This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

I am writing regarding the article by Peggy Fletcher Stack which appeared online June 24 and bears my name.

First of all, I couldn't be prouder of the women and men who carry on the torch with Ordain Women, like Bryndis Roberts, mentioned in the article. I still think that it is vital for Mormon leadership to cease being thoroughly misogynistic, racist, homophobic and hurting vulnerable groups of people. Absolutely. I applaud the folks working toward that end. It's sacred work.

No matter what I say or do (or don't do) in public or private, there will be cries of narcissism and media seeking; what about this article, though, which essentially uses me as Clickbait (ClickKate?). Using me as a referent makes sense with the article's angle, but when the subject is those who've been passed the baton, why aren't their pictures and names used in the articles headline, subhead or meta description?

Among the deliberate Clickbait tendencies this article has includes:

• My name in the headline.

• Two photos of me (including the primary photo).

• Nine mentions of me by name.

• Central theme of an anniversary of an event that happened to me, in my life.

Because of this, here is the operative ploy, intentional or not: It discusses how many others have "moved on" but it does not quote me or discuss anything that has happened to me since my excommunication. And as is the case with any article about me, if you ever mistakenly read any of the online comments, they immediately assail me for whatever delicate insecurities the commenters cannot muster out of a productive hobby. I am put out for public ridicule (again, read the comments), but not permitted to represent myself.

It's seems like Peggy Fletcher Stack's article is about someone who has died. Which, unfortunately, supports the main narrative of the hierarchy of the church: "We have decided that her voice doesn't matter anymore! She has nothing valid to say. Move on." If you don't want an article to be "about me," I have no problem with that ... just don't literally make it about me.

Perhaps for Stack the LDS Church gets to decide who is relevant to the discussion and who isn't. (All of the women quoted are impressive and amazing, but the common theme is that they present themselves as currently active Mormons, which makes me think that's the bar. The one excommunicated person she quotes, Maxine Hanks has since been re-baptized, "Good girl, we'll let you speak again!") It's a shame to ignore the voices of the thousands of Mormon feminists who refuse to let orthodoxy determine the legitimacy of their critiques, and tell only one side of the narrative.

Another example is Chelsea Shields' TED talk, which has garnered 1,325,399 views thus far. It is likely one of the most-viewed things about Mormon feminism outside of the Utah bubble, and it's not even mentioned. But does the fact that Chelsea has left the church explain this oversight?

What strikes me is that I can't think of another article that does what's done here to drive clicks to their website, but doesn't quote the person in question. It seems more than sloppy journalism. It is chillingly intentional. Why use a name and an image of a person merely to increase readership if there isn't an effort to add anything to the discourse?

It's a very specific, eerie kind of erasure in which my image and name are used to peddle the article, but I am inauspiciously silenced.

Kate Kelly is the founder of Ordain Women, and a human rights attorney.