DiscussMormonism.com

This may have already been discussed on the "Did Kate lie?" thread; if so, I apologize.

I'm just trying to figure out what Kate Kelly did between May 22 (the date of her SP's letter confirming "informal probation") and June 8 (the date of her bishop's letter scheduling a council on June 22 to consider her "disfellowshipment or excommunication, on the grounds of apostasy"). How, over the course of just 17 days, did Kate's local leaders jump from the least severe of all Church discipline (i.e., informal probation) to the most severe (i.e., excommunication)?

We know from Stake Pres. Wheatley's May 22 letter to Kate, that during a May 5 meeting between Wheatley, his counselor, and Kate, she was placed on "informal probation." Apparently nothing changed over the next 17 days from May 5, because the letter "confirming" this informal probation and the terms thereof was dated May 22.

We know, also, from Bishop Harrison's June 23 letter (in which he informs Kate of her excommunication) that he knew of the May 5 meeting with Wheatley (and "fully" agreed with the meeting being held) and its outcome (i.e., informal probation).

So what exactly did Kate do between May 22 (the date of Wheatley's letter) and June 8 (the date of Harrison's letter) -- JUST 17 DAYS! -- to cause the bishop to decide the stake president's "informal probation" was insufficient (even though Harrison said he was fully in agreement with that May 5 meeting and its outcome) and that Kate should now face excommunication?

I looked around but could not find any answer. The bishop's June 23 letter (announcing the excommunication and related restrictions) doesn't say, but leaves this one hint about after Kate was placed on informal probation: "Yet, you have persisted undeterred." Hmm, what does this mean? What did Kate do after May 22 and before June 8 that led to this conclusion? I looked on the OW blog, but the only entry I could find between May 22 and June 8 was a short post (on May 30) by Kate praising Michael Otterson's "open letter" about women issues published on the Times & Seasons website on May 29. Certainly that brief and civil post by Kate could not be the catalyst for excommunication.

The bishop's letter also mentioned Kate's actions during April GC and OW publishing "Six Discussions" on its website, but these all occurred BEFORE Wheatley's May 22 letter confirming Kate's informal probation. So, as far as I can tell, Kate did NOTHING between May 22 and June 8 to trigger an escalation from the lowest form of discipline to the highest.

So why did the bishop state that Kate "persisted undeterred" after being placed on informal probation? I honestly don't know, but I personally would bet that further instructions from Wheatley's and Harrison's file leaders were given during that 17-day period, explaining the haste in which Harrison scheduled a council to consider excommunication. Perhaps their hearing OW branded as an "apostate" group by Elder Clayton at the May 17 leadership meeting in D.C. (which both Wheatley and Harrison would have attended) had something to do with it, and Wheatley's May 22 letter was nothing more than mere formality (i.e., Wheatley had to confirm what happened at the May 5 meeting in order to 'dot the i's and cross the t's' so he and Harrison could then move forward to greater sanctions). In any event, I find the whole timeline of discipline VERY odd and suggesting that some shenanigans were going on behind the scenes (i.e., headquarters was not happy with Wheatley merely putting Kate on "informal probation," and demanded more severe discipline be applied, despite the fact that Kate had done nothing since being placed on "informal probation" just 17 days before).

I guess we'll never know everything that happened, but I'm pretty convinced high Church leaders played a real role in how things turned out for Kate. Just another example of FUBAR.

Thanks for expounding on that timeline. And good question.

The answer is that Kelly's actions have almost nothing to do with the excommunication. Elders Ballard and Clayton were the ones motivating the excommunication.

Kishkumen wrote:The answer is that Kelly's actions have almost nothing to do with the excommunication. Elders Ballard and Clayton were the ones motivating the excommunication.

This.

While I agree that Elders Clayton and Ballard were the prime movers in this, it is also possible that even though the OW discussions had appeared on the OW website, it was not discovered by the local authorities until after June 8 apostasy letter went out.

But it looks like they were announced on May 1st and launched on May 15th, so that doesn't seem very likely.

Is there evidence that Elders Clayton and Ballard went to Virginia with the express purpose of delivering this message to the stake presidents?

Or is it something that originated with a question from a stake president (Wheatley?) in the audience?

Or was this a question that was planted in the audience by Elders Clayton or Ballard in order to make it look like they weren't bringing it up in the first place but only responding?

Sort of like Lois Lerner planted that question in the audience about the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

That worked out well for her . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would say that, given who had been in the stake, calling the move to ordain women "apostasy" was a pretty clear message, regardless of what else may have been said.

I can't prove that anything else was said, but I think the circumstantial evidence that something more was said is pretty strong.

Kishkumen wrote:The answer is that Kelly's actions have almost nothing to do with the excommunication. Elders Ballard and Clayton were the ones motivating the excommunication.

Wait, I thought Elder Nelson chaired the SCMC. At least he did when Denver Snuffer was ex'ed. Was there a change?

Saw Skooh wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:The answer is that Kelly's actions have almost nothing to do with the excommunication. Elders Ballard and Clayton were the ones motivating the excommunication.

Wait, I thought Elder Nelson chaired the SCMC. At least he did when Denver Snuffer was ex'ed. Was there a change?

Elder Nelson may have been involved too. All I know is that Ballard and Clayton were the ones who went to Virginia right before the letter affirming the "informal" discipline was sent.

Kishkumen wrote:

Saw Skooh wrote:Wait, I thought Elder Nelson chaired the SCMC. At least he did when Denver Snuffer was ex'ed. Was there a change?

Elder Nelson may have been involved too. All I know is that Ballard and Clayton were the ones who went to Virginia right before the letter affirming the "informal" discipline was sent.

I see.

consiglieri wrote:While I agree that Elders Clayton and Ballard were the prime movers in this, it is also possible that even though the OW discussions had appeared on the OW website, it was not discovered by the local authorities until after June 8 apostasy letter went out.

But it looks like they were announced on May 1st and launched on May 15th, so that doesn't seem very likely.

Is there evidence that Elders Clayton and Ballard went to Virginia with the express purpose of delivering this message to the stake presidents?

Or is it something that originated with a question from a stake president (Wheatley?) in the audience?

Or was this a question that was planted in the audience by Elders Clayton or Ballard in order to make it look like they weren't bringing it up in the first place but only responding?

Sort of like Lois Lerner planted that question in the audience about the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS.

That worked out well for her . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Recently I attended a stake conference at which Elder Oaks spoke, he explained that the reason that stake had been chosen for him to speak at was that it had be 23 years since the last time an apostle had spoken in the stake (at least my memory says it was 23 years in any case it was decades as I remember) so what are the chances that it is a coincidence that Elder Ballard and Clayton show up in KK's area just at the same time her local leaders decide to take action against her?
Not much in my opinion.