Ordain Women - The Curse of Pride

So, about a year ago I heard about a great movement called Ordain Women.  I went to their website and saw their mission statement.  I can't say for sure, but I think it was worded a bit differently at the time.  Regardless, what caught my attention was that this group seemed to support a few things.

1. They earnestly believed, as did I, that the Priesthood was not eternally a Male thing.
2. They believed that the time had come for Women to receive the Priesthood.
3. They understood that revelations generally come to/for those who ask.
4. They wanted the Brethren to take this matter to the Lord.

My understanding at the time was that this movement intended to gather supporters by word of mouth and education.  In time, they planned to gather signatures and send a letter to the brethren asking that the matter be taken to the Lord.  I was thrilled!  This is how the Lord works, I thought.  He inspires us to help one another prepare for a blessing, and then he reveals it to the Prophet.  I almost created a profile on their site.

Sadly, the tone changed pretty quickly.  By October 2013 conference, it was clear that the leaders of Ordain Women were getting a bit pushy.  Nonetheless, the still claimed to be bringing the message to the brethren in order for them to take it to the Lord.  I still defended them, but I certainly thought they were walking a fine line.  Fast forward to April 2014.  By this point it was clear that Ordain Women was an outright protest movement.  Word of mouth was no longer good enough; they wanted media attention, and a lot of it.  The quotes from their leaders were increasingly negative and critical, and their actions were more and more demanding.  When they announced that they intended to line up for priesthood session AGAIN, I was a bit annoyed.  I thought, "Clearly you realize that your voice has been heard"?  There was no question that the brethren had heard what they wanted, and there seemed to be no good that could come of being even more vocal.  So I was not surprised when the church released a statement requesting that they not come get in line, and specifically indicating that if they wished to demonstrate they could do so in the area that had been set apart for demonstrators.  In other words, if you want to raise a spectacle, do it with the other protesters.  What did surprise me, however, was that they didn't back down.  They even went as far as to say, "that was a request from the pubic affairs department, not the brethren".  Really!?  

This has all culminated, not surprisingly, in a disciplinary hearing for the leader of the movement.  She was "shocked", she said, that such a hearing was called.  I think she may be the only person who was shocked, and frankly I doubt she was either.  After all, she'd been told 2+ months earlier that if she continued on the path she was on, just such a hearing would come about.  Sadly, we only get one side of the story, as her leaders are not (and should not) publicly commenting on the situation.  I'll agree, assuming her facts are true, that it's a bit odd that her Bishop never expressed reservations about her behavior until he sent her a letter regarding this action.  I'll also say that, given the public profile of the case, I'd call for a high council court, rather than a Bishop's court.  Nonetheless, it is clear that this group has blown it.  What started as a call for united faith and a request for prayerful consideration, has turned into a foot stomping spectacle.  I'll never know for sure where things started, but I have little doubt where they have ended.  

What would happen if Sister Kelly received a letter from President Monson?  If he told her, today, "we've taken this matter to God in prayer, and the answer is no?"  Would she walk away from it all?  Would anything change?  And if that letter would be good enough, what about one from a Seventy?  And if that one is good enough, why not the one from her own Stake President?

And the strangest twist; she and her supporters accuse Salt Lake of coordinating the disciplinary action.  Yet, we're left with two possibilities.  A. They are right, in which case it is clear that the highest leadership in the Church has asked you to stop.  B. They are wrong, and they should stop saying otherwise.  Which is it??

UPDATE:
Shortly after being excommunicated, Kelly released a copy of the formal letter she received from her Bishop explaining the terms of her excommunication.  In this letter - which she, not her Bishop, made public - her Bishop tells his side of the story.  It appears that he had actually counseled with her several times regarding this matter, as had her stake president.  Both had patiently attempted to help change her behavior over several months.  When it became clear that she was leaving the area, they felt it was crucial to put a hold on her records (a very common practice for anyone in the midst of these sorts of discussions).  In any case, it is more clear than ever that she was far from honest about the situation.