Jump to content

helix

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

147 Excellent

About helix

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We are a church fundamentally rooted on the concept that people sin, including leaders. This means mistakes happen, including membership councils (for example, I think that Oliver Cowdrey's removal was incorrect.) We are judged by God at the last day, not by the actions of our local leaders. Local leaders are simply trying to learn and grow and keep the church in order, just as the rest of us are trying to learn and grow.
  2. As I said, his checklist isn't peer-reviewed. That he appears on CNN often doesn't make him an expert. Academics in his field stay far clear of trying to define that pejorative. I suspect if he ever tried to have others critique his work, they would rightly point out his checklist is useless due to a combination of being overly broad, nebulous, and unrestrictive. His checklist frankly has the same characteristics as astrology, where if you squint just right you can apply it to anything. As I said before, your prior argument where you cited Hassan may not be a bad argument. But
  3. Ugh, this canard again. Steve Hassan simply created his own formula to define a pejorative to sell books. He created the equivalent of a checklist to describe "jerks". He deliberately avoided peer-review because he's only interested in writing books. His checklist is so vague and expansive that it can easily include graduate school programs, high school sports, and military programs. And he forgot to include mechanisms to indicate what does not count. Your argument can be a fine one, but Steve Hassan is not the authoritative source you want backing you up.
  4. A quote from Helfer addressing a crowd cheering her for fighting the church: "[Heated] I swear to God, if they mention pornography, one more time on a Sunday. When we all know that every time you say 'pornography' YOU'RE PICTURING IT! Oh thank you for reminding me about h***** people [she does vulgar mimicking] when I'm trying to worship my God. And Elder Oaks did that on General Conference on Easter Sunday! And what, I'm just supposed to be like [In a timid tone] 'Oh, excuse me Elder Oaks of revelatory power, um, I'm respectfully calling you out on this' [Mimicking Elder Oaks] 'You
  5. Several years ago during a leadership training, President Monson went out of his way to mention incorrect approaches for holding a council. It sounded as though he just got through managing one or more of these improperly held councils. The verbiage made it sound like the council's finding of excommunication was incorrect and had to be restarted with a correct council.
  6. I've had a cop do that to me. When I was a teenager, I was on a pedestrian bridge one evening watching a lightning storm. The cops received calls that someone else nearby was throwing rocks. One set of cops arrived, questioned me, and left. Another set of cops arrived a few minutes later, shined lights in my face, and demanded I immediately leave public property. When I said it was a public sidewalk and it's nowhere near curfew, he threatened to arrest me and throw me in jail while we sort it out. But I don't see how this pertains at all to Helfer's situation. She initiated the mat
  7. This is close. I'd agree that a police officer should be expected to receive abuse hurled their way, and always retain composure and professionalism, even if the other person has their mental faculties intact. That's the best example so far that I can think of. Though the cop has legal recourse to (appropriately) arrest and jail the individual, write a ticket and let the person go, or simply drive away if the person is obnoxious. If the cop abuses his power, he or she can lose the job. Though the cop doesn't have any formal relationship a citizen, so the cop has the ability to do
  8. I'm trying to find any comparable social situation where her adversarial behavior would be tolerated and lovingly accepted for weeks and years. With one side expected to show patience and maturity, and the other side allowed to lash and fight continually. These don't work: Before a judge in a courtroom? Absolutely not. As a spouse in marriage? Perhaps patience for some time, but it quickly meets the definition of an abusive relationship. As a patient in a doctor's office? Not a chance. As a customer of a club or a gym? Absolutely not. As a student o
  9. At some point, people need to be responsible for their own actions. The stake president didn't make her lash out this way. John Dehlin didn't make her lash out this way. This is on her.
  10. Local leaders have the responsibility of representing Jesus Christ's position in the church. It is very much a marriage and not a parent-child relationship. I've said many times that marriage is imperfect, filled with miscommunications and misinterpretations. Everyone makes mistakes in this church. The stake president made mistakes. I recall on social media someone got mad at the stake president because in his letter, he said that she should listen to her bishop, and seek "His counsel". The poster was upset that "His" was capitalized, but it wasn't clear if this was a typo and r
  11. Opposing? No no no no no. You fundamentally misrepresent the point of these meetings. If a husband and wife find their marriage struggling, and they go into a counseling session, is it right if the husband says "I don't want to find a solution with my opposing counsel!" "You mean your wife" "Yes! Her! My opposing counsel!" These meetings are supposed to be for all sides to find a solution. Jesus Christ describes membership in the church as a marriage, and He is the bridegroom. The hope is common ground, but the meeting may devolve into a member shouting and walking out the d
  12. Membership withdrawal can be done to protect the church's image and protect fellow members. But that doesn't fit here, because the church would need to publicly announce it, which they refrained from doing. Another reason is because a person is repeatedly publicly pushing views at a level which the handbook indicates would riggers a membership council. This fits her situation. She created and pushed the false narrative that she was being punished for statements made as part of her professional career. But as the stake president said "Natasha, many of the letters I recei
  13. As she recalled how this went down (according to the Latter Gay Saints live stream): 1:41:22 "The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point... I was like 'Absolutely not! I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career. I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most
  14. She painted the dishonest and incorrect narrative she was being punished for her job. Helfer - Washington Post "They’re trying to discredit me professionally". No, the church wants to keep these meetings out of the spotlight. If they wanted to discredit her, the church would have rushed it to the media first. Helfer (as quoted by KUTV): "It is problematic when people of faith, who are also specialized experts like myself, are discredited by the very communities they love and serve" On YouTube on April 13th: "The reasons I am being called to such a meeting all have to do with
×
×
  • Create New...