This is a guest post by Michael Davidson a father, husband, member of the Church, and lawyer. He’s speaking this Sunday in his branch about the Sermon on the Mount.
A month and a day ago Kate Kelly was excommunicated for “conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church.” That conduct has been widely documented on this blog and in other places, but the letter informing Ms. Kelly of her excommunication set forth several things that Ms. Kelly must correct in order to return to full faith and fellowship in the Church. Specifically, Ms. Kelly must “demonstrate over a period of time that [she has] stopped teachings and actions that undermine the Church, its leaders, and the doctrine of the priesthood. [She] must be truthful in [her] communications with others regarding matters that involve your priesthood leaders, including the administration of Church discipline, and [she] must stop trying to gain a following for [herself] or [her] cause and taking actions that could lead others away from the Church.”
The letter went on to detail specific instances in which she had done things contrary to the counsel of Church leaders (which constitutes apostasy) and had released “Six Discussions which were intended to proselyte others and to persuade them to support [her] particular interpretation of Church doctrine.” But these things are in the past, mostly. As touching Ms. Kelly and her potential to rejoin the Church, it’s all about what happens going forward, so I’m more interested in what is happening now and in the future instead of what has already past. It is for this reason that this post will not be about what Ms. Kelly has done, but what she is doing today.
Finally, the letter sets forth what Ms. Kelly should do if she wished to appeal the decision of the council to excommunicate her. It stated that she “must specify in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision and then present the appeal within 30 days.” This statement was to be presented to her bishop, who would in turn forward it to the Stake President for his decision.
As it turns out, today Ms. Kelly published the contents of her appeal to the Stake President regarding her excommunication. You shouldn’t bother reading it. If you are so inclined and want to be embarrassed for her, she published three documents which seem to constitute her appeal: her Letter of Appeal, a letter from her husband Neil Ransom, and a legal brief written by Ms. Kelly’s “dear friend Nadine Hansen,” a noted enemy of the Church.
In reading these documents, I am amazed at the self-righteous tone Ms. Kelly strikes. She urges her Stake President to “consider my appeal with humility and openness” and consistently urges him to “do the right thing” which she exclusively defines as requiring her reinstatement. While I don’t wish to take the time to go through these documents and refute them point by point, because I wish I hadn’t read them and think she shouldn’t either, there are some items that do jump out.
Ms. Kelly threatened that her Stake President’s anticipated conduct is “potentially actionable.” This essentially means, “be careful or I will sue you.” She raises this in response to a statement allegedly made by her Stake President, which has not been corroborated, that he might have to correct the public record if she continued to publicly state that she was a member in good standing of the Church. She is ostensibly stating that her Stake President has threatened to violate the priest-penitent privilege. However, this privilege does not extend to prohibiting a religious body from publicizing who is, and who is not, a member in good standing of that body. Instead, it prohibits religious counselors from making public information provided by the “penitent” in confidence. Ms. Kelly has not alleged that this privilege has been violated, or even threatened to be violated. Ms. Kelly knew, or should have known this. It is information attorneys are expected to have mastered prior to taking the bar exam. So, she either raises this issue from a place of ignorance, or does so with the intent to be less than candid. In any event, in pmaking her own public statements regarding these conversations, she has likely waived whatever privilege might have been there in the first instance.
Elsewhere, Ms. Kelly argues that the disciplinary council process was merely an attempt to “exercise control” and “compulsion” in violation of D&C 121:37. She alleges that “you had no authority to control my views, voice or speech and no right to compel me into silence.” She goes on to state that, as a result, her bishop “had neither justification nor authority to excommunicate” her, because once he tried to compel her obedience that “the Spirit of the Lord [was] grieved” and that her Bishop lost his priesthood and authority as a result. This is an absurd argument that only an attorney could love.
To illustrate the flaw in Ms. Kelly’s argument, we need only look at her own letter. In speaking about her conversation with her Stake President, she says, “I looked you in the eye and spoke with absolute candor. I told you that I am not going to take down the website … and I am not going to dissociate myself from the group Ordain Women.” She alleges that in the face of her absolute resolve, he and her bishop were limited to simply trying to persuade her to voluntarily abandon her design, and that any action beyond that, including her excommunication, could only result in the cancellation of their own priesthood authority. If this were actually the case, however, it would nullify the priesthood of any individual participating in a disciplinary council in which the subject of that council was completely unrepentant and which resulted in discipline being imposed. This is patently ridiculous.
Additionally, Ms. Kelly doesn’t even quote the scripture correctly. It states that if a priesthood holder “undertakes … to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness … amen to the priesthood … of that man.” Again, this is another instance of Ms. Kelly sitting in judgment of those who are rightly “judges in Israel.” In order for the result she urges to occur, Ms. Kelly’s bishopric must have acted unrighteously in their deliberations. I’m not a betting man, but I would not put my money on Ms. Kelly for this one.
I found nothing interesting or compelling to comment about from Mr. Ransom’s temper tantrum. Likewise, Ms. Hansen’s legal brief treats the whole proceeding as if this was a court of law, which it isn’t. As a result, it misses the point entirely and will likely be ignored.
In the end, Ms. Kelly appears to be completely missing the point. She’s using this appeal as an opportunity to grandstand and submitted papers that are written for the consumption of her base and the media. I wouldn’t bother with it any further.
New Post: Guest post: Kate Kelly lectures her stake president on how to do his job: This is a gu… http://t.co/8rUyHNspwK #LDS #Mormon
Excellent post. I was just thinking today that we had not had a tantrum from KK in a while and we were due for one. I guess we got it then.
None of your links are working too, just thought you would want to know that.
I occasionally enjoy a good rant (Moroni included some anti-Christ rants in the BoM so maybe I’m in good company) so I wanted to especially read Neil Ransom’s (which you have to agree is a pretty cool name).
He rants that the Bishop and SP are unrighteous, and sexist and should have excommunicated him because he did just as many wrong things as his spouse. And then closes the letter by requesting that her excommunication be overturned and her membership reinstated. Huh? What’s the logic in that? “I’m just as bad as she is, so you should let her back in (you sexist pig).”
It’s clear neither he nor she wants to be in fellowship with the church. At least the anti-Christs in the BoM had the courage to stand for what they didn’t believe in. Here we have people claiming to believe in the church (why would you want membership in it otherwise?) while calling it’s leaders unrighteous and sexist.
I never heard anything about her husband’s involvement as Kelly was the one putting her name forward in all this. But it would seem her husband is next on the excommunication block and his primary complaint seems to be that it should have happened sooner.
TheMillennialStar: Guest post: Kate Kelly lectures her stake president on how to do his job http://t.co/mezKkWnF91 #lds #mormon
Kelly keeps kicking against the pricks, poor woman, it’s such a clear case of pride. She keeps showing her lack of respect for the Priesthood and the priesthood holders who have authority over her, including the Lord. Sad case indeed.
Interesting post. However, I think I have personally about reached my limit on hearing about Kate Kelly unless she has changed her tune about the church and it’s leadership. Frankly, to continue to give her more attention is probably what she wants. It seems as if we are not going to change her mind or many of her sympathizers’ minds, so I think it’s best to move on and hope it becomes irrelevant- as most things do these days because of our generation’s short attention span. Just an opinion. I, however did enjoy reading and agreed with most points of the post.
I feel for her poor bishop and stake president. But they were called of God to be Kate Kelly’s leaders (what a calling!) and I fully trust that they are acting in His name. It is a blessing to Ms. Kelly that she has those leaders in her life. I hope she listens to their counsel.
This “@ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Guest post: Kate Kelly lectures her stake president on how to do his job http://t.co/JcBEmMVw1u #mormon
We’ll see if the Washington Post or Laurie Goldstein at the New York Times finds this enough of a hook to keep the coverage going or if these things only get broadcast in Huffington Post and local Utah media.
A minor correction – only five of the promised six discussions have been posted. After Jun 22, no additional discussions went up.
Read this talk by Elder Maxwell yesterday and thought this was eloquently stated and appropriate for the occasion. Highly recommend the entire talk by the way.
“tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves, of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone ( Ensign, Nov. 1980, 14). Like the throng on the ramparts of the “great and spacious building,” they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders ( 1 Ne. 8:26–28, 33 ). Considering their ceaseless preoccupation, one wonders, Is there no diversionary activity available to them, especially in such a large building—like a bowling alley? Perhaps in their mockings and beneath the stir are repressed doubts of their doubts. In any case, given the perils of popularity, Brigham Young advised that this “people must be kept where the finger of scorn can be pointed at them”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/becometh-as-a-child
@Meg, that’s what I meant when I said that those things were in the past, mostly. It’ll be interesting to see number 6 if it ever gets released, but maybe they won’t make it as public as it has the potential to be the one that causes the most trouble, IMHO.
I’m not sure why the links aren’t working, and as a guest poster I can’t fix them myself, but here they are:
http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Appeal.pdf
http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Kate-Kelly_Letter-of-Support_Neil-Ransom.pdf
http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Kate-Kelly_-Statement-in-Support-of-Appeal-_Nadine-Hansen.pdf
But you really shouldn’t bother.
@John, the media coverage appears to be relatively muted, and appears to just be discussing the contents of the letter without any comments from Kelly directly. Going forward, she will likely get a very short denial of her appeal from the SP followed by another denial of her appeal from the FP. Neither will have enough in them to make them interesting stories, and the media will lose interest. Kelly will then need to do something fairly dramatic to get the same attention.
@Jeff, that’s a great talk.
Michael, the extent of future coverage also depends on how much the outlets want to keep the story active. For example, in 2002 the NY Times ran forty pieces about the lack of female members of the Augusta National Golf Club. Probably though, Times readers are a hundred times more interested in reading about the home of the Masters Tournament than about the Mormon priesthood.
Meg wrote: A minor correction – only five of the promised six discussions have been posted. After Jun 22, no additional discussions went up.
WHAT? No discussion 6? But that was the discussion on “Be the Change”!!! How can I be the change if OW isn’t there to tell me how to do it right?
BTW, I fixed the links in the article. They now go to the letters.
Thanks Ram.
In reading Nadine Hansen’s briefing, wherein she states that OW is not an actual organization with people signing up, etc., she is wrong. Neil Ransom’s letter states, “From the very beginning, I have been an integral part of Ordain Women including encouraging and supporting my wife in pursuing and developing Ordain Women; supporting and participating in public actions; purchasing, designing, building, and continuing to maintain the ordainwomen.org website; participating in the Ordain Women Male Allies Committee; and in many other ways. Additionally, I have had a profile on the Ordain Women website [ http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-neil/%5D for over a year that clearly and publicly states my support for the ordination of women in the Church and that I disapprove of the systematic gender inequality in the Church. Finally, I have also publicly discussed – including with local and national radio, television, and newspaper outlets”
This clearly shows that there are committees and ways for people to sign up, etc. I guess Nadine and Neil didn’t coordinate their letter prior to sending them in….
Ram, the truth is not with Nadine Hansen, and hasn’t been for a long time. In my professional life, I’m amazed at how many of my fellow “professionals” are willing to take very simple things and make them appear differently than they are in reality.
The most amusing thing about Ms. Hansen’s brief, for me, was her discussion of how the Six Discussions “are akin to other internet-based discussions about matters of Mormon interest.” Ho-hum, right? Nothing new here! But then she lists five URL’s with comparable content. Each of these are asking for Church discipline. There are:
Mormon Matters
Feminist Mormon Housewives Podcast
Mormon Sunday School; which is operated by one Jared Anderson, who is a regular contributor to discussion on the Mormon Stories and the MO 2.0 FB groups. I haven’t take the time to check into this extensively, but the website is similar to the Mormon Stories website, and the first episode is entitled “Introduction to Mormon Stories Sunday School.”
A Thoughtful Faith, whose most recent post is entitled “A Conversation with Kate Kelly: Feminist and Optimist.”
and some weird Old Testament blog that has a lot of posts about sex in the Old Testament.
Adding to my above comment, the NY Times and its readers don’t care about Mormon priesthood at all, but it can still be very useful to them to keep alive the story of a backward, anti-feminist, homophopic sect so that all the right-thinking people can be reminded what the party line is and celebrate the contrast between Us and Them.
RT @Kikastrophe: This “@ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Guest post: Kate Kelly lectures her stake president on how to do his job http://t.co/…
“…so that all the right-thinking people can be reminded what the party line is and celebrate the contrast between Us and Them.”
And part of the contrast being celebrated will the the alleged fanatical border maintenance by the LDS Church, which the right-thinking readers of the New York Times would *never* indulge in.
Thank you for this post. When my friend (who strongly supports Ordain Women) posted the link to these documents, I reluctantly checked them out. I was ready to tear my hair out in frustration. It bothers me to no end when a person presents a seriously flawed or flat-out untrue argument as fact, and obviously Kate’s documents were full of that. Her attitude also bothered me, especially when she asserted hautily that her priesthood leaders had lost their priesthood by excommunicating her.
I agree that we do not want to give Kate the attention she craves, but it is comforting to have someone else say, “Yes, this was wrong,” or “This did not make sense.” So… Thanks!
An appeal to the First Presidency seems likely in the coming months. I wonder if they might decide to ask her to come present the appeal in person. The General Relief Society presidency can be there too if that would make her more comfortable. Would she come? It doesn’t seem like her format of choice.
I don’t know if the First Presidency would feel it wise or inspired to meet, but it is not wildly improbable that they might. Joseph Fielding Smith met with a relative of mine to hear his case for restoration of blessings to a great-grandfather who had died twenty years before.
IANAL, but having read two of the three (didn’t bother with the 18 pager) it strikes me that KK and her husband speak Attorney like natives but speak Mormon like first-year high school Spanish students.
It makes me feel sad above all.
KK hasn’t been a temple recommend holder for several years prior to her involvement with OW, so her statement that she’s been a “faithful member of the church” is moot. She’s clearly just trying to create havoc within the Church (which is not surprising considering the parable of the 10 virgins and the wheat and the tares). I’m glad her options within the Church are dwindling. Hopefully once she realizes her only way back is through sincere repentance she will come back to the fold.
It just pains me to think, however, of her husband. It seems like he’s had issues with the Church before (especially considering the statement “Gender
inequality is one of many topics within Mormonism I have questions about and your and the Bishop’s efforts to silence my wife and the Ordain Women movement demonstrates to me that the Church is not a place for those with sincere questions and who are honestly seeking the truth.”). It appears that they don’t like the answers they get and equate that to “we can’t question anything”.
I’m pretty sure the leaders have the spirit of discernment (not a whole lot needed in this case) and wouldn’t be so incredibly foolish to invite someone to grandstand and subsequently claim pyrrhic victory in behalf of feminism for making their case directly to the FP.
Kelly’s response and that of her husband are also predictable. We’re all prideful, but one measure of our pride is when confronted with error, especially be someone in authority, do we lash out or do we value the other person enough to step back and acknowledge our wrongs. Kelly might turn this argument on the church, and she and her supporters do, but at that point you have to step back and see who is doing the will of The Lord and who is doing their own will.
Since she has not (yet) humbly acknowledged her wrongs, it’s pretty natural that she’d still view things through the lens of pride that the priesthood leadership in this case are the ones at fault, and virulently so.
Certainly filing her appeal is a “right” she has, but there was nothing new to consider in the appeal – it simply rehashes the same arguments. As mentioned above she will likely be turned down by the Stake President and then she will likely appeal to the First Presidency. I’m interested in seeing what the First Presidency’s response is. If it is just a short we affirm the action taken by the local leaders (or something similar), or if they take the chance to define the difference between questions and apostasy. In any event the “discussions” with the call for change and the rejection of the current priesthood structure likely seal her fate.
One other aspect I’m interested in will be to see if any one else gets excommunicated, and if so how many. As Kelly (her husband and her counsel) notes there are a lot of other people and websites which talk of the same things. There are probably several hundred (thousand?) people in the Bloggernacle (and other somewhat public forums) who have said the same things that Kelly has said.
Another point of interest would be to get the First Presidency’s/Apostles’ take on whether they perceive a difference between a conversation taking place in public about controversial topics and the “discussions” and a call for action that the Ordain Women website promoted.
RE: KK’s lawyering and posturing. In law school, we once discussed different approaches to trials. One was where the parties presented the facts to the trier of fact, then the law was applied. Truth first, justice second. The second was where the parties, knowing the law and wanting a certain outcome, presented the facts in a colored way, full of half-truths, in an effort to sway the trier of fact to rule in their favor. Result first, truth second, and justice — well, not all that important. I think much of American legal system adheres to the latter approach, and therefore KK is most familiar with that approach. The church disciplinary system is more like the former. Present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth, then let the trier of fact (Bishop or Stake President) decide whether the member has violated any commandments, and if so, what sort of punishment might be meted out to facilitate repentance.
oh man. that letter from the husband makes me wonder if he has the same aversion to commas as he has to common sense. i am no expert at grammar and all the nuances of writing, but i can at least string it together better than a fifth grader when it is going to really matter. yowza. i didnt have any empathy for the local leaders on this, but i do now!
y’all are going to have more to feed into the virtual woodchipper when kate kelley and ransom do their interviews and podcast with dehlin.
@Carolina JW, is it documented that KK hasn’t had a temple recommend in years or is this an unsupported allegation? I’ve not seen this mentioned anywhere, and while I’ve followed this pretty closely, and probably too closely, I must admit that I have not heard this previously.
Interesting new information … I’m listening to a podcast in which it was revealed that Kate Kelly was one of 456,169 voters who voted for Jill Stein in the 2012 presidential election. This is not surprising.
In the same podcast, Kate Kelly reveals that when she first conceived of OW, her first call was to John Dehlin, who introduced her to the core people who started the OW group.
Call me whatever, but two things grab my attention. IMMEDIATELY after the excommunication, Ms. Kelly held a news conference in a sleeveless sundress. I felt that like a slap in my own face. Second point, Mr. Ransom’s signature. What does a signature like that signify? I can’t make out his name in it ay all.
so…. her argument is that the second a bishop or stake president has to excommunicate someone for doing the wrong thing that they are trying to “force” that person to do something and therefore have lost their right to the priesthood.
Well I guess God must have lost His right to hold the priesthood when He kicked Lucifer and his followers out of heaven. Genius.
Frank, yes, good point. When/if KK has kids, she will have some interesting problems about *forcing* them to go to bed or *forcing* them not running into the street and get run over, etc. I really feel sorry for her because these documents show her ability to think rationally is severely limited.
” think I have personally about reached my limit on hearing about Kate Kelly ”
Kind of catches my feelings.
Effective advocacy is far different from posturing advocacy. Just saying.
Geoff, in re whether KK is being rational. I suppose the question is whether she really believes the legalese BS that she has been slinging. Or whether she is just using it as an ends-justify-the-means kind of tool. (And I think she’s using the legalese sophomorically, even though the terms sound impressive. It sounds like so much boiler-plate just thrown together.)
And like Meg keeps pointing out in various topics about schemas, KK apparently has a new schema of how she views the church’s relationship to the ideal (in her mind) social constructs to which she now subscribes. KK’s words and actions might actually be rational in the light of her current schema, that is the framework of all her basic beliefs and assumptions about how life and society and individuals should interact.
I’d venture to say that she is currently in the Politically Correct “Thought Prison” that Bruce Charlton writes about here:
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.com/
And even if her present schema fits Dr. Charlton’s description of PC/progressivism, and its mental prison, I wonder if she was duped/seduced into it, or whether she knowingly embraces the destruction that PC/progressivism is ultimately about. Was she brainwashed, thinking that she’s now working toward some utopian goal, or has she knowingly chosen to go where PC/progressivism is actually headed?
in other words, is she a true “Alinsky-ite,” (I’m using the term mostly metaphorically) or merely a “useful idiot”?
@Geoff, In several podcasts, Ms. Kelly has made it clear that she does not like children and has no interest in spending any time with them. She hasn’t been shy in saying that she doesn’t have any interest in being a mother. This is why she ultimately got on this path, because while she was at BYU, she took the “Teachings of the Living Prophets” class and came to the realization that women’s highest and best calling isn’t to be a doctor or a lawyer, but to be a mother. She found this to be terrible and has been fighting against this ever since. She has said that part of the impetus for women’s ordination is to break the gender roles and free LDS women from the shackles (my word) of motherhood.
Poor K.K. I know of infertile married women who resent questions about why they remain childless, and single women who patiently endure what they regard as a real deprivation because they would love to have a child but won’t condemn a child to life without a father, but to so dislike the very idea of having children that one wants to change the structure of reality is truly sad.
Pat, not everyone is programmed or wired to want children. It’s not universal. I know several faithful sisters who’ve admitted to never having a biological or psychological desire to have children. In one of those discussions at our singles group one senior sister said her desire for children didnt kick in until she was 30, and only lasted a short time, and she only bore one child.
A couple differences between them and KK is that they realized they were exceptions, and could still be fully contributing participating members within the church’s framework. They still served in callings and did their visiting teaching, genealogy, and temple service, etc, along with their careers. If others looked down on them for being single and childless, or married and childless, they didn’t let it bother them.
There are other reasons some people, men and women, have to remain childless other than the lack of a built-in biological desire. Some people just aren’t psychologically, emotionally or mentally capable of parenting, or even of sustaining a marriage in the first place. Not all handicaps are visible.
I think the desire to be a parent comes in a wide variety of ‘flavors’ and springs from many different motivations. I am sorry for those who become parents with the expectation that it will provide them with someone who loves them or because they want to ‘mold’ a personality. Conflict and disappointment are almost guaranteed in such situations. However for a person who is more than content to forgo having children to attempt to rewrite the rules for an organization in which family is a primary feature is pathetic. Or should I say ‘arouses my pity’?
I don’t question that some people have little interest in becoming a parent, but for most women there truly is in intrinsic drive to become a mother. Expectations of procreation vary with culture. In America today the messages are mixed. There are several reasons an otherwise normal woman might have their maternal instinct dulled or hidden. However, I believe that it is like other normal drives that insure survival of self, culture and species. A lack of desire to eat may result in a socially desirable appearance, but it it certainly counter to survival.
She managed to terminate her power to seal her (future) children to herself through childbirth. That is the sealing power and women (sealed in the temple) obtain that power.
If she were to give birth now, the child would not be born in the covenant, and would depend on a temple sealer rather than Kate. I really don’t see this as insignificant. She had a power to seal children to herself and went for the mess of pottage not knowing what she could of had.
“This shows a true failing of the church.”
I think, rather, that comments here reflect the individuals who comment, except when comments are moderated, in which case they represent the preferences of the moderator of this blog.
Ms. Foster,
I understand that you must not be an attorney, otherwise your comments regarding the Constitution are somewhat confusing. Heck, don’t feel too bad, there’s lots of attorneys who don’t understand what is actually in the Constitution. But, that isn’t really the point of this post, so I’ll let that slide.
In your first comment you repeated a very tired refrain by asserting that “there is something tactful about silence of which the members of the priesthood might learn something from the Relief Society… If you care to value their opinion.” One could just as well reply that there is something tactful about silence when one would otherwise undertake to lecture the Lord’s annointed about the proper handling of affairs in His own kingdom. In fact, none of us would be saying anything about Ms. Kelly at all if there wasn’t this unexplainable dissonance between her claim to support the brethren and to be a faithful member of the Church on one hand and her insistence that she has the enlightenment to lecture the brethren on Church government on the other.
I question the grammar of anyone who misuses it. Attorneys are not immune. In fact, attorneys should be held to a higher standard.
Jesus’ disciples included a large number of females. Perhaps you are one, too. That doesn’t mean that any of them were ordained to the priesthood. However, it isn’t the idea of female ordination that is offensive to us. To the contrary, the idea that Ms. Kelly (or anyone else, male or female … I’m looking at you, John Dehlin) has undertaken to steady the ark is an act of utter hubris if one is a faithful member, and an act of utter disrespect if one isn’t.
I agree with the substance of your post and enjoy your blog. I’m writing as an attorney to address one minor point, where you stated “It is information attorneys are expected to have mastered prior to taking the bar exam.” The priest-penitent privilege was not a study topic for my bar exam in California several years ago. I was quite interested to learn of it the first time here.
Hi Scott, I’m surprised that you are learning of the priest-penitent privilege for the first time here. I’m sure I was aware of it vaguely prior to law school, but it was covered in my evidence course in my third semester. If you graduated from an accredited law school, you would have been required to take at least a three credit hour class on evidence, and this topic should have been covered in that class. Likewise, evidence is a tested topic in California, and the national Barbri outlines included this privilege both times I took the exam (I’m licensed in Utah and Nevada). Evidence is also one of the subjects tested as part of the MBE (Multistate Bar Exam – a 200 question multiple choice exam that is included as part of the bar exam in every US jurisdiction aside from Puerto Rico and Louisiana). So, if you are learning about it here for the first time, you should seek a refund from your bar review course and an apology from your evidence professor. It is fair game for bar questions in California, and just about any other US jurisdiction.
So, while it is possible that someone can attend law school and pass a bar exam without being exposed to this subject, the point was that Ms. Kelly should have known at least a little about this topic prior to taking the bar exam, and if she didn’t, she would have lost points if the topic came up.