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

[Teancum]

On 4/15/2021 at 5:20 PM, Duncan said:

Do they not have zoom in Utah or Kansas? if the Stake doesn't want to do it over zoom I would say pay my bill for the trip, you want me here-I don't want to be here, you engage me.

The SP would not even allow witnesses to come through Zoom.

[Teancum]

On 4/15/2021 at 5:26 PM, smac97 said:

I could see the KS stake president not allowing videoconferencing.  Keep in mind John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Jeremy Runnells, Bill Reel, who - like Helfer - went out of their way to publicize their councils, and some of whom made and released illicit recordings of the councils.  

On the other hand, I could see a pretty easy workaround.  Schedule the Zoom meeting at Helfer's stake center here in Utah, and ask for assurances that neither she nor her witnesses will bring in recording devices.  That's an accommodation that could work.  Unfortunately, Helfer hasn't helped herself by publicizing the council.

Thanks,

-Smac

Illicit recordings?  That is rich.  What is so secretive and why shouldn't anyone be able to be public?  It is there damn council and their membership at stake.  Really it is just that church leaders are frankly embarrassed that they still like to use a heavy handed way to control its membership.  Natasha is being disciplined for practicing her profession based on the best science and recommendations of her professions.  If the church going to kick out all therapists who practice based on what they are taught??   Maybe the church ought to start looking into how attorneys practice as well.   

[Teancum]

On 4/15/2021 at 6:23 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

I've sat in on multiple church courts as both a member of the bishopric and also as a member of the high council.. Too many to count  I've long believed that these courts should be abandoned by the church and abolished.  They rarely achieve the intended goals. They do nothing to aid the healing of the accused and are often nothing more than spiritual overreach and abuse.  I've yet to see a single member whose membership was stripped of them return to the fold, not one.  Oh the stories I could tell.  

I've often wondered why the church puts its members through these ordeals. The humiliation alone is beyond the pale for these poor souls.  I've witnesses grown men (and women) reduced to such a depths of humiliation that I've had to worry about them taking their own lives after being put through their so called courts of love.  It's been terrible to witness fellow human beings being put through these spiritually abusive courts, no matter what you call them, they are shameful and barbaric.

There is nothing that a court can achieve that couldn't also be achieved by a private one on one consultation with a bishop through confession, nothing.

The church puts its own hubris and self interests above those of its own members.

From what I can ascertain with this particular case, it seems like a witch hunt.  Why is the church after this poor woman.  She did nothing to the church and should be left alone in peace.  It's situation like this that I sincerely wonder who is in charge and why are they abusing these poor people. Its truly embarrassing and so unnecessary and only serves the interests of the church. 

Well said. I agree.  I agreed when active.  When I was a bishop and had a wonderful SP who called me and he taught me what you just reviewed and said to rarely use DCs.

[Teancum]

On 4/15/2021 at 8:48 PM, Bob Crockett said:

It is fair.  The priesthood leader with intimate detailed knowledge is the best to handle it. Public figures often want to frustrate or delay.  Once a person is in the discipline process it takes hold. You can't move away.  It's like being a lawyer.  If I'm being disciplined by the state bar I can't simply resign and pick up in a different state. 

The NT clearly requires a discipline procedure.  Paul writes about it with a wordplay for castration.  It must be completed.

Yes and the OT recommends stones sabbath breakers. so who cares....

It is the 21st century after all.

[Teancum]

On 4/15/2021 at 9:25 PM, katherine the great said:

I listened to parts of her interview. I don’t think she’s doing her self a favor by going public with John Dehlin but I admit it was interesting to listen to her story. I feel for her, being a woman The thought of sitting in a room to face possible discipline from a group of men (even righteous and well meaning men) is kind of terrifying. I was surprised that she was offered the opportunity to bring a Relief Society president with her although in her case that’s not possible.  I think that only giving her a week to prepare is completely unreasonable. She works full-time and lives in another state. How could she possibly make arrangements to get back there in time and have witnesses approved and transported in just a week? I would think a month would be the minimum in those circumstances.

This is simply about power and control.  At least a month would have been reasonable.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Illicit recordings?  That is rich. 

Not at all.

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What is so secretive and why shouldn't anyone be able to be public? 

It's a private religious meeting.  On the Church's property.  And it involves topics and information that is very sensitive and private.

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is there damn council and their membership at stake. 

No.  It is a meeting conducted by the Church.  By its representatives.  On its property.  It is eminently reasonable that the Church prohibit recording in such a context.

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really it is just that church leaders are frankly embarrassed that they still like to use a heavy handed way to control its membership. 

Nobody is allowed to record the proceedings.  It is as much for the benefit of the individual as the Church.

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Natasha is being disciplined for practicing her profession based on the best science and recommendations of her professions.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Also...

She heads an organization that calls itself Mormon but appears to promote standards that are contrary to church policy to the exclusion of others.

You mean her organization calls itself "Mormon" yet doesn't follow lock-step with the LDS church policies. The LDS church doesn't own use of the word "Mormon". In fact they have run about as far away from it as possible. There are many other Mormon groups that are not associated with the LDS church so conflating the two is a problem and not a fair criticism.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The SP would not even allow witnesses to come through Zoom.

A reasonable measure, that.  The stake president was likely cognizant of past attempts to convert a membership council into a publicity stunt, as her friend John Dehlin did.  I given that Helfer-Parker was apparently headed down that road, reasonable precautions were appropriate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For those familiar with the process are the meeting minutes from councils made available to all parties?

No.

The report goes to SLC and bishops/SP can request the report to review as needed. For example when a council is reconvened the previous council notes/report will be reviewed.

But the leaders report goes to other church leaders. The individual never receives a copy of the report. The individual will receive a letter and possibly a document outlining the repentance process etc but those documents are not the same.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You mean her organization calls itself "Mormon" yet doesn't follow lock-step with the LDS church policies. The LDS church doesn't own use of the word "Mormon". In fact they have run about as far away from it as possible. There are many other Mormon groups that are not associated with the LDS church so conflating the two is a problem and not a fair criticism.

Someone who's not a member of the church who is using the word "mormon" is less likely to be considered to be representing the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than someone who is a member of the church using that term.

And I don't think that Calm was speaking about her not following church policy.  It's her not following church doctrine that would be the issue.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Are you thinking of psychodynamic theory? 

Not exclusively. I agree with Gerald Corey's assessment in his text Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy: "Freud's views continue to influence contemporary practice. Many of his basic concepts are still part of the foundation on which other theorists build and develop. Indeed, most of the theories of counseling and psychotherapy discussed in this book have been influenced by psychoanalytic principles and techniques. Some of these therapeutic approaches extended the psychoanalytic model, others modified its concepts and procedures, and others emerged as a reaction against it.

Freud's psychoanalytic system is a model of personality development, a philosophy of human nature, and a method of psychotherapy. He gave psychotherapy a new look and new horizons, calling attention to psychodynamic factors that motivate behavior, focusing on the role of the unconscious, and developing the first therapeutic procedures for understanding and modifying the structure of one's basic character. Freud's theory is a benchmark against which many other theories are measured."

[mgy401]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You mean her organization calls itself "Mormon" yet doesn't follow lock-step with the LDS church policies. The LDS church doesn't own use of the word "Mormon". In fact they have run about as far away from it as possible. There are many other Mormon groups that are not associated with the LDS church so conflating the two is a problem and not a fair criticism.

In a legal sense, you are doubtless correct.

In a practical sense—I don’t think we’re fooling anyone here.  The group hasn’t chosen its name in an attempt to serve the massive client base (or tap into the enormous revenue potential) that comes from the Bickertonite church.  The group is clearly trying to create a patina that their practices/recommendations represent mainstream LDS values, in order to ingratiate themselves with an LDS audience as they seek to a) drum up business for their own commercial gain,  b) place themselves in an extraordinary position of trust and authority over other individuals by virtue of their common association with the institutional LDS Church, and/or c)  engage in social advocacy in a way that suggests they themselves understand and represent Church values and doctrine better than the Church authorities themselves do.  The Church is absolutely right not to bury its head in the sand over this sort of thing.  That doesn’t mean they can or should go about suing people; but I don’t think it’s a stretch for the Church to consider expelling a Church member who uses her Church affiliation to encourage other Church members to engage in behavior the Church describes as sinful.

Edited April 20, 2021 by mgy401

[Harry T. Clark]

This whole thing looked bad, like the conclusion was already made and then rushed to avoid bad publicity.  It should have been done where she currently lives and she should have been given the opportunity to respond with the leaders defending their actions as well.  Reference is made to a court procedure yet normal procedures weren't followed.  Maybe it is time to review divorce/excommunication procedures and come up with something less strident and divisive?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is as much for the benefit of the individual as the Church.

This is a bit rich in the context of this thread. If the individual wants a record of it, it’s for their “benefit” not to have it? A bit condescending don’t you think?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No.

The report goes to SLC and bishops/SP can request the report to review as needed. For example when a council is reconvened the previous council notes/report will be reviewed.

But the leaders report goes to other church leaders. The individual never receives a copy of the report. The individual will receive a letter and possibly a document outlining the repentance process etc but those documents are not the same.

That does not seem right. Especially in the context of the accused not being able to record or even take written notes per the handbook. 

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Someone who's not a member of the church who is using the word "mormon" is less likely to be considered to be representing the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than someone who is a member of the church using that term.

And I don't think that Calm was speaking about her not following church policy.  It's her not following church doctrine that would be the issue.

She specifically mentioned policy.

But my point is that it is a problem to expect her to follow church policy or doctrine simply because she uses the term Mormon. Would we expect her to follow policy and doctrine of other "Mormon" churches?  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She specifically mentioned policy.

But my point is that it is a problem to expect her to follow church policy or doctrine simply because she uses the term Mormon. Would we expect her to follow policy and doctrine of other "Mormon" churches?  

Is it a problem though if she is using the term Mormon and advertising that she's a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

It doesn't seem unreasonable that that church would have concerns under those circumstances.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

In a legal sense, you are doubtless correct.

In a practical sense—I don’t think we’re fooling anyone here.  The group hasn’t chosen its name in an attempt to serve the massive client base (or tap into the enormous revenue potential) that comes from the Bickertonite church.  The group is clearly trying to create a patina that their practices/recommendations represent mainstream LDS values, in order to ingratiate themselves with an LDS audience as they seek to a) drum up business for their own commercial gain,  b) place themselves in an extraordinary position of trust and authority over other individuals by virtue of their common association with the institutional LDS Church, and/or c)  engage in social advocacy in a way that suggests they themselves understand and represent Church values and doctrine better than the Church authorities themselves do.  The Church is absolutely right not to bury its head in the sand over this sort of thing.

I don't think that's true at all. If you look at what she has said numerous times, including the letter to the SP and even in their mission statement, her organization caters to people both in and out of the church who are looking for a therapist who understands the church and how integral it is (or was) to the individual. She notes that people have a hard time finding a therapist who can walk the line of understanding without pushing someone to either leave or stay. 

How does a business "place themselves" in a position of trust and authority over individuals? This is silliness.

I don't believe I've argued against the church's right to maintain its boundaries. If they think she's out of line they can do whatever they want to her, as is evidence by this fiasco. But that doesn't mean the church won't be the subject of criticism when they treat people badly via policies and practices. IMO church leadership has bungled this badly. There have been enough high profile excommunications in the past few years to know how to avoid stepping on the rake over and over again.

I guarantee general (or at least area) leadership has been involved in counseling the SP in this. So either they counseled him badly or he disregarded their counsel or a combination of the two. Either way, the SP has made a mess of this, but I suspect he feels righteously indignant of the criticisms. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Is it a problem though if she is using the term Mormon and advertising that she's a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

It doesn't seem unreasonable that that church would have concerns under those circumstances.

Yeah, if they don't want her to be able to claim she is a member they can X her. But that's a separate issue from the name of the organization.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That does not seem right. Especially in the context of the accused not being able to record or even take written notes per the handbook. 

Are you suggesting that the disciplinary council process may not be fair to the accused?  

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, if they don't want her to be able to claim she is a member they can X her. But that's a separate issue from the name of the organization.

I don't think it is a separate issue.  @Calm, when you get around to it later today maybe you can clarify on what you see the issue as.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, bluebell said:

I don't think it is a separate issue.  @Calm, when you get around to it later today maybe you can clarify on what you see the issue as.

In other words they can maintain the boundaries of the church. They cannot maintain the imagined boundary of people using the name Mormon because it applies to much more than just the church. They don't own or control the word

[rongo]

Win, lose, or draw, I think her behavior while going into the DC and in the hours-long stream of consciousness rantings after she posted online removed all doubt that she is an apostate and has been and is attacking the Church and Church leaders. 

[Teancum]

On 4/16/2021 at 12:01 AM, Vellichor said:

She and John Dehlin also host retreats for people leaving the Church.

I am not sure I would term it that way. They hold retreats for people in faith transitions and mixed faith couples. I have personally talked to both Helfer and Dehlin and both support people in what they want to do.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In other words they can maintain the boundaries of the church. They cannot maintain the imagined boundary of people using the name Mormon because it applies to much more than just the church. They don't own or control the word

I get that and I agree. 

What I meant was that in regards to Natasha Helfer, I don't think the issues of the name and her membership council are separate. 

The name of the organization, coupled with her teachings on church doctrine within that organization, could be one of the reasons they felt they needed to call a membership council.