Ordain Women releases LDS bishop's letter giving reasons for Kelly's excommunication

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • erichard COMANCHE, TX
    June 28, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    The LDS leadership seem to teach that THEY are the law the church is to live by. But the D&C says the revelations in IT are the law the church is to live by. The LDS leadership fight any attempt of members to claim the right to legitimately have a controversy over them and their decisions. But D&C 107:81-84 gives instructions on how to have a special Bishop's trial over the President of the church, or one of his counselors-- saying this special trial will be the end of controversy over the matter. JST Mark 9:40-48 unfolds the mystery of one of Christ's parables: Every member of the body of Christ must accept the responsibility to "stand or fall" for themselves and not for another. This means if a brother, a leader or even the Prophet fail they must not fall with them. Kelly should not seek to make decisions for the church leadership. She was not called to do that. But she can seek to claim the right of legitimate dissent based on the scriptures I quoted.

  • sukiyhtaky us, CA
    June 27, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    As an nonmember, it seems rather obvious to me that Ms Kelly has a personal agenda in all of this and no real interest in changing doctrine. If she had a true love of the church and desire to hold the priesthood which she has professed, especially when there are photographers and crowds around, this great desire to hold the priesthood would have ignited a chord of respect in her when she received the letter regarding the disciplinary meeting or when the bishop tried unsuccesfully to meet with her. That lack of respect of the office shows she has no real regards for the office and only the attention the movement brings her. Besides how could you be a good priesthood leader when you show such disregard for one of the most serious tasks they have to perform? Might I suggest a move to Nigeria where she might be ablt to use her experience as a human rights attorney to help the kidnapped children rather than seeking glory for herself as the person who toppled LDS doctrine on women and the priesthood.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 27, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    at the end of the day the Church will move on with or without Kate Kelly it is her choice. Years will pass and like Sonia Johnson of years past Kelly will either become more bitter OR perhaps she will reverse course and see the big picture and repent....and return. Let's hope for the latter. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said that even many of the elect of the church will be deceived and fight against the church. The elect have been leaving since the days of Thomas Marsh and others only to return years later humbled and broken having suffered the loss of the Spirit for their actions. The church - like the Savior - ALWAYS extends a hand to help us return if we humble ourselves as a little child.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 27, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    Wow - this letter gives Kelly every opportunity to stop her recruitment efforts and teaching others her "Six Discussions" as well as bring down her web site. I thought it was interesting that she was excommunicated NOT for having views which didn't align with Church teachings but instead she was excommunicated for her active recruitment efforts. For those who blast the church for not allowing members another point of view - you are wrong. You are allowed your own point of view you just can't actively recruit others to that point of view because that crosses the line into destroying the Church as a whole. So Kelly was being dishonest when she indicated publically that she just wanted to be heard - she not only wanted to be heard she wanted others to hear her and follow her and she sought them out and advertised which is a horse of a different color altogether. In politics you create change by getting a following for your cause but not so with the Church of Jesus Christ...not today and not during the time of Jesus. In the end the door was left open for her...

  • brightness Taylorsville, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    We are all God's children, he does not discriminate, Ms Kelley was practicing "freedom of speech", irregardless God loves her and all of us.

  • Linda S. Orem, Utah
    June 26, 2014 1:11 a.m.

    I read with interest the letter,however I felt uncomfortable doing so. I find it sad - not just the excumunication of Sis. Kelly - but sad that something so private and so sacred to those directly involved needed to be publically published - even by the Deseret News itself. I felt guilty reading it. To me it was akin to reading the patriarchal blessing of another individual. However, since some of the local media have distorted the story and the facts of the story, I can understand the church - through Deseret News seeing the necessity of publishing the letter - which had all ready been released by Sis. Kelly - to uphold the integrity of the church. Yes, it is obvious that the bishop carefully worded the letter knowing it would most likely be publically released.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 25, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    "...as if God would accede to the demands if the mob."

    God doesn't accede to mobs. The federal government, maybe, but mobs, no.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 25, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    "She didn't just show disobedience to her leaders. She basically ignored everything they counselled her on."

    Which is to say, she disobeyed them.

    Counsel is counsel and orders are orders. If you ignore "counsel" -- the recommendations of someone like your lawyer or therapist -- you act at your own peril, and if the counsel turns out to have been good, you may be worse off for it. But counselors don't punish you for ignoring them.

    If you are punished for "ignoring counsel," then it's not really counsel. It's an order.

    You are saying that it's proper to excommunicate someone for disobeying orders.

  • Rural sport fan DUCHESNE, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    It is odd how a person can profess to value and want a position of supposed authority, and yet refuse to acknowledge or accept it's authority concerning her and her ideas.
    She obsessed over ask and ye shall receive, while totally rejecting live by the words of the prophets. Sorry, but it's Gods plan, God's church, if you don't accept that, then you are putting your own views over God's. She could have remained a member forever if she had kept praying about it on her own, the problem was, she actively lobbied others to her cause, publicly trying to get popular opinion to sway the leaders of the church, as if God would accede to the demands if the mob.
    That's the problem. You can't expect God to do a deal with you, just because you make noise.

  • BYU Fan in DC Washington, DC
    June 25, 2014 7:03 a.m.

    As someone who know Kate (both in Provo and DC), I think she had good intentions and was able to get her message across about the desire for Women to hold the priesthood. I think the first attempt to enter priesthood session showed that. However, it appears that she loved the idea of a church where women hold the priesthood more than the LDS church which does not. Sorry to say, but this would have to be the truth considering she doesn't plan to change her stance. Honestly, if she wants to hold an authority like the priesthood, I believe the Unitarian Church has a very nice prophetess who is also Lesbian. Their beliefs are not very doctrinally set (barely read the bible), but they do include everyone and you can walk in on Sunday in shorts and a tanktop.

  • John McLaverty UK, 00
    June 25, 2014 2:31 a.m.

    This issue has raised some attention internationally, and as a UK citizen I was surprised to see the decision letter published. This appears to have been at the request of Ordain Women, would the other party to the private correspondence i.e. the ward bishop, have been asked his view about its publication?

  • JohnMill Australia, 00
    June 24, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    If Ms Kelly is genuinely seeking to have her questions answered she must be prepared to listen and accept the answers when they are given.
    It is clear that the only answer she was prepared to accept was the one she has already determined herself.
    Sadly it is not Ms Kelly's place to receive revelation for the Church, nor to dictate to the governing councils of the Church.
    No man (or woman) taketh this honour unto themselves except he that is called of Gaod as was Aaron.
    There is only one person on the earth who possesses and is authorised to exercise all priesthood keys - including to whom priesthood is extended. Sorry, Ms Kelly but that person is not you.
    Finally, you are lucky that what happened to you is a far better result than what happened to Korah who similarly made demands for authority he was not entitled to and stirred up others to support him.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    June 24, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    Proud Duck: She didn't just show disobedience to her leaders. She basically ignored everything they counselled her on. When asked not to do something and what the answer would be she went against that. When informed of the fact she was having a disciplinary council she went to the media. When she received this letter by email she again went before the media. All the facts spell out complete and total contempt for everything the priesthood stands for. Everything has been her own choice and she is being excommunicated for those choices. She went out and proselyted to get others to enter into her organization. She is no different than any of the apostates in the early Church and the ones mentioned in the Bible and Book of Mormon. In each of those cases the individual either repented or their names were blotted out. This has happened here by men called of God to be common judges in the House of Israel. In other parts of this case the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has remained above board with Ms. Kelly. It is now in her hands as is her eternal progression.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 24, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    The excommunication doesn't concern me terribly. The Church needs to maintain boundaries, and I think it can reasonably say one has been crossed when you form a formal group to enlist the aid of outsiders to put pressure on the Church.

    What troubles me is are so many of the comments, whose theme is that mere disobedience of ecclesiastical leaders is grounds for excommunication. By that standard, the Apostle Paul should have been excommunicated for disobedience to Peter (who had it coming).

    Almost ye persuade me to be a Protestant. (Except those guys have baggage of their own.) To have a disciple's heart is one thing. Servility is another.

    Prophets are only prophets when they are acting as such. To analogize, if the LDS Church ever did something as horrendous as the Presbyterian Church, USA just did -- voting to boycott certain companies doing business with Israel, based in part on a church-issued document using language originating with the venomous anti-Semite David Duke, I would have no choice but to oppose it, loudly and publicly, let the consequence follow.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    June 24, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    I am surprised the DN put this letter on the website. I don't understand the rationale, given these things are to remain private. The fact that one side made them public or "everyone else" is doing it, would not seem to be a valid reason. When we think of all the things DN will not but on here, this one surprises me.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 24, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    I thank Kate Kelly for making the full text of the letter available for public perusal. It serves the interest of public knowledge on both the details of her particular case and more generally how Church leaders explain their actions. Anyone can read the notification letter and come to their own conclusions on what to make of it all.

  • CA. reader Rocklin, CA
    June 24, 2014 1:53 p.m.

    If what she says is true, that her Church membership is important to her, Sister Kelly can appeal the decision to the stake president and simply pledge to cease and desist her activities.

    When I saw that she calls herself an international human rights lawyer, it became apparent that she has started to see things from a worldly perspective. She seems to have forgotten those ever so applicable words from D & C 89 "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days..." While we think in terms of the Word of Wisdom that phrase can be used to measure most of what the world believes to be important in these latter days.

  • halfdozen99 Bend, OR
    June 24, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    As members of the church, we know what will happen when we do not heed to council. This was done, numerous times. She knew what the results would be. For people commenting that it was sad that this was done via email and that she wasn't even at this meeting. She was given many opportunities and they offered to change dates. She was not fully truthful about things she was saying publicly about the church. Also, she had a lawyer friend draw up a letter, as well as submitted letters of support to this meeting. So it is a was obvious she did not want and had no intentions of wanting to go to this meeting. I pray she finds happiness. I know fighting for something can't be all that happy. It has to be/take, frustration, anger, and bitterness and it is in my opinion, towards The Lord. Because this is His church. She is rebelling against her Father. She was a member, she knew what the consequences of her actions would be. And she didn't even show in person to defend her cause.

  • cval Hyde Park, UT
    June 24, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    Despite what OW want us to believe, this is not about asking hard questions. It is about two things:

    1) Making a public spectacle and media event around what otherwise would be private and personal, and
    2) How they responded to the answers they received to their "hard questions."

    June 24, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Let's not forget Bishop Harrison in all of this. As the Bishop, he puts in long hours and sacrifices time with his family serviing his Ward. On top of that, he has this and the media circus that is involved to deal with!

    His letter is a perfect example of loving correction - exactly what Jesus did so often in the New Testament.

    Bishop Harrison, thank you for your service and dedication to the Lord and your Ward!!!

  • John S. Harvey Sandy, UT
    June 24, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    I'm very glad the letter was released by Sister Kelly, it provides background information that has been missing from the conversation. (I use the term "Sister Kelly" because all are children of God and therefore spiritual siblings.)

    I'm very sad the excommunication happened. I think it could have been avoided if Sister Kelly and her local Church leaders had spent more time 1) studying the history of women anointing and giving blessings in the first 100 years of the Church's history (even to the point of being set apart as healers in the temples), and 2) talking about why those practices were discontinued. The practices were not discontinued because the authority and right to do so was not present, but because the Church leaders found it would be "far better" to rely on the Elders for such things. Such reasoning does not preclude women being ordained, but it does suggest the need for a revelation recognizing the situation/circumstances have changed and that the membership would be better served by a joint priesthood.

    One other point of clarification: There were several offers made to Sister Kelly to cover her travel and lodging expenses - she declined those offers.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 24, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    This letter was a private communication between a bishop and a former ward member. Publishing it for public display had one primary motive - to illicit outrage and further the misguided cause that brought about the Disciplinary Council in the first place.

  • donn layton, UT
    June 24, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    RE: Vanceone So basically she was excommunicated for preaching false doctrine and trying to draw others after her. i.e..,
    Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt was the first wife of LDS Apostle and polygamist Orson Pratt and later a critic of Mormon polygamy. She was a founder of the Anti-Polygamy Society in Salt Lake she was excommunicated on 4 October 1874.
    Ann Eliza Young was one of Brigham Young's fifty-five wives and later a critic of polygamy. She was excommunicated from the LDS church in 1874. Then,
    "In 1890, President Woodruff’s Declaration to the Church and to the people of the U.S. referred to as The Manifesto."

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 24, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    Her position, to me, doesn't make any sense. If you truly believe in LDS doctrine, then you believe such things as who gets the priesthood are revealed by God to prophets. It's not a democracy and there can't, by definition, be a grassroots movement to make any non-cosmetic changes, and certainly not to a policy as important as who can have the priesthood. If that's the case, I truly don't understand what her point is.

    If she in fact doesn't really believe the LDS church is God's church, then why would she care so much about possessing what would then be -- again, by definition -- a made-up claim to phony priesthood authority? Could it be that she really loves most aspects of the faith but doesn't actually believe its core doctrines, and thus is treating it as a nice organization with flaws she's trying to fix? I honestly don't get it.

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    June 24, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    From my varied experiences with disciplinary councils, I can comparatively say that this private notification letter was totally unexceptional - standard in content, approach and nature. And given that the individual had been on an informal probation already, it's totally standard practice that a further action was conducted by him since that had not been resolved.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 24, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    The LDS church has every right to excommunicate her. It is their church. The set the rules of membership.

    Actions have outcomes.

    That said, people are also free to judge the LDS church for doing so.

    Ain't America great!

  • Wacoan Waco, TX
    June 24, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    Maybe I am splitting hairs but Sister Kelly's bishop did not compel her to do anything. He did offer a tradeoff that was possibly painful.
    As a former resident of Southern California, I hope that you are a proud Mighty Duck not an OU duck. Oh well, what does it matter. The sand is warm and the water, cool.

  • Wacoan Waco, TX
    June 24, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    After providing information to the New York Times, Sister Kelly wrote a disturbing letter to her bishopric. It did not have a greeting or address them by title and yet stated "As you sit in council regarding my eternal fate tomorrow..." She also declared that "I will not take down the website ordainwomen.org. I will not stop speaking out publicly on the issue of gender inequality in the church. These things President Wheatley instructed me to do, I cannot do in good conscience."

    Either Sister Kelly believes that these issues are more important than her eternal fate or that these men that she stated "sit in council regarding my eternal fate" do not.

    Ironically, she asks the council to "allow me to continue to worship in peace" which means noisily advocating her position to the determent of others who disagree with her position that would like to worship in peace.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 10:58 p.m.

    "*they* didn't *care* enough about me or the situation to do this personally with me in the same room while I was still living there."
    And yet OW had fund raisers to send people to Utah to protest. And nobody, including Kate herself, couldn't come up with the money to attend her own disciplinary council? Had she attended in person, it would have demonstrated that maybe she indeed was sincere in keeping her membership intact. But if finding funds to send people to protest against the Church is more important than one's own membership, then I remain skeptical that Kate really wanted to attend.

    Kate is a very successful lawyer, and must be very intelligent. It is my opinion that she has coordinated this all along. She is too intelligent to not understand that public protests and agitation against the Church is not inline with being a member in good standing. She must have known that all this would lead to excommunication. Personally, I believe she has been expecting this. Someone of her intelligence has to. I hope she finds happiness and eventually makes her way back to the Church.

  • Globetrecker Arlington, va
    June 23, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    I am surprised to see so many people say that Kate Kelly hasn't done anything to lead people away from the church, and then admit that they themselves are considering leaving the Church. This is all a result of her actions, and by saying that you are leaving, you are showing how correct the Church has been on their stance.

    I'm sorry to see so many of my brothers and sisters hurting. But I am also incredibly grateful that pure doctrine has been upheld and false doctrine and false teachers have been disciplined to prevent further apostasy (hopefully).

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    June 23, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    Didn't even bother showing up to her own disciplinary hearing. She's not coming back. She obviously doesn't care. Even the mere act of publicizing something like this shows she doesn't take it seriously.

  • old_cuss_101 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    Still, as Isaiah observes, "His hand is outstretched still..." There is a standing, kindly invitation to return. As sad as disciplinary councils are, a happy day is better defined by a sweet "reinstatement council," something yet to hope and pray for.

    A nice thing in our territory is an increased emphasis on "Ward Council" meetings where participation of the sisters can be recognized as a major contribution and driving force for good in the ward. Thanks "Elder Ballard" for that encouragement.

  • old_cuss_101 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:30 p.m.

    Any organization of purpose and responsibility has both right and duty to maintain the integrity of its core principles and to limit its membership to those who will at the least not contend, and for the better, enthusiastically support. For, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." In differentiating between core principle and "differences of administration," Thomas Jefferson suggested: "In matters of principle, firm as a rock. In matters of taste, bend like the willow."

    In hanging their helmet on the peg of ordaining women, the Sister(s) Kelly have effectively worked to establish their own little church, apparently concluding that for them, the Lord has left the mother organization. With others, it will be hers to learn that "The dog barks while the caravan passes on."

  • dasha! Provo, UT
    June 23, 2014 8:13 p.m.

    To shaq34 and others saying similar things ("...they wanted to reschedule with her. This would have been decided in person had she gone to her own disciplinary council...She didn't even care enough to show up to her own council.")...oh, yes, how kind of them...yes, bending over backwards to accommodate her. Sure...that's why they waited until she had left her longtime ward/stake/stake and is temporarily visiting with family over 1,500 miles away before soon leaving the country (for professional reasons) before they summoned her to their "court of love." I don't think accusing her of simply "refusing" to scrounge up the money to fly back to where she just came from is a fair assessment. And I have no idea why she didn't do it via Skype...but, then, neither do any of you. I personally would be ticked off with their (in)convenient timing and the fact that *they* didn't *care* enough about me or the situation to do this personally with me in the same room while I was still living there. Either deal with me in person or leave me to my next bishop/stake president.

  • 79Ute Orange County, CA
    June 23, 2014 8:01 p.m.

    Proud Duck:

    I often see your posts and generally agree with you - maybe it's something in our water. However, I completely disagree with todayt's post.

    This action doesn't operate to "compel" her to do anything. KK stated categorically that she will not be compelled to stop her OW activities. While she can't do things that come with the privileges and responsibilities of membership, her compulsion has been her choice. The Church can't compel us to do anything.

    Each of us is in total control of our relationship with the Lord and His Church. The bishopric couldn't persuade her so they revoked her membership for conduct in opposition to the Church. Let's not pretend it's something it isn't.

    I've closely watched this develop over the last year. My biggest concern has been that KK continues to state that she did nothing other than ask questions (I watched her say this in an interview on KUTV last week). The OW site, her statements, and her actions at General Conference prove otherwise.

    Honesty with ourselves is the foundation for honesty with others.

  • ldsjrr USA, IN
    June 23, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    Sadly, Sister Kelly, said that she loves the gospel but seems to me that she doesn't understand the gospel. Because of that she has mistaken the doctrine of the church. I think at this time she should refer to Elder Bednar's talk "Bear up Their Burdens with Ease." In this talk he mentions that sometimes the load will help you to move forward. I wish the best for her and I will keep her in my prayers hoping she can find her way to the truth and repent of her actions.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 23, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    I am sad for Ms. Kelly. I support the bishopric and their decision. I believe they approach this with the greatest of care and prayer. I hope that Ms. Kelly will find her way.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 23, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    As much as these proceedings may be couched in language of love, the power beneath is plain. The fact is that in a disciplinary council for "apostasy," the court has the power to take away something the other person values -- and uses it as leverage to compel the other person to obey.

    Maybe this was necessary. But let's not pretend this is something other than what it is. The apostolic Church wanted Sister Kelly to stop doing something. It could not persuade her, so it compelled her.

  • michael.jensen369 Lethbridge, 00
    June 23, 2014 6:02 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar

    Thanks for such a great comment. I very much agree.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    June 23, 2014 5:51 p.m.

    So basically she was excommunicated for preaching false doctrine and trying to draw others after her. She was, in a word, excommunicated for Priestcraft, (setting herself up as a light to the world) rather than getting the Priesthood.

    Tis truly a sad state of affairs. The letter was sent by email and also certified mail, and it certainly sounds like the Bishop tried to be very fair towards her. She was just on a path that led to apostasy, and never deviated.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 23, 2014 4:54 p.m.

    I'm glad the local bishop put some of those things in the letter, probably knowing that the letter would be publicly released. Getting his perspective on the matter is important because it sheds light on how disingenuous KK and the OW movement have been. I've gone to their website and they certainly are selective in what they post (both in terms of scripture, quotes of general authorities, and even this excommunication letter received by KK). There are several half-truths and misquotes on their website. I've tried submitting a respectful profile as to why I believe we should not ordain women, but they have not posted it after repeated requests.

    I hope other members can see how damaging KK's and OW's agenda has been, and how it has not strengthened faith but destroyed it. They have done damage by slandering the church leadership and, in carefully crafted words, discounted the role of our dear prophet and the Quorum of the 12. I also hope that the church leadership can continue a respectful dialogue as to how we can utilize the talents and insights of our sisters more fully. They are needed and wanted. We love them.

  • Sambonethegreat Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:52 p.m.


    If she truly cared about her membership or the outcome of the council, she would have re-scheduled or agreed to a video conference. She had plenty of options, yet she still chose to spurn her bishop.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    Pretty simple.

  • Tennor Orem, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:33 p.m.


    Mrs. Kelley declined to attend the invitation to speak with her in person. Which is more disrespectful?

  • LoveLife Riverton, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:33 p.m.


    What part of "I wish you had taken advantage of my offer to arrange a secure video link where we could have talked face to face or my offer to reschedule the council to a date when you could have attended in person" makes you think this could have been done in any other way?

    BTW, it was sent via email and certified mail.

  • Shane333 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:32 p.m.


    She was invited to the disciplinary council meeting. They offered to reschedule the meeting if she was willing to go. They even offered to video-conference the meeting so she could present her views. In summary, they bent over backwards for her and in the end they were left with emails and letters because she refused the options that were offered.

    Again, this manifests concern on the part of the disciplinary council. I see nothing in this decision to criticize.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    @Brave Sir Robin
    "Now she doesn't have to renounce her membership."

    If she wanted to leave she would've just done that.

  • shaq34 Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    Kings court, have you been in a disciplinary council? I know leaders take it very seriously and have to show love towards person and protect the doctrine of the church. She didn't even care enough to show up to her own council.

  • shaq34 Ogden, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    Rad33, they wanted to reschedule with her. This would have been decided in person had she gone to her own disciplinary council. Sounds to me that is the main reason they told her by email. She didn't even care enough to show up to her own council.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    June 23, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    @Kings Court

    It was done for her benefit. Who wants to be a member of a church that doesn't agree with something that is (apparently) a cornerstone of her life? Now she doesn't have to renounce her membership.

  • Shane333 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    The Bishop and other leaders sound very understanding and according to the letter reached out to Mrs. Kelly in an attempt to help her mend her ways and return to full fellowship.

  • rad3 SLC, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    I can't believe her membership was stripped from her via an email. Whether you agree with the decision or not, that is disrespectful to her and what membership in the church stands for.

  • common sense in Idaho Pocatello, id
    June 23, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    That is a letter full of love and respect for a valued sister in the gospel. Just my humble opinion. His admonition to continue to pray, attend church and read the scriptures bodes well for Sister Kelley if she will just do so. No hint of condemnation or persecution. Very impressed with the letter and its intent. Now will Sister Kelley humbly accept the counsel of inspired church leaders?

  • Sports Are Great Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    She knew exactly how this would end. So did we. So did all church leaders. Goodbye Kelly, we wish you the best in overcoming your struggles.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 23, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    I like how the letter says a disciplinary council was held on your "behalf" as if it was a nice thing being done for your benefit.