Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[mnn727]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a .... a good, specific example of how leaders overstep their authority. 

Wow, you can tell all that from one line and without hearing what the woman was saying about her ex to other ward members and from hearing only  her side of what was happening.

Edited February 16, 2018 by mnn727

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I know some folks that live in Eagle Mountain, UT and they don't seem to know these people involved. I looked it up on google earth and this place isn't Chicago or Zurich, Switzerland or something. How do they not know???!!! anyways

Well, they'll probably come to know them now.  We all know what's coming.  In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "Humiliations galore."

Nobody is going to win here.  The woman is going to become further alienated from the Church and its members, and further entrenched in her resentments.  She has already left the Church over this issue.  

The bishop and stake president are volunteers.  They are now being subjected to public criticism and scorn (including by fellow members of the Church - in this very thread, in fact).  We don't have the whole story, and we'll never get it since the bishop and SP cannot and will not speak to defend themselves.

The ex-husband and the purported "other woman" are also now subject to public humiliation and ridicule.  Their standing and activity in their community and in the Church may also be injured or destroyed.

The ability and/or willingness of wrongdoers to repent and make amends is being made considerably more difficult.  

There are children involved, who may now be subjected to all sort of gossip and ridicule because this sordid matter has been published to the world.  

There are friends and extended family members and neighbors and ward members who are likewise being adversely affected.

This board is being affected.  This thread is going to devolve into a forum for gossip, backbiting, and evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed.

We none of us have the whole story here.  We are actively adding to the injuries of those involved by gossipping about it.  We are actively weakening the Church.

I regret posting in this thread.  I'm out.

-Smac

Edited February 16, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not about agreeing.  The handbook doesn't say she has to agree.  The Stake President specifically said she didn't have to agree.

As leader of their stake, the Stake President instructed that something deemed inappropriate in the stake/ward should cease.  I think we would need a bit more information as to the nature of her actions to determine if the SP overstepped.
Who was she speaking to?  In what venue were the conversations occurring?  Etc.

This member didn't just disagree, but openly disobeyed.  I would say that falls under the Handbook definition of apostasy.
 

Right, it's o.k. if you believe that the counsel is wrong and detrimental, but you'd sure better do it anyway, especially if it actually has nothing to do with any church teaching or doctrine and is just the opinion of your leader that you need to not tell the truth about your husband in church.  

That makes perfect sense.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ask the FP - they set the policies.
Goodness knows I have numerous disagreements with Church leaders on many subjects.  And I have that right.
But I don't have the right to preach those over the pulpit, not even in testimony meeting, and certainly not after being instructed to stop speaking on them.

Forget the divorce thing for a second.
What if her disagreement was on the Word of Wisdom?  That she felt that it was not by way of commandment and coffee was completely ok.
She has that right.
Now, what if she was continually expressing that view in the ward?  Still ok?
Now, what if she was continually expressing that view in the ward after being asked to stop by the Bishop/SP?  Still ok?

Sorry, but depending on what was meant by " you emphatically said you would not stop talking about this with other people" she could be in a state of apostasy.

I don't think so. The personal nature of her discussions is a huge part of the point. If she was going around teaching something contrary on the WofWisdom the SP would have some standing to instruct her. That is a doctrinal issue. THIS is a personal issue. Telling the woman to be quiet about her husband's emotional affair has nothing to do with doctrine or the church. But, as Nehor said, the system works. The church has one less member to worry about. Good for them.

[SteveO]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Right, it's o.k. if you believe that the counsel is wrong and detrimental, but you'd sure better do it anyway, especially if it actually has nothing to do with any church teaching or doctrine and is just the opinion of your leader that you need to not tell the truth about your husband in church.  

That makes perfect sense.

 

How do you know she was telling the truth about her husband?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sounds like an abusive relationship to me. At the very least he is a bully.

It sounds like the SP could use some lessons in tact, humility, and appropriate treatment of others.

I get why her leaders might not want her to be saying stuff in church (and i think such a request would be valid) but taking away someone's temple recommend and threatening to kick her out of the church because she won't stop talking about her husband at church?  That sounds a lot like unrighteous dominion.  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I get why her leaders might not want her to be saying stuff in church (and i think such a request would be valid) but taking away someone's temple recommend and threatening to kick her out of the church because she won't stop talking about her husband at church?  That sounds a lot like unrighteous dominion.  

To paraphrase the scripture:

Better that one woman should perish than a whole ward perish and be riven with the dissensions of gossip and innuendo.

[provoman]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To me, it is insane that a stake president or bishop feels they can order a woman not to talk about her divorce and then punish her for disobeying their authority like she's a 5 year old child refusing to eat her vegetables. It is an abuse of power.

Come on folks, does anyone honestly believe that this woman choosing to talk about her divorce is apostate from the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Or are we merely talking about apostasy from the church. This seems to illustrate those to be very different things.

For those who feel like she should simply "appeal" her TR being taken away: Are you suggesting that she go to this SP and let him know she is appealing and will need him to give her the info for the area authority so she contact him for the appeal? Does this SP seem like he would treat that request reasonably? I wouldn't have any confidence that he would. Why would a woman go back to a man who is dominating her and requiring her obedience to ask his permission and assistance in complaining about him? That doesn't sound like a very good system.

 

It is easy to agree with you with limited information. But if you read the letter from the SP, apparently the female in the "emotional affair" is a member of the same ward as the woman scorned. The article was updated in the last 10 minutes AND the letter the SP wrote was removed.

 

I can understand Bluebell and Juliann ire in this situation, on the face of it, it is very disturbing. But the letter the SP provided more details, and in the sense of ward/stake unity I can understand a Leader wanting to curtail gossip.

 

From the purported letter:

*    Stop talking about the details of your divorce with other people. Primarily because this involves someone who still live in your ward. This direction includes everything that did and didn't happen between **name remove and **name removed; past and present. It is nobody's business, and only promulgates speculation and gossip.
...
*   Be civil with **name removed and her family. You don't have to be best friends, but you do have act appropriately. I will not allow any fighting or arguing to take place at Church.

...

We have a responsibility to ensure that there is order in the Church, "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion" (D&C 132:8

Edited February 16, 2018 by provoman

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She doesn't have to agree, she just needs to obey him. Yikes! It is a toxic culture that requires a woman to obey a man from the church, whether she believes he is correct or not.

This guy is on a power trip. It seems rather obvious. That he has the institutional power to enforce his abuse is unacceptable.

I live out in the country on a small acreage. I once had a SP tell me that I needed to move my family into the city for safety and protection. I smiled and chuckled because I thought he was teasing but he became serious and repeated his counsel. I didn't follow it because it wasn't any of his business to command me in such things. IF he had pressed things harder (like this SP has done) we would have had a serious problem. Thankfully he backed down. I learned a year later that 3 families in our stake had sold their farms and moved into subdivisions per the SP request. THAT is an abuse of power and we are under no requirement to obey the commands of petty tyrants.

Have you heard of Israel Barlow?  Ephraim Hanks?  Jacob Hawn?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

How do you know she was telling the truth about her husband?

I'm assuming, since the stake president did not accuse her of lying or speaking ill of her husband, he only accused her of not being quiet about him.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think so. The personal nature of her discussions is a huge part of the point. If she was going around teaching something contrary on the WofWisdom the SP would have some standing to instruct her. That is a doctrinal issue. THIS is a personal issue. Telling the woman to be quiet about her husband's emotional affair has nothing to do with doctrine or the church. 

Does the SP have the right to discipline someone for gossiping?
We are assuming this is a sister who got in trouble for confiding in some friends.  I don't think that sounds likely at all.
I think this is far more likely someone who decided to make an awful lot of public noise around the ward.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To paraphrase the scripture:

Better that one woman should perish than a whole ward perish and be riven with the dissensions of gossip and innuendo.

Yeah, I wish these women would just know their place and be quiet. Stay Sweet, yall.

 

[mnn727]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm assuming, since the stake president did not accuse her of lying or speaking ill of her husband, he only accused her of not being quiet about him.

You don't have the entire story, you don't have a clue what this woman was saying, to whom, or when, or how close to the truth she was telling.  YOu have 1 side of a story that has at least 5 sides to it and no doubt more.

You know what happens when you assume.

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, I wish these women would just know their place and be quiet. Stay Sweet, yall.

 

That’s a nice strawman you’ve built there

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

It is easy to agree with you with limit information. But if you read the letter from the SP, apparently the female in the "emotional affair" is a member of the same ward as the woman scorned. The article was updated in the last 10 minutes AND the letter the SP wrote was removed.

 

I can understand Bluebell and Juliann ire in this situation, on the face of it, it is very disturbing. But the letter the SP provided more details, and in the sense of ward/stake unity I can understand a Leader wanting to curtail gossip.

So sacrifice the woman for the benefit of unity. I really struggle with the callousness of such a philosophy as is being shared on this thread. In essence, it's good riddance to her because she dared talk about a personal matter that is important to her. I can understand why a leader would be uncomfortable with her sharing embarrassing info within the ward, but I can't understand the mentality of ordering her to silence and then punishing her and threatening to punish her more if she isn't compliant with his demands. Absolutely terrible.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does the SP have the right to discipline someone for gossiping?
We are assuming this is a sister who got in trouble for confiding in some friends.  I don't think that sounds likely at all.
I think this is far more likely someone who decided to make an awful lot of public noise around the ward.

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.

Is the SP disciplining her for gossip? I though he was disciplining her for apostasy because she didn't obey his order to be silent. I don't recall he ever mentioned gossip.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

To paraphrase the scripture:

Better that one woman should perish than a whole ward perish and be riven with the dissensions of gossip and innuendo.

Even embracing that very low "the end justifies the means" standard for dealing with God's children, and ignoring any gospel doctrine concerning leaving the 99 and seeking the one in danger, the stake president's interaction with the woman has made everything worse.  The woman is lost AND the church is riven with dissensions, gossip, and innuendo.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does the SP have the right to discipline someone for gossiping?
 

Let's hope not.  Entire wards would be having disciplinary councils, including a few bishop's wives.  Besides that, if gossiping is a sin that can stop someone from receiving a temple recommend, why isn't it one of the temple recommend interview questions? Or can stake presidents add more standards of worthiness to temple recommends interviews if they want to?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Let's hope not.  Entire wards would be having disciplinary councils, including a few bishop's wives.  Besides that, if gossiping is a sin that can stop someone from receiving a temple recommend, why isn't it one of the temple recommend interview questions? Or can stake presidents add more standards of worthiness to temple recommends interviews if they want to?

So true.  there was a Bishop's wife who turned my confidence in him into a living gossiping hell.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes 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.

Really?

Quote

Is the SP disciplining her for gossip? I though he was disciplining her for apostasy because she didn't obey his order to be silent. I don't recall he ever mentioned gossip.

Do you really think the SP has an issue with her discussing her divorce with friends?

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Let's hope not.  Entire wards would be having disciplinary councils, including a few bishop's wives.  Besides that, if gossiping is a sin that can stop someone from receiving a temple recommend, why isn't it one of the temple recommend interview questions? Or can stake presidents add more standards of worthiness to temple recommends interviews if they want to?

Not going to disagree there.  The Church has a serious gossip problem.  And yes, gossip is a sin.
Heck, this entire thread is a gossip thread.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, I wish these women would just know their place and be quiet. Stay Sweet, yall.

 

If keeping the commandments about hurtful gossip is her place then her place is not in church.

The tent only stretches so far.

Edited February 16, 2018 by The Nehor

[provoman]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Let's hope not.  Entire wards would be having disciplinary councils, including a few bishop's wives.  Besides that, if gossiping is a sin that can stop someone from receiving a temple recommend, why isn't it one of the temple recommend interview questions? Or can stake presidents add more standards of worthiness to temple recommends interviews if they want to?

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.

[CA Steve]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Right, it's o.k. if you believe that the counsel is wrong and detrimental, but you'd sure better do it anyway, especially if it actually has nothing to do with any church teaching or doctrine and is just the opinion of your leader that you need to not tell the truth about your husband in church.  

That makes perfect sense.

 

While I strongly disagree with this method, it is exactly how it works and from a leadership POV, does make perfect sense. The leader does not have to justify why he is taking the action, and only has to show the member has failed to obey instructions. Of course it looks really bad in a situation like this, but I did not see a lot of members complaining when the same method was used to excommunicate  Kelly, Dehlin and Snuffler.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

You don't have the entire story, you don't have a clue what this woman was saying, to whom, or when, or how close to the truth she was telling.  YOu have 1 side of a story that has at least 5 sides to it and no doubt more.

You know what happens when you assume.

I'm going off of the stake president's words.  His words are the only part of the story that I'm concerned with.  And having his words means that I actually do have more than just her side of the story.

The stake president was very clear. "We took your temple recommend away because you emphatically said you would not stop talking about this with other people, that is the singular reason for which your temple recommend was taken away."

Per the stake president's words, who she was or wasn't talking to was irrelevant to the issue.  Neither did the stake president care if what she was saying was true or not.  The singular problem (singular means only) was that she wouldn't do what he wanted her to do.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Have you heard of Israel Barlow?  Ephraim Hanks?  Jacob Hawn?

I have, and frankly the story of Hawn's Mill is one the SP used to justify his council. I suggest that the world today is a little different than 1838 Missouri. The SP's council to me was taken as council, and ignored by me. Thankfully he didn't try to make it more of a command with me, though others seemed to comply.

I stand by my statement that it is an abuse of power to force others to heed the councils of a church leader. Amen to the priesthood of the man who uses coercion and threats to make people comply.