juliann Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, bsjkki said: ..."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. I've only had two unfortunate experiences and I'm old. Both were because I wasn't believed. But my positive experiences far outweigh them. I do think it is, as this woman said, luck of the draw. I was willing to give this SP the benefit of the doubt....until I heard a recording. It really doesn't matter what she was doing. He just blew this and did it in ways that reinforce what you said. What do you even do with someone who thinks it is appropriate to mansplain an angry woman by lecturing her on grieving being the cause of it when she is sitting right there telling him the cause? Either he is extremely disingenuous or his apology and recognition of what he did was sincere. I think it is sincere and I don't know why she felt a need to publish all this. But it is out there now and trying to excuse treating a victimized woman like that is beyond the pale. He isn't even trying to! 2
Darren10 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 22 minutes 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. "Even I sinned once in 1987 I think." Bwahahahahaha!!! 1
SteveO Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. Was he “mansplaining” or just being a stake president? 2
Darren10 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. Counsel or directive (or whatever the LDS equivalent to that is) ? Edited February 17, 2018 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 I need to know if the stake President was manspreading while he was mansplaining? If so, the Church has grave concerns on its hands. 3
juliann Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. Which makes it even more worrisome that he would treat her as he did. 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. You need to listen to more then. I know you wouldn't think it is ok to imply to someone who thinks an apology is in order from "the other woman" that she should apologize to the other woman. Even given all that you say and I don't for a minute think that people who secretly record (I think he though she had put it away) aren't playing to the camera. But just like when police set up sting operations, those who get caught don't get their behavior explained away. They just get caught. When bishops/SPs get involved in this stuff (he called her in) they make the mistake of talking about the other parties. When I was in the lawsuit, I got some good inadvertent information from my bishop that was helpful to my case. It comes out when they try to defend the offenders. So he was doing some gossiping, too.
Garden Girl Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 6 hours ago, smac97 said: I think there's quite a bit more too it than that. The divorce apparently arose from an "emotional affair" between the woman's husband and another woman in the ward. There are all sorts of reasons why such things should not be played out in the public sphere. Ward members may feel obligated to take sides. There may be misrepresentations about what has happened. Innocent parties (such as the children of the involved parties) may be embarrassed, or subjected to ridicule or contempt because of the misconduct of their parents. Repentance will be more difficult because of resentments and humiliations are being made public. Discord will predominate over peace and unity. Strive. Animus. -Smac I agree with this particular aspect... and from other posts it appears she was vocal in meetings to other members, etc. But I am also put off by the SP and Bishop actually pulling her recommend while apparently not the husbands, if I understand the situation correctly... Has the husband been counseled in regard to this "emotional affair?" How about the other woman? Etc... I also agree that there are some stake pres, and bishops, that overstep the bounds of their authority or make unwise decisions... Regardless, this is a sad situation. I had a stake pres that I just loved, who put forth a "policy" that we should "attend our meetings" including RS and P in order to have a recommend. I disagreed with this but I complied and attended RS because I actually enjoyed RS, but for a while I had stopped attending... I continue to attend, even with a new SP... but if my SP had told me that I should move (as mentioned in a post above), I'd tell him to take a hike, and if he tried to discipline me for disobedience I'd scream like a smashed owl... as loud and as far up the line as I had to go. GG 3
juliann Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, SteveO said: Was he “mansplaining” or just being a stake president? You do know what mansplaining is, right? It's like the guy who instructed me to read the book I wrote a chapter in to become more educated about apologetics. Or when a man who has never been divorced tells a woman who is living it why she is angry and that it will pass, as he then proceeds to do everything she has told him created that anger. Stuff like that.
Exiled Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, juliann said: Which makes it even more worrisome that he would treat her as he did. You need to listen to more then. I know you wouldn't think it is ok to imply to someone who thinks an apology is in order from "the other woman" that she should apologize to the other woman. Even given all that you say and I don't for a minute think that people who secretly record (I think he though she had put it away) aren't playing to the camera. But just like when police set up sting operations, those who get caught don't get their behavior explained away. They just get caught. When bishops/SPs get involved in this stuff (he called her in) they make the mistake of talking about the other parties. When I was in the lawsuit, I got some good inadvertent information from my bishop that was helpful to my case. It comes out when they try to defend the offenders. So he was doing some gossiping, too. Do you think using the word "affair" was deliberate by the woman making the recording? It seems that by calling it an "emotional affair" it was designed to have people misinterpret it as something more. What is an "emotional affair" anyway?
provoman Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, SteveO said: Was he “mansplaining” or just being a stake president? Well you take a clearly biased report second accounting OR you can listen to the audio yourself. I would suggest if you really are interested that you listen for yourself and make the determination yourself. 1
SteveO Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, juliann said: You do know what mansplaining is, right? It's like the guy who instructed me to read the book I wrote a chapter in to become more educated about apologetics. Or when a man who has never been divorced tells a woman who is living it why she is angry and that it will pass, as he then proceeds to do everything she has told him created that anger. Stuff like that. I only “mansplain” when I’m 100% certain I know the woman is wrong... 1
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, SteveO said: Was he “mansplaining” or just being a stake president? He seemed stilted and awkward. That is why I suspect he thought he might be being recorded. When he asked her to put her phone away it was a kind of resigned tone. I do not think I got to the mansplaining part some are referring to. In the beginning I listened to he talked about anger being a part of the grieving process but I did not see it in that light. She spent a bit of time in the beginning saying he was not allowing her to be angry before. Not sure what that meant.
Darren10 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Who ever said this?? Plucked from air. Totally absurd Just stop it. Your kind are rich and powerful and have controlled everything forever so stop defending yourself and your species. Edited February 17, 2018 by Darren10 1
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 24 minutes ago, juliann said: Which makes it even more worrisome that he would treat her as he did. You need to listen to more then. I know you wouldn't think it is ok to imply to someone who thinks an apology is in order from "the other woman" that she should apologize to the other woman. Even given all that you say and I don't for a minute think that people who secretly record (I think he though she had put it away) aren't playing to the camera. But just like when police set up sting operations, those who get caught don't get their behavior explained away. They just get caught. When bishops/SPs get involved in this stuff (he called her in) they make the mistake of talking about the other parties. When I was in the lawsuit, I got some good inadvertent information from my bishop that was helpful to my case. It comes out when they try to defend the offenders. So he was doing some gossiping, too. If by gossip you mean he heard a lot of stories and was getting emails about the situation than yes. I do not see where he was talking to anyone except the bishop. I find it weird that anyone would expect anyone to apologize in this situation. Some might be warranted but getting one? Good luck.
Darren10 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, juliann said: You do know what mansplaining is, right? It's like the guy who instructed me to read the book I wrote a chapter in to become more educated about apologetics. Or when a man who has never been divorced tells a woman who is living it why she is angry and that it will pass, as he then proceeds to do everything she has told him created that anger. Stuff like that. Do you know what "bmw" is? m= moan; w=whine; b=...complain about every single thing or insignificant thing. Keep this for future reference.
cdowis Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. When he advises her to stop her gossip about her husband, openly making a public spectacle, and creating a negative and disruptive atmosphere at church, as a stake president he would be insane to allow HER TO SUCK THE SPIRIT OUT OF THE MEETING. He has the authority and obligation to cast out evil spirits. Edited February 17, 2018 by cdowis 1
juliann Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, Exiled said: Do you think using the word "affair" was deliberate by the woman making the recording? It seems that by calling it an "emotional affair" it was designed to have people misinterpret it as something more. What is an "emotional affair" anyway? To me it means they stopped short of adultery. From her comments, they were spending time together. Even while denying it, I heard her say "affair" and then correct it to "emotional affair" twice. So I think the SP was right about her telling people that. I think that the only thing that can be known is that they were spending time together. Beyond that, one can only rely on denials from the perps, which I would be inclined to take with a grain of salt. But the SP is dismissing all of it while punishing the victim in this. And the only reason I can see for doing that is because she didn't react to another woman inserting herself into her marriage the "right" way according to some very arbitrary rules. Is she out to make trouble for Mormons now? Obviously. I don't respect that at all but it still doesn't change those words on the tape and emails.
juliann Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, cdowis said: When he advises her to stop her gossip about her husband, openly making a public spectacle, and creating a negative and disruptive atmosphere at church, as a stake president he would be insane to allow HER TO SUCK THE SPIRIT OUT OF THE MEETING. He has the authority and obligation to cast out evil spirits. Should he do it with a staff?
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. Whether of not a family has FHE, the ward will go on The objective here was to NOT fragment the ward and do exactly what happened. Horrible analogy
cdowis Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 1 minute ago, juliann said: Should he do it with a staff? Thanks for reminding why I had blocked you. Bye. 3
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 39 minutes ago, juliann said: You do know what mansplaining is, right? It's like the guy who instructed me to read the book I wrote a chapter in to become more educated about apologetics. Or when a man who has never been divorced tells a woman who is living it why she is angry and that it will pass, as he then proceeds to do everything she has told him created that anger. Stuff like that. And of course women never do that. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 38 minutes ago, Exiled said: Do you think using the word "affair" was deliberate by the woman making the recording? It seems that by calling it an "emotional affair" it was designed to have people misinterpret it as something more. What is an "emotional affair" anyway? It's a "crush" in the real world or "adultery in the heart" in fundamentalist Mormon eyes.
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, The Nehor said: He seemed stilted and awkward. That is why I suspect he thought he might be being recorded. When he asked her to put her phone away it was a kind of resigned tone. I do not think I got to the mansplaining part some are referring to. In the beginning I listened to he talked about anger being a part of the grieving process but I did not see it in that light. She spent a bit of time in the beginning saying he was not allowing her to be angry before. Not sure what that meant. In shrinkdom it is considered bad form to not allow people to rant on forever because they supposedly need to express their emotions, and to suggest they stop means they are "not allowing them to be angry" Or maybe he stuffed a sock in her mouth..... THAT would definitely be considered bad form as well. But my power of omniscience was on the blink that day so I am not sure.
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Just stot it. Your kind are rich and powerful have controlled everything forever so stop defending yourself and you species. Yeah but we get skin cancer really easily and that proves we are naturally inferior, even if white skin means you can drink milk. http://theconversation.com/ancient-dna-reveals-how-europeans-developed-light-skin-and-lactose-tolerance-43078 Put us in the sun and we just kind of curl up and turn brown. Oh wait- people call that "going to the beach" That's why only white people live in Wisconsin- everyone knows that. Lotsa cheese and no sun! Kinda like maggots Edited February 17, 2018 by mfbukowski 2
provoman Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 Second recording. About 10 minutes SP asks about changing ward boundaries so the recorder and the other woman are not in the same ward. SP mentions that recorder brought up the subject before. Record responds "I don't know, I don't know. How about she take responsibility for her behavior." The recorder goes on to discuss emotional affair. SP states actors were wrong. SP states the Church treats sexual affair different from an emotional affair. Recorder asserts that SP needs to admit it was "an emotional affair and should have been handled way, thats a whole other story. About 20min it seems the former husband had left the ward and was a member of another ward when the ordination of the son took place. About 22 recorder changes subject and wants to why the other woman "harbors negative feelings towards me" "Yeah I yelled at her, but she has yelled at me more". Recorder then describes how other woman was named as an emergency contact against her will, other woman went to Primary President about the being emergency contact, Primary President stated that Primary President would get the kids when other woman was contacted as the emergency contact, recorder then stated "So lets look at the position she [other woman] just put my children in. Have someone they don't know in a emergency situation pick them up. HOWS IS THAT OK? SP responds it is not. SP then says "we just need to separate you guys, its not healthy for anyone." At 25:30 abouts SP "If you both [recorder and other woman] are unwilling to forgive each I do not see this getting any better." Recorder "have you asked her? Is she willing to forgive me? SP I have met with other woman and it is a challenge on both side of the issue. Recorder "Because we are both right? SP "No, because you are both hurting" Recorder "How the hell is she hurting, excuse my language" then request that SP explain what other woman is feeling (previously SP stated the meeting with other woman are private) More discussion about "mess" that is in the ward, that Church is to be safe place for all to feel welcome. Recorder "I don't understand how this is impacting other people". Recorder asserts that if the other woman would apologize she - the recorder - could easily forgive, claims she will eventually forgive the other woman. SP continues to discuss how make things better in the ward. Encourages recorder to move on, recorder demands what SP tells the other woman. SP "I am not to going to sit by and watch an uncomfortable feeling in the ward" Recorder "I dont think your suppose your suppose to manage that. I really don't. You are suppose to teach people correct principles, Joseph SMith said 'I teach people principles and then they govern themselves. You are micromanaging, I feel like, and that is not not your job. Discussion delves into more adult juvenile behavior amongst people in the ward/facebook friends. SP isn't assigning blame. Recorder asserts that other woman's wrongs are worse than her own wrongs and "I will not be the bigger person". I am being a good person to her, and how does she repay that "with an emotional affair with my husband". I only come to sacrement. SP I want you to get to place where you can go to your meetings. Recorder "I don't have a desire. I don't want to be around her, partially, I just don't want to see her." SP expresses understanding, recorder agrees. SP expresses apologies for anything that comes across wrong. Recorder asks can we talk about your phone call to ******. (note, last 10 minutes need a listen by each individual, it includes discussion of her recording an earlier meeting and the reason for her Temple recommend being revoke, they then argue about whether she gets to talk about her divorce with members of the ward, the discussion devolves to "I never want a recommend". SP then advises that she cannot sustain the SP he a disciplinary council will be held. Record states "There it is, that has been your agenda all along." (Apparently the recorder just leaves the meeting at that point)
Recommended Posts