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

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For us poor folk, a "fortune" is relative

Got to admit, I still think in terms of income and expenses levels when I was a teen. It is very hard for me to get out of a penny wise pound foolish mode at times now, putting way too much effort into saving $10 for a lower quality product that isn’t quite what I want or thinking $100 is extravagant when it could make a significant difference in terms of quality of life.  So to me $200,000 a year reads “fortune”.

But I also think the inaccuracies were misinterpretations and misunderstandings from how I read them and not lies, which imo requires intent to deceive. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I really cannot understand why you are so offended by her exit disciplinary council.  I mean, the church used to excommunicate people for dancing. During the Nauvoo period.  I've used the word "autonomy" before, but what it means is that when it comes to conditions of membership, a church has the right to complete freedom in defining such.  I had an ancestor excommunicated for striking his plural wife.  Conditions for exit can be completely arbitrary.  I guess you can complain about it, but I'd spend my time complaining about misuse of church funds, patriarchal abuse, interviewing children, and the like before I'd weigh in against the church's autonomy. 

But "dancing" during the Nauvoo period meant something different and if it wasn't sanctioned...well...  

Fun temple history trivia- dances were actually held in the assembly hall of the Nauvoo temple in the early days. Same with Kirtland. Also, alcohol was placed in the cornerstone of the St George Temple.

Yes, disciplinary conditions can be arbitrary and capricious. You're hardly making a case that instills confidence in the process or the leaders carrying out the church's autonomy vis-a-vis excommunications.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

very small stipend

Got to admit as well it is strange to me to label $200,000 a fortune and $120,000 (not sure if that is specific amount) a very small stipend.  At this point I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

She's imploding a bit on her professional page.  I do think the emotion is getting the better of her.  

Well sure it is an emotional event in the woman's life.

[Bob Crockett]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Got to admit as well it is strange to me to label $200,000 a fortune and $120,000 (not sure if that is specific amount) a very small stipend.  At this point I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly. 

I don't think it all relevant that he makes money off his donations.  As long as the IRS doesn't care about it than why should anybody else care? 

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I guess I wonder why you, who is out of fellowship, complain about the process for a member's exit when such isn't doctrinal or scriptural and the church can do what it wants.  I certainly can see your argument about salvation for gays; abortion rights; gold plates; angels; the Book of Abraham; holding onto money and not spending it; and other purportedly offensive teachings of the church.  But mere procedures for an exit?  The Church could say:  All disciplinary councils are held in Salt Lake City.  Nobody can attend.  Nobody can submit evidence.  We'll go on what the bishop says.  That cetainly would be legit, at least scripturally.    This isn't a hill worth dying on, but I guess I am jaded by how the law treats the right of religion to do whatever it wants when it comes to admitting and expelling members.  

I am just here to discuss something I am personally interested in.

[Bob Crockett]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Well sure it is an emotional event in the woman's life.

I do feel sorry for her.  I have read her prior stuff, especially when I was a bishop trying to understand basic stuff about relationships.   I thought she was good and would have recommended her to any ward member having issues.  Now --- no.

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to get off your high horse, buddy, and stop substituting emotion for rational analysis

🤣🤣😂😁

[Bob Crockett]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I am just here to discuss something I am personally interested in.

And I'm here to argue that you really don't have "standing" to make this particular argument.  If you were railing against how the Brotherhood of the Elks expels members over 70 years of age, I'd have the same reaction. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I am just here to discuss something I am personally interested in.

 

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

And I'm here to argue that you really don't have "standing" to make this particular argument.  If you were railing against how the Brotherhood of the Elks expels members over 70 years of age, I'd have the same reaction. 

Ok. Then feel free to ignore me.  I plan on continuing to express my opinion on this.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think it all relevant that he makes money off his donations.  As long as the IRS doesn't care about it than why should anybody else care? 

It is probably no more relevant in my view than if someone is involved in advertising selling a nutritional supplement.  Doesn’t seem like much of a difference except that people get to decide how much they want to pay for the product rather than whether the product is worth the price.  
For some reason enough people like his product that they are willing to support him through donations. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

..........................  I am also skeptical of the Judeo Christian God primarily due to the problem of evil and suffering. I also see little evidence that there is a God like being that Judeo Christian teachings illustrate.

Since LDS theology rejects that Judeo-Christian God and teachings, you may be on the wrong blog.  You are correct that the Judeo-Christian God is beset with the problem of evil (theodicy), and that His existence is absurd and illogical.  That same mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition considers LDS theology to be a major heresy.  LDS theology does not teach that God creates everything, including evil.  LDS theology teaches an anthropomorphic,  naturalistic God who was once a man just like any of us.  Even Richard Dawkins had no quarrel with the notion of god-like beings who had achieved their god-like status through ever more advanced technology and mastery of natural law.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And I'm here to argue that you really don't have "standing" to make this particular argument.  If you were railing against how the Brotherhood of the Elks expels members over 70 years of age, I'd have the same reaction. 

Do we need to have a worthiness interview before we share opinions now? 

"You don't have standing" is nothing more than a "shut up and sit down" statement.  🤬

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't think it all relevant that he makes money off his donations.  As long as the IRS doesn't care about it than why should anybody else care? 

Exactly.  OTOH, why are so many acting as though he is a victim?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly.  OTOH, why are so many acting as though he is a victim?

Who's doing that?

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Got to admit as well it is strange to me to label $200,000 a fortune and $120,000 (not sure if that is specific amount) a very small stipend.  At this point I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly. 

Everything is relative.  For the Brethren who are millionaires (not all of rhem are), the stipend they receive is nothing at all.  For Dr Dehlin, who no doubt took on debt to get through college to his doctoral degree, he is now riding the gravy train.  I have never seen money like that, and to me it is a fortune.  What astonishes me is the sudden claim that such income is nothing.  I guess not, for some people.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well sure it is an emotional event in the woman's life.

No doubt.  And charity is due to everyone in that kind of situation. 

But, when you have a breakdown at work (for example), it's likely to have professional repercussions, even if it's caused by an emotional event in your life. 

Imploding on your personal facebook page will probably have different consequences than doing it on your professional facebook page.  Especially if your profession is helping people successfully navigate the emotional events in their lives.

My point was that I'm glad she's stopped posting on there (at least for now), for her sake.  

 

[ttribe]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Everything is relative.  For the Brethren who are millionaires (not all of rhem are), the stipend they receive is nothing at all.  For Dr Dehlin, who no doubt took on debt to get through college to his doctoral degree, he is now riding the gravy train.  I have never seen money like that, and to me it is a fortune.  What astonishes me is the sudden claim that such income is nothing.  I guess not, for some people.

What is with this either-or thing you are doing?  I, for one, never said it was "nothing." In fact, earlier in the thread I said it was "good" money.  A "fortune" denotes a level of independence and saved wealth that, believe it or not, is eluded by most people who make the amount you are calling a fortune.  That was my only point.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

have never seen money like that, and to me it is a fortune. 

Have you seen money like the brethren are receiving?

It seems to me you are using two different standards of measurement (comparing leaders’ stipends to other churches’ leaders or their own incomes prior to their callings vs your own income history in Dehlin’s case) and yet comparing the results as if equivalent standards. I am confused as to the why. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Who's doing that?

We have had a number of discussions here of Dehlin and his podcast over the years, and whenever anything critical was said about him and those podcasts, this was often made out to be unfair -- as though he was a victim instead of a fair subject for critique.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We have had a number of discussions here of Dehlin and his podcast over the years, and whenever anything critical was said about him and those podcasts, this was often made out to be unfair -- as though he was a victim instead of a fair subject for critique.

Meh, that's a perception.  He's a polarizing figure and too many people either turn him into a villain or a hero, when it's likely he is neither.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you seen money like the brethren are receiving?

It seems to me you are using two different standards of measurement (comparing leaders’ stipends to other churches’ leaders or their own incomes prior to their callings vs your own income history in Dehlin’s case) and yet comparing the results as if equivalent standards. I am confused as to the why. 

As I said: "Everything is relative."  To the have-nots, that kind of money seems like a fortune.  To the millionaires, it is nothing.  We had people on this thread poor-mouthing it for mere travel to and from Kansas, as though this was some sort of horrible imposition, which it most certainly was not.  My quip was that Dehlin had a fortune and could (not should) foot the bill (and possibly declare it a business expense).  Travel expense was merely a smokescreen for those who wanted to paint the LDS Church as patently unfair at all times and in all ways, which was silly in light of the facts.  Bringing in the stipend paid to the Brethren, and LDS investments were just more examples of misdirection.

The real issue was one of proper venue and standard practice.

[mgy401]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Someone going through trauma publicly is never a great time to try to judge how trustworthy or rational they are.  I'll give Helfer a pass on that and don't think it means her life is a trainwreck.

Ordinarily I’d perhaps be more charitable.  But in this case, we are talking about a mental health professional.   I expect marriage counselors to have stable marriages; I expect family counselors to be on speaking terms with their families; I expect substance abuse counselors to be sober; I expect financial counselors to be economically stable.  With mental health providers generally, their stock in trade is supposed to be to help their clients navigate difficult and unpleasant social situations, teach them to function within certain community norms, and to give clients the tools they need to process past issues and engage with the people around them in ways that are constructive rather than antisocial.  

And I’m not sure I’m ready to equate “public [psychological] trauma”, as you and @Meadowchik characterize her experience, with “publicly humiliating an institution, its leaders, and adherents; proactively misleading folks about its doctrine stances; getting privately contradicted; taking the dispute public; failing in your gambit to surreptitiously record the proceedings; and thereafter throwing a fit”.  She started a street brawl, and her opponent metaphorically pushed her out of his personal space (with one hand tied behind his back) and walked away.  Ask Anne Frank or Margaret Reed or Eliza Snow how “traumatic” that would be.  

I recognize that there’s been a lot of literature about being “trauma-informed” lately, and I try to respect it.  But many in the mental health profession are in real danger of being unable to distinguish between “unpleasantness” and “trauma”, and are steering us to a society in which everyone’s “traumatized”—meaning that, effectively, no one is.  It is frankly revolting that Helfer and/or her acolytes would presume to put her experience on any kind of par with those of survivors of horrors like child abuse or sexual violence, torture, physical maiming, war, and so on.

Helfer was clearly embarrassed.  Thats too bad.  But then again—she subjected her stake president to a public shaming campaign in front of millions of news consumers, and none of her fans are talking about his “trauma”.  Because in their heart of hearts, they know that “trauma” is not remotely the same thing as “accountability” or “natural consequences” or “not getting what you want”.  They don’t really think that anyone in this affair is being “traumatized”, as the word is clinically defined.  They just think they’ll get more mileage with their own agendas if they can portray their heroine as some sort of damsel in distress, being denied the chivalric patriarchal protection that was her birthright.  Today, they say, she’s barely competent to manage her own behavior—but tomorrow she’ll be an independent woman, a fully-grown adult, a trained mental health counselor and communications specialist who has a God-given right to be the exclusive companion of Latter-day Saint children on their voyages of relational (and sexual.  Don’t forget the sexual!) self-discovery.

I don’t buy it.  Helfer’s behavior seems more attributable to a singularly childish lack of empathy and self-discipline, than to her being the victim of an unsolicited and uniquely horrific experience.

Edited April 20, 2021 by mgy401

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Meh, that's a perception.  He's a polarizing figure and too many people either turn him into a villain or a hero, when it's likely he is neither.

Whether he is either or neither, he is indeed a polarizing figure, which certainly increases his popularity and the bottom line.  Should be a win-win from his POV.