letter was sent?

I think it is reasonable to suppose that the visit of the GAs had more to do with the letter than the May 5 meeting. So, it is reasonable to ask whether the letter was simply reiterating the May 5 meeting or expanding upon it in some way.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think you may be asking the wrong question. I think it's not what she did, but that she didn't do. The letter putting her on informal probation states that, if she did not repent, she would be subject to disciplinary action. It also listed several things she needed to do to repent. One of those things was to take down the OW website (or do everything she could to take it down) and disassociate herself from OW. She did neither. I think failure to act is a sufficient explanation for the issuance of a disciplinary notice.

You have a point, but the SPEED in which Kate's leaders jumped from the most lenient action to the most severe sanction available -- 17 DAYS! -- suggests it was something more, in my opinion.

[_Res Ipsa]

How about the fact that a letter for an informal probation exists, and that it was written over two weeks after the meeting during which it was imposed? How about the intervention of General Authorities in a meeting in Virginia just a few days before the letter was sent?

I think it is reasonable to suppose that the visit of the GAs had more to do with the letter than the May 5 meeting. So, it is reasonable to ask whether the letter was simply reiterating the May 5 meeting or expanding upon it in some way.

I'm not saying it is unreasonable to ask. I'm asking if there is any evidence. The fact that the letter was written is not evidence that the letter doesn't accurately reflect what was said at the meeting. No one present at the May 5 meeting has said that Kelly wasn't told to disassociate herself from OW or face formal discipline. No one has said Kate told them that the letter doesn't accurately describe what she was told at the meeting. I'm just not seeing any evidence that would support the conclusion that the letter was different in content than what was discussed at the meeting.

If Kelly was indeed told on May 5 that she needed to disassociate herself from OW or face formal discipline, then a month went by before she was summoned for formal discipline. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the GA visit prompted the writing of the letter, but I don't see any reason to believe based on the evidence that the letter fabricates what was said at the meeting.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think you may be asking the wrong question. I think it's not what she did, but that she didn't do. The letter putting her on informal probation states that, if she did not repent, she would be subject to disciplinary action. It also listed several things she needed to do to repent. One of those things was to take down the OW website (or do everything she could to take it down) and disassociate herself from OW. She did neither. I think failure to act is a sufficient explanation for the issuance of a disciplinary notice.

You have a point, but the SPEED in which Kate's leaders jumped from the most lenient action to the most severe sanction available -- 17 DAYS! -- suggests it was something more, in my opinion.

But it really wasn't the most lenient action available. I think it's been pretty well established that what the SP termed "informal discipline" was in substance a disfellowshipment. And it wasn't 17 days, it was a month. Maybe there is something more, but I don't see the need for it based on the evidence available. Folks may hope there is something more, but that shouldn't affect evaluation of the evidence.