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

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Actually, "informal probation" in the CHI is so, well ... informal, that the bishop is given great latitude in how to handle it. In terms of specific restrictions, here is what Handbook 1 says:

Informal probation is a means by a presiding officer to restrict some of a transgressor's privileges of Church membership. Such restrictions may include suspending the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, exercise the priesthood, or enter the temple. ... (Emphasis added).

Wheatley's May 22 letter included two restrictions from the above passage in the CHI: (i) Kate cannot partake of the sacrament, and (ii) Kate cannot hold a Church calling. Notably (at least for me), there is no restriction on Kate's temple privileges.

However, Wheatley's May 22 letter included additional restrictions for Kate: (i) cannot give a talk; (ii) cannot offer a public prayer; (iii) cannot participate in the sustaining of Church officers; (iv) cannot pray, read a passage, or comment in a Church class or meeting, and (v) cannot use any Church grounds to promote, teach or conduct OW activities (this last one is a no-brainer). Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) are restrictions which came directly from the section in Handbook 1 dealing with "disfellowshipment." It appears that clauses (iv) and (v) came from Wheatley himself, rather than the CHI.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

Sure, that's possible, but I find it unlikely because of the remarkable speed with which the bishop scheduled a council to consider Kate's "excommunication for apostasy." For me, that "speed" is evidenced by the passage of JUST 17 DAYS from the date of Wheatley's letter confirming Kate's "informal probation" and related restrictions, and the bishop's letter scheduling the council for apostasy. In my view, that was just not enough time for Kate's supposed "inaction" to trigger such an escalation. I think there was another, much stronger catalyst for the bishop's scheduling the council as soon as he did. That's my only point.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Does the informal probation notice to Kelly indicate a timeframe within which her behaviour was required to change?

No, Kate's "informal probation" is open-ended in terms the length. Likewise, the section in the CHI dealing with this is open-ended as well and left up to the bishop's discretion.

[_Res Ipsa]

Rollo, I think the combination of Kelly not having disassociated herself from OW and the GA visit may have led the bishop and SP to realize that they were very likely going to have to go through with the discipline threat. Am I remembering right that normally informal discipline is not confirmed by letter? If so, then I'm thinking that the letter was in the nature of a CYA document in case Kelly claimed she had no warning that formal discipline was coming. Perhaps they left the May 5 meeting thinking Kelly was likely to back down, only to be confronted with a statement by a GA a couple weeks later essentially saying that Kelly was in apostasy. I still think it makes more sense to consider May 5, when the warning was given, to be the more important date, but I think your view is reasonable as well.

Were Kelly to say that she was not told on May 5 to disassociate from OW or face discipline, I would see things differently.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, I think the combination of Kelly not having disassociated herself from OW and the GA visit may have led the bishop and SP to realize that they were very likely going to have to go through with the discipline threat.

Certainly possible.

Am I remembering right that normally informal discipline is not confirmed by letter?

The CHI doesn't specifically say this, but there certainly is no requirement of a letter and the bishop is to destroy all notes after informal probation is completed (in other words, no written record is kept).

If so, then I'm thinking that the letter was in the nature of a CYA document in case Kelly claimed she had no warning that formal discipline was coming.

Again, certainly possible.

Perhaps they left the May 5 meeting thinking Kelly was likely to back down, only to be confronted with a statement by a GA a couple weeks later essentially saying that Kelly was in apostasy. I still think it makes more sense to consider May 5, when the warning was given, to be the more important date, but I think your view is reasonable as well.

I think the May 22 date is crucial because that's the date written confirmation was provided. Otherwise, everything would be 'he said, she said.'

Were Kelly to say that she was not told on May 5 to disassociate from OW or face discipline, I would see things differently.

I think she probably was told that, per Wheatley's May 22 letter. For example, Wheatley's May 22 letter states that "on May 5, 2014, you were placed on informal probation as a matter of Church discipline for your activities relating to Ordain Women ...." (Emphasis added). Moreover, the May 22 letter is not absolute on Kate taking down the OW website, stating: "... that you have taken down or done all you can to take down www.ordainwomen.org ...." Kate was also told to "disassociate[] yourself from Ordain Women."

There is NO indication in the May 22 letter that Kate would have only 17 days (or other brief period) to comply with these conditions or else; instead, Wheatley states: "When you show evidence of true repentance and satisfy the conditions imposed, I or your presiding priesthood officer will consider ending this probation." I don't sense any urgency in this statement. Something had to have happened AFTER May 22 to change everything, and it was probably the GA visit (for the simple reason I have been unable to find anything that Kate did between May 22 and June 8 to warrant excommunication).

[_Gadianton]

Indeed reverend, a recorded "informal probation" does seem like a contradiction in terms. In light of Rollo's CHI clarifications this is disturbing.

Rev, you are off the charts the last couple of days.

[_Gadianton]

I seem to recall the story that Quinn's SP at the time Packer first tried to force a disciplinary council against Quinn, refused to do so and, shortly thereafter, he was released. It was only a later SP (also a CES employee and who didn't know Quinn at all) who did as he was told by Packer and ex'ed Quinn (and admitting during the council that Packer was, indeed, personally involved in bringing the action). So I doubt even a sympathetic SP (or other leader) could do anything to stop discipline once headquarters is in a froth about it. Just my $.02.

Thank you, sir. It sounds like Packer is the one guilty of apostasy for not following procedures by allowing local leaders to initiate proceedings and that he got away with it. The other Brethren were either too weak or unconcerned with what's right to stop "the grizzly bear". If the SCMC has gone rogue, it may be that no one cares.

[Guest]

Hmmm. I am still left wondering whether Wheatley's letter added restrictions.

[Guest]

Wheatley's May 22 letter included two restrictions from the above passage in the CHI: (i) Kate cannot partake of the sacrament, and (ii) Kate cannot hold a Church calling. Notably (at least for me), there is no restriction on Kate's temple privileges.

However, Wheatley's May 22 letter included additional restrictions for Kate: (i) cannot give a talk; (ii) cannot offer a public prayer; (iii) cannot participate in the sustaining of Church officers; (iv) cannot pray, read a passage, or comment in a Church class or meeting, and (v) cannot use any Church grounds to promote, teach or conduct OW activities (this last one is a no-brainer). Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) are restrictions which came directly from the section in Handbook 1 dealing with "disfellowshipment." It appears that clauses (iv) and (v) came from Wheatley himself, rather than the CHI.

The details on these letters seem confused. Any corrections?

Answered my own question. You are talking about one letter. Sorry!

[_Kishkumen]

It may be helpful to review James Patterson's June 17 blogpost at rationalfaiths.com.

http://rationalfaiths.com/kate-kellys-local-leaders-follow-handbook/

Outlined below are ways in which Kate Kelly’s leaders either knowingly or unknowingly circumvented established church procedure in bringing charges of apostasy against her.

We will start with President Wheatley.

Issue #1: Jurisdiction
Shortly before leaving the Washington, D.C. area to relocate to Utah, Kate Kelly met with her Stake President, Scott Wheatley and one of his counselors, Kenneth Lee. As a result of that meeting, Kate received a letter notifying her that she had been placed on informal probation.

Said informal probation was to include not holding a calling, giving talks, praying in public, sustaining church officers or “representing that you are a member in good standing.”

A couple of things blatantly at issue here.

First, the Handbook clearly states that the bishop is the first line of defense when it comes to church discipline [1]. Stake Presidents normally get involved when it comes to formal church discipline, and then only for Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

President Wheatley’s first move was to circumvent the church’s code of jurisdiction as outlined by the Handbook by not deferring to her bishop.

Issue #2: Informal Probation Restrictions
President Wheatley outlines some rather odd restrictions to be placed on Kate as a result of an informal probation.

For informal probation [2] , the Handbook discusses things like not taking the sacrament, not attending the temple (including handing in your temple recommend) and not exercising the priesthood (obviously not in play here).

What is striking here is that the more severe restrictions President Wheatley outlines are nowhere to be found in the recommendations of restrictions on those who are going through informal probation. So where did he come up with them?

Those restrictions come from a section on the formal church discipline of Disfellowshipment. [3]
President Wheatley placed disfellowshipment restrictions on Kate Kelly under the guise of informal probation.

All without a formal church court.

President Wheatley sentenced Kate to what is effectively a church prison without a trial.

Issue #3: Impropriety of Informal Probation
The Handbook clearly states that informal probation is NOT to be used when considering some of the more serious acts that formal discipline is meant to address. [4]

On that list are things like murder and incest. Not applicable.

But also on the list is Apostasy. The charge with which Kate is accused in the letter from her bishop.
President Wheatley never should have placed Kate Kelly on informal probation. Her case should have been taken immediately to formal discipline.

Issue #4: Written and (threatened) public notification of informal probation
We all know the church is big on keeping records. Which is why the Handbook clearly states that informal probation does not require ANY sort of paperwork to be done. In fact, it discourages it. [5]

The fact that President Wheatley took the time to write and email a letter to Kate is a not in line with the Handbook’s recommendation for handling informal discipline.

Issue #5: Threatening public announcement of informal probation status
According to Kate Kelly, the reason she came forward last week with the letters was because she was told by President Wheatley that if she did not comply with the demands he placed on her in regards to her (illegal) informal probation, he would go public with it. This, in response and seemingly retaliation to her public actions in conjunction with Ordain Women.

Anyone who knows anything about church discipline – formal or informal, knows this is a big No-No. The Handbook backs this up, with language instructing bishops (again, it’s so unusual for SPs to administer informal probation that the Handbook speaks in terms of the bishop’s actions) to not announce the decision to anyone, and keep only private records that he is to destroy later.

So, now we have Kate Kelly’s Stake President circumventing church policy in five specific ways:

1. Overriding the bishop’s jurisdiction
2. Placing inappropriate restrictions on her for informal probation
3. Improperly placing informal probation on her when her charges necessitated formal church discipline.
4. Keeping a formal record of her informal probation
5. Threatening to make public her informal probation

Those are troubling enough to me. But they don’t end there.

Kate received the email notifying her of her informal probation from President Wheatley on May 22.
On June 8, after she had already left for Utah, she received a letter from her bishop, Mark Harrison, notifying her of a formal disciplinary council being called to address the charge of Apostasy against her.

Let’s take a look at the issues surrounding that letter.

Issue #1: Mode of notification
When I served as a bishop’s counselor, I knew not only from reading the Handbook, but also from participating in a few church courts myself that all notifications of church disciplinary action being taken on an individual must be delivered to the accused in person, by two Melchizedek priesthood holders.

But wait, you say. Kate had already moved to Utah by then.

Yes. Which is why the church puts an exception into the notification rule. But it’s not email. [6]
If a member being summoned before a disciplinary council cannot be reached in person, the church officer issuing the letter “may” deliver the notification via certified mail, with return receipt requested where available.

“May” implies permission given. That’s standard use throughout the Handbook.
Thus, bishops are given special permission to step outside the normal rule (hand delivery by two MP holders) by sending via certified mail.

What’s lost here is the intent of this rule. Why two MP holders? Why certified mail with return receipt?
It seems to me that the Handbook is encouraging the “in the mouths of two or three witnesses” here. Multiple priesthood holders can attest to a successful delivery of the letter.

A return receipt implies that the post office (while obviously void of priesthood authority) is acting alongside the bishop as a witness that the letter was delivered properly.
Email falls outside these bounds. There is no proof of delivery. No guarantee that the receiver opened the email and received your message.

Can you send a regular court summons via email? No, and for good reason.

Bishop Harrison goofed when he sent his notification via email.
He seems here to be following the pattern of President Wheatley, which would suggest to me that their efforts were in some way coordinated.

Issue #2: No counsel provided
The Handbook makes it clear that, before resorting to church discipline, the presiding officer should attempt to meet with the individual to counsel over the issues at hand. This, understandably, is a course of action meant to stave off formal church discipline and allow the accused to repent on their own accord. [7]

According to multiple interviews with Kate, her bishop never once expressed an ounce of concern with her involvement with Ordain Women. Not when the website went up, not at the first public demonstration, not when church PR got involved and not at the second demonstration.

Here’s what Kate told the Salt Lake Tribune:
“I said [to my bishop] if you have any questions, please come to me first, let’s have a conversation about it. And he literally never approached me. Every Sunday, week after week, I saw him, I interacted with him, I had a calling. He never called me. He never stopped by my house. He never pulled me aside on any Sunday. He personally never called me in to have a conversation about this.”

The Handbook indicates that personal interviews are an opportunity for the accused to confess and forsake sin. Even if she stood at fault for any of her actions (I don’t believe she is at fault), Kate Kelly was never given a chance to personally confess to her bishop through a personal interview. This, after multiple personal interactions between Kate and Bishop Harrison.

Issue #3: Not giving adequate time to consider implications of formal church discipline or to gather facts
The Handbook takes formal church discipline very seriously. So much so, that it counsels bishops and stake presidents to wait until the accused has had a reasonable amount of time to consider the ramifications of a formal disciplinary hearing before scheduling the hearing. [8]

Bishop Harrison’s letter gives no time. In fact, he scheduled the hearing with absolutely no warning. Notification of discipline and scheduling of the council, all within the same few paragraphs.

The presiding officer is also encouraged to gather as much information as possible before deciding on a course of action. Presumably, this would include talking to the accused if they are amenable to discussing, no?

What Bishop Harrison should have done was to either visit with Kate prior to her departure, or call her in order to inform her that he was considering formal church discipline. See, this is the part where the accused gets an opportunity to speak openly with the accuser before “charges” are formally filed.

Bishop Harrison never even gave her that chance.

Issue #4: Official Wording
This one is nitpicky to be sure, but it highlights Bishop Harrison’s sloppiness.

The Handbook clearly gives specific wording the letter of notification of formal discipline is to contain. I’m quite sure this is for legal reasons. Words you might commonly hear on the news pertaining to people who have been accused – but not convicted – of a crime. [9]

Reading his letter…er….email, Bishop Harrison clearly is writing off the cuff here.

Again, a nitpick, but it speaks to the overall bypassing of the Handbook by Bishop Harrison.

Issue #5: Kate’s Relocation
This one is pretty important.

The Handbook clearly states that if a member moves while church discipline is being considered, the presiding officers in both locations are to consult together on the best course of action. Should action be taken in the member’s old ward or new ward? That’s up to both bishops to decide. [10]

We know that Kate had not been informed by her bishop before she moved that he was considering formal discipline. In fact, she has stated repeatedly in the last week that her bishop saw her just days before she pulled out of town to leave for Utah, and never mentioned a word of it.

“I saw him before I left, I gave him a hug and that was it,” Kate has said.

Bishop Harrison makes no indication in his letter to Kate that he consulted with Kate’s new bishop in Utah and they both, together, decided to hold the council in Virginia. In fact, there is clear indication that Bishop Harrison had no intention of moving her records at all, something he should have informed Kate of before she moved.

The Handbook encourages this communication between presiding authorities for several reasons. The availability of witnesses is one. I am not keen on this information specifically, but it is my understanding that several prominent Ordain Women leaders reside in Utah. Leaders who could have acted as witnesses on either side. Obviously, Church leaders – who told Ordain Women not to hold another demonstration during April Conference could act as witnesses against Kate – reside in Utah.

It would seem to me that a church court would actually make more sense in Utah. And yet, in his wisdom, it would seem he finds it completely appropriate to not only hold the council in Virginia, but not to bother discussing the matter with Kate’s new bishop.

So, Bishop Harrison seems to have circumvented the Handbook in the following ways:

1. Improper method of notification
2. Not providing any type of pastoral counsel prior to issuing notice of formal discipline
3. Not giving adequate time for accused to consider implications, or time to gather information
4. Official wording not used
5. Improperly handling her relocation

Church leaders have a sacred obligation to treat church discipline with the seriousness and preciseness inherent with threatening to strip someone of their membership.

What’s most striking about this issue is what position this has put Kate in. She has stated multiple times over the last week that the most frustrating thing is how “opaque” the church disciplinary process is.

Most church members would never know about these procedures, because the church keeps the Handbook strictly prohibited to Stake Presidencies and bishoprics.

While it may be in the church’s best interest to keep this information under a tight lid, it also makes abuse of power not only a real possibility, but much easier to pull off.

Because when the members don’t know the rules, it’s impossible to know if their leaders aren’t following them.