Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t agree with you, and you know it. 

Hmmmm.....and now you're a mind reader? 

You're wrong about that.  To me it sounds like you agree that kiwi was suggesting the words I should have used (and then put them in quotes) instead of him just taking what I'd very clearly stated to be the words I'd meant to use.

Either way, it's not relevant to my post about mansplaining (?).  I think we should move on....

Edited February 19, 2018 by ALarson

[cipriano]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What would you rather call emotional infidelity?

Well, I would definitely leave out words like infidelity or affair because that conflates two different things. If it isn't a physical relationship than a member is not violating the Law of Chastity.

99.9% of the time the term "emotional affair" is used by the incredibly insecure. As far as I can tell, it is not even a clinical or legal term. But it's been pushed into mainstream usage by Evangelicals. Google the term and 80% of the results are stuff like Focus on the Family and it's fellow travelers.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well I was one of many females that Kiwi was referring to I guess. Or maybe I read it wrong.

What is up with posters on here using words that are not even practical to use, or words that are so rarely used they might as well be in a "Balderdash" game.

I admire Kiwi’s vocabulary, and I appreciate his occasional use of an apt word that challenges me to expand my own. 

Smac does this for me as well, but more along the lines of legal terms and concepts. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hmmmm.....and now you're a mind reader? 

You're wrong about that.  To me it sounds like you agree that kiwi was suggesting the words I should have used (and then put them in quotes) instead of him just taking what I'd very clearly stated to be the words I'd meant to use.

I saw no indication from his post that he thinks you didn’t use the words you meant to use. That doesn’t mean those are the words you should have used. 

And at any rate, it didn’t warrant a complaint to moderation over it (not saying it was you who complained; I don’t know who did). 

[provoman]

On 2/16/2018 at 9:45 AM, bluebell said:

It's not too much to expect that church leaders are mature enough to know that not agreeing with their counsel is not the same as opposition to the leaders of the church.  This story is crazy.  

and

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She did not obey his counsel because she disagreed with it.  If she had agreed with it, she would have done it. Saying that she wasn't being disciplined for not agreeing with him is a distinction without a difference.  

 

are you contradicting yourself?

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And at any rate, it didn’t warrant a complaint to moderation over it (not saying it was you who complained; I don’t know who did). 

I've never reported a post or another member here.  I'm not going to start reporting others over something that trivial.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Most of us have made mistakes and caused others harm without intent. Does lack of intent mean that we don't have to apologize, make changes, or acknowledge the pain of the victim?

You mean like when somebody takes offense to something that is said – even though what was said wasn’t actually offensive and the person who said it didn’t actually mean to be offensive? Funny, I think there’s a tangent going on about that right now.

But, getting back to the Stake President, he did apologize to her for any part he may have played contributing to her pain, and he even gave a specific example of one of the situations that came up early in their counseling where he reacted poorly (unintentionally) and wished he could have done better.

So I’m really not sure what more you want from this guy. He seems like he’s doing a pretty good job of trying to be kind and loving toward someone who has, at various times, called him a rapist, a liar, incompetent, etc., all to his face. Ah, the perks of leadership.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

So it is ok to misrepresent the facts?

I haven't misrepresented any facts because saying that she was accused of apostasy because she disagreed with her SP or because she didn't obey him is a distinction without a difference.  There is no discernible difference between both statements.  

She did not agree with her SP's counsel, she did not follow it because she disagreed with it, and she did not agree with her SP that not following his counsel was an act of apostasy.  

 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, cipriano said:

Well, I would definitely leave out words like infidelity or affair because that conflates two different things. If it isn't a physical relationship than a member is not violating the Law of Chastity.

99.9% of the time the term "emotional affair" is used by the incredibly insecure. As far as I can tell, it is not even a clinical or legal term. But it's been pushed into mainstream usage by Evangelicals. Google the term and 80% of the results are stuff like Focus on the Family and it's fellow travelers.

Are you under the impression that you can only be accused of infidelity (or of having an affair) if you have violated the law of chastity?  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

and

are you contradicting yourself?

Distinction without a difference.

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

and

are you contradicting yourself?

I believe when she's referring to leaders of the church, she's referring to apostles and prophets, not local stake leadership.

[cipriano]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you under the impression that you can only be accused of infidelity (or of having an affair) if you have violated the law of chastity?  

Are we talking about in a legal setting or a church setting?

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Distinction without a difference.

Ok so you are saying the not agreeing is the same as acting in opposition, which is a complete contradiction of what you posted early on in this thread.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Ok so you are saying the not agreeing is the same as acting in opposition, which is a complete contradiction of what you posted early on in this thread.

I'm saying that in her case, there is no discernible difference between disagreeing with her SP and disobeying him.  If you want to believe that that is a completely contradiction of what i posted earlier than i'm really very o.k. with that. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, cipriano said:

Are we talking about in a legal setting or a church setting?

I'm talking about issues of morality and also church settings (which deal with issues of morality).

[cipriano]

Well, in a legal setting the term "emotional affair" means nothing. Some lawyers might put it under the irreconcilable differences section. Most wouldn't.

In a church setting, if I was a Bishop and someone came to me claiming their spouse is having an "emotional affair", I would have to ask for details. If no physical contact, no phone sex and no sexting I would have to respond that there is no violation of the Law of Chastity.

[cipriano]

Oh, and then I would refer the couple to a specialist, because a therapist, I am not.

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm saying that in her case, there is no discernible difference between disagreeing with her SP and disobeying him.  If you want to believe that that is a completely contradiction of what i posted earlier than i'm really very o.k. with that. 

It is a contradiction of what you posted early on, but I am ok that your position is now that " not agreeing with their counsel [IS] the same as opposition to the leaders of the church."
 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, cipriano said:

In a church setting, if I was a Bishop and someone came to me claiming their spouse is having an "emotional affair", I would have to ask for details. If no physical contact, no phone sex and no sexting I would have to respond that there is no violation of the Law of Chastity.

That doesn't rule out that something immoral has taken place between them.  Members are not just disciplined for sexual misconduct.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

It is a contradiction of what you posted early on, but I am ok that your position is now that " not agreeing with their counsel [IS] the same as opposition to the leaders of the church."
 

I did not say "not agreeing with their counsel [IS] the same as opposition to the leaders of the church."  For someone so focused on accuracy, it's kind of a weird mistake to make but i'll assume it was accidental (because i don't really care if it was or wasn't, or if you are o.k. with my position).

I said "in her case, there is no discernible difference between disagreeing with her SP and disobeying him."  Notice the lack of plurals or the use of the word 'their'.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, cipriano said:

Well, in a legal setting the term "emotional affair" means nothing. Some lawyers might put it under the irreconcilable differences section. Most wouldn't.

In a church setting, if I was a Bishop and someone came to me claiming their spouse is having an "emotional affair", I would have to ask for details. If no physical contact, no phone sex and no sexting I would have to respond that there is no violation of the Law of Chastity.

Great.  After making that declaration, you should probably move on to deal with the actual infidelity that the spouse had committed, which is a sin and can be a reason for church discipline.  Infidelity is a breach of temple marriage covenants even if the law of chastity wasn't broken.  Depending on it's severity further discipline may or may not be warranted.  

Most people don't take it lightly if their spouse falls in love with someone else and is romantically pursuing them, regardless of whether or not they've had sex.  And rightly so.  Hopefully a bishop would take it just as seriously.

[cipriano]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That doesn't rule out that something immoral has taken place between them.

 

What, something like gambling, dog fighting or industrial espionage?

Does the Bishop have to investigate every friendship between members of the opposite sex? I don't think that it his job.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, cipriano said:

What, something like gambling, dog fighting or industrial espionage?

Does the Bishop have to investigate every friendship between members of the opposite sex? I don't think that it his job.

Neither do i. It's also not his job to investigate people to see if they are having extramarital affairs.  We can all agree though that it is his job to deal with the spiritual fallout from that if a spouse commits that sin.  

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, cipriano said:

What, something like gambling, dog fighting or industrial espionage?

No.

Something like having romantic conversations with someone from the opposite sex and not telling their spouses about them.  Something like falling in love with each other and not telling their spouses that they are spending so much time with someone of the opposite sex that they now are romantically interested in them.  Something like exchanging romantic emails or flirty texts without the knowledge of their spouses.

Want me to go on?  Because there are numerous other examples of what would be immoral that does not involve sex.

Basically doing anything with a member of the opposite sex that they wouldn't do or say in front of their spouse (other than planning a surprise birthday party for them.... )

Edited February 19, 2018 by ALarson

[cipriano]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No.

Something like having romantic conversations and not telling their spouses about them.  Something like falling in love with each other and not telling their spouses that they are spending so much time with someone of the opposite sex that they now are romantically interested in them.  Something like exchanging romantic emails or flirty texts without the knowledge of their spouses.

Want me to go on?  Because there are numerous other examples of what would be immoral that does not involve sex.

All the things you list would be cause to get the couple into counseling. But a violation of The Law of Chastity, they are not. It seems pretty clear cut to me.