Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, cipriano said:

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.

And, that's not what I stated.  But a person is not only disciplined for violating the law of chastity.  

Depending on how involved the two parties are romantically, I can very much see them being at least disfellowshipped.  If they were deeply involved and there had been much deception involved (behind the backs of their spouses or sneaking around and spending time together, many phone calls, emails or texts, etc.), there may be more severe punishment.   That would be left up to the local leader's discretion.  But if they are involved in immoral, dishonest, romantic behavior with the opposite sex, that is potentially so damaging it may break up families.  That is serious.

Edited February 19, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

A Bishop or SP may, without invoking a council, impose certain measured acts of penance.  Surrendering the temple recommend for a time is one of these.  Withholding the sacrament for a time is one of these.  Neither a SP nor a Bishop exceeds authority by imposing such acts of penance.  And when one seeks guidance through prayer and an invocation of divine response, the penitent really ought not to ignore it or be defiant towards it.

I can't say I'm sad I missed several days of this mess of a thread (not the finest hour for many on here. Sheesh).

The above made me wonder, though, what those who think the stake president was beyond his authority to invalidate a TR for not following counsel would think if . . .

What if a bishop or stake president instructed a member not to take the sacrament for a time, the member is clearly unhappy with this and disagrees with it, and the member continues to take the sacrament in defiance of that counsel? I've never had this happen, but this has made me wonder what I would do if, what would it be like if, etc. 

What should the priesthood leader do if his instructions regarding an ordinance were deliberately disobeyed in an act of defiance? Regulating the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood are a basic, fundamental responsibility of a bishop, and such regulation is usually done without a disciplinary council. Would it be overstepping his authority if he then escalated up the consequences ladder and invalidated a recommend? Or would that be beyond the pale and out of bounds? 

If so, are his hands tied; should he do nothing and just shrug his shoulders? Or, does defying him when it comes to priesthood ordinances (which is his direct responsibility and under his keys) rise to the level of more formal action? 

I don't think it's a secret that I don't find that the stake president did anything wrong here; nor do I think he "bungled" this, as juliann has said multiple times. Why did he apologize and say he wishes he would have done things differently? With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, all of us can honestly say that we wish we had done things differently (especially in the realm of human relations, and especially if we could have known people would have reacted like XYZ or that ABC were going to happen). That she provided MormonLeaks a copy of his classy apology says everything about her. As does her taping of him and priming him and trying to get him to say things to publish. I think the aftermath shows that he was spot on on his assessment of her and the situation. 

I see her defiance of her stake president's instructions to stop sowing dissension and being disruptive as warranting formal action, and the fact that all that happened is that her TR was revoked is lenient. 

I guess nothing would amaze me on this thread, but it would be disappointing to learn that people I respect would feel that it would be wrong to formally discipline or at least to revoke a recommend if one were to defy instructions and take the sacrament against instructions. I see this situation as very similar to that. 

[cipriano]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And, that's not what I stated.  But a person is not only disciplined for violating the law of chastity.  

Depending on how involved the two parties are romantically, I can very much see them being at least disfellowshipped.  If they were deeply involved and there had been much deception involved (behind the backs of their spouses or sneaking around and spending time together, many phone calls, emails or texts, etc.), there may be more severe punishment.   That would be left up to the local leader's discretion.  But if they are involved in immoral, dishonest, romantic behavior with the opposite sex, that is potentially so damaging it may break up families.  That is serious.

We agree there.

Where we disagree is "the local leaders discretion". Thankfully I am not that leader , but if I was I would try to get them into counseling before leveling any discipline. 

Violating the Law of Chastity endangers you eternal potential and placement within the kingdoms. How in the world do we expect people to not have ordinary human relations when both spouses have to be out in the workplace full time. As long as it's platonic...

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, cipriano said:

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.

I disagree. 

What do you think about married, endowed members going on dates with other people, but not having sex or even heavy petting? What about scheduling and meeting with a prostitute but remaining clothed and not going beyond kissing? (All according to the members, which is kind of stretch, but just at face value)?

We have people in my ward and in our stake who have been disfellowshipped for unfaithful activities that did not go as far as sex or even heavy petting (according to the member). In the case with dating while married, going on dates with other women was more devastating to the wife than if sex had occurred. In my mind, there is not really a difference between sexual intercourse and being emotionally unfaithful to your spouse. I mean, in a sense there is a difference, but where it's most important, there isn't. Even Jesus' higher law speaks of "committing adultery already in the heart." When people are dating, kissing, meeting people places, writing love notes (even when they aren't sexually explicit), I don't think there is a real difference between that and full out sex. There wouldn't be for me if I were the victim. I don't know how I would trust my wife if that happened. 

I think maybe some LDS today focus too stringently on outward lines, and not enough on the higher law. ESPECIALLY when people have made temple covenants. It cannot be any plainer than it is made in the temple. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, cipriano said:

Where we disagree is "the local leaders discretion".

Then who should be the judge regarding hearing the facts and their confessions and deciding whether or not to hold a church court?

11 minutes ago, cipriano said:

How in the world do we expect people to not have ordinary human relations when both spouses have to be out in the workplace full time. As long as it's platonic...

Platonic relationships are fine, but between married members (with a member of the opposite sex that is not their spouse), they have to be extremely careful.  That doesn't mean that these friendships shouldn't take place, but I'd never go out and do anything socially with another woman or meet her alone or even talk extensively on the phone (or text).  If I have time to do that, I'll be with my wife.  Nothing that even appears inappropriate, IMO should be taking place.

Edited February 20, 2018 by ALarson

[cipriano]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I disagree. 

What do you think about married, endowed members going on dates with other people, but not having sex or even heavy petting? What about scheduling and meeting with a prostitute but remaining clothed and not going beyond kissing? (All according to the members, which is kind of stretch, but just at face value)?

What king of person does such things when they are already eternally sealed to another faithful member? I'll tell you - one who needs professional mental health counseling. And probably lots of it!

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, cipriano said:

What king of person does such things when they are already eternally sealed to another faithful member? I'll tell you - one who needs professional mental health counseling. And probably lots of it!

You do know that a member can get professional mental health counseling AND go through the repentance process which might involve church discipline, don't you?

[cipriano]

Sounds to me like we are on the same wavelength.

I would just say that violating the Law of Chastity is very serious and we do it a disservice by using such pop cultural terms like "emotional affair". That's my position and I'm sticking to it!

Edited February 20, 2018 by cipriano
wording

[CA Steve]

29 minutes ago, cipriano said:

What king of person does such things when they are already eternally sealed to another faithful member? I'll tell you - one who needs professional mental health counseling. And probably lots of it!

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here, but equating emotional infidelity in marriage (or what ever you want to call it) with mental illness and using mental illness as if it is a pejorative term, is offensive.

Marital problems are not de facto signs of mental health issues, period.

Edited February 20, 2018 by CA Steve

[cipriano]

I am not being judgemental of counseling. I am actually extolling it's virtues. If someone is engaging in the behaviors outlined by Rongo (married but still having a dating life or going to prostitutes to make out) I think counseling would be a reasonable request by a Bishop! That's just common sense.

[Rain]

 

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I can't say I'm sad I missed several days of this mess of a thread (not the finest hour for many on here. Sheesh).

The above made me wonder, though, what those who think the stake president was beyond his authority to invalidate a TR for not following counsel would think if . . .

What if a bishop or stake president instructed a member not to take the sacrament for a time, the member is clearly unhappy with this and disagrees with it, and the member continues to take the sacrament in defiance of that counsel? I've never had this happen, but this has made me wonder what I would do if, what would it be like if, etc. 

 

Quote

What should the priesthood leader do if his instructions regarding an ordinance were deliberately disobeyed in an act of defiance? Regulating the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood are a basic, fundamental responsibility of a bishop, and such regulation is usually done without a disciplinary council. Would it be overstepping his authority if he then escalated up the consequences ladder and invalidated a recommend? Or would that be beyond the pale and out of bounds? 

Tough questions. Would it be overstepping his authority? If he invalidated the reccomend because his neighbor didn't cut his lawn short enough then yes I think it would be overstepping. If he did it because she had extramarital sex then no, I don't think that would be overstepping.

I think that is really what this is all about. Early on, I, and probably others, understood from what little evidence we saw that the SP was taking her reccomend only because she was talking about her divorce with people in the ward. We talk about our HT, our VT, our RSP, and friends we have had in wards for years. The people we go to when we are struggling. So reading the SP's on words it really did seem like overstepping. 

As this went along and we got more than the SP's words I saw there may be more to the story. 

The thing that really bothers me about all of this though is that it has opened my eyes. There have been a few leaders I have struggled with, but there were no serious problems on my behalf. Just irritation. What is scary to me is how things could really get out of hand in important matters with a leader and how people may be lost because of it. 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

1 hour 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.

Matthew 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Just to be clear, there absolutely can be a law of Chastity violation without physical contact or phone issues.
But I am not sure that Matt 5:27-28 is for the Bishop or SP to judge, not unless they have some special insight into the heart.

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, cipriano said:

I am not being judgemental of counseling. I am actually extolling it's virtues. If someone is engaging in the behaviors outlined by Rongo (married but still having a dating life or going to prostitutes to make out) I think counseling would be a reasonable request by a Bishop! That's just common sense.

You said "mental health counseling".  Do you not know the difference between a mental health counselor and a marriage counselor? 

Mental health is not part of the conversation here. Do you understand that?

[cipriano]

For my efforts, I at least want credit for directing this thread away from the mansplaining thicket. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm suggesting maybe those male posters can give some guidance to the few male posters who struggle with discussing gender issues without being reported. 

I can guess that I'm probably not supposed to do this, but I can't help imaging how this suggestion would sound if the genders were swapped. If a number of female posters were complaining that they had been unfairly reported whenever commenting on gender issues, would it be OK for me, a male, to suggest that they should learn from other female posters who seem not to have issues upsetting men with their comments?

[cipriano]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

You said "mental health counseling".  Do you not know the difference between a mental health counselor and a marriage counselor? 

Mental health is not part of the conversation here. Do you understand that?

No offense was meant. I understand and I apologize.

Edited February 20, 2018 by cipriano
wording

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, cipriano said:

For my efforts, I at least want credit for directing this thread away from the mansplaining thicket. 

No small thing, that!  

Welcome to the message board, by the way. 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, cipriano said:

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

It seems that he would at least investigate an alleged emotional affair that has been reported to him. A bishop is supposed to be a judge in Israel. How can he judge a conflict appropriately without investigation?

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I can guess that I'm probably not supposed to do this, but I can't help imaging how this suggestion would sound if the genders were swapped. If a number of female posters were complaining that they had been unfairly reported whenever commenting on gender issues, would it be OK for me, a male, to suggest that they should learn from other female posters who seem not to have issues upsetting men with their comments?

Yes. A rather condescending suggestion one way or the other. As though to say, “Sit down and keep quiet, and learn from others of your kind who know their place.”

Edited February 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I can guess that I'm probably not supposed to do this, but I can't help imaging how this suggestion would sound if the genders were swapped. If a number of female posters were complaining that they had been unfairly reported whenever commenting on gender issues, would it be OK for me, a male, to suggest that they should learn from other female posters who seem not to have issues upsetting men with their comments?

Why would that bother anyone?  If someone isn’t swimming very well, is it offensive to point them towards those who appear to be good swimmers?

 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. A rather condescending suggestion one way or the other. As though to say, “Sit down and keep quiet, and learn from others of your kind who know their place.”

How is it condescending??  If your friend was struggling with something, would it be condescending to tell them that talking to other friends who were having more success might be helpful?

Your interpretation of my post as me telling some men to sit down and keep quiet doesn’t seem like a reasonable interpretation, since I said no such thing. 

[cipriano]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Just to be clear, there absolutely can be a law of Chastity violation without physical contact or phone issues.

I'm not sure how, but I guess some Saints are more inventive than others.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I can't say I'm sad I missed several days of this mess of a thread (not the finest hour for many on here. Sheesh).

The above made me wonder, though, what those who think the stake president was beyond his authority to invalidate a TR for not following counsel would think if . . .

What if a bishop or stake president instructed a member not to take the sacrament for a time, the member is clearly unhappy with this and disagrees with it, and the member continues to take the sacrament in defiance of that counsel? I've never had this happen, but this has made me wonder what I would do if, what would it be like if, etc. 

What should the priesthood leader do if his instructions regarding an ordinance were deliberately disobeyed in an act of defiance? Regulating the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood are a basic, fundamental responsibility of a bishop, and such regulation is usually done without a disciplinary council. Would it be overstepping his authority if he then escalated up the consequences ladder and invalidated a recommend? Or would that be beyond the pale and out of bounds? 

If so, are his hands tied; should he do nothing and just shrug his shoulders? Or, does defying him when it comes to priesthood ordinances (which is his direct responsibility and under his keys) rise to the level of more formal action? 

I don't think it's a secret that I don't find that the stake president did anything wrong here; nor do I think he "bungled" this, as juliann has said multiple times. Why did he apologize and say he wishes he would have done things differently? With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, all of us can honestly say that we wish we had done things differently (especially in the realm of human relations, and especially if we could have known people would have reacted like XYZ or that ABC were going to happen). That she provided MormonLeaks a copy of his classy apology says everything about her. As does her taping of him and priming him and trying to get him to say things to publish. I think the aftermath shows that he was spot on on his assessment of her and the situation. 

I see her defiance of her stake president's instructions to stop sowing dissension and being disruptive as warranting formal action, and the fact that all that happened is that her TR was revoked is lenient. 

I guess nothing would amaze me on this thread, but it would be disappointing to learn that people I respect would feel that it would be wrong to formally discipline or at least to revoke a recommend if one were to defy instructions and take the sacrament against instructions. I see this situation as very similar to that. 

I haven't made any comments on this thread because I don't really feel it is my place to get into how the church chooses to disciplines it's members.  I have consistently said that about all the issues I comment on.  But perhaps I am less connected with either party and could add a different perspective. 

I absolutely agree with your comments.  I feel the stake president has every right to take away anyone's temple recommend.  And in this case, there is plenty of justification for doing so from the meager facts that we actually have been presented.  I think you presented the reasoning and justification the SP had in doing what he did quite well.  Rather than reiterate those points, please allow me to use your comments as the very justification I would use to defend the stake president.

But clearly, Juliann and others feel like an over reach of authority has taken place.  I think what is also just as clear is that this woman feels like she was severely wronged.  And she was.  I just don't feel like she felt the church leaders responded very well to her hurt and betrayal.  She felt like if her church leaders weren't going to give her the justice she deserved, then she would take matters in her own hands.  Her only weapon was her voice.   When church leaders wanted to take away her only way of receiving justice, then she felt like she had a choice.  Yield to their power or defy that power in the only way she new how.  And we now have the results of that choice.  

One of the things that I have been thinking about has to do with the Portman issue.  When you are a man in the church, your associations and friends that you serve  with and connect with are mostly men, men that also hold all the power.  Perhaps the church leaders had a very difficult time being more harsh on the husband that betrayed his wife.  To her, it was the good old boys system with him walking away with a slap on the wrist.  How is that fair to her?  How could the husband who did the wrong still be able to be "worthy" enough to perform priesthood ordinances.  It is like the first time it was inconvenient for the restrictions placed on the husband they were waived because a father should be allowed to ordain his son.  To the wife, it was businsss as usual.  Her husband never really had to be significantly held accountable for his actions.  That is the core of the issue.  That is where I feel the church leaders failed her.  And that is where she took matters into her own hands, only to be slapped down, and from her point of view, put in her place.  That was unacceptable to her.  The only option she had left to fight back was to leave the church and tell the world how she was wronged.  And make no mistake, she was wronged.  Just not for the things the stake president is being blamed for.  She finally got her justice.  The church leaders were shamed for their actions and the sins of her husband were no longer a secret he could keep only between his buddies and himself.  But what a price she paid.  And what a price the church paid as well.  With each publication that reports this even, she is getting the justice that she felt she deserved but never got from her church leaders.  When you have a system where women have very little power to control justice, and you take away their only voice, then I don't think it will ever turn out well.  

The story of Savana who also used her voice as her only option in this very stake is actually the same story, just different issues.

[bluebell]

Just now, Storm Rider said:

I just don't think it is possible to discuss this specific topic.  Too many women have already pigeon-holed the male gender and they respond to their kneejerk reaction rather than to what a male has actually stated.  If you are taking about a white male then you can get away with murder in speech, but if you say the exact same thing about females then out come the knives and it is blood and gore from that point forward.  

I had said it before that I would choose not to comment on this gender topic, but I have broken that agreement twice and paid the price.  Basically, I am just sick of the entire topic.  If a woman speaks about women topics then I know I should just move on and let it alone.  There is nothing I have to contribute.  I hope they get whatever they seek after.  

Seriously, I don't know any woman who would be upset with the scenario that Hamba described.  I wouldn't be.

[USU78]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. A rather condescending suggestion one way or the other. As though to say, “Sit down and keep quiet, and learn from others of your kind who know their place.”

🤣🤣🤣