Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, but the source of the dissension, gossip, and innuendo is gone so it should settle down. This is not the case of a lost sheep. This sheep won’t stop biting the other sheep.

[provoman]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

 

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

Yes

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.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, CA Steve said:

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.

It hurts our "freedom of speech" sensibilities.  People think that anyone should be able to say anything at anytime to anyone without any repercussion.
That is simply not the case.

For some reason James chapter 3 keeps coming to mind.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Really?

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

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.

Of course gossip is a sin, but if sins kept us from having a temple recommend, temples would be empty.  You wouldn't be worthy of a temple recommend and neither would I.  If this woman lost her temple recommend for gossiping, then she is being held to a higher standard of conduct than any other member of the church, based only on the authority of her stake president.

Do stake presidents have authority to personalize temple recommend interview questions or to change temple worthiness standards?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

You seem very comfortable stating that this woman was a "hurtful gossip" when you have no evidence of such. You are making assumptions and extrapolating upon what the SP actually said. Maybe you should read his words again.

But to your point, maybe church would be more peaceful if every gossip was forced out. Or maybe it would just be peaceful because no one was left  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Of course gossip is a sin, but if sins kept us from having a temple recommend, temples would be empty.  You wouldn't be worthy of a temple recommend and neither would I.  If this woman lost her temple recommend for gossiping, then she is being held to a higher standard of conduct than any other member of the church, based only on the authority of her stake president.

Do stake presidents have authority to personalize temple recommend interview questions or to change temple worthiness standards?

No. That's why he got her on the "failing to sustain her leaders" bit and called it apostasy.

It's embarrassing that this is even being debated on this board. People, look at the SP's words. Do you believe him? He didn't accuse her of being a hurtful gossip. He disciplined her for failing to obey him.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but the source of the dissension, gossip, and innuendo is gone so it should settle down. This is not the case of a lost sheep. This sheep won’t stop biting the other sheep.

Oh yes, the source of the dissension and gossip is gone.  

I would be VERY surprised if this story isn't on the front page of my internet news feed by tomorrow at the latest.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course gossip is a sin, but if sins kept us from having a temple recommend, temples would be empty.  You wouldn't be worthy of a temple recommend and neither would I.  

True.
Which brings back the oft debated question of "who is the Lord's anointed"?

Because there are temple covenants involved too.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

THat's insane.  How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy.  

It's in the handbook. Or it's in the temple question that you are to sustain the local leaders of the church.

[Mark Beesley]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks for the belly laugh.

 

My gosh folk, really.!?!?! I am speechless.

[bluebell]

Just now, Tacenda said:

It's in the handbook. Or it's in the temple question that you are to sustain the local leaders of the church.

Sustaining does not mean that if we don't obey we will be disciplined.  To sustain someone means to strengthen and support them.  When we sustain a calling in church we are not promising to obey them.  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

It's embarrassing that this is even being debated on this board. People, look at the SP's words. Do you believe him? He didn't accuse her of being a hurtful gossip. He disciplined her for failing to obey him.

He disciplined her for failing to follow council from a priesthood leader, and thereby not sustaining the priesthood leader.
Syntax matters.

The degree in which we are to follow our priesthood leaders has been debated since the very beginning of the Church.
Sometimes a rebellious spirit is a blessing, sometimes a curse.
I like the story of Edwin Woolley as much as the story of Israel Barlow.

• After another heated debate between Brother Brigham and Brother Woolley, Brigham said: “Now, Bishop Woolley, I guess you will go off and apostatize.” Woolley responded: “If this were your church, President Young, I would be tempted to do so. But this is just as much my church as it is yours, and why should I apostatize from my own church?” 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

True.
Which brings back the oft debated question of "who is the Lord's anointed"?

Because there are temple covenants involved too.

Yes, but we covenant to sustain, not obey.

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course gossip is a sin, but if sins kept us from having a temple recommend, temples would be empty.  You wouldn't be worthy of a temple recommend and neither would I.  If this woman lost her temple recommend for gossiping, then she is being held to a higher standard of conduct than any other member of the church, based only on the authority of her stake president.

Do stake presidents have authority to personalize temple recommend interview questions or to change temple worthiness standards?

Her standard of conduct is what she purportedly agreed too. She now has a choice.

 

As for "personalize" temple recommend interview questions, yes, it happens. It has happened to me and others that I know.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, bluebell said:

Yes, but we covenant to sustain, not obey.

We covenant not to speak evil.
 

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like i said, if church leaders are interpreting this to mean that members can't disagree with their counsel, then the church is in more trouble than any of us realize.

Yup! I listened to the whole tape conversation between the two. She only wanted an apology from her husband and this other woman, and she would soften up her approach. Her therapist she had been to said that she is an external person and had to talk things out. I get why she was upset. Why she had her temple recommend taken, when maybe that's what she needed at the time, to go to the temple, and why is she being disciplined and not her husband and the other woman. 

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It hurts our "freedom of speech" sensibilities.  People think that anyone should be able to say anything at anytime to anyone without any repercussion.
That is simply not the case.

For some reason James chapter 3 keeps coming to mind.

That isn't the point. I agree that there are times when speech should be limited though I do not think this is one of them. Regardless of whether or not it is, the part that bothers me is how this method, that of defining apostasy as a failure to follow direction, allows leadership to avoid, if they wish, any discussion of why the decision was made. So the SP can simply tell her she is being disciplined for failing to follow his instructions". He does not have to defend why he made the decision.

That is what I find problematic, because it leaves no recourse on the part of the censured party.

[Senator]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but the source of the dissension, gossip, and innuendo is gone so it should settle down. This is not the case of a lost sheep. This sheep won’t stop biting the other sheep.

Sometimes sheep bite, when bitten.

But hey... we still got 99!

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. That's why he got her on the "failing to sustain her leaders" bit and called it apostasy.

It's embarrassing that this is even being debated on this board. People, look at the SP's words. Do you believe him? He didn't accuse her of being a hurtful gossip. He disciplined her for failing to obey him.

Someone can strengthen and support a leader and still not promise to obey.  If he took her temple recommend away for causing contention I could understand that, but taking it way for disobedience to him just sounds awful.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Her standard of conduct is what she purportedly agreed too. She now has a choice.

 

As for "personalize" temple recommend interview questions, yes, it happens. It has happened to me and others that I know.

I'm sure it does happen, but that's different than saying it's condoned by the first presidency.  And where did she agree to always obey her stake president?

[Jeanne]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

We covenant not to speak evil.
 

Well...her husband spoke mentally of all kinds of things. to another woman no less...where is this guy anyway??  Is he hiding getting a break here??

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem very comfortable stating that this woman was a "hurtful gossip" when you have no evidence of such. You are making assumptions and extrapolating upon what the SP actually said. Maybe you should read his words again.

But to your point, maybe church would be more peaceful if every gossip was forced out. Or maybe it would just be peaceful because no one was left  

I am extrapolating because it is the logical conclusion. Stake Presidents do not get involved with a divorced woman venting to a few friends to get some condolences and support. They do get involved when they are spreading rumors blatantly, grandstanding in meetings, and trying to entice uninvolved members to choose sides.

If she shared it with a friend or two then I think the Stake President was wrong to do what he did but I would take long odds this never happened and I am not giving her the benefit of any doubt as the doubt is too minuscule to warrant that benefit.

Yes, the Stake President did not explicitly say what I think probably happened. Priesthood leaders use restraint and avoid details. Explicit accusations would just have her run to the press to contest the details to try to coax out another response. Better to stay vague and let her story burn itself out. A wise move in my opinion.

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but we covenant to sustain, not obey.

In othopraxy there is no difference.

 

And by the way I totally agree with you, but what you are seeing is yet another example of how we claim our leadership is fallible but we don't act as if it is.

Edited February 16, 2018 by CA Steve

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. That's why he got her on the "failing to sustain her leaders" bit and called it apostasy.

It's embarrassing that this is even being debated on this board. People, look at the SP's words. Do you believe him? He didn't accuse her of being a hurtful gossip. He disciplined her for failing to obey him.

It could also be both and good for him for having the guts to do it. Some would have caved and let the craziness continue.

[provoman]

Here are some General Conference talks which reference gossip.