Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You were not served well, then.

1. A bishop who reveals this kind of information to his wife should be released post haste.

2. A bishop’s wife who hears this from her husband should tutor him in the proper execution of his calling.

3. A bishop’s wife who shares such ill-gotten knowledge with others is as out of line as her husband.

4. A bishop who betrays his calling by revealing this to his wife, on learning she spread the gossip must do all in his power to make the situation right, even to the point of asking to be released and that his wife make public and private amends.

5. Members who keep tally of others’ temple attendance and make assumptions based on it are as out of line as the bishop and his wife.

6. A member spreading the word of his/her confidential status only exacerbates the situation and causes more, perhaps irreparable, damage such as what we are witnessing in this catastrophe, and is as out of line as all the above players.

 

 

I was not served well...but a a former latter day saint...I know that I am guilty of gossip and not always taking the high way to dealing with those things that are said...I am guilty..and so many others as this is a general problem in wards...especially small ones..  Then people in the ward decided to judge my children by the way I raised them...you can't hurt a person more than that..my kids moved away after that.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Jeanne

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

She did say that when the "metoo" movement took hold is when she wanted to go to the news about it. But I don't know that I agree that we should tape everything in our meetings with people and hold it against them. 

Yes, and that reference to the "metoo" stuff fluttered a reddish flag. It could well be interpreted as "Oh, this looks like an opportunity to get some attention and pay-back."

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

No one would know if she hadn't made it public.

Kiwi...you can't see any otherside...nor empathize even a little.  I am no longer answering you questions...you a full of ....!

poster removed: language

[kiwi57]

The biggest red flag is that the SP said that he had heard that her husband and the alleged other woman were having an affair, and she had to correct him: it was, she said, an emotional affair.

Q: Where did the SP get the idea that her ex was having an affair?

A: Members of the ward told him that.

Q: Where did they get the idea? Did they catch her husband in flagrante delicto?

A: No, their information was wrong.

Q: Does that mean they got it at second hand?

A: Well, they certainly didn't get it first hand!

Q: So who was the source for this second hand information?

A: Who do you think?

Tiercy was clearly gossiping on a large scale about her husband's alleged affair, and she wasn't too careful about being accurate in what she was accusing; any more than she was being selective about who she gossiped to. She was assassinating his character to anyone who would listen, and creating discord and division in the ward.

The Stake President had not only the right, but the positive duty to put a stop to it. But could Tiercy see that? No, she was too wrapped up in her own feelings of ill usage.

I don't know whether the husband had an "emotional affair" or not. The thing about "emotional affair" is that it's a lot like "mental cruelty," in that it is the sort of accusation that can be trotted out when there's no evidence of anything happening.

I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV. But when we see this lady's obsession with her own inner state, her expectation that everyone else should be as obsessed with it as she is, along with her sly deceit and manipulation, and her willingness to use her "feelings" to her own advantage, I don't think we are looking at a very well-adjusted personality here.

Edited February 17, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Kiwi...you can't see any otherside...nor empathize even a little.  I am no longer answering you questions...you a full of ....!

I'm sorry, what am I full of? I'm only pointing out the facts.

Ah! I see. I'm full of facts.

Thank you.

Edited February 17, 2018 by kiwi57

[rpn]

Quote

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

And why shouldn't anyone speaking on behalf of an entity accept that they should be able to be held accountable for what they say.    I thought a lot about this when HB330 was proposed, and while I think that there can be privacy concerns about recording and posting in social media without consent, I cannot see any privacy interest that ought to preclude recording those in charge of things, or those acting on another's behalf.   After all, how else is someone to have any chance of successfully appealing a decision to those who supervise the person?

I do not believe that "sustaining" is equal to "doing everything you are told to do by a leader".   Nor do I think that disobeying a leader equals apostasy.    God doesn't throw His kids under the bus when they are disobedient, He teachers, tries to get them to reconsider, invites them to return.  If the SP cannot successfully teach someone why they ought to do something, then they  ought to reconsider and/or think of better ways to do things.   (And that is particularly true if the woman is claiming that her dh is being supported by church leaders and ward members in the emotional affair husband is having in the ward in which the couple live.)

The position the SP appears to take is how Mountain Meadow Massacre's happen.

There is no comparison to criminal acts. Next time you will be thread banned.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, rpn said:

And why shouldn't anyone speaking on behalf of an entity accept that they should be able to be held accountable for what they say.    I thought a lot about this when HB330 was proposed, and while I think that there can be privacy concerns about recording and posting in social media without consent, I cannot see any privacy interest that ought to preclude recording those in charge of things, or those acting on another's behalf.   After all, how else is someone to have any chance of successfully appealing a decision to those who supervise the person?

I do not believe that "sustaining" is equal to "doing everything you are told to do by a leader".   Nor do I think that disobeying a leader equals apostasy.    God doesn't throw His kids under the bus when they are disobedient, He teachers, tries to get them to reconsider, invites them to return.  If the SP cannot successfully teach someone why they ought to do something, then they  ought to reconsider and/or think of better ways to do things.   (And that is particularly true if the woman is claiming that her dh is being supported by church leaders and ward members in the emotional affair husband is having in the ward in which the couple live.)

The position the SP appears to take is how Mountain Meadow Massacre's happen.

In the church "appeal" is not a legal process and church "appeals" would be irrelevant to your proposed process

Bishops and Stake Presidents do not speak "on behalf" of the Church, thank God.

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I bet she wishes she hadn't gone to the leadership for comfort and stuck with the therapist only. Maybe she'd have kept her recommend. In the video she mentioned that she went to friends for help. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

 

The recordings to not give the impress that she went to the Stake President for anything other than HER OWN personal progress for her Temple Recommend.  From the KUTV article
 

“I needed to speak my piece, I needed to speak my truth. There is so much in my story that this is the time to share it to get other people help,”

I do think she wishes she had not gone. She went with the clear intent to record the meetings.  

 

[rpn]

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

In the church "appeal" is not a legal process and church "appeals" would be irrelevant to your proposed process

Bishops and Stake Presidents do not speak "on behalf" of the Church, thank God.

 

It is an established by church handbook right to appeal decisions of bishops and stake presidents in disciplinary proceedings.   The relevancy is that it is far more likely that a leader will recognize a wrongful action if there is a recording of it, than if a member simply describes it and the other party denies that or tells the story another way.

And bishops and SP absolutely do speak on behalf of the church to their congregations practically.   And if we believe they are supposed to act for God, then members must also consider they may be speaking for Him too.

[Thinking]

There is a lot of victim shaming going on in this thread.

If she didn't record the conversations, would anybody have believed her if she shared the conversations?

I'm reminded of my sister whose husband had an affair (not emotional). He was never excommunicated although there was some church discipline  (loss of a temple recommend...). Anyway, they eventually divorced and he continued to abuse her verbally. There were some who thought she was exaggerating but I was present when some of those texts came through. It's been.difficult for her to watch as he was called to serve in the bishopric while he continuing to treat her poorly.

We all remember the neighborhood bully who would bully then get mad at the victim for tattling.

If the SP was wrong, to whom does she appeal, and would she know how to contact that person?

Edited February 17, 2018 by Thinking

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Notable"?  It's just weird that one would use such an opportunity to post a picture of one's own car, since everyone knows what a BMW is, and many associate it with immature boasters since it is an expensive shiny depreciating asset.  Of course it can also be a wise investment if the depreciation is used to offset business income, and since the depreciation is lower than other vehicles in some ways it is a justifiable expense

But everyone knows what a BMW is anyway so I am not sure what the point of the post was then.  Why take a picture of one's own car to make a non-point?

And by the way I had no idea what "bmw" meant until I read your post above.   He should not have said that and I believe he retracted it.  I am not familiar with millennial codes.

Oooooh, do you feel important after trying to shame me for being an "immature boaster" with "an expensive shiny depreciating asset"?  Let me help you understand why this is just another example of you shooting off your (virtual) mouth when you really shouldn't.  I suspect you are familiar with the concept of a utility curve from the science of economics.  One of the features of utility curves is that everyone's is different.  For example, anyone who has been on this board longer than 5 minutes knows you have a passion for various philosophical schools of thought and you appear to thoroughly enjoy debating such issues with many on this board.  Indeed, your profile caption states "My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism." In my opinion, I've seen you be quite condescending when others either don't know or don't share your philosophical views or knowledge; one might even say you come off as an "immature boaster."  Do I attempt to shame you by pointing that out? Until now, no.  I haven't.  Why? Well, despite the fact that I see your amateur pursuit of philosophy to be a colossal waste of time (and, in my profession time is most definitely money), I recognize that your personal utility curve is far different from mine.  It's clear to me that your philosophy hobby brings you joy and you likely experience quite a bit of pride when you show it to others.

What does all that have to do with my car?  Well, I'm a car enthusiast.  I get five car magazines each month.  I read them with fervor.  I participate on a couple of car-centric message boards.  I'm a member of the local chapter of the BMW Car Club of America.  I go on various drives with that club throughout the year.  I've spent a fair amount of time modifying my car and making it uniquely my own.  My car is more than a simple mode of transportation for me; more than a source of a little pride.  You see, given the traumatic and tragic things that have happened in my life over the past 6 years, my car hobby is one of the last sources of joy I have left.  One of the worst things that has happened is that a terrible and debilitating disease suddenly attacked all three of my children.  My oldest son, who is now 19, first showed symptoms of this illness shortly after starting his freshman year in high school.  He went from having the ambition of attending MIT straight out of high school to being unable to read anything longer than a paragraph without getting lost.  He's had days where he is in so much pain that he's literally had to crawl down the hallway to use the bathroom.  My other two kids starting showing symptoms of the same illness two years later and the effects have been just as devastating.  When I'm not at work and there's nothing more I can do to help my kids, I retreat to my hobby.  I spend time working on my car to take my mind away from the horrendous pain that has taken over the lives of my children.  To take my mind off a former business partner who destroyed my future plans for my career when he decided to throw me out of our firm after I ran it to its best results ever and he just couldn't handle that.  To take my mind off other emotionally painful events I don't choose to share with the likes of you.  In some ways, one might even say, my little hobby with my "shiny depreciating asset" has saved my life.

My kids have also bonded with me over the car.  They go out of their way to talk to me about cars.  They love riding in my car when I put the top down and drive fast. In fact, I did that today with my 12 year old son and my 10 year old daughter in the beautiful 73 degree Phoenix weather.  My oldest son has only recently seen enough enough improvement in his symptoms to be able to resume a little more normal life.  He wanted to get his license and get his first car.  He turned to me, the car guy in the family, for help.  What did I do? I bought him his own "shiny depreciating asset" that was an older version of my car.

 

For the first time in years, he has a source of genuine happiness and joy.  When he's stressed about what his illness has done to his life, do you know what he does? He drives.  He drops the top, no matter the weather it seems, and he just drives.  It brings him joy and I am unapologetic about it.  We call each other when we see cool cars on the road.  We send each other pics of cars from our phones.  He's started an online business for BMW enthusiasts.

So, yes, I used my car to make a snarky point about a man on this board trying to shame women for standing up for themselves.  It's my hobby and I thought it an impactful illustration.  You don't get to shame me over it.  You don't get to take my joy from it.  Why? Because it's my utility curve, my joy, and your opinion really doesn't matter.

Oh, and for the record, I bought my "shiny depreciating asset" when it was three years old and had 36,000 miles on it.  The worst of the depreciation had already hit its value.  Since then, I've owned it for 5.5 years, put more than 100,000 miles on it, and still love getting into it every day.

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Was he? I read him as mocking the lady who did the duplicitous recording.

I don't see how that's any better.

[provoman]

53 minutes ago, Thinking said:

There is a lot of victim shaming going on in this thread.

If she didn't record the conversations, would anybody have believed her if she shared the conversations?

I'm reminded of my sister whose husband had an affair (not emotional). He was never excommunicated although there was some church discipline  (loss of a temple recommend...). Anyway, they eventually divorced and he continued to abuse her verbally. There were some who thought she was exaggerating but I was present when some of those texts came through. It's been.difficult for her to watch as he was called to serve in the bishopric while he continuing to treat her poorly.

We all remember the neighborhood bully who would bully then get mad at the victim for tattling.

If the SP was wrong, to whom does she appeal, and would she know how to contact that person?

 

Absent the recordings, we would be asked to believe that her recommend was revoked for talking about her divorce. What the recordings reveal is that the gossip about the divorce was causing devisiness in the ward.

Edited February 17, 2018 by provoman

[juliann]

6 hours ago, provoman said:

I doubt it was ment to be funny.

For context - 

The “mansplaing” pejorative was first used in condescending, derogatory, gender-phobic manner towards a Stake President.

A secondary use of the pejorative appears to be to shame and silence anyone on the thread who did not offer 110% support the woman who made the secret recording of an otherwise confidential meeting. 

 

The use of mansplaining was meant to assisnate the character of a Stake President. Rather than taken the obvious biased word of the person hurling the accusation at the SP, I listened to the recording myself. And heard a SP trying to help someone stay focused on their OWN conduct and how to improve THEIR OWN life, rather than dwell on the conduct of others.

Mansplain is a word in the Oxford Dictionary. It is a descriptive word and only describes a defined behavior. 

Quote

[with object]informal. (of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing. 'I'm listening to a guymansplain economics to his wife'

Now, I have made that clear. I even gave an example of someone telling me to read a book I wrote a chapter in so I could be more informed. That you and others want to change the definition is only about you and those others. It has nothing to do with its definition. Nor does a host of others who aren't using it correctly. I am. And that is what you should be responding to.  So again,

Unless he is a professional psychologist , a man who has never experienced divorce thinks he can instruct a woman, who has, as to what her feelings are and why they are happening, that is textbook mansplaining. (And even counselors would be very careful about doing that rather than allowing self-discovery.)

As I said before, I have sympathy for this SP. It is only one instance in his life and that has to be the one broadcast. I do not think her motives were altruistic and I think she baited him. But for someone who had the advantage of knowing she was on stage, she didn't present herself well, either. But here we are. And the SP really bungled this. Had he not, he wouldn't have apologized. 

Why in the world some men can't allow the thought that a lay leader might do something badly, thus needing to apologize,  is a little scary when it comes to the future of the Church. The only thing that is different at this moment is that women won't sit down or go home quietly when told to. And if some men can't even handle that on a message board, I am very grateful for the men who are concerned and who do care about women's concerns.

[juliann]

7 hours ago, ttribe said:

I find it notable that you have no problem with Darren10 mocking juliann as a woman who is doing nothing but "bitching, moaning, whining" but you take exception to me using a picture of my own car to make a point.

I suppose it is my turn to write a disgruntled thread about how there is never any consequence to those who hurl insults at me and they are almost always are words that are typically used against women. I suppose I should be grateful he didn't include hysterical. But I do wonder why he is still allowed in the thread.

Quote

MBF: And by the way I had no idea what "bmw" meant until I read your post above.   He should not have said that and I believe he retracted it.  I am not familiar with millennial codes.

Not only did he not retract it, he continued to use it.

Edited February 17, 2018 by juliann

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

I suppose it is my turn to write a disgruntled thread about how there is never any consequence to those who hurl insults at me and they are almost always are words that are typically used against women. I suppose I should be grateful he didn't include hysterical. But I do wonder why he is still allowed in the thread.

The knuckle-dragging backwards views about women expressed in this thread have both surprised and depressed me.  I'm sorry.

[Vanguard]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 7:59 AM, 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?

I side with the SP on this one. There is nothing in the two recordings that substantively rankle me on how he handled the situation. Though I will agree the tone of his voice comes off as patronizing, I recognize 1) this is a style I would attribute to many a lay leader (as well as the general leadership), and 2) it has nothing to do with gender as I myself have heard this style of speaking.

The issue as I see it comes down to whether or not the sister indeed caused an unnecessary ruckus or not during the block. I can fathom many scenarios where the SP is absolutely acting within his purview to censure her in this way and I can fathom many scenarios where he has overstepped his boundaries. Who's to say? On these occasions the "tie goes to the runner" that being the SP. The rest of the issues are merely distractions for others to buttress their own idealogical stances - that is, unless someone can offer up something substantive that would reflect a gender bias against the SP? He struck me as a genuinely kind man his "nails-scratching-on-the-chalk board" tonality notwithstanding. ; ) 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, rpn said:

And why shouldn't anyone speaking on behalf of an entity accept that they should be able to be held accountable for what they say.

Thrn so should the person on the other side of the desk.

4 hours ago, rpn said:

The position the SP appears to take is how Mountain Meadow Massacre's happen.

Just a bit of an over-statement. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

There is a lot of victim shaming going on in this thread.

Agreed.

There are a lot of people shaming the Stake President, who was the victim of this woman's duplicity.

That's what you meant, right?

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

If she didn't record the conversations, would anybody have believed her if she shared the conversations?

The conversations were supposed to be confidential. Intending, as she was, to "share" them, she went into those meetings under false pretenses.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I'm reminded of my sister whose husband had an affair (not emotional). He was never excommunicated although there was some church discipline  (loss of a temple recommend...). Anyway, they eventually divorced and he continued to abuse her verbally. There were some who thought she was exaggerating but I was present when some of those texts came through. It's been.difficult for her to watch as he was called to serve in the bishopric while he continuing to treat her poorly.

So, she had the texts, which were evidence of his behaviour. What did she do about it?

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

We all remember the neighborhood bully who would bully then get mad at the victim for tattling.

If the SP was wrong, to whom does she appeal, and would she know how to contact that person?

The Stake President wasn't wrong. He has, and had, a positive duty do prevent a ward from being torn apart by someone trying to recruit allies to take sides in her divorce.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

The Stake President wasn't wrong. 

Then why the apology email?

Apparently, he disagrees with you.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Oooooh, do you feel important after trying to shame me for being an "immature boaster" with "an expensive shiny depreciating asset"?  Let me help you understand why this is just another example of you shooting off your (virtual) mouth when you really shouldn't.  I suspect you are familiar with the concept of a utility curve from the science of economics.  One of the features of utility curves is that everyone's is different.  For example, anyone who has been on this board longer than 5 minutes knows you have a passion for various philosophical schools of thought and you appear to thoroughly enjoy debating such issues with many on this board.  Indeed, your profile caption states "My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism." In my opinion, I've seen you be quite condescending when others either don't know or don't share your philosophical views or knowledge; one might even say you come off as an "immature boaster."  Do I attempt to shame you by pointing that out? Until now, no.  I haven't.  Why? Well, despite the fact that I see your amateur pursuit of philosophy to be a colossal waste of time (and, in my profession time is most definitely money), I recognize that your personal utility curve is far different from mine.  It's clear to me that your philosophy hobby brings you joy and you likely experience quite a bit of pride when you show it to others.

What does all that have to do with my car?  Well, I'm a car enthusiast.  I get five car magazines each month.  I read them with fervor.  I participate on a couple of car-centric message boards.  I'm a member of the local chapter of the BMW Car Club of America.  I go on various drives with that club throughout the year.  I've spent a fair amount of time modifying my car and making it uniquely my own.  My car is more than a simple mode of transportation for me; more than a source of a little pride.  You see, given the traumatic and tragic things that have happened in my life over the past 6 years, my car hobby is one of the last sources of joy I have left.  One of the worst things that has happened is that a terrible and debilitating disease suddenly attacked all three of my children.  My oldest son, who is now 19, first showed symptoms of this illness shortly after starting his freshman year in high school.  He went from having the ambition of attending MIT straight out of high school to being unable to read anything longer than a paragraph without getting lost.  He's had days where he is in so much pain that he's literally had to crawl down the hallway to use the bathroom.  My other two kids starting showing symptoms of the same illness two years later and the effects have been just as devastating.  When I'm not at work and there's nothing more I can do to help my kids, I retreat to my hobby.  I spend time working on my car to take my mind away from the horrendous pain that has taken over the lives of my children.  To take my mind off a former business partner who destroyed my future plans for my career when he decided to throw me out of our firm after I ran it to its best results ever and he just couldn't handle that.  To take my mind off other emotionally painful events I don't choose to share with the likes of you.  In some ways, one might even say, my little hobby with my "shiny depreciating asset" has saved my life.

My kids have also bonded with me over the car.  They go out of their way to talk to me about cars.  They love riding in my car when I put the top down and drive fast. In fact, I did that today with my 12 year old son and my 10 year old daughter in the beautiful 73 degree Phoenix weather.  My oldest son has only recently seen enough enough improvement in his symptoms to be able to resume a little more normal life.  He wanted to get his license and get his first car.  He turned to me, the car guy in the family, for help.  What did I do? I bought him his own "shiny depreciating asset" that was an older version of my car.

 

For the first time in years, he has a source of genuine happiness and joy.  When he's stressed about what his illness has done to his life, do you know what he does? He drives.  He drops the top, no matter the weather it seems, and he just drives.  It brings him joy and I am unapologetic about it.  We call each other when we see cool cars on the road.  We send each other pics of cars from our phones.  He's started an online business for BMW enthusiasts.

So, yes, I used my car to make a snarky point about a man on this board trying to shame women for standing up for themselves.  It's my hobby and I thought it an impactful illustration.  You don't get to shame me over it.  You don't get to take my joy from it.  Why? Because it's my utility curve, my joy, and your opinion really doesn't matter.

Oh, and for the record, I bought my "shiny depreciating asset" when it was three years old and had 36,000 miles on it.  The worst of the depreciation had already hit its value.  Since then, I've owned it for 5.5 years, put more than 100,000 miles on it, and still love getting into it every day.

Beautiful cars, I want one! I think it's time to retire my van already. I hope your son continues to rebound. I'm sorry this has happened to your children. I think we all have different ways to keep joy in our lives. I like how people have different hobbies, makes them interesting. I am not that way and need to find a niche besides this board and all things Mormonism. I even tell my family I don't want a funeral because the only things my kids can say is I liked Diet Dr. Pepper and I liked the computer. It's like I can't really find "my joy" anymore. So good for you! I think kids love it when their parents have something they love besides just their children. Thanks for sharing parts of your life with us. It's good to see the person behind the name. 

[provoman]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Then why the apology email?

Apparently, he disagrees with you.

 I think that if the Stake President believed he was wrong in that revoking the Temple Recommend, the Stake President would have gone directly to her home and handed her a Recommend. Or I believe he would have mentioned in the email/letter that her recommend is reinstated and all she need to do is come to his office to pick it up.  However, the current evidence does not support either scenario as the current evidence is:

Hadlock is no longer an active member of the LDS Church, and Hadlock says she does not want her temple recommend back.

 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

 I think that if the Stake President believed he was wrong in that revoking the Temple Recommend, the Stake President would have gone directly to her home and handed her a Recommend. Or I believe he would have mentioned in the email/letter that her recommend is reinstated and all she need to do is come to his office to pick it up.  However, the current evidence does not support either scenario as the current evidence is:

Hadlock is no longer an active member of the LDS Church, and Hadlock says she does not want her temple recommend back.

 

Why would he try to give her a recommend when she didn't want one after it had been used against her?

You avoided the question and it is a fair one. Why the apology if he didn't think he did anything wrong? As I see it, you only have two choices here.  He thought he didn't handle it well, thus wanting a "do-over" or he was lying.

I'm not sure I've seen such a demand for an infallible SP. All I know that every one I have ever known has acknowledged mistakes...as well as bishops. They are even humble enough to say so in church meetings. What an impossible life those of you demanding infallibility make for them.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Mansplain is a word in the Oxford Dictionary. It is a descriptive word and only describes a defined behavior. 

Now, I have made that clear. I even gave an example of someone telling me to read a book I wrote a chapter in so I could be more informed. That you and others want to change the definition is only about you and those others. It has nothing to do with its definition. Nor does a host of others who aren't using it correctly. I am. And that is what you should be responding to.  So again,

Unless he is a professional psychologist , a man who has never experienced divorce thinks he can instruct a woman, who has, as to what her feelings are and why they are happening, that is textbook mansplaining. (And even counselors would be very careful about doing that rather than allowing self-discovery.)

As I said before, I have sympathy for this SP. It is only one instance in his life and that has to be the one broadcast. I do not think her motives were altruistic and I think she baited him. But for someone who had the advantage of knowing she was on stage, she didn't present herself well, either. But here we are. And the SP really bungled this. Had he not, he wouldn't have apologized. 

Why in the world some men can't allow the thought that a lay leader might do something badly, thus needing to apologize,  is a little scary when it comes to the future of the Church. The only thing that is different at this moment is that women won't sit down or go home quietly when told to. And if some men can't even handle that on a message board, I am very grateful for the men who are concerned and who do care about women's concerns.

None of that changes the pejorative use or the derogatory intent of its use. If you get to turn the world upside down and make "gossip" a pejorative, then certainly "mansplain" is a pejorative. 

 As for the apology that was sent;  the neck breaking leaps and bounds made about the apology is astonishing.  

Edited February 18, 2018 by provoman

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

There is a lot of victim shaming going on in this thread.

Well, it's kind of a tricky. We have a situation where somebody had something happen to them (which she had no control over and did not deserve) and then ended up reacting (something within her control) in a way that was destructive.

Maybe it would be easier if we thought of it like this: Say that her husband left her for another woman and then, in her hurt / pain, she turned to alcohol and started drinking instead. And she doesn't try to hide the fact that she's drinking from anyone; in fact, maybe she even starts showing up to church activities with her own wine coolers and the like. 

I can understand why she feels hurt, and I can understand why she might feel like she was driven to drink, but ultimately I would have to admit that she needs to stop drinking - especially if she wants to keep her temple recommend and stay in the church. 

That's not blaming the victim for something that happened to her - it's holding her accountable for the things that she, herself, is responsible for.

 

Quote

If she didn't record the conversations, would anybody have believed her if she shared the conversations?

Some would; some wouldn't. I suspect I would have been in the 'skeptical' camp myself.

However, after having listened to the two recordings and seen the way she characterizes previous conversations (see my initial post in this thread), I am quite certain that I would be strongly inclined to disbelieve anything else she has to say that hasn't been recorded. 

 

Quote

I'm reminded of my sister whose husband had an affair (not emotional). He was never excommunicated although there was some church discipline  (loss of a temple recommend...). Anyway, they eventually divorced and he continued to abuse her verbally. There were some who thought she was exaggerating but I was present when some of those texts came through. It's been.difficult for her to watch as he was called to serve in the bishopric while he continuing to treat her poorly.

That sounds horrible. I'm so sorry she had to go through that. Nobody who is being verbally abusive to their fellow Saints has any business serving in a leadership position.

 

Quote

We all remember the neighborhood bully who would bully then get mad at the victim for tattling.

We actually had a neighborhood bully when I was growing up. Until I beat the stuffing out of him. It was real David and Goliath kind of thing too. Ah, good times...

But I digress; who is the bully here in your mind? The Stake President? If that's what you think, then take it you haven't listened to the recordings. 

 

Quote

If the SP was wrong, to whom does she appeal, and would she know how to contact that person?

Area authority seventy. If you don't have their contact information you can get it from any of your local leaders.