Lemuel Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, JLHPROF said: Last I checked sins were individual. Nobody is denying the husband sinned. That provides exactly zero excuse for the wife sinning too. Totally. We should all forgive. Our salvation depends on it. But the SP is dropping some serious unrighteous dominion.
mnn727 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 hour 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 you don't have ALL of his words, you have only what the writer wanted to give you. Nor do you have any clue what was actually going on in the Ward. 1
Tacenda Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 27 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? You would if it happened to you.
Lemuel Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, mnn727 said: But you don't have ALL of his words, you have only what the writer wanted to give you. Nor do you have any clue what was actually going on in the Ward. The whole convo is available to listen to: http://kutv.com/news/local/church-removes-womans-temple-recommend-after-refusing-keep-quiet-about-her-divorce
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted February 16, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) This IS the same stake and chapel that the Savannah's testimony issue came up in. The lady involved is one of Savannah's neighbors and a supporter of gay rights. I wonder if that's a coincidence? Going to the press about losing a temple recommend (since when was that news?) is starting to smack of retribution against the SP. I don't think it's a coincidence at all. Edited February 16, 2018 by JLHPROF 6
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, Gray said: 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. And if everyone would just pray for women to get the Priesthood I think we can fix it. If it is part of the eventual plan (and I suspect/hope it is) then our entreaties can hurry it. Like many other changes in the church it will come when we are ready and even desire it. 1
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 19 minutes ago, provoman said: 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? Oh, you got me finally. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-discipline There is a "Formal Probation" before disfellowship, which evidently does not mention loss of priesthood usage. Why, when they can't take sacrament, hold callings, etc. is a mystery and a little creepy, actually. But all of this requires a council. I have a feeling the wife would certainly know if that had happened. Now go read the very short emails from the SP or I"m going to report you for violation of asked and answered. 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. That was a main complaint of the wife. It was never disputed so I see no reason to demand proof since that would be the first thing to go after to prove her a liar. Again, Mormonleaks has it all there. No one should be discussing this without having read everything. 1
cinepro Posted February 16, 2018 Author Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, CA Steve said: 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.. Honestly, I can understand the difficulty here. We even saw it in the Harvey Weinstein case. When you know someone really well, you think you know them really well, including whether they are secretly a rapist or wife abuser. You just can't imagine that you know everything about this person except the fact that they rape women or abuse their wives. We all know that our thinking gets scrambled when we experience "cognitive dissonance" (or trying to reconcile two contradicting propositions). The "rush to defend" is just the first step towards working out the truth. It's not a character defect; it's just part of the process. I hope I have friends that are strong enough (and that I am a strong enough friend) to not swiftly condemn them at the first accusation of such things, but only to discard them after processing it. This brings to mind the whole Robert Kardashian/ OJ Simpson situation, where Kardashian had to come to grips with the belief that his good, close friend may have done such terrible things. Was Kardashian a bad person because he couldn't easily see and admit what was so obvious to so many others? Edited February 16, 2018 by cinepro 3
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, Tacenda said: You would if it happened to you. I like to think if my marriage just collapsed I would have other priorities other than telling the world about it. Most of it involving crying and railing at God for letting this happen to me.
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, juliann said: Oh, you got me finally. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-discipline There is a "Formal Probation" before disfellowship, which evidently does not mention loss of priesthood usage. Why, when they can't take sacrament, hold callings, etc. is a mystery and a little creepy, actually. But all of this requires a council. I have a feeling the wife would certainly know if that had happened. Now go read the very short emails from the SP or I"m going to report you for violation of asked and answered. That was a main complaint of the wife. It was never disputed so I see no reason to demand proof since that would be the first thing to go after to prove her a liar. Again, Mormonleaks has it all there. No one should be discussing this without having read everything. The Stake President should not and probably would not discuss disciplinary matters regarding her ex with her. Edited February 16, 2018 by The Nehor 2
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, mnn727 said: But you don't have ALL of his words, you have only what the writer wanted to give you. Nor do you have any clue what was actually going on in the Ward. When there are emails and recordings, that is supposed to be a defense? Come on. I do feel sorry for this SP. This happened a few years ago and it just happened to land in the middle of ongoing perfect storm. It isn't the SP himself that is the concern, it is why this could and does happen. 2
CA Steve Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, cinepro said: Honestly, I can understand the difficulty here. We even saw it in the Harvey Weinstein case. When you know someone really well, you think you know them really well, including whether they are secretly a rapist or wife abuser. You just can't imagine that you know everything about this person except that fact that they rape women or abuse their wives. We all know that our thinking gets scrambled when we experience "cognitive dissonance" (or trying to reconcile two contradicting propositions). The "rush to defend" is just the first step towards working out the truth. It's not a character defect; it's just part of the process. What you say is true, and both genders are doing this, but the problem is that only one gender is allowed to make decisions that really matter in the church. Even though women may tend to defend what other women say, it has little to no affect on what the outcome is, since the men are the ones who get to tell whom to shut up and who gets to act as if nothing is wrong. This would radically change if women were allowed into the priesthood. Edited February 16, 2018 by CA Steve 1
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: The Stake President should not and probably would not discuss disciplinary matters with her. Assuming she was still married, it is pretty obvious when people stop taking the sacrament, lose callings, etc. I suspect some consider getting a talking to "discipline." But discipline isn't merely a logical consequence or a scolding. It is an applied action to punish (even though we don't like to call it that when it comes to councils.)
cinepro Posted February 16, 2018 Author Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) And not to get into too much mind-reading, but the fact that this "emotional affair" ended in divorce and they still live in the same ward should be a clue that something more happened (meaning, he wouldn't end it). Not that I would ever stoop so low as to have any experience in such matters, but if someone is having an "emotional affair" with someone else and they realize that it is not okay with their spouse, then they either choose to end it and save their marriage, or they sacrifice their marriage. If the "affair" is online, it's obviously easier to end it, but if something like that were happening in real life and it was my wife or me, then we would move out of the ward or city if we needed to to save the marriage. If the husband made decisions that led to divorce (or was the instigator of the divorce in preference to the other woman), then that's not good. Edited February 16, 2018 by cinepro 1
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, CA Steve said: What you say is true, and both genders are doing this, but the problem is that only one gender is allowed to make decisions that really matter in the church. Even though women may tend to defend what other women say, it has little to no affect on what the outcome is, since the men are the ones who get to tell whom to shut up and who gets to act as if nothing is wrong. This would radically change if women were allowed into the priesthood. Honestly, I don't know that it would radically change because there is a culture to deal with. But knowing you have an option to be heard, with as much gravity given to a female voice as a male priesthood backed voice, would be huge.
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, cinepro said: And not to get into too much mind-reading, but the fact that this "emotional affair" ended in divorce and they still live in the same ward should be a clue that something more happened (meaning, he wouldn't end it). Not that I would ever stoop so low as to have any experience in such matters, but if someone is having an "emotional affair" with someone else and they realize that it is not okay with their spouse, then they either choose to end it and save their marriage, or they sacrifice their marriage. If the "affair" is online, it's obviously easier to end it, but if something like that were happening in real life and it was my wife or me, then we would move out of the ward or city if we needed to to save the marriage. If the husband made decisions that led to divorce (or was the instigator of the divorce in preference to the other woman), then that's not good. Agreed this is the most likely reality behind this.
CA Steve Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, juliann said: Honestly, I don't know that it would radically change because there is a culture to deal with. But knowing you have an option to be heard, with as much gravity given to a female voice as a male priesthood backed voice, would be huge. I think men hearing a female voice telling them they were in apostasy for not following directions would be a radical change. I also predict that when that time comes, men in the church will lose their hearing even more rapidly than they do now. Edited February 16, 2018 by CA Steve
provoman Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, juliann said: Oh, you got me finally. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-discipline There is a "Formal Probation" before disfellowship, which evidently does not mention loss of priesthood usage. Why, when they can't take sacrament, hold callings, etc. is a mystery and a little creepy, actually. But all of this requires a council. I have a feeling the wife would certainly know if that had happened. Now go read the very short emails from the SP or I"m going to report you for violation of asked and answered. If answer a CFR means “go look it up yourself and make the leaps to conclusions that I did”, then yes you responded. However you have continued to fail to prove the husband was unworthy or was not held accountable. A CFR is not about me or anyone making assumtpions, it is about the person who made the statement proving the statement. I can accept that you want stand in place of the Judge in Isreal and pass judgement on the husband, his accountability and his worthiness to perform a Priesthood Ordinance, that is your choice. You are not that mans judge or Priesthood Leader, so any claim you make about his personal worthiness or accountability, is clearly a demonstration of your biased personal opinion. Edited February 16, 2018 by provoman 2
mfbukowski Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 54 minutes ago, provoman said: 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? No, probation is the least "discipline" that is formal discipline.
mfbukowski Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 51 minutes ago, juliann said: 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? Of course My post was that it is totally weird to me that this would be on TV. With non-members watching. What a great missionary tool.! Of course I am sure the non-members are used to this and would never join the church precisely because of this sort of stuff they live with constantly. The bishop was trying to keep this from becoming exactly the circus it has become because he understands Utah. I do not agree with him pulling the recommend although he does have a case for it since the recommend interview includes sustaining one's local leaders. I am sure now the ward is in a shambles. This is a soap opera and its a shame that it has become everybody's business. What a mess for the poor SP. I would not have handled it that way, but they were just trying to protect the church from embarassment . So much for that effort 1
mfbukowski Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I think men hearing a female voice telling them they were in apostasy for not following directions would be a radical change. I also predict that when that time comes, men in the church will lose their hearing even more rapidly than they do now. Nah, they will just say "Yes dear" and get on with life. Same old routine! There's always a nap in the easy chair in "storage" in the garage. Edited February 16, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 58 minutes ago, Tacenda said: You would if it happened to you. Of course- and that is exactly the point. I have my own life to worry about and so should these folks, but instead in Utah it is on TV. Very strange. I guess that is what gets on TV when you have no murders or gang shootings to worry about. And talking about temple recommends on TV? Wow! 2
Tacenda Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Of course- and that is exactly the point. I have my own life to worry about and so should these folks, but instead in Utah it is on TV. Very strange. I guess that is what gets on TV when you have no murders or gang shootings to worry about. And talking about temple recommends on TV? Wow! Welcome to Utah!
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: No, probation is the least "discipline" that is formal discipline. I corrected that. But I'm shocked to see that a man can be.... Quote . . asked to refrain from taking the sacrament, holding Church positions, participating in meetings or engaging in temple worship. During this probationary period, the individual meets frequently with their ecclesiastical leader to help encourage progress toward repentance. And still perform priesthood duties!!! It evidently takes disfellowshipment..... Quote ...they are not permitted to pray, teach, take the sacrament, attend the temple or give sermons in public settings. Men are not able to perform priesthood duties. So the only real difference, aside from timelines, between the two disciplines is that one unworthy guy can continue to use his priesthood and the other unworthy guy can't.
Oliblish Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Sounds like an abusive relationship to me. At the very least he is a bully. It sounds like the SP could use some lessons in tact, humility, and appropriate treatment of others. A scripture comes to mind... D&C 121 39 - We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. I think the Stake President can certainly be included in this group of "almost all men." 1
Recommended Posts