Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[clarkgoble]

Anything public on the "doing more than just breastfeeding" come out? Saw that SLTrib story that Juliann mentioned. Pretty ridiculous reporting. No one even thinks to contact ward members to get a more rounded view? Not exactly good reporting. I'd do a post on it at T&S, but I think a guy doing that would be pilloried especially if there weren't public facts to support it. (Understandably so given how some men act)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

So, are the ward members going to come forward and give their side of the story?  Surely they could come on this forum or somewhere else?  Anyway, what do they mean by excessive nudity, and "among other things?"

If the ward members are concerned about modesty, they may well be of the mindset that they don’t want to contribute to a mass media or social media firestorm over this thing. 

[juliann]

Exiled, I am recounting what several ward members in a mommy group said about it. (And excessive nudity was my description of what was described. I don’t like talking about it in detail.) Other than that, there is no forum for witnesses whom this woman accused of complaining merely because she was nursing. . These so called reporters are meanwhile, rely on giving her story and then expect the church to respond to what even they say is a local problem. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the ward members are concerned about modesty, they may well be of the mindset that they don’t want to contribute to a mass media or social media firestorm over this thing. 

If the reporters had given them the anonymity they give the accuser, we might be able to hear the other side. 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Exiled, I am recounting what several ward members in a mommy group said about it. (And excessive nudity was my description of what was described. I don’t like talking about it in detail.) Other than that, there is no forum for witnesses whom this woman accused of complaining merely because she was nursing. . These so called reporters are meanwhile, rely on giving her story and then expect the church to respond to what even they say is a local problem. 

Can't those in the mommy group go public to clear this up? If the media won't talk to them, then maybe they should publicly make a statement?

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

If the reporters had given them the anonymity they give the accuser, we might be able to hear the other side. 

Did reporters refuse to get the other side without naming the witnesses?

[Exiled]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the ward members are concerned about modesty, they may well be of the mindset that they don’t want to contribute to a mass media or social media firestorm over this thing. 

Yes, but doesn't that make the problem worse? The media is making this into some prudish objection to breastfeeding in public. If there were more to it, then a response is in order.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

Who is this for?

For Scott Lloyd...I can see why the comma was not enough.

Looks like connections got made.  

Edited July 28, 2018 by Calm

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Can't those in the mommy group go public to clear this up? If the media won't talk to them, then maybe they should publicly make a statement?

 What needs to be cleared up?  This is really a very local matter that being aired in the media has the potential of just making worse.  No need for “trial by social media.”

[Exiled]

Just now, ksfisher said:

 What needs to be cleared up?  This is really a very local matter that being aired in the media has the potential of just making worse.  No need for “trial by social media.”

Well, I guess I don't understand why it was a story in the first place if there was so much more to it, if the woman was showing too much as alleged or there were other things involved.  I would think the media would check out a story like this before even publishing, but the media make mistakes all the time and have agendas.  Do you think this is just a KUTV smear?  If so, I would think the other witnesses would respond, if the story does in fact need correcting.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Well, I guess I don't understand why it was a story in the first place if there was so much more to it, if the woman was showing too much as alleged or there were other things involved.  I would think the media would check out a story like this before even publishing, but the media make mistakes all the time and have agendas.  Do you think this is just a KUTV smear?  If so, I would think the other witnesses would respond, if the story does in fact need correcting.

It has been reported that it was resolved as far as the woman was concerned.  If I was a ward member, I wouldn't say anything as that would put the woman in a tight spot and make it more difficult for the ward as a whole, imo.

If Exponent or some other group wants to make it a thing (kind of like the "wear pants to church" day which started out as protest against a policy that didn't actually exist and therefore was morphed into a cultural, symbolic statement instead), they don't need anyone's actual involvement.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

It has been reported that it was resolved as far as the woman was concerned.  If I was a ward member, I wouldn't say anything as that would put the woman in a tight spot and make it more difficult for the ward as a whole, imo.

If Exponent or some other group wants to make it a thing (kind of like the "wear pants to church" day which started out as protest against a policy that didn't actually exist), they don't need anyone's actual involvement.

Where was it reported as being resolved by the woman?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Why don't you be so kind and save me some time and tell me where I am wrong or give a synopsis of what happened?  There are 15 screens.

I recommend that you go back to the first page and read the original post. The very first one. That one includes the basic information that you will need.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I recommend that you go back to the first page and read the original post. The very first one. That one includes the basic information that you will need.

I will even save him the effort of scrolling to the arrows that send you to the first page:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70832-woman-denied-temple-recommend-for/

 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will even save him the effort of scrolling to the arrows that send you to the first page:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70832-woman-denied-temple-recommend-for/

 

Haha.  So, is the report where the woman supposedly says the issue is resolved within this thread as well?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

Haha.  So, is the report where the woman supposedly says the issue is resolved within this thread as well?

I'm not sure what you mean by resolved. The issue appears to still exist. We are nowhere near having all the facts of this case.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Yes, but doesn't that make the problem worse? The media is making this into some prudish objection to breastfeeding in public. If there were more to it, then a response is in order.

This whole brouhaha has a Jerry Springeresque quality to it that I think a lot of people just wouldn’t want to take part in, for better or worse. 

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by resolved. The issue appears to still exist. We are nowhere near having all the facts of this case.

Calm said it (just look up a little bit on this very thread, not that much searching will be involved).

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This whole brouhaha has a Jerry Springeresque quality to it that I think a lot of people just wouldn’t want to take part in, for better or worse. 

It's more of an authority tale where the bishop wants to force his view of proper breastfeeding onto one of his flock.  Isn't that really what it is about?  I know Juliann says there is more to it but those witnesses don't wish to come forward, so their side cannot be verified.  Even so, this will be forgotten in a few days probably.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Calm said it (just look up a little bit on this very thread, not that much searching will be involved).

One of the private groups...no reference.  Not suggesting take my word for it, just saying why a ward member might choose not to go public to correct info.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

It's more of an authority tale where the bishop [and/or stake president] wants to force his view..... onto one of his flock.  Isn't that really what it is about?

I think that is what it boils down to generally speaking (which is why I edited out the specific trigger) and why it set off those who take issue when they believe that occurs because they believe it happens too much.

My experience is it happens as it has happened to me (and men and women I know), but it is at least no more common than outside of church as I have had bosses and teachers behave in the same way.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think that is what it boils down to generally speaking (which is why I edited out the specific trigger) and why it set off those who take issue when they believe that occurs because they believe it happens too much.

My experience is it happens as it has happened to me (and men and women I know), but it is at least no more common than outside of church as I have had bosses and teachers behave in the same way.

I think it's obvious that this is a problem everywhere.  There are always power hungry individuals in any area that take it too far.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think it's obvious that this is a problem everywhere.  There are always power hungry individuals in any area that take it too far.

Yep.  Even D&C gets into it. (121:41).  Unfortunately some people think ultimatums are persuasions.

edited:  I have no clue if her bishop or stake president were overly authoritative since we only heard her version of them.  

another edit:  it is not always power hunger either, but sometimes it can be arrogance at being questioned or laziness about not wanting to deal with people as individuals...probably tons more reasons that afflict everyone at sometime in our lives.  It is those that make a habit of it that make life more difficult than it needs to be, imo.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Calm

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it's obvious that this is a problem everywhere.  There are always power hungry individuals in any area that take it too far.

Do you really believe that bishops are “power hungry individuals” who are looking to force their views on the members of their congregations?  My experience has been the bishops are good people who hold down full time jobs, do their best to be good husbands and fathers, and work hard to follow the spirit and help the members of their wards.  Dealing with complaints from one ward member about another is about the last thing they want to deal with.  Power hungry?  If you knew some of the problems bishops have to deal with you’d understand just how power hungry they really are and why most are relieved when it comes time to be released.

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep.  Even D&C gets into it. (121:41).  Unfortunately some people think ultimatums are persuasions.

edited:  I have no clue if her bishop or stake president were overly authoritative since we only heard her version.

another edit:  it is not always power hunger either, but sometimes it can be arrogance at being questioned or laziness about not wanting to deal with people as individuals...probably tons more reasons that afflict everyone at sometime in our lives.  It is those that make a habit of it that make life more difficult than it needs to be, imo.

And sometimes it’s no matter how well a bishop or stake president handles a situation the people involved don’t like it.