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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

And do you seriously believe, given past performances of recordings, that they wouldn't ban phones?
 

I am certainly not surprised they banned phones. 

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think it is absurd to think she wasn't told. 
 

What did you say about it being the SP’s first time. Clearly something was lost in translation, but I don’t think based on the evidence that I’ve seen presented that phones were explicitly prohibited. 

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

I also think it is absurd to go into a procedure you compare to a court relying on a phone for "notes."

I agree, not how I’d do it. I’d use a laptop. But I doubt they’d have allowed that either?

[InCognitus]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She sounded more to me like Julie Rowe than a professional therapist.

That's my impression too.  Angry or not, she's revealing her inner self.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What did you say about it being the SP’s first time. Clearly something was lost in translation, but I don’t think based on the evidence that I’ve seen presented that phones were explicitly prohibited. 

I think she meant first time with a celebrity, candlelight vigil type of council. If you're not familiar with the phenomenon, it would be like getting hit with a 2x4 between the eyes to have that descend upon you. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Apparently, she wants reimbursement not just for her expenses but for everyone else who merely watched this circus:

 

That’s ridiculous. She seems to be determined to make the church’s apostasy case for them. I’m not sure what type of defense she prepared, but I don’t think the prosecution would need to bring anything besides the tape from that evening. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think she meant first time with a celebrity, candlelight vigil type of council. If you're not familiar with the phenomenon, it would be like getting hit with a 2x4 between the eyes to have that descend upon you. 

I got what she meant. I would be willing to bet that church hq was advising them on this. 
 

Are you saying that signing a non-recording contract and having to surrender your phone is standard practice at all disciplinary councils?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

That's my impression too.  Angry or not, she's revealing her inner self.

While I agree that her behavior is bad, I hope you don’t judge everyone’s “inner self” by extrapolating from their worst moments. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I got what she meant. I would be willing to bet that church hq was advising them on this. 

Are you saying that signing a non-recording contract and having to surrender your phone is standard practice at all disciplinary councils?

I agree that Salt Lake provided guidance for this. 

No, it's not standard operating procedure at 99%+ of them, but these celebrity candlelight vigil ones are their own animal. I have no personal experience with them, but enough knowledge of them to know what I would do if I ever had to deal with one. I feel bad for the SP's who aren't really aware of the lay of the land with them. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That's my impression too.  Angry or not, she's revealing her inner self.

SU already said this, but, while she might be revealing some of the issues she's really struggling with, I don't think our angriest selves are our true inner selves. 

Hurt bubbles out in unpleasant ways, and though I don't think her blame is rationally placed, I do think she's hurt right now.

Edited April 20, 2021 by bluebell

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I would be willing to bet that church hq was advising them on this. 

First time or not, I'd be wiling to bet that there is enough combined knowledge of internet antics in that Stake Presidency and High Council to make their own decisions on this.  With a case such as this, I would have done the same thing.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, helix said:

In that meeting he repeatedly attempted to bait his stake president into juicy soundbites for big media outlets.

My memory says he also promised he was not recording, but did so anyway....but I may confusing him with Denson who made a big show of turning off her phone and even offered to place them outside the office, while she had another recording device recording everything when she visited Bishop’s ward.

[Bob Crockett]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I got what she meant. I would be willing to bet that church hq was advising them on this. 
 

Are you saying that signing a non-recording contract and having to surrender your phone is standard practice at all disciplinary councils?

The church central gets involve only when complaints come from outside the stake.

I was a witness to a disciplinary proceeding against an apostle's sister.  He wanted to intervene; the stake wouldn't let him.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

First time or not, I'd be wiling to bet that there is enough combined knowledge of internet antics in that Stake Presidency and High Council to make their own decisions on this.  With a case such as this, I would have done the same thing.

I’m not disagreeing. The church can run things however they want. If you trace this particular thread of the conversation back, I merely observed that by not clearly communicating^ that cell phones would not be allowed the church caused itself some pain here that could have been avoided. 

 

*assuming Natasha is being truthful here. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

She's been in the media before with Sam Young, John Dehlin, and writing an op-ed in the SLTribune.  She calls herself the "Mormon Therapist" and then uses her blog to rail on the church, calling them to repentance.  She is no stranger to craving media attention.

Also...

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

[Bob Crockett]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also...

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

She has some rather liberal views about masturbation and pornography that counter the Church's position.  And Freud's.  And the DSM-IV-TR manual.  And the policies of many other churches, Christian and otherwise.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

She has some rather liberal views about masturbation and pornography that counter the Church's position.  And Freud's.  And the DSM-IV-TR manual.  And the policies of many other churches, Christian and otherwise.

Note to Bob, professional counselors now use the DSM-5.

[helix]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

My memory says he also promised he was not recording, but did so anyway....but I may confusing him with Denson who made a big show of turning off her phone and even offered to place them outside the office, while she had another recording device recording everything when she visited Bishop’s ward.

Jeremy Runnells also recorded his after he explicitly agreed to not disseminate any personal recordings of his disciplinary council.  Jeremy Runnells didn't leak it, but he essentially gave the recording to his friend with the wink-wink that he needs to leak it.  Source: On Reddit, one day all the /r/exmormon moderator conversations (modmail) were published by a disaffected former moderator.  In one of those moderator mail conversations his friend told those moderators "I'm leaking Jeremy's video recording of his council because legally Jeremy can't." 

Recordings and these celebrity councils go hand-in-hand.  In my opinion, the local leaders were absolutely right to forbid any recording devices. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by helix

[BlueDreams]

30 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Note to Bob, professional counselors now use the DSM-5.

 

36 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

She has some rather liberal views about masturbation and pornography that counter the Church's position.  And Freud's.  And the DSM-IV-TR manual.  And the policies of many other churches, Christian and otherwise.

And no therapist relies on Freud minus for jokes 😉

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

I've never even seen them.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

In my sample size of 1 disciplinary council, when I was a ward clerk, my notes were transcribed into the documentation sent to SLC, but went nowhere else, as far as I know.

[helix]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

They are to be destroyed at the conclusion of the council. 

[JustAnAustralian]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

In my sample size of 1 disciplinary council, when I was a ward clerk, my notes were transcribed into the documentation sent to SLC, but went nowhere else, as far as I know.

That's policy.

Current handbook version is below.

Quote

32.14.1

Report of Church Membership Council

After any membership council, the bishop or stake president promptly submits a Report of Church Membership Council form through LCR. He may ask the clerk to prepare the report. He ensures that no hard copy or electronic copy of the form is retained locally. He also ensures that any notes used to prepare the report are promptly destroyed.

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

46 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

And no therapist relies on Freud minus for jokes 😉

I've read Freud.  He's compelling except for the dream stuff. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, helix said:

They are to be destroyed at the conclusion of the council. 

It is my personal understanding that this is to allow for frank and open discussion. I have mentioned before the strong disagreement I had with my bishop and his other counsellor during the course of a membership council. I felt free to say what I did because I knew it would not be held against me. I want that same freedom for everyone involved, including the member at the centre. One would hope that the courtesy would be returned, but as noted by others above, a number of celebrity apostates have had zero regard for people like me.

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It is my personal understanding that this is to allow for frank and open discussion. 

And also so they don't appear on the internet and things like that. 

The Church moved to a more streamlined online form about five years ago or so. It really reduced the amount of space available for explanation and necessitated brevity, which is too bad, in my experience. It was very helpful to get detailed minutes from previous councils from the stake president (via Salt Lake). One was like a who's who from BYU (the stake presidency and high council had people like Richard L. Anderson and Eugene England on it), and it read like a Supreme Court transcript. The give and take and detail was extremely helpful, and those were the kinds of minutes we sent in with the paperwork before the switch to the very brief online form with a character count limit. It was really helpful to be able to record, and to be able to read, back and forth, points that were made, counter points, etc. but those are now largely missing from what leaders receive (unless the minutes are quite old). 

I think the current handbook forbids anyone from taking notes (except for the clerk's notes, which are to be destroyed immediately after the form is filled out), which is kind of weird. I think anyone involved (including the subject) should reasonably be able to take notes.