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

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oh...wow.

Did they tell her in advance to bring notes on something other than an electronic device? That seems reasonable for her to bring info/notes on her phone. I'm assuming they were trying to prevent her from recording the proceedings. I wonder if they asked her not to and she refused or if they just didn't believe her when she said she wouldn't.

So now she has to fly home and then do another round trip to Kansas for this spectacle? This whole thing is a fiasco.

According to her, she signed an agreement not to record anything, but they wanted to confiscate her phone anyway.  When she refused, she was told they would not be proceeding and she was asked to leave.  In my limited looking around, I've seen nothing which indicates whether if or when the meeting would be rescheduled.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently she went through a divorce and her ex-husband works with/for the Stake President. Kind of adds a layer of ICK to the whole thing for me. Who knows what salacious, personal accusations could have been funneled from her ex to the SP.

On the contrary, her ex-husband has been very supportive of her through the process and he was (at last I heard) scheduled to be a witness on her behalf.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

FIFY.   

Robert can speak to himself; but from my perspective it’s not a mere matter of whoever has more resources.  It’s a matter of who has the resources and wants to help Helfer achieve her objectives.

The Church doesn’t.  Dehlin, apparently, does.  

Just to be clear...her "objectives" are to attend the Disciplinary Council she has been summoned to by the church to consider expelling her from the church and rescinding all saving ordinances, right? I'd think the church would have interest in helping her attend as well. If not, they are total jerks.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

According to her, she signed an agreement not to record anything, but they wanted to confiscate her phone anyway.  When she refused, she was told they would not be proceeding and she was asked to leave.  In my limited looking around, I've seen nothing which indicates whether if or when the meeting would be rescheduled.

I wonder if there is a history of her lying to them. Personally, I doubt that. She seems like a pretty straight shooter and is very ethically minded. It sounds to me like the SP is doing a CYA just in case she might lie and try to record. Again, making this a larger hardship for her. The church leaders' (and by extension the church) behavior here is atrocious.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

On the contrary, her ex-husband has been very supportive of her through the process and he was (at last I heard) scheduled to be a witness on her behalf.

Interesting. Good to hear.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, helix said:

Her stated goal is attention.  We've all seen this dog and pony show before, many times.  She wants to give the church a black eye and get as many followers to her cause as she can on her way out.  She's crafting a narrative that the church is punishing her for believing in science, instead of for her open attacks on the church and insisting she is a rightful authority on the definition of sin. 

The church's goal is repentance and/or clarity of teachings.  Some individuals enter these councils wanting to improve.  Some do not and their positions are incompatible with this church.  The church's goal is NOT intimidation to others, as the church deliberately tries to keep these meetings quiet and personal.

She and Dehlin are deliberately milking this attention and spinning the narrative as negatively as they can for the church.  

She's a wily one. She was able to facili-manipulate the SP into holding a trial for her so she could get attention. Well played, Natasha. But if that's right the SP is a bit of a dupe.

It may not be the church's stated goal but it is less clear if the church's representative, the SP, is playing from the same gameplan.

I hope no one ever treats you badly enough that you feel you need to call out the person/organization treating you badly or you too might find yourself receiving accusations of "milking the attention". My guess is that both you and she would rather not be treated badly to begin with.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I assume you mean anti-member-of the church-of jesus christ-of latter-day saints.  

I did too. You seem very fine with treating her as guilty and inconvenience to her be damned. After all, she kind of deserves it, right?

I do not know whether she is guilty and I said nothing making such an assumption.  You are making me guilty till proved innocent.  I spoke only of the typical mechanics of holding trials, any kind of trials:  Most civil and criminal trials are held in the jurisdictions in which they are charged.  That has always been normal for a reason.  You may not like that fact, but you have given no reason for an alteration of that pattern.

Anti-Mormons like Chuck Larson can tell the truth about how they were treated, and I appreciate their honesty.  I have known many anti-Mormons in my time.  Interviewed many, and read much of their writing.  I try to understand their POV.  That does not mean that they are always right and their chosen enemies are always wrong.  How about a little bit of objectivity?!

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oh...wow.

Did they tell her in advance to bring notes on something other than an electronic device? That seems reasonable for her to bring info/notes on her phone. I'm assuming they were trying to prevent her from recording the proceedings. I wonder if they asked her not to and she refused or if they just didn't believe her when she said she wouldn't.

So now she has to fly home and then do another round trip to Kansas for this spectacle? This whole thing is a fiasco.

I think the sureptitious recording concerns are valid. I would have allowed her time to write down her notes from her phone (or email the notes to someone to print out, or whatever). 

If she gave her word of honor that it wouldn't be recorded, and it is and is posted online, would that be a valid criticism of her and Dehlin (general question, not directly at you)? Or, would the ethics be flexible because it's a "speaking truth to power" scenario? 

I don't see why she would need to fly back to Utah. What is the online chatter revealing about this?

[juliann]

All I know is that her public FB feed is incoherent and closing in on bizarre.  

I find the claim that this is about standard therapy procedures nonsensical when other therapists doing the same thing aren't being threatened with excommunication. In fact, that alone should disprove that claim. For someone claiming this is about ethics, I don't find putting the fear of God into sex therapists (and potential patients) doing this kind of therapy very ethical.  

That, given the lack of hard information, makes me very skeptical of the narrative being presented.  How many people were there? Should we assume not many because no one has boasted about a crowd? What rational person thinks they can partner with Dehlin and not be scrutinized by a church who exed him? And who hasn't noticed that his profile has significantly suffered since that time? How long has it been since a newspaper quoted him as a "Mormon" spokesperson? 

There are discussions to be had about excommunication, but the drama around this one is likely much more straightforward "apostasy"  (and there is an official clear definition of that) than Helfer will admit. And for someone who emphasizes boundaries, she is required to allow the church to set theirs. 

 

[helix]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She was able to facili-manipulate the SP into holding a trial for her so she could get attention. Well played, Natasha. But if that's right the SP is a bit of a dupe.

 No, when you publicly hang out with Sam Young, John Dehlin, and write op-eds and blogs openly criticizing the church and trying to set yourself as an authority to re-define sin against church teachings, you're going to get a stake president who will start such a council. 

Given that she had a move hold on her record for the past several months indicates this has been going on for a lot longer than recently.  She knew it was coming.  This isn't unfair or surprising.  It's a natural consequence of her actions. 

The council was inevitable.  In preparation she (likely with Dehlin's help) made sure to reach out to numerous media circles to get all the attention and narrative spin on her behalf to generate the biggest black eye possible.  This isn't a David and Goliath battle.  It's just her playing the exact same public relations game we've seen before. 
 

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Oh...wow.

Did they tell her in advance to bring notes on something other than an electronic device? That seems reasonable for her to bring info/notes on her phone. I'm assuming they were trying to prevent her from recording the proceedings. I wonder if they asked her not to and she refused or if they just didn't believe her when she said she wouldn't.

So now she has to fly home and then do another round trip to Kansas for this spectacle? This whole thing is a fiasco.

I'm not sure.  She hasn't released much from the other side that I've seen.  Just stuff from her side.

Her public facebook posts are a little all over the place.  She's very angry (called the men involved a nasty name) and she's not making a lot of sense from my outsider perspective. 

Which isn't surprising since being really angry and making a lot of sense rarely go together, regardless of who you are or what the cause is.  

[helix]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think the sureptitious recording concerns are valid.

Especially since John Dehlin recorded his (Edit: he record one of this meetings leading up to the council and sent it t othe New York Times, but he did not record his final council meeting).  In that meeting he repeatedly attempted to bait his stake president into juicy soundbites for big media outlets.

Quote

I would have allowed her time to write down her notes from her phone (or email the notes to someone to print out, or whatever). 

I believe the situation was that she was offered the chance to bring the notes in printed out, but she felt there was confidential things on those papers so she claimed she didn't want them printed off.  I may be wrong here, and someone can correct me.  I didn't have the desire to sit through her 2 hour 47 minute long livestream post-meeting.  

Edited April 19, 2021 by helix

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure.  She hasn't released much from the other side that I've seen.  Just stuff from her side.

Her public facebook posts are a little all over the place.  She's very angry (called the men involved a nasty name) and she's not making a lot of sense from my outsider perspective. 

Which isn't surprising since being really angry and making a lot of sense rarely go together, regardless of who you are or what the cause is.  

 It is surprising, though, when a box pops up for therapy services. Yowser, there is some weird stuff there.

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think the sureptitious recording concerns are valid. I would have allowed her time to write down her notes from her phone (or email the notes to someone to print out, or whatever). 

d it is and is posted online, would that be a valid criticism of her and Dehlin (general question, not directly at you)? Or, would the ethics be flexible because it's a "speaking truth to power" scenario? 

I don't see why she would need to fly back to Utah. What is the online chatter revealing about this?

If she promised not to record and even signed a paper saying she wouldn't, but then did, that would be highly unethical.

I'm assuming she would need to fly back to Utah unless the rescheduled for the next day. She has a life, job, family etc that she probably just can't hang around Kansas indefinitely.

Quote

9 minutes ago, helix said:

Especially since John Dehlin recorded his and repeatedly attempted to bait his stake president into juicy soundbites for big media outlets.

I believe the situation was that she was offered the chance to bring the notes in printed out, but she felt there was confidential things on those papers so she claimed she didn't want them printed off.  I may be wrong here, and someone can correct me.  I didn't have the desire to sit through her 2 hour 47 minute long livestream post-meeting.  

 

I don't recall. Did John Dehlin say he wouldn't record, but then did? Or did they not make an issue of if at the time?

IMO- Helfer should just wash her hands of it. Let them hold the DC in absentia. They clearly don't want her in the church and they clearly wouldn't believe anything she said anyway. It's not worth her time, effort or heartache.

[ttribe]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure.  She hasn't released much from the other side that I've seen.  Just stuff from her side.

Her public facebook posts are a little all over the place.  She's very angry (called the men involved a nasty name) and she's not making a lot of sense from my outsider perspective. 

Which isn't surprising since being really angry and making a lot of sense rarely go together, regardless of who you are or what the cause is.  

I feel kind of the same way trying to follow along, today.  I think the emotion is driving a lot of the words at the moment.

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If she promised not to record and even signed a paper saying she wouldn't, but then did, that would be highly unethical.

I'm assuming she would need to fly back to Utah unless the rescheduled for the next day. She has a life, job, family etc that she probably just can't hang around Kansas indefinitely.

I don't recall. Did John Dehlin say he wouldn't record, but then did? Or did they not make an issue of if at the time?

IMO- Helfer should just wash her hands of it. Let them hold the DC in absentia. They clearly don't want her in the church and they clearly wouldn't believe anything she said anyway. It's not worth her time, effort or heartache.

Yep.

[helix]

Quote

I don't recall. Did John Dehlin say he wouldn't record, but then did? Or did they not make an issue of if at the time?

I corrected it above.  He recorded one his pre-council meetings with his stake president, knowing he would be leaking it to the New York Times (which he subsequently did).  He did not record his final council meeting. 

Quote

They clearly don't want her in the church and they clearly wouldn't believe anything she said anyway.

She's not saying anything to find any solution.

I wanted to find out the story in her live stream post vigil.  She started to talk about the meeting at 1 hour and 30 minutes in.  She got off topic often.  She embraced and refused to apologize for calling church leaders "patriarchal pricks".  Then she insisted the church said dozens of far worse slurs at people like her at recent General Conferences.  Then she insisted that the church is morally wrong for using the word pornography on Easter Sunday, as saying it will put porn in our minds, and that's wrong. Then moved into insisting that she has the authority (and she used the word authority) to tell Oaks he is wrong for using the word pornography. 

She finally gets back to the phone story at 1 hour 42 minutes, she stated that she walked out in anger before either side had a chance to start finding a solution to her notes on her phone.  She called off her participation.  The local council didn't.  (Edit: She reported she got heated and angry at the council, they said she could leave if she wanted, so she did.)

Edited April 19, 2021 by helix

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, helix said:

Then she insisted the church said dozens of far worse slurs at people like her at recent General Conferences.  Then she insisted that the church is morally wrong for using the word pornography on Easter Sunday, as saying it will put porn in our minds, and that's wrong. Then moved into insisting that she has the authority (and she used the word authority) to tell Oaks he is wrong for using the word pornography. 

And this woman is a mental health professional?  This looks more like a mental illness to me.

Edited April 19, 2021 by InCognitus

[juliann]

35 minutes ago, helix said:

 She finally gets back to the phone story at 1 hour 42 minutes, she stated that she walked out in anger before either side had a chance to start finding a solution to her notes on her phone.  She called off her participation.  The local council didn't.

Soooooo.....another false narrative about being thrown out. 

[helix]

I wanted to make sure I'm quoting her accurately.  She said some really wild things. 

As for the phone, her side is that a group spokesman asked her to not bring in any electronic devices.  She declined, the spokesman a second time repeated the request.  She got angry and heated at the group, and so they told her she could leave if she wanted, and she did. 

1:31:58 "Do I really have to apologize for my 'patriarchal prick' comment?  I don't think so."

1:32:10 "I looked up all the name calling that they have done of our people.  There's mine, I called them 'patriarchal pricks'  So sad, too bad.  There's about 90 names, that over a General Conference pulpit, they have had the audacity to call us when we don't comply in the ways they want us to.  Shame on them.  They have some repenting to do.  Don't name call me.  Don't name call my child.  And pretend that you are acting in the name of God, something you have very little comprehension of."  . . .

1:33:10 "They're going to have the audacity to think that a god will want to call us 'perverse' or 'lazy'.  No!  No!  No!  That is not ok, and stop it!  And on top of that they do it when our precious children under the age of 15 are there.  Our five years olds are hearing this kind of language because we take them all to General Conference.  If they're going to talk in that vulgar manner they should put a PG-13 or PG because the movies do it they tell us if there is vulgar language.  So we know so we can consent as to whether or not our children will be present. 

1:34:00 "[Heated] I swear to God, if they mention pornography, one more time on a Sunday.  When we all know that every time you say 'pornography' YOU'RE PICTURING IT!  Oh thank you for reminding me about h***** people [she does vulgar mimicking] when I'm trying to worship my God.  And Elder Oaks did that on General Conference on Easter Sunday!  And what, I'm just supposed to be like [In a timid tone] 'Oh, excuse me Elder Oaks of revelatory power, um, I'm respectfully calling you out on this' [Mimicking Elder Oaks] 'You don't have the authority to call me out Sister Helfer.'  [Speaking of herself] I have all the authority!  No, what you did was kind of crappy. . . . No.  You can't talk about that on Sunday, when my teenage sons are hearing you.  And then you're wanting them to not think about it and not do it.  Well you just reminded them about it.  So I'm guessing they're going to go home tonight and probably look something up.  Thank you!  Thanks Elder Oaks for that."

She meanders for several more minutes.  Then referring to not using an electronic device in the meeting.  She says there was a spokesman for the group who would go in and out of the meeting to relay her concerns. 

1:41:22 "The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point...  I was like 'Absolutely not!  I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career.  I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most of them inappropriate, none of your business.  No!  This is my property.  These are my notes.  And you're giving me 20, 40 minutes at most to defend...the whole thing is so ridiculous that I was just like no.'  So then he said 'Well we're inviting you to leave then' I was like 'Peace out!  Peace out!"... [In a childish mocking tone] 'No really please...please let me come in...like...please take me even though I don't want to give you my phone.'  No.    

Edited April 19, 2021 by helix

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the sureptitious recording concerns are valid. I would have allowed her time to write down her notes from her phone (or email the notes to someone to print out, or whatever). 

If she gave her word of honor that it wouldn't be recorded, and it is and is posted online, would that be a valid criticism of her and Dehlin (general question, not directly at you)? Or, would the ethics be flexible because it's a "speaking truth to power" scenario? 

I don't see why she would need to fly back to Utah. What is the online chatter revealing about this?

They are trying obviously to avoid the Bill Reel problem.  He said he wasn't recording but it obviously was recorded.  I think Bill was just wrong.

I feel sorry for her in above exchange. I've read her professional writings and thought she demanded lots of respect. Now she looks ridiculous.  Pornography is a real problem as many religions and therapists say, and religion ought to speak out against it.  Isn't there a DSM-IV-TR statement dealing with pornography?

Edited April 19, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, helix said:

I corrected it above.  He recorded one his pre-council meetings with his stake president, knowing he would be leaking it to the New York Times (which he subsequently did).  He did not record his final council meeting. 

She's not saying anything to find any solution.

I wanted to find out the story in her live stream post vigil.  She started to talk about the meeting at 1 hour and 30 minutes in.  She got off topic often.  She embraced and refused to apologize for calling church leaders "patriarchal pricks".  Then she insisted the church said dozens of far worse slurs at people like her at recent General Conferences.  Then she insisted that the church is morally wrong for using the word pornography on Easter Sunday, as saying it will put porn in our minds, and that's wrong. Then moved into insisting that she has the authority (and she used the word authority) to tell Oaks he is wrong for using the word pornography. 

She finally gets back to the phone story at 1 hour 42 minutes, she stated that she walked out in anger before either side had a chance to start finding a solution to her notes on her phone.  She called off her participation.  The local council didn't.  (Edit: She reported she got heated and angry at the council, they said she could leave if she wanted, so she did.)

That does change the narrative a bit.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, helix said:

I corrected it above.  He recorded one his pre-council meetings with his stake president, knowing he would be leaking it to the New York Times (which he subsequently did).  He did not record his final council meeting. 

She's not saying anything to find any solution.

I wanted to find out the story in her live stream post vigil.  She started to talk about the meeting at 1 hour and 30 minutes in.  She got off topic often.  She embraced and refused to apologize for calling church leaders "patriarchal pricks".  Then she insisted the church said dozens of far worse slurs at people like her at recent General Conferences.  Then she insisted that the church is morally wrong for using the word pornography on Easter Sunday, as saying it will put porn in our minds, and that's wrong. Then moved into insisting that she has the authority (and she used the word authority) to tell Oaks he is wrong for using the word pornography. 

She finally gets back to the phone story at 1 hour 42 minutes, she stated that she walked out in anger before either side had a chance to start finding a solution to her notes on her phone.  She called off her participation.  The local council didn't.

I appreciate you wading through that, to find the time stamp, but I didn't get that out of what she said (which is obviously one sided). FWIW, my opinion is that she should just resign (that's what I did).

I pulled up the feed on the Mormon Stories Podcast, and at minute 1:46:30, she says that she was invited to leave after declining to email them her private notes to print. She also states that nowhere was she informed that she would be required to turn off her phone.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I feel kind of the same way trying to follow along, today.  I think the emotion is driving a lot of the words at the moment.

She's imploding a bit on her professional page.  I do think the emotion is getting the better of her.  

[JustAnAustralian]

19 minutes ago, helix said:

 

I wanted to make sure I'm quoting her accurately.  She said some really wild things. 

 

Well if those were things that she was saying, the chances I'd be putting on her keeping her membership just dropped drastically.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, helix said:

 

1:33:10 "They're going to have the audacity to think that a god will want to call us 'perverse' or 'lazy'.  No!  No!  No!  That is not ok, and stop it!  And on top of that they do it when our precious children under the age of 15 are there.  Our five years olds are hearing this kind of language because we take them all to General Conference.  If they're going to talk in that vulgar manner they should put a PG-13 or PG because the movies do it they tell us if there is vulgar language.  So we know so we can consent as to whether or not our children will be present. 

 

Interesting definition.  What other common words does she consider to be vulgar? How would anyone know not to say them in front of her?

 

Quote

1:34:00 "[Heated] I swear to God, if they mention pornography, one more time on a Sunday.  When we all know that every time you say 'pornography' YOU'RE PICTURING IT!  Oh thank you for reminding me about h***** people [she does vulgar mimicking] when I'm trying to worship my God.  And Elder Oaks did that on General Conference on Easter Sunday!  And what, I'm just supposed to be like [In a timid tone] 'Oh, excuse me Elder Oaks of revelatory power, um, I'm respectfully calling you out on this' [Mimicking Elder Oaks] 'You don't have the authority to call me out Sister Helfer.'  [Speaking of herself] I have all the authority!  No, what you did was kind of crappy. . . . No.  You can't talk about that on Sunday, when my teenage sons are hearing you.  And then you're wanting them to not think about it and not do it.  Well you just reminded them about it.  So I'm guessing they're going to go home tonight and probably look something up.  Thank you!  Thanks Elder Oaks for that."

And she claims she doesn't encourage people to leave the church.

Quote

1:41:22 "The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point...  I was like 'Absolutely not!  I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career.  I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most of them inappropriate, none of your business.  No!  This is my property.  These are my notes.  And you're giving me 20, 40 minutes at most to defend...the whole thing is so ridiculous that I was just like no.'  So then he said 'Well we're inviting you to leave then' I was like 'Peace out!  Peace out!"... [In a childish mocking tone] 'No really please...please let me come in...like...please take me even though I don't want to give you my phone.'  No.  

So she was disruptive. What is Latina about yelling at people? Is it Latina to not understand electronics includes phones? Or is this another bring your own dictionary, like the word "lazy" is vulgar?  She said she didn't want to be there and they gave her the option of leaving, which would be not only appropriate but advisable. And she left.