Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how the woman in the story is being unreasonable at all.  

But...

I chimed in to say I agree very much with your sentiments regarding the story in the restaurant.

I agree with all of Smac’s comments in the OP. I won’t bother rehashing them. 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve said I believe, and I do, that the mother here is behaving unreasonably. At the same time, I can understand and agree with the pushback against societal intolerance of breastfeeding in public when done discreetly.

Some years ago, there was an incident at a restaurant in Utah where a customer complained about a woman discreetly breastfeeding her infant. A restaurant employee told the mother to go into the restroom, and when she refused, asked her to leave. 

I felt then that the proper thing to have done would have been for the restaurant employee to tell the complaining customer (in a diplomatic way) to get over it or take his business elsewhere. 

Good example and comparison (and I agree).

I disagree with you regarding the Mother "behaving unreasonably" I don't see how we can know that until more details are revealed.   From what I read in the OP, I don't see that she has....but I'm open to hearing more.....

Edited July 26, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

1) Assuming that what this couple represent in interviews the bishop and stake president as having said is true on its face:

Their wording and approach to this is not okay. Full stop.

But, the couple's subsequent reaction and activism is wrong, even if the leaders said what they say they said. To me, this validates not renewing the recommend, despite the ham-handed wording of the leaders. 

But, this couple's behavior presents several red flags to me, which leads me to . . .

2) We're only getting this couple's version of what was said and done. And, this is a couple who is dumping on the Church publicly in multiple venues, and who states that they are willing to go without recommends for the rest of their lives in order to advocate for this cause, speaks volumes about their motive and orientation vis a vis the Church. They are willing to forgo the crowning blessings of Mormonism to fight for free-range breastfeeding? 

It sure looks to me like this is what they wanted all along, and were looking for a precedent to take to the media. And, I don't trust their representation of what the leaders said and did. Of course they are painting them in the worst light possible, and may even be lying or exaggerating for effect. What type of person attacks local and general church in the media like this? 

Not someone who values and upholds the spirit and the letter of a temple recommend, in my book. They are demonstrating by their behavior that the right thing was done. 

[phaedrus ut]

When you consider conference statements like this 

Quote

 

And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.

- Dallin H. Oaks, General Conference 2005 

 

If immodest dress by women makes them literally become pornography should we be surprised people have a problem with a partial boob in the foyer? 

Phaedrus 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Good example and comparison (and I agree).

I disagree with you regarding the Mother "behaving unreasonably" I don't see how we can know that until more details are revealed.   From what I read in the OP, I don't see that she has....but I'm open to hearing more.....

You’ve already made clear your disagreement with me. I’ve said I hold with Smac’s arguments in the OP, and I don’t see any point in rehashing them. 

I’m glad you’re at least willing ( at long last) to take cognizance of my general position opposing societal intolerance of breastfeeding in public. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

1) Assuming that what this couple represent in interviews the bishop and stake president as having said is true on its face:

Their wording and approach to this is not okay. Full stop.

But, the couple's subsequent reaction and activism is wrong, even if the leaders said what they say they said. To me, this validates not renewing the recommend, despite the ham-handed wording of the leaders. 

But, this couple's behavior presents several red flags to me, which leads me to . . .

2) We're only getting this couple's version of what was said and done. And, this is a couple who is dumping on the Church publicly in multiple venues, and who states that they are willing to go without recommends for the rest of their lives in order to advocate for this cause, speaks volumes about their motive and orientation vis a vis the Church. They are willing to forgo the crowning blessings of Mormonism to fight for free-range breastfeeding? 

It sure looks to me like this is what they wanted all along, and were looking for a precedent to take to the media. And, I don't trust their representation of what the leaders said and did. Of course they are painting them in the worst light possible, and may even be lying or exaggerating for effect. What type of person attacks local and general church in the media like this? 

Not someone who values and upholds the spirit and the letter of a temple recommend, in my book. They are demonstrating by their behavior that the right thing was done. 

So, you're suggesting this was a setup? 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you're suggesting this was a setup? 

That's what it looks like to me. Mostly due to their statements and behavior subsequent to the alleged incident.

It's a different angle from another popular (in some quarters) public cause, but it's similar to that lady who taped her stake president and tried to make hay with it. Another "leader interview atrocity tale," if you will. 

"I don't care if I never get my recommend back. I will continue to fight for this cause so mothers are free to free-range breastfeed in Mormon Churches?"

Yeah, I don't trust this couple. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by rongo

[Rivers]

I think this story is an example of childishness across the board.  Both parties are being ridiculous.  

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with all of Smac’s comments in the OP. I won’t bother rehashing them. 

Moi aussi

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Rivers said:

I think this story is an example of childishness across the board.  Both parties are being ridiculous.  

All we know about the "other party" is that they didn't approve renewing the recommend. That's it. For them to be ridiculous, we have to accept what the interviewing and activist couple says that they said at face value. 

[ttribe]

So, went to the blog that originally (I believe) brought this story to light (source: https://www.the-exponent.com/stake-president-denies-temple-recommend-to-nursing-mother/).  Here are some interesting snippets - 

 Three weeks later she and her husband were called into her Stake President’s office and they both took along their Temple recommend paperwork to be signed.  As part of the interview, the SP brought up her public breastfeeding. He quoted from the “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet, told her “It’s a modesty issue” and blamed her for the men and boys having impure thoughts. When she pressed him for specifics about breastfeeding being included in the FTSOY pamphlet, which it is not, he maintained his position that she should be covered or in the mother’s room.  When the sister insisted that “this isn’t my problem,” he rebutted, “It is your problem. And if you do it again, we’re going to kick you out of the building.”

When she again resisted his biased opinion and disagreed with the way he was sexualizing breastfeeding, he firmly said that by not sustaining her leaders and following his direction to cover while nursing, she was not eligible to have a temple recommend. When she told the Stake President that she’d be doing what she could to find out from a higher authority about the uncovered nursing, the SP taunted, “Go ahead. I’ve already called Salt Lake. They agree it’s a modesty issue.”

The woman excused herself from the room, at which time the Stake President informed her husband that if he supported his wife, he too would be denied a recommend, but that if he supported his religion, he could receive his recommend. The Stake President further advised him to  “Control your wife. You are the patriarch of the family. You tell her how she is allowed to breastfeed.”

The woman’s husband defended his wife, stood by her choices and stated, “She’s her own person. I don’t control her.”

The family hasn’t been to church for the past several weeks because of feeling unwelcome.  The woman grieves the loss of her temple recommend, and believes that without a recommend, her “spiritual well-being is at stake.”  She struggles with feelings of depression and has lingering health issues.  She wishes for a resolution with the ward members, bishop and stake president that is a peaceful reconciliation where she may continue to nurse uncovered in the foyer, as she has been doing.

 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

I am often openly skeptical at the concept of "common sense".  But in the case of breasfeeding, well...

 

No really - I'm a massive fan of breastfeeding.  My wife did the "let em feed until they decide to stop", so both daughters went a longer time than a lot of folks feel is appropriate.  Fed is best, and if breastfeeding works, then more power to you.

But no really, awfully heck gosh, we're trying to have a society here.  And that means public nudity is sort of a no-no.  Because we all figure it's just so blindingly obvious, we struggle to find ways to just say this plainly when pushed, and we end up saying dumb things like "control your wife".  But heck - the general principle is sound.  No, we don't alter society just because breastfeeding a baby is the most natural healthy thing in the world.  Grow the crap up, you're now somebody's mommy, and you need to be the adult here.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, went to the blog that originally (I believe) brought this story to light (source: https://www.the-exponent.com/stake-president-denies-temple-recommend-to-nursing-mother/).  Here are some interesting snippets - 

Here's the woman's firsthand account (https://www.unrighteousdominion.org/read-the-stories/forbidden-from-breastfeeding-at-church)

Quote

 

Forbidden From Breastfeeding At Church

7/21/2018 

I have been stripped of the blessings of the temple for breastfeeding my child at church.

Here is the full story:

My bishop told me some members have complained  and he wants to protect the young men and porn addicts in the church from seeing my breast while nursing. (I don't cover or hide and most of my breast is exposed while nursing). I then told him only God himself could get me to back down. We ended it at that. This was 3 weeks ago. Then, a few days ago, I received a request to meet with the Stake President and also get my Temple  Recommend renewed. At this meeting, the Stake President told me that in guidelines for the youth booklet, called The Strength of Youth, it talks about modesty and this means I need to cover or hide while nursing. I fought it and asked if it talked about breastfeeding in this specific booklet (which it doesn't). He again reverted to modesty. He said it is my fault and my problem if the men see me breastfeeding and think bad thoughts.

The whole meeting was very contentious and was not derived from the spirit but of the devil. He then said that since I am not heeding to his counsel as a Priesthood Leader, he was not going to renew my Temple recommend. He also said if I breastfeed without covering again in church that they would kick me out of the building.

He also turned to my husband and said "You choose. It's your wife or your religion." He chose me. I left angry and upset with him, with my bishop and with my ward members. Since then I have done quite a bit of research. I have also contacted an Elder from the Quorum of the 70 and he basically agreed with the Stake President and deferred the matter back to my local leaders. He is telling me to support him anyway, despite this obvious exercising of spiritual abuse and unrighteous dominion.

I have contacted an attorney who is pro-breastfeeding and knows the law. She seemed very interested in helping me, as these actions of these church leaders are unethical, immoral and inhumane. 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think we know all the story and in cases like this I'm skeptical what's presented is completely accurate. Further from what has been presented I think the SP went well beyond what's appropriate (again assuming what's presented is generally accurate - there may well be some other issues here). All that said though, exactly what options do the Stake President and Bishop have if the woman in question doesn't want to cover up? Honest question.

Let's say hypothetically (not claiming this of this case) that the woman just feels that breasts are non-sexual and that women shouldn't cover up. She just wants to drop her top openly, display her breast and feed the baby. She refuses when asked to cover up to do anything. This offends people around her. What should the Bishop do? Ask her to leave?

I wonder if the people around her spoke to her about it. Or did they simply go to the bishop to tattle in hopes that he would command her to change her behavior?

What should the bishop do?

1- tell whoever is complaining about this woman to discuss it with the woman. He could even offer to be a part of the discussion if they desired it

2- Let the breastfeeding mother know that some people are uncomfortable with her breastfeeding and then ask her if she'd be willing to make accommodations that might help others feel more comfortable.

2A- If she is unwilling to make accommodations, ask her why? Then listen to understand.

2B- ask the tattler if there were accommodations they could make so that they wouldn't be in a position to be offended

3- Tell the tattler to mind their own business

4- If the mom refuses to cover up, do nothing. Don't report her to the SP. Don't take her TR. Literally, do nothing. I would likely say something like "I understand that breastfeeding is natural and necessary for your child. Just be aware that some people are uncomfortable with you doing it publicly. Please be as discrete as possible. Thanks."

(Abuse of power & power struggle: avoided)

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's what it looks like to me. Mostly due to their statements and behavior subsequent to the alleged incident.

It's a different angle from another popular (in some quarters) public cause, but it's similar to that lady who taped her stake president and tried to make hay with it. Another "leader interview atrocity tale," if you will. 

"I don't care if I never get my recommend back. I will continue to fight for this cause so mothers are free to free-range breastfeed in Mormon Churches?"

Yeah, I don't trust this couple. 

Or they could just be upset that the stake president abused his authority. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

[from the woman's statement]: "I have contacted an attorney who is pro-breastfeeding and knows the law. She seemed very interested in helping me, as these actions of these church leaders are unethical, immoral and inhumane."

Lawsuit? The Church is a private entity, and it is on its private property. Good luck with that. 

I think she's about up to 14:33 of her 15 minutes of fame . . . 

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Or they could just be upset that the stake president abused his authority. 

Yes, that is also possible. But there is still how this couple has acted and is acting about it. 

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

1) Assuming that what this couple represent in interviews the bishop and stake president as having said is true on its face:

Their wording and approach to this is not okay. Full stop.

But, the couple's subsequent reaction and activism is wrong, even if the leaders said what they say they said. To me, this validates not renewing the recommend, despite the ham-handed wording of the leaders. 

But, this couple's behavior presents several red flags to me, which leads me to . . .

2) We're only getting this couple's version of what was said and done. And, this is a couple who is dumping on the Church publicly in multiple venues, and who states that they are willing to go without recommends for the rest of their lives in order to advocate for this cause, speaks volumes about their motive and orientation vis a vis the Church. They are willing to forgo the crowning blessings of Mormonism to fight for free-range breastfeeding? 

It sure looks to me like this is what they wanted all along, and were looking for a precedent to take to the media. And, I don't trust their representation of what the leaders said and did. Of course they are painting them in the worst light possible, and may even be lying or exaggerating for effect. What type of person attacks local and general church in the media like this? 

Not someone who values and upholds the spirit and the letter of a temple recommend, in my book. They are demonstrating by their behavior that the right thing was done. 

Any stand against abuse of power is a positive in my book.  I applaud them, at least what we have regarding the story.  I'm disappointed to hear you and others be so quick to judge them and assume ugly motives.  

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

Yes, that is also possible. But there is still how this couple has acted and is acting about it. 

Depends on the situation. I've known people who have been mistreated by church leaders and were unable to obtain redress until they threatened legal action. And I'm talking about active, believing members. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Depends on the situation. I've known people who have been mistreated by church leaders and were unable to obtain redress until they threatened legal action. And I'm talking about active, believing members. 

I have relatives who had a stake president (son of a prominent GA) who made people stand when he walked into the room. He also required people to recite from memory, flawlessly (copies provided for verification) their patriarchal blessings to stake disciplinary councils in order to be reinstated. My cousin's husband was otherwise worthy and ready, but had to wait another year because he missed some words. Things like that. 

Not one of them has threatened legal action. Or gone to the Trib or KUTV. That's the difference. This couple's reaction is worse than the alleged offense, to me --- even on its face. 

We could come up with "leader interview atrocity tales" all day, but it would tell more about those harping on them. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, that is also possible. But there is still how this couple has acted and is acting about it. 

How are they acting?  Did you have more than the article and blog post about it?  I'm not seeing why you are making a big deal about them.  they simply were subject to mistreatment by leaders it seems to me.  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have relatives who had a stake president (son of a prominent GA) who made people stand when he walked into the room. He also required people to recite from memory, flawlessly (copies provided for verification) their patriarchal blessings to stake disciplinary councils in order to be reinstated. My cousin's husband was otherwise worthy and ready, but had to wait another year because he missed some words. Things like that. 

Not one of them has threatened legal action. Or gone to the Trib or KUTV. That's the difference. This couple's reaction is worse than the alleged offense, to me --- even on its face. 

We could come up with "leader interview atrocity tales" all day, but it would tell more about those harping on them. 

It sounds as if you don't believe there is any legitimate reason to go public in a case like this. I tend to avoid pushing things public, but sometimes it's warranted. I'm not saying it was in this case, but I don't think we know enough to say either way.

[Thinking]

This is a difficult issue because breastfeeding is natural. However, there are many things that are natural that should be kept private (I will not go into detail). Is breastfeeding one of those natural things that should be kept private, or semi-private?

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Thinking

[strappinglad]

1. Anyone who thinks that the female breast has NOT been hyper-sexualized in NA society for many decades has been living under a rock, nay, a mountain.

2. Breastfeeding is natural

3. Breastfeeding in public has become more common in NA society in recent decades, whereas , in most other areas of the world it has always been the norm.

4. 50 years ago when this naïve missionary went to Central America, on one of the first lessons given an investigator , the lady breastfed an infant and then her 5 year old came for a snack and then all feeding ended and she sat and listened to the rest on the lesson naked from the waist up. Our NA trained naïve minds were shocked that day. We gave a much shortened version of the lesson .

5. Animals mating is natural but people still stop and watch and comment and giggle. Farmers usually don't because it is familiar, but city slickers do.

6. Some bosoms are more distracting than others, just saying. ( there may be snow on the roof, but... )

7. We need more info to decide whether or not the woman was reasonable, but we certainly don't to know whether the leaders were not,....OK

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have relatives who had a stake president (son of a prominent GA) who made people stand when he walked into the room. He also required people to recite from memory, flawlessly (copies provided for verification) their patriarchal blessings to stake disciplinary councils in order to be reinstated. My cousin's husband was otherwise worthy and ready, but had to wait another year because he missed some words. Things like that. 

Not one of them has threatened legal action. Or gone to the Trib or KUTV. That's the difference. This couple's reaction is worse than the alleged offense, to me --- even on its face. 

We could come up with "leader interview atrocity tales" all day, but it would tell more about those harping on them. 

If the choices are putting up with that nonsense or going to the press, going to the press starts looking pretty good. Why justify abuses of power. Like I stated earlier, there is so little possibility for recourse that the SP most often ends up being the final arbiter, but if the SP is the one abusing his power, there's a serious problem. IMO we should be more concerned with leaders who abuse their power, and less about those being abused addressing it in ways you find unseemly.

I find this final statement to be atrocious. Obviously those who are abused should simply take it because if they speak up they just prove they deserved it. Classic victim blaming, Rongo. I'm surprised.

Edited July 26, 2018 by HappyJackWagon