Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Danzo said:

Doesn't the privilege belong to the penitent? Can't one waive the privilege?

or are you saying Utah law says that the privilege belongs to both the penitent and the priest?

If I understand him correctly, the church by written policy does not allow him to disclose privileged communication, no matter whether the penitent waives privilege.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Even if we only get one side of the story, we need to realize that it still is only one side of the story.

In my profession, I get one side of the story all the time.  I constantly hear about how bad so and so is, or the government, or whoever.   I even get paid money to believe and defend their side of the story. 

I can't, however, ignore the fact that there are other sides of the story.  I can't afford to.  My clients, perhaps unconsciously, tend to embellish, or at least heavily emphasize things that support their version and de-emphasize   things that don't or contradict their view. 

In this case we are getting one side of the story and we should expect embellishments, and emphasis on things that support her side.

I get that. But I'm hearing people making the next jump to, "since many people embellish, she may also be embellishing so we can't believe anything she is saying". That seems unreasonable to me. I agree that we should hold the possibility that we may not have the whole story but I think it's wrong to assume complete innocence on the side that refuses to speak.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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.

Just going by tweets that Exponent retweeted there's a lot of people who seem to be suggesting that since breastfeeding isn't sexual that exposing breasts doesn't matter. Period. Beyond the logical problems here (breasts are not merely seen as sexual by men because of American media - this goes back millennia and is likely instinctual biologically; other non-sexual behavior is still seen as inappropriate such as pooping) there's a strong sense that people with a particular political view of public norms using this to further their ends. Now if the issue was just breastfeeding in public I'd be all with them. However that happens right now in basically every ward. Nor has anyone that I've seen claimed she was being discrete. However ignoring the details of the case and just looking at how the Exponent has responded, I think Juliann is completely right. They are using this situation as an opportunity to make points they want made that I think pro-breastfeeding people like myself might well find problematic. More problematic perhaps is that by politicizing it in this way, the Exponent crowd risks a backlash where people go farther the other way. That's not helpful either.

I get that some people would love Utah to be like rural central America in terms of breastfeeding norms. However there are social issues with that if anyone who disagrees is portrayed as somehow power hungry proponents of the patriarchy exercising unrighteous dominion. (I bet the majority of people seeing it as a big deal are women too - I bet most men wisely keep silent on such issues)

56 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.

Umm. Is church the best place for doing that? Seems like you're conceding the point. It's a political move to change norms. There's lots of societal norms I disagree with. I just don't think church is the place to do it especially because of visitors and investigators. Want to change norms? Do it at the mall.

 

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But that's not what happened. Read the posts describing how this brought to the attention of priesthood leaders. It was done in the foyer, not the chapel so the bishop wouldn't  be in a position to notice himself.

Yeah, if people get offended on a hike, and then run and tell their bishop about it, I hope the bishop will tell them to mind their business and stop wasting his time.

My point is that this almost certainly isn't a single "tattler." That rhetoric makes it seem like if this one person who didn't mind their business didn't speak up everything would be fine. Rather there's almost always a lot of people in the foyer including a Teacher watching the door for sacrament. If she was doing this central American style (not at all clear from the accounts I've read but clearly what some think ought be allowed) it's not exactly the sort of thing that would require a tattler. It'd get around rather quickly and would quickly cause problems because of our social norms. You may personally disagree with those norms, but they are pretty strongly held norms.

As for the hike, I think you're downplaying how women view that - especially when young women are within sight. Certainly if it only happened once you just talk with him and treat it as minor. If it happens multiple times I guarantee most people will assume the person is a sexual pervert and treat him accordingly.  (Justifiably in my opinion)

Edited July 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Danzo]

Just now, USU78 said:

Here's where policy comes into play.

So it's policy of the church, not common law privilege that's being applied here. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. Is church the best place for doing that? Seems like you're conceding the point. It's a political move to change norms. There's lots of societal norms I disagree with. I just don't think church is the place to do it especially because of visitors and investigators. Want to change norms? Do it at the mall.

Obviously the woman is making the point that she should be able to breastfeed as she chooses. That was never in question. She is also making the point that her leader is abusing his power. Both seem to be legitimate issues to raise.

Why not at church? It's part of the culture/society .

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get that. But I'm hearing people making the next jump to, "since many people embellish, she may also be embellishing so we can't believe anything she is saying". That seems unreasonable to me. I agree that we should hold the possibility that we may not have the whole story but I think it's wrong to assume complete innocence on the side that refuses to speak.

In my experience, everyone embellishes, or at least emphasizes the facts in their favor at the expense of  the facts not in their favor.   The trick is asking the right questions to get at least a small glimpse what the other side might think. 

I didn't read the post as a well balanced or attempting show the other side at all.  It was an advocacy article. Which is fine. She has every right to advocate for what she thinks is justice.  But there is another side of the story and we need to recognize that.  

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

What is the source for this?

 

She was in the foyer. She was exposing her full chest. That is why this shouldn't be considered a problem about nursing.  It was also said that she chose to do this during the passing of the sacrament which would mean deacons had no choice but to walk right up to this. It was not a matter of sitting in a pew. She does a lot of excuse making as to why she can't be in the chapel or the nursing room. I will support women who completely bare a nursing breast.  I will not support what this woman does, according to those who did speak out, albeit in a closed group.  I am certain that no women will be intentionally doing what she actually did to make a point, however.

I am angry with the feminists who are creating a false narrative because they are condemning the women in the ward who rightfully objected and censoring any mention that things might not be as presented. They are not representing women at all. They have merely picked an unsophisticated woman to create a convenient problem while throwing those who object to nudity in chapels under the bus. I have backed feminists in most things and will continue to do so. This has really shaken my confidence in them, however.  They will succeed, because as I see here, everyone is talking about it as if the phony narrative is true or shouldn't be questioned. That pretty much guarantees accused women in the ward won't be speaking up. 

She did claim, BTW, that this went up a step higher and she named the leader who allegedly supported the SP.  

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Obviously the woman is making the point that she should be able to breastfeed as she chooses. That was never in question. She is also making the point that her leader is abusing his power. Both seem to be legitimate issues to raise.

Why not at church? It's part of the culture/society .

Ignoring this particular case, doing such things at church knowing very well it'll cause conflict, backbiting and disunity shows that one doesn't care about that. Again to be explicit, there is no indication that the woman in question was doing that. It may very well just be she's from a different culture and is facing a cultural clash. But for those who are doing it for political reasons, let the chips fall where they may, then I honestly don't think withholding a temple recommend is inappropriate.

Change the issue. Say someone strongly believes concealed carry is politically supposed to be allowed at Church. They strongly think the brethren are wrong on it. So they bring a handgun to Church. The bishop asks them to stop and they say they won't. I bet everyone decrying the very idea of a temple recommend being denied would strongly think it should be in that case. 

 

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

She was in the foyer. She was exposing her full chest. That is why this shouldn't be considered a problem about nursing.  It was also said that she chose to do this during the passing of the sacrament which would mean deacons had no choice but to walk right up to this. It was not a matter of sitting in a pew. She does a lot of excuse making as to why she can't be in the chapel or the nursing room. I will support women who completely bare a nursing breast.  I will not support what this woman does, according to those who did speak out, albeit in a closed group.  I am certain that no women will be intentionally doing what she actually did to make a point, however.

I am angry with the feminists who are creating a false narrative because they are condemning the women in the ward who rightfully objected and censoring any mention that things might not be as presented. They are not representing women at all. They have merely picked an unsophisticated woman to create a convenient problem while throwing those who object to nudity in chapels under the bus. I have backed feminists in most things and will continue to do so. This has really shaken my confidence in them, however.  They will succeed, because as I see here, everyone is talking about it as if the phony narrative is true or shouldn't be questioned. That pretty much guarantees accused women in the ward won't be speaking up. 

She did claim, BTW, that this went up a step higher and she named the leader who allegedly supported the SP.  

Do you have a source for this? This is the first I've heard of this. 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[juliann]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Obviously the woman is making the point that she should be able to breastfeed as she chooses. That was never in question. She is also making the point that her leader is abusing his power. Both seem to be legitimate issues to raise.

Why not at church? It's part of the culture/society .

Again, this isn't about breastfeeding. It is about what sounds to me is near toplessness. So before you go further, try to visualize that in a foyer in full view, forcing young boys to walk right up to this,  rather than what we usually see tucked away in a pew.) 

Yes, her SP turned this into an unnecessary power struggle and had to use inappropriate threats to win. 

(Edited to clarify that I did not mean "near toplessness" to mean disrobing from the waist up, only that she was exposing both breasts according to witness accounts.)

Edited July 26, 2018 by juliann

[Danzo]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Obviously the woman is making the point that she should be able to breastfeed as she chooses. That was never in question. She is also making the point that her leader is abusing his power. Both seem to be legitimate issues to raise.

Why not at church? It's part of the culture/society .

I see nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public.  Been to many places where that is normal, even in LDS churches.  

There is, however a right way and a wrong way to go about making change, and complaining.

I have had clients that, while I believe they were in the right, would do everything they can to convince the authorities to put them in jail just because they insist on advocating for themselves in the most annoying way possible.

Maybe it's possible that here the  church leaders are nothing but power hungry misogynists will withhold temple recommends to anyone who disagrees with them.  

I suspect, however, that it may be possible that the church leaders could have been heavily provoked into doing what they did. 

I have dealt with people who, while I completely agree with their position, do more harm to their position than good by the way they go about it.  Sometimes I have to tell them that the best thing they can do to advocate for themselves is to just Shut Up.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Danzo

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Can't think of anything else. Have you got other thoughts?

I think ‘going public’ by involving the press is still a viable option. While this particular bishop and SP deemed her unworthy of a temple recommend, I don’t see that decision as following the handbook.

I think the bishop and SP got it wrong here (again, assuming what we know is close to the truth).  While they may strongly dislike her breastfeeding openly and her involvement of the press, I don’t think the handbook gives recourse for things like that.

Put differently, if I share what is said behind closed doors with my bishop, there is no recourse for the bishop/church, and he may not share “his side.”  We can debate whether that is ‘fair,’ but from what I’ve understood (from following this thread), it’s not only LDS practice, but the law in some states/countries.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Do you have a source for this? This is the first I've heard of this. 

 

Closed FB groups, Exponent blog among others. You will have to take my word for it knowing that I will almost always back Mormon feminists and certainly support breastfeeding wherever it needs to happen, the burden being on complainers learning to look away and deal with their own problem thoughts.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I see nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public.  Been to many places where that is normal, even in LDS churches.  

There is, however a right way and a wrong way to go about making change, and complain.

I have had clients that, while I believe they were in the right, would do everything they can to convince the authorities to put them in jail just because they insist on advocating for themselves in the most annoying way possible.

Maybe it's possible that here the  church leaders are nothing but power hungry misogynists will withhold temple recommends to anyone who disagrees with them.  

I suspect, however, that it may be possible that the church leaders could have been heavily provoked into doing what they did. 

I have dealt with people who, while I completely agree with their position, do more harm to their position than good by the way they go about it.  Sometimes I have to tell them that the best thing they can do to advocate for themselves is to just Shut Up.

This is soooooo true.  I'm not an attorney, but I work as an expert witness and I've sure seen this one play out more than once.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

 While this particular bishop and SP deemed her unworthy of a temple recommend, I don’t see that decision as following the handbook.

 

I think you will find many instances people the church not following the handbook (there is even a chapter in the handbook about not following the handbook)

The church is run by the priesthood, not by a handbook. 

 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Closed FB groups, Exponent blog among others. You will have to take my word for it knowing that I will almost always back Mormon feminists and certainly support breastfeeding wherever it needs to happen, the burden being on complainers learning to look away and deal with their own problem thoughts.

This story just keeps getting weirder. Given the need to remove a dress or top, nursing bra, and nursing garments, it would seem the logistics of "exposing her full chest" would make the effort hardly worth it. I don't know what to make of this story. It's entirely possible that she's exposing more than a lot of people are comfortable with, but it's equally possible that what one person sees as discreetly breastfeeding might be described as "exposing her full chest." At this point, can anyone say anything with confidence, let alone certainty?

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think you will find many instances people the church not following the handbook (there is even a chapter in the handbook about not following the handbook)

The church is run by the priesthood, not by a handbook. 

What church do you belong to?

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think you will find many instances people the church not following the handbook (there is even a chapter in the handbook about not following the handbook)

The church is run by the priesthood, not by a handbook. 

 

I think you’re right.  The challenge is when latitude is given, both amazing and unfortunate things happen.

I think most would probably agree that this incident is unfortunate, but not common in the LDS church.

The key question is how we can better address these confrontations.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This story just keeps getting weirder. Given the need to remove a dress or top, nursing bra, and nursing garments, it would seem the logistics of "exposing her full chest" would make the effort hardly worth it. I don't know what to make of this story. It's entirely possible that she's exposing more than a lot of people are comfortable with, but it's equally possible that what one person sees as discreetly breastfeeding might be described as "exposing her full chest." At this point, can anyone say anything with confidence, let alone certainty?

 

I reality, all of these stories are about weirdos. Normal people don't behave this way. 

Normal people, when told they make someone uncomfortable with them doing X will just roll their eyes, try and adjust their behavior, even when they think people are overreacting.  I can't imagine any priesthood leader who would feel comfortable talking to a woman about breastfeeding, they wouldn't dare. (I know I wouldn't, even if the woman was buck naked, I would send a sister instead, if I could).

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

Maybe it's possible that here the  church leaders are nothing but power hungry misogynists will withhold temple recommends to anyone who disagrees with them.  

I suspect, however, that it may be possible that the church leaders could have been heavily provoked into doing what they did. 

 

I envision a situation in which ward members were knocking down his door. She initially claimed he threatened to throw her out of the building, I think it is telling what she selected to tell that goofy reporter, because that would be the most shocking thing of all....if true. I've followed this from several sources before it hit the news. I actually don't know what I would do with a woman intent on exposing far more than necessary for mere nursing and demanding the right to do it in probably the most public place in the ward where young boys are forced to come up to her close and personal ...... under the guise of nursing. When I read her growing list of excuses as to why she just can't possibly have it any other way, it began to sound more and more manufactured. There are a few blogs that present this stuff. She can't stay in the chapel because.....she can't go to mother's room cause her kids have to come with her because....her husband can't take responsibility for children for small periods of time because....

That said, depending on buildings, I have had great fun in some good mother's rooms that were really rooms. In these smaller paint by number chapels, the closet sized rooms have been two small for even two recliners to not touch and they stink because for some gosh knows why, they have a diaper bucket in there. 

Again, Stake Prez went for a power play rather than a solution. The best lesson here....stop the idea that women have to obey men just because they are leaders for a few years. That word shouldn't even be in our vocabularies. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

@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. 

My read on this is that this woman (and the couple --- the husband has joined her as well) is fomenting problems at the local level. I think this is similar to the lady whose recommend was revoked because she wouldn't stop loudly protesting in sacrament meeting or tearing people down in the ward verbally. While there aren't questions that directly address this, I believe that local leaders have the authority to "keep the peace" in their units, and can deny temple blessings for defiance or recalcitrance. I know that this scandalizes some who want strict handbook legalism for these cases of protest, but them's my sentiments. 

I've been a bishop twice, and a counselor twice, in four different wards. 

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This story just keeps getting weirder. Given the need to remove a dress or top, nursing bra, and nursing garments, it would seem the logistics of "exposing her full chest" would make the effort hardly worth it. I don't know what to make of this story. It's entirely possible that she's exposing more than a lot of people are comfortable with, but it's equally possible that what one person sees as discreetly breastfeeding might be described as "exposing her full chest." At this point, can anyone say anything with confidence, let alone certainty?

  

It was that way from the beginning. It's not getting more anything. It isn't anymore difficult to expose both breasts than it is to expose one, especially when that is the intent. Perhaps you ought to leave that to the women to discuss. 

I believe multiple women in that ward telling the same story over her inconsistent account. But maybe that's just me. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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. 

This is a good point. No, I don't think anyone can come up with an example at church. The woman insisting that she has a God-given and constitutional right to the foyer coach to free-range breastfeed is the key, here. She insists that for unspecified irreconcilable, unaccomodatable reasons, she cannot and will not use the mother's lounge (like every other mom), and will simply camp out and make a scene in the foyer. 

I also think this situation is completely different from what the couple and fellow travelers are trying to use it for: to apply this broadly to the trampled rights of breast-feeding mothers at Church. Everyone else rolls with the resources and situations and offers good faith decorum. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This story just keeps getting weirder. Given the need to remove a dress or top, nursing bra, and nursing garments, it would seem the logistics of "exposing her full chest" would make the effort hardly worth it. I don't know what to make of this story. It's entirely possible that she's exposing more than a lot of people are comfortable with, but it's equally possible that what one person sees as discreetly breastfeeding might be described as "exposing her full chest." At this point, can anyone say anything with confidence, let alone certainty?

Oh wow, I agree that this just keeps getting stranger (I left my computer for awhile and am catching up).  I haven't heard of the group juliann posted about (thanks for the additional info, juliann).

Are people exaggerating what she's doing or could she really be completely disrobing from the waist up?  Like you said, that would take some doing, but if she is, then what an awful position for her ward leaders (and now stake leaders) to be in regarding having to deal with all this.  She has every right to nurse in public, but, one should use some discretion when there are families present and in a church setting.

I still really do not like how the SP dealt with it (if we are getting accurate quotes and details).

I go back to feeling that both sides of this could have dealt with it better.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, juliann said:

It was that way from the beginning. It's not getting more anything. It isn't anymore difficult to expose both breasts than it is to expose one, especially when that is the intent. Perhaps you ought to leave that to the women to discuss. 

I believe multiple women in that ward telling the same story over her inconsistent account. But maybe that's just me. 

As I said, I have no access to the story being told by multiple women in that ward. If someone is going topless in the foyer, I can see how that would be a problem. It was my wife who said the above about the logistics of getting topless at church, so I'll defer to her.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I go back to feeling that both sides of this could have dealt with it better.

Agreed. I've never seen anything like that in any of my wards, just crazy right-wing Uruguayans having fistfights with paraplegics in the foyer.