Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I wish you all the best.

Good luck to you and your imaginary harem as well.

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Darren10 said:

Bmw (ing) the stake president , bishop, disrupting the Sacrament, backbiting, and likely spreading false rumors about other members of the ward. 

Other than that, no problem. 

 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Here, have a picture of my car so you know what a BMW actually is, and not that insulting nonsense you just spewed:

I mansplsined her good, that bmw(ing) woman. 

Nice car by the way. 

[Calm]

dup of other info

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

From the good old D&C:

"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."

Sometimes things that need to be fixed don't get fixed until drastic measures are taken.

Also from the D&C as quoted by this SP:

"54 And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;"

The duty of a Teacher in the Aaronic priesthood, so a most basic practice for those who are endowed right?

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

What is the wife's sin?

See above.

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Simple disagreement should not equal apostasy, imo.

Here are the current conditions defined as apostasy.  Depending on how one defines "leaders" and depending on how the woman acted in defiance of the instruction of her stake president, I think some might see her behaviour as qualifying (especially if her behaviour was interfering with the fellowshipping and friendhipping in the ward):

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/l2QQz1P

(if this info has been posted, ignore post as I will be deleting it as a duplicate)

If you are enclined to listening to the recordings, the last ten minutes of the second recording - start at about 35 minute mark is where her conduct is dicussed, the reason for her Temple Recommend revoked, the SP statement about disciplinary council and her accusation that discipline has been the SP goal the whole time. Short of it is rumors and falsehood about people to include the SP made it to the SP, some of the rumors/statements origins are attributed to the woman ddoing the recording.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't care who she was talking with, friends, RS Pres. Visiting teachers, whoever. I don't care. She can speak to whomever she chooses.

We had investigators not show back up because when they came to Church part of their experience was a woman dumping on them the abuse she suffered from family including betrayal of her husband among other things for a number of minutes.  She basically did the same thing with everyone who didn't walk away from her.  There were members avoiding ward parties and classes because of her.

I wouldn't personally call it apostasy though I can understand why some might if they believed the SP told her to stop because it was interfering with the functioning of the ward.

While this woman is the one while the rest of the ward is the 99, so is every individual ward member with their set of burdens and obstacles they confront when it is the bishop or SP's time to help them.

If a member is adding to others' difficulties, if theiractions got to the point where it was breaking down the ward and driving others from participation in Church, what other options does a Bishop or Stake President have if a member refuses to accept counsel to change their divisive behaviour and continues to spiritually and emotionally harm others? (Whether or not this is the case here, I am not guessing, I am asking hypothetically).  The only enforcement tools I can think of are the temple recommend and membership.

The SP may have called it apostasy because he couldn't think of another valid reason to threaten to take away her recommend (whether she deserved it or not).

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

 The singular problem (singular means only) was that she wouldn't do what he wanted her to do.

For me the questions are why he was bothered by her not doing what he wanted her to do and why he wanted her to stop in the first place.

It would also be helpful to know what other measures had been tried, how long this had been going on, how many if any had complained and why, how many had altered their own behaviour for the negative in the ward, how many if any children had been involved in the matter...can think of a few other questions, but I think my drift of curiosity is obvious (if I needed to make a judgment...since I don't, I actually do not want to know any details about this incident, I am rather only curious about what people think should happen with disruptive behaviour at church that continues after confronted as well as what people believe are the options for a bishop and SP as a final resort in these cases).

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

Finally made it through both recordings. In my opinion, the Stake President seems to be sincerely interested in helping a member under his stewardship, while the congregant seems to be interested in trying to get the Stake President to try and say something incriminating.

Here's a representative quote from the SP in the first recording, "Despite how you feel…and I think I know how you feel about me…I want you to know that I sincerely want to help you. I have fasted for you. I have prayed for you. Many times. And I am not lying about that. You can choose how you want to feel about that, but that is my desire: I want to help you. […] I want to help you get past it."

Tiercy, on the other hand, seems to be almost incapable of even trying to make a good faith effort to understand what the SP actually says. For example, when she tells the SP about the 'verbal attacks' that she has had to put up with, the SP replies that that is fairly common - not saying that it's okay - but that when people divorce there continues to be rehashing and hurting that takes place. To which she replies, "But you're not understanding me. I don't feel like you're hearing me. It's the brutal attacks from him: verbal, personal attacks - that's not common with every divorce." She then goes on for a bit and reiterates that it doesn't happen with every divorce. Finally, the SP is able to get a word in and says that he didn't say it happens in every divorce, but that it's common. 

In my opinion, the SP is totally right here: brutal, verbal personal attacks are totally common in divorce. I wish that weren't the case, but it is. Amicable divorces are the exception, not the rule. 

Curiously, even though she has a recording of the first interview (which she has listened to multiple times), she has a hard time accurately representing the Stake President. In the second recording she talks about how she feels that the SP minimizes emotional affairs, and basically tells him that he can't help people if he doesn't agree with her. The following (condescending) exchange then takes place:

        Tiercy Hadlock [TH]: Do you know that all physical affairs start […] as emotional affairs?
        Stake President [SP]: Why does that have to be a disagreement? I agree with you on that.  I don’t believe that I said differently…
        TH: Do you agree that [redacted] and [redacted] had an emotional affair?
        SP: I don’t know. I genuinely don’t know. If they both say they did – great – they did…but they’re both wrong. Physical affairs and emotional affairs are both wrong.
        TH: Correct. […] I get so [unintelligible] because the damage that is done to me by denying that is…it’s so damaging to me. 
        SP: I genuinely don’t remember ever suggesting that one was okay and one was not.
        TH: Okay. Fair.

 

So, you may be wondering, is the SP totally cool with emotional affairs? Well, no need to wonder. Since she recorded the previous interview we can just go straight to the tape.

Here's what the SP said about emotional affairs previously:

Quote

 

It is one thing to tell people…I’m just talking – I’m not accusing…It is one thing to tell someone “So-and-so had an affair with so-and-so” and it is another thing – totally completely different to say “So-and-so was starting to have feelings with so-and-so.” Those are two different things. Now I’m not saying – let me tell you what I’m not saying – I am not saying…one is bad and one is okay. That’s not what I’m saying. They’re both terrible and inappropriate. They’re a violation of temple covenants. They are dishonoring your priesthood. They’re both wrong, but they are both different – that’s what I’m saying.

[…]

I think it’s wrong to tell people that [redacted] had an affair with [redacted]. Now, is what [redacted] did with [redacted] wrong? It’s absolutely wrong. And I’ll side with you all day long on that. And I told [redacted] that to his face. I felt like what he had done was wrong. But no, they did not sleep together.

 

 

I don't know, but is sounds to me like the SP kind of said exactly what he thought he did. 

The whole situation is horrible though, and I can't help but feel an extreme amount of sorrow for their children. 
 

 

[Calm]

12 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.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's just bull. What's wrong with a ward that would perish over this? Are they that weak in their testimonies of the church being true?

If you haven't been in a ward having to deal with the adultery of two of its loved members, I am not sure you can understand how difficult this can be.  In my ward it was the bishop and one of my best friends.  It is hard to sit there knowing others are hurting just by seeing someone there, worst when you know there is activity to turn the rest of the ward against them even if it isn't working.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

She is obviously hurt by the whole situation. A major stumbling block for her appears to be withholding forgiveness until someone apologizes to her first - but she does state that even without the apology she may eventually forgive. Another stumble, that we often fall into, is focusing on others behavior while excusing our own. 

She is hurt, hopefully she overcomes the anger and bitterness and finds peace.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Where does it say she was speaking evil of him to her entire ward?  I thought it was just to like three women friends?

I wonder who reported her if so.

It may be possible it is someone else who is passing on the info to the rest of the ward if she is truly limiting it to her few friends.  And if so, that is the person the SP should be talking to imo.

Having been in a similar situation and as much as I love and support my friend and am really ticked off at the man involved who, imo, took advantage of her vulnerability, I also know she was not limiting her talk to a few friends and she and his wife were attempting to make other members reject the other family in the ward.

Eventually one family got permission to move to another ward.  This to me is the obvious first step to avoid the automatic and necessary need to bring in supporters for oneself in dealing with extreme trauma, which this type of betrayal certainly is, imo, especially if one comes face to face with it over and over again week after week (please tell me the ex husband and his new wife were told to go to a different ward).

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

Then why did the SP apologize and wish for a do-over?

He may have been in the complete wrong or he may at this point be willing to fall on his sword in hopes of the woman being willing to let it go once she was less defensive about her own actions....or most likely it is somewhere in the middle where the SP knew he could have been more compassionate and persuasive even if he wasn't completely in the wrong and he is hoping that somehow healing can occur.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Here, have a picture of my car so you know what a BMW actually is, and not that insulting nonsense you just spewed:

And here I thought size doesn't matter.  We are all dully impressed.   Oh did I misspell that?

Edited February 17, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

Then why did the SP apologize and wish for a do-over?

An odd characteristic called "humility".  I could never understand it either.

[Calm]

12 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.

I will admit I am imagining this woman as my beloved friend, it was a real no win situation.  At the beginning no way was she going to be the one driven from the ward when she knew it was the man who had seduced her.  And the betrayed wife felt the same way.

I will admit to being very biased in favor of the partner who was betrayed and think direct action should be taken immediately to give her or him space to heal.  In the case of my friend it was not so obvious which family should have been required to move to avoid the months of conflict.  In this case pretty obvious to me; even if it was hard on the other woman's family, she and the ex husband should have been required to go to a different ward as soon as the separation occurred.  They were the two who decided to act against the interests of their families.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Look at the way this discussion is breaking down along gender lines. Not a single women here is defending the SP. The men participating might want to ask themselves why that is.

Uhhh...I know I joined it quite late.

I might be reacting quite differently if my mind hadn't immediately jumped to my own experience in a similar ward situation.

You should also be looking at who is giving rep points to whom as I believe I saw at least one other woman repping some of the 'pro-SP' remarks.  And there seem to be a number of men positive the SP is in the wrong, so not so clear cut gender lines imo.

"How about we start out with the assumption she might be a victim and then proceed?"

If you mean victim of her husband's betrayal, is anyone doubting that?  

If you mean victim of the SP, my problem is how did the SP find out if the conversation was limited to a few friends.  I did assume she was actively talking to  number of members, in part because of the comment about disrupting SM and in huge part because of personal experience.  At this point, I don't think any judgment of anyone should be made without additional information.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

12 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. 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? 

Did it say how much time had passed between the separation and the ordinance.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am sympathetic to that. I have seen bishops and Stake presidents make what I believed to be bad calls to keep the peace or to protect the activity of someone to the detriment of another.

I just doubt this is one of those cases. I have seen too many cases like this to believe she is being responsible. A couple of years back we had a divorce in my ward. I was not that close to the situation but the guy seemed to me to be at least 50% at fault and probably more. When she filed for divorce he wrote up a long email and sent it to the entire ward blaming her for everything and revealing every fault in her he could think of. She was crushed. He was asked to attend a different ward (I do not think he went to church again at either ward). She stopped coming out of humiliation despite sincere efforts to make her feel welcome.

I do not know much of what happened here but these kinds of post infidelity vendettas are toxic. I am not 100% but I am pretty close on it that the Stake President was making the right call if she was that disruptive.

This is pretty much where I am coming from.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

For women, extremely. It is a pattern. 

In reverse, do you think it important that priesthood holders are held to standards of worthiness? I think that is the bottom line here. It is not that women don't accept male only leadership, it is that we should be able to expect a certain standard when we have so little recourse. Can you agree with that?

Totally agree on this one...

[Calm]

12 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.
 

It certainly might have given her the idea.

Rather than retribution, she could see it as justice if she believes she and her family deserved protection at Church from her husband's sinful choices and the SP didn't provide that.  She could also see it as her efforts to protect other women from being placed in that situation.

Just as I don't see the SP as having other options to leverage acceptance of any requests/demands besides threatening temple recommend or membership, what options did this woman believe she had in getting justice for what she saw as significant unjustified harm for her.  Appealing to the authorities over her...how would she go about doing that?  And giving what is generally known, should she have reasonably expected any response other than her appeal being sent back to her SP?

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

No one should be discussing this without having read everything. 

You are right.

I didn't want to read the actual emails because it would make it real with real people in pain and it is easier today to treat this as a hypothetical, what if situation.

But real people are involved and deserve full attention if I choose to be involved.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course

My post was that it is totally weird to me that this would be on TV.  With non-members watching. 

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.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Quick question before I head out the door. I've only read the first few comments thus far but given the nature of this woman talking what looks like something described as "boisterous" in sacrament meeting, is there any reasonable doubt that she'd carry the same demeanor in the temple? 

Yes, there is huge doubt.

We have no clue what the rest of the ward was like...in Utah with the number of kids, it can be quite noisy.  She may have felt her behaviour was appropriate to the noise level.

In the temple there is pretty much a weight of silence the moment you walk in.  You have to actively work against that to get to boisterous.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm