Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[USU78]

Dishonorable if not dishonest to speak out on what is said and done in confidence. That alone were cause to discount everything she says.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Dishonorable if not dishonest to speak out on what is said and done in confidence. That alone were cause to discount everything she says.

Even if her leader abused his power?!  Are you serious?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Dishonorable if not dishonest to speak out on what is said and done in confidence. That alone were cause to discount everything she says.

Sheesh on such a rule we'd never be able to accuse anyone of abuse.  An abuser would just hide behind USU's rule of having said and done his/her crap in confidence, and therefore the accuser is a liar because he/she is obviously dishonest by revealing abuse that happened in confidence.  

Ugh..what a terrible POV, USU.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Sheesh on such a rule we'd never be able to accuse anyone of abuse.  An abuser would just hide behind USU's rule of having said and done his/her crap in confidence, and therefore the accuser is a liar because he/she is obviously dishonest by revealing abuse that happened in confidence.  

Ugh..what a terrible POV, USU.  

No kidding. I couldn't believe he wrote that.

USU- if an authority figure like a police officer called you to a meeting and then said or did inappropriate things, do you feel you would be duty bound to keep silent about the offenses because it was done in confidence? Maybe if authorities knew they were accountable for the things they said and did, they may be a little more circumspect about what they say and do.

[SouthernMo]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

To me, this validates not renewing the recommend, despite the ham-handed wording of the leaders. 

On which of the accepted temple recommend questions would you refuse this mother a temple recommend?

I think that everyone has the right to their opinion about whether or not what the mother did (by breastfeeding, or by going to the press) is right or wrong, but I’m still unsure why anyone would revoke or refuse to grant a temple recommend.

Put differently, is there something in the handbook or temple recommend questions that you can point to that (if you were her bishop or SP) you could show this woman that she is not doing or living up to?

[ttribe]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

On which of the accepted temple recommend questions would you refuse this mother a temple recommend?

I think that everyone has the right to their opinion about whether or not what the mother did (by breastfeeding, or by going to the press) is right or wrong, but I’m still unsure why anyone would revoke or refuse to grant a temple recommend.

Put differently, is there something in the handbook or temple recommend questions that you can point to that (if you were her bishop or SP) you could show this woman that she is not doing or living up to?

It's the sustain your leaders part.  They issued a command.  She didn't follow.  No recommend.

[juliann]

22 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.....

Surprisingly, I'm not supporting this story at all. I am disgusted with how Exponent II has exploited this woman and the act of nursing without bothering to check on the other side. There is a lot going on here and NONE of it has to do with nursing. 

This woman went to multiple sites, private mommy sites included. Unfortunately, one of those sites happened to have several accused women "complainers"  from that ward in it. The story they related about what she was doing was more than nursing and she was doing it in a high traffic area, the foyer and mostly during the passing of the sacrament.   Notice how she insists she be allowed to do it in the foyer. A nursing woman in the pews is pretty much invisible. (No, I am not giving out more info about these accounts. It was reported to me, the contentious threads were deleted in all the mommy groups the reporter was in. It is no more hearsay than most of what is being related about this woman and those witnesses outnumbered her by far.)

So what this is about:

1. Activists attempting to turn nursing into a sexual act. (THEY are doing this.) There is nothing remotely sexy about nursing, only the most pervy males would see it as that. Aside from the philosophical beauty of the act, it is not even particulary pretty in public situations, it is messy for one thing.

2. It is not about blankets. Women nurse all the time, your clothing and the baby itself usually give adequate coverage. I will go out on a limb here and say that 99.9% of women have no interest in exposing any more flesh than necessary. It is not about being prudish. 

3. Using and manipulating this woman to create a campaign that she does not appear to have the sophistication to be a part of aside from being a prop.

4. Another Stake President who has given the always ready and looking for anything folk to make this about the church, who does not prohibit nursing, instead of his powerplay. (Do I think she is embellishing given what ward members have said about what she was actually doing, oh yes. But nothing excuses using the temple to control uppity women.)

Is there an argument to be made about the rules placed on nursing mothers in society? Yes. Fortunately, I understand that all states have laws allowing it in public now. If more is exposed than an onlooker likes, put a blanket over their head.

The SP is responsible for this power struggle and hopefully this will sent a shot over the bow to all men who think they can threaten women into submission in matters that do not directly involve apostasy by withholding access to the blessings of our religion. What would be of much greater value than going after this hapless men is to start coming up with ways to prevent this. I totally get how inappropriate this behavior was, but for heaven's sake, I would have bought one of those screen room dividers and put it in the foyer and told her to nurse naked if she wanted. I would have replaced the deacon with the oldest, shuffling man I could find to hand the tray to her husband and let him pass it around the family.  Or good grief, let a woman do it like we do in the pews. 

I applaud Exponent II for the good work they are doing. But this is reprehensible, they are censoring those who disagree with the phony narrative they have created. I'm so disappointed in them and their growing mob mentality.

 

 

 

 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's the sustain your leaders part.  They issued a command.  She didn't follow.  No recommend.

We live in the 21st century. Women do not have to "obey" a man, ick. That is how this SP made this mess and there are too many like him. 

[Oliblish]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Dishonorable if not dishonest to speak out on what is said and done in confidence. That alone were cause to discount everything she says.

This seems to be the real issue that a lot of posters seem to have with this woman.  Most don't seem to care about the breast feeding.  The fact that she wouldn't submit to authority and stop breast feeding seems to bother some. 

But the real push back that I am seeing is that she spoke out about all of this in public.  That is the real taboo here - openly criticizing a leader.  If she criticizes a leader that is seen as evidence that she is in the wrong.  This is what I don't understand.  I don't think it is wrong to speak out when you feel you have been treated unfairly.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

We live in the 21st century. Women do not have to "obey" a man, ick. That is how this SP made this mess and there are too many like him. 

I agree with you.  I was just explaining the reasoning.

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

We live in the 21st century. Women do not have to "obey" a man, ick. That is how this SP made this mess and there are too many like him. 

It's not about women obeying men but rather members obeying their priesthood leaders. Her husband wasn't given a recommend, either, and it wasn't because he was breastfeeding. How many times have I been told that people are stupid to follow their priesthood leaders when they think they are wrong, but once again, anyone who doesn't follow--especially those who make it public--is automatically in the wrong. I'll take your word for it that she's embellishing, but that still doesn't excuse the stake president for exceeding his authority.

Edited July 26, 2018 by jkwilliams

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's the sustain your leaders part.  They issued a command.  She didn't follow.  No recommend.

Is obedience taught as part of sustaining? I get the sense that culturally, many LDS have come to embrace that idea. But, I can’t find a dictionary that includes obey or obedience as part of the definition of sustain.

I’m going to have to research this...  But, at first blush, when obedience to new, local, seat-of-the-pants commandments become tenets of temple worthiness, I’m gonna go ahead and call a section 121:39 on that leader.

[juliann]

No one who has any concern for the church would continue to publicly state that women need to submit or obey men. We have a responsibility to God and our covenants, not to every destructive whim of a male who happens to be in a leadership position for a few years. That isn't even what sustaining means.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Surprisingly, I'm not supporting this story at all. I am disgusted with how Exponent II has exploited this woman and the act of nursing without bothering to check on the other side. There is a lot going on here and NONE of it has to do with nursing. 

This woman went to multiple sites, private mommy sites included. Unfortunately, one of those sites happened to have several accused women "complainers"  from that ward in it. The story they related about what she was doing was more than nursing and she was doing it in a high traffic area, the foyer and mostly during the passing of the sacrament.   Notice how she insists she be allowed to do it in the foyer. A nursing woman in the pews is pretty much invisible. (No, I am not giving out more info about these accounts. It was reported to me, the contentious threads were deleted in all the mommy groups the reporter was in. It is no more hearsay than most of what is being related about this woman and those witnesses outnumbered her by far.)

So what this is about:

1. Activists attempting to turn nursing into a sexual act. (THEY are doing this.) There is nothing remotely sexy about nursing, only the most pervy males would see it as that. Aside from the philosophical beauty of the act, it is not even particulary pretty in public situations, it is messy for one thing.

2. It is not about blankets. Women nurse all the time, your clothing and the baby itself usually give adequate coverage. I will go out on a limb here and say that 99.9% of women have no interest in exposing any more flesh than necessary. It is not about being prudish. 

3. Using and manipulating this woman to create a campaign that she does not appear to have the sophistication to be a part of aside from being a prop.

4. Another Stake President who has given the always ready and looking for anything folk to make this about the church, who does not prohibit nursing, instead of his powerplay. (Do I think she is embellishing given what ward members have said about what she was actually doing, oh yes. But nothing excuses using the temple to control uppity women.)

Is there an argument to be made about the rules placed on nursing mothers in society? Yes. Fortunately, I understand that all states have laws allowing it in public now. If more is exposed than an onlooker likes, put a blanket over their head.

The SP is responsible for this power struggle and hopefully this will sent a shot over the bow to all men who think they can threaten women into submission in matters that do not directly involve apostasy by withholding access to the blessings of our religion. What would be of much greater value than going after this hapless men is to start coming up with ways to prevent this. I totally get how inappropriate this behavior was, but for heaven's sake, I would have bought one of those screen room dividers and put it in the foyer and told her to nurse naked if she wanted. I would have replaced the deacon with the oldest, shuffling man I could find to hand the tray to her husband and let him pass it around the family.  Or good grief, let a woman do it like we do in the pews. 

I applaud Exponent II for the good work they are doing. But this is reprehensible, they are censoring those who disagree with the phony narrative they have created. I'm so disappointed in them and their growing mob mentality.

 

 

 

 

Juliann, I'm confused by this post. You seem to be lambasting exponent II while also applauding them. You seem to be suggesting that they are acting as activists for their cause (which to me seems less about breastfeeding and more about stopping abuses of power) and yet you also suggest the SP was abusing his power. I don't think I'm understanding your point here.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not about women obeying men but rather members obeying their priesthood leaders. Her husband wasn't given a recommend, either, and it wasn't because he was breastfeeding. How many times have I been told that I was stupid to follow my priesthood leaders when I thought they were wrong, but once again, anyone who doesn't follow--especially those who make it public--is automatically in the wrong. I'll take your word for it that she's embellishing, but that still doesn't excuse the stake president for exceeding his authority.

You obviously didn't read much of what I said. 🙄

 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Juliann, I'm confused by this post. You seem to be lambasting exponent II while also applauding them. You seem to be suggesting that they are acting as activists for their cause (which to me seems less about breastfeeding and more about stopping abuses of power) and yet you also suggest the SP was abusing his power. I don't think I'm understanding your point here.

Why? Have activists never selected a really poor prop before? Can this woman not be forthcoming about what people were actually objecting to with the SP inappropriately turning this into a power struggle at the same time? 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, juliann said:

You obviously didn't read much of what I said. 🙄

 

I read what you said. It just sounded in your response to ttribe that you were reducing it to women having to obey men (ick). In your other post, you were pretty clear that you think the Exponent II folks are exploiting her shamelessly, and that may well be, although you apparently agree that the SP made a mess of things. Be that as it may, I was responding to what you said to ttribe. 

[Storm Rider]

My wife and I went to Costco last night - no surprise we stopped and I got a hot dog and my wife got pizza - as we went to sit at the tables there was a woman at the second table sitting on the second seat facing everyone that passed by. Many tables were open and every one of them offered tables where she could nurse her child while facing away from everyone leaving Costco. She was nursing her child and sitting with two other young children while a photographer was going to great lengths to take pictures of her from different angles. She was making no effort to cover herself in any way. 

My mother nursed each of her seven children. I have no recollection of her covering herself in the home, but it does seem like she would use a baby blanket in public yet I could be wrong. I support women nursing their children and I think it is significantly better - more healthy - for the child. 

What I dislike is when a mother uses their child as a prop to further their personal social agenda. I don't care what religion she belongs to - it is wrong.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Storm Rider

[juliann]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I read what you said. It just sounded in your response to ttribe that you were reducing it to women having to obey men (ick). In your other post, you were pretty clear that you think the Exponent II folks are exploiting her shamelessly, and that may well be, although you apparently agree that the SP made a mess of things. Be that as it may, I was responding to what you said to ttribe. 

Apologies, I apparently misread your comment. It would be thoughtful if you didn't make this about your own struggles with authorities, though. 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My wife and I went to Costco last night - no surprise we stopped and I got a hot dog and my wife got pizza - as we went to sit at the tables there was a woman at the second table sitting on the second seat facing everyone that passed by. Many tables were open and every one of them offered tables where she could nurse her child while facing away from everyone leaving Costco. She was nursing her child and sitting with two other young children while a photographer was going to great lengths to take pictures of her from different angles. She was making no effort to cover herself in any way. 

My mother nursed each of her seven children. I have no recollection of her covering herself in the home, but it does seem like she would use a baby blanket in public yet I could be wrong. I support women nursing their children and I think it is significantly better - more healthy - for the child. 

What I dislike is when a mother uses their child as a prop to further their personal social agenda. I don't care what religion she belongs to - it is wrong.

And this is why stories like this make news. Look away, walk away.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Apologies, I apparently misread your comment. It would be thoughtful if you didn't make this about your own struggles with authorities, though. 

I'm not making it about my troubles with authorities (haven't had any that I can think of). I was just noting the inconsistency that I've seen between people who say members should feel free to say no to leaders and then attack anyone who actually does say no to leaders. Maybe it would have been better to use the third person, but I think you get my point.

ETA: And apology accepted. We all misread things now and again.

Edited July 26, 2018 by jkwilliams

[rongo]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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 agree. I wouldn't say it would never be appropriate, worlds without end. Sometimes and in some circumstances, it might be warranted. 

I'm not saying it was in this case, but I don't think we know enough to say either way.

I agree, but it's interesting how even those who would say that we don't know enough, either way, will say in the next breath how awful the stake president is. 

Once again, these flash-in-the-pan social issue stories are simply a mirror showing where each of us is towards the Church (myself included).

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

I agree. I wouldn't say it would never be appropriate, worlds without end. Sometimes and in some circumstances, it might be warranted. 

I agree, but it's interesting how even those who would say that we don't know enough, either way, will say in the next breath how awful the stake president is. 

Once again, these flash-in-the-pan social issue stories are simply a mirror showing where each of us is towards the Church (myself included).

To quote Karl Pilkington, I just think it's all a lot of faffing. On the one hand, you have a person saying "only God himself could get me to back down" and on the other someone who thinks it's fine to withhold a temple recommend because someone says no to a local leader. Seems to me that it's devolved into a power struggle over something that should have been resolved between them. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My wife and I went to Costco last night - no surprise we stopped and I got a hot dog and my wife got pizza - as we went to sit at the tables there was a woman at the second table sitting on the second seat facing everyone that passed by. Many tables were open and every one of them offered tables where she could nurse her child while facing away from everyone leaving Costco. She was nursing her child and sitting with two other young children while a photographer was going to great lengths to take pictures of her from different angles. She was making no effort to cover herself in any way. 

My mother nursed each of her seven children. I have no recollection of her covering herself in the home, but it does seem like she would use a baby blanket in public yet I could be wrong. I support women nursing their children and I think it is significantly better - more healthy - for the child. 

What I dislike is when a mother uses their child as a prop to further their personal social agenda. I don't care what religion she belongs to - it is wrong.

And what is that social agenda? De-sxualize breasts and de-stigmatize breastfeeding? Sounds like a reasonable agenda. If breastfeeding women don't push back against the silly societal/cultural norm, then nothing will change. I recall recent articles about a senator breastfeeding on the floor of congress and other similar stories. I'm sure many were offended by that or thought she was using her child as a "prop" but progress is made by pushing back against unfair/unreasonable societal norms.

[SouthernMo]

@rongo I would love to hear your response to my question.  On what grounds would you not renew this woman’s temple recommend?

Ive never been in a bishopric or stake presidency, so I would appreciate insight into the handbook that would call for this mother not to have a temple recommend.