Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, ttribe said:

Oh. My. You are a persistent one on this.  She read off the charges and answered each one as part of the podcast.  She stated where each of the statements had been said or published.  She provided a fair amount of detail.  Go listen to it for yourself, if you're so concerned.  I'm not responsible for educating you on this.  I've been about as patient as I can be.

This is the most important question of all, in my opinion, because it seems to be the reason everyone thinks she shouldn't need to go back to Kansas.  And nobody seems to be able to answer this question.  I guess I'll need to listen to her podcasts.

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, bluebell said:

As I said before, she put this stuff up on her professional page, the page she uses to attract clients.  I don't think it's uncharitable to share my reaction to her, as a therapist, putting that kind of stuff up.

She has now made it clear that the shutting down of her professional page was an intervention by others but that she has decided to reopen it without removing any previous posts. Interesting. Perhaps this tells us something about what types of clients she wishes to attract?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This is the most important question of all, in my opinion, because it seems to be the reason everyone thinks she shouldn't need to go back to Kansas.  And nobody seems to be able to answer this question.  I guess I'll need to listen to her podcasts.

She just posted her excommunication letter on her professional Facebook page. From the stake president’s comments (reading on my phone so hopeful I didn’t miss anything) it appears that it was only her public conduct that was at issue. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If so, then why did you begin that poorly informed discussion?

My you are extremely obtuse.  I have lots of problems with the LDS concepts of God as well.  Both from  science based issues and a problem of evil issue.  

Edited by Teancum
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No page 2 and 

 

FB_IMG_1619049451443.jpg

Edited by ttribe
Posted

Well there we go then.

1) They rescheduled the meeting for her (somehow his has never come up until now)

2) Despite her making it sound like they wanted a copy of all her notes, she actually had the option of printing them

3) Despite her saying that she was being punished for actions were accepted practices in industry, those actions were never the issue.

 

Posted
49 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

She has now made it clear that the shutting down of her professional page was an intervention by others but that she has decided to reopen it without removing any previous posts. Interesting. Perhaps this tells us something about what types of clients she wishes to attract?

Well, I think she needed the intervention (good friends make sure you don't go down with the ship), and that it's a really bad idea to open things up and double down on the mess she posted over the last couple of days, but she obviously has not asked my opinion.  :lol:

Posted
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She just posted her excommunication letter on her professional Facebook page. From the stake president’s comments (reading on my phone so hopeful I didn’t miss anything) it appears that it was only her public conduct that was at issue. 

I just read the letter too.  Apostasy (on the church website) is defined as, "the repeated, clear and open public opposition to the Church, its leaders and its doctrine."    The letter uses this nearly exact wording in paragraph 3, and the same statement is paraphrased in paragraph 4.  I don't think this can be construed as meaning that only her podcasts and social media were considered as evidence for this council (because that definition of apostasy has been around long before there were any of those technical developments).  The letter also mentions other evidence, from emails and statements from others, some of which were in her support.  So it's hard to judge from this whether the council needed to be held in Kansas or not.  There may have been some differences if she had been able to attend the meeting herself. 

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So all of this started back in November. That makes things more interesting.

 

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. Hidden in plain sight as it were: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/04/16/mormon-sex-therapist-expulsion-lds/

With this context, I’d probably make minor modifications to a post or two here if I had it to do a can. 

She openly stated this to be the case during her interview on MormonStories; this isn't new information.

Edited by ttribe
Posted
2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

There may have been some differences if she had been able to attend the meeting herself. 

She was certainly able. She allowed her oppositional defiant disorder to get in the way.

Posted
1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

She was certainly able. She allowed her oppositional defiant disorder to get in the way.

Good point, that was a poor choice of words on my part.  I should have said, "if she had chosen to attend".

Posted
6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sometimes it feels like a public excommunication acts as a sort of communal catharsis. Critics of the church have an opportunity to rail at the injustice of it all, and members get to vent their disgust and disdain toward the apostate. Once everyone has had their say, we go back to normal life until the next one happens. 

We must move in different circles.  I don't have "disgust and disdain" for so-called "apostates," nor does anyone I'm aware of in my immediate circle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  (I admit, I'm a bit put off by public spectacles, especially since the hands of leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ are tied when it comes to responding to three-ring circuses staged by so many high-profile people who have undergone church discipline, but even then, I'm not sure my reaction could be described as "disgust and disdain.") ;)

Posted
23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

She openly stated this to be the case during her interview on MormonStories; this isn't new information.

That is indeed what I meant by hidden in plain sight. Just because I wasn’t aware of it, doesn’t mean she was hiding it. (The post article mentions this in the link and this was before the council). 

Posted
28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

She openly stated this to be the case during her interview on MormonStories; this isn't new information.

Somewhat convenient then that there has been implications that she was forced to put her life on hold and rush across the country when in fact 1) she had 5 months to plan things, and 2) they rescheduled the date for her.

Posted
2 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Somewhat convenient then that there has been implications that she was forced to put her life on hold and rush across the country when in fact 1) she had 5 months to plan things, and 2) they rescheduled the date for her.

But, according to her, they didn't actually notify her that a hearing was actually going to take place until one week before they had it scheduled.  Ultimately, they did move it back some, but her point still stands.

It sure would help if some of you actually listened to what she said about this timeline instead of engaging in conjecture.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It sure would help if some of you actually listened to what she said about this timeline instead of engaging in conjecture.

It would help if all news articles gave proper non-vague timelines without being surrounded by waffle so that people don't need to listen through hours of various podcasts to get information.

Edited by JustAnAustralian
Posted
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

My you are extremely obtuse.  I have lots of problems with the LDS concepts of God as well.  Both from  science based issues and a problem of evil issue.  

Your initial statement exhibited a complete misunderstanding of the fundamental basis of LDS theology -- not that that is unusual, and not that it really matters, since most LDS folks know very little about the underpinnings of their own theology.  Indeed, I suspect that most Mormons have the same basic ignorance of theology typical of most Christians (and Jews for that matter).  Naturally, anyone observing that the emperor has no clothes must be "extremely obtuse."  :crazy:

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

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