Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,767 Excellent


About HappyJackWagon

  • Rank
    BISHOP Jackwagon

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,427 profile views
  1. That is certainly debatable. Issues of race and polygamy are the first things that come to mind that were rather significant changes. Whether or not you consider them "important" is a different story.
  2. That's ok. The current version of Mormonism doesn't look much like the past version of Mormonism either.
  3. I think you're right that it is often "little" things that shake peoples confidence in leadership. Some people discount the "little things" as being insignificant but I think they can be very meaningful. Your example of the Second Annointing (2A) is one of those things that really shook me. I had lived 40 years of active church life and service having never heard of it as a contemporary temple ordinance. It really made me question what else I hadn't been told. Then the efforts of my study increased and I found quite a bit that I either hadn't been told, or had been told was incorrect or anti-m
  4. That's a pretty damning statement. Or would you consider PR an acceptable reason for excommunication? I don't think you would, but just checking.
  5. The obvious disconnect I'm seeing here is that while people like me are critical of the church in this action we can also recognize that Natasha didn't help herself with her behavior. Do I think some of her bad behavior is at least understandable? Yes but it still wasn't great behavior. We can admit that. On the other hand, those defending the church seem incapable of recognizing any possible failing of the SP in any of this which is just astounding.
  6. It's kind of hard to know how the council/trial was conducted when she wasn't allowed to be there not have any representation AND she is not even given a copy of the official council report. I wonder how you appeal a process and trial you have no information about other than the final result.
  7. Ironic because while holding a meeting about how to deescalate possible issues they escalate the issue and create a confrontation.
  8. That would be ironic. I understand having concerns and taking precautions but there is a point where it is taken too far...like refusing to allow the person for whom the DC is being held, to enter the building. You're right, the situation became more fraught when it became a public spectacle, but that really shouldn't have been a surprise. And it could be argued that the SP fired the first shots in this particular skirmish.
  9. I don't think so. This was set up as an adversarial relationship. She was summoned to trial. She was told how the proceedings would go. When she arrived they added another requirement (the phone). They had all the power. Even though the church states it is for her eternal benefit to help her repent, the SP treated this as adversarial and Natasha followed suit. IF they wanted to find a solution the SP would have acted differently. I suspect he was relieved there was a good excuse to hold the DC in absentia. Jesus wasn't there. This turns out to be a beef between the (non)local Kansa
  10. So after she is called to a church trial in another state, she travels at her own expense and shows up for the meeting, she is met by someone at the door who tells her to turn off her phone. She says no because she already agreed not to record and because she had notes on her phone. The surrogate then suggests she email the notes to someone in the church to print them off. She says "no". They invite her to leave. That sounds an awful lot like the SP/church trying to keep her out rather than finding a way for her to participate. She should be very annoyed and angry.
  11. Wow. That doesn't sound like a "good faith" effort on the part of the SP at all.
  12. Are you saying that he and Natasha never even met that night? That all of this was done through a clerk or a counselor or someone? And what is Ymmv?
  • Create New...