juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: 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 It's not showing up where I am, thank goodness. I think what is happening though is that a lot of women are done with "protecting" the church at their personal expense just because they are women. As this accelerates in society, it will accelerate at church. I guess the good news is that in bringing these things to light, needed training and corrections can be made. I believe the SP when he said he would do it differently if he had a chance as he told her that he now knew she was doing the best she can with the "situation she had been dealt." That should be given as much play. 2
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Oliblish said: 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." I'll bet he has been a very good SP is many other situations and very much doubt that he immediately began to exercise unrighteous dominion. He goofed and caused some damage. He apologized. 1
Jeanne Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: The Stake President should not and probably would not discuss disciplinary matters regarding her ex with her. But....you know how people talk.
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: 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. That might explain the SP's short fuse very well. But it still doesn't wipe away what he said. And being a "supporter of gay rights" doesn't make you all the things this woman is being accused of to avoid dealing with the SP's words.
HappyJackWagon Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, juliann said: I corrected that. But I'm shocked to see that a man can be.... And still perform priesthood duties!!! It evidently takes disfellowshipment..... 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. Take this for what it's worth... A bishop can essentially create an informal discipline that restricts a person in some ways but also directs them to do other things. It can be tailored for the individual and the situation. There isn't any kind of required elements in an informal discipline. Informal discipline happens privately between the bishop and the individual. There's no disciplinary council or official record kept of the discipline like there would be with a formal discipline. So there are many ways a person could be disciplined even without a disciplinary council. Of course, that still doesn't address your issue with the seeming incongruity of a man being allowed to perform priesthood ordinances during even an informal discipline. That would be somewhat strange IMO. 2
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Just now, Jeanne said: But....you know how people talk. Oh man, Nehor.....she got you good 1
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: But....you know how people talk. Yeah, I saw a ward have severe trust problems after one idiot could not keep his fat mouth shut about someone’s problems he learned about in PEC. 1
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, juliann said: Oh man, Nehor.....she got you good Yeah, it was well played.
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Take this for what it's worth... A bishop can essentially create an informal discipline that restricts a person in some ways but also directs them to do other things. It can be tailored for the individual and the situation. There isn't any kind of required elements in an informal discipline. Informal discipline happens privately between the bishop and the individual. There's no disciplinary council or official record kept of the discipline like there would be with a formal discipline. So there are many ways a person could be disciplined even without a disciplinary council. Of course, that still doesn't address your issue with the seeming incongruity of a man being allowed to perform priesthood ordinances during even an informal discipline. That would be somewhat strange IMO. That is helpful. I guess my hesitance is that in a situation where I was being threatened with formal discipline, I wouldn't consider an informal thing like this to be in the same ballpark. It would be my definition of a secret slap on the wrist while I'm publicly punished. Which, of course, falls right into what many women have experienced throughout history. So I was comparing formal to formal if that makes sense. 1
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 hour 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. Neither do you. If we can't comment unless we have ALL the information, what are you doing posting on this thread? 1
CA Steve Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, juliann said: That is helpful. I guess my hesitance is that in a situation where I was being threatened with formal discipline, I wouldn't consider an informal thing like this to be in the same ballpark. It would be my definition of a secret slap on the wrist while I'm publicly punished. Which, of course, falls right into what many women have experienced throughout history. So I was comparing formal to formal if that makes sense. Your problem is obvious, you have no experience in leadership so you do not know what they can and cannot do, That is your own fault for being a woman. Edited February 16, 2018 by CA Steve 4
JLHPROF Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 19 minutes ago, juliann said: And being a "supporter of gay rights" doesn't make you all the things this woman is being accused of to avoid dealing with the SP's words. True. But supporting what happened with Savannah from the same SP does explain why something like a temple recommend issue ended up on KUTV.
provoman Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, juliann said: 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.) Mormonnewsroom article. Church Discipline The purpose of Church discipline is not to punish but to facilitate full repentance and fellowship for a person who has made serious mistakes. Edited February 16, 2018 by provoman 1
Darren10 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 4 hours ago, cinepro said: So this just hit the news (and the fan). A woman was getting divorced in Utah, and she was talking with her friends in the ward about it. The Bishop and SP asked/told her to stop talking about it, and she didn't. So they revoked her Temple Recommend. When she figured out something was going on, she started recording her meetings with them (one-party consent state!) Here's what the SP said: The SP wrote a letter of apology/clarification, which is included in the article. In addition to her gossiping, she is also rebuked for "being disruptive in Sacrament Meeting", with "endless amounts of talking and laughing with whomever you may be sitting by." Luckily, "Hadlock [the woman] is no longer an active member of the LDS Church, and Hadlock says she does not want her temple recommend back." So order in the Lord's Church has been restored, and there is one less person in that Stake that doesn't sustain the Stake President. Glad to hear things are being kept under control in the Eagle Rock Stake. I wonder who the new Stake President will be? 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: WOW! This is a good case for one-party consent and a good, specific example of how leaders overstep their authority. Sadly, this SP isn't alone in the way he views his authority. This happens. It's a real thing. Perhaps this will help some people recognize that leaders do say ridiculous things, use their authority like a weapon, and sometimes mistreat those they should be serving. Thankfully, most leaders are better than this, but this isn't a unique experience. 4 hours ago, bluebell said: THat's insane. How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy. Wonder which of these three listened to the entire audio? I looked into it and the first one is 51 minutes. Since I should have been working two hours ago I won't do it but at very minimum, I think that should be done before condemning the stake president or expressing malicious misgivings towards church leaders. 1
bluebell Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Even if some people refuse to acknowledge that church leaders can be wrong, I appreciate the SPs letter admitting his mistakes. It takes a humble person to be able to do that. 4
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: True. But supporting what happened with Savannah from the same SP does explain why something like a temple recommend issue ended up on KUTV. Is that on the news? Was he the one who shut her down? (And I thought the child was used as a pawn in that set-up. I have little sympathy with that show.) But if anything, I would have thought it would have made him be very, very, careful to stay within the lines. I do have a lot more sympathy for him, knowing that. But these threats are still in plain sight.
Darren10 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 Quick question before I head out the door. I've only read the first few comments thus far but given the nature of this woman talking what looks like something described as "boisterous" in sacrament meeting, is there any reasonable doubt that she'd carry the same demeanor in the temple? I don't want any assumptions that she would but what about degrees of doubt that she would be?
Jeanne Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: Even if some people refuse to acknowledge that church leaders can be wrong, I appreciate the SPs letter admitting his mistakes. It takes a humble person to be able to do that. I agree With that...but I think there were many reasons for him to admit these mistakes.
cdowis Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, bluebell said: THat's insane. How dare any leader try to make the argument that disagreeing with their counsel equals apostasy. While his wording may have been unfortunate, not very tactful, the reasoning was sound. Basically she was bring a disruptive spirit into the ward, an evil spirit -- this is not "just a disagreement".. The SP dealt with it as best he could. He is not a politician but has responsibility for the stake. Your post and that it is necessary to explain it to you, is evidence of the problem that she was creating. This recording will now become part of the antiMormon echo chamber as she goes down the road to the mist of darkness, Edited February 16, 2018 by cdowis 4
Robert F. Smith Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 3 hours ago, bluebell said: Seriously. You don't hold a disciplinary council for the husband who had an emotional affair but you threaten to hold one for a hurt wife who won't stay silent about it?? That is so messed up. These are basically private matters, and should not be the subject of ward gossip, no matter how hurt someone feels. A love triangle is a serious problem for those involved, and for the children, but it needs to be handled by professional therapists, lawyers, etc., not through roiling the entire ward. The bishop and stake pres are concerned for the welfare of the ward and stake, and may be unable to handle such personal disputes adequately -- even though some members may feel that they must do so. These guys are fallible humans and they can make mistakes, serious mistakes. We must not depend upon them to solve all our personal problems. However, it is certainly within their purview to demand that a member cease and desist from creating discord within the ward or stake. Members want to be able to attend church in peace, and to have the other members exercise self-control and good manners. I have had to cut-off someone at church more than once who wanted to gossip. I could tell immediately that it was something I did not need to know about. I have even had people at church try to tell me when they had sex, and how their divorce was going -- things which don't really concern me, and which I wish I had not heard, to the degree that I now avoid those people. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, cdowis said: 1-While his wording may have been unfortunate, not very tactful, the reasoning was probably sound. Basically she was bring a disruptive spirit into the ward, an evil spirit. The SP dealt witeh it as best he could. 2-Your post is evidence of the problem that she was creating. 1- He dealt with it, but not the best he could. He recognized that and issued an apology. Good on him. It sounds like she was being disruptive and rude in sacrament meeting. I have no problem with leaders trying to address that. But suggesting that sharing her personal and painful divorce story with ward members is bringing an "evil spirit" seems a bit over the top. Out of curiosity, is "evil spirit" in your usage a euphemism or do you mean that literally? 2- What in the world is that supposed to mean?
juliann Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, cdowis said: While his wording may have been unfortunate, not very tactful, the reasoning was sound. Basically she was bring a disruptive spirit into the ward, an evil spirit -- this is not "just a disagreement".. And we wonder why there were witch trials.... 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, juliann said: And we wonder why there were witch trials.... When I read that post I immediately had Monty Python play in my head. "She's a witch!"
Darren10 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 3 hours ago, bluebell said: Right, it's o.k. if you believe that the counsel is wrong and detrimental, but you'd sure better do it anyway, especially if it actually has nothing to do with any church teaching or doctrine and is just the opinion of your leader that you need to not tell the truth about your husband in church. That makes perfect sense. I am a person who gets "paralyzed" a lot. I over think things and want to do things right the first time that I end up many times not doing anything, which is harmful in many ways, especially if I want to progress and become better. My former bishop was the opposite. An extremely hard working person, very much like my dad. I've been in situations with my last bishop which I outright disagreed with him. I was simply open and honest but if there was anything he insisted on my doing, I'd do it. On more that one occasion I gave him feedback on how what I did as per his insistence was harmful to me and my family. Nothing grave but not helpful at all. What amazed me is that this bishop, a very by the book bishop, became more openly charitable and no as insistent to do things "by the book" but according to what he saw fit according to the situation at hand. He learned and I learned. He learned charity and I learned determination. When all said and done I am thankful for the aspect of just going out and working hard to overcome trials that this bishop helped me value more.
Darren10 Posted February 16, 2018 Posted February 16, 2018 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: When I read that post I immediately had Monty Python play in my head. "She's a witch!" I was turned into a Newt. For reals.
Recommended Posts