Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Ok....keep digging that hole.  You really don't have much to support your opinion, IMO.  He offered her an apology for how he had handled things and expressed a desire that he wished he could have a do over.
 

Yes, and?

What conclusions to you draw from that?

You seem to wish to exploit the apology for the maximum you can milk out of it. I prefer to see it for what it actually is.

I agree that he was apologising for how he handled it. He didn't apologise for handling it.

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

From his email:

Yes, I read it. In its entirety.

I'm still waiting to see hers.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Your errors are so numerous, trying to address them all would consume the board.

Can we start simple? From your perspective, what is water?

Another thread please.

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, Thinking said:

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

At the time the interview takes place Tiercy was no longer married to him. He is her former husband and, as such, it is no longer any of her business. I'm sorry to be blunt about it, but that's just how it is.

Got it.

Doubtful.

 

Quote

He can not apologize, ordain their son, but she just has to accept it because he's her former husband.

That's not what I said. I was talking about why the SP wouldn't discuss her former husband's discipline with her. If you want to talk about something else though, that's fine.

What Tiercy has to accept is that she isn't the one who gets to determine her former husband's worthiness. That is the Bishop's purview. 

Now, if she has information which she believes may affect her former husband's worthiness, she is free to share that with the Bishop and let him know about her concerns. The Bishop then, acting within his role as a common judge in Israel, will investigate the matter and act accordingly. But if the Bishop ultimately decides that the father is worthy to perform the ordinance then he is worthy. The father may not be worthy to attend the temple yet, but according to the Stake President the local Bishop met with the father multiple times and determined that the father was "worthy enough" to perform the ordination.

If she didn't want the ordination to take place though, she could have prevented by simply removing her consent for her son to be ordained. I can understand why she wouldn't want to do that; she doesn't want to be seen as the 'bad parent' who is preventing their child from doing something he wants to do. Instead, she wants the Bishop to be the one who enforces her personal worthiness standards upon her ex-husband in order to prevent him from being able to perform the ordination at all.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

So a married man and a married woman have an emotional affair (which the SP agreed was wrong).

According to the wife, they had an "emotional affair." Keep in mind that we have only her word that it was happening.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

There is no discipline for the man as he is still allowed to ordain his son.

Which doesn't actually mean that there is no discipline.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

This upsets the wife and she talks about it to her friends because there has been no apology to her.

That's one way to look at it.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Her bishop and SP tell her to stop talking about it because the situation is dividing the ward. Still no discipline for the man. The wife can't keep quiet because she feels the situation is unfair.

Yes, according to her, her own behaviour should only be evaluated in comparison to her husband's.

Does that sound very mature to you?

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The SP takes her TR away because she didn't follow his counsel - "right wrong or indifferent."

The Stake President granted her Temple Recommend. Her access to the Temple is part of his stewardship; the disciplining of her ex-husband, by contrast, is not part of her stewardship.

Here's another way to look at it: a couple are going through a messy and acrimonious divorce. One party starts bad-mouthing the other to all of those who had been their joint friends, including every member of the ward who will listen. Ward members start to take sides, and pass judgment on the parties. The Stake President rightly sees this as highly reprehensible behaviour, and tries to put a stop to it; but the one who is blabbing refuses to play ball.

What options does the SP have?

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Got it. He can not apologize, ordain their son, but she just has to accept it because he's her former husband.

Not quite.

He can not apologise (according to her) and ordain their son, but she just has to accept it because determining the worthiness of Church members is not her stewardship.

I am grateful to belong to a Church where the parties to a personal dispute have no say in whether the other parties to that dispute should be considered worthy to exercise the privileges of membership.

The alternative would be a situation parallel to a civil case in which the fellow who is suing you gets to determine the verdict of the lawsuit.

Would you like to live in a jurisdiction like that?

Edited February 18, 2018 by kiwi57

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is it local leaders responsibility now to convince people to say “sorry”?

It is a local leader's responsibility to lead a person through the repentance process. It seems to me that an apology to an offended party would be part of that process. Am I wrong?

[ALarson]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, and?

What conclusions to you draw from that?

I think I've been clear.  You stated:

Quote

The Stake President wasn't wrong. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70223-woman-loses-temple-recommend-for-talking-about-her-divorce/?do=findComment&comment=1209796871

And I pointed out that apparently the SP disagrees with you and does feel that he was wrong to handle it like he did (and I agree with him here).  He both apologized and expressed that he wished he could have a "do-over".

I'm not sure why you keep doubting his word (written in an email to her) or why some keep insisting that's not what his apology and desire for a "do-over" meant.  Let's just take him at his word.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

It is a local leader's responsibility to lead a person through the repentance process. It seems to me that an apology to an offended party would be part of that process. Am I wrong?

Sometimes but in this case? In a rancorous situation which this appears to be you probably want to keep communication to a minimum. I suspect if either party tried to reach out the other would bite their hand. In fact I do more than suspect. While she claims in the interview that 90% of the attacks come from him she admits she has also done some of it. If I was the bishop I would not encourage contact.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think I've been clear.  You stated:

And I pointed out that apparently the SP disagrees with you and does feel that he was wrong to handle it like he did (and I agree with him here).  He both apologized and expressed that he wished he could have a "do-over".

I'm not sure why you keep doubting his word (written in an email to her) or why some keep insisting that's not what his apology and desire for a "do-over" meant.  Let's just take him at his word.

He thought he could have handled it better. That is not saying he did anything explicitly wrong. It could be something as simple as feeling the tone he used was wrong.

There is also a possibility that he is giving this as an olive branch and falling on his sword to give her a face saving way to come back. One part of being a bishop is apologizing when you did little or nothing wrong.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Your errors are so numerous, trying to address them all would consume the board.

Can we start simple? From your perspective, what is water?

LOL

Consume away or start a blog just for the two of us- and whoever wants to join.

"Water" is a word, what did you think it was?  Something wet?  It's squiggles on a page-  pixels on a screen- want to debate that one?  Words are not wet, wet is an experience of a human mind.

Well so far we have unsubstantiated claims.  If you think I have misrepresented the philosophy of William James, Wittgenstein, Rorty, Dewey or one of the boys let me know.

You sound like a Cartesian to me. 

You seem to think that words are reality.  But I think I will not hear from you. 

You know it kind of cracks me up when I get posts like this because I know what I know about philosophy.  I do not know it all, but I do know the limited subjects that I know well.

It seems like people project their own insecurities about what they do NOT know, on me.  A comment like that might really shake a true amateur, not knowing who the poster is.

But I hope you are a professor of Pragmatism with a Phd in this narrow area of study because if you actually can find errors, I would LOVE to learn from you.

I think after studying it for 50 years I have learned a few things, yes I am turning 70 and started learning about Pragmatism 50 years ago and have never stopped reading.   I did enough graduate work to get 2 masters degrees but I didn't see the benefit in finishing because I hate academia and the degree had no pragmatic value for me.    I did not want to teach, after being a TA for awhile.  Oddly I just wanted to learn.  I know that is a weird notion today, but it was the 60's after all and people were different then.  Them dang hippies!  Professional students!!

So yes, please teach me all my errors, PLEAASSE. 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

11 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Can we start simple? From your perspective, what is water?

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Water" is a word, what did you think it was?  Something wet?

I am reminded of the song Particle Man by They Might Be Giants. My favorite two lines:

Quote

When he's underwater does he get wet?

Or does the water get him instead?

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Thinking

[Metis_LDS]

Could or would someone tell me why this thread (topic) is so popular???

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Could or would someone tell me why this thread (topic) is so popular???

I can't figure it out either.  It's a soap opera and people like soap operas and gossip and then we get the women's rights and "me too" element.

People love that stuff today.

If we could only work in gun control, THEN we would have a gangbuster of thread!

Edited February 18, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

3 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Could or would someone tell me why this thread (topic) is so popular???

IMO what happened in this situation seems to go contrary to what Jesus taught in the parable of the Lost Sheep. The SP can be heard explaining that he has a responsibility to the ward. The woman feels like she doesn't matter.

[Metis_LDS]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

IMO what happened in this situation seems to go contrary to what Jesus taught in the parable of the Lost Sheep. The SP can be heard explaining that he has a responsibility to the ward. The woman feels like she doesn't matter.

Thank you for your answer,  I take what you say on faith.  So a Stake President performance makes it a popular topic???

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I am grateful to belong to a Church where the parties to a personal dispute have no say in whether the other parties to that dispute should be considered worthy to exercise the privileges of membership.

Again. Got it. The parties just have to accept whatever decision is finalized - right, wrong, or indifferent.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Could or would someone tell me why this thread (topic) is so popular???

I think part of it is that this could happen to any one of us, especially us women.   Knowing that your church leader could define 'apostasy' as not obeying him is scary.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Thinking said:

IMO what happened in this situation seems to go contrary to what Jesus taught in the parable of the Lost Sheep. The SP can be heard explaining that he has a responsibility to the ward. The woman feels like she doesn't matter.

Thanks for bringing up the parable from Jesus, you nailed it. Why couldn't the ward have just loved her? Even if she was wrong in being so vocal and maybe a little annoying to the wrongdoers such as the husband and other woman. Couldn't the ward leaders have been the better people and loved her and just let her go through the emotions/motions? 

Seems like they just wanted to make her shut up, so the real elephant in the room, the emotional affair, doesn't get out too much. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Tacenda

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Could or would someone tell me why this thread (topic) is so popular???

Explanations may not be possible because if a guy like me tries to explain why this thread is so popular he is just mansplaining, but if a woman tries to explain it, she is just a whiny gossip, who can't understand how difficult it is to be in a leadership position and having to make all the decisions.

Edited February 18, 2018 by CA Steve

[Metis_LDS]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Explanations may not be possible because if a guy like me tries to explain why this thread is so popular he is just mansplaining, but if a woman tries she is just a whiny gossip.

CA Steve you are a braver man than me!!!

Edited February 18, 2018 by Metis_LDS
grammar

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I am reminded of the song Particle Man by They Might Be Giants. My favorite two lines:

 

Thanks. I was reading this and realized I had not heard the song for over a decade. Got my Echo to play it. I forgot how much I loved this band. Need to listen to them more often

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

IMO what happened in this situation seems to go contrary to what Jesus taught in the parable of the Lost Sheep. The SP can be heard explaining that he has a responsibility to the ward. The woman feels like she doesn't matter.

It would appear to me that the warring parties forgot what Jesus taught. That’s how the whole thing started. IMO, it’s to unfair blame the bishop and SP for the fallout from their mistakes. Virtue, honesty, fidelity, forgiveness, patience, mercy, love, unity all went by the wayside early on. No good can come until those are restored. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Explanations may not be possible because if a guy like me tries to explain why this thread is so popular he is just mansplaining, but if a woman tries to explain it, she is just a whiny gossip, who can't understand how difficult it is to be in a leadership position and having to make all the decisions.

This pretty much sums up the situation we all find ourselves in today....

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwrTSXfGzYla.WsAxSa5mWRH;_ylu=X3oDMTByNDY3bGRuBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDNQ--?p=what+we+have+here+is+a+failure+to+communicate&vid=c172e2b7de33922f0aa135c06fcc8625&turl=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOVP.H2GvKRmpoPJgSPJQ5HfyQgHgFo%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D360%26w%3D480%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1fuDDqU6n4o&***=cool+hand+luke&c=4&h=360&w=480&l=41&sigr=11b16d07i&sigt=10ej71kpq&sigi=12rvdc3cn&age=1158631346&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=ipad&tt=b

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for bringing up the parable from Jesus, you nailed it. Why couldn't the ward have just loved her? Even if she was wrong in being so vocal and maybe a little annoying to the wrongdoers such as the husband and other woman. Couldn't the ward and leaders have been the better people and loved her and just let her go through the emotions/motions? 

Seems like they just wanted to make her shut up, so the real elephant in the room, the emotional affair, doesn't get out too much. 

Yes, but you can turn that around and ask why she could not been a better person and not stirred things up. Now if the ward was filled with perfect or near perfect people that would have worked but allowing someone to do damage to a ward with the hope that everyone will perfectly emulate the Savior seems to me a recipe for disaster.

Instead you are dealing with Brother Gossip who loves to pass along stories like this and does not need this temptation and Sister Newbie who is unseasoned and just joined and is hearing about affairs and is reconsidering her decision to join a church where this kind of thing happens and is bandied about in the halls and Brother Divorced who just went through a divorce and is getting his life back on track but listening to someone else throw their dirty laundry around about their divorce is opening old wounds and finally little Cindy Lou Who whose mom was involved in the emotional affair and overheard some conversations in church and does not understand what that means beyond being an affair and cries at night worrying about what might happen with her parents.

Edited February 18, 2018 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but you can turn that around and ask why she could not been a better person and not stirred things up. Now if the ward was filled with perfect or near perfect people that would have worked but allowing someone to do damage to a ward with the hope that everyone will perfectly emulate the Savior seems to me a recipe for disaster.

Instead you are dealing with Brother Gossip who loves to pass along stories like this and does not need this temptation and Sister Newbie who is unseasoned and just joined and is hearing about affairs and is reconsidering her decision to join a church where this kind of thing happens and is bandied about in the halls and Brother Divorced who just went through a divorce and is getting his life back on track but listening to someone else throw their dirty laundry around about their divorce is opening old wounds and finally little Cindy Lou Who whose mom was involved in the emotional affair and overheard some conversations in church and does not understand what that means beyond being an affair and cries at night worrying about what might happen with her parents.

If everyone had just shown love and empathy to her none of this would be in the news now right? So it's not only affecting Sister Newbie it's affecting probably thousands more.