Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[USU78]

38 minutes 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.  

If there is one party prevented from public discussion by law and policy from comment, and the other party chooses publicly to discuss confidential proceedings, there is no check on extravagance, exaggeration, and outright lies.

This puts us in the unhappy position of never being able to get both sides.

The discloser, surely knowing this, has no incentive to care.

The very fact of public disclosure becomes necessarily an unfair if not dishonest manipulation of auditors.

You should think things through.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, USU78 said:

If there is one party prevented from public discussion by law and policy from comment, and the other party chooses publicly to discuss confidential proceedings, there is no check on extravagance, exaggeration, and outright lies.

This puts us in the unhappy position of never being able to get both sides.

The discloser, surely knowing this, has no incentive to care.

The very fact of public disclosure becomes necessarily an unfair if not dishonest manipulation of auditors.

You should think things through.

Wouldn't the woman's going public nullify the confidentiality? 

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

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.

Mule muffins. Please read my offerings with greater care.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, USU78 said:

If there is one party prevented from public discussion by law and policy from comment, and the other party chooses publicly to discuss confidential proceedings, there is no check on extravagance, exaggeration, and outright lies.

This puts us in the unhappy position of never being able to get both sides.

The discloser, surely knowing this, has no incentive to care.

The very fact of public disclosure becomes necessarily an unfair if not dishonest manipulation of auditors.

You should think things through.

I think you're the one failing to think things through. If I self imposed on myself a policy of not sharing what others say to me, but then ask someone to speak with me and I abuse my position of authority, you think I should be off the hook because my self-imposed policy would prevent me from sharing my side? Come on.

[USU78]

41 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. 

How are we supposed to credit her where there is no procedural check on her statements?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If there is one party prevented from public discussion by law and policy from comment, and the other party chooses publicly to discuss confidential proceedings, there is no check on extravagance, exaggeration, and outright lies.

Small price to pay for identifying abuse, I'd say.  The SP has every right to speak up now anyway. If he didn't tell the husband to control his wife, then I'd be happy to know it.  If he didn't offer her an ultimatum of following his advice or suffer the consequence of losing her recommend, i'd like to know it.  

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

This puts us in the unhappy position of never being able to get both sides.

The discloser, surely knowing this, has no incentive to care.

The very fact of public disclosure becomes necessarily an unfair if not dishonest manipulation of auditors.

You should think things through.

Show me that this woman knows anything about whether the SP can defend himself against the accusations?  I wouldn't put it past anyone to exaggerate or make things up in this type of scenario.  Not at all.  But that hardly means we should continue to hide abuse.  

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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.

 

You are just coming from an american perspective.

'Nudity' in the form of breastfeeding is quite common in LDS churches in many parts of the world.

One of the things I get tired of is when well meaning LDS people try to impose white middle class Utah culture and call it 'Modesty'.

They do it all of the time in the dance "dress Codes", which are really saying don't come if you aren't well off. 

 

 

 

 

[juliann]

Has anyone heard of a situation in a typical nursing situation, which this was not, where a mother was harrassed by a leader for nursing?  I know we sometimes have a silly pinterest culture where women feel like they need those cover creations and will even use them in nursing rooms, but have any other leaders ever approached a nursing mom and informed her how she should be doing it? 

I don't think this happens. 

 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If there is one party prevented from public discussion by law and policy from comment, and the other party chooses publicly to discuss confidential proceedings, there is no check on extravagance, exaggeration, and outright lies.

This puts us in the unhappy position of never being able to get both sides.

The discloser, surely knowing this, has no incentive to care.

The very fact of public disclosure becomes necessarily an unfair if not dishonest manipulation of auditors.

You should think things through.

And what, exactly, is the check against abuse of power if there is no reliable reporting method?

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Wouldn't the woman's going public nullify the confidentiality? 

It is the Church's policy to keep these proceedings confidential even if the penitent speaks out.

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

If the agenda is nursing your child then nurse your child. Leave off on the drama and that destigmatizes breastfeeding - possibly even more effectively. 

The fact she was using her child as a prop to push her social agenda is because she was using her child as a prop. If you choose to deny it; knock yourself out. I just don't play stupid to bend over backward to deny reality. 

[USU78]

46 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. 

How are we supposed to credit her where there is no procedural check on her statements?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It is the Church's policy to keep these proceedings confidential even if the penitent speaks out.

Then it is the church's choice to do so. I'm not sure how that makes the other party's choice to speak out dishonorable or dishonest. If a church leader were to, say, sexually proposition a member during such an interview, would it be dishonest or dishonorable for the member to say something about it? 

Edited July 26, 2018 by jkwilliams

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Small price to pay for identifying abuse, I'd say.  The SP has every right to speak up now anyway. If he didn't tell the husband to control his wife, then I'd be happy to know it.  If he didn't offer her an ultimatum of following his advice or suffer the consequence of losing her recommend, i'd like to know it.  

Show me that this woman knows anything about whether the SP can defend himself against the accusations?  I wouldn't put it past anyone to exaggerate or make things up in this type of scenario.  Not at all.  But that hardly means we should continue to hide abuse.  

You have, apparently, no knowledge or appreciation for the priest penitent privilege.

She had additional appeal rights. She chose public advocacy over those appeal rights.

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Then it is the church's choice to do so. I'm not sure how that makes the other party's choice to speak out dishonorable or dishonest. If a church leader were to, say, sexually proposition a member during such an interviewer, would it be dishonest or dishonorable for the member to say something about it? 

Obviously if the woman would just keep her mouth shut no one would question what she said.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Then it is the church's choice to do so. I'm not sure how that makes the other party's choice to speak out dishonorable or dishonest. If a church leader were to, say, sexually proposition a member during such an interviewer, would it be dishonest or dishonorable for the member to say something about it? 

When the Church's policy is well known because of serial abuses thereof by public advocate penitents, it's difficult to imagine this public advocate penitent acting in ignorance.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

You have, apparently, no knowledge or appreciation for the priest penitent privilege.

She had additional appeal rights. She chose public advocacy over those appeal rights.

She was, allegedly, told those appeal rights were not available to her.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Obviously if the woman would just keep her mouth shut no one would question what she said.

Her appeals give her ample opportunity to speak, don't they?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

She was, allegedly, told those appeal rights were not available to her.

Allegedly.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

When the Church's policy is well known because of serial abuses thereof by public advocate penitents, it's difficult to imagine this public advocate penitent acting in ignorance.

Not to be snarky, but have you read her initial account? Judging by her writing, she doesn't appear to be highly educated. I know, that sounds terrible, but I'm a writer and editor by trade, and I tend to see patterns in how people write. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You have, apparently, no knowledge or appreciation for the priest penitent privilege.

She had additional appeal rights. She chose public advocacy over those appeal rights.

She apparently spoke to an area 70 who told her she has no other recourse and that her SP's view stands.  

priest-penitent privilege?  What do you think she was repenting of?  

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

When the Church's policy is well known because of serial abuses thereof by public advocate penitents, it's difficult to imagine this public advocate penitent acting in ignorance.

If we have only 1 side of the story it's because only 1 side is willing to speak. The church isn't willing to give their side, therefore we don't know their side. It is their choice not to share their side. Why should the other party be unable to speak and share their side just because the church isn't willing to share the other side. That expectation isn't logical. By refusing to speak, the church doesn't somehow control the other party's ability to speak. You are granting way too much power and deference to the church when you assert that people can only speak if the church is also willing to speak. It's illogical.

Edited July 26, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

She apparently spoke to an area 70 who told her she has no other recourse and that her SP's view stands.  

priest-penitent privilege?  What do you think she was repenting of?  

FWIW, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that non-penitent communications with clergy are also privileged.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

FWIW, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that non-penitent communications with clergy are also privileged.

Meaning that clergy can't be compelled to testify, right? It doesn't prevent them from sharing information they choose to share, does it?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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)

There wouldn't be a tattler if she's doing it openly in sacrament, would there? Everyone around her would notice. She refuses to be discrete. She just opens her blouse, doesn't care who's around, and does this. Let's say investigators are there and are also offended.

Honestly while I can understand those who think nothing should be done, I think this really is denying the conflicts it would cause in the ward and how it'd affect others.

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying this is what happened in this case. However I think by thinking through this issue one can see it might be more complex of an issue than some suggest. Especially if this is being done for activist reasons. (Again not saying that's the case here)

The reason I bring up this thought example is because while it may not apply in this case, it seems pretty clear from Twitter it's how at least a significant group think about the issue. People who might be completely offended if on a hike a guy goes pee within sight are here thinking that breasts should be able to be exposed at any time because they're not sexual. My guess, perhaps a bit cynical, is that we'll see soon women intentionally showing their breasts while breastfeeding to make a point.

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She apparently spoke to an area 70 who told her she has no other recourse and that her SP's view stands.  

priest-penitent privilege?  What do you think she was repenting of?  

What is the source for this?

There are some oddities here. She's still breast feeding at 18 months which is a little unusual too. (Not unheard of and certainly not bad but culturally odd) This makes me wonder what all is going on. Does she come from a different culture? Is this just an odd social practice. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by clarkgoble