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

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, helix said:

Just reminding Teancum of this.

From the stake president: 

"Natasha, many of the letters I received were supportive of your professional services and expressed gratitude for the help you have given, which I appreciate.  However, this council had nothing to do with your practice as a therapist.  Your professional activities played no part in the decision of the council.  Rather, as stated in my prior letter to you, the sole purpose of this council was to consider your repeated, clear, and public opposition to and condemnation of the church, its doctrine, its policies, and its leaders" 

I would expect this is what the SP would say.....

So hey.  You were right....

 

Happy now?

 

Si

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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." 

Your approach is obtuse and not just towards me.  and I know quite a bit about the LDS view of the Godhead.  But right now I no interest or time to discuss it with you.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Just reminding Teancum of this.

From the stake president: 

"Natasha, many of the letters I received were supportive of your professional services and expressed gratitude for the help you have given, which I appreciate.  However, this council had nothing to do with your practice as a therapist.  Your professional activities played no part in the decision of the council.  Rather, as stated in my prior letter to you, the sole purpose of this council was to consider your repeated, clear, and public opposition to and condemnation of the church, its doctrine, its policies, and its leaders" 

I would expect this is what the SP would say.....

So you position is that the stake president lied?  That the council was about her "professional activities," and that they did play a "part in the decision of the council?"

If so, what evidence do you have of that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2021 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

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

As has been reported, they gave her the option of emailing them the notes. At which point, they would print them.

13 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

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

 

This will just depend on how you want to look at it. Per the DSM, s* x addiction is not a thing. Per accepted practices in industry attraction to those of your own gender and acting on that are not problems. Per accepted practices in the mental health industry, masturbation is normal and healthy. What the stake president is saying is that while Natasha Helfer's private sessions were not an issue, her public advocacy work was. From the stake presidents point of view, he wants the two aspects of her work to be separate. Natasha Helfer views them as one and the same. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, smac97 said:

So you position is that the stake president lied?  That the council was about her "professional activities," and that they did play a "part in the decision fo the council?"

I'd say that the stake president and Ms Helfer define her "professional activities" differently. Each using the word truthfully according to how they see it.

[HappyJackWagon]

After all of this almost all of my questions and criticism's of the church continue to be procedural. And there are a few things I'd still like to know.

1- Why were her records maintained in Kansas instead of following her to Utah 18 months earlier? Did she fail to give the needed info to her Utah ward so they could request them? Was there a hold on her record? Was she already under some kind of discipline?

2- Why did it take 18 months for Kansas leaders to hold the trial. Even considering the November date they originally scheduled it for we are still looking at a year after she moved. It seems very strange to me.

3- When the trial was rescheduled, how much notice was she given? Was it months like some suggest or was it 2 weeks like Natasha suggests?

4- Was she informed ahead of time that she wouldn't be allowed to bring her phone into the meeting or was this a surprise requirement when the council started?

Depending on the answers to those questions makes a huge difference about whether or not she was treated fairly and I just don't know the answers. 

 

Something I noticed from the letter and I can't remember how we used to do it when we wrote those letters after a council. Aside from the actual loss of membership and activities she is now prohibited from, there was no mention of loss of blessings; baptism, confirmation, temple etc. She was told she couldn't attend the temple but that's not really the same thing as losing temple blessings.  Does anyone recall if the loss of blessings is usually mentioned in the letter or is that usually more of a verbal communication? Or was this letter even more vague than most?

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As has been reported, they gave her the option of emailing them the notes. At which point, they would print them.

This will just depend on how you want to look at it. Per the DSM, s* x addiction is not a thing. Per accepted practices in industry attraction to those of your own gender and acting on that are not problems. Per accepted practices in the mental health industry, masturbation is normal and healthy. What the stake president is saying is that while Natasha Helfer's private sessions were not an issue, her public advocacy work was. From the stake presidents point of view, he wants the two aspects of her work to be separate. Natasha Helfer views them as one and the same. 

Excellent summary

Edited April 22, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[Fair Dinkum]

11 hours ago, helix said:

"Regarding your appeal to remain a student at this university, you stated the required paper form is inappropriate burden and you wouldn't participate further.   Your appeal is thus denied."

"Your membership club bill is 6 months past due.  We can pay by cash or credit card.  You insisted using Bitcoin only.  We offered a third party to turn your Bitcoin into cash.  You declined.  Your membership is thus cancelled."

"As your doctor, I diagnosed you with stage 3 kidney disease.  I prescribed several diets.  You instead ate salted theater popcorn daily.  You are now at stage 4 kidney disease." 

"Your standing in this religion is struggling due to numerous offensive and theologically incompatible statements.  We offered a membership review meeting where we agreed upon no recording devices.  You brought a recording device.  We offered you a printer to print your notes instead.  You declined and yelled at us.  Your membership has been withdrawn."

 

You are distorting what took place or at least what has been reported to have taken place.  The sister had pledged not to record the proceedings.  She had given her word.  That should have been enough.  But for these men, the word of a woman was NOT valued nor considered credible.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why did it take 18 months for Kansas leaders to hold the trial. Even considering the November date they originally scheduled it for we are still looking at a year after she moved. It seems very strange to me.

We need to take into account willingness and policy/legality of getting enough enough leaders to fill the quorum due to Covid restrictions and vulnerability.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

4- Was she informed ahead of time that she wouldn't be allowed to bring her phone into the meeting or was this a surprise requirement when the council started?

Was her phone not allowed or was it just needing to be turned off?

[Tacenda]

There was her witness, a gal that is a stake YW leader and believer that when she needed to use the restroom in the church, they barred her from going. How is this okay? The trust they didn't have in these women, and the way it was all handled was very, very sad. But OTOH, I wish the John Dehlin crowd had not happened. Maybe that freaked out the stake president and the others. I wish Natasha would have attended and asked her friends to not show up and that would lessen the friction. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'd say that the stake president and Ms Helfer define her "professional activities" differently. Each using the word truthfully according to how they see it.

That is definitely a possibility in my view especially given how she treated her professional website, with all the personal stuff. She may view her work as much broader than just therapy. My husband gets involved in public award ceremonies and other community/volunteer unpaid work in part because of it is actually part of his work in his contract.  

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

13 hours 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. 

I thought she did not receive the November communication till more recently?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There was her witness, a gal that is a stake YW leader and believer that when she needed to use the restroom in the church, they barred her from going. How is this okay? The trust they didn't have in these women, and the way it was all handled was very, very sad. But OTOH, I wish the John Dehlin crowd had not happened. Maybe that freaked out the stake president and the others. I wish Natasha would have attended and asked her friends to not show up and that would lessen the friction. 

If they were gathered outside, the security people or whoever was the doorkeeper may have assumed the person was part of the vigil. I can understand why they didn’t want to risk the crowd coming into the building and maybe wandering round or trying to cause disruption if there was a meeting going on...I assume the full council was not at the doors greeting them. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Teancum said:

I thought she did not receive the November communication till more recently?

So I didn’t listen to her Delhin interview (do they really need to be 4 hours!?), but my understanding is that some of her public comments were brought to church leaders attention. Per the post:

 

”
She came under the scrutiny of church leadership last fall when Stephen Daley, stake president in Derby, Kan., sent her a letter expressing concern that her public views on the use of pornography, masturbation and same-sex marriage contradict church teaching. Referring to her beliefs about LGBTQ members, he asked in a Nov. 9, 2020 letter, “Do you consider the Church toxic and unsafe for its members?””

 

How that process proceeded I don’t know. It is apparent that on Easter Sunday is when she received the summons to a church court (or whatever it is called now). She posted about this on her personal page one week later with a video. The court came one week after she went public. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I thought she did not receive the November communication till more recently?

Does she say it was lost or something?  Not uncommon in my house unfortunately. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I'd say that the stake president and Ms Helfer define her "professional activities" differently. Each using the word truthfully according to how they see it.

That's fair speculation.

I have spent the last 10+ years involved in real estate litigation.  Hundreds and hundreds of foreclosures, evictions, boundary line disputes, title disputes, and so on.  Within these proceedings the courts deal with both "the law" and "equity."  "The law" is typically in written form (so-called "black letter law"), and is - or should be - interpreted and applied according to the meaning of the words and the intent of the source that crafted it (typically a legislature or appellate court).  "Equity," on the other hand, can be described as where "judges  decis{base} decisions on general principles of fairness in situations where rigid application of common-law rules would have brought about injustice."  In an attenuated sense, "law and equity" have a relationship between them that is somewhat akin to the scriptural concepts of "justice" and "mercy."

Anyway, there have been countless times when I have been in court presenting argument about these concepts.  More often than not, the interpretation and application of "the law" is pretty straightforward, whereas the application of "equity" is more nebulous.  The party foreclosing and they party being foreclosed on can both make reasoned and principled arguments about how "equity," broad notions of "fairness," can and ought to be applied to the case.

So perhaps the same can be said of what you are presenting here.  That Helfer-Parker construes her "professional activities" in ways that partially overlap and partially conflict with how her former stake president construes that concept.  Perhaps they are both partially correct.

On balance, though, I'm sort of inclined against that proposal.  Two reasons come to mind.  First, there are likely thousands upon thousands of Latter-day Saint therapists who - like Helfer-Parker - regularly engage in "professional activities," and yet have not been disciplined for those activities.  In my view, this suggests that Helfer-Parker is improperly construing inappropriate behaviors (activism/opposition, "{publicly} us{ing} disparaging and vulgar language to describe the Church and its leaders," etc.) as part of her "professional activities."  If so, I don't think that's accurate or correct.

Second, the stake president noted both her "{publicly} us{ing} disparaging and vulgar language to describe the Church and its leaders" and her "pattern of clear and deliberate opposition to the Church, its doctrines, its policies, and its leaders."  He even specifically juxtaposed this with her professional activities:

Quote

"{T}his council had nothing to do with your practice as a therapist.  Your professional activities played no part in the decision of the council.  Rather, as stated in my prior letter to you, the sole purpose of this council was to consider your repeated, clear, and public opposition to and condemnation of the Church, its doctrines, its policies, and its leaders."

It would be understandable for Helfer-Parker to want to construe her rhetoric against the Church as part of her "professional activities," rather than her personal behavior. 

Denver Snuffer tried a similar tactic when he refused to stop publishing Passing the Heavenly Gift by claiming that doing so would be a breach of a publishing contract (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here and here).  Per this discussion, Mill Creek Press is, or was, in Salt Lake:

Quote

Info found by typing "Mill Creek Press" into google -

Mill Creek Press L.L.C.
Private Company, Headquarters Location
PO Box 71381, Salt Lake City, UT 84171-0381, United States
(801)424-9060, (801)424-9060 fax
Primary SIC: Book Publishing & Printing, Primary NAICS: Book Publishers
Description: Manufacturing: Publishes books on historical fiction, biographies, religion, spirituality and nonfiction parenting. Reaches market through Barnes and Noble Book.

Per the Utah Secretary of State website, Mill Creek Press expired as an entity in September 2020 for failure to file the property renewal documents with the state.  The physical address given for it is a house in Murray.  The registered agent is Michael S. Eldredge, who, like Denver Snuffer, is an attorney (though he is not presently licensed in Utah) and was Snuffer's classmate at BYU's law school.  Another of Snuffer's books, Beloved Enos, was also published by Mill Creek and includes a note (regarding the font) by Mr. Eldredge.  

Anyway, here's how Denver Snuffer characterized things (regarding Passing the Heavenly Gift) :

Quote

I was given the ultimatum that I either had to take that book out of print, or I would be excommunicated. For a whole host of reasons, including the fact that I have a publisher, I have a contract with the publisher, I went to the publisher and said, “I’m being given an ultimatum, it needs to be taken off.” He said, “Well if the church is opposed to it, it’s a good book to keep in print. So no, we’re going to keep this book in print.” So then I was told that since the publisher was interested in keeping it in print, they would be willing to purchase the copyright to the book. And so I went back to the publisher, and I said, “What would it take to buy the copyright from you for this book?” And the fellow’s reaction was, “You are sh****ng me!” (I mean, I’m quoting him, so don’t fault me for his language.) He said, “If they’re that interested in buying and getting it out, this book has to stay in print! This is Martin Luther, this is Galileo, this is historic! We have to keep this— No. No amount of money!” I said, “Well, okay. I don’t want to be in the middle of a lawsuit, but….”

Given the small size of the publishing house, apparently owned by Snuffer's friend from law school, I assume the above discussion was between Snuffer and Eldredge.  This doesn't quite pass the smell test for me, for a few reasons.  In any event, Denver here was trying to forestall discipline by taking an "it's out of my hands" approach by tying church discipline to a publishing contract.  I think Helfer-Parker is taking a similar approach by tying church discipline to her career as a therapist.  I'm fairly skeptical of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2021 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you position is that the stake president lied?  That the council was about her "professional activities," and that they did play a "part in the decision of the council?"

If so, what evidence do you have of that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems like a he said she said thing really.  So I guess it is who one wishes to believe.

[Kenngo1969]

Opposing Counsel: "Objection!"

His Honor: "Sustained."

Me: "Withdrawn."

Edited April 22, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

On balance, though, I'm sort of inclined against that proposal.  Two reasons come to mind.  First, there are likely thousands upon thousands of Latter-day Saint therapists who - like Helfer-Parker - regularly engage in "professional activities," and yet have not been disciplined for those activities. 
 

This is correct. 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In my view, this suggests that Helfer-Parker is improperly construing inappropriate behaviors (activism/opposition, "{publicly} us{ing} disparaging and vulgar language to describe the Church and its leaders," etc.) as part of her "professional activities."  If so, I don't think that's accurate or correct.

I’m sorry, but your committing a logical fallacy here. It’s clear that the church draws a huge line between privately held beliefs and practice and public criticism of its positions and leaders. So you can hold all the views of Helfer and practice privately and never face church discipline. That does not mean that Natasha’s public work is not part of her professional activities. She clearly runs both a private practice as well as a public facing practice. 
 

And please note I think it’s fine for the church to draw a line of distinction here in defining what it will tolerate. Again based on Helfer’s public antagonistic statements, I think the church has a great case based on its policies. 

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was her phone not allowed or was it just needing to be turned off?

I don't know. But it is my understanding that she signed an agreement not to record the proceedings prior to her refusing to hand over her phone. Kind of makes me wonder what the point of signing the agreement was.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After all of this almost all of my questions and criticism's of the church continue to be procedural. And there are a few things I'd still like to know.

1- Why were her records maintained in Kansas instead of following her to Utah 18 months earlier?

Transferring church records is, these days, a very simple thing.  It takes a clerk thirty seconds to do it.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Did she fail to give the needed info to her Utah ward so they could request them?  Was there a hold on her record?

That could be what happened.  She describes herself as only "semi active," right?

Or her records could have been transferred to her ward in Utah, and then transferred back after the Utah and Kansas stake presidents had their discussion.

Or the bishop or stake president in Kansas could have put a hold on her records and kept them in Kansas since she moved away.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Was she already under some kind of discipline?

Hard to say.  We don't have all the facts.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- Why did it take 18 months for Kansas leaders to hold the trial. Even considering the November date they originally scheduled it for we are still looking at a year after she moved. It seems very strange to me.

18 months from what?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- When the trial was rescheduled, how much notice was she given? Was it months like some suggest or was it 2 weeks like Natasha suggests?

Two weeks seems a bit tight, but not unreasonable.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

4- Was she informed ahead of time that she wouldn't be allowed to bring her phone into the meeting or was this a surprise requirement when the council started?

Dunno.  Apparently she was given the option of printing out her notes, but declined (something she omitted from her narrative).  

Kate Kelly tried similar stuff.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Depending on the answers to those questions makes a huge difference about whether or not she was treated fairly and I just don't know the answers. 

I don't think these questions make any material difference.  Whether she never arranged for her records to be transferred, or whether they were transferred to Utah and then back to Kansas, or a hold was placed on her records, there is no change to the outcome.  The stake presidents conferred and agreed that the one in Kansas could retain jurisdiction.  This conforms with the policies and procedures of the Church.

As for the length of time, I don't see that as making much of a difference either.  A substantial portion of the delay is apparently attributable to Helfer-Parker, right?  As for the balance, there could be all sorts of legitimate reasons for it.  It's not like there is a statute of limitations in play.

As for two weeks notice, that seems legit.  If she had a scheduling conflict or some other reasonable need for more time and more advance notice, she could have said so.  Did she?  In any event, convenience or a lack thereof is not likely a matter of "a huge difference" pertaining to "whether or not she was treated fairly."

As for her reading her notes from her cell phone, that seems like a nothingburger.  A contrived complaint.  Not unlike what we saw with Denver Snuffer, who insisted that his family attend the council, and then used that as a pretext to not attend himself.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Something I noticed from the letter and I can't remember how we used to do it when we wrote those letters after a council. Aside from the actual loss of membership and activities she is now prohibited from, there was no mention of loss of blessings; baptism, confirmation, temple etc.

Yes, I noticed that also.  This point is governed by Section 32.12.1 of the Handbook:

Quote

32.12.1

Notifying a Person of the Decision

The bishop or stake president normally tells the person the outcome of the council when it concludes. However, he may adjourn a council for a time to seek more guidance or information before making a decision.

A ward, branch, or district membership council may recommend withdrawing Church membership from a person who has not received the temple endowment. However, the approval of the stake or mission president is necessary before the decision is final.

The bishop or stake president explains the effects of the decision as outlined in 32.11. Normally he also gives counsel on the conditions of repentance so restrictions can be removed or the person can be readmitted into the Church.

The bishop or stake president gives the person prompt written notice of the decision and its effects. This notice consists of a general statement that the action was taken in response to conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church. It could also include counsel about having membership restrictions removed or being readmitted into the Church. It should notify the person that he or she may appeal the decision (see 32.13).

If the person does not attend the council, written notice may be sufficient to inform him or her of the decision. The bishop or stake president may also meet with the person.

The bishop or stake president does not give the person a copy of the Report of Church Membership Council form.

It looks like the stake president may not have fully complied with the provision that he explain "the effects of the decision as outlined in 32.11."  That section (specifically, Section 32.11.4) states:

Quote

32.11.4

Withdrawal of Membership

In some membership councils, leaders may determine that it is best to withdraw a person’s Church membership for a time (see Mosiah 26:36; Alma 6:3; Moroni 6:7; Doctrine and Covenants 20:83).

Withdrawing a person’s Church membership is required for murder (as defined in 32.6.1.1) and plural marriage (as explained in 32.6.1.2). It is almost always required for incest as explained in 32.6.1.2 and 38.6.10.

As directed by the Spirit, withdrawing a person’s membership may also be necessary as follows:

• For those whose conduct makes them a serious threat to others.

• For those who have committed especially severe sins.

• For those who do not demonstrate repentance of serious sins (see considerations in 32.7).

• For those who commit serious sins that harm the Church.

A ward, branch, or district membership council may recommend withdrawing Church membership from a person who has not received the temple endowment. However, the approval of the stake or mission president is necessary before the decision is final.

Those whose Church membership has been withdrawn may not enjoy any privileges of membership.

• They may not enter a temple or wear the temple garment. If the person has a temple recommend, the leader cancels it in LCR.

• They may not exercise the priesthood.

• They may not partake of the sacrament or participate in the sustaining of Church officers.

• They may not give a talk, lesson, or prayer in Church settings or lead an activity in church. Nor may they serve in a Church calling.

• They may not pay tithes and offerings.

They are encouraged to attend Church meetings and activities if their conduct is orderly.

Those whose Church membership has been withdrawn can be considered for readmission by baptism and confirmation. Usually, they first need to show genuine repentance for at least one year. The bishop or stake president holds another membership council to consider readmission (see 32.16.1).

Membership Council Decisions and Results

Decision	Results
Remains in Good Standing (see 32.11.1)	None
Personal Counseling with the Bishop or Stake President (see 32.11.2)	May have some membership privileges informally restricted. Restrictions are usually less than one year; in unusual circumstances, they may be longer. Informal restrictions are removed after genuine repentance. Action is not recorded on the membership record.
Formal Membership Restrictions (see 32.11.3)	Membership privileges are formally restricted. Restrictions are usually at least one year and may be longer. Action is recorded on the membership record. Formal restrictions are removed after genuine repentance, a membership council, and, if necessary, First Presidency approval. The membership record indicator is removed if restrictions are removed after a membership council (except required annotations; see 32.14.5).
Withdrawal of Membership (see 32.11.4)	All ordinances are revoked. All membership privileges are withdrawn, usually for at least one year. A person is eligible for readmission by baptism and confirmation only after genuine repentance, a membership council, and, if necessary, First Presidency approval. A previously endowed person is eligible to receive a restoration of blessings only with First Presidency approval and after at least one full year from readmission (see 32.17.2). For a previously endowed person, the “Restoration of Blessings Required” indicator is removed from the membership record only after the ordinance is performed (required annotations remain; see 32.14.5).

Although I think Helfer-Parker is already aware, I think it would have been better for the stake president to include in his letter the explanation noted above.  Perhaps he could rectify this by sending a supplementary communication to includes this information.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She was told she couldn't attend the temple but that's not really the same thing as losing temple blessings.  Does anyone recall if the loss of blessings is usually mentioned in the letter or is that usually more of a verbal communication? Or was this letter even more vague than most?

The letter was clear as to the decision, but not as to the consequences of the decision.  I'm reasonably confident Helfer-Parker knows those consequences, but I think they should have been set forth in the letter nonetheless.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Seems like a he said she said thing really. 

Well, no.  What "she said" is an imputation as to the motives of the stake president.  What "he said" is the stake president speaking as to his own motives.  As between the two, the latter should clearly be given more probative weight.

If Helfer-Parker has evidence of her allegation, I think she would have presented it by now (as part of her 15 minutes).

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So I guess it is who one wishes to believe.

When speaking of the motives of an individual, I'm more inclined to lend credence to the individual as compared to the hostile mindreading of the other person.

If her "professional activities" had been implicated in the disciplinary proceedings, I think we would have more to go on that Helfer-Parker's unadorned say-so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  What "she said" is an imputation as to the motives of the stake president.  What "he said" is the stake president speaking as to his own motives.  As between the two, the latter should clearly be given more probative weight.

If Helfer-Parker has evidence of her allegation, I think she would have presented it by now (as part of her 15 minutes).

When speaking of the motives of an individual, I'm more inclined to lend credence to the individual as compared to the hostile mindreading of the other person.

If her "professional activities" had been implicated in the disciplinary proceedings, I think we would have more to go on that Helfer-Parker's unadorned say-so.

Thanks,

-Smac

It’s not so simple. They both know what statements are problematic. He says they aren’t part of her practice, she says they are. 

[teddyaware]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Seems like a he said she said thing really.  So I guess it is who one wishes to believe.

There are many criminal jury trials where the jurors are made aware of negative information pertaining to the defendant that is not part of the official body of evidence submitted by the prosecution. For instance, a prosecution witness may blurt out something deleterious to the defendant that is not evidentiary to the case. When this occurs, the judge will routinely tell the jurors to disregard what was just said with strict orders not include what was said in the outburst as part of their deliberations.

In this instance, it’s not unlikely that one or more members of the Stake Presidency and High Council may have known that Helfer’s professional conduct was somewhat questionable, but the actual evidence that was placed before the membership council was focused exclusively on her behavior outside of her profession. Hopefully, the members of the council had enough integrity to focus exclusively on the behavior outside of her profession.