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

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Fair enough. I see no evidence that the letter added new conditions. I raised the question because the irregularity of the letter itself prompts one to wonder what else might be irregular.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

I disagree. Informal probation consists of intervening to prevent a person from doing things they might have elected to decline doing on their own, but without any formal record or expectation that the situation will be prolonged. The nature of the prohibitions is similar, but the severity of disfellowshipping is at a whole new level. In support of this I offer the LDS theology of record keeping. A recorded informal probation is a contradiction in terms. This is strong evidence of the irregularity of Kelly's disciplinary process.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

I disagree. Informal probation consists of intervening to prevent a person from doing things they might have elected to decline doing on their own, but without any formal record or expectation that the situation will be prolonged. The nature of the prohibitions is similar, but the severity of disfellowshipping is at a whole new level. In support of this I offer the LDS theology of record keeping. A recorded informal probation is a contradiction in terms. This is strong evidence of the irregularity of Kelly's disciplinary process.

Calling the process used "irregular" is being quite kind. If I'm remembering the CHI quotes correctly, the restrictions placed on Kelly by the SP were those listed for disfellowshipping and not for informal discipline. And there should have been no written record. That's why I say what was actually done was disfellowshipping without benefit of a court. And that's why I don't think there is a big jump from the substance of the "informal discipline" to initiating formal disciplinary action.

[_Kishkumen]

I stand corrected. I did not check the CHI and I was under the impression that informal discipline was variable and might include the very same conditions as disfellowshipping.

[_Bazooka]

Isn't it a question of what Kate didn't do?

For instance, she didn't take down the Ordain Women website, didn't resign from her leadership role, didn't publicly recant her position and views etc. Isn't the issue that Kate didn't immediately take on board the sentiments of the informal probation and head off down the road of repentance that President Wheatley had counselled her to take?

Edit. Sorry, I missed Brad's post where he makes the same point.

[_Bazooka]

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.

Does the informal probation notice to Kelly indicate a timeframe within which her behaviour was required to change?
(I'm trying to get it from Ordain Women, but the website access appears frozen)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

For me, at least, the operative date for "informal probation" was May 22, when Wheatley's letter CONFIRMED the imposition and terms of Kate's "informal probation." Hence, the 17 days until the bishop's June 8 letter scheduling a council to consider Kate's "excommunication for apostasy."

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.

I certainly believe the May 17 GA leadership meeting was an important catalyst for the bishop's June 8 letter; I've just been wondering what effect, if any, the May 17 meeting had on Wheatley's May 22 letter. I've leaned toward the conclusion that the May 17 meeting caused Wheatley and Harrison to believe they had to do more than "informal probation" but, at the same time, needed to tie up any loose ends with that discipline; ergo, the May 22 letter, all the while knowing Harrison would, in short order, send a new letter that ratcheted up the discipline. Just my theory.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

I agree that the severe "terms" of Kate's informal probation seemed inappropriate for that particular discipline, at least under the CHI. Nevertheless, it was characterized as "informal probation," which is detailed in the CHI, so I think we have to go with that.

And it wasn't 17 days, it was a month.

I contend it was 17 days because the "informal probation" and restrictions were "confirmed" in writing on May 22; hence, as of that date there was rock-solid evidence of the informal probation and the terms thereof. This is why I can only conclude that something happened on or after May 22 and on or before June 8 to warrant the change in discipline, and I don't think that "something" came from Kate's action (or inaction) but from somewhere else (such as Elders Ballard and Clayton).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If I'm remembering the CHI quotes correctly, the restrictions placed on Kelly by the SP were those listed for disfellowshipping and not for informal discipline.

You are absolutely correct, and I thought from the beginning that the restrictions placed on Kate far exceeded what was appropriate for "informal probation." This was one of many irregularities I noticed in the discipline of Kate. In addition, "informal probation" is almost always done through the bishop, especially when a woman in involved, and here it was the SP -- another irregularity.

And there should have been no written record.

Correct again -- another obvious irregularity.

That's why I say what was actually done was disfellowshipping without benefit of a court.

I also thought Wheatley's May 22 letter smacked more of disfellowshipment than "informal probation," which made me wonder what he was really up to.

And that's why I don't think there is a big jump from the substance of the "informal discipline" to initiating formal disciplinary action.

In that sense, you are correct. Nevertheless, official excommunication is far more serious than what Wheatley did in his May 22 letter -- e.g., as a result of her excommunication, all of Kate's ordinances and temple covenants were wiped out, she's no longer sealed to her eternal companion, etc. -- the consequences of official excommunication are far greater than anything Wheatley did in his May 22 letter.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm with Rollo.