Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[mfbukowski]

Five pages written in two hours, 125 posts and this is news in Utah?  I mean actually covered by TV news?

What a strange place.

Is this stuff really what we find to be important in our lives?

Edited February 16, 2018 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

Link?

I haven't seen his response.

Can't remember if the MODs allow links to mormonleaks.  So I'll leave it off, but it links through from the KUTV article to a document called "Follow Up Email".

And after reading this, I find myself still in agreement with the SP.

• At this point my concern has extended well beyond one person, and is now directed to an entire ward. Your persistence in sharing the details of your situation with members of the Stake, has become literal poison. (Particularly in the Silver Creek Ward.) Your version of what has transpired is full of half-truths and misinformation. Many have been affected by your behavior. Many have had to take sides on issues they know very little about. This would not be the case, had you followed the counsel of Bishop and myself, to stop talking about it in such a public fashion. For good reason, personal issues are best addressed in private.
• Your temple recommend was taken away because you emphatically stated that you would not “support and sustain your local Church leaders”. This question was asked of you multiple times, to which you repeatedly said, “no”. Your lack of support has been substantiated by your actions.
• Stop talking about the details of your divorce with other people. Primarily because this involves someone who still lives in your ward. This direction includes everything that did and didn’t happen between and ; past and present. It is nobody’s business, and only promulgates speculation and gossip.
  Stop telling people that your temple recommend was taken for any reason other than what I outlined above.
  Stop being disruptive in sacrament meeting. This primarily refers to the endless amounts of talking and laughing with whomever you may be sitting by. This is disruptive and inappropriate.
• He quotes "Church leaders have solemn obligations to “watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them; [seeing] that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking.” (D&C 20:53-54)

If the situation described here is accurate, I don't see how the SP was in error.
And his apology email for being insufficiently considerate of her feelings seems completely sincere.

ETA - This IS the same stake and chapel that the Savannah's testimony issue came up in.
I wonder if that's a coincidence?  Took a quick look at the FB page for this lady's news story too.  Mighty big coincidence.

Going to the press about this event is starting to smack of retribution.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Lemuel]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

CFR

About 26 minutes in, she says [husband] was able to perform an ordinance because he declared himself worthy.  So it would seem he received no discipline.

[provoman]

Just now, juliann said:

Does Mormonleaks give you a hint? (Sorry but I'm not going there again to get it for you.)

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. 

I did not realize that CFR means I have the responsibility to present your referencese for the what you claim as fact.

You posted that husband was not held accountable, prove your statement or withdrawn your statement or modify your statement to show that is your opinion rather than presented as a fact.  Were you involved in any meetings with the husband, bishop, SP....I highly doubt you were. So again, prove, withdraw or modify your statement.

[kllindley]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm going off of the stake president's words.  His words are the only part of the story that I'm concerned with.  And having his words means that I actually do have more than just her side of the story.

The stake president was very clear. "We took your temple recommend away because you emphatically said you would not stop talking about this with other people, that is the singular reason for which your temple recommend was taken away."

Per the stake president's words, who she was or wasn't talking to was irrelevant to the issue.  Neither did the stake president care if what she was saying was true or not.  The singular problem (singular means only) was that she wouldn't do what he wanted her to do.

But what if that issue was taking about it from the pulpit? His words leave that possibility open. (From his letter it did sound like the problem he was stressing was happening at Church.)

I'm not trying to defend this situation. I don't know enough. I'm curious if we can agree that a Stake President does have the stewardship to ask that certain things not happen at Church. 

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Here's the thing. I am not ready to tar and feather him.....yet. I believe he should be allowed to defend himself. If it turns out to be true, I'll bring the tar, you bring the feathers. But the whole problem here is the different way each gender, for the most part is approaching the situation. Men for the most part are complaining about lack of due process, how not all accusations are true, how we need to forgive and move on because we are not all perfect. Valid opinions to one extent or another but clearly looking at these situations as if the man may not be guilty.  An approach I have seen time and time again taken by bishops and SP's. We need to start looking at these situations as if the woman as an equal chance of telling the truth, otherwise we just victimize her all over again, take away her due process and convict her in the court of public opinion.  If we even got to that point it would be a huge improvement. In my opinion we should start with assuming the women is a victim, but that is probably never going to happen as long as men predominantly control the leadership roles. Women who speak out will continue to just be labeled as more "Fake News".

 

 

[provoman]

Just now, Lemuel said:

About 26 minutes in, she says [husband] was able to perform an ordinance because he declared himself worthy.  So it would seem he received no discipline.

That does not prove that someone was not held accountable or received no discipline. You and Juliann are treated accountability and/or discipline as though Church leaders have a unyeilding xcell spreadsheet from which there can be NO deviation. Juliann is an adult and can either prove the statement she presented a fact or take other appropriate action for the statement posted.

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Five pages written in two hours, a hundred posts.

Is this stuff really what we find to be important in our lives?

Not everyone can read Alfred North, sometimes us simpletons need some bread and circus to keep ourselves entertained

Edited February 16, 2018 by SteveO

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Yes we do have enough information. He, an unworthy (by definition and undisputed) priesthood holder was allowed to perform an ordinance for their child. Meanwhile, the wife who was not having "emotional" affairs, had her membership threatened merely for talking (even if probably agitating) about it. 

This is exactly why so many women are standing up and saying enough. Male entitlement has to end in the church. Not the priesthood, not the church, the abuse of the position these things give exclusively to men.  Wake up. How much more of this kind of thing has to be splashed in our faces in a very embarrassing way to get it? 

[ttribe]

52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We covenant not to speak evil.
 

Define this, please.

[bluebell]

20 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?

 

 

Most men easily put themselves in the SP shoes but struggle to put themselves in a woman’s shoes. 

And conversely, women know they will never be in a stake president’s shoes but could easily be in the woman’s shoes. 

Men more often empthatize with the person in power because men are most often the person in power. Women most often empathize with the person being dictated to because we’ve all been in her shoes. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

 

I am sympathetic to that. I have seen bishops and Stake presidents make what I believed to be bad calls to keep the peace or to protect the activity of someone to the detriment of another.

I just doubt this is one of those cases. I have seen too many cases like this to believe she is being responsible. A couple of years back we had a divorce in my ward. I was not that close to the situation but the guy seemed to me to be at least 50% at fault and probably more. When she filed for divorce he wrote up a long email and sent it to the entire ward blaming her for everything and revealing every fault in her he could think of. She was crushed. He was asked to attend a different ward (I do not think he went to church again at either ward). She stopped coming out of humiliation despite sincere efforts to make her feel welcome.

I do not know much of what happened here but these kinds of post infidelity vendettas are toxic. I am not 100% but I am pretty close on it that the Stake President was making the right call if she was that disruptive.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

I did not realize that CFR means I have the responsibility to present your referencese for the what you claim as fact.

You posted that husband was not held accountable, prove your statement or withdrawn your statement or modify your statement to show that is your opinion rather than presented as a fact.  Were you involved in any meetings with the husband, bishop, SP....I highly doubt you were. So again, prove, withdraw or modify your statement.

It is two emails on Mormonleaks. The link is on this page so you can stop the dramatics.

If you think that a "disciplined," the least of which would be disfellowshipped,  priesthood holder can perform ordinances, you need to come up with the proof. Good grief. 

[Lemuel]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

That does not prove that someone was not held accountable or received no discipline. You and Juliann are treated accountability and/or discipline as though Church leaders have a unyeilding xcell spreadsheet from which there can be NO deviation. Juliann is an adult and can either prove the statement she presented a fact or take other appropriate action for the statement posted.

That's cool.  If you want to say he was not disciplined but may have been held accountable in some other way, I guess you can support that.

[provoman]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

He, an unworthy (by definition and undisputed) priesthood holder was allowed to perform an ordinance for their child. 

 

Second CFR to "He, an unworthy (by definition and undisputed) priesthood holder..."

CFR is to prove his unworthiness. Of course this CFR in addition to the previous.

[Lemuel]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We covenant not to speak evil.
 

We covenant not to lie either.  [husband] likely did some lying.

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is two emails on Mormonleaks. The link is on this page so you can stop the dramatics.

If you think that a "disciplined," the least of which would be disfellowshipped,  priesthood holder can perform ordinances, you need to come up with the proof. Good grief. 

Nope, the proof is for you to provide, not me.  As I stated earlier you are presenting discipline and/or accountability as some kind of spread sheet of which must be applied equally in all situations.

 

CFR that "disciplined," the least of which would be disfellowshipped,".  Can you prove that a Church standard?

Edited February 16, 2018 by provoman

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Five pages written in two hours, 125 posts and this is news in Utah?  I mean actually covered by TV news?

What a strange place.

Is this stuff really what we find to be important in our lives?

Oh, look at Mister Privileged over here who actually has a life. 

[Lemuel]

36:00-- “For you to receive your temple recommend again, we need an absolute, absolute commitment, that you’re not going to talk about this with anyone”

Dang--it really is all about "Obey me" with this guy and his ASMR voice.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am sympathetic to that. I have seen bishops and Stake presidents make what I believed to be bad calls to keep the peace or to protect the activity of someone to the detriment of another.

I just doubt this is one of those cases. I have seen too many cases like this to believe she is being responsible. A couple of years back we had a divorce in my ward. I was not that close to the situation but the guy seemed to me to be at least 50% at fault and probably more. When she filed for divorce he wrote up a long email and sent it to the entire ward blaming her for everything and revealing every fault in her he could think of. She was crushed. He was asked to attend a different ward (I do not think he went to church again at either ward). She stopped coming out of humiliation despite sincere efforts to make her feel welcome.

I do not know much of what happened here but these kinds of post infidelity vendettas are toxic. I am not 100% but I am pretty close on it that the Stake President was making the right call if she was that disruptive.

I understand what you are saying, but this example isn't anywhere close to one party engaging in infidelity. I think what has to be done here is to use what came from the SP rather than mind reading the injured party.  It is pretty damning. The best that can be said, as he eventually did, is that he would do it differently now.

No matter how awful anyone wants to think the woman was, these are two separate matters. 

Otherwise, this is just the same story being replayed. The woman deserved it. I think a lot of us are kinda done with that. 

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Most men easily put themselves in the SP shoes but struggle to put themselves in a woman’s shoes. 

And conversely, women know they will never be in a stake president’s shoes but could easily be in the woman’s shoes. 

Men more often empthatize with the person in power because men are most often the person in power. Women most often empathize with the person being dictated to because we’ve all been in her shoes. 

And the Rob Porter story perfectly exemplifies this. Initially both Hatch, Trump, and Kelly rushed to defend him. Not until more information surfaced did the retractions start..

[Gray]

This kind of thing, and instances where bishops side with abusive husbands, would likely happen a lot less often if we had female clergy. I'm just saying. This is the inevitable result of patriarchy, IMO.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Gray

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Five pages written in two hours, 125 posts and this is news in Utah?  I mean actually covered by TV news?

What a strange place.

Is this stuff really what we find to be important in our lives?

For women, extremely. It is a pattern. 

In reverse, do you think it important that priesthood holders are held to standards of worthiness? I think that is the bottom line here. It is not that women don't accept male only leadership, it is that we should be able to expect a certain standard when we have so little recourse. Can you agree with that?

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes we do have enough information. He, an unworthy (by definition and undisputed) priesthood holder was allowed to perform an ordinance for their child. Meanwhile, the wife who was not having "emotional" affairs, had her membership threatened merely for talking (even if probably agitating) about it. 

This is exactly why so many women are standing up and saying enough. Male entitlement has to end in the church. Not the priesthood, not the church, the abuse of the position these things give exclusively to men.  Wake up. How much more of this kind of thing has to be splashed in our faces in a very embarrassing way to get it? 

If that is the case then he should not perform any ordinances. I have not seen indisputable proof and never will either way but if that happened that is wrong. 

Edit: I should add that I think you are right and he probably should not be performing any ordinances.

Edited February 16, 2018 by The Nehor

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

We covenant not to lie either.  [husband] likely did some lying.

Last I checked sins were individual.

Nobody is denying the husband sinned.  That provides exactly zero excuse for the wife sinning too.