whistleblower on Church finances

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have observed women in the Church making women's decisions as women, and I have witnessed men in the Church making men's decisions as men. In both cases, things run fair to poor. I have also -- and much more frequently -- witnessed men and women in the Church making inspired decisions via revelation. In this case, miracles happen. I much prefer this option, which is not dependent on sex.

I'd say that adherence to excellent principles (what imo is another way of describing the concept of revelation) does indeed help create truly wonderful solutions. So in a way, I do agree with that part. However, I think such a process can be even more informed when those partaking in it have varying perspectives, and even when inspiration is lacking, that variability can help.

That said, I don't think the gospel teaches that revelation means we leave all our personal characteristics behind, I think it teaches that gender is eternal, and that the Holy Ghost works through us, making men inspired men and women inspired women, for example.

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not in the temple. I can't speak for all temple presidents, but I know that if ours were contacted by a member without a recommend, he would probably go out of his way to make a meeting happen.

But then, it's been my experience that nearly all Church leaders will go out of their ways to meet with a member who is genuinely concerned about fixing a problem in contrast to attacking another person.

Do you not mean "attacking the church" in this case?

What must a person do when their leaders do not "go out of their ways to meet with a member who is genuinely concerned about fixing a problem?"

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'd say that adherence to excellent principles (what imo is another way of describing the concept of revelation) does indeed help create truly wonderful solutions.

You and I have completely different definitions of revelation, leading us to two very different conclusions.

Quote

Do you not mean "attacking the church" in this case?

No, that is not what I mean.

Quote

What must a person do when their leaders do not "go out of their ways to meet with a member who is genuinely concerned about fixing a problem?"

Create a media circus, of course! Or stage a public protest. You know, all those things that don't hurt people.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You and I have completely different definitions of revelation, leading us to two very different conclusions.

Do you know of any gospel teachings that say that revelation though women is not through "women as women" or that revelation through men is not through "men as men?" In other words, what makes you think revelation is neutral like that?

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Create a media circus, of course! Or stage a public protest. You know, all those things that don't hurt people.

Do you have a serious answer to the question, "What must a person do when their leaders do not "go out of their ways to meet with a member who is genuinely concerned about fixing a problem?"

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In other words, what makes you think revelation is neutral like that?

Large amounts of personal experience, beginning in my home. Revelation to each individually was the thing that united my parents in perfect harmony. I've seen that pattern replicated thousands of times. Having twice served in the bishopric of my ward, I can assure you that revelation is the only thing that united the disparate men in those respective bishoprics too. And I was usually the one questioning and disagreeing.

Quote

Do you have a serious answer to the question, "What must a person do when their leaders do not "go out of their ways to meet with a member who is genuinely concerned about fixing a problem?"

That was my serious answer. I have literally never seen a Church leader not go out of her or his way to meet with a sincere member who's not hell-bent on destroying another person or other people.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It is something Lesley Butterfield has addressed publicly, in a podcast with Gina Colvin. 

What was the abuse in her case in her view?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

SMAC, there is nothing wrong with talking out loud.

I'm okay with that.  But your idea doesn't seem to be holding up well.  And sidestepping substantive questions doesn't help.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's actually a very effective way for many people to engage serious issues and generate solutions.

Are you familiar with "Chesterton's Fence"?

Perhaps before we talk about generating solutions, we should identify the problem.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That applies to this news story as well, and to church finances. Whatever principles of integrity you hold onto, don't you think they will prove themselves in the light of day?

I don't understand the question.  What "principles of integrity" are in question?  And whose?

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think they will. I see very little benefit in insisting on only private, discrete address of conflict.

I'm not insisting on that.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

When stories of a potentially scandalalous nature come to light, they cannot be accepted at face value, but neither does it serve humanity for gatekeepers to stifle them at the outset as you seem to want to do.

Not really.  I often perpetuate discussion of difficult, "potentially scandalous" issues on this board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Large amounts of personal experience, beginning in my home. Revelation to each individually was the thing that united my parents in perfect harmony. I've seen that pattern replicated thousands of times. Having twice served in the bishopric of my ward, I can assure you that revelation is the only thing that united the disparate men in those respective bishoprics too. And I was usually the one questioning and disagreeing.

Harmony is about synthesis, not singing the same song.

24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Having twice served in the bishopric of my ward, I can assure you that revelation is the only thing that united the disparate men in those respective bishoprics too. And I was usually the one questioning and disagreeing.

Uniting men only hardly furthers the point.

 

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That was my serious answer. I have literally never seen a Church leader not go out of her or his way to meet with a sincere member who's not hell-bent on destroying another person or other people.

That's not an answer. Sounds like you are claiming the premise cannot exist. And I'm not sure why you use the phrase "hell-bent on destroying another person or other people." Are you saying that the wife in the divorce story is "hell-bent on destroying another person or other people?"

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Harmony is about synthesis, not singing the same song.

You couldn't have made it any clearer that you have absolutely no idea what I mean when I discuss revelation as a principle.

Quote

And I'm not sure why you use the phrase "hell-bent on destroying another person or other people." Are you saying that the wife in the divorce story is "hell-bent on destroying another person or other people?"

I haven't read the story, so I have no idea. I'm trying to explain the only real-life scenarios I'm aware of where Church leaders became wary of meeting with members who had issues.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You couldn't have made it any clearer that you have absolutely no idea what I mean when I discuss revelation as a principle.

Okay. Would you like to help me understand you? I understand spiritual harmony, I've also seen it play out thousands of times in my life. I see my parents and other couples demonstrate it beautifully and I've experienced it in my own marriage and in the church.  I think you are being a bit dismissive of what I might understand.

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I haven't read the story, so I have no idea. I'm trying to explain the only real-life scenarios I'm aware of where Church leaders became wary of meeting with members who had issues.

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

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you have a serious answer to the question, "What must a person do when their leaders do not "go out of their ways to meet with a member who is genuinely concerned about fixing a problem?"

A few thoughts:

First, I agree with Hamba ("I have literally never seen a Church leader not go out of her or his way to meet with a sincere member who's not hell-bent on destroying another person or other people").  Bishops meet with people all the time.  So do stake presidents.  And area seventies.  And Seventies.  And Apostles.  These men spend huge amounts of time traveling and meeting and talking with members of the Church (and disaffected members, and former members, and non-members, etc.).

Second, good faith matters.  A lot.  A lot.  Hence my criticism of in-your-face pressure tactics such as we regularly see from people like Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and more recently, Lesley Butterfield.  These folks aren't acting in good faith. 

Third, the time, place and manner in which we voice concerns and questions matter.  A lot.  Basic decorum and civility are often lacking from self-appointed agitators.  So publicly disparaging the leaders of the Church (as I have seen elsewhere) is not the way to go.  Issuing public ultimatums and demands to the leaders of the Church is not the way to go.  Disobedience to the commandments (and/or encouraging others to do so) is not the way to go.  Setting one's self up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to the leaders of the Church is not the way to go.  Reflexively spouting off in anger (and mostly ignorance) is not the way to go.  Persuading others to do these things is not the way to go.

Fourth, Chesterton's Fence keeps coming to mind.  You seem to want to tear it down, without giving sufficient consideration to why it was built in the first place.  Attributing it to endemic misogyny just won't do.

Fifth, the exercise of priesthood authority seems quite relevant here.  You seem to be denying that you are calling for female ordination, but most of what you are calling for seems to require it.

Sixth, so far I have seen no effort by you to position your proposals within the framework fo the Restored Gospel.  That is, where do your ideas fit in with revealed principles pertaining to church governance and administration?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

Has there been any evidence whatsoever of ecclesiastical abuse at all in this case? Or is that just a hypothetical you are using as the basis to help understand her behavior?

It is something Lesley Butterfield has addressed publicly, in a podcast with Gina Colvin. 

And do you happen to recall what she recounted about her experience of ecclesiastical abuse?

I pretty much hate podcasts, but if you'll provide a link and a timestamp, I would be happy to give her a listen.

 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I admit that I haven't watched the video and have only read the article.  All of my responses have been based on it.  If there is more information available then I amend my views.  It does sound like she's right on one point though in that there isn't a way for members to sound the alarm, is there? 

"Sound the alarm" about what?  Misuse of funds?  Couldn't a member concerned with such a thing report the issue to the bishop?  The stake president?  The Area Presidency?

The Church would really want to hear this "alarm," I am certain of that.  But this seems to be just a vendetta, a difference of opinion from a self-interested and disgruntled soon-to-be-ex-wife regarding the Church's past assistance to her husband.  And I don't think the Church wants such private and sensitive matters hashed out in the public sphere.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Sound the alarm" about what?  Misuse of funds?  Couldn't a member concerned with such a thing report the issue to the bishop?  The stake president?  The Area Presidency?

Sound the alarm when a member knew that someone was lying to get funds from the church.  And yes, I think a member could go to a bishop or stake president.  Hopefully they would be willing to listen (I think normally they would be), but if not, if they were being manipulated by the person who was lying, it could be difficult to find a listening ear.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sound the alarm when a member knew that someone was lying to get funds from the church.  

Easy peasy.  The member should notify the bishop of what she knows.  

Quote

And yes, I think a member could go to a bishop or stake president.  Hopefully they would be willing to listen (I think normally they would be), but if not, if they were being manipulated by the person who was lying, it could be difficult to find a listening ear.

Well, then that's on them.  The member has done her "due diligence."  She can certainly continue to express her concerns "up the chain," but in the end the disposition of sacred funds is not within her stewardship.  She can and should give information to the Church, but she cannot dictate or demand a particular reaction to that information.

The Church does a pretty good job overall of managing its finances.  Bishops get training and guidelines.  Stake presidents have oversight of such expenditures.  Significant or questionable expenditures can be, and often are, flagged at church headquarters and addressed down the line.  None of this is played out in the public sphere, nor should it be.

To be candid, I don't think Lesley Butterfield gives two figs about the welfare of the Church or the potential misuse of its sacred funds.  I think she wanted to bash/embarrass the Church and/or her soon-to-be-ex.  Why else would she take a private financial issue being hashed out in a divorce pending in Virginia to a news outlet in Utah?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Easy peasy.  The member should notify the bishop of what she knows.  

Well, then that's on them.  The member has done her "due diligence."  She can certainly continue to express her concerns "up the chain," but in the end the disposition of sacred funds is not within her stewardship.  She can and should give information to the Church, but she cannot dictate or demand a particular reaction to that information.

The Church does a pretty good job overall of managing its finances.  Bishops get training and guidelines.  Stake presidents have oversight of such expenditures.  Significant or questionable expenditures can be, and often are, flagged at church headquarters and addressed down the line.  None of this is played out in the public sphere, nor should it be.

To be candid, I don't think Lesley Butterfield gives two figs about the welfare of the Church or the potential misuse of its sacred funds.  I think she wanted to bash/embarrass the Church and/or her soon-to-be-ex.  Why else would she take a private financial issue being hashed out in a divorce pending in Virginia to a news outlet in Utah?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, you've made your opinions clear.   Repeatedly.  

  

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, you've made your opinions clear.   Repeatedly.  

Well, I work in the Department of Redundancy Department.  Repeating things is in the job description.  Repeating things is in the job description.

😁

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I work in the Department of Redundancy Department.  Repeating things is in the job description.

😁

-Smac

A+ work.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Easy peasy.  The member should notify the bishop of what she knows.  

Well, then that's on them.  The member has done her "due diligence."  She can certainly continue to express her concerns "up the chain," but in the end the disposition of sacred funds is not within her stewardship.  She can and should give information to the Church, but she cannot dictate or demand a particular reaction to that information.

The Church does a pretty good job overall of managing its finances.  Bishops get training and guidelines.  Stake presidents have oversight of such expenditures.  Significant or questionable expenditures can be, and often are, flagged at church headquarters and addressed down the line.  None of this is played out in the public sphere, nor should it be.

To be candid, I don't think Lesley Butterfield gives two figs about the welfare of the Church or the potential misuse of its sacred funds.  I think she wanted to bash/embarrass the Church and/or her soon-to-be-ex.  Why else would she take a private financial issue being hashed out in a divorce pending in Virginia to a news outlet in Utah?

Thanks,

-Smac

I cannot claim to know everything about her, but it appears that there is a plausible explanation, respectable too: she first went to all leaders she could and was not to her knowledge taken seriously, or supported in the divorce, or supported regarding the inappropriate behavior of her bishop. Furthermore, as you noted already, the divorce proceedings have dragged on for three years now, despite her own repeated efforts to reach a settlemens and no offered settlements on his part. So she may with confidence say that the church's supporting him is making the delay of the divorce possible, and with that any negative impact of that prolonged conflict on herself and her children.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

And do you happen to recall what she recounted about her experience of ecclesiastical abuse?

I pretty much hate podcasts, but if you'll provide a link and a timestamp, I would be happy to give her a listen.

 

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/

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What was the abuse in her case in her view?

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.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes 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/

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.

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.

Edited January 9, 2020 by ksfisher

[Calm]

17 minutes 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/

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.

If accurate, that is highly problematic. 

[Calm]

24 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.

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  

And then when she initiated divorce, the same man is intentionally or unintentionally helping her husband to outlast her so that she will settle for less in the divorce out of desperation...

”He told her that other women had complained about the same bishop, but that there is a “method to his madness.”“

If this is accurate, both the SP and the Bishop should be released imo  multiple complaints from women that are ignored because the men know what is best for the women....just wrong.

I am not assuming it is accurate or not.  We have only one side of the story.  It is full of cliches and may be a reconstruction of others’ complaints that were well received.  Or it could be accurate and both men throwbacks to earlier decades.

———

I am wondering if she sought help from the Church for expenses as well. If she doesn’t need financial assistance, then the husband getting the help wouldn’t put much pressure on her.  If she did, then he could make the same sort of accusations. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I cannot claim to know everything about her, but it appears that there is a plausible explanation, respectable too:

All of this is speculation, then.

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

she first went to all leaders she could and was not to her knowledge taken seriously,

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.

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

or supported in the divorce,

What does this mean?  

And again, this does not justify her sensationalism.

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

or supported regarding the inappropriate behavior of her bishop.

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

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore, as you noted already, the divorce proceedings have dragged on for three years now, despite her own repeated efforts to reach a settlemens and no offered settlements on his part.

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?

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So she may with confidence say that the church's supporting him is making the delay of the divorce possible, and with that any negative impact of that prolonged conflict on herself and her children.

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

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

First, I agree with Hamba ("I have literally never seen a Church leader not go out of her or his way to meet with a sincere member who's not hell-bent on destroying another person or other people").  Bishops meet with people all the time.  So do stake presidents.  And area seventies.  And Seventies.  And Apostles.  These men spend huge amounts of time traveling and meeting and talking with members of the Church (and disaffected members, and former members, and non-members, etc.).

Second, good faith matters.  A lot.  A lot.  Hence my criticism of in-your-face pressure tactics such as we regularly see from people like Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and more recently, Lesley Butterfield.  These folks aren't acting in good faith. 

Third, the time, place and manner in which we voice concerns and questions matter.  A lot.  Basic decorum and civility are often lacking from self-appointed agitators.  So publicly disparaging the leaders of the Church (as I have seen elsewhere) is not the way to go.  Issuing public ultimatums and demands to the leaders of the Church is not the way to go.  Disobedience to the commandments (and/or encouraging others to do so) is not the way to go.  Setting one's self up as a voice of authority alternative and superior to the leaders of the Church is not the way to go.  Reflexively spouting off in anger (and mostly ignorance) is not the way to go.  Persuading others to do these things is not the way to go.

Good faith does matter, but it cannot work well when it is one-sided. What is a person supposed to do when they have acted in good faith but have only encountered the opposite? 

I think it is more important to examine the problem, rather than dismiss the complaint because the person is unpleasant. Even if they are nasty and mean, that does not release us from any obligation we have to them. I think that unwanted language and attitude can be dealt with along with any obligations to do right.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, Chesterton's Fence keeps coming to mind.  You seem to want to tear it down, without giving sufficient consideration to why it was built in the first place.  Attributing it to endemic misogyny just won't do.

Fifth, the exercise of priesthood authority seems quite relevant here.  You seem to be denying that you are calling for female ordination, but most of what you are calling for seems to require it.

The fence is there, and it was built by men who say God told them to build it. And the messaging on why has changed over time, as has its use.

The most recent messaging seems to suggest that women have the power already and thus the reason for not needing ordination or having priesthood offices. If that's the case, then if women could not be bishops or do bishop duties because they are reserved for those with the priesthood, then perhaps the new insights mean that they can do similar duties without priesthood offices.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sixth, so far I have seen no effort by you to position your proposals within the framework fo the Restored Gospel.  That is, where do your ideas fit in with revealed principles pertaining to church governance and administration?

Done.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Easy peasy.  The member should notify the bishop of what she knows.  

Well, then that's on them.  The member has done her "due diligence."  She can certainly continue to express her concerns "up the chain," but in the end the disposition of sacred funds is not within her stewardship.  She can and should give information to the Church, but she cannot dictate or demand a particular reaction to that information.

The Church does a pretty good job overall of managing its finances.  Bishops get training and guidelines.  Stake presidents have oversight of such expenditures.  Significant or questionable expenditures can be, and often are, flagged at church headquarters and addressed down the line.  None of this is played out in the public sphere, nor should it be.

I agree that the church framework does not allow for recourse or review when a member disagrees with the internal decisions. Yet there is the question pertinent to the public sphere of whether the church is distributing tax-exempt charitable funds to actual needy people or not. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

To be candid, I don't think Lesley Butterfield gives two figs about the welfare of the Church or the potential misuse of its sacred funds.  I think she wanted to bash/embarrass the Church and/or her soon-to-be-ex.  Why else would she take a private financial issue being hashed out in a divorce pending in Virginia to a news outlet in Utah?

That depends on how you define the church and church welfare. Does that include the welfare of women in the church? Even the bitterest apostate can have valid concerns for the welfare of women they care about who are still in the church. So, does thr welfare of the church include the welfare of the women in it?

Also, I and any person on the planet could be rightly concerned about another party funding oppression, be it on whatever scale. If Lesley Butterfield's husband is using funds to make it possible to destroy her financially and prevent her from having a reasonably settled divorce, any of us could be rightly concerned, and rightly complain and publicly admonish an individual or system which participates in such funding.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Meadowchik

[bluebell]

23 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.

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.