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

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, helix said:

No she isn't.   Not anything close to that.

Yes she is. Totally.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

With respect, if you conclude based on your best judgment that the church isn’t what it says it is, that is your right. Based on my view of the best science and data out there, and based on my personal life experiences, I’ve come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist and that He/She certainly doesn’t lead the church. Based on this I left the church and resigned my membership. 
 

With that said, it would be kind of disingenuous for me to voice my conclusions and the facts as I see them, constantly criticizing the church and its leaders in public forums and expect them not to want to remove me their organization.

Edited April 20, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Needless to say I totally disagree with you and it is an accurate characterization. 

Why is it "needless?"

And on what facts do you disagree?

Quote

But you support a high demand religion that uses heavy handed tactics to keep its members in line. 

I agree that the Church is a "high demand religion," and I am grateful for it.  It infuses its doctrines pertaining to God, individual choice and conduct, relationships with others, and so on with real meaning and import.  My life is made richer and better for the impact the Church has on me, on my decisions, my conduct, my relationships with others, my relationship with God.

Similarly, I am in a "high demand" relationship with a group of people.  My wife and children.  Virtually all of my time is taken up taking care of them and their needs.  And again, I am grateful for it.  Again, my life is richer for the effort borne of meeting these "high demands."

In my younger days I spent some years in the Army National Guard, including 1.5 years on active duty.  That was "high demand" and "heavy handed"  After I signed up I was compelled to do, and not do, many things.  My hair had to be trimmed.  I had to wear a uniform.  I had to salute officers.  I had to stand in formation.  I had to participate in PT (Physical Training) and regularly submit to weight and fitness requirements.  I was assigned responsibilities.  I was told where to live.  I had a curfew.  There were limits on people with whom I could socialize or interact.  I was prohibited from publicly speaking against anyone in my chain of comment (including the civilians, up to POTUS).  And on and on.

But you know what?  I was okay with that.  When I signed up for the military, I understood that I was volunteering to protect my country, to defend the Constitution, the whole gig.  I knew it was going to be a "high demand" thing.  The military, in order to function in its various mandates, has to impose quite a bit on its personnel.  

Likewise, in order for my family to function, there are "high demands" placed on me as a husband and father.  I have actual and important responsibilities to provide for my wife and children, and to protect them, and to help them, and so on.  So I don't regret the impositions.  They're part of the gig.

The same goes for the Church.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then it has some very important mandates to fulfill, and those require quite a bit from its members.  I served a mission, serve in the Church, tailor my conduct to conform to external standards, and seek to improve myself and contribute to my family, my faith community, and my country.  Again, I don't mind the impositions.  They are part of the gig.

For these I am totally okay with submitting myself to "high demand" obligations and duties.  God, family and country.  These things are worth working to preserve and strengthen and grow.

As for "heavy handed" as a characterization of the Church, that's just nonsense.  The Church asks me to do things that are good for me, my family, and my community.  The time and effort on such things are well-spent.  And if and when I don't fulfill a calling or assignment, the consequences are pretty minor.  I might get released from a calling.  Or asked by the bishop to do better.  To say that this is "heavy handed" is to abuse the term.

As for membership councils, those aren't "heavy handed" either.  The council is just a meeting.  A quiet and somber one.  Held privately on the Church's property.  The individual has the choice to participate or not.  There are procedural and substantive safeguards in place so that the individual is given some measure of what in legal parlance is called "due process."  Evidence is presented and the behavior of the individual is discussed.  The individual, by the way, is always - always - someone who has voluntarily associated with and remained in the Church.  There is no physical force involved.  There is no coercion.  There are no raised voices.  Just . . . talking.  And if discipline is meted out, the vast majority of it comes in the form of constraints on the individual's activity relative to the Church (can't hold a calling, can't take the Sacrament, can't attend the temple, etc.).  In some very few cases, the membership of the individual in the Church is ended, but always with an exhortation to repent and return.

In all instances, the governing principles set forth in D&C 134:10 are observed:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Again, there is no violence or force, or the threat of violence or force, in the Church's disciplinary proceedings.

There is no threat to the individual's liberty, health, property, or life.  

There is no threat of any physical punishment.

There is, instead, a solemn and somber meeting held in a church building, the proceedings of which are kept confidential.

Calling this "heavy handed" is absurd.

Quote

So I am not surprised about your views.

I have a clear-eyed and accurate understanding and perspective on how the Church handles membership councils.

I think your characterization of these councils is inaccurate, unfair and overwrought.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 20, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's her not following church doctrine that would be the issue.

While there are organizations that are not aligned with the Church that use Mormon in the name, due to the organization being one of mental health therapists, I imagine there might be concern there were members who might assume the organization and its members have the approval of the Church.  My experience is that is not an unlikely perspective due to my experience working in the church related bookstore.  It was privately owned (Beehive Books), but there were customers who would come in and assume everything was approved by the Church that was in the store (I know this because they would say so and I corrected them, pointing out we carried quite a bit from nonchurch sources, the only products vetted by the Church would be Church Distribution materials and possibly some oversight for Deseret Book products).

While the use itself is not apostasy in my opinion, I think the use might have led to leaders being more cautious towards other behaviours and if they believed she was publicly promoting ideas that did not align with church doctrine, there may have been a desire to make it as clear as possible to members looking for a therapist who is a devout member what the situation was.  
 

I would also not be surprised if the organization had been asked to change the name, given reports I have heard with other situations.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

She can do all of those things and would have been fine as far as church discipline goes, I think. Her adversarial and apostate attacks (videos, blog posts, etc.) crossed that line, in my view. 

Even granting that she was hurt and not at her best, I think her performance on Sunday makes the Church look good, even if the initial scheduling and logistics did not. 

I would think that even in her "professional field," celebrating explicit pornography as healthy and normal is a controversial position and not accepted unanimously. 

And, I don't think many are rising to defend her "highest professional ethics" after her Sunday performance. Yowsers! 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

Sorry, the search apparently does time out. You can click on the "Trademark" button to go back and run the search again, but here's the relevant info if you are interested:

Word Mark	MORMON
Goods and Services	IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational services, namely, providing classes, conferences, and institutes in the fields of history and religion. FIRST USE: 19200000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19200000 IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: genealogy services. FIRST USE: 18330601. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 18330601
Mark Drawing Code	(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number	78977858
Filing Date	September 5, 2002
Current Basis	1A
Original Filing Basis	1A
Published for Opposition	February 20, 2007
Registration Number	3239919
Registration Date	May 8, 2007
Owner	(REGISTRANT) Intellectual Reserve, Inc. not-for-profit corporation UTAH 50 E North Temple Street, RM 1328 Salt Lake City UTAH 841500013
Attorney of Record	Berne S. Broadbent
Type of Mark	SERVICE MARK
Register	PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Affidavit Text	SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20170326.
Renewal	1ST RENEWAL 20170326
Live/Dead Indicator	LIVE

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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

Well...that is interesting. I stand corrected.

It does seem a little silly to me, though. They trademark the word Mormon and then utterly reject the term a few years later. So I guess that means no one can use it? What about Book of Mormon Musical? or all of the other "Mormon" named entities out there? It does make me wonder.

I think I should trademark a few of my least favorite words and then forbid people to use them.   

[Calm]

1 hour 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. 

FairMormon sought and received permission to use it.

[juliann]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

That only works if the church routinely goes after every therapist and there are others, one on this board. They haven’t and they don’t. So it’s time to put this piece of fake news to bed. 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

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

No she isn't.   Not anything close to that.

 

Yes she is. Totally.

No, she isn't.  

How many other members of the Church are situated, career-wise, similar to Natasha Helfer-Parker in the U.S.?  Thousands, I'd wager.  How many of them are "being disciplined for practicing her profession based on the best science and recommendations of her professions?"

In the absence of some massive and ongoing pogrom against therapists in the Church, I think it's reasonable to infer that Helfer-Parker is being disciplined for something more than "practicing her profession based on the best science and recommendations of her professions."

To be sure, it may be that the membership council is inappropriate.  It's not outside the realm of possibility that the stake president is being overzealous or unreasonable in his convening a disciplinary council.  

On the other hand, he may be acting within his stewardship.  I don't think we are situated to speaking intelligently and definitively about this aspect of this story.

Section 32.6.1 of the Handbook addresses when a membership council is required:

Quote

32.6.1

When a Membership Council Is Required

The bishop or stake president must hold a membership council when information indicates that a member may have committed any of the sins described in this section. For these sins, a council is required regardless of a member’s level of spiritual maturity and gospel understanding.

See 32.11 for potential outcomes of councils that are convened for the sins listed in this section. Informal membership restrictions are not an option for these councils.

Sins That Require Holding a Membership Council

• Murder

• Rape

• Sexual assault conviction

• Child or youth abuse

• Abuse of a spouse or another adult (as outlined in 38.6.2.4)

• Predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial)

• Incest

• Child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6)

• Plural marriage

• Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position

• Most felony convictions

Section 32.6.2 addresses when a membership council may be required:

Quote

32.6.2

When a Membership Council May Be Necessary

A membership council may be necessary in the following instances.

32.6.2.1

Violent Acts and Abuse

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6; italics added). Violent acts and abuse for which a membership council may be necessary include (but are not limited to) those listed below.

Attempted Murder. Deliberately trying to kill someone.

Sexual Abuse, Including Assault and Harassment. Sexual abuse covers a broad range of actions (see 38.6.18). A membership council may be necessary for a person who has sexually assaulted or abused someone. See 38.6.18.3 for when a council is required.

Abuse of a Spouse or Another Adult. There is a spectrum of severity in abusive behavior (see 38.6.2.4). A membership council may be necessary for a person who has abused a spouse or another adult. See 38.6.2.4 for when a council is required.

32.6.2.2

Sexual Immorality

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law (see Exodus 20:14; Doctrine and Covenants 63:16). A membership council may be necessary for sexual immorality as described in 38.6.5. See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required.

32.6.2.3

Fraudulent Acts

The Ten Commandments teach, “Thou shalt not steal” or “bear false witness” (Exodus 20:15–16). A membership council may be necessary for acts such as robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, perjury, and fraud. See 38.8.2 for affinity fraud. See 32.6.1.3 for when a council is required for fraudulent acts.

32.6.2.4

Violations of Trust

A membership council may be necessary if a member:

• Commits a serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community.

• Commits a serious sin that is widely known.

See 32.6.1.4 for when a council is required.

32.6.2.5

Some Other Acts

King Benjamin taught, “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them” (Mosiah 4:29). A council may be necessary if a person:

• Shows a pattern of committing serious sins (see Doctrine and Covenants 82:7).

• Deliberately abandons family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony.

• Sells illegal drugs.

• Commits other serious criminal acts.

A membership council may be necessary if a member submits to, performs, arranges for, pays for, or encourages an abortion. See 38.6.1 for guidelines.

To sum the above two sections:

Quote

When a Membership Council Is Required or May Be Necessary

Type of Sin	Membership Council Is Required (see 32.6.1)	Membership Council May Be Necessary (see 32.6.2)
Violent Acts and Abuse	Murder Rape Sexual assault conviction Child or youth abuse Violent predatory behavior	Attempted murder Sexual abuse, including assault and harassment (see 38.6.18 for when a council is required) Abuse of a spouse or another adult (see 38.6.2.4 for when a council is required)
Sexual Immorality	Incest Child pornography Plural marriage Sexual predatory behavior	Adultery, fornication, and same-sex relations Cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage Intensive or compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family
Fraudulent Acts	Financial predatory behavior, such as fraud and similar activities	Robbery, burglary, theft, or embezzlement Perjury
Violations of Trust	Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position	Serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community Serious sin that is widely known
Some Other Acts	Most felony convictions	Abortion Pattern of serious sins Deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony Sale of illegal drugs Other serious criminal acts

Conversely, Section32.6.4 addresses when a membership council is not necessary:

Quote

32.6.4

When a Membership Council Is Not Normally Necessary

A membership council is not normally necessary in the following instances.

32.6.4.1

Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards

A membership council is not held for the actions listed below. However, note the exception in the last item.

• Inactivity in the Church

• Not fulfilling Church duties

• Not paying tithing

• Sins of omission

• Masturbation

• Not complying with the Word of Wisdom

• Using pornography, except for child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6) or intensive or compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family (as outlined in 38.6.13).

32.6.4.2

Business Failures or Nonpayment of Debts

Leaders should not use membership councils to settle business disputes. Business failures and nonpayment of debts are not reasons to hold a membership council. However, a council must be held for serious fraudulent activities or other serious deceptive financial practices (see 32.6.1.3).

32.6.4.3

Civil Disputes

Membership councils are not held to resolve civil disputes (see Doctrine and Covenants 134:11).

The foregoing sections can help us narrow the parameters a bit, and make more educated guesses regarding the propriety of the membership council for Helfer-Parker.  For example, we know that the stake president in Kansas convened the council.  Stake-level councils are governed by Section 32.9.1:

Quote

32.9.1

Stake President

The stake president:

• Has authority over membership councils in the stake; however, most of these councils are held by bishops.

• Must give approval before a bishop may hold a membership council.

• Holds a stake membership council if a man or woman who has received the temple endowment will likely have his or her Church membership withdrawn.

• May hold a council if a member appeals the decision of a ward membership council.

• Must give approval before a ward membership council’s recommendation to withdraw an unendowed person’s membership is final.

From this I think we can infer 1) that Helfer-Parker "has received the temple endowment," and 2) that the "likely" outcome of the council is withdrawal of membership.  

Section 32.7 of the Handbook goes into some length to provide a framework for the "Circumstances of the Person" subject to a membership council.  A summary:

Quote

 

Considerations That May Influence Decisions

• Magnitude of the sin

• Interests of the victim

• Evidence of repentance

• Violation of temple covenants

• Position of trust or authority

• Repetition

• Age, maturity, and experience

• Mental capacity

• Voluntary confession

• Time between sin and confession

I think the most likely reason for the membership council is that the stake president feels there has been some sort of "apostasy."  This is governed by Section 32.6.3.2:

Quote

32.6.3.2

Apostasy

Issues of apostasy often have an impact beyond the boundaries of a ward or stake. They need to be addressed promptly to protect others.

The bishop counsels with the stake president if he feels that a member’s action may constitute apostasy. The bishop or stake president may place informal membership restrictions on the member (see 32.8.3). The stake president promptly counsels with the Area Presidency. However, only the stake president decides whether a membership council or other action is necessary.

As used here, apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following:

• Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders

• Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

• Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members

• Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

• Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a person who has sinned. “But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31).

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why is it "needless?"

And on what facts do you disagree?

I agree that the Church is a "high demand religion," and I am grateful for it.  It infuses its doctrines pertaining to God, individual choice and conduct, relationships with others, and so on with real meaning and import.  My life is made richer and better for the impact the Church has on me, on my decisions, my conduct, my relationships with others, my relationship with God.

Similarly, I am in a "high demand" relationship with a group of people.  My wife and children.  Virtually all of my time is taken up taking care of them and their needs.  And again, I am grateful for it.  Again, my life is richer for the effort borne of meeting these "high demands."

In my younger days I spent some years in the Army National Guard, including 1.5 years on active duty.  That was "high demand" and "heavy handed"  After I signed up I was compelled to do, and not do, many things.  My hair had to be trimmed.  I had to wear a uniform.  I had to salute officers.  I had to stand in formation.  I had to participate in PT (Physical Training) and regularly submit to weight and fitness requirements.  I was assigned responsibilities.  I was told where to live.  I had a curfew.  There were limits on people with whom I could socialize or interact.  I was prohibited from publicly speaking against anyone in my chain of comment (including the civilians, up to POTUS).  And on and on.

But you know what?  I was okay with that.  When I signed up for the military, I understood that I was volunteering to protect my country, to defend the Constitution, the whole gig.  I knew it was going to be a "high demand" thing.  The military, in order to function in its various mandates, has to impose quite a bit on its personnel.  

Likewise, in order for my family to function, there are "high demands" placed on me as a husband and father.  I have actual and important responsibilities to provide for my wife and children, and to protect them, and to help them, and so on.  So I don't regret the impositions.  They're part of the gig.

The same goes for the Church.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then it has some very important mandates to fulfill, and those require quite a bit from its members.  I served a mission, serve in the Church, tailor my conduct to conform to external standards, and seek to improve myself and contribute to my family, my faith community, and my country.  Again, I don't mind the impositions.  They are part of the gig.

For these I am totally okay with submitting myself to "high demand" obligations and duties.  God, family and country.  These things are worth working to preserve and strengthen and grow.

As for "heavy handed" as a characterization of the Church, that's just nonsense.  The Church asks me to do things that are good for me, my family, and my community.  The time and effort on such things are well-spent.  And if and when I don't fulfill a calling or assignment, the consequences are pretty minor.  I might get released from a calling.  Or asked by the bishop to do better.  To say that this is "heavy handed" is to abuse the term.

As for membership councils, those aren't "heavy handed" either.  The council is just a meeting.  A quiet and somber one.  Held privately on the Church's property.  The individual has the choice to participate or not.  There are procedural and substantive safeguards in place so that the individual is given some measure of what in legal parlance is called "due process."  Evidence is presented and the behavior of the individual is discussed.  The individual, by the way, is always - always - someone who has voluntarily associated with and remained in the Church.  There is no physical force involved.  There is no coercion.  There are no raised voices.  Just . . . talking.  And if discipline is meted out, the vast majority of it comes in the form of constraints on the individual's activity relative to the Church (can't hold a calling, can't take the Sacrament, can't attend the temple, etc.).  In some very few cases, the membership of the individual in the Church is ended, but always with an exhortation to repent and return.

In all instances, the governing principles set forth in D&C 134:10 are observed:

Again, there is no violence or force, or the threat of violence or force, in the Church's disciplinary proceedings.

There is no threat to the individual's liberty, health, property, or life.  

There is no threat of any physical punishment.

There is, instead, a solemn and somber meeting held in a church building, the proceedings of which are kept confidential.

Calling this "heavy handed" is absurd.

I have a clear-eyed and accurate understanding and perspective on how the Church handles membership councils.

I think your characterization of these councils is inaccurate, unfair and overwrought.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a truly excellent post! Apropos to your thoughts, I believe it’s quite likely that one of the foremost reasons why there was a war in heaven is because the devil and his hosts believed God the Father’s plan of salvation was too “heavy handed.”

I can just hear the adversary and his followers demanding: “Aren’t you asking too much? Can’t you see you’re being too inflexible? Why must there be such harsh penalties for sin when lthe fallen state makes it impossible to avoid? Can’t you see what unnecessary intense emotional pain and unbearable physical suffering all of this is going to cause? Where’s the love? Where’s the compassion? Where’s at least a modicum of sympathy?”

[Teancum]

On 4/16/2021 at 8:15 PM, 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.

Fortune?  Bwaaahahahah!

[helix]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yes she is. Totally.

She 1) states authority to define sin, 2) calls church leaders to repentance for their definitions of sin, and 3) teaches members they can sin because she has declared them not sins.

Her profession has nothing to do with defining sin. Science has nothing to do with defining sin. 

For example, a teenager can simultaneously lie, be normal, and commit a religious sin. That what religions do.  But her argument is at its core that the church is wrong, evil, and needs to repent for calling certain actions sins.  It doesn't help that she associates with Sam Young, John Dehlin, and almost exclusively only criticizes the church.  It further doesn't help when she can't see her own glaring imbalances.  She unapologetically calls the church leaders "patriarchal pricks", while literally condemning the church for being harmful and PG-13 for using phrases like "lazy" in General Conference in front of children younger than 15. 

This is not a case of a white knight being attacked for her profession.  She has openly attacked the church for years, claimed theological superiority over its leaders, claimed authority to define sin, and associated heavily with its prominent critics.

Edited April 20, 2021 by helix

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With respect, if you conclude based on your best judgment that the church isn’t what it says it is, that is your right. Based on my view of the best science and data out there, and based on my personal life experiences, I’ve come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist and that He/She certainly doesn’t lead the church. Based on this I left the church and resigned my membership. 
 

With that said, it would be kind of disingenuous for me to voice my conclusions and the facts as I see them, constantly criticizing the church and its leaders in public forums and expect them not to want to remove me their organization.

They can discuss with her if her alleged "criticisms" step over the line.  Based on what I have seen they do not IMO. They should not discipline her for practicing her professions based on best practices.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Teancum

[helix]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

They an discuss with her if her alleged "criticisms" step over the line.  Based on what I have seen they do not IMO. They should not discipline her for practicing her professions based on best practices.

Please provide one shred of actual evidence where the stake president said "We are punishing you for practicing your profession" 

Otherwise, you should stop repeating that lie. 

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

They an discuss with her if her alleged "criticisms" step over the line.  Based on what I have seen they do not IMO. They should not discipline her for practicing her professions based on best practices.

Seriously, stop. You can’t complain about heavy handed methods by others when you continue to pass this nonsense along as truth. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think your characterization of these councils is inaccurate, unfair and overwrought.

As I said we don't agree on this. I have sat through a number of DCs in my days.  Had to do a few as a bishop.  My formation of my opinion does not come from lack of experience. And great for you if you like a high demand religion that  is IMO, very heavy handed in the way it relates, interacts, expect to and from its members I am happy for you.  Doesn't work for me at least currently.  

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, helix said:

She 1) states authority to define sin, 2) calls church leaders to repentance for their definitions of sin, and 3) teaches members they can sin because she has declared them not sins.

Her profession has nothing to do with defining sin. Science has nothing to do with defining sin. 

For example, a teenager can simultaneously lie, be normal, and commit a religious sin. That what religions do.  But her argument is at its core that the church is wrong, evil, and needs to repent for calling certain actions sins.  It doesn't help that she associates with Sam Young, John Dehlin, and almost exclusively only criticizes the church.  It further doesn't help when she can't see her own glaring imbalances.  She unapologetically calls the church leaders "patriarchal pricks", while literally condemning the church for being harmful and PG-13 for using phrases like "lazy" in General Conference in front of children younger than 15. 

This is not a case of a white knight being attacked for her profession.  She has openly attacked the church for years, claimed theological superiority over its leaders, claimed authority to define sin, and associated heavily with its prominent critics.

I have interacted with Helfer quite a bit and I believe your characterization is overstated as far as attacking the church.  The LDS Church can define sin any way it wants to. That does not make it so. And its definitions does not trump the scientific best practices of a professional.

[Teancum]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Seriously, stop. You can’t complain about heavy handed methods by others when you continue to pass this nonsense along as truth. 

I certainly can. Why should I stop?  It is my opinion.  Sorry if you do not like it.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, helix said:

Please provide one shred of actual evidence where the stake president said "We are punishing you for practicing your profession" 

Otherwise, you should stop repeating that lie. 

He wants her to change her views on sexual health practices that disagree with the church.  She cannot talk about them or be public about them or write about them.  Pretty clear to me.  It is not a lie. You should not make false accusations.

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I can just hear the adversary and his followers demanding: “Aren’t you asking too much? Can’t you see you’re being too inflexible? Why must there be such harsh penalties for sin when lthe fallen state makes it impossible to avoid? Can’t you see what unnecessary intense emotional pain and unbearable physical suffering all of this is going to cause? Where’s the love? Where’s the compassion? Where’s at least a modicum of sympathy?”

If they were truly a reflection of Lucifer’s teaching I am stunned that somehow I made into mortality.

I doubt that is an accurate portrayal of the adversary’s stance.

[helix]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have interacted with Helfer quite a bit and I believe your characterization is overstated as far as attacking the church. 

I quoted her claiming authority and repeatedly and harshly attacking the church.

Quote

The LDS Church can define sin any way it wants to. That does not make it so.

Those two sentences are an oxymoron.  A religion, by definition, gets to define its own sins. 

Quote

He wants her to change her views on sexual health practices that disagree with the church.    She cannot talk about them or be public about them or write about them. 

That didn't happen.  You're being awfully evasive in refusing to provide evidence the stake president said this. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by helix

[Teancum]

On 4/16/2021 at 8:41 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

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

$200k a year is hardly a fortune.

[smac97]

On 4/20/2021 at 12:53 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

I think your characterization of these councils is inaccurate, unfair and overwrought.

As I said we don't agree on this.

Except my position is more congruent with the evidence at hand.  And I have not merely declared my position, I have explained the reasoning and analysis pertaining to it.

Quote

I have sat through a number of DCs in my days.  Had to do a few as a bishop.  My formation of my opinion does not come from lack of experience.

And yet here you are, calling a quiet and somber meeting "heavy handed."  Calling constraints on or termination of voluntarily membership in a religion "heavy handed."

Again, there is no violence or force, or the threat of violence or force, in the Church's disciplinary proceedings.  There is no threat to the individual's liberty, health, property, or life.  There is no threat of any physical punishment.  There is, instead, a solemn and somber meeting held in a church building, the proceedings of which are kept confidential.  That you have participated in disciplinary councils and are still characterizing them as "heavy handed" does not bolster your position. 

I have been in civil court proceedings hundreds of times.  Some few of these have been criminal proceedings, but otherwise they have been civil.  In these proceedings there is a judge sitting on an elevated stand (the "bench") and behind him is the Great Seal of Utah (or of the United States for federal courts), together with the flag.  There is also an armed deputy, and a court clerk.  There are also cameras all around, recording the proceedings in detail.  The judge is in charge of the proceedings.  There is simply no question about that.  He or she is wearing a black robe, sitting on the bench, and is publicly recognized as a judge authorized to interpret and apply the law, and to render binding decisions that conform with the governing laws and rules of procedure.  The judge has the ability to force a party to do, or not do, something.  He can deprive a person of his property.  He can impose a money judgment against the individual.  He can incarcerate the individual (in criminal matters).  

A civil judge can do far more than a bishop or a stake president, and yet it would be unreasonable to characterize the U.S. legal system as "heavy handed."  There are ample safeguards in place to protect the rights of the individual from abuse or misconduct by the judge or the legal process.  Such proceedings are governed by "law," and not by man.  

So if a civil court system, having substantially more actual authority over the life, liberty and property of the individual, cannot be said to be "heavy handed," how much less reasonable is it to apply that characterization to a bishop or stake president who can, at most, put constraints on an individual's church membership, and in extreme cirumstances terminate that individual's church membership. 

Quote

And great for you if you like a high demand religion that  is IMO, very heavy handed in the way it relates, interacts, expect to and from its members I am happy for you.  Doesn't work for me at least currently.  

I get that.  Honestly, I do.  You'll note that I do not dispute your characterization of the Church as being a "high demand religion."  It is.  No question there.  I think we differ in that I think the "high demand" is worthwile because of what the Church claims to be and what I believe it to be.  At present, you don't.  I don't know why, and I won't ask you to explain.  But I hope you have a change of heart.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 30, 2021 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 4/17/2021 at 4:50 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

It may seem silly to you, but fan-based funding gives Dr Dehlin the ability to run his anti-Mormon business without having to work for a living.  This is true for a number of anti-Mormon groups.

I would assume while you may not like Dehlin or what he does, what he does is actually work.  The fact that it hurts your feelings does not change that.  Also who are you to criticize his donators and fan based funding.  Donators may actually believe in what he does.