The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: 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? Lots of things are wrong with such a ward but it applies to a lot of wards I have been in. And yes, many are that weak in their testimonies.
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, CA Steve said: Evidently it depends on whether or not it is a woman or a man telling the truth It does seem like that, doesn't it.
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 I know I'll have more people responding to me but I've got to go and so probably won't be able to reply to everyone. Sorry.
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 10 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 don't buy that at all. She would have talked to it anyone who would listen. That is what happens when you are wronged and feel unheard. I'm not sure why it is being called gossip other than a woman is talking when no one is disputing what the husband did. But....it takes two to "gossip." Why is everyone else engaging in this being given a pass if it is so bad? 2
SteveO Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is also known as "I'm assuming the woman is wrong and the man is right...because...well...obviously." That’s another really nice strawman
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, rongo said: 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? Then why did the SP apologize and wish for a do-over? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Where does it say she was speaking evil of him to her entire ward? I thought it was just to like three women friends? Everyone is making assumptions that paint this lady in the worst possible light so that they can justify the Stake President.
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, juliann said: 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? I am not unconcerned about men like that. I have privately talked to my bishop about a man like that. I just do not think we have enough information to discuss him. We probably should not be discussing her either even though we do know more but people are targeting offices I respect so I joined in and am not personally known for restraint in any case.
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, juliann said: I don't buy that at all. She would have talked to it anyone who would listen. That is what happens when you are wronged and feel unheard. I'm not sure why it is being called gossip other than a woman is talking when no one is disputing what the husband did. But....it takes two to "gossip." Why is everyone else engaging in this being given a pass if it is so bad? Because the bishop does not have time for that many disciplinary councils?
Popular Post CA Steve Posted February 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: It does seem like that, doesn't it. Look at the way this discussion is breaking down along gender lines. Not a single women here is defending the SP. The men participating might want to ask themselves why that is. The older I get the more obvious it is to me how privileged men are in general. The recent threads on Rob Porter are great examples of this. The automatic response from many men is to protest that not all accusations are true, or that the man has lost his "due process", that the women is somehow to blame because she made him angry or that women always have their freedom to leave. The underlying defense in all of these comments is somehow the current case being discussed may be because the woman was wrong. How about we start out with the assumption she might be a victim and then proceed? Edited February 16, 2018 by CA Steve 5
HappyJackWagon Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, SteveO said: That’s another really nice strawman Do you understand what a strawman is? I have merely boiled it down to the basics to clearly identify what he is saying.
rongo Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, juliann said: Then why did the SP apologize and wish for a do-over? Link? I haven't seen his response.
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Everyone is making assumptions that paint this lady in the worst possible light so that they can justify the Stake President. And reverse it and you have my opinion of your methods. Tell you what. I will bet you 50 Kolobian shekels at 100 to 1 odds that I am closer to being right. When the books are opened at the end of time and we know all we can settle this. Deal?
e-eye Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? With the information given on the subject this temple recommend could come into play. I don't know what was said before or after the recording but we miss so much when we don't have the entire story. I'm not for the stake president or the lady involved but you could accuse either for being in the wrong. I'm guessing the stake president may have over-reacted and I am guessing she probably did also (I think she obviously overreacted if she is not longer active and doesn't want a recommend) - testimonies can be and become fragile and if a bad experience from a leader of the church destroys your testimony it's unfortunate that the leader did it and that the member allowed it to push them out of the church.
Tacenda Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, juliann said: I don't buy that at all. She would have talked to it anyone who would listen. That is what happens when you are wronged and feel unheard. I'm not sure why it is being called gossip other than a woman is talking when no one is disputing what the husband did. But....it takes two to "gossip." Why is everyone else engaging in this being given a pass if it is so bad? Well, maybe the gossip spread. But to my understanding it's not like she told everyone in the ward. I thought I heard her say just a few in the ward. I could be wrong, I'll have to listen again. I distinctly remember her mentioning the telephone game in the taped meeting. And how it got distorted or something. I do think there is a problem if she indeed is constantly talking about it, but then again feel she hasn't been taken care of or the parties involved have not done their part as to helping her feel vindicated or even apologizing. Maybe if the ward had rallied around her and her husband and the other woman in the same way, this could have been worked out, not taking her recommend away and treating her like she was an apostate, so wrong!
SteveO Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Do you understand what a strawman is? I have merely boiled it down to the basics to clearly identify what he is saying. You’re putting words in his mouth that he is clearly not advocating. You’re talking nonsense
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Look at the way this discussion is breaking down along gender lines. Not a single women here is defending the SP. The men participating might want to ask themselves why that is. The older I get the more obvious it is to me how privileged men are in general. The recent threads on Rob Porter are great examples of this. The automatic response from many men is to protest that not all accusations are true, or that the man has lost his "due process", that the women is somehow to blame because she made him angry or that women always have their freedom to leave. The underlying defense in all of these comments is somehow the current case being discussed may be because the woman was wrong. How about we start out with the assumption she might be a victim and then proceed? If it makes you feel any better I think Rob Porter should be tarred and feathered and paraded through the streets. I am not being facetious either.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, rongo said: Link? I haven't seen his response. https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/f/ff/2017-06-21-Apology.pdf
provoman Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) Edited February 16, 2018 by provoman
provoman Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, juliann said: He [the husband who had an emotional affair] was not held accountable ... CFR Edited February 16, 2018 by provoman
Popular Post juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, CA Steve said: Look at the way this discussion is breaking down along gender lines. Not a single women here is defending the SP. The men participating might want to ask themselves why that is. The older I get the more obvious it is to me how privileged men are in general. The recent threads on Rob Porter are great examples of this. The automatic response from many men is to protest that not all accusations are true, or that the man has lost his "due process", that the women is somehow to blame because she made him angry or that women always have their freedom to leave. The underlying defense in all of these comments is somehow the current case being discussed may be because the woman was wrong. How about we start out with the assumption she might be a victim and then proceed. I think what these men don't get is that every woman has probably had an experience with unrighteous dominion while being powerless to correct it as women always having to appeal to men. These men then perpetuate the problem by not believing us. Again. I had a problem with someone involving a pretty black and white legal matter in which I prevailed but the bishop took their side throughout even though I was a new widow with a young child who had basically been scammed because I was so vulnerable at the time. I think his concern was in keeping this husband and wife active. Like this leader, he also sheepishly apologized to me years later. I have no ill will whatsoever, I fault myself for even discussing it with him. But he didn't take my recommend or threaten my membership if I talked to anyone. 5
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: Satan never tells the truth without adding a lie. Are we really arguing now that telling the truth is a sin? Yes, in some cases. Apostles have spoken on this before. Sometimes because the truth is not helpful or too hurtful to the listener or others or because the audience is not ready for the truth you have and lots of other reasons. I can’t find the talk I loved about this because I am at work. Maybe I can find it later.
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, rongo said: Link? I haven't seen his response. Does Mormonleaks give you a hint? (Sorry but I'm not going there again to get it for you.) 5 minutes ago, provoman said: CFR Does Mormonleaks give you a hint? (Sorry but I'm not going there again to get it for you.) Come on, guys. If you are going to engage, have the information at hand.
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is also known as "I'm assuming the woman is wrong and the man is right...because...well...obviously." Do you have an XY chromosome? If so I suppose I must recant my words and repent in sackcloth and ashes because you cannot be wrong. It has nothing to do with gender. If this were a Stake Relief Society President counseling her to “stop it” I would make the same assumptions about what was going on. 1
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Yes, in some cases. Apostles have spoken on this before. Sometimes because the truth is not helpful or too hurtful to the listener or others or because the audience is not ready for the truth you have and lots of other reasons. I can’t find the talk I loved about this because I am at work. Maybe I can find it later. Yes, the truth is not always helpful but where have leaders said that sometimes speaking the truth is evil? Not being helpful and being sinful are two very different things. 1
Recommended Posts