Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[cinepro]

So this just hit the news (and the fan).  A woman was getting divorced in Utah, and she was talking with her friends in the ward about it.  The Bishop and SP asked/told her to stop talking about it, and she didn't.  So they revoked her Temple Recommend.  When she figured out something was going on, she started recording her meetings with them (one-party consent state!)

Here's what the SP said:

Quote

“We took your temple recommend away because you emphatically said you would not stop talking about this with other people, that is the singular reason for which your temple recommend was taken away,” her stake president said, who KUTV has chosen not to name.

-----------

“Disagree with me all you want, but to not follow council direction from your priesthood leaders there's a name for that that' called apostasy,” the stake president said.

“I’d like you to reevaluate how you feel about this and whether you can support me as the stake president and your bishop and if you can’t, Tiercy were going to convene a disciplinary council,” the stake president concluded. Hadlock says her ongoing divorce was leading to depression, and after this meeting, she felt worse than when she entered.

----------

Hadlock says she was upset because her husband at the time had been involved in an emotional affair with a woman in the ward. She said although she was being disciplined, the others were not, her protests are on the tape.

http://kutv.com/news/local/church-removes-womans-temple-recommend-after-refusing-keep-quiet-about-her-divorce

The SP wrote a letter of apology/clarification, which is included in the article.  In addition to her gossiping, she is also rebuked for "being disruptive in Sacrament Meeting", with "endless amounts of talking and laughing with whomever you may be sitting by."

Luckily, "Hadlock [the woman] is no longer an active member of the LDS Church, and Hadlock says she does not want her temple recommend back."  So order in the Lord's Church has been restored, and there is one less person in that Stake that doesn't sustain the Stake President.

Glad to hear things are being kept under control in the Eagle Rock Stake.  I wonder who the new Stake President will be?

Edited February 16, 2018 by cinepro

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So this just hit the news (and the fan).  A woman was getting divorced in Utah, and she was talking with her friends in the ward about it.  The Bishop and SP asked/told her to stop talking about it, and she didn't.  So they revoked her Temple Recommend.  When she figured out something was going on, she started recording her meetings with them (one-party consent state!)

Here's what the SP said:

The SP wrote a letter of apology/clarification, which is included in the article.  In addition to her gossiping, she is also rebuked for "being disruptive in Sacrament Meeting", with "endless amounts of talking and laughing with whomever you may be sitting by."

Luckily, "Hadlock [the woman] is no longer an active member of the LDS Church, and Hadlock says she does not want her temple recommend back."  So order in the Lord's Church has been restored, and there is one less person in that Stake that doesn't sustain the Stake President.

Glad to hear things are being kept under control in the Eagle Rock Stake.  I wonder who the new Stake President will be?

WOW!

This is a good case for one-party consent and a good, specific example of how leaders overstep their authority. Sadly, this SP isn't alone in the way he views his authority. This happens. It's a real thing. Perhaps this will help some people recognize that leaders do say ridiculous things, use their authority like a weapon, and sometimes mistreat those they should be serving. Thankfully, most leaders are better than this, but this isn't a unique experience.

[CV75]

I'm glad KUTV has a gossip segment!

[SteveO]

...hope it makes her feel better

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So this just hit the news (and the fan).  A woman was getting divorced in Utah, and she was talking with her friends in the ward about it. 

I think there's quite a bit more too it than that.  The divorce apparently arose from an "emotional affair" between the woman's husband and another woman in the ward.  There are all sorts of reasons why such things should not be played out in the public sphere.  Ward members may feel obligated to take sides.  There may be misrepresentations about what has happened.  Innocent parties (such as the children of the involved parties) may be embarrassed, or subjected to ridicule or contempt because of the misconduct of their parents.  Repentance will be more difficult because of resentments and humiliations are being made public.  Discord will predominate over peace and unity.  Strive.  Animus.

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Bishop and SP asked/told her to stop talking about it, and she didn't.  So they revoked her Temple Recommend. 

Well, that appears to be within the discretion of the local leaders.  And if that discretion was misused, this woman could have appealed it.  Instead...

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

When she figured out something was going on, she started recording her meetings with them (one-party consent state!)

Yes, she has that legal right.  Not very ethical, though.  Bishops and stake presidents are going to start feeling like anything they say is susceptible to recording and posting online (the imaged documents accompanying the article "out" by name the woman, the stake president and the ward where this mess is happening).

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Here's what the SP said:

The SP wrote a letter of apology/clarification, which is included in the article.  In addition to her gossiping, she is also rebuked for "being disruptive in Sacrament Meeting", with "endless amounts of talking and laughing with whomever you may be sitting by."

Luckily, "Hadlock [the woman] is no longer an active member of the LDS Church, and Hadlock says she does not want her temple recommend back."  So order in the Lord's Church has been restored, and there is one less person in that Stake that doesn't sustain the Stake President.

What is "lucky" about any of this?  Lives and reputations and relationships are being harmed, perhaps even ruined.

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Glad to hear things are being kept under control in the Eagle Rock Stake.  I wonder who the new Stake President will be?

This is an unfortunate circumstance.  It could have been mostly or entirely avoided if the involved parties had more closely followed the principles set forth Elder Oaks' counsel excellent 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism," which explains how disputes in the Church should be handled.

Stuff like defying the local leaders, disrupting Church events, recording private conversations and having them posted online are not the way to go.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

THat's insane.  How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy.  

[Duncan]

I know some folks that live in Eagle Mountain, UT and they don't seem to know these people involved. I looked it up on google earth and this place isn't Chicago or Zurich, Switzerland or something. How do they not know???!!! anyways

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

THat's insane.  How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy.  

Well...the Stake President said 

• “Disagree with me all you want, but to not follow council direction from your priesthood leaders there's a name for that that' called apostasy,”

From the good old CHI:

Section 6.7.3
Apostasy

Apostasy refers to members who:

• Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

Edited February 16, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, SteveO said:

...hope it makes her feel better

I doubt she will ever feel better.

[smac97]

.

Edited February 16, 2018 by smac97

[cinepro]

This story reminds me of an experience from my mission.  We were asked to visit the inactive members in the ward, and one of the people on the list was a middle-aged woman who had stopped attending a few months before.

Coincidentally, the ward's building was being renovated so they were meeting across town in the Stake Center.

Here's how the conversation went:

(small talk...)

Elder Cinepro:  Sister Barrington, we've noticed you haven't been to Church in a while.  Can we invite you to come back?

Sr. Barrington: Sure Elders.  The reason I haven't been going is because a few years ago, my husband left me and married my friend who was my visiting teacher.  They attend the ward that meets in the Stake Center, and so I just don't feel like I could see them together at Church.

(Long pause...)

Elder Cinepro:  Uh, after the building renovation is finished we hope to see you back.

Sr. Barrington (looking a little surprised): Well yes, of course.

(Elder Cinepro wonders why the local leaders sent the missionaries on this call...)

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Well...

From the good old CHI:

Section 6.7.3
Apostasy

Apostasy refers to members who:

• Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

It's not too much to expect that church leaders are mature enough to know that not agreeing with their counsel is not the same as opposition to the leaders of the church.  This story is crazy.  

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

THat's insane.  How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy.  

And a disciplinary council....this is one out of control power tripper. 

What area is Eagle Rock stake in? 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 ("When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory") defines "apostasy" as follows:

It seems like this may have happened.

Thanks,

-Smac

Like i said, if church leaders are interpreting this to mean that members can't disagree with their counsel, then the church is in more trouble than any of us realize.

[bluebell]

Just now, juliann said:

And a disciplinary council....this is one out of control power tripper. 

What area is Eagle Rock stake in? 

Seriously.  You don't hold a disciplinary council for the husband who had an emotional affair but you threaten to hold one for a hurt wife who won't stay silent about it??   That is so messed up.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

This story reminds me of an experience from my mission.  We were asked to visit the inactive members in the ward, and one of the people on the list was a middle-aged woman who had stopped attending a few months before.

Coincidentally, the ward's building was being renovated so they were meeting across town in the Stake Center.

Here's how the conversation went:

(small talk...)

Elder Cinepro:  Sister Barrington, we've noticed you haven't been to Church in a while.  Can we invite you to come back?

Sr. Barrington: Sure Elders.  The reason I haven't been going is because a few years ago, my husband left me and married my friend who was my visiting teacher.  They attend the ward that meets in the Stake Center, and so I just don't feel like I could see them together at Church.

(Long pause...)

Elder Cinepro:  Uh, after the building renovation is finished we hope to see you back.

Sr. Barrington (looking a little surprised): Well yes, of course.

(Elder Cinepro wonders why the local leaders sent the missionaries on this call...)

Hopefully the local leaders were new and didn't know.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

From the good old CHI:

Section 6.7.3
Apostasy

Apostasy refers to members who:

• Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

So members are to do whatever a "leader" says about anything at any time?  Seriously?  

[HappyJackWagon]

To me, it is insane that a stake president or bishop feels they can order a woman not to talk about her divorce and then punish her for disobeying their authority like she's a 5 year old child refusing to eat her vegetables. It is an abuse of power.

Come on folks, does anyone honestly believe that this woman choosing to talk about her divorce is apostate from the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Or are we merely talking about apostasy from the church. This seems to illustrate those to be very different things.

For those who feel like she should simply "appeal" her TR being taken away: Are you suggesting that she go to this SP and let him know she is appealing and will need him to give her the info for the area authority so she contact him for the appeal? Does this SP seem like he would treat that request reasonably? I wouldn't have any confidence that he would. Why would a woman go back to a man who is dominating her and requiring her obedience to ask his permission and assistance in complaining about him? That doesn't sound like a very good system.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not too much to expect that church leaders are mature enough to know that not agreeing with their counsel is not the same as opposition to the leaders of the church.  This story is crazy.  

It's not about agreeing.  The handbook doesn't say she has to agree.  The Stake President specifically said she didn't have to agree.

As leader of their stake, the Stake President instructed that something deemed inappropriate in the stake/ward should cease.  I think we would need a bit more information as to the nature of her actions to determine if the SP overstepped.
Who was she speaking to?  In what venue were the conversations occurring?  Etc.

This member didn't just disagree, but openly disobeyed.  I would say that falls under the Handbook definition of apostasy.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Seriously.  You don't hold a disciplinary council for the husband who had an emotional affair but you threaten to hold one for a hurt wife who won't stay silent about it??   That is so messed up.

Sounds like an abusive relationship to me. At the very least he is a bully.

It sounds like the SP could use some lessons in tact, humility, and appropriate treatment of others.

[The Nehor]

I sympathize with the Stake President. An inveterate gossip is often worse than an adulterer in tearing congregations apart. I have my doubts the woman was just discretely confiding and venting to a few close friends.

I bet If they could tell us the ward Relief Society President and the Bishop could tell a tale of desperately going to the Stake President because this woman would not shut up about it and people, possibly including the children of those involved, were being hurt.

I imagine there is a sigh of relief that she is gone. The system works!!!!

Edited February 16, 2018 by The Nehor

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

So members are to do whatever a "leader" says about anything at any time?  Seriously?  

Ask the FP - they set the policies.
Goodness knows I have numerous disagreements with Church leaders on many subjects.  And I have that right.
But I don't have the right to preach those over the pulpit, not even in testimony meeting, and certainly not after being instructed to stop speaking on them.

Forget the divorce thing for a second.
What if her disagreement was on the Word of Wisdom?  That she felt that it was not by way of commandment and coffee was completely ok.
She has that right.
Now, what if she was continually expressing that view in the ward?  Still ok?
Now, what if she was continually expressing that view in the ward after being asked to stop by the Bishop/SP?  Still ok?

Sorry, but depending on what was meant by " you emphatically said you would not stop talking about this with other people" she could be in a state of apostasy.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I sympathize with the Stake President. An inveterate gossip is often worse than an adulterer in tearing congregations apart. I have my doubts the woman was just discretely confiding and venting to a few close friends.

I bet If they could the ward Relief Society President and the Bishop went to the Stake President because this woman would not shut up about it and people, possibly including the children of those involved, were being hurt.

Exactly my point.
We just don't have all the details as to what exactly she was asked to do that she chose to ignore.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not about agreeing.  The handbook doesn't say she has to agree.  The Stake President specifically said she didn't have to agree.

As leader of their stake, the Stake President instructed that something deemed inappropriate in the stake/ward should cease.  I think we would need a bit more information as to the nature of her actions to determine if the SP overstepped.
Who was she speaking to?  In what venue were the conversations occurring?  Etc.

This member didn't just disagree, but openly disobeyed.  I would say that falls under the Handbook definition of apostasy.
 

She doesn't have to agree, she just needs to obey him. Yikes! It is a toxic culture that requires a woman to obey a man from the church, whether she believes he is correct or not.

This guy is on a power trip. It seems rather obvious. That he has the institutional power to enforce his abuse is unacceptable.

I live out in the country on a small acreage. I once had a SP tell me that I needed to move my family into the city for safety and protection. I smiled and chuckled because I thought he was teasing but he became serious and repeated his counsel. I didn't follow it because it wasn't any of his business to command me in such things. IF he had pressed things harder (like this SP has done) we would have had a serious problem. Thankfully he backed down. I learned a year later that 3 families in our stake had sold their farms and moved into subdivisions per the SP request. THAT is an abuse of power and we are under no requirement to obey the commands of petty tyrants.

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not about agreeing.  The handbook doesn't say she has to agree.  The Stake President specifically said she didn't have to agree.

As leader of their stake, the Stake President instructed that something deemed inappropriate in the stake/ward should cease.  I think we would need a bit more information as to the nature of her actions to determine if the SP overstepped.
Who was she speaking to?  In what venue were the conversations occurring?  Etc.

This member didn't just disagree, but openly disobeyed.  I would say that falls under the Handbook definition of apostasy.
 

Yeah, I don’t fault her for confiding in friends...I fault her for the discussion being “loud” enough that it got back to the bishop/stake president after they asked her to stop.  I have my doubts she was being discreet.