Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you explain or justify the lapse in time between when she lived in Kansas and when the DC was called? How is it justifiable to call someone to a DC  1 1/2 year after they move away?

Not sure that such a claim is factual, nor that anyone actually knew when she moved.  Moreover, without details, we don't actually know why this matter came to the fore recently.  I do know that anti-Mormons lie a lot.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I accept that your experience has been positive, I can only comment from what my experience has been. 

Except that you are not merely commenting on your own personal experience.  You are extrapolating and impugning the entirety of the Church.  Surely you see the difference?

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Our Stake President, whom I lost respect for when he was serving, was a believer in exacting a heavy toll on the sinner.  He tasked our high council on helping the accused reach a state where he/she would understand the scriptural standard of sackcloth and ashes, he taught that the court attendee needed to reach the depths of hell before they could fully expect to pay for their sins and find forgiveness (something I know now to be a complete bastardisation of what the scriptures teach).  He was a holier than thou monster. 

Yeah, kinda skeptical here.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I now believe that this instruction pushed otherwise good men to go where they should have never gone.  I know of one person we held a court for attempted to take his life following his court. The person seeking help were drilled with what I now consider completely inappropriate cross examinations specifically designed to drive the sinner to a fuller sense of shame and worthlessness.  I will forever be ashamed that I ever participated in these courts.  It's taken me years to process those horrible experiences and I state again that my heart breaks for those that were subjected to such a heartless and uncompassionate court in the name of Jesus Christ.

So yes, I did not have your positive loving court experience. 

And yet you are condemning the entirety of the Church for the purported misconduct of one stake president.  I find that myopic and facile, particulary since you are being told by several other people with as much or more experience with Church discipline that your characterization does not fit how things are handled elsewhere in the Church.

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I can only imagine that if what I experienced could happen here along the Wasatch front where I served in the high council, it most definitely does happen in the far flung edges of the world where the leadership is not as established as here in Utah.  I do not believe that what I experienced was the rule but neither was it an anomaly.

Strange, then, that you are condeming the entirety of the concept of church discipline.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

There’s a difference between not understanding something and not wanting to understand something when it undermines a false narrative. 

I guess it depends very much on which narrative is false.  Another reason why the case should remain in Kansas.  I have already heard enough false narratives from anti-Mormons.  Call it a lack of trust, if you will.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

From your story it sounds like your approach to this woman was far different than the SP approach to Natasha.

Of course in rongo’s case, we are hearing it from the side of the church leader, the opposite of how we are hearing of discipline from Parker’s case.  Would be interesting to get the other two stories and compare differences of perception as well as actions. 
 

There are times I really wish the Church went in for publicizing details due to my overactive curiosity about how people think and act and react to each other, but I am all for confidentiality and respecting privacy, so the reasonable me doesn’t want that policy to change. 

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sometimes, as in blatant sex abuse, the fox must be gotten out of the henhouse post haste.  If not, as a practical matter, the Church will be sued for a substantial sum.  The key phrase is "due diligence," which was lacking for many years, and cost the Church a lot of tithing money.

I wasn't speaking in that context of Natasha Helfer, but only to the silly notion that excommunication is not ever needed at all.  Often excommunication and incarceration are needed.

The Natasha Helfer case is very different, and the witnesses in Kansas may be key.  They understand the situation best.  Certainly her friend John Dehlin could pay her way back there, and perhaps outfit her with a recording device so that she could make a record he could play on his show.  As non-LDS scholar Jan Shipps many times made clear, this is merely a matter of boundary maintenance.  Surely the Church has a right to decide who may be a member.

I agree with part of your post but had to chuckle at the mention of "boundary maintenance" in the same paragraph you volunteer one of her friends to pay for her travel  

Even if the Kansas people are key, it still seems to me that it is more important to have the accused present than the witness. In this case the church has made it more challenging for the accused than the witness. I wonder why.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that such a claim is factual, nor that anyone actually knew when she moved.  Moreover, without details, we don't actually know why this matter came to the fore recently.  I do know that anti-Mormons lie a lot.

Maybe you do too.

If you're going to throw out bombs to impugn others integrity you should be ready to accept them too  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 I do know that anti-Mormons lie a lot.

I believe the appropriate term is "carefully worded denials"

[bsjkki]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that such a claim is factual, nor that anyone actually knew when she moved.  Moreover, without details, we don't actually know why this matter came to the fore recently.  I do know that anti-Mormons lie a lot.

[bsjkki]

I am willing to state we lack sufficient facts. Natasha Belfer summarized the letter from the Stake President so we don't know all it said. Her association with Dehlin is very problematic. I think, from reading her Facebook page which is open to the public, that she has had many challenges the last few years. I would hope that if she desires to remain a member, the meeting will go well and certain boundaries could be established that are clearly defined. If  this is about boundary maintenance, we need to be clear on the boundaries.

Edited April 16, 2021 by bsjkki

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I can only imagine that if what I experienced could happen here along the Wasatch front where I served in the high council, it most definitely does happen in the far flung edges of the world where the leadership is not as established as here in Utah. 

Funny you say that, because whenever I hear some outlandish story involving local church leadership doing something crazy, it feels like 9 times out of 10 it originates in the Wasatch front.

Y'all need to get your act together.  

 

[Fair Dinkum]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't understand this characterization of the process, and I have never seen that in all my years.  Just the opposite.

You might want to ask where was the male offender in that adultery.  Jesus was not the judge, but merely a rabbinic bystander who posed a very discomfiting question.  Such a situation is classic in rabbinic Judaism;  Authority figures are brought up short.  If you will see Jesus as a rabbi, that will help you immensely in understanding the Gospels.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I do not agree with your assessment at all.  Bishops most often deal with problems privately already, and sometimes that means paying for private family counseling.  I have seen that work quite well.  I can think of only a couple of cases of miscarriage of justice in excommunications -- that of Lavina Fielding Anderson, and another in New Zealand, in which everyone including the excommunicant knew that there was no way to escape finding an innocent man guilty.  He dutifully went to prison for a crime he did not commit -- kind of like the story of Jesus' self-sacrifice for the greater good.  I was told of it by a member of that high council, and have no idea what I would have done as a high councilman or the accused.  Sometimes things just go south. 

And yet the first presidency did just reform it Robert, so they must have held their collective fingers to the wind and concluded reform was in fact required. They concluded that it was broken and needed fixing. I would have preferred even more reform

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

And yet the first presidency did just reform it Robert, so they must have held their collective fingers to the wind and concluded reform was in fact required. They concluded that it was broken and needed fixing. I would have preferred even more reform

You misstated the previous situation, and now you find it has improved?   Oh well, that's life, good buddy!! 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe you do too.

If you're going to throw out bombs to impugn others integrity you should be ready to accept them too  

Yup.  If a lie is just an accusation from someone that there was a lie, of course.  Is that your standard for lies?  Mere assertion?  Does evidence ever matter?  In the tis-so, tis-not world, I expect that sort of thing.  Is that as far as you go, or do you have a better approach?  Somebody will probably counter that Trump has integrity and never lies, and that Q-anon is a teller of truth. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with part of your post but had to chuckle at the mention of "boundary maintenance" in the same paragraph you volunteer one of her friends to pay for her travel  

I was referring to the fortune Dehlin has amassed online for his anti-Mormon podcast.  Boundary maintenance is a scholarly term used by Shipps to refer to the rules of various organizations to maintain their integrity.  This applies to the Roman Catholics as much as to Presbyterians and Mormons.

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Even if the Kansas people are key, it still seems to me that it is more important to have the accused present than the witness. In this case the church has made it more challenging for the accused than the witness. I wonder why.

The reason is the same as when any ordinary civil or criminal trial is held in a given jurisdiction.  They do not usually move the venue for the convenience of the defendant.  It is entirely normal to hold trials where the violation occurred.  It isn't a Mormon thing, it is just ordinary procedure.

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was referring to the fortune Dehlin has amassed online for his anti-Mormon podcast.  Boundary maintenance is a scholarly term used by Shipps to refer to the rules of various organizations to maintain their integrity.  This applies to the Roman Catholics as much as to Presbyterians and Mormons.

The reason is the same as when any ordinary civil or criminal trial is held in a given jurisdiction.  They do not usually move the venue for the convenience of the defendant.  It is entirely normal to hold trials where the violation occurred.  It isn't a Mormon thing, it is just ordinary procedure.

I'm no Dehlin fan, but "fortune?!" Cut the hyperbole, Robert. That's just silly.

As to the witness issue, all of the things she's being accused of involve public statements made, largely on the Internet. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest there was some offense committed in KS which demands a KS venue.  

[JustAnAustralian]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm no Dehlin fan, but "fortune?!" Cut the hyperbole, Robert. That's just silly.

 

He gets over $200K a year from OpenStoriesFoundation (see Form 990).

[helix]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm no Dehlin fan, but "fortune?!" Cut the hyperbole, Robert. That's just silly.

As to the witness issue, all of the things she's being accused of involve public statements made, largely on the Internet. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest there was some offense committed in KS which demands a KS venue.  

Have you considered the possibility that the stake president involved knows more about this situation than you do, or more than she is telling us?

Edited April 17, 2021 by helix

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

He gets over $200K a year from OpenStoriesFoundation (see Form 990).

I'm not sure what you consider to be a 'fortune,' but that's not it. That's nice money, but not a fortune. 

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, helix said:

Have you considered the possibility that the stake president involved knows more about this situation than you do, or more than she is telling us?

Good grief, of course I have. Does your presumption of deception on her part warrant wanton speculation?

[JustAnAustralian]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure what you consider to be a 'fortune,' but that's not it. That's nice money, but not a fortune. 

He's in the top 10.3% of household income purely from OpenStories income, and that's excluding anything his wife makes, or that he makes from other sources.

Edited April 17, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

He's in the top 10.3% of household income purely from OpenStories income, and that's excluding anything his wife makes, or that he makes from other sources.

[Sigh] I do economic damages calculations for litigation cases.  I know where his income resides on the scale, thank you. 

Still not a fortune. 

[teddyaware]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good grief, of course I have. Does your presumption of deception on her part warrant wanton speculation?

Looks like you engaged in your own “wanton speculation” since you here admit to surmising the stake president may indeed know more about the situation than what Helfer has disclosed thus far.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Looks like you engaged in your own “wanton speculation” since you here admit to surmising the stake president may indeed know more about the situation than what Helfer has disclosed thus far.

Check your reading comprehension skills. I did no such thing. I considered the possibility when evaluating the facts as we know them.  I didn't speculate on what he did or did not know. Additionally, I've not engaged in speculation on what Ms. Helfer might also have done other than what she had admitted to.  

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I do agree somewhat, but the church seems to be shooting themselves in the foot by even bringing these situations to light by going after them. 

Hmm.  I don't recall the last time a Bishop or a Stake President held a news conference to announce that someone had been excommunicated or disfellowshipped.  And I'm pretty sure the reason why I can't recall such an instance is because ... it hasn't happened!  Ba-dum Pshhhhh!  (Yes, I know that discipline in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints used to be announced publicly, at least within the Church itself.)  As foreign and perhaps misguided as that might sound to modern ears, though, it does make sense from a certain perspective: Get the one, embarrassing announcement out of the way and prevent ongoing embarrassment: "Brother Jones, will you give the opening prayer next week in Sacrament Meeting?"  "Hey, Jim, Buddy!  I noticed you didn't take the Sacrament!"  Et cetera.

[MustardSeed]

I disagree with prior comparison of church court to court of law.  The court of law is in place primarily to protect our rights as citizens.  As members of the church, however, someone's salvation is quite literally none of our business.  I can see the necessity for limiting membership based on anti-church behavior, but for sin itself? I'm not crazy about that.  That's my opinion.  There is plenty of room for compassionate healing procedures without the shame that 'does' happen often enough that its problematic to me.  And yes I'm talking anecdotally, not policy or statistically.