Calm Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 10 hours ago, juliann said: In short, it is a train wreck of massive proportions. It is worse than the emails. I really should read the whole thread before commenting....
provoman Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Calm said: KUTV is, imo, prone to putting up stuff that makes the Church look bad. My opinion is based on doing the Front Page news summary for FairMormon for over 6 months (I would collect links and a couple of paragraphs from any online news source dealing with the Church once a week). KUTV had stuff when no others did iirc and almost always put the negative stuff first. Kutv edited the audio at the part where the SP mentions the council, so yeah the bias of kutv is clear. As for how the SP found out of what was alleged to have been said, at least one source may have been a mutaul friend. The last ten minutes of the second recording was inpart about a phone call to a mutaul friend - i think the SP explained to the mutaul friend as why the recommend was revoked; the SP explains that if someone makes a false claim he is obligated to correct the claim. As for the x conducting the ordination, it appears fron that the x was in a different ward at the time. During the second recording the SP mentions changing ward boundries so that the women are not in the same ward.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 15 hours ago, SteveO said: How do you know she was telling the truth about her husband? Because she said she was, of course.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, provoman said: President Hinckley commanded from the pulpit to stop gossiping, so I would hope that totality of the circumstances would rein when discipline follows gossip. Can Stake President add more....I believe they can. I witnessed the effects of "more standards" added to Temple recommend questions. Nothing has to be added. There is already a question about how we treat other family members. There is also a question about unresolved sins.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: No idea. If there is discipline he appears to be keeping quiet about it. There is probably a lesson in there somewhere. Exactly. Everyone seems to assume that nobody in authority is paying any attention to the husband's alleged misdeeds. And why do they assume that? Well, the woman, the sole source of information in this matter, didn't tell us that she is aware of any such thing. So is the Stake President going to contradict her? He's not allowed to. These matters are confidential. Is the husband going to contradict her? How is it in his interest to do so? He might, conceivably, make a song and dance about it if he feels hard done by. But if the "emotional affair" accusations are true, he wouldn't, would he? And even if they're not true - and we have only one person's word (AFAICT) that they are - still there's the fact that men tend to simply "suck it up" rather than complain.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, juliann said: Why are you unconcerned about unworthy men being supported in doing priesthood ordinances and make this all about a woman who was powerless to stop it? It's not part of her stewardship to "stop it." Nor is it part of her stewardship to make her husband's alleged sins into a public lynching.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is also known as "I'm assuming the woman is wrong and the man is right...because...well...obviously." While you're assuming the woman is wrong and the man is right...because...well...obviously, right?
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Everyone is making assumptions that paint this lady in the worst possible light so that they can justify the Stake President. Not everyone. Some are making assumptions that paint the Stake President in the worst possible light so that they can justify this lady.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/f/ff/2017-06-21-Apology.pdf Nice apology. People of good will will accept it for what it is. Others may try and make it into something else. 1
Calm Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 45 minutes ago, provoman said: Kutv edited the audio at the part where the SP mentions the council, so yeah the bias of kutv is clear. As for how the SP found out of what was alleged to have been said, at least one source may have been a mutaul friend. The last ten minutes of the second recording was inpart about a phone call to a mutaul friend - i think the SP explained to the mutaul friend as why the recommend was revoked; the SP explains that if someone makes a false claim he is obligated to correct the claim. As for the x conducting the ordination, it appears fron that the x was in a different ward at the time. During the second recording the SP mentions changing ward boundries so that the women are not in the same ward. I suppose it makes sense in an extreme way to change ward boundaries rather than just have the "other woman's"family move to a new ward, though it would have addressed the need for separation much sooner. That way both women's children (still haven't listen or read, going off memory of that both had children was reported, don't have time to read tonight, but should respond to you) have some of their same friends after the change, same with the women. Hopefully they were going to change the boundaries anyway because if they were not, that is a lot of heartache to put the entire wards through. Having been through a couple in the past ten years and my son's family having been through three or four in as many years (they were among the first to move into the brand new subdivision, it is still only 1/3 filled so many more ward boundary changes in their future), it amounts to breaking off some important relationships because there is just no time to keep up most of the relationships outside of church unless you are on the same street or your kids are going to the same school. My son's family have decided they will try not to get that close to anyone not on their street as it is getting to the point of trauma for themselves and their kids. They really invest time and resources and caring in their friends (and family, lucky to have her as my daughter-in-law). My reason for asking about the time between ordination and separation is because discipline had occurred in the case of my friend and after a year both were rebaptised, but she believed it was too soon for him because she believed his sin was greater and his repentance wasn't sincere. So I was wondering if discipline for the husband had taken place, but the exwife did not believe it was sufficient and that was why there was disagreement over whether or not he was " worthy". Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, CA Steve said: Here's the thing. I am not ready to tar and feather him.....yet. I believe he should be allowed to defend himself. If it turns out to be true, I'll bring the tar, you bring the feathers. But the whole problem here is the different way each gender, for the most part is approaching the situation. Men for the most part are complaining about lack of due process, how not all accusations are true, how we need to forgive and move on because we are not all perfect. Valid opinions to one extent or another but clearly looking at these situations as if the man may not be guilty. Well, he may not be. That's the point. That's why there is a presumption of innocence. 14 hours ago, CA Steve said: An approach I have seen time and time again taken by bishops and SP's. We need to start looking at these situations as if the woman as an equal chance of telling the truth, otherwise we just victimize her all over again, take away her due process and convict her in the court of public opinion. Question: Who brought the matter into the court of public opinion?
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, juliann said: Yes we do have enough information. He, an unworthy (by definition and undisputed) priesthood holder was allowed to perform an ordinance for their child. Call for references, please. Where is the proof of the husband's unworthiness? 14 hours ago, juliann said: Meanwhile, the wife who was not having "emotional" affairs, had her membership threatened merely for talking (even if probably agitating) about it. This is exactly why so many women are standing up and saying enough. Male entitlement has to end in the church. Not the priesthood, not the church, the abuse of the position these things give exclusively to men. Wake up. How much more of this kind of thing has to be splashed in our faces in a very embarrassing way to get it? What "male entitlement" is that? I'm not seeing any.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, bluebell said: Most men easily put themselves in the SP shoes but struggle to put themselves in a woman’s shoes. And conversely, women know they will never be in a stake president’s shoes but could easily be in the woman’s shoes. Men more often empthatize with the person in power because men are most often the person in power. Women most often empathize with the person being dictated to because we’ve all been in her shoes. You seem to be unaware of an important (and well-documented) fact: men do not have the same kind of automatic own-group preference based on gender that women have. I'm not empathising with the person in power, I'm asking: what are the facts? I seem to recall that, in an earlier post, you agreed that it could be reasonable for the SP and/or bishop to ask her not to attend Church if she couldn't tone down her publicising of her accusations against her husband and the alleged "other woman." Well, if she shouldn't be attending Church, then she really shouldn't be going to the Temple.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 14 hours ago, juliann said: Oh, you got me finally. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-discipline There is a "Formal Probation" before disfellowship, which evidently does not mention loss of priesthood usage. Why, when they can't take sacrament, hold callings, etc. is a mystery and a little creepy, actually. But all of this requires a council. I have a feeling the wife would certainly know if that had happened. I presume you are referring to this: Formal probation is a temporary state of discipline where the member may be asked to refrain from taking the sacrament, holding Church positions, participating in meetings or engaging in temple worship. During this probationary period, the individual meets frequently with their ecclesiastical leader to help encourage progress toward repentance. Note the "or" at the end of the list. IOW, that's a whole list of ors, not ands. Each of those items - taking the sacrament, holding Church positions, participating in meetings or engaging in temple worship - is discretionary. Probation gives the DC a whole range of possibilities. 14 hours ago, juliann said: Now go read the very short emails from the SP or I"m going to report you for violation of asked and answered. I'm sorry, but there are those of us who don't support criminals. 14 hours ago, juliann said: That was a main complaint of the wife. It was never disputed so I see no reason to demand proof since that would be the first thing to go after to prove her a liar. Again, Mormonleaks has it all there. No one should be discussing this without having read everything.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 13 hours ago, Oliblish said: A scripture comes to mind... D&C 121 39 - We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. I think the Stake President can certainly be included in this group of "almost all men." That's an unwarranted accusation.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 12 hours ago, bluebell said: Neither do you. If we can't comment unless we have ALL the information, what are you doing posting on this thread? It's not the case that we can't comment at all; it's the case that we can't pass judgment. Which too many are too eager to do.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 12 hours ago, Jeanne said: I agree With that...but I think there were many reasons for him to admit these mistakes. I'm sure he has just as many reasons to admit mistakes as you do. And perhaps we wasn't even thinking about the things some might assume when he wrote that apology.
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 12 hours ago, Darren10 said: Easier than determining the physical strength of African and European sparrows. Heretic! It's swallows. Are you using some non-canonical Python source? An anaconda, perhaps??
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 12 hours 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. Then there is the little fact that every single word the woman says in that recording has to be regarded as being uttered in bad faith. But let's just brush that aside, shall we, because that's what "female entitlement" means. Right?
kiwi57 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 9 hours ago, SteveO said: Was he “mansplaining” or just being a stake president? Mansplaining is what happens whenever a man has the temerity to disagree with a woman, about any topic, at any time, ever. 1
Popular Post sunstoned Posted February 17, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 17, 2018 2 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Mansplaining is what happens whenever a man has the temerity to disagree with a woman, about any topic, at any time, ever. I don't know if this was meant to be funny, but it comes across a very condescending. 6
Amulek Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 5 hours ago, Calm said: My reason for asking about the time between ordination and separation is because discipline had occurred in the case of my friend and after a year both were rebaptised, but she believed it was too soon for him because she believed his sin was greater and his repentance wasn't sincere. So I was wondering if discipline for the husband had taken place, but the exwife did not believe it was sufficient and that was why there was disagreement over whether or not he was " worthy". There is no indication from the recordings as to the length of time between the affair and the ordinance. However, the SP indicates that her former husband had met with his Bishop multiple times and that, in the Bishop's judgement, her former husband was worthy enough to perform the ordinance. The SP goes on to say that he knows that Bishop and that he recognizes and supports his keys to make that judgment. 1
Amulek Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 8 hours ago, Calm said: 20 hours ago, Tacenda said: In the meeting she expressed that she'd only told a visiting teacher and maybe two or three others. It's what women do when they need to vent or need support. She also knows she is being recorded... So it may be true and it may not be. It's totally not true. In fact, her claim to have only talked about it to three people in the ward is probably the most laughably false assertion in both recordings.* For starters, the Stake President has list of people who have come to him personally and they all claim to have heard about it from her. We never get to hear the exact number in the first recording because he says he's going to redact the names for privacy sake, and she cuts him off and says that she doesn't want to hear it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the number is...um, greater than three. And let's be honest, does anybody really believe that a woman, hurting from an affair and divorce, is only going to talk about it to three people in her ward? When I told my wife about this assertion she just laughed. Let's be real: she has talked about it to anyone who will listen to her, and that's part of the reason why this has turned into such a big problem. *To be fair, the one in the second recording where she says she could easily forgive the other woman is pretty close though. 1
Jeanne Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 6 hours ago, kiwi57 said: I'm sure he has just as many reasons to admit mistakes as you do. And perhaps we wasn't even thinking about the things some might assume when he wrote that apology. I didn't say otherwise...thanks for putting me in my place. Yeah..I admit my mistakes.
ttribe Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: And here I thought size doesn't matter. We are all dully impressed. Oh did I misspell that? 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.
Recommended Posts