whistleblower on Church finances

[Meadowchik]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

From what you're saying here:

Her bishop wouldn't help her

Her stake president wouldn't help her

Her family wouldn't help her

Her friends wouldn't help her

 

If all these people wouldn't help her it sounds like there's more to the story than what she's saying publicly.

Her bishop wouldn't help her with her abusive husband, her stake president wouldn't help  her with her abusive bishop, her family and friends wouldn't help her with her SP and bishop, but referred her baclk to them.

The system itself discourages people from challenging their leaders.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's hard for members of the church to believe that a bishop, especially if they know him personally but have only had good experiences with him, would behave inappropriately with someone.  So, the stake president not helping could be a symptom of his belief in the bishop/church leadership and not something the woman had done.  Her family and friends not supporting her could be the same (if they are believing members).

Or, the sister might be one of those people that doesn't read situations correctly and always thinks everyone's out to get her and it's never her fault.  I don't think we have enough information to judge that one is more likely than the other.  

Yes, on both parts. I think there is cause to examine the situation. The systemic structure itself is a cause for concern. 

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

All of this is speculation, then.

Or she was taken seriously, but there isn't much to do with her grievance.  Whether the Church provided assistance for housing and transportation to her soon-to-be-ex is, in the end, not really her business.

In any event, this does not justify her efforts to publish and sensationalize a private matter pertaining to her divorce.

What does this mean?  

And again, this does not justify her sensationalism.

What "inappropriate behavior"?  Where are you getting this?

So what?  How is that newsworthy?  How is it any of our business?  How is it relevant to the Church?  How does that justify her sensationalism?

Sheer speculation, looks like.

She is trying to embarrass the Church (and/or her soon-to-be-ex) by sensationalizing a very mundane, and very private, thing (that it provided her soon-to-be-ex with some financial assistance in the past).

I find this sort of thing coercive, manipulative, and repellant.  She's airing her family's dirty laundry.  

-Smac

A lack of complete knowledge does not equal speculation. From my response to Calm and Amulek above:

Quote

 

This is in the link. Details are provided between the 10 to 20 minute marks: https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/297-womens-abuse-oppression-and-trauma-in-the-lds-patriarchy-understanding-and-healing-the-system-lesley-butterfield/

Paraphrasing and summarizing from the podcast linked above, she went to her bishop and described several instances of marital abuse to him. He told her to fulfil her responsibility and be a better partner. He also asked her to describe any sexual experiences she had had as a minor. She resisted that request. He also told her that if she submitted herself to him, he could fix her. In retrospect she was able to identify this as sexual harassment. The interview lasted two hours before she discomfort with his attitude compelled her to leave. 

She then sought support from her stake president. He told her that other women had complained about the same bishop, but that there is a “method to his madness.” She then went to her family and friends in the church to try to get alternative help, and no one she knew personally could or would help her and she was generally referred back to her local leaders.

 

 

[bluebell]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

The system itself discourages people from challenging their leaders.

The system is culturally set up so that people believe the leaders over the members, even when they have little or no evidence to make an educated judgment either way.  I don't think this is normally a problem but we do know leaders sometimes go off the rails, and it's then that we see the problems that we have to try to resolve after the fact.  

Sometimes we are really bad at mourning with those that mourn because we are more busy supporting those who lead, as if we have to choose one or the other.  And I'm including myself in that assessment.  I need to do better.  Leaders don't ask to lead, and they sacrifice a lot, but they also have a built in support system and are usually giving a benefit of the doubt that hurting members don't often have access to when there is a schism between the two.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Her bishop wouldn't help her with her abusive husband, her stake president wouldn't help  her with her abusive bishop, her family and friends wouldn't help her with her SP and bishop, but referred her baclk to them.

The system itself discourages people from challenging their leaders.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not inclined to uncritically accept this narrative.  I don't trust her to honestly and accurately represent the actions of others.  Given the facial implausibility of her claims (nobody helped her?  Bishop?  SP?  Family?  Friends?  Umm....), and given the incongruity of it with the teachings of the Church (helping members in need is the raison d'etre of the Church, and its bishops and stake presidents, and family and friends), and given her long-term and very clear antagonism (against both the Church and her husband), and given the self-serving nature of her efforts to sensationalize and publicize these things (she characterizes herself as hapless victim, and the Church and her ex (both of which she very clearly dislikes) as baddies), I am finding her credibility to be increasingly suspect.

She's sounding a bit like McKenna Denson, TBH (that is, someone who has been wronged, but then grossly exaggerates and publicly sensationalizes it to garner sympathy, attention, money, etc. for herself and simultaneously throw serious shade on the Church).

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The system is culturally set up so that people believe the leaders over the members, even when they have little or no evidence to make an educated judgment either way.  

Not really  "The system" is set up to keep disputes like this quiet.  So that they can be resolved with minimal fuss and acrimony.

Members are seldom called upon to choose between believing "leaders over the members" (which itself is not quite apt, since the leaders are members).  But here, Lesley Butterfield is forcing that choice.

Quote

I don't think this is normally a problem but we do know leaders sometimes go off the rails, and it's then that we see the problems that we have to try to resolve after the fact.  

Do we, though?  How often do we have the need "to resolve" such "problems"?  They usually aren't in our wheelhouse.  They aren't within our stewardship.

Take Lesley Butterfield, for example.  Her "problems" are not our business.  And now she's publicized and sensationalized them with a hugely self-serving (and, frankly, questionable) narrative that asks us to think the best of and sympathize with her, while simultaneously fomenting anger and judgment against her bishop, her stake president, her ex, the Church, etc.

I think there is little value, and potentially much harm, in people taking their private lives and difficulties and publishing and sensationalizing them, particularly when the purpose seems pretty darn apparent (sympathy/attention/money for her, hostility against her ex and the Church).

Quote

Sometimes we are really bad at mourning with those that mourn because we are more busy supporting those who lead, as if we have to choose one or the other.  

Well, Lesley Butterfield is peddling a narrative.  One that paints her in a sympathetic light, while simultaneously throwing her bishop, her stake president, the Church, her ex, her family, and her friends, under the bus.  She's the victim, and they are the victimizers.  She pretty clearly wants those listening to it to "choose one or the other."

Quote

And I'm including myself in that assessment.  I need to do better.  Leaders don't ask to lead, and they sacrifice a lot, but they also have a built in support system and are usually giving a benefit of the doubt that hurting members don't often have access to when there is a schism between the two.

Lesley Butterfield is creating the schism.  She's the one crafting and advancing an either/or narrative, and asking her audience to choose.

And, given her narrative, there's really only one "choice."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

nobody helped her?  Bishop?  SP?  Family?  Friends?  Umm....),

Assuming her story is accurate...which I don’t at this point, trying not to assume much of anything.

There were two stages.First stage was predivorce.  Help sought and response was to give help, but it was done the wrong way.

Rather than refusing to help, it was ineffective help.  Bishop’s ‘help’ was counseling her to stay with abusive husband, etc. SP’s ‘help’ was to recognize her discomfort, but support the bishop’s method. The rest supported the two leaders...thus no one helped her in an effective and non-harming, supportive way. 

Second stage was during divorce and this was no help offered save saying they would give her the area seventy’s number, but didn’t. 
 

It appears second stage is reasonable in that she has no legal right to the info and it is seen as confidential while the phone number could have easily been forgotten if she only asked once. 

Combined, it does not seem all that unlikely a situation when the “no help” is detailed. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Assuming her story is accurate...which I don’t at this point, trying not to assume much of anything.

There were two stages.First stage was predivorce.  Help sought and response was to give help, but it was done the wrong way.

Rather than refusing to help, it was ineffective help.  Bishop’s ‘help’ was counseling her to stay with abusive husband, etc. SP’s ‘help’ was to recognize her discomfort, but support the bishop’s method. The rest supported the two leaders...thus no one helped her in an effective and no harming way. 

Second stage was during divorce and this was no help offered save saying they would give her the area seventy’s number, but didn’t. 

It appears second stage is reasonable in that she has no legal right to the info and it is seen as confidential while the phone number could have easily been forgotten if she only asked once. 

Combined, it does not seem all that unlikely a situation when the “no help” is detailed. 

Hence her effort to induce the public to draw conclusions.  In her favor, and against her ex, the Church, her bishop, her SP, her family, her friends, etc.

There is no evidence of anything.  Just her implausible, sensationalized, one-sided, intending-to-be-sympathy-inducing, anger-against-the-Church-creating, throwing-everyone-but-herself-under-the-bus narrative. 

A narrative about incidents pertaining to a couple divorcing in Virginia, but being published by a news outlet in Utah at the apparent behest of Lesley Butterfield.

Incidents that really shouldn't have been published to the world.  

Incidents over which we have no control, or influence, or stewardship.  

Lesley Butterfield is increasingly coming across as a drama queen.  As a graduate of the McKenna Denson School of Self-Aggrandizement and Victimhood.

Dumping this narrative on the public helps whom?  With what?  How?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 10, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really  "The system" is set up to keep disputes like this quiet.  So that they can be resolved with minimal fuss and acrimony.

That is true.  But it does not mean what I said isn't.   I think both statements are true.

Quote

Members are seldom called upon to choose between believing "leaders over the members" (which itself is not quite apt, since the leaders are members).  But here, Lesley Butterfield is forcing that choice.

Butterfield doesn't have the power or ability to force anyone to do anything.  And I agree, members are seldom (if ever?) called up to choose between leaders and members (though the dichotomy isn't apt, it is a simple way to write this out and cut down on confusion).  That certainly doesn't stop us from doing it though, does it.  The latest subject of this thread is one of many many examples.

Quote

Do we, though?  How often do we have the need "to resolve" such "problems"?  They usually aren't in our wheelhouse.  They aren't within our stewardship.

When they come up, and when they begin to cause problems in a ward, I think we have a duty to help resolve that.

Quote

Take Lesley Butterfield, for example.  Her "problems" are not our business.

Unless we've covenanted to mourn with those that mourn, comfort those that stand in need of comfort, help the hands that hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.  Under those circumstances, her problems are our problems.

Quote

And now she's publicized and sensationalized them with a hugely self-serving (and, frankly, questionable) narrative that asks us to think the best of and sympathize with her, while simultaneously fomenting anger and judgment against her bishop, her stake president, her ex, the Church, etc.

She has no power to dictate what we think, feel, or foment, regardless of what she asks of us, so that seems irrelevant to me.   But yes, she probably is being self-serving, but she has no power to hurt us so we risk nothing by showing charity.

Quote

I think there is little value, and potentially much harm, in people taking their private lives and difficulties and publishing and sensationalizing them, particularly when the purpose seems pretty darn apparent (sympathy/attention/money for her, hostility against her ex and the Church).

I can understand that perspective.  Hurt people often hurt others and it can cause harm.  I wonder though, if these hurt people felt more supported in their grievances if there would be less 'publishing and sensationalizing"?  Not in every instance, I'm sure, but probably in some.

Quote

Well, Lesley Butterfield is peddling a narrative.  One that paints her in a sympathetic light, while simultaneously throwing her bishop, her stake president, the Church, her ex, her family, and her friends, under the bus.  She's the victim, and they are the victimizers.  She pretty clearly wants those listening to it to "choose one or the other."

Again her wants are irrelevant.  I'm unsure why you keep bringing them up. 

Quote

Lesley Butterfield is creating the schism.  She's the one crafting and advancing an either/or narrative, and asking her audience to choose.

It sounds like the schism existed long before this narrative was given to an audience.  

Quote

 

And, given her narrative, there's really only one "choice."  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'm guessing this last sentence is hyperbole for affect?  I'm sure you understand that her narrative doesn't fore anyone's hand or remove our choices.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is in the link. Details are provided between the 10 to 20 minute marks: https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/297-womens-abuse-oppression-and-trauma-in-the-lds-patriarchy-understanding-and-healing-the-system-lesley-butterfield/

Thanks. I was able to find it and listen to the relevant parts. I actually listened to the entire podcast, and below is my transcript of every instance where she mentions anything having to do with the bishop who allegedly abused her.

Now maybe this is just the patriarchy in me talking, but I'm not really seeing anything specific that I would honestly consider to be ecclesiastical abuse. I'm not sure what sort of missteps the bishop may have made during their (what was it?) 2-hour long conversation, but she claims that the bishop sexually harassed her; yet, the closest thing she says which comes even remotely close to supporting that is to say that he asked about her sexual activity as a teenager. And that, ultimately, she felt so uncomfortable that she left.

So there are a bunch of allegations, but not a whole lot of evidence to go by; not even much in the way of one-sided evidence, which she should be perfectly capable of providing. 

 

Quote

10m05s

Lesley Butterfield [LB]: I, um, went to my bishop and I was experiencing a problem in my personal life. And I went to him and described several instances of abuse, really, that that I was suffering. And he, didn’t pick up on it, and it’s hard because, oftentimes, as an abuse survivor we are the last ones to realize that we are in an abusive cycle, and that’s how abuse thrives really, and that’s how it keeps getting perpetuated is that there is a cycle and it’s so unrecognizable and you get so get caught up in it, but my bishop did not realize what was happening, and even though some of the things that I described were very obvious now that – you know – that there was abuse going on. My bishop told me that I needed to fulfill my responsibility as a woman in the church and just simply be a better partner. And that was so problematic for me.

He also proceeded to tell me that he could fix me. If I submitted myself to him – that he could fix, like, what was inherently wrong with me. And he kind of went on about how he had this special way with women, and he was raised by a single mother, and so that’s given him this, like, special insight as my judge in Israel and as a representative of Jesus Christ he had this authority to fix me. And, um, I actually ended up just walking out of his office finally when things became so uncomfortable for me.

But I didn’t have the words really to put into describing what had happened. I still had that lens of ‘well this is my bishop, like, he’s not gonna to hurt me; I mean, he speaks for God; this is really disturbing, and I’m really confused about what he’s saying.’

Now, that it’s been – time has passed – since that has happened, I do have words for it. What he did, that’s sexual harassment, that is ecclesiastical abuse, that is spiritual abuse, that is spiritual coercion, it’s wrong on so many levels. And although I was deeply disturbed, I did not have the language to accurately describe to anybody what had happened.

I tried. I went to my stake president. I told him of the situation. And he really said, well, you know – the bishop – we’ve gotten other complaints actually about this bishop from other women, but there’s a method to his madness. And I remember that phrase, ‘there’s a method to his madness.’ I felt like I was going mad. Like at that point, I felt like I was the crazy one. Because I’m just being told to suffer with this abuse. You know, but of course I don’t view it that way at the time.

 

Quote

14m03s

Q: He spent two hours telling you that everything would be fine if you surrendered yourself to him.

LB: Yes.

Q: Okay, spiritually? Sexually? What? Emotionally?

LB: I didn’t really delve into that. It was my, so, in that same interview he also asked me my experiences – my sexual experiences. And he specifically wanted to know my sexual experiences as a minor. So, things that I had done when I was a teenager. And…

Q: Did you tell him?

LB: No. I pushed back a little bit. I pushed back and I said that has nothing to do with why I’m here. That is…we’re not talking about that. You have to remember that I, yes I was an adult, but I’m still so naïve. I mean I, this man wants to know what I’ve done sexually, and I was just like – okay this is off the beaten path but, it’s kind of strange…you know. You don’t view it through the lens that it’s so inherently wrong, and, like, it’s sexual harassment. You don’t view it through that lens. Because I just went to my bishop who I thought would be a safe person who would help me guide me spiritually, and help me find safety and peace in my life with – with the things I was dealing with.

At 18m47s she mentions that she is “public” with her story about the bishop, without providing any other details about the story / interview / whatever. Maybe she has shared more elsewhere?

Oh, and then there is a bit of an irony alert at 23m52s where she recounts what happened after making a comment in RS about women being ordained to the priesthood: “Wouldn’t you know I, I got pulled into the bishop’s office a couple of weeks after that. And he told me, same bishop by the way, but he told me, 'you know, when you say comments like that, women circle the wagons.' And it was like, he – he knew – like he had this insight into knowing exactly how women would respond to a more progressive woman.” 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Amulek

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

According to this, the bishop did more than wouldn’t help her. He pushed her to stay in an abusive relationship, implied it was at least partly her fault for not fulfilling her responsibilities as a partner, then inappropriately pushed her to tell him about her earlier sexual experiences (if this happened, I assume the rationale was she had sexual hangups that were damaging the marriage).  This isn’t not helping, it is harming

I don't think fair to characterize the bishop as pushing her to stay in an abusive relationship. When I listen to her tell the story, she says she went to the bishop about a personal problem and that she shared several examples of what she now considers / recognizes to be abuse. She doesn't provide details about any of the examples - she only says that the bishop didn't pick up on it and that she didn't recognize it at the time either. 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, on both parts. I think there is cause to examine the situation. The systemic structure itself is a cause for concern. 

By adding another layer that might also not be as helpful as someone would like?

[The Nehor]

“Help! My Bishop is not a trained therapist!”

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Just her implausible,

Why is it implausible that she has a bishop who is awkward in his attempts to help or is asking questions about her sex history given these is a good chance part of the issues between her husband and her was expressed in their sexual relationship?

I am not saying it is a given, but it is hardly an unknown for a bishop to give bad marital advice or for a stake president to back up one of his bishops by being dismissive about concerns. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

She doesn't provide details about any of the examples - she only says that the bishop didn't pick up on it and that she didn't recognize it at the time either. 

There is a good chance she is rewriting (as we all do, that is how memory works) the experience. If the issue is the bishop couldn’t read between the lines to figure out what was bothering her and she did the same thing as she didn’t figure out what wasn’t working in the communication as well, saying it was abusive seems likely to be an overstatement for at least much of it.  

If she didn’t realize it was abuse, it is strange she is demanding the bishop——who only had her descriptions and interpretations at that time to work with——to be able to recognize what she couldn’t.

“Abuse” gets applied too widely these days, imo.  Without specific examples impossible to judge if she is overstating or not her husband’s behaviour. 
 

Depending on how he asked about her sexual history (if he did), that could be abusive or just clumsy, even if inappropriate.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Why is it implausible that she has a bishop who is awkward in his attempts to help or is asking questions about her sex history given these is a good chance part of the issues between her husband and her was expressed in their sexual relationship?

Three reasons.  First, all we have is her say-so, regarding a matter which the bishop has not - and cannot - speak publicly.  She knows she's at liberty to say anything she wants (which, therefore, could include distortions, embellishments, even outright lies), since she has essentially no chance of being contradicted.

Second, I find this description implausible.  Her bishop refuses to help her, and instead asks her questions about her sex life during her teen years.  Her stake president refuses to help her.  Her family refuses to help her.  Her friends refuse to help her.

Her description ticks about just every box on the what-can-I-say-to-sensationalize-this-private-matter-and-drum-up-sympathy-for-myself-while-also-making-everyone-else-look-as-horrible-as-possible checklist.

Third, I grant bishops a presumption of innocence, particularly in situations where someone goes online to kvetch about them (as she has done here).

Quote

I am not saying it is a given, but it is hardly an unknown for a bishop to give bad marital advice or for a stake president to back up one of his bishops by being dismissive about concerns. 

It's also hardly an unknown for someone looking for attention, sympathy, money, etc. to try to gin up antipathy against the Church by making its local leaders look as horrible as possible.  And since they do so knowing their say-so cannot be contradicted by the targets of such invective, the likelihood of deception or exaggeration or distortion increases.

She has painted everyone but herself as a mustache-twirling villain.  Her ex.  Her bishop.  Her stake president.  Her family.  Her friends.  Everyone has failed her.  Everyone has gone against the normative behaviors we would expect to see (that is, these people should be falling over themselves offering assistance to a mother of four (one of which is a special needs child) going through an acrimonious divorce).

How plausible is that, really?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 10, 2020 by smac97

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

The system is culturally set up so that people believe the leaders over the members, even when they have little or no evidence to make an educated judgment either way.

One of the great things about the church is that our congregations tend to be small enough for people to get to know each other fairly well, especially over time (assuming ward boundaries remain stable).

And the people who get called into leadership positions tend to be those that are known to be active, faithful members - people you have known for years as being honest, decent folks. And what imperfections you have seen in them over the years aren't anything out of the ordinary or anything that you would be really concerned about.

So, when an incident arises between a leader and another member, I don't know it's the fact that we are culturally conditioned to trust the leader-qua-leader; it's more that we have had nothing but good experiences with the individual who happens to be serving as the leader and, based on our previous experience(s) with him/her, we are willing to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Amulek

[Amulek]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is a good chance she is rewriting (as we all do, that is how memory works) the experience. If the issue is the bishop couldn’t read between the lines to figure out what was bothering her and she did the same thing as she didn’t figure out what wasn’t working in the communication as well, saying it was abusive seems likely to be an overstatement for at least much of it.  

If she didn’t realize it was abuse, it is strange she is demanding the bishop——who only had her descriptions and interpretations at that time to work with——to be able to recognize what she couldn’t.

“Abuse” gets applied too widely these days, imo.  Without specific examples impossible to judge if she is overstating or not her husband’s behaviour. 

I tend to agree. The only thing I can say with certainty is that she currently believes her husband was abusive during their marriage.

As to what that may have been, however, we have no way of knowing, as she has yet to provide a single example. Perhaps that is because her divorce is still ongoing though? 

 

Quote

Depending on how he asked about her sexual history (if he did), that could be abusive or just clumsy, even if inappropriate.

And depending on the conversation and what was being discussed, it might not have been irrelevant - even if considered inappropriate / unwanted. 

Lots of people go to the bishop to talk about their problems, and things like sexual intimacy, lack of appreciation, disputes over finances, etc. are all pretty common issues for couples. 

And, while it would be nice if all bishops were Harvard educated psychiatrists like one I had back in Seattle years ago, you're just as likely to get a doctor, a lawyer, accountant, or (heaven forefend) software developer instead. So any advice they may give, albeit with good intentions, may or may not be exactly what you need to hear.

And, while I think bishops shouldn't go off the rails or anything like that, I also think they should be afforded a bit of leniency when it comes to them trying their best to help when someone decides to bring something - especially something serious - to them. 

However, with the changes we are seeing in the organizational structure of the church, there isn't really a need to go to the bishop for much of anything now. In fact, we just had our 5th Sunday lesson on how, unless you need to talk to the bishop about a sin that would require his keys as a judge in Israel, your first line of defense for support and counseling should be the RS / EQ President. They have been given the keys necessary to provide that kind of ministering for the adults in the ward - allowing the bishop focuses his efforts on the youth. And even with the youth, young women in the ward should feel free to go council with the YW president in lieu of the bishop whenever the bishop's keys aren't required.

It makes me sad to see women like Sis. Butterfield become so disenfranchised with the church because of these issues - even as we are in the midst of seeing some of these very things change right before our eyes. 

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

One of the great things about the church is that our congregations tend to be small enough for people to get to know each other fairly well, especially over time (assuming ward boundaries remain stable).

And the people who get called into leadership positions tend to be those that are known to be active, faithful members - people you have known for years as being honest, decent folks. And what imperfections you have seen in them over the years aren't anything out of the ordinary or anything that you would be really concerned about.

So, when an incident arises between a leader and another member, I don't know it's the fact that we are culturally conditioned to trust the leader-qua-leader; it's more that we have had nothing but good experiences with the individual who happens to be serving as the leader and, based on our previous experience(s) with him/her, we are willing to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. 

 

This is true (though we can't forget that this has also been said by members about bishops and stake presidents who have been convicted of crimes), but it's also true for leaders that we don't even know.  Take the threads that we discuss on here, for example.  Typically, active members side with the bishops in these stories, even without knowing them or the members who feel slighted.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Okay. Would you like to help me understand you?

Sure. I'll begin by sharing two experiences that I've previously shared on this forum, each more than once.

One of them involves a protracted disagreement I had with a previous stake president:

Quote

I've shared this anecdote on this forum before, but perhaps it bears repeating. Eight years ago, I was called in by my stake president, who proposed a significant change that directly involved me. My initial reaction, which I shared with him somewhat passionately, was that his proposal was wrong, but because I believe in the privilege of seeking and obtaining revelation, I told him that I would spend the next week engaged in study, fasting and prayer regarding this matter.

We met again the following Sunday. I remained unconvinced. He remained committed to the proposed change as originally outlined. Impasse. I mentioned that I would be taking the Young Men in our ward to the temple on the upcoming Saturday and would again seek guidance. He encouraged me to do so and then set up an appointment for me to return and discuss.

I was prayerful as we took the long journey to the temple Friday evening and again the next morning, but as soon as we were in the baptistery, I found myself engaged in and focussed on the work. At one point, in the midst of baptising one of the boys, however, the recorder ran out of names, and we had about a five-minute pause till more arrived. This young man and I just stood in the warm comfort of the font, and as we waited, I received a very clear impression: the stake president's proposal will result in this boy in the font with you being lost.

I felt a bit dizzy from the experience, but it made me even more determined. The following morning, I was back in the stake president's office. I shared with him my experience, which he respected, and then I suggested to him a 'compromise' proposal that had come to me as we'd travelled back from the temple the previous day. He then explained to me, at length, how practically unworkable my proposal was. He suggested we meet again in a fortnight and that we both use that time to continue seeking guidance. I readily agreed.

I did a seminary run each morning then, and I would use the 50-minute wait in the car to read my scriptures. Three days before I was due to meet with my stake president again, I read a verse in 3 Nephi that absolutely overwhelmed me. I read it again and again. This, I said to myself, was the answer: a ringing endorsement of the proposal I had made. I there and then determined that I would share it with my stake president when we met.

The meeting came, and after I had prayed, the stake president thanked me for giving him such a good opportunity to seek for and obtain revelation. He said that the answer he had received only days earlier had been clear and unmistakable. He then asked me to open my Book of Mormon to 3 Nephi ... and the very same verse that I had read the previous Thursday. Beautiful! We read the verse together, and he endorsed my proposal.

My bishop, aware of the wrestling that we two were having (not with each other but with the Lord), had asked me to come to his home after I met with the stake president. I did so, happy that all was resolved. When I arrived, and before I could tell him what had happened, he told me that he'd been led a verse in the Book of Mormon that he felt I should share with the stake president. It was, of course, the exact same one we had read out together earlier that morning. I then explained what had happened and that the way forward was now clear to all involved.

This is how perfect unity in the Church is achieved.

I like this example because it shows how God can get the exact same message through to three different people, and when He does so, disagreements simply melt away. I also like this example because it illustrates the importance of leaders seeking revelation and not just assuming they're always right. In this case, the Lord needed to correct the stake president, and when He did, the stake president accepted it and acted on it. In fact, he thanked me for disagreeing with him in such a way that it encouraged him to seek for independent revelation. My 'good faith' dissension ended up blessing all of us -- including the young man who had been in the font with me. He now serves as our ward mission leader and recently finished his own full-time mission.

Another experience I've shared before comes from my involvement in a disciplinary council:

Quote

I've shared on this forum before the deliberations we engaged in as a bishopric one evening as part of a disciplinary council. The 'consensus' was two against one, I being the odd man out. We prayed. We discussed again. I shared my concerns, at length. We prayed again. On and on it went. Our bishop made it clear that we wouldn't act until all three of us were in perfect agreement. The next step was to ask me to pray. I happily agreed.

In my prayer, I clearly delineated all of my concerns to God and then explained how I felt. When I had exhausted all of this verbally (and it was a long prayer!), I paused, and in the silence, I heard a voice call me by name and then tell me clearly that my concerns were correct, followed by this question: 'But how many times have I taken you back when you weren't ready, just because you wanted it?'

I then 'saw' a quick succession of times when that very thing had occurred, and a wave of peace filled me from head to toe. Perfect unanimity! No compromise. No robots programmed to have the same opinions. Just revelation, clear and welcomed.

Imagine what would have happened instead if I'd just taken the easy route of agreeing to support a decision I didn't really share? As it turned out, all my concerns have proved correct. All of them. But I'm still completely at peace because the God of Heaven told me what He wanted me to do even though I wasn't wrong. It's a beautiful, blessed, merciful system!

I like this example in large part because it shows God's willingness and capacity to reveal His will to me -- and in the process to correct me. I'm an innately stubborn and opinionated man. I don't believe in going along to get along, and when I think others are wrong, I tell them. On the night in question, we bishopric members sat in council for hours. Both the bishop and the other counsellor tried to talk me into agreeing with them ... not through pressure but just through reason and argument. No go. In fact, I thought they were crazy for not agreeing with me. There was nothing another human being, male or female, could have said to me that night to convince me otherwise.

But revelation is completely different to human explanation, persuasion and counselling ... though these are frequently its prerequisites. God in His wisdom knew just what to say to cut through my opposition. In just a few words, He reminded me that I had been the supplicant many times before -- something my bishopric companions couldn't have known with any specificity -- and He had the capacity to show me snippets of my past supplications -- again, something my bishopric companions had no capacity to do. He also simultaneously validated my concerns and filled me with utter peace despite them. Without revelation, we would have gone our separate ways that night without any kind of unity or consensus. With revelation, we were brought into perfect unity and given an unambiguous course of action.

And since both of these examples involve men at odds with each other, and I know you won't entirely like that, I'm happy to share a personal experience involving my parents and me:

As a nineteen year old, I had zero desire to serve a mission. I told people that I would someday, but that was just to deflect any further questioning. The bishop in my ward at the university called me in right before Christmas and asked me about my mission plans. I was a bit more honest with him, and he got me to promise that I would discuss the matter with my parents whilst home during the upcoming holiday. I did so, and much to my satisfaction, my parents asked me not to consider a mission for another year or two. Perfect! I went back to uni and let my bishop know that I wanted to honour my parents' wishes, and he concurred. Problem solved.

About two months later, however, God sent me a message during the night and told me He needed me to prepare to serve straightaway. At first I didn't believe it was from God, and I tried to dismiss it, but I couldn't, so I started the process of wrestling and seeking confirmation. Days and many hours of prayer later, I thought I was ready to discuss the matter with my parents, but I wasn't actually. I tried ringing them, but I hung up before they could answer. I was worried that they would wonder why I was asking for their support for a course of action they had specifically asked me not to take. I was worried that I might seem ungrateful or insulting in some way. So I waited one more night.

The next night I did the same thing: rang and hung up before anyone could answer. Then I went to my bedroom to pray and ask God for courage if I was indeed doing the right thing. I came back out, picked up the phone, and dialled the number. My mum answered on the first ring. This was odd because my mum never answered the phone; that was my dad's job. She recognised me immediately, and I jumped straight in to my purpose in order to avoid backing down: 'There's something I want to discuss with you and Dad'.

'Is it about serving a mission?'

'Yes'. Pause. 'How did you know that?'

'Your father and I are still on our knees from our evening prayers. As we prayed together, God told me that He needs you to prepare to serve a mission straightaway. After our prayer, I said to your dad, "Hamba needs to serve a mission now". Your dad said, "Did you get that message tonight too? Because God plainly told me the same thing".

'I asked him how we could do it since we have no money to give you. He said, "I don't know, but if it is God's will, He will provide the way". So we are prepared to support you if you if that's what you wanted to discuss'.

I was speechless. The message that I had received had been shared with two other people. None of the three of us had wanted or asked for this message, but we all got it. All my worries about offending my parents were gone. God had made sure that they were on the same page before I could even discuss it with them. Perfect unity created by three separate acts of revelation to three separate people, all with the exact same message.

So I met with my bishop, told him simply that we had 'changed our minds' (!), and submitted my mission application before the term was out.

There's more to this experience than what I've shared here, but that will suffice. It's enough to add that God included a detail in His original message to me that was virtually impossible and seriously weird, but it all came to pass as I served my mission. When it did, it was final validation that this had all been God's will.

I like this experience because it shows three people being corrected, no counselling of any kind involved. And of course, it resulted in perfect unanimity. It also all worked. My parents' combined incomes at that point were US$24,000 per annum, and my mission assignment in America required them to send me half of that (US$500/month). To this day, I can't make that add up, but somehow it worked.

Quote

So what would a person be able to do if their local leaders do not help them when they are experiencing marital ... abuse?

Where I live, we have a number of government-supported agencies that deal with domestic violence of all kinds. One could speak to them. Or to the police.

Quote

So what would a person be able to do if their local leaders do not help them when they are experiencing ... ecclesiastical abuse?

Speak to her Relief Society president. As noted above, contact the Area office. Report the bishop to local authorities. Without knowing the situation, I can't give a specific answer, but there are numerous avenues open to someone who is genuinely being abused, including legal ones.

Now, let me share one more experience as context for my responses:

A couple of years ago, a sister in one of our wards told her bishop that a recently baptised man had committed sexual assault against her. The bishop, horrified, immediately reported this to the police, encouraged the woman and her husband to completely cooperate with the police, promised support and counselling, and notified the ward council of the accusation so that the man in question could be watched and other members could be protected. He also released the accused from his calling. The police engaged in a thorough investigation, and their conclusion was that the assault never occurred.

This angered the woman in question, and she demanded that the bishop do something to bring her justice. She needed this man to be punished. She insisted he be excommunicated. During the investigation, the bishop had also met with this man, had asked him about the accusation, and had encouraged him to cooperate fully with the authorities. He also promised him pastoral care if he were sentenced to a gaol term. After this member had been exonerated, the bishop called him in again and questioned if the police report were accurate. In the privilege of ecclesiastical confidence, this man verified that he was innocent of the accusation.

The bishop therefore told the aggrieved sister that there would be no disciplinary council since there was no evidence of wrongdoing. This outraged her. She appealed this decision to the stake presidency. The stake presidency thoroughly investigated the matter, prayerfully sought guidance, consulted with the stake Relief Society presidency, and reached the conclusion that there were no grounds for a disciplinary council.

Further enraged, this woman asked for access to an Area Seventy. The stake presidency helped make this happen, and the outcome was identical.

In the end, the woman stopped attending Church. She had been wronged, and someone needed to pay the price. She expanded her circle of anger from the alleged attacker to her bishopric, then to the stake presidency, and then to the entire Church organisation. It was, she insisted, 'ecclesiastical abuse'. It was 'patriarchy' at its worse. The Church is an 'old boys' organisation that protects men who abuse women.

She screamed this to every member who tried to support her until she lost the support of her ward. Eventually, this took a toll on her husband, then serving as a member of the stake high council, and he stopped attending as well. Shortly after, they moved from our city. Months later, the husband let us know that they were divorcing.

To this day, I'm thoroughly perplexed by this matter. A seven-month police investigation, including the collection and analysis of forensic evidence, concluded that this woman was not telling the truth. What am I supposed to make of that? I honestly don't know. All I know is that her attempts to use the Church to punish someone whom the police concluded is an innocent man were wrong, and they eventually took her straight out of the Church and then out of her marriage. In some cases, there is only so much Church leaders can do with an aggrieved member. In this case, I know how much our local leaders did do because I was called to serve in the stake presidency near the end of this mess. I know for a fact that neither this woman nor her husband would answer the phone or respond to texts or emails from the stake presidency. I also know that she told anyone who would listen that the stake presidency didn't care about her and wouldn't even talk to her or meet with her.

This made me indignant. After all, I was one of those trying multiple times a week to get through to her. I wanted desperately to 'correct the record' and tell people that she had made herself uncontactable, but that's not what we do in the Church. We just smile and wear the abuse and lies because we believe in protecting the privacy of our members. In retrospect, I'm just glad she didn't decide to turn this whole sordid affair into a media spectacle. It could have been so much worse. I suspect the existence of a police report thoroughly contradicting the most important part of her story might have mitigated against that.

Everything we take in is unavoidably filtered through our own personal experiences. These are some of mine.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is true (though we can't forget that this has also been said by members about bishops and stake presidents who have been convicted of crimes), but it's also true for leaders that we don't even know.  Take the threads that we discuss on here, for example.  Typically, active members side with the bishops in these stories, even without knowing them or the members who feel slighted.  

I see what you mean. I guess I still kind of think of that more as being a type of stereotyping though, rather than an actual cultural thing per se.

We are simply extrapolating our beliefs about a certain individual based on his membership in a relatively known population: the set of all LDS bishops. With the church operating substantively the same across geographic boundaries, it's reasonable to believe that, on average, bishops in Oregon are likely to be just as faithful and trustworthy as bishops in Vermont. So, when you hear a story about a bishop in another state having allegedly done something pretty bad, you're likely to give him the benefit of the doubt based on what you know about bishops in general. 

 

[Nofear]

I don't know if this was linked earlier in the week. In case not, the Salt Lake Tribunes podcast has Michael Quinn weighing. This link is the spotify version, but it's in a few places.
https://open.spotify.com/show/45611F1TBuDE8X0lUaSFDY

 

[smac97]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is true (though we can't forget that this has also been said by members about bishops and stake presidents who have been convicted of crimes), but it's also true for leaders that we don't even know.  Take the threads that we discuss on here, for example.  Typically, active members side with the bishops in these stories, even without knowing them or the members who feel slighted.  

Let's say we become aware of a story in which a person we don't know and have never met ("Person X") goes online and makes unsubstantiated accusations of serious misconduct against another person we don't know and have never met ("Person Y").

What should we do with this?  My approach is this: Without more than Person X's say-so, I will not uncritically accept accusations of serious misconduct against Person Y.  

Not because Person X is necessarily lying, but because Person Y deserves the benefit of the doubt.  The presumption of innocence.  

This approach is derived from the Golden Rule.  If I were Person Y, I would be disturbed that PersonX's unsubstantiated accusations against me have been accepted at face value, with no evidence, and with no effort or opportunity to get my side of the story.

That said, I don't think giving Person Y the benefit of the doubt (a presumption of innocence) is "siding" with Person Y.  It's just a refusal to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 10, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

On 12/27/2019 at 10:41 PM, smac97 said:

Quote

{Analytics}

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredits charities that meet its standards of being prudently and wisely administered. The idea is that if you want to donate some money to help homeless dogs, your money will likely make more of an impact if you give to a homeless dog charity that meets its accreditation standards than to one that does not.

http://www.give.org/for-charities/How-We-Accredit-Charities/

The LDS Church doesn't meet many of these standards because its rainy day fund is too big and because it saves too much--at this point, donating to the LDS Church doesn't do much to give the church the resources it needs to preach the gospel, perfect the saints, or redeem the dead.

Smac:

Meh.  I'm persuaded that neither you nor the BBB is situated to competently adjudicate the proper size of a "rainy day fund" for the Church. 

I'm quoting the above previous exchange between me and Analytics in order to contrast it with the perspective offered by D. Michael Quinn during an interview posted on Wednesday.  See here:

Quote

D. Michael Quinn has done an interview with the Trib on this issue: Church has $100B in reserve, but one historian says its global expenses are steep | Episode 114
...
Quinn spends the first few minutes reviewing the Church's prior history of financial problems, the efforts by leaders like J. Reuben Clark to stabilize the Church's finance's and create a "reserve fund," etc., and the results we see today of those ongoing efforts.

A money quote (starting at about 3:55): "This reserve fund, in my view, is conservative.  And I know 100 billion is a huge amount of money, but maybe as we can discuss later, I think it terms of the Church's worldwide expenditures, and its commitments to congregations, not only throughout the United States, but throughout the world, that 100 billion, if there were another Great Depression, worse than the Great Recession that we experienced at the beginning of, the first years of this century, if something like that occurred again, that 100 billion wouldn't last for more than a few years."

So where Analytics faulted the Church "because its rainy day fund is too big and because it saves too much," Quinn's assessment it that the Church's fund "is conservative" and "wouldn't last for more than a few years {in a major economic downturn}."

Which of these perspectives is more informed, reasonable, and likely to be accurate?  We report, you decide!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 10, 2020 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm quoting the above previous exchange between myself and Analytics. ...

Should be “between me and Analytics” or “between Analytics and me.” 
 

“Me” is an object pronoun. “Myself” is a reflexive pronoun and should only be used as such.