Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Just something I saw online somewhere. 

No, it's just a cartoon I thought was funny.  Johnny Lingo would appreciate it. 

HC Kimball was falsely accused of calling his wives cows in a popular anti-Mormon book. In that case it was meant to show sarcastically that Mormon men regard Mormon women as nothing more than property like farm animals. The premise of that chapter in the book is that Mormons think this way today. 

The cartoon perpetuates the unfortunate false notion that there is something wrong with modesty....that it’s just another way for men to shame and control women. There are other ways to approach the issue.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

On 7/29/2018 at 12:12 PM, Exiled said:

Here again, I need a better explanation of what the bishop and stake president view as "open, exposed and uncovered."  That is so subject to one's point of view that it becomes meaningless without more of an explanation of what the woman did.  If the woman likes to pull her shirt down prior to breastfeeding, then that sort of behavior should be relegated to private areas.  If it is a case of an overly prudish bishop and stake president trying to assert their views of modesty, then that is quite another issue.

Maybe you need pictures? A Video? a Reenactment?

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Maybe you need pictures? A Video? a Reenactment?

Well all I needed was an explanation of what happened. That seemed to be hard to get at the time I made the post. However, Scott Lloyd was kind enough to link to a story that explained that the controversey was about being uncovered as opposed to being covered while in the foyer.

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Well all I needed was an explanation of what happened. That seemed to be hard to get at the time I made the post. However, Scott Lloyd was kind enough to link to a story that explained that the controversey was about being uncovered as opposed to being covered while in the foyer.

The explanation was easily found in a number of posts made by Juliann prior to Scott's linking to an article. The information was readily available for those who actually took the time to read. 

[Exiled]

33 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

The explanation was easily found in a number of posts made by Juliann prior to Scott's linking to an article. The information was readily available for those who actually took the time to read. 

Sorry if I wanted the condensed version without having to spend 40 mins reading the expert prose that is always found here. Two or three sentences would have sufficed. But sometimes it is easier to have your reaction than to be helpful. This seems to be an internet phenomenon because if we were having a live conversation I'm sure you would have relayed the story in 30 seconds or less.

[katherine the great]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

HC Kimball was falsely accused of calling his wives cows in a popular anti-Mormon book. In that case it was meant to show sarcastically that Mormon men regard Mormon women as nothing more than property like farm animals animals. The premise of that chapter in the book is that Mormons think this way today. 

 

I just finished reading a delightful book about J Golden Kimball. I don't think his dad referred to his wives as cows but is quoted as stating that he thought no more about marrying a wife than buying a cow. After reading many of his documented quotes and actions I totally believe that he said that. HC Kimball's view of a woman's role IMO was atrociously unfair but many of his wives stayed with him.

[clarkgoble]

A few more stories popped up. First let me say I have zero idea what really happened. My main complaint has been with the reporting that seems to report one anonymous person and not even find others who were present. I'm here going by Juliann's comments. However since all the sources she references are private it's hard to me to know very much.

First up Buzzfeed took the story national this week. It seems largely lifted from the Exponent story although it does appear they interviewed the woman in question. Again though no other sources or perspectives. Kind of expected better of Jim Dalrymple as he usually is pretty good about that sort of thing. Second story was at the SL Trib again.  This story includes a podcast. (Which I've not had time to listen to) She is attacking the reports, such as Juliann's, that she was exposing her full breast.

• One misperception "is that … as soon as [my daughter] is done nursing, I leave my breast hanging out for the world to see, which is, again, completely inaccurate,” she said. “As soon as my daughter unlatches, I put it away immediately because I don’t want people seeing my breast. The only person I want seeing my breast is my husband.”

Again, I've no knowledge on this. Two shirts seems pretty ridiculous if that's the "compromise." That suggests that this wasn't about exposure at all but objection to a relatively common breast feeding practice. The reporting still seems pretty problematic - avoiding a lot of questions. However if this is the Bishop/Stake President just objecting to typical breastfeeding then I have to admit I come down more on the Exponent side of things. I just can't fathom why wearing two shirts to hide from "above and below" would make sense. Again though that's just the person in question's statement.

Would love to hear Juliann chime in and comment.

Edited August 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

Did she say what happened before?  During 'prep time'?  Some of the reports were more about that than what happened after.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did she say what happened before?  During 'prep time'?  Some of the reports were more about that than what happened after.

what reports?  And who could possibly happen during prep time that changes this?  Are you saying she might be quick to cover up after feeding, because she only wants her husband to see her breasts, but before she's slow to get the baby attached so people can see if they are looking, or something?  

I admit, I find the defense for the bishop/SP to be completely lacking, and pretty foolish.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

A few more stories popped up. First let me say I have zero idea what really happened. My main complaint has been with the reporting that seems to report one anonymous person and not even find others who were present. I'm here going by Juliann's comments. However since all the sources she references are private it's hard to me to know very much.

First up Buzzfeed took the story national this week. It seems largely lifted from the Exponent story although it does appear they interviewed the woman in question. Again though no other sources or perspectives. Kind of expected better of Jim Dalrymple as he usually is pretty good about that sort of thing. Second story was at the SL Trib again.  This story includes a podcast. (Which I've not had time to listen to) She is attacking the reports, such as Juliann's, that she was exposing her full breast.

• One misperception "is that … as soon as [my daughter] is done nursing, I leave my breast hanging out for the world to see, which is, again, completely inaccurate,” she said. “As soon as my daughter unlatches, I put it away immediately because I don’t want people seeing my breast. The only person I want seeing my breast is my husband.”

Again, I've no knowledge on this. Two shirts seems pretty ridiculous if that's the "compromise." That suggests that this wasn't about exposure at all but objection to a relatively common breast feeding practice. The reporting still seems pretty problematic - avoiding a lot of questions. However if this is the Bishop/Stake President just objecting to typical breastfeeding then I have to admit I come down more on the Exponent side of things. I just can't fathom why wearing two shirts to hide from "above and below" would make sense. Again though that's just the person in question's statement.

Would love to hear Juliann chime in and comment.

Thanks for sharing the Buzzfeed article. Interesting. And I agree, that 2 shirt method seems a bit unnecessary.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

what reports?  And who could possibly happen during prep time that changes this?  Are you saying she might be quick to cover up after feeding, because she only wants her husband to see her breasts, but before she's slow to get the baby attached so people can see if they are looking, or something?  

I admit, I find the defense for the bishop/SP to be completely lacking, and pretty foolish.  

 

I am not defending the bishop at all.  I am merely sharing what limited rumors I heard in the way that I can see is least damaging to anyone in the ward, including her....though that probably is really just keeping my mouth shut....but it seems the less said now after the first rush of rumors and reports, the more questions pop up...and she has made the choice of continuing to make her personal life public.

Ithought it was made clear earlier...this woman went around to several online private mummy groups repeating her story.  In some of these groups, there were some who claimed they knew her and challenged her descriptions.  Reports of those comments are what I am referring to when .I say "report".  I do not mean anything documented as public record, etc.

I get that people are curious when rumors fly.  In some cases I am too, in this one .I am not at all.  I just have an automatic response to try and provide answers to people's questions to the best of my ability.  Comes from a very long history of people asking me questions because they knew I did research into things they didn't have time or inclination to.

I think the best way to describe the situation is whatever happened, she saw it as reasonable.  Otoh, There are possible ward members who gave their descriptions, some detailed and some not, that amounted to major disagreement with her.  Until one of them is willing to go on record in public, I don't see much else can be said.  Her version has not been verified and shouldn't, imo, be treated as sufficiently detailed or accurate.

My understanding is in some cases when some ward members spoke up, they were immediately slammed, effectively labeled haters and posts deleted...though I could be confusing their treatment with the treatment of general challengers of the story.  Not sure if .i were them if I would want to go on record or even in the semianonymous way this woman did.  Too easy for those in the area  to figure out who it is if there is any video. Names get released by doxxers and harrassment and threats may follow.  If they have kids...no way would I as a parent risk it with the crazies out there.  I got a death threat for just being a mod and shutting someone done temporarily on the very small stage of ZLMB 15 years ago because he went off into weird rants when hewas asked to tone down his drama...though I suspect it was just more drama and meaningless, but there was some definite mental issues and a history of violence if he was to be believed and he knew who I was.  In today's climate and better access to personal info....

Edited August 2, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing the Buzzfeed article. Interesting. And I agree, that 2 shirt method seems a bit unnecessary.

I would agree, if she can have one shirt she can pull up (which is what it sounds like), don't see a need for her to have a shirt she pulls down.  I am trying to think of any mechanics that would require it.  If she is nursing, likely the child blocks any below view.  My understanding was the issue was she was pulling down her top.  

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not defending the bishop at all.  I am merely sharing what limited rumors I heard in the way that I can see is least damaging to anyone in the ward, including her....though that probably is really just keeping my mouth shut....but it seems the less said now after the first rush of rumors and reports, the more questions pop up...and she has made the choice of continuing to make her personal life public.

Ithought it was made clear earlier...this woman went around to several online private mummy groups repeating her story.  In some of these groups, there were some who claimed they knew her and challenged her descriptions.  Reports of those comments are what I am referring to when .I say "report".  I do not mean anything documented as public record, etc.

I get that people are curious when rumors fly.  In some cases I am too, in this one .I am not at all.  I just have an automatic response to try and provide answers to people's questions to the best of my ability.  Comes from a very long history of people asking me questions because they knew I did research into things they didn't have time or inclination to.

I think the best way to describe the situation is whatever happened, she saw it as reasonable.  Otoh, There are possible ward members who gave their descriptions, some detailed and some not, that amounted to major disagreement with her.  Until one of them is willing to go on record in public, I don't see much else can be said.  Her version has not been verified and shouldn't, imo, be treated as sufficiently detailed or accurate.

My understanding is in some cases when some ward members spoke up, they were immediately slammed, effectively labeled haters and posts deleted...though I could be confusing their treatment with the treatment of general challengers of the story.  Not sure if .i were them if I would want to go on record or even in the semianonymous way this woman did.  Too easy for those in the area  to figure out who it is if there is any video. Names get released by doxxers and harrassment and threats may follow.  If they have kids...no way would I as a parent risk it with the crazies out there.  I got a death threat for just being a mod and shutting someone done temporarily on the very small stage of ZLMB 15 years ago...though I suspect it was drama and meaningless, but there was some definite mental issues and a history of violence if he was to be believed.  In today's climate and better access to personal info....

huh?  So a few ladies in private conversations have said she tried to show her breasts to people before the baby was attached, but her dispute/response is she was always quick to cover-up after the baby was done?  And somehow these ladies, according to Juliann as I recall, also said she would try and expose both breasts, another claim she explicitly disputes.  

" Her version has not been verified and shouldn't, imo, be treated as sufficiently detailed or accurate."

There may be other versions from other women who somehow in passing saw something they were offended by, I guess.  But they should seriously be taken with far more skepticism than she.  Without question in my mind, unless she gives us some reason to think she's lying.  That women are out there secretly disputing her story, claiming it didn't happen as she said supports her story, as I see it.  It shows she's not just making this all up out of thin air.  Apparently some people in the ward did complain that she breastfed in the foyer during sacrament.  Apparently the bishop and SP thought it was inappropriate to do so.  That's all I need to have confirmed, myself.  That she disputes the claim of trying to show both breasts to people, as Juliann suggested earlier in this thread, proves the nonsense that is out there.  

[Avatar4321]

Do we have any reason to believe this person is real? I’m just curious

[Oliblish]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Do we have any reason to believe this person is real? I’m just curious

You can listen to her tell her story in her own words on the Tribune podcast.  The interview is not long (about 20 minutes) and she sounds like any other Mormon mom you would find in your average ward.  

https://soundcloud.com/mormonland/breastfeeding-mother-speaks-out-in-first-audio-interview-since-being-denied-a-temple-recommend-episode-42

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Do we have any reason to believe this person is real? I’m just curious

If she isn't, it is a big scam with her using established longtime poster (as I understand it) accounts pretending to be her ward members to challenge herself.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There may be other versions from other women who somehow in passing saw something they were offended by, I guess.  But they should seriously be taken with far more skepticism than she.  Without question in my mind, unless she gives us some reason to think she's lying.  That women are out there secretly disputing her story, claiming it didn't happen as she said supports her story, as I see it.  It shows she's not just making this all up out of thin air.  Apparently some people in the ward did complain that she breastfed in the foyer during sacrament.  Apparently the bishop and SP thought it was inappropriate to do so.  That's all I need to have confirmed, myself.  That she disputes the claim of trying to show both breasts to people, as Juliann suggested earlier in this thread, proves the nonsense that is out there.  

Not quite following. Isn't the key issue not that the Bishop and Stake President objected but why they objected? After all some objections may be justified while others in the realm of "that's messed up." What I heard quite frequently, especially on Twitter last week but also at the Exponent, was the idea that no "other side" mattered and that it was unrighteous dominion no matter what. That seemed questionable since it wasn't hard to imagine situations where the actions would be justified. The question then became "what happened?" 

As I said initially my sympathies were all with the woman in question. Then I noticed the press reports tended to be one sided in the sense of not even finding a secondary source. (Which seems like pretty bad journalism IMO - even if they'd tried beyond calling the Bishop & Stake President they should have said that in the story) When it became apparent that at least on private forums a very different tale was appearing I became far more skeptical. Now I think the "compromise" sounds like madness so I'm starting to think perhaps she was more accurate. But I just don't know and I can't really make sense of much that's going on. (I confess I have a hard time believing she's the only one in the stake to open a blouse for breast feeding in the chapel)

If there's a need for, as the Exponent argues, the Church to make breastfeeding announcements, surely it matters whether what the Stake President is objecting to is regular breast feeding. Now clearly the Exponent wants to normalize more central American style breast feeding. And that's fine if they want that. However now the woman is saying that's not the issue at all but just regular normal breast feeding.

Edited August 2, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JAHS]

This Breastfeeding Mom Who Was Told To ‘Cover Up’ At A Restaurant Had A Hilarious Response

[smac97]

On 8/2/2018 at 2:51 PM, clarkgoble said:

As I said initially my sympathies were all with the woman in question. Then I noticed the press reports tended to be one sided in the sense of not even finding a secondary source. (Which seems like pretty bad journalism IMO - even if they'd tried beyond calling the Bishop & Stake President they should have said that in the story)

I think there are many ways this is "bad journalism."  How is this story newsworthy?  It seems more like gossip.

-Smac

[why me]

Breastfeeding in public is a tricky issue in the US. The protestant moral ethic kicks in. It can be done without causing undo notice. And very few would mind this. However, it can also be done in a "in your face" way. In the US, undo notice is what I would recommend. In europe, there is more acceptance. And I would not recommend it in public, in the muslim world at all.

LDS churches usually have a baby room where nursing is okay.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think there are many ways this is "bad journalism."  How is this story newsworthy?  It seems more like gossip.

I think there's definitely an activism angle to it. Thus most news reports also include the Exponent angle. At that point it is no longer about gossip but about a practice people object to and are upset at. My objection is that the way it's been reported seems pretty lazy (IMO). Ditto this week's outrage about the student at BYUI who didn't get her endorsement due to drinking despite being assaulted when drinking. I think it both cases the outrage is understandable but that the reporters didn't do a very good job reporting on it.

[juliann]

On 8/2/2018 at 9:30 AM, clarkgoble said:

A few more stories popped up. First let me say I have zero idea what really happened. My main complaint has been with the reporting that seems to report one anonymous person and not even find others who were present. I'm here going by Juliann's comments. However since all the sources she references are private it's hard to me to know very much.

First up Buzzfeed took the story national this week. It seems largely lifted from the Exponent story although it does appear they interviewed the woman in question. Again though no other sources or perspectives. Kind of expected better of Jim Dalrymple as he usually is pretty good about that sort of thing. Second story was at the SL Trib again.  This story includes a podcast. (Which I've not had time to listen to) She is attacking the reports, such as Juliann's, that she was exposing her full breast.

• One misperception "is that … as soon as [my daughter] is done nursing, I leave my breast hanging out for the world to see, which is, again, completely inaccurate,” she said. “As soon as my daughter unlatches, I put it away immediately because I don’t want people seeing my breast. The only person I want seeing my breast is my husband.”

Again, I've no knowledge on this. Two shirts seems pretty ridiculous if that's the "compromise." That suggests that this wasn't about exposure at all but objection to a relatively common breast feeding practice. The reporting still seems pretty problematic - avoiding a lot of questions. However if this is the Bishop/Stake President just objecting to typical breastfeeding then I have to admit I come down more on the Exponent side of things. I just can't fathom why wearing two shirts to hide from "above and below" would make sense. Again though that's just the person in question's statement.

Would love to hear Juliann chime in and comment.

I stopped tracking this, it was so stupidly one sided. First, if she could reach a "compromise" then why didn't she initially. I'm thinking the under/over would likely make it too difficult to completely expose herself, the complaint was that she was baring both breasts while taking the sacrament in the lobby (and not remaining seated.) Not once did I hear a story about anything hanging out after she nursed. It was what she was doing before, where she was doing it and when she was doing it.That a compromise doesn't make obvious sense should only confirm that she isn't telling the truth about what happened. And notice the compromise does not prevent exposure of the nursing breast. This never was about that and it likely was never a problem. What she was really doing was the problem.  

  When I have heard her denials, they are cagey....like denying something she isn't being accused of.  Once she called it "rumors." Uh, no. It was real people with real stories.  It is rather revealing that she feels a need to continue to make denials. Like, you said...the faux reporting on this is astonishing. 

[juliann]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

This Breastfeeding Mom Who Was Told To ‘Cover Up’ At A Restaurant Had A Hilarious Response

Now find a picture with both breasts exposed and her walking over to pick up her child as deacons bring out the tray. It probably wouldn't be so funny. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by juliann

[juliann]

On 7/30/2018 at 12:44 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Been thinking about this. 

One troubling aspect is the allegation that the husband was denied a temple recommend for “failing to control his wife.” Assuming this is true, it is indeed improper. I shudder to think that a husband could be denied temple access solely by dint of his wife’s misdeeds. What does that do to the principle of moral agency?

And is it indeed the expectation that a husband “control” his wife’s behavior? That flies in the face of principles of priesthood leadership taught in Doctrine and Covenants 121. 

 

 Given that her story has been disputed on about every level, I don't know why this one should be given credibility, either.   

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

 Given that her story has been disputed on about every level, I don't know why this one should be given credibility, either.   

Where has her story been "disputed on every level"?

Quote

Now find a picture with both breasts exposed and her walking over to pick up her child as deacons bring out the tray. It probably wouldn't be so funny. 

This claim is too absurd to take seriously. She's just walking around, both breasts exposed in the foyer while deacons are trying to pass the sacrament. If that's really what happened I think it's reasonable to expect one of the witnesses to go on record. She has disputed this rumor in the Trib story.