bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, 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. That's because there are doctrines of the church that people cannot publicly preach against. I don't have any problem with any member being disciplined for speaking against church doctrine. I do have a problem with someone being disciplined for disobedience to her stake president concerning a civil matter. I don't see those two things as at all similar. 4
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 22 minutes ago, Jeanne said: So true. there was a Bishop's wife who turned my confidence in him into a living gossiping hell. I have heard this many times from women. It's a horrible thing when it happens. 2
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Senator said: Sometimes sheep bite, when bitten. But hey... we still got 99! If she were snapping at her husband sheep instead of riling up all the other sheep I would not blame her.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 9 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. I don't know if this woman had been to the temple or not but lets assume she had. She is also the Lord's anointed. So whether she is speaking ill of her SP or the SP is speaking ill of her, or she is sharing her personal story about her ex-husband, or what if the ex-husband complained to the SP because she was telling their story to ward members. Everyone in that scenario would be speaking ill (to one degree or another ) of the Lord's anointed. "speaking ill of the Lord's anointed" should never mean that anyone is beyond criticism. 1
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: 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?? No idea. If there is discipline he appears to be keeping quiet about it. There is probably a lesson in there somewhere. 1
Tacenda Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. In the meeting she expressed that she'd only told a visiting teacher and maybe two or three others. It's what women do when they need to vent or need support.
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, CA Steve said: In orthopraxy 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. Yes, I do think this is a natural example of human weakness. How do we support and sustain leaders while also supporting and sustaining those who have been hurt by their leaders' weaknesses? I don't have an answer for that, but i still think we need to try. 4
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: We covenant not to speak evil. Is speaking the truth or disagreeing with them speaking evil? 4
JLHPROF Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. Dingdingding...we have a winner. My thoughts exactly.
rongo Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 The issue as I see it with this case has to do with maintaining order. It isn't something I've seen happen a lot, but sometimes local leaders have to be the bad guy and insist on an orderly environment at church. The handbook language on excommunicated and disfellowshipped members attending church (encouraged) is words to the effect of "if their behavior is orderly." The challenge (which most people in this thread haven't had to deal with or be responsible for) is: what do you do when there are people trying to make a scene at church? Where is the line between calling the police and removing for disorderly conduct, and handling it some other way? And if some other way, how? This can be hard when the person is in showdown mode in a battle of wills, and fuel is thrown on the fire when showdowns are in front of an audience because of the human need to save face. Often, attempts to keep the peace and restore/maintain order in such a setting backfire, because of the target's human need to save face (this is also true of dealing with belligerent students in a school setting). What I find interesting, and which almost nobody is talking about, is the reference to her incessantly talking loudly and laughing in sacrament meeting. For those freaking out about threatening recommend revoking or holding a disciplinary council: what would your next step be if you had a person whose loud disruptions of sacrament meeting were so frequent and disruptive, they needed to be addressed? If, after talking to the member and facing only defiance and digging in and refusal to comply, what would your next step be? Remember, you have already taken TR and DC off the table. I think those excoriating the SP and bishop here with limited/very little balanced information actually have no idea what they would do, or wouldn't handle it any better than they did. Some would probably just ignore her and let her continue to disrupt sacrament meeting, rather than do the hard things that leaders sometimes are called on to do. Now, if you add the affair/divorce/triangle into the mix, it isn't hard to read between the lines here. It seems to me that it went far beyond simply "talking about her divorce" with people, and involved her trying to lash out at her husband/the other woman by making a circus of the church block. I'm sorry, but the leaders have to do something. What can they do if TR and DC are off the table? 4
Popular Post juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: 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. If you read the emails, he also threatened her church membership. She probably was creating a ruckus. That can happen when a husband does something demonstrably wrong but then is validated by being allowed to do an ordinance for her child. He was not held accountable and that is the real problem. But her reaction is quite aside from what an over zealous SP did. That should be very obvious from his apology. 5
provoman Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: 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? The Temple Recommend interview is not strictly limited to the 10 standard questions, guidance is or was provided in a CHI that allowed for other questions; so if it is in the CHI, then it is condoned by the First Presidency. 1
Jeanne Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: In the meeting she expressed that she'd only told a visiting teacher and maybe two or three others. It's what women do when they need to vent or need support. Especially when they are asked.
CA Steve Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: That's because there are doctrines of the church that people cannot publicly preach against. I don't have any problem with any member being disciplined for speaking against church doctrine. I do have a problem with someone being disciplined for disobedience to her stake president concerning a civil matter. I don't see those two things as at all similar. They are similar because SP are not perfect. Can a SP make a mistake when he thinks a member is speaking against church doctrine too or is it just in other areas like interpersonal relationships that they can be wrong? I think they can make a mistake in any area. That is where the similarity occurs. Edited February 16, 2018 by CA Steve 1
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: Is speaking the truth or disagreeing with them speaking evil? Sometimes speaking the truth is evil, yes. This especially applies when the truth is wielded as a weapon to be vindictive and cruel. That is the way Satan wields truth. The prophecy is that in the last days hidden wickedness shall be shouted from the rooftops. This is not encouragement to the saints to climb on their roofs and join in. 2
Tacenda Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 50 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. That's just bull. What's wrong with a ward that would perish over this? Are they that weak in their testimonies of the church being true? Edited February 16, 2018 by Tacenda
JLHPROF Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: Is speaking the truth or disagreeing with them speaking evil? " I charged the Saints not to follow the example of the adversary in accusing the brethren, and said “if you do not accuse each other God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you willnot accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours— for charity covereth a multitude of sins." - Joseph Smith I don't see that the truthfulness of the accusation matters as to whether evil is being spoken. Her husband sinned. She knows that, the Church leadership knows that. She doesn't need to speak evil of him to the entire ward. The SP was completely right in my opinion to ask her to stop. Her refusal to follow that counsel should naturally come with repercussion. 1
provoman Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: Is speaking the truth or disagreeing with them speaking evil? The Merciful Obtain Mercy The Way of the Disciple My dear brothers and sisters, consider the following questions as a self-test: Do you harbor a grudge against someone else? Do you gossip, even when what you say may be true? Do you exclude, push away, or punish others because of something they have done? Do you secretly envy another? Do you wish to cause harm to someone? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may want to apply the two-word sermon from earlier: stop it!
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If she were snapping at her husband sheep instead of riling up all the other sheep I would not blame her. Why are you unconcerned about unworthy men being supported in doing priesthood ordinances and make this all about a woman who was powerless to stop it? 4
Jeanne Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: " I charged the Saints not to follow the example of the adversary in accusing the brethren, and said “if you do not accuse each other God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you willnot accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours— for charity covereth a multitude of sins." - Joseph Smith I don't see that the truthfulness of the accusation matters as to whether evil is being spoken. Her husband sinned. She knows that, the Church leadership knows that. She doesn't need to speak evil of him to the entire ward. The SP was completely right in my opinion to ask her to stop. Her refusal to follow that counsel should naturally come with repercussion. You have to take down at least half of the female ward..and some males...do you not think that she wasn't asked...how are you doing? how are you dealing with things.??? May we help you with whatever you are going through??? Huh...you have got to be kidding that she can't spill her guts a little when if she doesn't...they just have a one sided story. Edited February 16, 2018 by Jeanne 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. This is also known as "I'm assuming the woman is wrong and the man is right...because...well...obviously." 4
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Sometimes speaking the truth is evil, yes. This especially applies when the truth is wielded as a weapon to be vindictive and cruel. That is the way Satan wields truth. The prophecy is that in the last days hidden wickedness shall be shouted from the rooftops. This is not encouragement to the saints to climb on their roofs and join in. Satan never tells the truth without adding a lie. Are we really arguing now that telling the truth is a sin? 2
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: In the meeting she expressed that she'd only told a visiting teacher and maybe two or three others. It's what women do when they need to vent or need support. I can tell you right now that if I wanted I could pass some fun tidbit from Ward Council or Bishopric meeting on to one man and two women in my ward and the whole ward would know by Sunday. That is assuming she is telling the truth which I doubt.
CA Steve Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Satan never tells the truth without adding a lie. Are we really arguing now that telling the truth is a sin? Evidently it depends on whether or not it is a woman or a man telling the truth
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: " I charged the Saints not to follow the example of the adversary in accusing the brethren, and said “if you do not accuse each other God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you willnot accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours— for charity covereth a multitude of sins." - Joseph Smith I don't see that the truthfulness of the accusation matters as to whether evil is being spoken. Her husband sinned. She knows that, the Church leadership knows that. She doesn't need to speak evil of him to the entire ward. The SP was completely right in my opinion to ask her to stop. Her refusal to follow that counsel should naturally come with repercussion. Where does it say she was speaking evil of him to her entire ward? I thought it was just to like three women friends?
Recommended Posts