smac97 Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said: Intellectual might is not the concern. It kinda is. 14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said: They cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate in attempting to do so. What does "cannot" mean? And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer? 14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said: Elder Holland and GBH both got taken to the cleaners several years ago and both lied and did not give truthful answers. Well, no. Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate. That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm. 14 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said: If you need a link to the interviews I’d be happy to provide them. Oaks would likely do the same thing. Sure. Trot 'em out. I question your characterization of them. Like, a lot. Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back? He did quite well, IMHO. I am broadly unimpressed with John Dehlin. Contrary to your suggestion, intellectual knowledge and competency matter in terms of having a fair, reasoned, substantive, and civil discussion about the Church and its doctrines, leaders, history, policies, etc. It is Dehlin who "cannot and will not" have such a discussion. Thanks, Smac 4 Link to comment
secondclasscitizen Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 (edited) 56 minutes ago, smac97 said: It kinda is. OK but I’m not of the opinion you have to be really smart to just tell the truth. What does "cannot" mean? In many instances they cannot go on and just tell the truth because the truth would not be helpful a.k.a. it would tear down faith. That being said they cannot do it. And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer? How about telling us how many excommunications they had to do back in the day for the Baseball baptism they did in several countries? Then they would have to explain what the baseball baptism deal was all about. That should raise a few eyebrows. One could also ask why they are investing north of $1 billion a year in the stock market. And not just the market but many of the positions they hold in equities are in companies that would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks. They can also explain why it’s OK for a member to make a profit off of abortion gambling liquor tobacco and other types of vices yet they have to abstain from them. Well, no. Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate. That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm. It’s not a gotcha question if you can just tell the truth. I’m sure we can all come up with something to make John Dehlin squirm. The issues isn’t John Dehlin, it is the church leadership and how they handle the truth versus manipulation the truth. This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith. That said they withhold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith. By withholding information also can be best described as a lie. If you’re OK with them not telling the complete truth and so be it. I prefer to just have all the information that way I can make a decision based on actual facts instead of a manipulated set of facts. Sure. Trot 'em out. I question your characterization of them. Like, a lot. https://www.google.com/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/amp/ Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back? He did quite well, IMHO. I’m sure he does quite well whenever he feels like it. Yet the issues is not how well he does. I believe most times he does tell the truth however there’s documented evidence he’s not a very truthful guy at times. I am broadly unimpressed with John Dehlin. Contrary to your suggestion, intellectual knowledge and competency matter in terms of having a fair, reasoned, substantive, and civil discussion about the Church and its doctrines, leaders, history, policies, etc. It is Dehlin who "cannot and will not" have such a discussion. I’m not real impressed with John Dehlin either. But like I said before the issue isn’t John Delin it’s the church leader ship. Or at least some of them. Problem is we don’t know which one is which except for a few and proven to not tell the truth. Thanks, Smac Edited May 16, 2021 by secondclasscitizen Link to comment
JamesBYoung Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 (edited) 18 hours ago, smac97 said: Her version of what? Yes. The handbook allows for it. Natasha gave her explanation. It's online. That you don't know that indicates a determined willingness to skip some of the evidence by not looking for it. I know John, and I wish he was more 'solid' than 'let's play catch as catch can.' Until the 15 stop engaging in sophistry and stay with the facts only, we will have problems as individuals and a group and a church membership. Another one of my family members, back five years from a mission, walked out with the proviso "I want to stay, but 'they' need honor up and tell the real stories. And God made same-sex attraction. God made it, the Apostles are not going to unmake it." Edited May 16, 2021 by JamesBYoung 2 Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted May 16, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said: Quote Quote Quote Quote Natasha is (1) correct on why she was excommunicate, Not according to the stake president to officiated at the council. And Natasha wasn't even at the council. Why should we privilege the self-serving speculations of Natasha Helfer-Parker over the specific statements of the stake president who rendered the decision, and who therefore is a pretty good percipient witness as to the "why"? Have you read Natasha's version? Her version of what? Natasha gave her explanation. It's online. Again, her version/explanation of what? Quote That you don't know that indicates a determined willingness to skip some of the evidence by not looking for it. You are being vague. I am asking you to clarify. If you are referencing "why she was excommunicate{d}," yes, I am quite aware of her "version/explanation." But you didn't answer my question. Let me lay out my reasoning: 1. Natasha Helfer-Parker did not attend the membership council, nor did she schedule it, officiate at it or make the ultimate decision at it regarding her membership. 2. All of the above was done by the stake president (with his counselors). 3. The stake president wrote her a letter, which she later publicized, and in which he specifically rebuts her "version/explanation" (that she was disciplined because of her "professional activities" as a therapist). 4. Given the foregoing, I ask you again: Why should we privilege the self-serving speculations of Natasha Helfer-Parker over the specific statements of the stake president who rendered the decision, and who therefore is a pretty good percipient witness as to the "why" {she lost her membership}? Quote I know John, and I wish he was more 'solid' than 'let's play catch as catch can.' Until the 15 stop engaging in sophistry and stay with the facts only, we will have problems as individuals and a group and a church membership. Meh. Your stacking the deck here. Quote Another one of my family members, back five years from a mission, walked out with the proviso "I want to stay, but 'they' need honor up and tell the real stories. And God made same-sex attraction. God made it, the Apostles are not going to unmake it." This is an unserious and immature, and substantively false, grievance. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 16, 2021 by smac97 6 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said: Natasha gave her explanation. It's online. That you don't know that indicates a determined willingness to skip some of the evidence by not looking for it. I know John, and I wish he was more 'solid' than 'let's play catch as catch can.' Until the 15 stop engaging in sophistry and stay with the facts only, we will have problems as individuals and a group and a church membership. Another one of my family members, back five years from a mission, walked out with the proviso "I want to stay, but 'they' need honor up and tell the real stories. And God made same-sex attraction. God made it, the Apostles are not going to unmake it." It's as if they themselves (leaders) have doubts, when they don't believe the members can handle the truth. If the church is true, nothing should/could stand in it's way. ETA: But then again look at me? I struggled after learning truths. So maybe it's a problem. But I wonder how I'd change if the church could have dialogue like we do on this board with members that are true believing discussing these things and them not having any problems with it, nice and out in the open. Edited May 16, 2021 by Tacenda Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted May 16, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said: It kinda is. OK but I’m not of the opinion you have to be really smart to just tell the truth. You also don't have to be really smart to enjoy wife-beating and torturing puppies, and yet here you are. </sarcasm> Quote What does "cannot" mean? In many instances they cannot go on and just tell the truth because the truth would not be helpful a.k.a. it would tear down faith. That being said they cannot do it. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Quote And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer? How about telling us how many excommunications they had to do back in the day for the Baseball baptism they did in several countries? Oh, brother. As I said earlier: "Loaded questions, 'gotcha' questions, etc. are not really legitimate." From Wikipedia (in an article about Elder Henry D. Moyle): Quote The controversial "baseball baptism" program was Moyle's idea to increase baptisms in order to fill the church meetinghouses. Missionaries would encourage young men to join sports leagues and used baptism as a prerequisite. Under this approach, large numbers of young men were baptized but very few were ever active in the church.[5] The rush to baptize was accompanied with the establishment of baptism quotas for missionaries and memorized missionary discussions which were to be delivered verbatim to potential converts. The rest of the apostles were largely opposed to these changes, which led to Moyle being relieved of his responsibilities in the missionary department. ... [5] Quinn, D. Michael. "I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions: The Mormon "Baseball Baptism" Era" (PDF). Sunstone. Retrieved 26 December 2020. As Quinn noted: Quote {M}any general authorities had misgivings, especially about Britain, where several apostles had served missions. By May 1961, "nearly all" of the apostles were "gravely concerned about the pressures being put on missionaries to baptize to fill a quota of baptisms." BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson added, "This of course was a criticism of President Moyle and many of the mission presidents working under his direction." ... In January 1963, Apostle Mark E. Petersen arrived to preside over the missions throughout Britain, Ireland, and the French-East Mission. Henry D. Moyle Jr. had presided over the French East since 1961, and his first missionary bulletin outlined the program for "baseball americain." Elder Petersen complained that " `baseball baptisms' were being made whereby youngsters were baptized into the Church without any instruction and sometimes without the knowledge or consent of their parents." He added: "Under President McKay's instructions, we were to discontinue such things and bring the missions back to a normal proselyting program." Elder Moyle also had the pretty bad idea of deficit spending (also from Wikipedia) : Quote Moyle spearheaded much of the church's building program in the early 1960s. He believed that the Church Office Building, the headquarters of the LDS Church, should have been twice its size. He was also convinced that by building larger meetinghouses, the church would attract more converts. Moyle convinced McKay not to publish an account of church spending as was customary in order to hide the extent of the budget deficit caused by spending on buildings. By 1962, the deficit had reach $32 million. His optimistic building programs placed a considerable financial strain upon the church and McKay eventually relieved Moyle from many of his administrative responsibilities. Both ideas were implemented, found to be bad, and corrected. Conversely, Elder Moyle also had the idea of the Church investing in a cattle ranch in Florida, and that seemed to work out really well. But what is the relevance of this stuff, which happend nearly sixty (60) years ago? Both the "baseball baptism" and deficit spending ideas were abandoned long ago. So you wanting to ask an apostle about this comes across as purely a "gotcha"-style inquiry. Quote Then they would have to explain what the baseball baptism deal was all about. That should raise a few eyebrows. Yeah, they could do that. Not very difficult. But again, that you are fantasizing about calling an apostle on the carpet to answer for something that ended nearly sixty years ago is pretty telling. You want a "gotcha" interview, not a substantive, meaningful one. Quote One could also ask why they are investing north of $1 billion a year in the stock market. Yes, one could. But then, why would one? We already know the answer to this. The Church has already addressed this. See, e.g., here: Quote Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (see Gérald Caussé, “In the Lord’s Way: The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Mormon Newsroom, Mar. 2, 2018). Some investments serve a dual purpose. For example, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “we have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need” (“The State of the Church,” Ensign, May 1991, 54). Another example is the Church’s participation in the development of downtown Salt Lake City. With its investment in the City Creek Center (a mixed-use development that includes retail space, residential units, office space and parking), the Church enhanced the environs of Temple Square and underscored a commitment to Salt Lake City, Utah, where it is headquartered. The investment increased local economic activity during a financial downturn and attracted visitors and residents to Salt Lake City’s historic downtown. (Emphases added) In legal parlance, your question has been "asked and answered." So asking it again is not really legitimate. Quote And not just the market but many of the positions they hold in equities are in companies that would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks. "Would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks?" Considered by whom? What companies? Quote They can also explain why it’s OK for a member to make a profit off of abortion gambling liquor tobacco and other types of vices yet they have to abstain from them. What? Quote Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate. That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm. It’s not a gotcha question if you can just tell the truth. Meh. What you are advocating here is not legitimate. See here: Quote "Gotcha journalism" is a pejorative term used by media critics to describe interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation. The term is rooted in an assertion that the interviewer may be supporting a hidden agenda, and aims to make film or sound recordings of the interviewee which may be selectively edited, compiled, and broadcast or published in order to intentionally show the subject in an unfavorable light. ... Gotcha journalism is often designed to keep the interviewee on the defensive by, for example, being required to explain some of their own statements taken out of context thus effectively preventing the interviewee from clearly presenting their position. The intent of gotcha journalism is always premeditated and used to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral. This is what you are fantasizing of doing, I think. Quote I’m sure we can all come up with something to make John Dehlin squirm. Yes. Quote The issues isn’t John Dehlin, it is the church leadership and how they handle the truth versus manipulation the truth. No, that's not the issue. You fantasizing about asking an apostle in 2021 about "baseball baptism" from six decades ago, or about investment of the Church's money, seems squarely in line with "interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation," with "the interviewer ... supporting a hidden agenda" (such as, as one fellow recently put it, to "tear down faith"), with "keep{ing} the interviewee on the defensive," with having "{t}he intent ... to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral." So it's not about "the truth." It's about people like you wanting to "tear down faith." Quote This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith. Utter nonsense. Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false. Quote That said they withhold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith. CFR, please. Chapter and verse. Specific quotations. I will hold you to this. If you don't respond, I will report you to the mods. One of the great things about this board is that participants don't get to throw out wild claims when advancing an argument, and then refuse to substantiate them when requested to do so. Hence the board rules require that when someone posts a "CFR" ("call for references"), the person making the claim is required to substantiate the factual claim they have made. So, again, CFR. Chapter and verse that leaders of the Church have said things that can be reasonably paraphrased as "{We] withold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith." Quote By withholding information also can be best described as a lie. Oh. So let's say I present the following questions to you: 1. What is your full name, "secondclasscitizen?" 2. What is your social security number? 3. Where are your bank accounts? What are the account numbers? What are the usernames and passwords for these accounts? 4. What was your annual salary each year for the last five years? 5. What is your email username and password? 6. What is your home address? If you decline to answer these, you are "witholding information," such that - by your reasoning - you can "be best described as a" liar. Right? For the record, I don't buy into this. At all. I find what you are presenting here to be absurd and unreasonable and unfair and uncharitable. Quote If you’re OK with them not telling the complete truth and so be it. You're hoisting yourself by your own petard. Quote I prefer to just have all the information that way I can make a decision based on actual facts instead of a manipulated set of facts. Sure. Trot 'em out. I question your characterization of them. Like, a lot. https://www.google.com/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/amp/ Oh, my. I mean, I wasn't expecting to you so brazenly glorify "gotcha" tactics, but then you went and posted that video. You are demonstrating my point. In spades. You are into "gotcha" stuff. That's all. You further demonstrate my point by pointing to Pres. Hinckley's off-the-cuff response during a 1997 interview: Quote Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man? A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about. Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this? A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can. See, I find this response quite accurate and good. The Church has never been shy about exaltation/theosis. It's all published to the world. But in the end, there is only so much we can say about it. We also believe in the literal resurrection of the dead, but we "we don't know very much about" the mechanics of it, or about the particulars of it except as to some broad understanding of the timing of it, the "flesh and bone" stuff, and so on. And even then, Pres. Hinckley was pretty darn candid. "Well, as God is, man may become." This, in your view, is "a lie." The mind reels. Quote Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back? He did quite well, IMHO. I’m sure he does quite well whenever he feels like it. Yet the issues is not how well he does. Strange, then, that you previously said that the apostles "cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate." What an ugly, and now admittedly false, characterization that was. Quote I believe most times he does tell the truth however there’s documented evidence he’s not a very truthful guy at times. Well, no. Quote I am broadly unimpressed with John Dehlin. Contrary to your suggestion, intellectual knowledge and competency matter in terms of having a fair, reasoned, substantive, and civil discussion about the Church and its doctrines, leaders, history, policies, etc. It is Dehlin who "cannot and will not" have such a discussion. I’m not real impressed with John Dehlin either. But like I said before the issue isn’t John Delin it’s the church leader ship. Or at least some of them. Problem is we don’t know which one is which except for a few and proven to not tell the truth. Yeesh. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 16, 2021 by smac97 6 Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted May 16, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2021 57 minutes ago, Tacenda said: It's as if they themselves (leaders) have doubts, when they don't believe the members can handle the truth. I'm really confused here. 57 minutes ago, Tacenda said: If the church is true, nothing should/could stand in it's way. What are your thoughts about 1 Corinthians 8? Quote 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. And 1 Corinthians 3: Quote 1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? And John 6 (as quoted by Elder Maxwell here) : Quote The more declarative Jesus was, the more tentative some followers. Is this not the same today? As long as Jesus’ church and its prophets are doing certain things of which people fully approve, there is admiration. But when modern prophets begin to be declarative, then it is a very different matter! “The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.” (John 6:41.) “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6:66.) If the Brethren "don't believe the members can handle the truth," then how do you account for the Gospel Topics essays? The Turley book about MMM? Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days? Why would Elder Ballard say this in 2016? Quote Expounding upon the opportunities and responsibilities teachers in the Church Educational System have, Elder Ballard encouraged instructors to study by faith and teach their students to do the same. “As Church education moves forward in the 21st century, each of you needs to consider any changes you should make in the way you prepare to teach, how you teach and what you teach if you are to build unwavering faith in the lives of our precious youth,” Elder Ballard said. “Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, ‘Don’t worry about it!’ Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.” Fortunately, Elder Ballard taught, the Lord has provided timely and timeless counsel to teachers — to “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” In an increasingly secular world that is hostile to faith, family and gospel standards, religious instructors can help students by teaching them what it means to combine study and faith as they learn. (Emphases added.) What you are saying here doesn't jibe with what the Church has been doing for quite a while now, which is become more candid and forthright in dealing with controversies and difficulties. 57 minutes ago, Tacenda said: ETA: But then again look at me? I struggled after learning truths. So maybe it's a problem. But I wonder how I'd change if the church could have dialogue like we do on this board with members that are true believing discussing these things and them not having any problems with it, nice and out in the open. I guess it comes down to the objective of "dialogue." There are message boards and fora where faithful Latter-day Saint voices are truly not welcome, and conversely there are fora where "struggling in their faith" or outright antagonistic voices are not welcome. This board seems to be about the best we can hope for, and even it can only go so far. I don't think an enduring, borne-of-the-Spirit testimony can be found by going to message boards. I think we need to go back to the beginning. Find a quiet place and spend some time there. Read the scriptures (particularly the Book of Mormon) and the "best books," ponder and pray. Meet with the missionaries. Seek guidance from the Lord with humility, patience, and hope. I have found some real value in participating on this board, but it's always derivative and supplementary to scripture study, prayer, church and temple worship, serving my family and others, and so on. Thanks, -Smac 9 Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted May 16, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2021 5 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said: Even Richard bushman came out and publicly said the historical narrative of the church wasn’t true. Interesting that in a post condemning falsehoods you post this. If you actually want truth... Quote Unfortunately for those who want to use Bushman’s comment to capitalize on their antipathy towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bushman went on the record to clarify what he meant with his comment. Twice. No, he was not conceding the falsity of Joseph Smith’s foundational truth claims. No, he was not confessing that the Church had wantonly, willfully lied to people about its history. No, he was not saying that he had “thrown in the towel and [had] finally admitted [that] the Church’s story of its divine origins did not hold up.” Rather, he “was only saying that there were many errors in the standard narrative that required correction.” As Bushman made clear, “What [he] was getting at in the quoted passage [in the video] is that [the Church] must be willing to modify the account [of its history] according to newly authenticated facts. If we don’t we will weaken our position.” That’s it. In fact, Bushman went on to acknowledge that “not everyone can adjust to this new material” and that “[m]any think they were deceived and the church was lying.” But, he added, “That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.” Using the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays, and new exhibits at the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, Utah as examples, by “reconstructed narrative” Bushman merely meant a narrative that adds nuance and depth to how the Church tells its story as historical scholarship progresses. “The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians,” he explained. “We are all having to reconstruct.” The good news for those who accept what ex-Mormons disparagingly call the “orthodox narrative” was, according to Bushman, that “nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.” https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2020/07/what-does-richard-bushman-believe-about-the-book-of-mormon.html 10 Link to comment
AtlanticMike Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: It would be nice to move forward, truly! I have faith in you! 2 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 56 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said: I have faith in you! 🤗 Link to comment
secondclasscitizen Posted May 16, 2021 Share Posted May 16, 2021 3 hours ago, smac97 said: 4 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said: It kinda is. OK but I’m not of the opinion you have to be really smart to just tell the truth. You also don't have to be really smart to enjoy wife-beating and torturing puppies, and yet here you are. </sarcasm> · This adds so much substance to the convo Quote What does "cannot" mean? In many instances they cannot go on and just tell the truth because the truth would not be helpful a.k.a. it would tear down faith. That being said they cannot do it. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Its true- you will see below Quote And what "tough questions" do you imagine they "will not" answer? How about telling us how many excommunications they had to do back in the day for the Baseball baptism they did in several countries? Oh, brother. As I said earlier: "Loaded questions, 'gotcha' questions, etc. are not really legitimate." From Wikipedia (in an article about Elder Henry D. Moyle): Quote The controversial "baseball baptism" program was Moyle's idea to increase baptisms in order to fill the church meetinghouses. Missionaries would encourage young men to join sports leagues and used baptism as a prerequisite. Under this approach, large numbers of young men were baptized but very few were ever active in the church.[5] The rush to baptize was accompanied with the establishment of baptism quotas for missionaries and memorized missionary discussions which were to be delivered verbatim to potential converts. The rest of the apostles were largely opposed to these changes, which led to Moyle being relieved of his responsibilities in the missionary department. ... [5] Quinn, D. Michael. "I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions: The Mormon "Baseball Baptism" Era" (PDF). Sunstone. Retrieved 26 December 2020. As Quinn noted: Quote {M}any general authorities had misgivings, especially about Britain, where several apostles had served missions. By May 1961, "nearly all" of the apostles were "gravely concerned about the pressures being put on missionaries to baptize to fill a quota of baptisms." BYU president Ernest L. Wilkinson added, "This of course was a criticism of President Moyle and many of the mission presidents working under his direction." ... In January 1963, Apostle Mark E. Petersen arrived to preside over the missions throughout Britain, Ireland, and the French-East Mission. Henry D. Moyle Jr. had presided over the French East since 1961, and his first missionary bulletin outlined the program for "baseball americain." Elder Petersen complained that " `baseball baptisms' were being made whereby youngsters were baptized into the Church without any instruction and sometimes without the knowledge or consent of their parents." He added: "Under President McKay's instructions, we were to discontinue such things and bring the missions back to a normal proselyting program." Expand Elder Moyle also had the pretty bad idea of deficit spending (also from Wikipedia) : Quote Moyle spearheaded much of the church's building program in the early 1960s. He believed that the Church Office Building, the headquarters of the LDS Church, should have been twice its size. He was also convinced that by building larger meetinghouses, the church would attract more converts. Moyle convinced McKay not to publish an account of church spending as was customary in order to hide the extent of the budget deficit caused by spending on buildings. By 1962, the deficit had reach $32 million. His optimistic building programs placed a considerable financial strain upon the church and McKay eventually relieved Moyle from many of his administrative responsibilities. Both ideas were implemented, found to be bad, and corrected. Conversely, Elder Moyle also had the idea of the Church investing in a cattle ranch in Florida, and that seemed to work out really well. But what is the relevance of this stuff, which happend nearly sixty (60) years ago? Both the "baseball baptism" and deficit spending ideas were abandoned long ago. So you wanting to ask an apostle about this comes across as purely a "gotcha"-style inquiry. · Im surprised you cited an Excommunicated Apostate (Quinn) . How can he possibly be trusted to be truthful? Additionally, why are there no church sources on this? You rely solely on an ex-comm, Wikipedia and Sunstone lol. All three sources the church would tell us not to trust. Quote Then they would have to explain what the baseball baptism deal was all about. That should raise a few eyebrows. Yeah, they could do that. Not very difficult. But again, that you are fantasizing about calling an apostle on the carpet to answer for something that ended nearly sixty years ago is pretty telling. You want a "gotcha" interview, not a substantive, meaningful one. What a mess it would be to have to tell the membership that thousands of its missionaries engaged in a deceptive program to baptize people unwittingly into the church. It would be easy but they will never do it. Quote One could also ask why they are investing north of $1 billion a year in the stock market. Yes, one could. But then, why would one? We already know the answer to this. The Church has already addressed this. See, e.g., here: Quote Church members are taught to “gradually build a financial reserve by regularly saving [a portion of their income]” (Providing in the Lord’s Way: Summary of a Leader’s Guide to Welfare [booklet, 2009], 2). The Church applies this same principle in its own savings and investments. In addition to food and emergency supplies, the Church also sets aside funds each year for future needs. These funds are added to Church reserves, which include stocks and bonds, taxable businesses, agricultural interests and commercial and residential property. Investments can be accessed in times of hardship or to meet the emerging needs of a growing, global faith in its mission to preach the gospel to all nations and prepare for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (see Gérald Caussé, “In the Lord’s Way: The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Mormon Newsroom, Mar. 2, 2018). Some investments serve a dual purpose. For example, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that “we have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need” (“The State of the Church,” Ensign, May 1991, 54). Another example is the Church’s participation in the development of downtown Salt Lake City. With its investment in the City Creek Center (a mixed-use development that includes retail space, residential units, office space and parking), the Church enhanced the environs of Temple Square and underscored a commitment to Salt Lake City, Utah, where it is headquartered. The investment increased local economic activity during a financial downturn and attracted visitors and residents to Salt Lake City’s historic downtown. (Emphases added) Expand In legal parlance, your question has been "asked and answered." So asking it again is not really legitimate. · I don’t have a problem with market investments, but they really should do their homework to make sure they are not unwittingly profiting off of vice. Quote And not just the market but many of the positions they hold in equities are in companies that would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks. "Would be considered sin stocks or vice stocks?" Considered by whom? What companies? From the most recent filing with the SEC: https://sec.report/CIK/0001454984 Pfizer (PFE) Abortion Drugs Amazon (AMZN) Search “adult sex toys” on the site and let me know if you think the church should be profiting off this Carnival Corp (CCL), Royal Carribean (RCL): Cruise lines who profit off gambling and alcohol Enova International (ENVA): Payday loans (usery) Wal-Mart (WMT): Adult sex toys (Men’s and women’s masturbators) Walgreens (WBA): Adult toys, tobacco, alcohol I think you get the point> Quote They can also explain why it’s OK for a member to make a profit off of abortion gambling liquor tobacco and other types of vices yet they have to abstain from them. What? If they do it, why shouldn’t we? See above Quote Loaded questions, "gotcha" questions, etc. are not really legitimate. That said, *boy,* I can think of a few questions that I bet would make John Dehlin squirm. It’s not a gotcha question if you can just tell the truth. Meh. What you are advocating here is not legitimate. See here: Quote "Gotcha journalism" is a pejorative term used by media critics to describe interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation. The term is rooted in an assertion that the interviewer may be supporting a hidden agenda, and aims to make film or sound recordings of the interviewee which may be selectively edited, compiled, and broadcast or published in order to intentionally show the subject in an unfavorable light. ... Gotcha journalism is often designed to keep the interviewee on the defensive by, for example, being required to explain some of their own statements taken out of context thus effectively preventing the interviewee from clearly presenting their position. The intent of gotcha journalism is always premeditated and used to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral. Expand This is what you are fantasizing of doing, I think. Ok whatever Quote I’m sure we can all come up with something to make John Dehlin squirm. Yes. Quote The issues isn’t John Dehlin, it is the church leadership and how they handle the truth versus manipulation the truth. No, that's not the issue. You fantasizing about asking an apostle in 2021 about "baseball baptism" from six decades ago, or about investment of the Church's money, seems squarely in line with "interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation," with "the interviewer ... supporting a hidden agenda" (such as, as one fellow recently put it, to "tear down faith"), with "keep{ing} the interviewee on the defensive," with having "{t}he intent ... to defame or discredit the interviewees by portraying them as self-contradictory, malevolent, unqualified or immoral." So it's not about "the truth." It's about people like you wanting to "tear down faith." Quote This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith. Utter nonsense. Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false. You are sadly mistaken. See below quote from Packer talk Quote That said they withhold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith. CFR, please. Chapter and verse. Specific quotations. I will hold you to this. If you don't respond, I will report you to the mods. One of the great things about this board is that participants don't get to throw out wild claims when advancing an argument, and then refuse to substantiate them when requested to do so. Hence the board rules require that when someone posts a "CFR" ("call for references"), the person making the claim is required to substantiate the factual claim they have made. So, again, CFR. Chapter and verse that leaders of the Church have said things that can be reasonably paraphrased as "{We] withold truthful information in order to keep people from losing their faith." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng Here it is: “ Second Caution There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful. … The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops. … Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning. What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy. It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng “There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.” There you go- now you can lighten up on the threats. lol Quote By withholding information also can be best described as a lie. Oh. So let's say I present the following questions to you: 1. What is your full name, "secondclasscitizen?" 2. What is your social security number? 3. Where are your bank accounts? What are the account numbers? What are the usernames and passwords for these accounts? 4. What was your annual salary each year for the last five years? 5. What is your email username and password? 6. What is your home address? If you decline to answer these, you are "witholding information," such that - by your reasoning - you can "be best described as a" liar. Right? For the record, I don't buy into this. At all. I find what you are presenting here to be absurd and unreasonable and unfair and uncharitable. Quote If you’re OK with them not telling the complete truth and so be it. You're hoisting yourself by your own petard. Quote I prefer to just have all the information that way I can make a decision based on actual facts instead of a manipulated set of facts. Sure. Trot 'em out. I question your characterization of them. Like, a lot. https://www.google.com/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/amp/ Expand Oh, my. I mean, I wasn't expecting to you so brazenly glorify "gotcha" tactics, but then you went and posted that video. You are demonstrating my point. In spades. You are into "gotcha" stuff. That's all. You further demonstrate my point by pointing to Pres. Hinckley's off-the-cuff response during a 1997 interview: Quote Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man? A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about. Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this? No he is saying its just a little couplet. It is more than that. It is emphasized and definitely believed. I recall being taught that somewhere….hmm where was that? A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can. Expand See, I find this response quite accurate and good. The Church has never been shy about exaltation/theosis. It's all published to the world. But in the end, there is only so much we can say about it. We also believe in the literal resurrection of the dead, but we "we don't know very much about" the mechanics of it, or about the particulars of it except as to some broad understanding of the timing of it, the "flesh and bone" stuff, and so on. And even then, Pres. Hinckley was pretty darn candid. "Well, as God is, man may become." This, in your view, is "a lie." The mind reels. Quote Did you see Elder Holland's Q&A at Harvard a few years back? He did quite well, IMHO. I’m sure he does quite well whenever he feels like it. Yet the issues is not how well he does. Strange, then, that you previously said that the apostles "cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate." What an ugly, and now admittedly false, characterization that was. Quote I believe most times he does tell the truth however there’s documented evidence he’s not a very truthful guy at times. Well, no. You didn’t watch the video I take it. ok Link to comment
secondclasscitizen Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 23 hours ago, smac97 said: Quote This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith. Utter nonsense. Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false So now I have provided the faithful link you asked for am I still a liar? Link to comment
secondclasscitizen Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 21 hours ago, Calm said: Interesting that in a post condemning falsehoods you post this. If you actually want truth... https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2020/07/what-does-richard-bushman-believe-about-the-book-of-mormon.html Ok so he stated there were errors needing correction. So the narrative isn’t true then if correction need to be made. What am I missing? let’s look at a math problem. If any part of an equation is solved incorrectly it then results in the wrong answer. That doesn’t mean all of the figures or solutions within the equation are wrong. Seems to be the problem here. Not all of the history, doctrine etc are incorrect. I believe what bushman is getting at is when taken in totality, the story isn’t true but parts of it are. Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 28 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said: Quote Quote This is a problem because they have it as a matter of policy to withhold the truth or obfuscate in order to preserve faith. Utter nonsense. Flatly, flagrantly, wildly false. So now I have provided the faithful link you asked for am I still a liar? I didn't call you a liar. And your characterization remains utter nonsense and flatly, flagrantly and wildly false. Thanks, -Smac 3 Link to comment
Popular Post Calm Posted May 17, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said: So the narrative isn’t true then if correction need to be made. What am I missing?....I believe what bushman is getting at is when taken in totality, the story isn’t true but parts of it are. Quote The good news for those who accept what ex-Mormons disparagingly call the “orthodox narrative” was, according to Bushman, that “nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.” But what does Bushman personally believe? “I still believe in gold plates,” he affirmed. “I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration. I think he was sincere in saying he saw God. The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world. . . . I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.” Actually from what Bushman says himself, it is the reverse, that the story is true even if some parts are not. “let’s look at a math problem” History is not math. Narratives are likely never fully accurate due to gaps in the records as well as journals, etc will be written with significant bias. By your standard, I am guessing one could say all history is not true. Edited May 17, 2021 by Calm 6 Link to comment
JamesBYoung Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 On 5/16/2021 at 11:08 AM, smac97 said: Again, her version/explanation of what? You are being vague. I am asking you to clarify. If you are referencing "why she was excommunicate{d}," yes, I am quite aware of her "version/explanation." But you didn't answer my question. Let me lay out my reasoning: 1. Natasha Helfer-Parker did not attend the membership council, nor did she schedule it, officiate at it or make the ultimate decision at it regarding her membership. 2. All of the above was done by the stake president (with his counselors). 3. The stake president wrote her a letter, which she later publicized, and in which he specifically rebuts her "version/explanation" (that she was disciplined because of her "professional activities" as a therapist). 4. Given the foregoing, I ask you again: Why should we privilege the self-serving speculations of Natasha Helfer-Parker over the specific statements of the stake president who rendered the decision, and who therefore is a pretty good percipient witness as to the "why" {she lost her membership}? Meh. Your stacking the deck here. This is an unserious and immature, and substantively false, grievance. Thanks, -Smac The self-serving statement can be said to be made by the Stake President. Natasha was quite clear as to what was happening. You have simply discarded what she had to say. And, yes, 'Meh', is quite appropriate in what you are doing here. Link to comment
JamesBYoung Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 On 5/16/2021 at 3:18 PM, Calm said: Interesting that in a post condemning falsehoods you post this. If you actually want truth... https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2020/07/what-does-richard-bushman-believe-about-the-book-of-mormon.html Bushman did not say the Church was not true. Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said: The self-serving statement can be said to be made by the Stake President. No, it can't. The stake president wasn't speculating. He was a percipient witness. She was not. Quote Natasha was quite clear as to what was happening. As to her spin on what was happening, that is. Quote You have simply discarded what she had to say. I'm not privileging her self-serving speculation. Quote And, yes, 'Meh', is quite appropriate in what you are doing here. Right back atcha. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 19, 2021 by smac97 3 Link to comment
JamesBYoung Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 This is not worth the time. It reminds me of the old HP meetings when the older guys would pontificate and go round and round on these matters. In the opinion of many in the church posting online, the case was handled poorly, and litigating it here means nothing. Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said: This is not worth the time. It reminds me of the old HP meetings when the older guys would pontificate and go round and round on these matters. In the opinion of many in the church posting online, the case was handled poorly, and litigating it here means nothing. Oh. The online (and mostly anonymous) opinions "of many" have been spoken. The matter is decisively settled, then. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 19, 2021 by smac97 2 Link to comment
JamesBYoung Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 I realize no has let Natasha speak for herself, so I will let Natasha answer. I will carry no water for smac;l that pail of his has a hole in it. https://www.facebook.com/natashahelfermft/videos/487423642299235 The below was in a fb posting. I was just informed by a member of the Derby KS Stake Presidency, President John Rather, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of the following: 1. They received a letter signed by all members of the First Presidency. 2. In this letter, the First Presidency has affirmed the decision of my excommunication. 3. They extend their warm regards. 4. They would urge me to return to the Church by following the directives in the letter I was sent at the time of excommunication. Here are the things I told the person who called that I would want communicated back to the First Presidency on my behalf. May 18, 2021 To the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 1. It is hurtful, triggering and traumatic to communicate in feigned diplomatic politeness, after having caused direct harm to a person. If any of the leaders involved in my discipline had “warm regards” for me, I would know it and feel it. This would be made known by your efforts, your treatment and your communication with me. Since none of these things have been forthcoming, I reject this statement outright. 2. I would like to know why the letter making the decision about the appeal was not sent to me directly. I am now left with no formal document of your decision; only a verbal affirmation. I would like to request that a copy of this letter be sent to me for my records. I would also like to formally know where my church records will now reside. Will they be transferred to my local area? 3. I would like to know if the Derby, KS Stake or the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is willing to offer a formal apology to my witnesses for how they were treated on the eve of April 18, 2021? 4. I would like to know if the Derby, KS Stake or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is willing to reimburse my witnesses for their travel expenses and, where applicable, lost wages? They were not allowed to participate in the process, even though they complied with all the council requirements. This means they wasted their time, energy, preparations, and money unnecessarily. 5. I would like to know how you, the First Presidency, can support a decision as heavy laden as an excommunication, where the General Handbook of Directions was not followed on numerous accounts? As well as support a letter of excommunication that outright lied about my willingness, and my witnesses’ willingness, to comply with the membership council’s requirements. Since there are no explanations, and no way to hold anyone in power accountable for the missteps in this case, how do you plan on retaining the trust of the Church members in regards to these councils going forward? 6. As far as returning to the church: since I plan on continuing to practice my profession ethically and advocate for mental, relational, spiritual and sexual health... how am I going to be able to not be in “clear, open and deliberate opposition” to some of the stances certain Church leaders have taken (i.e. support of gay marriage)? I still have not received any specific directions as to how I am expected to proceed with this dilemma in mind. I believe this is your intent. To not specify clear directives. Otherwise, it would become obvious that I am in a position where I would have to choose between my professional standards and my church membership. 7. Are my LDS colleagues who practice ethically according to their professional standards in similar danger of losing their membership in the Church? Why or why not? Sadly, I do not expect an answer to any of these concerns/questions. That would require actual “warm regards” of communication and ministering; something I have not been offered for years by the leaders of this church. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Until I can trust that the system follows its own protocols and teachings, I will not be able to feel confidence or safety in re-engagement. I welcome you or my local leaders to initiate contact with me if any of these issues are resolvable in ways where I can remain an ethical, best-practice mental health practitioner. Natasha Helfer I finished my call with President Rather with an invitation to consider his own role in this process. Even though I understand he was not the main player, he was a player nonetheless. I have historically had a good relationship with this person, and did feel his sincere concern for me in our call. It was excruciatingly emotional to have such a divisive thing happening between parents of children who are dear friends. People who have raised their children alongside mine. How do we continue to move forward as a church in healthy standing, when people who should be friends and Christlike to one another, are instead, required to act in such traumatic, "cut-off" types of ways. I encourage everyone who currently finds themselves in a leadership role within the Church to consider their overall complicity to such matters. How does this sit with your conscience? My relationship with certain people will never be the same. How can this be? Where is there love, acceptance or unity in this process? This entire experience has gone against every principle I know in regards to good community and mental health. This is something I invite members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to seriously consider and sit with. It is uncomfortable work to do so. It is necessary work. It is Christlike work. I believe we need to talk less about "members in good standing" and be more a "church community in healthy standing." Link to comment
Popular Post ksfisher Posted May 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2021 32 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said: I realize no has let Natasha speak for herself, so I will let Natasha answer. I will carry no water for smac;l that pail of his has a hole in it. https://www.facebook.com/natashahelfermft/videos/487423642299235 The below was in a fb posting. I was just informed by a member of the Derby KS Stake Presidency, President John Rather, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of the following: 1. They received a letter signed by all members of the First Presidency. 2. In this letter, the First Presidency has affirmed the decision of my excommunication. 3. They extend their warm regards. 4. They would urge me to return to the Church by following the directives in the letter I was sent at the time of excommunication. Here are the things I told the person who called that I would want communicated back to the First Presidency on my behalf. May 18, 2021 To the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 1. It is hurtful, triggering and traumatic to communicate in feigned diplomatic politeness, after having caused direct harm to a person. If any of the leaders involved in my discipline had “warm regards” for me, I would know it and feel it. This would be made known by your efforts, your treatment and your communication with me. Since none of these things have been forthcoming, I reject this statement outright. 2. I would like to know why the letter making the decision about the appeal was not sent to me directly. I am now left with no formal document of your decision; only a verbal affirmation. I would like to request that a copy of this letter be sent to me for my records. I would also like to formally know where my church records will now reside. Will they be transferred to my local area? 3. I would like to know if the Derby, KS Stake or the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is willing to offer a formal apology to my witnesses for how they were treated on the eve of April 18, 2021? 4. I would like to know if the Derby, KS Stake or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is willing to reimburse my witnesses for their travel expenses and, where applicable, lost wages? They were not allowed to participate in the process, even though they complied with all the council requirements. This means they wasted their time, energy, preparations, and money unnecessarily. 5. I would like to know how you, the First Presidency, can support a decision as heavy laden as an excommunication, where the General Handbook of Directions was not followed on numerous accounts? As well as support a letter of excommunication that outright lied about my willingness, and my witnesses’ willingness, to comply with the membership council’s requirements. Since there are no explanations, and no way to hold anyone in power accountable for the missteps in this case, how do you plan on retaining the trust of the Church members in regards to these councils going forward? 6. As far as returning to the church: since I plan on continuing to practice my profession ethically and advocate for mental, relational, spiritual and sexual health... how am I going to be able to not be in “clear, open and deliberate opposition” to some of the stances certain Church leaders have taken (i.e. support of gay marriage)? I still have not received any specific directions as to how I am expected to proceed with this dilemma in mind. I believe this is your intent. To not specify clear directives. Otherwise, it would become obvious that I am in a position where I would have to choose between my professional standards and my church membership. 7. Are my LDS colleagues who practice ethically according to their professional standards in similar danger of losing their membership in the Church? Why or why not? Sadly, I do not expect an answer to any of these concerns/questions. That would require actual “warm regards” of communication and ministering; something I have not been offered for years by the leaders of this church. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Until I can trust that the system follows its own protocols and teachings, I will not be able to feel confidence or safety in re-engagement. I welcome you or my local leaders to initiate contact with me if any of these issues are resolvable in ways where I can remain an ethical, best-practice mental health practitioner. Natasha Helfer I finished my call with President Rather with an invitation to consider his own role in this process. Even though I understand he was not the main player, he was a player nonetheless. I have historically had a good relationship with this person, and did feel his sincere concern for me in our call. It was excruciatingly emotional to have such a divisive thing happening between parents of children who are dear friends. People who have raised their children alongside mine. How do we continue to move forward as a church in healthy standing, when people who should be friends and Christlike to one another, are instead, required to act in such traumatic, "cut-off" types of ways. I encourage everyone who currently finds themselves in a leadership role within the Church to consider their overall complicity to such matters. How does this sit with your conscience? My relationship with certain people will never be the same. How can this be? Where is there love, acceptance or unity in this process? This entire experience has gone against every principle I know in regards to good community and mental health. This is something I invite members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to seriously consider and sit with. It is uncomfortable work to do so. It is necessary work. It is Christlike work. I believe we need to talk less about "members in good standing" and be more a "church community in healthy standing." Sounds like Natasha doesn't agree with how the church runs itself. I hope she finds someplace that fits more with how she believes it should be. 5 Link to comment
Calm Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 9 hours ago, JamesBYoung said: Bushman did not say the Church was not true. Are you responding to me or secondclass? Link to comment
bluebell Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 6 hours ago, JamesBYoung said: I realize no has let Natasha speak for herself, so I will let Natasha answer. I will carry no water for smac;l that pail of his has a hole in it. https://www.facebook.com/natashahelfermft/videos/487423642299235 The below was in a fb posting. I was just informed by a member of the Derby KS Stake Presidency, President John Rather, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of the following: 1. They received a letter signed by all members of the First Presidency. 2. In this letter, the First Presidency has affirmed the decision of my excommunication. 3. They extend their warm regards. 4. They would urge me to return to the Church by following the directives in the letter I was sent at the time of excommunication. Here are the things I told the person who called that I would want communicated back to the First Presidency on my behalf. May 18, 2021 To the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 1. It is hurtful, triggering and traumatic to communicate in feigned diplomatic politeness, after having caused direct harm to a person. If any of the leaders involved in my discipline had “warm regards” for me, I would know it and feel it. This would be made known by your efforts, your treatment and your communication with me. Since none of these things have been forthcoming, I reject this statement outright. 2. I would like to know why the letter making the decision about the appeal was not sent to me directly. I am now left with no formal document of your decision; only a verbal affirmation. I would like to request that a copy of this letter be sent to me for my records. I would also like to formally know where my church records will now reside. Will they be transferred to my local area? 3. I would like to know if the Derby, KS Stake or the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is willing to offer a formal apology to my witnesses for how they were treated on the eve of April 18, 2021? 4. I would like to know if the Derby, KS Stake or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is willing to reimburse my witnesses for their travel expenses and, where applicable, lost wages? They were not allowed to participate in the process, even though they complied with all the council requirements. This means they wasted their time, energy, preparations, and money unnecessarily. 5. I would like to know how you, the First Presidency, can support a decision as heavy laden as an excommunication, where the General Handbook of Directions was not followed on numerous accounts? As well as support a letter of excommunication that outright lied about my willingness, and my witnesses’ willingness, to comply with the membership council’s requirements. Since there are no explanations, and no way to hold anyone in power accountable for the missteps in this case, how do you plan on retaining the trust of the Church members in regards to these councils going forward? 6. As far as returning to the church: since I plan on continuing to practice my profession ethically and advocate for mental, relational, spiritual and sexual health... how am I going to be able to not be in “clear, open and deliberate opposition” to some of the stances certain Church leaders have taken (i.e. support of gay marriage)? I still have not received any specific directions as to how I am expected to proceed with this dilemma in mind. I believe this is your intent. To not specify clear directives. Otherwise, it would become obvious that I am in a position where I would have to choose between my professional standards and my church membership. 7. Are my LDS colleagues who practice ethically according to their professional standards in similar danger of losing their membership in the Church? Why or why not? Sadly, I do not expect an answer to any of these concerns/questions. That would require actual “warm regards” of communication and ministering; something I have not been offered for years by the leaders of this church. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. Until I can trust that the system follows its own protocols and teachings, I will not be able to feel confidence or safety in re-engagement. I welcome you or my local leaders to initiate contact with me if any of these issues are resolvable in ways where I can remain an ethical, best-practice mental health practitioner. Natasha Helfer I finished my call with President Rather with an invitation to consider his own role in this process. Even though I understand he was not the main player, he was a player nonetheless. I have historically had a good relationship with this person, and did feel his sincere concern for me in our call. It was excruciatingly emotional to have such a divisive thing happening between parents of children who are dear friends. People who have raised their children alongside mine. How do we continue to move forward as a church in healthy standing, when people who should be friends and Christlike to one another, are instead, required to act in such traumatic, "cut-off" types of ways. I encourage everyone who currently finds themselves in a leadership role within the Church to consider their overall complicity to such matters. How does this sit with your conscience? My relationship with certain people will never be the same. How can this be? Where is there love, acceptance or unity in this process? This entire experience has gone against every principle I know in regards to good community and mental health. This is something I invite members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to seriously consider and sit with. It is uncomfortable work to do so. It is necessary work. It is Christlike work. I believe we need to talk less about "members in good standing" and be more a "church community in healthy standing." Lots of self righteous indignation happening. Hopefully getting to have the last word will help her get some closure. 1 Link to comment
JamesBYoung Posted May 19, 2021 Share Posted May 19, 2021 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Lots of self righteous indignation happening. Hopefully getting to have the last word will help her get some closure. Probably not. Link to comment
Recommended Posts