Kate Kelly, Excommunication, and Foxconn: Why We Need to Ask a Few More Questions
by Jeff Lindsay
Kate
Kelly's story, as it is being presented in the media, is a compelling
one, one that resonates with the emotions of many people. A lone
woman stands up to a male-dominated organization, daring to prod and
just ask questions, for which she is cruelly punished by being
excommunicated from the Church she loves.
Indeed,
this brave woman is treated so poorly as she is tossed out that the
only words she can use to describe the actions of her bishop and
others is "abuse" and "cruelty." How dare they
excommunicate her for "apostasy" when she has not been
teaching any doctrine, just asking questions?
Her
Ordain Women movement, at least in its earlier incarnation, can be
said to raise issues worthy of discussion. But regarding the story as
presented about a woman just asking questions, I fear that many
people are forgetting to ask some questions of their own.
This
lack of questioning, this wholesale acceptance of a position that
plays well with the media and with our emotions, reminds me of
another seemingly brave lone individual, Mike Daisey,
who dared to stand up against another so-called bully, Foxconn, the
gargantuan Asian company that makes most of Apple's products in
massive factories in China.
Daisey
became famous for telling and retelling a gripping story of his
personal encounters with Foxconn in China in 2010, where he allegedly
saw evidence of child labor and abuse of employees. His story was
told dramatically in a lengthy performance he did for many audiences,
"The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs."
In
2012, he was interviewed in a lengthy program for NPR's popular This
American Life, where he again told his story and levied many
charges of abuse against Foxconn. The story was vetted by NPR's team
before going on the air, but there was a little glitch in the
process.
The
journalists there, like just about every Western journalist that
repeated Daisey's story, failed to ask some basic questions.
Questions like, "What, there are armed guards at Foxconn in
China? I thought guns are completely banned in China except for the
police and the army. How can there be armed guards?"
Or
perhaps, "Really? The poor local workers at Foxconn have their
union meetings at Starbucks? That's an elite, expensive place in
China. Are you sure?"
As
far as I know, the first journalist who stood up to ask some tough
questions of his own was an American in Shanghai, Robert Schmitz, an
outstanding journalist that I met in 2012, after a lecture here in
Shanghai where I live.
He
recognized that many parts of Daisey's story didn't fit reality, so
he tracked down the translator Daisey had used and asked her what
they saw and experienced.
Turns
out that much of what Daisey reported was made up. Schmitz did the
work of a real journalist and let Ira Glass of NPR know. Embarrassed,
Glass brought
Daisey back on the show,
and then introduced him to Schmitz, to asked tough questions live on
the air. It was a devastating moment.
(Note:
in no way am I suggesting that Kelly has utterly fabricated events in
her story as Daisey did. I raise the Daisey story to illustrate the
reluctance of the media to ask tough questions when they like the
story.)
Daisey's
story did not fairly reflect reality, but was driven by an agenda and
was shaped as the fruit of his craft.
Craft.
That's a word we don't consider very often when we are hearing
stories we like in the media. But it's fair to recognize that some
people have an agenda and a craft to pursue, and that craft and
craftiness can be used to manipulate us, our emotions, and our
reasoning.
It
is especially hard to ask these questions when what we are hearing
confirms our own biases (and yes, this cuts both ways). It is also
hard when we are convinced that the source of a highly biased story
is completely sincere, as Kate probably is. But craft can be a
dangerous thing, even in the hands of sincere people.
The
craft of lawyers, for example, can turn mere questions into a
powerful tool to attack and destroy. A few minutes of
cross-examination with suitable craft can discredit and shame some
witnesses, even truthful ones, scoring far more points than a lengthy
speech haranguing them.
The
power of "mere questions" is illustrated in the scriptures.
Questions were a tool of choice of the lawyerly Pharisees that
opposed Christ. They were the tool of choice of the actual lawyers in
Ammonihah that sought to discredit Alma and Amulek.
"Will
ye answer me a few questions which I shall ask you?" (Alma
11:21) was the opening query from a lawyer in a group of lawyers in
Ammonihah that would be part of an unmistakable attack on the Nephite
faith, hell-bent on destruction.
Alma
and Amulek would eventually be freed from prison, but scores of
believers would perish in the flames ignited by those once just
posing questions (see Alma 14). For any lawyer to suggest there is no
agenda, no attack, no malice involved because they are "just
asking questions" is disingenuous.
The
questions don't have to be of the overt, "Are you still abusing
children or not?" kind to be pointed attacks nonetheless. Kate
may sincerely fail to see that what she is doing constitutes an
attack on the Church and its leadership, but I feel it's a genuine
attack nonetheless.
Lawyers
can do a lot of good for the world, but at times, lawyers can spin
coherent tales via questions, websites, rallies, and other teachings
— yes, teachings — to achieve their objectives, sometimes
at the cost of fairness.
Lawyer
Kate Kelly's story will be told and retold by sympathetic journalists
without doing the digging and questioning that used to characterize
journalism.
Although
Kate can publicly criticize her bishop for not meeting with her, for
not seeking to understand her, and for being cruel and abusive in how
he handled her Church court, the bishop's side of the story is not
going to be told. Bishops tend to keep those things confidential.
We
are only left with Kelly's words (see, for example, the video
interview associated with an
article at the Salt Lake Tribune).
But her words raise some important questions.
Here
are some questions that you may wish to ask:
Kate,
if you have tried to be supportive of the Church and Church leaders
rather than opposing them, what do you mean when you ask your
supporters still in the Church to "raise hell" in the
Church?
Kate,
if you are pained that your actions would be viewed as apostasy
because you aren't teaching any kind of doctrine or making statement
contrary to Church policies, what do you think about Ordain Women's
mission statement, which insists that "women must be
ordained." That seems like more than just a question, but a
bold statement directly contradicting Church teachings. Or does that
somehow not qualify as a teaching, doctrine, or policy?
Could
you be overlooking some efforts of your Church leaders to meet with
you or reach out to you in the past? Are you sure that it's fair to
call them cruel and abusive?
I
was hopeful that Kate Kelly would take a more respectful and moderate
approach in her influential efforts. I am more than merely pained to
see her urging her followers inside the Church to "raise hell"
from within.
I
am worried that a lot of people are letting their emotions get the
better of them and not asking a few questions of their own now about
Kate's agenda and the spinning of her arguments about the Church.
Kate
has said that almost no one in the Church is in the middle. She's
either viewed as a hero or as the "devil incarnate." I
think that fails to recognize how many people are open to discussion.
There are many who might have been in the middle, at least initially,
and interested in the dialog, though not with the current demands and
accusations.
Latter-day
Saints generally recognize that we don't have all truth and that much
remains to be revealed. We recognize that some things can change and
change dramatically.
We
recognize that the LDS temple, which I believe to be inspired of God,
makes reference to the future role of men and women in heaven as
"priests and priestesses" to God, with intriguing
implications about Priesthood. But many of us also recognize that it
is not for us to dictate what changes happen when, or what will be
revealed and how.
We
are uncomfortable with the tactics of confrontation and accusation,
even if initially dressed as merely asking questions. Some of us
worry that behind the emotionally appealing media messages, there
might be a bit too much craft.
Could
this be another case of lawyers versus faith?
That's one of the tough questions that we should at least be willing
to consider as we look at the evidence and digest what's happening.
Kate,
if you have been misunderstood, if you do have sincere intent to
strengthen the Church and not fight against it or weaken the faith of
others, and if your excommunication was in error, then I hope you
will succeed in having your membership restored and being an active
and supportive part of the Church in the future.
Yes,
errors can happen in excommunication. I once took up the case of a
woman I felt was excommunicated in error and guided her and testified
in her behalf during her appeal, and we prevailed. It was a difficult
case, a controversial one unfortunately, but I have often felt that
standing up for her was one of the more important moments in my life.
Church
leaders can recognize error and listen, and if that is the case here,
may the Lord bless all of you in resolving this matter. But it would
help allay my fears if Kate would retract or soften the in-your-face
statements, tone down the accusations of abuse and cruelty against
her bishop and the Church, and encourage her followers to build up
the Kingdom of God rather than raise hell.
There's
just something about raising hell that I find inconsistent with my
understanding of what we're trying to do in the Church.
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.