Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Vellichor said:

I'm sure the latter is the case. Bill Reel recorded his council meeting and released it publicly. John Dehlin surreptitiously recorded a conversation with his stake president that he then released to the press. Why wouldn't they be especially careful and cautious? This isn't a gender issue.

And Jeremy Runnells video recorded his.  Further, Natasha Helfer had John Dehlin right outside the doors with a camera ready to livestream everything on his YouTube for more views.    Given that she was using the same dog-and-pony show playbook as council celebrities before her, the wise counsel was to insist on no electronic devices.  That she got angry and refused when they offered to let her print her documents shows she wasn't interested in working together to find a path forward.

Reading gender into this is silly and unhelpful. 

Edited by helix
Link to comment
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After all of this almost all of my questions and criticism's of the church continue to be procedural. And there are a few things I'd still like to know.

1- Why were her records maintained in Kansas instead of following her to Utah 18 months earlier? Did she fail to give the needed info to her Utah ward so they could request them? Was there a hold on her record? Was she already under some kind of discipline?

2- Why did it take 18 months for Kansas leaders to hold the trial. Even considering the November date they originally scheduled it for we are still looking at a year after she moved. It seems very strange to me.

3- When the trial was rescheduled, how much notice was she given? Was it months like some suggest or was it 2 weeks like Natasha suggests?

4- Was she informed ahead of time that she wouldn't be allowed to bring her phone into the meeting or was this a surprise requirement when the council started?

Depending on the answers to those questions makes a huge difference about whether or not she was treated fairly and I just don't know the answers. 

1:  I do not know the answer.

2:  Did the November email threaten a court?  The one she did not get till something like February?

3:  I understood that the only time a trial was brought up was in a letter on Easter Sunday and it gave her one week.  She asked for more time and was given two weeks.

4:  She said she was not told she could not bring her phone just that she could not record the  court.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, helix said:

And Jeremy Runnells video recorded his.  Further, Natasha Helfer had John Dehlin right outside the doors with a camera ready to livestream everything on his YouTube for more views.    Given that she was using the same dog-and-pony show playbook as council celebrities before her, the wise counsel was to insist on no electronic devices.  That she got angry and refused when they offered to let her print her documents shows she wasn't interested in working together to find a path forward.

Reading gender into this is silly and unhelpful. 

I can agree with most of this, but given the ubiquity of cell phones, it is inexcusable that this expectation was not clearly communicated up front. Additionally it is unreasonable to expect Natasha to forward her notes via email to someone on the council. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

When speaking of the motives of an individual, I'm more inclined to lend credence to the individual as compared to the hostile mindreading of the other person.

If her "professional activities" had been implicated in the disciplinary proceedings, I think we would have more to go on that Helfer-Parker's unadorned say-so.

So in other words you choose to believe the SP because you believe he has more credence.  But you have nothing more than his word and Helfer has her word that it was in part due to her professional practice.  The SP comments are simply his say so as well.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

it is inexcusable that this expectation was not clearly communicated up front.

Mistakes happen by everyone.  We're a church fundamentally rooted on the concept that we make mistakes.  How you work together to find a solution is what this church is about.  She outright rejected an offer and yelled at them when they attempted to find a solution to this apparent miscommunication. 

Edited by helix
Link to comment
1 minute ago, helix said:

Mistakes happen by everyone.  We're a church fundamentally rooted on the concept that we make mistakes.  How you work together to find a solution is what this church is about.  She outright rejected an offer and yelled at them when they attempted to find  a solution to this apparent miscommunication. 

Sure it was a mistake. Couldn’t the same be said of Helfer’s reaction? This whole thing reads as one long mistake on the part of local leadershi and if I actually cared about my membership as Helfer seems to my reaction would have been worse. 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Her refusal to print out her notes was unreasonable.

Not if she wanted to keep them private and to print them she would have had to emailed them to someone there (Bishop, clerk).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Her refusal to print out her notes was unreasonable.

Not if she wanted to keep them private and to print them she would have had to emailed them to someone there (Bishop, clerk).

I don't think so.  She could have been allowed to use the clerk's computer to access Gmail or some other personal account of hers, print out her notes, then log off.  I did that all the time when I was in the bishopric.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, helix said:

Mistakes happen by everyone.  We're a church fundamentally rooted on the concept that we make mistakes.  How you work together to find a solution is what this church is about.  She outright rejected an offer and yelled at them when they attempted to find a solution to this apparent miscommunication. 

 

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure it was a mistake. Couldn’t the same be said of Helfer’s reaction? This whole thing reads as one long mistake on the part of local leadershi and if I actually cared about my membership as Helfer seems to my reaction would have been worse. 

Further if it was a mistake as you say, shouldn’t the SP own it instead of condescendingly calling Helfer out for her refusal to respect the sacred nature of the meeting (conveniently leaving out the very valid reason). That sure isn’t how the church taught me to own my mistakes. He doesn’t come across as a good faith actor there. Especially since he couldn’t even condescend to meet her at the door instead communicating via surrogate. Ymmv.  

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Couldn’t the same be said of Helfer’s reaction?

We're a church of mistakes and repentance.  We all make mistakes.  How we react to those mistakes shows where our priorities lie. 

She came out guns blazing, rallied her troops (led by John Dehlin and Sam Young), told public lies about the reason for the council, deliberately sought bad local and national press against the church, got mad at the local leadership and refused to find a solution to a communication misunderstanding, among many other problems.  It's hard to find anything good or productive in how she handled these events. 

Now maybe her first reaction to any kind of difficulty is to come out guns blazing in attack mode.  Perhaps that is a personality flaw for which we should be sympathetic.   I honestly don't know how I would handle a church member who has say, Oppositional Defiant Disoder (ODD) if I were their local leader.  I suppose the first approach is that this local leadership needed to simply look for any hint or sign of wanting to find a way forward.  And so they did look back on her past years and that past week especially, and found it wanting.  They also almost certainly sought guidance from the handbook as to what defines apostasy, and saw she fit it very, very well. 

Edited by helix
Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  She could have been allowed to use the clerk's computer to access Gmail or some other personal account of hers, print out her notes, then log off.  I did that all the time when I was in the bishopric.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps they should have offered that opportunity instead of inviting her to leave once she refuse to email the notes to them. 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Irony Meter.jpg

I was about to turn the table of irony on you in a way that would have likely cut you to the quick but decided it best to let it go unsaid. Just think of the sage advice that it’s best for those who live in glass houses to not start a rock fights.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Teancum said:
Quote

When speaking of the motives of an individual, I'm more inclined to lend credence to the individual as compared to the hostile mindreading of the other person.

If her "professional activities" had been implicated in the disciplinary proceedings, I think we would have more to go on that Helfer-Parker's unadorned say-so.

So in other words you choose to believe the SP because you believe he has more credence. 

I believe the stake president is better situated to speak as to his motives, yes.  As compared to the hostile mindreading of Helfer-Parker, yes.

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But you have nothing more than his word and Helfer has her word that it was in part due to her professional practice.  The SP comments are simply his say so as well.

Not so.  They are not on equal footing.  The question here is the purpose / intent / motivation for the membership council.  The council was convened by the stake president in Kansas.  He has first-hand knowledge of why he convened the council.  Helfer-Parker does not.  The stake president is a competent witness as to his motive.  Helfer-Parker's say-so is based on her conjecture and speculation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sure SMAC would have no problem emailing his private case notes to opposing counsel. 

I would have a problem with that.  But I would be fine with working out a logistical solution so that both sides could proceed.  The stake president apparently offered that, and Helfer-Parker rejected it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Further if it was a mistake as you say, shouldn’t the SP own it instead of condescendingly calling Helfer out for her refusal to respect the sacred nature of the meeting (conveniently leaving out the very valid reason). That sure isn’t how the church taught me to own my mistakes. He doesn’t come across as a good faith actor there. Especially since he couldn’t even condescend to meet her at the door instead communicating via surrogate. Ymmv.  

Are you saying that he and Natasha never even met that night? That all of this was done through a clerk or a counselor or someone?

And what is Ymmv?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would have a problem with that.  But I would be fine with working out a logistical solution so that both sides could proceed.  The stake president apparently offered that, and Helfer-Parker rejected it.

Thanks,

-Smac

The stake president didn't condescend to meet with Helfer in person. He sent a surrogate. The surrogate informed Helfer her phone wasn't allowed. This upset Helfer. After back and forth the surrogate offered to let Helfer email her notes to be printed. She declined. The surrogate invited her to leave. What am I missing?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

I don't think so.  She could have been allowed to use the clerk's computer to access Gmail or some other personal account of hers, print out her notes, then log off.  I did that all the time when I was in the bishopric.

Perhaps they should have offered that opportunity instead of inviting her to leave once she refuse to email the notes to them. 

From this article:

Quote

She moved to Utah in 2019 but was asked to return to Kansas for the meeting. She agreed to the meeting but once there was asked to turn off her phone and declined prior to the meeting. Local authorities there then declined to admit her to the meeting...

There seems to be some narrative brewing that they tried to "confiscate" her phone.  I question whether that happened.

More from the article:

Quote

She explained in a YouTube video that before the council started she was asked to turn off her cell phone. She declined, explaining she had her notes for the meeting on her phone.

"There was an agreement that I would not record, and I agreed to that and I sincerely meant it," she said in the video. "If you can only bring written notes, why don't you put that into your consent form?"

Oh, brother.  

Quote

The Church holds that such meetings are sacred. Hawkins issued a statement previously about such councils.

"Membership councils are private, sacred settings. It is common for participants to be asked to turn off technology (including cell phones) or leave it outside the room, as was the case with this council. All but one of the participants complied with that request and had brought their statements in writing. Those statements were fully reviewed and considered by the ecclesiastical leaders as they proceeded with the membership council."

Everyone was willing to cooperate except for her.

Quote

Helfer also said she declined an offer to print her notes because they also contained information that was meant only for her own eyes.

Every church building as an internet-connected computer.  It would have been quite easy to take her to the clerk's office, have her log on to her email account, print out the notes, then log off the account and go the council.  

So I find the implication here - that she could only print out her notes by emailing them to the stake president and have him print them out - to be hard to swallow. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Everyone was willing to cooperate except for her.

The witnesses brought written statements except for one. That was not in reference to Helfer. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Every church building as an internet-connected computer.  It would have been quite easy to take her to the clerk's office, have her log on to her email account, print out the notes, then log off the account and go the council. 

Easy yet that solution wasn't offered. She was offered something that even you apparently would not comply with and then she was invited to leave.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So I find the implication here - that she could only print out her notes by emailing them to the stake president and have him print them out - to be hard to swallow. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Last I checked, this isn't about what Helfer was physically capable of doing. It's not like she held any cards here. She had no access to the church (even the restroom apparently). Was she supposed to break in? Church leadership offered a solution that was ridiculous on its face. Helfer said no. (It sounds like she was very agitated and annoyed at this point, which I believe is entirely understandable). Helfer was then invited to leave (police were available to make sure everyone left).

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR. 

She painted the dishonest and incorrect narrative she was being punished for her job. 

Helfer - Washington Post "They’re trying to discredit me professionally".  No, the church wants to keep these meetings out of the spotlight.  If they wanted to discredit her, the church would have rushed it to the media first. 

Helfer (as quoted by KUTV): "It is problematic when people of faith, who are also specialized experts like myself, are discredited by the very communities they love and serve"

On YouTube on April 13th: "The reasons I am being called to such a meeting all have to do with the fact that I am a mental health professionaland a certified sex therapist in fact one of only a handfulwithin my community and I am public and vocal about my stances supporting and educating about sexual health which it seems they do not see as in compliance with doctrine"

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, helix said:

How we react to those mistakes shows where our priorities lie. 

And how did the stake president respond to his mistake of failing to communicate his expectations clearly? Did he own it or apologize or bend over backwards to offer an alternative? Nope. He brushed it under the rug and blamed Helfer for it in his letter. After Helfer refused to email her notes, she was invited to leave. 

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

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