Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On the other hand, for people like me who don't see publicly speaking out as a problem, and actually admire people who do it despite the piles of criticism heaped upon them, my perspective is colored as well.

Does how they publicly speak out against the Church and against local leaders matter? That is, could there be "good, better, and best" ways (and also "not good")? Where would you place this couple on that spectrum?

I agree with you that it can be possible to publicly criticize, depending on the situation, but I feel strongly that it is also crucial how one goes about it. And, how one does it speaks volumes and helps cut through ambiguity about who is embellishing and how much. You can pretty much tell by what they are doing for all to see.

Quote

I look at it from the perspective of who risks losing credibility. The breastfeeding mother already lost credibility by simply coming forward with a complaint. Sure, she'll try to make herself sound as good and noble as possible, but she's already lost credibility with a huge part of the population simply by telling her story.

I don't think TBMs were ever her target audience. I think the Exponent harpies and fellow travelers were. Verily, I say unto you, she has her reward, and I don't think her potential loss of credibility with normal, non-weirdo active Mormons was ever a heroic sacrifice in her eyes. 

Does anyone really think that she is up at night right now, worried about her loss of credibility and whether or not her ward members believe with and side with her? She has publicly stated that she is willing to go the rest of her life without a temple recommend until the Church bends on free-range public breastfeeding. 

Quote

So I'm not sure how much embellishing will help her.

With that target audience? A whole lot. Atrocity tales getting bounced around in a friendly niche forum feed on that sort of embellishment.

Edited July 27, 2018 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Does how they publicly speak out against the Church and against local leaders matter? That is, could there be "good, better, and best" ways (and also "not good")? Where would you place this couple on that spectrum?

I agree with you that it can be possible to publicly criticize, depending on the situation, but I feel strongly that it is also crucial how one goes about it. And, how one does it speaks volumes and helps cut through ambiguity about who is embellishing and how much. You can pretty much tell by what they are doing for all to see.

I don't think TBMs were ever her target audience. I think the Exponent harpies and fellow travelers were. Verily, I say unto you, she has her reward, and I don't think her potential loss of credibility with normal, non-weirdo active Mormons was ever a heroic sacrifice. 

With that target audience? A whole lot. Atrocity tales getting bounced around in a friendly niche forum feed on that sort of embellishment.

So how could this couple have gone about making their story public in a way that seems appropriate to you? Honest question.

 

BTW- I seem to recall you mentioning you were moving and therefore getting released. I hope all is going well adjusting to the changes.

Edited July 27, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So how could this couple have gone about making their story public in a way that seems appropriate to you? Honest question.

In this situation? I don't think there was one. I don't think going public was the way to address this conflict. 

Side question: What is with KUTV? They seem really antagonistic towards the Church. I don't think it's always been that way. 

Quote

BTW- I seem to recall you mentioning you were moving and therefore getting released. I hope all is going well adjusting to the changes.

Thanks! Yes, we moved two weeks ago. The stake presidency (the one who still hasn't called an EQP in my old ward) didn't file the application, and Salt Lake is shut down for July GA vacations. They are saying that my official release and a new bishop call won't happen until late August.   I'm not commuting, and we sent our records to our new ward. On Clerk and Leader Services and CDOL, I am still the bishop, and on the new ward list, I appear as bishop next to my name. That must be a head-turner, for anyone who happens to see that!

God has a sense of humor. I was immediately called as Scoutmaster and 2nd counselor in the YM presidency. We're going on our first campout tonight.  Some may remember that I can't stand Scouting and can't wait until it sunsets, but I'm trying to have a good attitude and do my best (it helps that we only have three boys, one of which is my son, who loves everything). The poor counselor was really timid and nervous when he called me (like he was cringing in advance at my potential refusal), and I've been on that side of the desk before. I told him I would be happy to, and even would go to a stake Scoutmasters' meeting that night (he had been slated to go, but I told him he had enough on his plate). To be honest, God really "gave me a new heart" with the calling (1 Samuel 10:6, 9). I'm actually having fun and looking forward to it. 

My wife was called to be the ministering secretary in Relief Society, but the reality is that the counselors and secretary don't do anything, so the RS president (a recent widow, who has been doing it all herself) is using her as a default counselor and secretary (I think that had to do with learning that she has served as a RS and P president before, and she is stay-at-home. The rest of her presidency works and can't go on day visits. My wife lives and breathes organization, so the RS president is relieved to have some needed help.

We're really happy in our new ward, and look forward to everything. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by rongo

[juliann]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is exactly what I was thinking too. In this thread people are stating that the woman can't be believed because people "always embellish". Maybe that's true, I don't know. But if it is, that means these witnesses could also be embellishing. Both the original woman, and the witnesses who turned her in to the bishop could be embellishing to make their side look more reasonable. Did the tattlers even witness it themselves, or are they going off the testimony of a 12 year old boy who passed this woman the sacrament? I would imagine a 12 year old boys reaction and perception of "nearly topless" would be quite different than an adult's. In any case, it seems we have to take Juliann's word about what she read from witnesses, and I wonder if they were even 1st hand witnesses. While I don't doubt Juliann read and believes those witnesses, we have no way to view the accounts. We know less about the witnesses and what they claim to have seen than we do from the actual woman.

Again, a 12 year old boy is likely to overreact to seeing even an inch of skin and it would be in the tattler's personal interest to make it seem like the woman was nearly topless. I'm surprised she was dressed at all if these reports are to be believed  

And look who is doing the embellishing. I correct the "nearly topless" comment and made at least two other posts clarifying, yet that is the word you want to use. 

No one said a 12 year old boy complained. You are embellishing. 

She was in full view. No one had to "turn her in." They went to the bishop as most people do when there is a problem.  You are embellishing. 

The woman was in several mommy groups yet you discount the witnesses in one of those groups and elevate one woman's stories about them over 8 other women telling their own story.  You are embellishing. 

You are calling those with a legitimate concern "tattlers". You are embellishing. 

 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

God has a sense of humor. I was immediately called as Scoutmaster and 2nd counselor in the YM presidency. We're going on our first campout tonight.  

Also interesting to me was that I just renewed my Youth Protection Training. It has been greatly extended and developed, and is very high-quality. 

One of the fathers texted me and asked if there would be any room for his son in my tent.   I told him that the boys would be in one tent, and adult leaders would be in another. It's just interesting how naive and innocent many parents are to this day, in 2018.

[juliann]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So how could this couple have gone about making their story public in a way that seems appropriate to you? Honest question.

 

That is question begging. There was no story because this was not about breastfeeding at all. There is also no breastfeeding crisis in Mormon churches which is why this apparently hasn't gone beyond one local TV spot with a bad reporter. According to a friend who has PMd her, she is going to comply with the SP. It's over. 

You can gauge who has been successful very easily. There will be a church statement or changes. It is frustratingly slow but it is happening. Why you think that "speaking out" is always necessary is telling. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

And look who is doing the embellishing. I correct the "nearly topless" comment and made at least two other posts clarifying, yet that is the word you want to use. 

No one said a 12 year old boy complained. You are embellishing. 

She was in full view. No one had to "turn her in." They went to the bishop as most people do when there is a problem.  You are embellishing. 

The woman was in several mommy groups yet you discount the witnesses in one of those groups and elevate one woman's stories about them over 8 other women telling their own story.  You are embellishing. 

You are calling those with a legitimate concern "tattlers". You are embellishing. 

 

Thanks for making it personal by saying I'm embellishing.  I don't know why you need to become so hostile in this discussion.

Perhaps you noticed that I was asking a question. Id didn't say a 12 year old was involved but we do know part of the perceived problem is that deacons had to serve her the sacrament. So is it possible a 12 year old witnessed something and then told his parents who then told the bishop? Seems like a reasonable possibility and there is no way to know, ask, or even review the reports of "witness testimony" Do we know the tattlers witnessed it themselves. If so, how do we know? When you say she was in full view so no one had to turn her in, that's not exactly right because you also state "they went to the bishop as most people would do". IF she was in the lobby she wouldn't have been in full view of the bishop, therefore someone had to bring it to his attention. Did the accusers approach the woman first? How did that go?

You're upset that I'm discounting witnesses I've only been told exist have said things I can't see. If you have links to these witness testimonies, please share. Otherwise, it seems disingenuous to get upset with me for not accepting something I've never heard or seen from witnesses I do not know, and cannot even be sure they witnessed things themselves.

Is calling someone who goes to the bishop, to tell him about what they consider to be a woman's inappropriate breastfeeding, at "tattler", embellishing? It may be framing it in a way you don't like but it's hardly embellishing.

 

I recall on previous threads you stating something to the effect that a victim should always be believed. Have you changed your position or does it only apply if there aren't female backing up the male abuser. Or does it work differently for physical abuse than it does for mental, spiritual, emotional abuse?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is question begging. There was no story because this was not about breastfeeding at all. There is also no breastfeeding crisis in Mormon churches which is why this apparently hasn't gone beyond one local TV spot with a bad reporter. According to a friend who has PMd her, she is going to comply with the SP. It's over. 

You can gauge who has been successful very easily. There will be a church statement or changes. It is frustratingly slow but it is happening. Why you think that "speaking out" is always necessary is telling. 

That is "asking" a question, following up from a statement implying there was a way they could have done it appropriately. Apparently there wasn't a way.

 This is about an abuse of power by the SP. You seem to be the only one who thinks this is only about breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is the backdrop of the story so it's natural to address that, but it's the removal of the temple recommend for refusing to follow the SP's command that is the issue.

Have I stated that speaking out is "always" necessary. I don't recall saying that but if you can show me where I did, I'll correct it. Or are you embellishing?

Edited July 27, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

I recall on previous threads you stating something to the effect that a victim should always be believed. Have you changed your position or does it only apply if there aren't female backing up the male abuser. Or does it work differently for physical abuse than it does for mental, spiritual, emotional abuse?

A victim shouldn't automatically be disbelieved. I stated that I supported this woman.....until red flags started popping up. Like the women she was accusing having the gall to speak up for themselves. So don't pull the believing women card on me, I am believing women. 

Again, the problem with this has always been there is no nursing crisis in the church. Even if this did happen in one ward, there is no nursing crisis in the church. Do you want me to say that again? This is a story who had a run in with a bunch of ward members and a SP because of unacceptable nudity, whose story became inconsistent and whose accusations against other women became untenable. Because there is no nursing crisis in the church.  It goes on every Sunday.

What a waste of energy when there are so many real issues. 

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is "asking" a question, following up from a statement implying there was a way they could have done it appropriately. Apparently there wasn't a way.

 This is about an abuse of power by the SP. You seem to be the only one who thinks this is only about breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is the backdrop of the story so it's natural to address that, but it's the removal of the temple recommend for refusing to follow the SP's command that is the issue.

Have I stated that speaking out is "always" necessary. I don't recall saying that but if you can show me where I did, I'll correct it. Or are you embellishing?

That's odd since I have repeatedly said this is NOT about breastfeeding and I have from the beginning put the blame for this on the SP. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

A victim shouldn't automatically be disbelieved. I stated that I supported this woman.....until red flags started popping up. Like the women she was accusing having the gall to speak up for themselves. So don't pull the believing women card on me, I am believing women. 

Again, the problem with this has always been there is no nursing crisis in the church. Even if this did happen in one ward, there is no nursing crisis in the church. Do you want me to say that again? This is a story who had a run in with a bunch of ward members and a SP because of unacceptable nudity, whose story became inconsistent and whose accusations against other women became untenable. Because there is no nursing crisis in the church.  It goes on every Sunday.

What a waste of energy when there are so many real issues. 

I appreciate your letting us know the rest of the story, as the original story seemed a pretty shocking abuse of power for petty reasons. Life is rarely so black and white.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

A victim shouldn't automatically be disbelieved. I stated that I supported this woman.....until red flags started popping up. Like the women she was accusing having the gall to speak up for themselves. So don't pull the believing women card on me, I am believing women. 

Again, the problem with this has always been there is no nursing crisis in the church. Even if this did happen in one ward, there is no nursing crisis in the church. Do you want me to say that again? This is a story who had a run in with a bunch of ward members and a SP because of unacceptable nudity, whose story became inconsistent and whose accusations against other women became untenable. Because there is no nursing crisis in the church.  It goes on every Sunday.

What a waste of energy when there are so many real issues. 

That's a great clarification. Thanks.

I'm hearing you say there is no nursing crisis in the church.   I never said there was. I don't recall seeing anyone claim there was, but thanks for making that point. This was all about an individual's personal experience with a priesthood leader. I think there is a problem with leadership roulette, abuses of power, and the inability of members to address disputes with authorities beyond the SP. That's why I think this is important to talk about.

Edited July 27, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm hearing you say there is no nursing crisis in the church.   I never said there was. I don't recall seeing anyone claim there was, but thanks for making that point. This was all about an individual's personal experience with a priesthood leader. I think there is a problem with leadership roulette, abuses of power, and the inability of members to address disputes with authorities beyond the SP. That's why I think this is important to talk about.

Unless that story is bogus. Then that story sets us back and makes it less likely the next woman with a real crisis will be listened to. Can you understand that? 

Edited July 27, 2018 by juliann

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

Unless that story is bogus. Then that story sets us back and makes it less likely the next woman with a real crisis will be listened to. Can you understand that? 

Yes, I get that. It makes perfect sense with regard to women dealing specifically with this SP.

But how would we know if that part of the story is true or not. It seems that giving the SP the benefit of the doubt while doubting the woman exacerbates the issue for women across the church, emboldening leaders to do and say things they really shouldn't. Doubting the woman here seems to play into the traditional narrative that we should trust the leader and doubt the accuser.

[Calm]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, I get that. It makes perfect sense with regard to women dealing specifically with this SP.

But how would we know if that part of the story is true or not. It seems that giving the SP the benefit of the doubt while doubting the woman exacerbates the issue for women across the church, emboldening leaders to do and say things they really shouldn't. Doubting the woman here seems to play into the traditional narrative that we should trust the leader and doubt the accuser.

If a woman's story isn't credible  (inconsistent, has a history, details make it clear her actions are unreasonable), does one give her a pass just so as to make it easier for real victims of inappropriate authority?

What would you suggest the best path be when dealing with a less credible accuser?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Side question: What is with KUTV? They seem really antagonistic towards the Church. I don't think it's always been that way. 

The SL Tribune ended their partnership with KUTV and made a deal with Fox 13. I suspect that killed a lot of content. Also ratings for local news are half of what they were a decade ago and are still declining. Last year KUTV was #1 in the market, in part because they manage to get sensational stories like this one even though I think the KSL news was #1 at 10:00. So I suspect it's a technique, becoming all too common in news, to try and salvage the business in the current market. 

 

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Danzo said:

Thinking that America is the only place, and ignoring the possibility that things  can be done differently  is also uniquely American!

Think that's an universal actually. Most people interpret in terms of their local experience and most people tend to be small c conservative about changes to social norms.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If a woman's story isn't credible  (inconsistent, has a history, details make it clear her actions are unreasonable), does one give her a pass just so as to make it easier for real victims of inappropriate authority?

What would you suggest the best path be when dealing with a less credible accuser?

No, I don't give a pass. At the same time, women with "a history" are discredited all the time even when they shouldn't be. I think we have to be super careful to not fall into that trap.

I guess I'm not seeing the details that make it clear she's being unreasonable. I've heard 3rd hand accounts of a couple of those things, but that's not really the same thing.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, I don't give a pass. At the same time, women with "a history" are discredited all the time even when they shouldn't be. I think we have to be super careful to not fall into that trap.

I guess I'm not seeing the details that make it clear she's being unreasonable. I've heard 3rd hand accounts of a couple of those things, but that's not really the same thing.

I have no problem if you wish to withhold judgment because you don't have access to information others do, but cannot share.  If you only have her story to judge by, it is not unreasonable.  

Edited July 27, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

A few quick thoughts:

1. I've quickly read through this thread (11 pages in 24 hours!).  

2. I remain of the opinion that parsing out the particulars of how to address this case is not something that should be happening in the public sphere.  There are too many unknowns.  Too many details left out.  And it's not really our business anyway.

3. This seems very much like a fabricated controversy.  Honestly, who here hasn't been in church on Sundays and seen nursing mothers doing their thing?  Anyone?  This happens every sunday, in virtually every congregation in the Church.  That probably works out to many millions of instances each year of mothers nursing babies during Church.  So is anyone really going to claim that Mormons - one of the most fecund communities in the country - are intolerant jerks when it comes to nursing mothers in church? 

4. Based on the woman's remarks to the media, it sounds like the woman is pushing a sociopolitical agenda, and wants to use the Church's services to do so.  That's just not cool.

5. Some here have objected to the bishop and stake president withholding a temple recommend because of this issue.  While it is undoubtedly true that the TR interview questions do not specifically address breastfeeding, they also do not specifically address heroin, pornography, and any of a thousand permutations and extrapolations that can easily arise from those questions.  If the interview process did not involve any discretionary decision-making by the bishop and stake president, the Church could simply have members renew their recommends by reviewing the questions online and then clicking a "Yes" box at the end.  Instead, local leaders are expected to use reasoning, wisdom, common sense, and soundly-exercised discretion when issuing temple recommends.  To do otherwise would be a serious abdication of their responsibilities.

6. I can think of a few TR questions that could be implicated in this story.  Question #4 about sustaining local leaders comes to mind.  The bishop is responsible for what goes on during the three-hour block.  It's the Church's facility, the Church's services, and the Church's members.  Disruptive behavior affecting the Church's members, in the Church's building, during the Church's services, is undeniably within the bishop's purview to address.  In the end, the parameters of appropriate behavior in these circumstances is for the bishop, not some random self-selected individual, to decide.  Reasonable minds can disagree about the particulars of how and where a woman can nurse her baby in the church building, but in the end it's the bishop's call.  And absent some clear abuse of discretion, the ward members pretty much have an obligation to follow the instructions of the bishop.  I think it's patently reasonable to ask/expect a nursing mother to utilize the mother's lounge, or otherwise use some common sense and decorum.  If she refuses, and if she persists in refusing, and if she's creating a disruptive and disharmonious atmosphere during church services, then question #4 can be implicated.  This is not a gendered thing, either.  If a man came to church wearing swim shorts and an "Impeach Trump Now!" hat, the bishop would clearly be within his authority to ask him to go home and change into more appropriate attire.  And if that man refused, then question #4 could become implicated.

7. As for how this issue could have been better addressed by the woman, I recommend any interested parties read Elder Oaks's excellent 1987 Ensign article about how to address disagreements within the Church.  (Using social and news media to foment discord and resentments against the Church and local leaders is not among Elder Oaks's recommendations.)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 27, 2018 by smac97

[juliann]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, I get that. It makes perfect sense with regard to women dealing specifically with this SP.

But how would we know if that part of the story is true or not. It seems that giving the SP the benefit of the doubt while doubting the woman exacerbates the issue for women across the church, emboldening leaders to do and say things they really shouldn't. Doubting the woman here seems to play into the traditional narrative that we should trust the leader and doubt the accuser.

You continue to ignore relevant points and I'm not sure. Why do you continue to speak to me as if I am giving the SP the benefit of the doubt?  Why do you continue to ignore the other women who spoke up? Why shouldn't they be believed? No one is clucking over nursing. NO ONE. I believe them. You continue to twist whatever is said to come to the conclusion you started with. At least I have the advantage of listening to both sides and changing my position, which should indicate that I am at least willing to evaluate. Not to mention that I will almost always be found supporting a woman who has a bad experience at church. How many women have you spoken to that have had direct contact with ward members, BTW? How many of women's groups have you been in with this woman at all? 

 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

6. I can think of a few TR questions that could be implicated in this story.  Question #4 about sustaining local leaders comes to mind.  The bishop is responsible for what goes on during the three-hour block.  It's the Church's facility, the Church's services, and the Church's members.  Disruptive behavior affecting the Church's members, in the Church's building, during the Church's services, is undeniably within the bishop's purview to address.  In the end, the parameters of appropriate behavior in these circumstances is for the bishop, not some random self-selected individual, to decide.  Reasonable minds can disagree about the particulars of how and where a woman can nurse her baby in the church building, but in the end it's the bishop's call.  And absent some clear abuse of discretion, the ward members pretty much have an obligation to follow the instructions of the bishop.  I think it's patently reasonable to ask/expect a nursing mother to utilize the mother's lounge, or otherwise use some common sense and decorum.  If she refuses, and if she persists in refusing, and if she's creating a disruptive and disharmonious atmosphere during church services, then question #4 can be implicated.  This is not a gendered thing, either.  If a man came to church wearing swim shorts and an "Impeach Trump Now!" hat, the bishop would clearly be within his authority to ask him to go home and change into more appropriate attire.  And if that man refused, then question #4 could become implicated.

 

Sustaining does not mean following every whim of a leader. There have been way too many accounts of leaders using unrighteous dominion for this to fly anymore. We lose too many members because of it. That doesn't make life easy for bishops but at some point we really are going to have to take scripture seriously and accomplish things through persuasion rather than imperial decrees. Women are particularly prone to getting caught up in this because they do not have equal access indecision making. If they did, mother's rooms wouldn't be so abysmal to begin with.  Until men are told to stay in those stinky oversized closets, do not expect women to. 

Again, this has nothing to do with the particular instance which was not about nursing. And I'm betting that if this woman had been doing what she claimed, she would have had significant support from the women in the ward. I know our RS Prez has no problem setting a bishop straight when it comes to women's needs. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

You continue to ignore relevant points and I'm not sure. Why do you continue to speak to me as if I am giving the SP the benefit of the doubt?  Why do you continue to ignore the other women who spoke up? Why shouldn't they be believed? No one is clucking over nursing. NO ONE. I believe them. You continue to twist whatever is said to come to the conclusion you started with. At least I have the advantage of listening to both sides and changing my position, which should indicate that I am at least willing to evaluate. Not to mention that I will almost always be found supporting a woman who has a bad experience at church. How many women have you spoken to that have had direct contact with ward members, BTW? How many of women's groups have you been in with this woman at all? 

 

Zero.

You're acting like I should have the benefit of your personal knowledge and interaction when in fact I haven't had access to see anything from the "witnesses".

Out of curiosity, have you had direct contact with these witnesses? Or are you relying on reports from others who have had direct contact from members? It sounds like the latter. Why in the world would I privilege an account by someone who heard from someone who spoke to a ward member? I'm really not ignoring the other women because I don't have access to anything they have seen. I'm only hearing reports of reports. We've all played telephone and know how that works out. When it's impossible to verify claims or even see the first hand (or even 2nd hand) claims, then it's even less credible than an anonymous poster making the claims themselves.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Zero.

You're acting like I should have the benefit of your personal knowledge and interaction when in fact I haven't had access to see anything from the "witnesses".

Out of curiosity, have you had direct contact with these witnesses? Or are you relying on reports from others who have had direct contact from members? It sounds like the latter. Why in the world would I privilege an account by someone who heard from someone who spoke to a ward member? I'm really not ignoring the other women because I don't have access to anything they have seen. I'm only hearing reports of reports. We've all played telephone and know how that works out. When it's impossible to verify claims or even see the first hand (or even 2nd hand) claims, then it's even less credible than an anonymous poster making the claims themselves.

As if you aren't relying on reports. 🙄

It was posted in a mother's group. Like, in print. Now go ahead and call these women liars, or me,  but I see no reason to champion this woman over them because little about what was claimed makes sense.  If you want to put your fingers in your ears and sing lalala go for it. 

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can think of a few TR questions that could be implicated in this story.  Question #4 about sustaining local leaders comes to mind.  The bishop is responsible for what goes on during the three-hour block.  It's the Church's facility, the Church's services, and the Church's members.  Disruptive behavior affecting the Church's members, in the Church's building, during the Church's services, is undeniably within the bishop's purview to address. 

Love the well thought out and ordered responses.

I see what you’re saying and agree that a bishop would have some responsibility to keep some order during church services.

And while we don’t know nearly enough to make a judgement call in this case, I am often concerned at even the slightest hints of a temple recommend being used as a stick to control behavior, rather than an invitation to commune with Christ in the Holy of Holies.

But - let me be clear and perhaps redundant - I don’t know enough to make a judgment in this case, and agree that some latitude should be given to leaders to work with the laity to determine whether someone is in the right place to worship in the temple.