Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

20 hours 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.  

But remember, folks—you can’t safely trust untrained members of The Patriarchy to give solid counsel to your teenagers regarding sensitive personal matters.  It is people like Helfer—the highly trained, impeccably level-headed, unfailingly altruistic professionals whose personal lives are oh-so-functional-and-put-together—to whom we ought to entrust our time, our children, and (of course!) our client retainer accounts.

Taking life advice from someone whose life isn’t an absolute trainwreck, is highly overrated.  I’m sure Sam Young would agree.

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

But remember, folks—you can’t safely trust untrained members of The Patriarchy to give solid counsel to your teenagers regarding sensitive personal matters.  It is people like Helfer—the highly trained, impeccably level-headed, unfailingly altruistic professionals whose personal lives are oh-so-functional-and-put-together—to whom we ought to entrust our time, our children, and (of course!) our client retainer accounts.

Taking life advice from someone whose life isn’t an absolute trainwreck, is highly overrated.  I’m sure Sam Young would agree.

There are a lot of broad strokes and thoughtless words in there; you proud of that?

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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. 

If they specialize in faith transitions they could easily have called themselves “former Mormon” or “recovering from Mormonism” or a variety of other names.  They want the people who are still in the Church.

It seems bizarre to me that you would suggest that mental health counselors are *not* in a position of trust and authority over their clients.  Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you?

I don’t think there’s any way you can handle a membership council of this nature in a way that’s going to yield good PR.  Helfer is a champion for sexual libertinism in a sexually libertine society where the Church is very much swimming against the current.  Generally speaking, the public wants her to be able to stay in the Church, because they think people like her will eventually compel the Church into a more “tolerant” stance.  No process that results in her excommunication will be looked on favorably, no matter how stringent the due process provisions may have been.

The fundamental questions are a) did she, in essence, actually do/say/write what she’s accused of doing/saying/writing; and b) if so, whether she has now manifested a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  I see nothing in Helfer’s pre-council or post-council statements or behavior that leads me to a significant concern that her council may reach an erroneous conclusion on those issues.

The stories we are getting from Helfer about the timing and venue of the proceeding are coming from her alone; AFAIK the Church has not and likely will not publicly give its own view of the rationale for the decisions the local leaders made or any additional correspondence over the past 2 years that Helfer may have chosen to suppress.  I am frankly willing to give her local the leadership the benefit of the doubt; Helfer has not shown herself to be either a particularly level-headed or reliable individual.  

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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."

I know this is tangential, But I'm having fun talking about this. Freud does have ideas that have evolved and formed bases to several schools of thought. But I think there's a difference to say some of his theories and practice helped to form modern psychological practices and saying Freud and his OG theory are still important today in the way the first comment inferred. I could easily cut out all of the information I have about freud and freudian school of thought and it personally wouldn't make much of a difference to my current practice.  It's the difference to me saying Neanderthals played an important role in human evolution in europe and saying Neanderthals are super relevant today. (They're not beyond scant DNA in adults of european decent.) 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The link isn't working for me.  Can you clarify?  Who is Intellectual Reserve?  

It's the church's legal entity that owns all the copyrights and trademarks.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The link isn't working for me.  Can you clarify?  Who is Intellectual Reserve?  

Tax-exempt corporations of the LDS Church include the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[132] a corporation sole which was organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property; the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[133] which was established in 1923 in Utah to receive and manage money and church donations; and Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which was incorporated in 1997 to hold the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.[134] Non-tax-exempt corporations of the church include Bonneville International and the Deseret News.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#cite_note-156

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

But remember, folks—you can’t safely trust untrained members of The Patriarchy to give solid counsel to your teenagers regarding sensitive personal matters.  It is people like Helfer—the highly trained, impeccably level-headed, unfailingly altruistic professionals whose personal lives are oh-so-functional-and-put-together—to whom we ought to entrust our time, our children, and (of course!) our client retainer accounts.

Taking life advice from someone whose life isn’t an absolute trainwreck, is highly overrated.  I’m sure Sam Young would agree.

Gross. Helfer is undergoing a trauma and has navigated it in large part quite well. 

Hopefully she is taking some time off work as needed while she addresses her own needs. 

But yes in normal circumstances a trained professional is more qualified to help struggling people than laymen.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Intellectual reserve holds all of the church’s intellectual property. The link shows that they received a trademark for the word “Mormon” in 2007

I'm annoyed that the link works for everyone else but for it just takes me to a page that says "search expired". :lol:

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

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

This is a bit rich in the context of this thread.

I don't understand your comment here.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the individual wants a record of it, it’s for their “benefit” not to have it? A bit condescending don’t you think?

I was speaking of the general purpose of the policy of confidentiality, which is to protect both the individual and the Church. 

Now, there are times when an individual involved in a disciplinary proceeding may want to turn the meeting into a publicity stunt, either for self-aggrandizement, or to injure the reputation of the Church, or for a combination of reasons.  Such motivations are inappropriate, and are not grounds for creating an exception to the rule.  Again, the Church is convening the meeting.  Through its representatives.  On its private property.  And the terms of participation in that meeting are both clear and eminently reasonable.  

And no, I don't think maintaining confidentiality is "condescending" at all. 

First, the confidentiality is inherently appropriate for the circumstances. 

Second, the Church has both the legal and moral right, even duty, to conduct such proceedings with decorum and sanctity, and to not let the proceedings be distorted and converted into a publicity stunt at the preference of the individual.

Third, the Church has plenty of valid reasons for maintaining confidentiality, even if the individual does not.

Fourth, neither Natasha Helfer-Parker nor John Dehlin nor Sam Young nor Jeremy Runnells nor Kate Kelly nor anyone else gets to dictate the terms of a disciplinary proceeding.  It's not a matter of gender, and it is a bit absurd to insinuate that.

Fifth, there is no constraint placed on a person under discipline to speak about their experience.  For pete's sake, we've seen this dog-and-pony show many times over the years, with an individual who apparently cares more about getting 15 minutes of fame than their relationship with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church that houses it.

Sixth, it may well be that an individual may come to regret publicizing their disciplinary proceedings.  If so, any embarrassment will be solely their own fault, and not attributable to the Church.  Consider what has been said in this thread, about how membership councils are embarrassing/humiliating (one fellow even went so far as to absurdly characterize them as "barbaric").  Surely membership councils are difficult, but they are made considerably more so when turned into sordid cause célèbre (such as we have seen with Runnells, Snuffer, Reel, Kelly, Dehlin, Young, and so on).  So the Church is not being condescending by refusing to contribute to the individual's obnoxious - and possibly later to-be-regretted - behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So the church does own the word "Mormon"?  

I have a hard time reconciling that when things like this board (and many others) exist. Things like “Mormon Stories”, Bill Reel’s “Mormon Discussion”, FairMormon, etc. I’m not an attorney, but it’s my understanding that if you don’t protect your property you lose it. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not a matter of gender, and it is a bit absurd to insinuate that.

Who did that exactly?

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the Church is not being condescending by refusing to contribute to the individual's obnoxious - and possibly later to-be-regretted - behavior.

Obviously the church can do as it sees fit. It’s their organization, their rules. It’s not condescending to say no recordings allowed. However, if an individual wants a record of an event, it is absolutely condescending to tell them that you aren’t going to let them have it for *their benefit. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have a hard time reconciling that when things like this board (and many others) exist. Things like “Mormon Stories”, Bill Reel’s “Mormon Discussion”, FairMormon, etc. I’m not an attorney, but it’s my understanding that if you don’t protect your property you lose it. 

I agree, it's weird.  Maybe it only holds the trademark for "Mormon" (by itself) but that doesn't apply to terms like "mormon stories"?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I agree, it's weird.  Maybe it only holds the trademark for "Mormon" (by itself) but that doesn't apply to terms like "mormon stories"?

Doesn’t seem like it. See here:

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/church-day-saints-trademark-word-mormon/story?id=23988596
 

Here they opposed a trademark application for “Mormon Match”. 

Link to comment

After reading through this hot mess, I wonder if anyone both inside and outside the Church could possibly look at what happened as some kind of "Court of Love".  Not seeing a lot of love coming from the Church at all.  There seems little attempt to help her through this process in the least painful way possible.  It reads more like a passive aggressive approach by not bending one bit on how to accommodate someone they are trying to help through some kind of issue that needs to be dealt with. 

When someone gets this angry, it is usually because they have been pushed into a corner so tightly that they lash out.  The Church has made no friends here.  They have made a bitter enemy instead.  I can't see anything I can point to that shows any kind of compassion or understanding coming from the Church. 

The whole phone thing seems like the straw that broke the camels back.  It is easy to see how offended a person might be at not being allowed into the meeting until they gave up their phone that contained all of their notes.  And not even allowed to speak to the body directiy but by messenger.  Why not allow her into the meeting, give her some paper and some time to transcribe her notes or accommodate her in any way she wants before starting the meeting. Telling her to leave her phone outside or don't come in is an authoritative line in the sand that is not going to go well for anyone who is already very upset about how they have been treated.  No empathy at all for the situation the Church has put her in? Keeping her outside and using a messenger to relay demands?  Not looking like a "Court of Love" to me.  It looks like our way or the highway.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sounds like it's a case of choose your battles maybe.

Potentially. Mormon Match was seeking a trademark where these other organizations were not. They were also a for profit business. That said, I do think (though again I’m not an attorney) that by allowing the others, it would weaken any case taken to court. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
On 4/16/2021 at 12:20 PM, rongo said:

As has been said earlier in the thread, her views on their own wouldn't get her in trouble, in and of themselves. It is her public advocacy and criticism of the Church that is the problem. People on this thread who agree with all or many of her points aren't giving interviews, making videos, on John Dehlin's board, and rallying the troops for petitions. 

So you think she should not practice her profession based on the best current science and practices her professional organization recognizes? That she cannot write or speak about such things? That she cannot council her patients accordingly?  This would be a violation of her professional ethics and could cause her to lose her license.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not at all.

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

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.

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Needless to say I totally disagree with you and it is an accurate characterization.  But you support a high demand religion that uses heavy handed tactics to keep its members in line.  So I am not surprised about your views.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...