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

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

O.K.  It's "good money."  Your POV.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Which, between you and me, is something that concerns me about him...but that's a discussion for another day.

[Bob Crockett]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

Hah hah. You've touched on one of my libertarian notions.  People who pay stupid money for nutrional supplements, especially through MLM schemes, ought to do so and nobody should care about it.  They probably get a lot of psychic value out of it.  I roll my eyes at people in Utah county who work for MLMs but I say -- hey -- it makes people happy.  Like gambling on horses.

[Bob Crockett]

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

I don't plan to ignore you.  I think your argument is technically frivolous because (1) the church's actions don't contravene scripture, and indeed the NT suggests excommunication with zero process or fairness, (2) "fairness" is in the eyes of the holder, particularly given the autonomy doctrine, and (3) you really don't have standing.   As a lawyer I never simply ignore argument that is frivolous. 

Now, if you were to comment upon the work of the Mesoamerican theory for the Book of Mormon, or whether Joseph Smith really "translated" Egyptian or any legit language at all, or whether Margaret Barker is some kind of God, then I might agree with you. But those are not frivolous arguments.

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

Some of us, when we were kids, went around with holes in our shoes, and some of us have suffered actual malnutrition.  Those who have been there can understand the difference between poverty and wealth.  I still think very gratefully about that night I didn't have anywhere to stay and the Union Rescue Mission in downtown L.A. gave me a free bed & shower one night -- with free breakfast the next morning.  I never forgot that kindness, and when I was employed I used to make sure that they got a nice annual donation.

For those who have never seen Skid Row up close and personal that may not make any sense.  For those who have seen the hookers and drug addicts for what they really are -- ordinary people who got caught up in a lifestyle they did not really choose -- the relative nature of it all comes clear.  So does compassion.

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

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.

Just to clarify, I don't remember using the term "public trauma" (though I certainly could have), but when I spoke about things being public I meant that she was (in my opinion, unfortunately) choosing to play out everything in the public sphere and doing so was making things worse for her.  As that's the case, I don't feel the need to heap on more scorn.

I agree with you to some extent on the overuse of the label "trauma", and I do feel that in Helfer's case, some of the pain and heartache she has experienced in the last couple of days has been self-inflicted. 

I won't lie, I'm not exactly sad that she's hurting her case.  I don't think her accusations surrounding her membership council are reasonable.  But at the same time, I'm trying not to be a jerk about it all.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, 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.

You have been going on page after page about what Dehlin makes.  The question is why do you care?  You aren't donating to his income.  

For a day laborer, yea $200.000 is a lot of money.  But if you are a podcaster that has thousands of followers, $200,000 is not unreasonable.  

Quote

 

Ryan Kaji, 9, earns $29.5m as this year's highest-paid YouTuber. A nine-year-old boy has made nearly $30m in a year from “unboxing” and reviewing toys and games on YouTube to hold the title of highest-paid YouTuber for the third year running.

 

Do you still think Dehlin is making a fortune?  Do you think he should not accept donations once he has made a figure that you consider to be a fortune?  Should the Church start not accepting donations once others consider the Church has a fortune?  You are blowing this issue up way too much imo.

Quote

 

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

 

And the Church has literally hundred plus billion dollars.  Why didn't the Church pay for her travel to a location that THEY picked.  It would have been a kind and compassionate gesture to offer to pay for her travel expenses and may have dulled the edge off of the animosity that has occurred.  That little amount would have shown compassion and a willingness to help resolve the issue amicably.

Edited April 20, 2021 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

expect marriage counselors to have stable marriages;

There are two in a marriage; even the most stable and understanding spouse can’t save a marriage of the other is off the rails. 

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

I n this case Natasha Helfer is fairly public through social media and a podcast so her Utah leaders easily have stalked her to see it she was an evil apostate quite easily.

So what are you suggesting?  That a ward or stake should base their need for a membership council upon the social media and podcasts of a person that just shows up to their local meetinghouse instead of from first hand interaction and long term association with the same individual in the ward they moved from?  Or something else?   Which way seems the most fair to you?

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

So what are you suggesting?  That a ward or stake should base their need for a membership council upon the social media and podcasts of a person that just shows up to their local meetinghouse instead of from first hand interaction and long term association with the same individual in the ward they moved from?  Or something else?   Which way seems the most fair to you?

When the basis of the charges appears to be, by all indications, those same social media posts and podcasts rather than a specific incident in the former ward's geographic area, then perhaps a change of venue to the new ward/stake might make sense.

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

When the basis of the charges appears to be, by all indications, those same social media posts and podcasts rather than a specific incident in the former ward's geographic area, then perhaps a change of venue to the new ward/stake might make sense.

What evidence do you have that the basis of the charges are only for social media posts and podcasts and not something people witnessed (or experienced) personally in the former ward's geographic area?

Edited April 20, 2021 by InCognitus

[ttribe]

Just now, InCognitus said:

What evidence do you have that the basis of the charges are only for social media posts and podcasts and not something people witnessed personally in the former ward's geographic area?

Goodness...I have stated this over and over again in this very thread - we only have the words she claimed to read from a letter and publicly address prior to the hearing.  Obviously, that's problematic IF there are OTHER charges.  Having both read for myself and heard her read those charges, I find it credible that they are a complete set, but recognize the limitations on that conclusion.  Every single one of those charges was based on her public activities.  Not a single one referenced an allegation by a local member, for example.  All of it was apparently taken from online sources.

That being said, I fully recognize that there could be other charges that she isn't disclosing, but I'm unable to concoct a good explanation for why those other charges would have been hidden by her when the others weren't and there was plenty of stuff in there for her to already be defensive about.

And, again, I will say - I am not engaging in speculation on what anyone on either side of this situation is thinking or feeling.  I'm only going off of what we know and I'm unwilling to speculate on what we don't know.

You seem to be willing to give the local leadership the benefit of the doubt that they didn't make an error on the matter of venue and simultaneously assume she is lying.  You are welcome to those assumptions, but they are evident of your bias.

My explicit position is this - 1) we only know what she has told us; 2) I am unwilling to speculate beyond that; 3) IF she is telling the truth, then I believe it was likely unfair and unnecessary to make her travel to Kansas instead of sending the issue over to her Utah ward/stake; and 4) if she is not being truthful, then all bets are off.

[juliann]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

Well, CFR then. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

What do you think his stance is?

I have no idea. The characterization that the devil's plan was to turn everyone into automatons is speculation and pretty recent speculation at that. The first time it was put forward in Conference that I know of it was by a Seventy who was very clear it was just a theory. Lucifer's plan is unclear. All we really know is that it involved him getting all the glory, somehow saving everyone, and somehow involved a plan to destroy agency. I don't doubt that Satan would have used appeals to love, sympathy, and compassion if they were relevant but while love surely existed would spirit beings even understand what sympathy is? Would they understand mortal emotional pain or physical suffering? I have no idea.

Using a very speculative model of the devil's intentions in a world we do not understand as a brickbat against ideological enemies is a dangerous game.

[Duncan]

9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have a hard time reconciling that when things like this board (and many others) exist. Things like “Mormon Stories”, Bill Reel’s “Mormon Discussion”, FairMormon, etc. I’m not an attorney, but it’s my understanding that if you don’t protect your property you lose it. 

I'm no lawyer either but one of my favourite shows growing up was Night Court❤️ but you may not lose it per se  but have to pay$$$$ for its use. I am involved in writing a book commissioned by the Church and as such have used like 100 photos. Like 99% of the owners of those photos want credit and the 1% don't want credit. The Intellectual Reserve said I could use a certain photo provided that when the book is printed I photocopy the page its on and send it to them for their files and they will waive any fees, so I am doing that.

 

On the TV show "The Office" one musical artist apparently didn't like the fact that one of his songs was used by NBC without his consent and they had to pay him $60,000 bucks!!!!!!!! Some people could care less but not everyone

Edited April 21, 2021 by Duncan

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You have been going on page after page about what Dehlin makes.  The question is why do you care?  You aren't donating to his income.  

For a day laborer, yea $200.000 is a lot of money.  But if you are a podcaster that has thousands of followers, $200,000 is not unreasonable.  

It was never about reasonableness, or where it came from, or where it placed him percentile wise. Though those do help. The point was that if plane tickets were a financial issue for her, then he would quite likely be able to pay for them without thinking too much about it. Further as she was a board member of open stories foundation, and was appearing on mormonstories over it, like has been pointed out above, he could claim it as a business expense, so it would come out of the OSF's pockets not his own.

Edited April 21, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have no idea. The characterization that the devil's plan was to turn everyone into automatons is speculation and pretty recent speculation at that. The first time it was put forward in Conference that I know of it was by a Seventy who was very clear it was just a theory. Lucifer's plan is unclear. All we really know is that it involved him getting all the glory, somehow saving everyone, and somehow involved a plan to destroy agency. I don't doubt that Satan would have used appeals to love, sympathy, and compassion if they were relevant but while love surely existed would spirit beings even understand what sympathy is? Would they understand mortal emotional pain or physical suffering? I have no idea.

Using a very speculative model of the devil's intentions in a world we do not understand as a brickbat against ideological enemies is a dangerous game.

I believe it’s absurd to entertain the notion that Satan’s version of the “plan of salvation” (if that’s what it can called), is some great mystery. It’s not. Satan is the original antiChrist, and he gained that ignominious title because he came out in open opposition to God the Father’s plan of salvation that called for an atoning sacrifice to be made by the then second member of the Godhead, the preexistent Lotd Jesus Christ. This means that under Satan’s plan there would be no forgiveness for sin because the demands of justice would not be satisfied for the repentant. This can only mean that under Satan’s plan sin would necessarily have to be either redefined in some way, or discarded altogether as a moral imperative that has to be acknowledged, dealt with and neutralized.

This leads us to the final, inescapable conclusion: Satan was planning to destroy the agency of man by making sure that no one would ever have to suffer for sin because sin, for all intents and purposes, would cease to exist. And that’s precisely how Satan’s evil inspired “anything goes and we’re all still going to to be saved” plan of salvation was going to destroy the agency of man. You see, if there is no reward for righteousness and no punishment for wrongdoing, it makes no difference what a man chooses to do because the motivation to be righteous is totally deincentivize.

How can moral agency be exercised in a world where there is no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no justice and no mercy, no love and no hate? Under Satan’s plan there would be no joy and happiness because there is no punishment and misery; everyone would inevitably end up as equally miserable slaves in a meaningless participation trophy anti heaven. In short, Satan’s plan is an destructive, unworkable pipe dream that has never and will never exist in any state of existence except in the bowels of hell..

Edited April 21, 2021 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I believe it’s absurd to entertain the notion that Satan’s version of the “plan of salvation” (if that’s what it can called), is some great mystery. It’s not. Satan is the original antiChrist, and he gained that ignominious title because he came out in open opposition to God the Father’s plan of salvation that called for an atoning sacrifice to be made by the then second member of the Godhead, the preexistent Lotd Jesus Christ. This means that under Satan’s plan there would be no forgiveness for sin because the demands of justice would not be satisfied for the repentant. This can only mean that under Satan’s plan sin would necessarily have to be either redefined in some way, or discarded altogether as a moral imperative that has to be acknowledged, dealt with and neutralized.

This leads us to the final, inescapable conclusion: Satan was planning to destroy the agency of man by making sure that no one would ever have to suffer for sin because sin, for all intents and purposes, would cease to exist. And that’s precisely how Satan’s evil inspired “anything goes and we’re all still going to to be saved” plan of salvation was going to destroy the agency of man. You see, if there is no reward for righteousness and no punishment for wrongdoing, it makes no difference what a man chooses to do because the motivation to be righteous is totally deincentivize.

How can moral agency be exercised in a world where there is no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no justice and no mercy, no love and no hate? Under Satan’s plan there would be no joy and happiness because there is no punishment and misery; everyone would inevitably end up as equally miserable slaves in a meaningless participation trophy anti heaven. In short, Satan’s plan is an destructive, unworkable pipe dream that has never and will never exist in any state of existence except in the bowels of hell..

That is almost all unscriptural extrapolation.

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It was never about reasonableness, or where it came from, or where it placed him percentile wise. Though those do help. The point was that if plane tickets were a financial issue for her, then he would quite likely be able to pay for them without thinking too much about it. Further as she was a board member of open stories foundation, and was appearing on mormonstories over it, like has been pointed out above, he could claim it as a business expense, so it would come out of the OSF's pockets not his own.

You ignored half of my post.  

Quote

 

And the Church has literally hundred plus billion dollars.  Why didn't the Church pay for her travel to a location that THEY picked.  It would have been a kind and compassionate gesture to offer to pay for her travel expenses and may have dulled the edge off of the animosity that has occurred.  That little amount would have shown compassion and a willingness to help resolve the issue amicably.

 

Those that are critical of Dehlin, why aren't they also critical of the Church which has billions. They are the ones demanding her to fly back to a place she moved from 1 1/2 years ago for their excommunication meeting.  Don't you think it would have been a good gesture by the Church to shown compassion and a willingness to help resolve the issue amicably.  

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some of us, when we were kids, went around with holes in our shoes, and some of us have suffered actual malnutrition.  Those who have been there can understand the difference between poverty and wealth.  I still think very gratefully about that night I didn't have anywhere to stay and the Union Rescue Mission in downtown L.A. gave me a free bed & shower one night -- with free breakfast the next morning.  I never forgot that kindness, and when I was employed I used to make sure that they got a nice annual donation.

For those who have never seen Skid Row up close and personal that may not make any sense.  For those who have seen the hookers and drug addicts for what they really are -- ordinary people who got caught up in a lifestyle they did not really choose -- the relative nature of it all comes clear.  So does compassion.

Sweet!!

[JustAnAustralian]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Those that are critical of Dehlin, why aren't they also critical of the Church which has billions.

There's a somewhat big difference between one person claiming 40hours a week from his podcast related 9 board member 501c3 and a multinational 501c3 that has thousands of people in all kinds of areas.

Quote

Don't you think it would have been a good gesture by the Church to shown compassion and a willingness to help resolve the issue amicably.  

The fact that she ran to Dehlin and the media makes it seem like she wasn't actually interested in an amicable resolution.

Edited April 21, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There are two in a marriage; even the most stable and understanding spouse can’t save a marriage of the other is off the rails. 

Good point.

And to apply the point to this process, there's much more complexity.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

You seem to be willing to give the local leadership the benefit of the doubt that they didn't make an error on the matter of venue and simultaneously assume she is lying.  You are welcome to those assumptions, but they are evident of your bias.

I don't know any more than what this woman has made public and has been quoted in this thread.  In a prior post you paraphrased some of the things that she said:

On 4/15/2021 at 10:21 AM, ttribe said:

But, in listening to her discuss her situation, she brought up that she hasn't lived within the boundaries of the Stake in which the disciplinary proceedings are occurring for more than a year and a half.  It should be noted that the disciplinary process did not begin while she still lived there; she had already moved from Kansas back to Utah.  When she brought this up with the Stake President in Kansas, he replied with a letter informing her that he had conferred with her new Stake President in Utah (whom she's never met) and decided that the proceedings would occur in Kansas and that her membership records would remain in Kansas until this was completed.

What she describes above is completely in line with what is stated in the general handbook in determining which leader should hold the council.  In an earlier post (here), rongo quoted this portion of the general handbook:

Quote

32.9.8

Determining Which Leader Holds a Council in Special Circumstances

Membership councils are almost always held in the geographic Church unit that has the person’s membership record.

Sometimes a membership council is necessary for a person who moves. If the move is within the same stake, the stake president confers with the bishops of both wards and decides where it should take place.

If the member moves outside the stake, the stake presidents of both stakes confer and decide where the council should take place. If they decide that it should be held in the former ward or stake, the membership record is retained in that ward until the council is complete. Otherwise, the record is transferred to the new ward. The bishop or stake president confidentially informs the member’s current bishop or stake president about why a council is needed.

Further down, in 32.14.7 it talks about move restrictions on membership records:

Quote

32.14.7

Move Restrictions on Membership Records

Sometimes a Church member moves while membership action or other serious concerns are pending. Sometimes a bishop needs to share information with the new bishop before transferring the membership record to the new unit. In these cases, the bishop (or clerk if authorized) may place a move restriction on the membership record. The record remains in the unit until the bishop (or clerk if authorized) removes the restriction. This allows an opportunity for the bishop to communicate concerns and information.

In your account of what she said (and I'm only going by your account) she stated she had never met her new Stake President.  That would obviously be one big reason that the stake president in Kansas would have more knowledge of the woman's situation.  You state that I'm making assumptions based on my bias, and perhaps that is true as long as my only biased assumption is that the bishops and stake presidents in both locations are going by the general handbook.  Obviously there was some reason that the woman's membership records were not transferred.  I can think of several reasons, most of which have nothing to do with a membership council.  But one reason could be that "membership action or other serious concerns [were] pending" (as stated in 32.14.7).  For whatever the reason her records were not transferred, and according to her own account (as paraphrased by you), the two stake presidents decided the membership council should be held in Kansas.  This is completely in line with the general handbook.

You also said that I assume the woman is lying.  What is it that I think she's lying about?   Did the woman actually say all the charges are based on social media and podcasts?  I could be missing something because everything I know about this case comes from this thread.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by InCognitus

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

This is a discussion for another thread.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

So what are you suggesting?  That a ward or stake should base their need for a membership council upon the social media and podcasts of a person that just shows up to their local meetinghouse instead of from first hand interaction and long term association with the same individual in the ward they moved from?  Or something else?   Which way seems the most fair to you?

What seem fair is what may work best for the individual  She knew her local bishop She could have met with her local SP. Her Kansas leaders knew her for years.  Her views were NOT new.  Not at all. If they had a problem with her why did they wait till well after a year from the time she moved away?  I am suspect that this came down from higher up.  In addition they gave her a week to prepare.  And to make travel arrangements. Is that fair?  And why was she and her witnesses limited to one hour?  She asked for 90 minutes.  Nope.  And the phone thing is just immature.  She said she would not record the court. She could have even committed to handing her phone over every few minutes so they could double check if their paranoia required it.