Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I was turned into a Newt. For reals.

If we could only weigh the woman and determine whether or not she weighs less than a duck, we would know for sure if she is a witch and therefore brings an evil spirit. The solution is simple.

 

[Darren10]

OK, one more then I'm going!

I recently posted in a another thread on this site a friend of mine who was excommunicate for having a homosexual affair after his mission. He was loved by everyone in our single's branch and he is the main reason I went back to facebook after having had a horrible intro experience using it. I absolutely wanted to reconnect with him and he had already taken that initiative by messaging me after he spotted my name after I created me account on it.

Anyhow, back up a bit. I served as second counselor in that branch and so was updated regularly regarding the on goings of that branch. While serving I was bewildered by people asking me why there was so much gossip and backbiting on that branch. I honestly experienced none. Not necessarily none at all but surely nothing that warranted a branch wide inquiry. This type of questions came from several members in the branch, the branch president himself who was informed that it was happening and thus concerned, and even my mother, who obviously was not a member of that branch but held a stake position at that time asked me about it. I realized there was something going on but not sure what it was since, as I already stated, never experienced it. Nor did the first counselor.

I pondered on it a lot and was prayerful about it. Then it dawned on me lie a lightning bolt. Every single branch member who complained about it came from the exact same home ward. Now, our single's branch was unique. The only one of its kind in the entire Chicagoland area so we had a huge geographical boundary as to where our members came from. The fact that the complainers came from only one specific area seemed significant to me. During the next branch presidency meeting our branch president brought up the gossiping. I simply related to him my sudden realization about how all the complaints are coming from the exact same spot. He looked down, realizing something himself and said, thank you to me and that he knew what to do. In other words, he realized something himself.

The next presidency meeting we were informed that said person, my facebook friend, was going to be asked to attend a disciplinary council. He informed us of then nature of it, and of course, for us to be completely discrete about it. To NOT talk about it to anyone but that the stake presidency was going to handle it.

The reason for the excommunication was not just for the homosexual relation he had. That could have been handled by being, from my understanding, disfellowshipped but because this person gossiped so much and did not stop gossiping about it, accused others of judging him, and stated things like, "the church is going to ex communicate me" (ironic since it's his talking about it which brought him to that point), created a schism, or at least pointed our members towards it. After the disciplinary council was convened and their decision made, there was a lot more peace in the branch. I no longer heard about gossip nor people wondering why there was so much gossip. It reminded me of Book of Mormon moments when the church took action against dissenters and felt peace afterwards.

So, take this for what it's worth.

[Darren10]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If we could only weigh the woman and determine whether or not she weighs less than a duck, we would know for sure if she is a witch and therefore brings an evil spirit. The solution is simple.

 

Easier than determining the physical strength of African and European sparrows.

[juliann]

44 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 

 

 Wonder which of these three listened to the entire audio? I looked into it and the first one is 51 minutes. Since I should have been working two hours ago I won't do it but at very minimum, I think that should be done before condemning the stake president or expressing malicious misgivings towards church leaders.

Not the entire. It is tedious and it is obvious she is priming him. But....he is doing some major league mansplaining about why she, who is actually experiencing a divorce, is doing what she is doing. He also puts the offender and her on the same level at least once.  .He thinks it makes it ok to just say what he did was wrong as he basically swats away what she is saying.  She repeatedly, repeatedly tells him he isn't listening to her as he mansplains and he just keeps going.  He is actually disturbed that she is telling him what he meant without any apparent awareness that is what he is doing to her. His objection is that she is saying "emotional affair" because people are coming to him saying they slept together. His concern, despite perfunctory announcements that what hubby did was wrong, he continually defended  the perpetrator. To the point he tells her the husband has no malice or guile even though she has told him about ongoing personal attacks.  His tone and words are sometimes condescending, even saying things like "this isn't something between me and Tiercy" as if she is a toddler. 

The gist is that the husband is worthy because he had an interview with the bishop and repentant. She asks the obvious, isn't a repentant person supposed to make restitution? SP actually tells her that the husband declared himself worthy but she didn't! She responds with the obvious, "I didn't think I needed to." She tells him they get no consequences but she does. He goes back to she refuses to follow his "counsel." 

And here is the frosting on the cake. She tells him, crying, that the other woman is a trigger for as she has to see her every week in church. His freakin' unbelievable response?   "Did you know you are a trigger for her, too?"  

In short, it is a  train wreck of massive proportions.  It is worse than the emails. 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

And here is the frosting on the cake. She tells him, crying, that the other woman is a trigger for as she has to see her every week in church. His freakin' unbelievable response?   "Did you know you are a trigger for her, too?"  

In short, it is a  train wreck of massive proportions.  It is worse than the emails. 

 

 

WOW! I don't even know what to say about that. Unbelievable

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

 

 

 Wonder which of these three listened to the entire audio? I looked into it and the first one is 51 minutes. Since I should have been working two hours ago I won't do it but at very minimum, I think that should be done before condemning the stake president or expressing malicious misgivings towards church leaders.

in the first audio the discussion about whether the former husband repented starts at about 25min mark. At about the 30 minute mark the recorder asserts that he could not have repented because the former husband did not follow her perception of what constitutes repentance.

At 31:30 the SP begins the discussion about the recorders worthiness. The SP then starts to talk about how her continuing to talk about the other parties is "poison for the ward" and is devisive. The recorder then asks "how is it divisive".  The recorder later states  "no consequence to them". 42:50 the SP asks her to stop talking to others about it, the recorder responds "Deny being who you are, that is what I am hearing".  At 43:16 Maybe if she could come apologize, it would do world of good".  At about 36 she out right states she does not a Temple Recommend because in her opinion the Recommend was used a weapon against her. She continues to bring that no one else was punished or recommends taken away. At about 46 the discussion gets into who determines worthiness and the accusation/suggest that the husband is protected by a boysclub. The recorder is asked to not gossip, the recorder declares that facts are not gossip.

Several times the recorder asserts that if only the other person(s) would apologize; then separately she would "soften her" own heart

Edited February 16, 2018 by provoman

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Happy Jack - I may be off base, but do you think this is a Utah thing or a Church-wide thing?

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Not the entire. It is tedious and it is obvious she is priming him. But....he is doing some major league mansplaining about why she, who is actually experiencing a divorce, is doing what she is doing. He also puts the offender and her on the same level at least once.  .He thinks it makes it ok to just say what he did was wrong as he basically swats away what she is saying.  She repeatedly, repeatedly tells him he isn't listening to her as he mansplains and he just keeps going.  He is actually disturbed that she is telling him what he meant without any apparent awareness that is what he is doing to her. His objection is that she is saying "emotional affair" because people are coming to him saying they slept together. His concern, despite perfunctory announcements that what hubby did was wrong, he continually defended  the perpetrator. To the point he tells her the husband has no malice or guile even though she has told him about ongoing personal attacks.  His tone and words are sometimes condescending, even saying things like "this isn't something between me and Tiercy" as if she is a toddler. 

The gist is that the husband is worthy because he had an interview with the bishop and repentant. She asks the obvious, isn't a repentant person supposed to make restitution? SP actually tells her that the husband declared himself worthy but she didn't! She responds with the obvious, "I didn't think I needed to." She tells him they get no consequences but she does. He goes back to she refuses to follow his "counsel." 

And here is the frosting on the cake. She tells him, crying, that the other woman is a trigger for as she has to see her every week in church. His freakin' unbelievable response?   "Did you know you are a trigger for her, too?"  

In short, it is a  train wreck of massive proportions.  It is worse than the emails. 

 

 

Thanks for sharing this. This topic is so hard for me...I'm not sure I can listen to the tape. Maybe everyone who gossips should have their recommend taken away...I'm just not sure if there would be anyone left in a ward.  I know of one woman who changed her ward because everyone was so mad at her for divorcing her spouse. She was a good mom and would not share why the divorce happened. She wanted to shield her children. For this, her fellow ward members made her life miserable. She has my respect. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

And we wonder why there were witch trials....

Burning at the stake?  There is no reasoning with you, is there.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Not the entire. It is tedious and it is obvious she is priming him. But....he is doing some major league mansplaining about why she, who is actually experiencing a divorce, is doing what she is doing. He also puts the offender and her on the same level at least once.  .He thinks it makes it ok to just say what he did was wrong as he basically swats away what she is saying.  She repeatedly, repeatedly tells him he isn't listening to her as he mansplains and he just keeps going.  He is actually disturbed that she is telling him what he meant without any apparent awareness that is what he is doing to her. His objection is that she is saying "emotional affair" because people are coming to him saying they slept together. His concern, despite perfunctory announcements that what hubby did was wrong, he continually defended  the perpetrator. To the point he tells her the husband has no malice or guile even though she has told him about ongoing personal attacks.  His tone and words are sometimes condescending, even saying things like "this isn't something between me and Tiercy" as if she is a toddler. 

The gist is that the husband is worthy because he had an interview with the bishop and repentant. She asks the obvious, isn't a repentant person supposed to make restitution? SP actually tells her that the husband declared himself worthy but she didn't! She responds with the obvious, "I didn't think I needed to." She tells him they get no consequences but she does. He goes back to she refuses to follow his "counsel." 

And here is the frosting on the cake. She tells him, crying, that the other woman is a trigger for as she has to see her every week in church. His freakin' unbelievable response?   "Did you know you are a trigger for her, too?"  

In short, it is a  train wreck of massive proportions.  It is worse than the emails. 

 

 

Thanks. It does seem messed up big time. 

[Darren10]

53 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Burning at the stake?  There is no reasoning with you, is there.

Burning at the stake / burning by a stake president, same difference I guess. Actually, they are both, or both can be, based on misunderstanding of scripture. 

Edited February 17, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

55 minutes ago, provoman said:

in the first audio the discussion about whether the former husband repented starts at about 25min mark. At about the 30 minute mark the recorder asserts that he could not have repented because the former husband did not follow her perception of what constitutes repentance.

At 31:30 the SP begins the discussion about the recorders worthiness. The SP then starts to talk about how her continuing to talk about the other parties is "poison for the ward" and is devisive. The recorder then asks "how is it divisive".  The recorder later states  "no consequence to them". 42:50 the SP asks her to stop talking to others about it, the recorder responds "Deny being who you are, that is what I am hearing".  At 43:16 Maybe if she could come apologize, it would do world of good".  At about 36 she out right states she does not a Temple Recommend because in her opinion the Recommend was used a weapon against her. She continues to bring that no one else was punished or recommends taken away. At about 46 the discussion gets into who determines worthiness and the accusation/suggest that the husband is protected by a boysclub. The recorder is asked to not gossip, the recorder declares that facts are not gossip.

Several times the recorder asserts that if only the other person(s) would apologize; then separately she would "soften her" own heart

Thanks, 

[carbon dioxide]

So if a stake president gives counsel to have family home evening and someone does not follow that counsel, they should have the recommend taken?  That is insane.

Edited February 17, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

I corrected that. But I'm shocked to see that a man can be....

And still perform priesthood duties!!!  It evidently takes disfellowshipment.....

So the only real difference, aside from timelines, between the two disciplines is that one unworthy guy can continue to use his priesthood and the other unworthy guy can't.  

Well some of us are aware of degrees of unworthiness.  Even I sinned once in 1987 I think. 

But I suppose that if women would have the priesthood we would not have to worry about them being perfect every moment of every day.    Obviously they already are.

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

in the first audio the discussion about whether the former husband repented starts at about 25min mark. At about the 30 minute mark the recorder asserts that he could not have repented because the former husband did not follow her perception of what constitutes repentance.

At 31:30 the SP begins the discussion about the recorders worthiness. The SP then starts to talk about how her continuing to talk about the other parties is "poison for the ward" and is devisive. The recorder then asks "how is it divisive".  The recorder later states  "no consequence to them". 42:50 the SP asks her to stop talking to others about it, the recorder responds "Deny being who you are, that is what I am hearing".  At 43:16 Maybe if she could come apologize, it would do world of good".  At about 36 she out right states she does not a Temple Recommend because in her opinion the Recommend was used a weapon against her. She continues to bring that no one else was punished or recommends taken away. At about 46 the discussion gets into who determines worthiness and the accusation/suggest that the husband is protected by a boysclub. The recorder is asked to not gossip, the recorder declares that facts are not gossip.

Several times the recorder asserts that if only the other person(s) would apologize; then separately she would "soften her" own heart

What you left out is instructive. She was correct in what constitutes repentance. Part of that is making amends. I have no reason to believe that she was not correct that he had not nor did the SP correct her. And he certainly didn't hold back on corrections.

She makes it very, very, very clear that having a temple recommend was used against her. And it was. That is why she felt better situated not having one given the situation. 

Gossip is an insult used against women as a pejorative. It was never established that she was "gossiping" whatever that is supposed to mean, it was merely a repeated accusation which he eventually narrowed down to her using the word "affair" so that others took that to mean their was adultery. She would have been better off saying they were seeing each other. Examples, he was HTing her alone and they were at Walmart together.  Again, not disputed. To tell someone they can't talk to their friends is outrageous. He never responded to her repeated assertions that the other woman was creating a fair amount of this "divisiveness." 

There is no way to clean this up. 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Well some of us are aware of degrees of unworthiness.  Even I sinned once in 1987 I think. 

But I suppose that if women would have the priesthood we would not have to worry about them being perfect every moment of every day.    Obviously they already are.

 

So you think it is ok that a man has his recommend removed, can't have a calling, take the sacrament, etc. that is still enough worthiness to baptize?  How much lower are you willing to diminish the priesthood to protect errant men? 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This IS the same stake and chapel that the Savannah's testimony issue came up in.  The lady involved is one of Savannah's neighbors and a supporter of gay rights.
I wonder if that's a coincidence? 

Going to the press about losing a temple recommend (since when was that news?) is starting to smack of retribution against the SP.
I don't think it's a coincidence at all.
 

Holy Cow.  Talk about setting up the poor SP!  He ought to have seen it coming and been suspicious from the start then.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you think it is ok that a man has his recommend removed, can't have a calling, take the sacrament, etc. that is still enough worthiness to baptize?  How much lower are you willing to diminish the priesthood to protect errant men? 

oh my GOSH 

Gonna get me banned here too?  That is a total distortion and I will leave it up to the reader to see how ridiculous that is. 

Bye forever

Edited February 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[bsjkki]

I found this article interesting...it was more talking about abuse from the news stories earlier this week but  I find it relevant here too. https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/02/15/how-do-women-spiritually-override-bad-priesthood-leadership/

"Because of oft-quoted “women submit to their husbands, only so long as the husbands submit to God” language, a woman can’t just declare in the first meeting with her Bishop that her husband has lost the ability to head the family.  (She may not even emotionally have considered that possibility yet — particularly if her husband is constantly emphasizing submission doctrine to gaslight his wife and explain why all of their marriage troubles are her fault.)

Even if she has received a personal witness from God that her husband’s behavior is unacceptable, she culturally can’t just say that either.  She first has to establish she was eligible to receive that revelation, by proving to the Bishop’s satisfaction that her husband acted badly.  If she can’t meet that high hurdle, then her “personal revelation” risks being dismissed as inconsistent with church doctrine.  She is instead counseled to repent, to preserve her eternal family, and to submit to the Priesthood in her home.

If she tries to appeal to the Stake President, now she has to both prove that her husband  — who “presides” by “divine design” —  and her Bishop — who is God’s Judge in Israel with Priesthood keys to counsel her — are disobeying God’s will.

If she tries to appeal to an Area Authority or Salt Lake City, her letter will be returned, unopened, to the very leaders who just dismissed her concerns.

No matter what personal revelation a woman receives, until a woman finds a higher-ranking man to validate her conclusion, her testimony will not be recognized as true."

..."Institutions cannot solve problems they do not recognize exist.  Until women and all victims of poor Priesthood Leadership have a clearer path to report their experiences, these tragic stories will continue, unheard." 

This is one of the reasons my daughter does not believe the church is led by God. Why would God allow such imperfect men to have so much power over others lives? A Bishop hurt her badly and there was nothing she could do because she didn't agree with him. She felt so powerless and she was already so traumatized and hurt. He handled her so badly. She left the church. There didn't seem to be anything I or my husband could do either. It was such a shocking, testimony shattering experience that has taken a long time to sort out for me. 

[juliann]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

oh my GOSH 

Gonna get me banned here too?

Why, did you get banned in other places? 

I take it you aren't going to answer my question. 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why, did you get banned in other places? 

I take it you aren't going to answer my question. 

PROBATION is not disfellowshipment

The bishop and the individual set the limits

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you think it is ok that a man has his recommend removed, can't have a calling, take the sacrament, etc. that is still enough worthiness to baptize?  How much lower are you willing to diminish the priesthood to protect errant men? 

Who ever said this??

Plucked from air.

Totally absurd

[The Nehor]

Okay, I listened to about a quarter of the first recording while doing some mindless busy work. She seems to be all over the place. At one point she claims that she has only talked to six people and a couple of other people but only one time. She insists she always called it an emotional affair but the Stake President was gettting told by multiple people that there was a physical affair. She suggests it is like the game of telephone. She is clearly baiting him. She starts out trying to get him to say something from a previous meeting that she thought would be embarrassing and kept trying to steer the conversation. He tried to explain what he was trying to communicate and admits he may have failed to do so.I do sympathize with her reports of her ex’s verbal anger via text and phone.

Anyways that is my short take and I do not think I am going to listen to the rest. I have not seen anything damning and do not expect there is anything. He is trying the best he can to help from what I heard and in a kind way get her to stop spreading rumors.

I do not see a news story here.

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

What you left out is instructive. She was correct in what constitutes repentance. Part of that is making amends. I have no reason to believe that she was not correct that he had not nor did the SP correct her. And he certainly didn't hold back on corrections.

She makes it very, very, very clear that having a temple recommend was used against her. And it was. That is why she felt better situated not having one given the situation. 

Gossip is an insult used against women as a pejorative. It was never established that she was "gossiping" whatever that is supposed to mean, it was merely a repeated accusation which he eventually narrowed down to her using the word "affair" so that others took that to mean their was adultery. She would have been better off saying they were seeing each other. Examples, he was HTing her alone and they were at Walmart together.  Again, not disputed. To tell someone they can't talk to their friends is outrageous. He never responded to her repeated assertions that the other woman was creating a fair amount of this "divisiveness." 

There is no way to clean this up. 

And "mansplaining" is a pejorative used against males; in this case a pejorative you used against a Stake President. 

As for "gossiping", the 1st recording is clearly a follow up to several meetings. It is clear from the 1st recording that "gossip" had been discussed in previous meetings. If gossip had not been discussed previously between her and the SP or BIshop, Why did she state during the recorded meeting that she looked up the definition of gossip - which she proclaims can only be non-factual statements; the Stake President responds by describing what is gossip even if the statements are true it is still gossip.   Here is meriamwebster definition of gossip

"a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others" and 

2 a : rumor or report of an intimate nature

• spreading gossip about their divorce

 

Clearly there was gossip. Gossip that was defended in ignorance of what gossip is.

"He never responded to her repeated assertions that the other woman was creating a fair amount of this "divisiveness."   Was the meeting about how to make the other woman a better person or was the meeting about how to help the woman scorned a better person?

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Holy Cow.  Talk about setting up the poor SP!  He ought to have seen it coming and been suspicious from the start then.

He was. One of the first things he asks is for her to put her phone down. I suspect he suspected he was being recorded.