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

[helix]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps they should have offered that opportunity instead of inviting her to leave once she refuse to email the notes to them. 

As she recalled how this went down (according to the Latter Gay Saints live stream):

1:41:22 "The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point...  I was like 'Absolutely not!  I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career.  I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most of them inappropriate, none of your business.  No!  This is my property.  These are my notes.  And you're giving me 20, 40 minutes at most to defend...the whole thing is so ridiculous that I was just like no.'  So then he said 'Well we're inviting you to leave then' I was like 'Peace out!  Peace out!"... [In a childish mocking tone] 'No really please...please let me come in...like...please take me even though I don't want to give you my phone.'  No.

Edited April 22, 2021 by helix

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I was about to turn the table of irony on you in a way that would have likely cut you to the quick but decided it best to let it go unsaid. Just think of the sage advice that it’s best for those who live in glass houses to not start a rock fights.

You don't know enough about me to actually "cut [me] to the quick..."  Let me help you, I'm a bit obsessed with (in no particular order): my kids, cars, Dr. Pepper, sarcasm, fraud investigation, poking the self-righteous, and The Mandalorian.  Now, off you go to "turn the table on me."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, helix said:

She painted the dishonest and incorrect narrative she was being punished for her job. 

Helfer - Washington Post "They’re trying to discredit me professionally".  No, the church wants to keep these meetings out of the spotlight.  If they wanted to discredit her, the church would have rushed it to the media first. 

First let me say thank you. These help me understand where you are coming from. I don't view these statements the same way you do though. It was my understanding that one of the biggest driving factors in excommunicating "apostates" is to protect the flock. By removing her membership, is the church not trying to diminish her influence as a mental health professional among church members? Like isn't that the point? They don't members to view anything said by Natasha Helfer as coming from a member.

Just now, helix said:

Helfer (as quoted by KUTV): "It is problematic when people of faith, who are also specialized experts like myself, are discredited by the very communities they love and serve"

See above.

Just now, helix said:

On YouTube on April 13th: "The reasons I am being called to such a meeting all have to do with the fact that I am a mental health professionaland a certified sex therapist in fact one of only a handfulwithin my community and I am public and vocal about my stances supporting and educating about sexual health which it seems they do not see as in compliance with doctrine"

Based on the her communications with the SP, he takes issue with many of her public stances around addiction and masturbation as well as others. 

 

I guess I have a hard time seeing any of these even approaching a lie when viewed from Natasha Helfer's perspective. It does help me to understand how you see it differently.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, helix said:

As she recalled how this went down (according to the Latter Gay Saints live stream):

1:41:22 "The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point...  I was like 'Absolutely not!  I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career.  I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most of them inappropriate, none of your business.  No!  This is my property.  These are my notes.  And you're giving me 20, 40 minutes at most to defend...the whole thing is so ridiculous that I was just like no.'  So then he said 'Well we're inviting you to leave then' I was like 'Peace out!  Peace out!"... [In a childish mocking tone] 'No really please...please let me come in...like...please take me even though I don't want to give you my phone.'  No.

1:40:01 - "So then their great idea to this recording problem that they did not put into any...in that document there was information that I did not want them to have so I said 'No, I'm not going to email you my notes or send them to you because then it would include information that is not meant for you.'"

Again, if I had just been informed at the door, that I couldn't take in my notes, I'd be very upset. If I was offered as a solution, to just email them to opposing counsel? I'd be more upset. I would probably do more than raise my voice and say "I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!"

This was not her mistake to fix. This was the SP's mistake. Instead of trying to deescalate the situation and own his mistake, he invited her to leave.

[helix]

 

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

By removing her membership, is the church not trying to diminish her influence as a mental health professional among church members? Like isn't that the point?

Membership withdrawal can be done to protect the church's image and protect fellow members.  But that doesn't fit here, because the church would need to publicly announce it, which they refrained from doing. 

Another reason is because a person is repeatedly publicly pushing views at a level which the handbook indicates would riggers a membership council.  This fits her situation.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess I have a hard time seeing any of these even approaching a lie when viewed from Natasha Helfer's perspective.

She created and pushed the false narrative that she was being punished for statements made as part of her professional career.  

But as the stake president said "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" 

Again, compare that to what she said "The reasons I am being called to such a meeting all have to do with the fact that I am a mental health professional and a certified sex therapist in fact one of only a handful within my community and I am public and vocal about my stances supporting and educating about sexual health which it seems they do not see as in compliance with doctrine"

 We never had a statement from him that her professional career was a reason.  That manipulation of the story was crafted entirely by her and spread like wildfire due to her efforts to slander the church via media outlets.

Edited April 22, 2021 by helix

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As reported by Natasha yes. She spoke to surrogate at the door who served as a go between. She was not allowed in the building.

Wow. That doesn't sound like a "good faith" effort on the part of the SP at all.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I would have a problem with that.  But I would be fine with working out a logistical solution so that both sides could proceed.  The stake president apparently offered that, and Helfer-Parker rejected it.

The stake president didn't condescend to meet with Helfer in person. He sent a surrogate.

"Condescend."  Quite the gloss you are putting on that.

Quote

The surrogate informed Helfer her phone wasn't allowed. This upset Helfer. After back and forth the surrogate offered to let Helfer email her notes to be printed. She declined. The surrogate invited her to leave. What am I missing?

That Helfer-Parker had previously gone out of her way to publicize and sensationalize what should be a solemn and somber proceeding.

That Helfer-Parker was insisting on something not particularly reasonable: that she keep her phone on during the council.

That Helfer-Parker refused a logistical and practical compromise, wherein she would get her printed notes, and the stake president's requirements for decorum and order could be preserved.

That the stake president could have been reasonably concerned that she would behave in unseemly ways while in the stake center.  You know, not unlike how her pals Sam Young and John Dehlin did with their councils.

That the stake president, knowing she was refusing to turn off her phone, may have been concerned about her pulling a McKenna Denson-esque stunt like recording a loud confrontation (by her) with a stake president while in a sacred space.

That Helfer-Parker has said things like this (publicly, repeatedly, unabashedly) :

Quote

1:31:58 "Do I really have to apologize for my 'patriarchal prick' comment?  I don't think so."

1:32:10 "I looked up all the name calling that they have done of our people.  There's mine, I called them 'patriarchal pricks'  So sad, too bad.  There's about 90 names, that over a General Conference pulpit, they have had the audacity to call us when we don't comply in the ways they want us to.  Shame on them.  They have some repenting to do.
...
1:34:00 "[Heated] I swear to God, if they mention pornography, one more time on a Sunday.  When we all know that every time you say 'pornography' YOU'RE PICTURING IT!  Oh thank you for reminding me about h***** people [she does vulgar mimicking] when I'm trying to worship my God.  And Elder Oaks did that on General Conference on Easter Sunday!  And what, I'm just supposed to be like [In a timid tone] 'Oh, excuse me Elder Oaks of revelatory power, um, I'm respectfully calling you out on this' [Mimicking Elder Oaks] 'You don't have the authority to call me out Sister Helfer.'  [Speaking of herself] I have all the authority! 
...
1:41:22 "The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point...  I was like 'Absolutely not!  I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career.  I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most of them inappropriate, none of your business.  No!  This is my property.  These are my notes.  And you're giving me 20, 40 minutes at most to defend...the whole thing is so ridiculous that I was just like no.'  So then he said 'Well we're inviting you to leave then' I was like 'Peace out!  Peace out!"... [In a childish mocking tone] 

That stuff like the foregoing does not seem to be out-of-the-ordinary for Helfer-Parker, and is instead par for the course.

That the stake president was, in retrospect, apparently justified in having concerns about Helfer-Parker behaving inappropriately, such that he took some preemptive measures to try to maintain decorum (such as by having someone else sort out the logistical dust-up).

That Helfer-Parker shouting in anger in the stake center epitomizes inappropriate behavior, particularly given the circumstances.

That Helfer-Parker tried to turned a reasonable request - to turn off her phone - into a referendum on how the Church manages membership councils, which seems overwrought and perhaps also pretextual.

That Helfer-Parker was not the first person to try to disrupt - and thereby hope to delegitemize to some extent - a membership council by refusing to behave property.  Jeremy Runnells is a good example of this.  Bill Reel is another.  And Denver Snuffer, who - like Helfer-Parker - showed up at the council only to find a last-minute reason to dramatically refuse to participate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It would have been quite easy to take her to the clerk's office, have her log on to her email account, print out the notes, then log off the account and go the council.  

Yes, it would be, but maybe in the heat of the moment it didn’t occur to the surrogate to do it that way and he was thinking more in terms of ‘my computer’ and ‘my printer’, so his brain went to her sending it to him and having him print it.  And she was too stressed about it not going the way she imagined, it didn’t occur to her either.

It is easy for me to imagine this because when my printer ran out of ink, me emailing it to my husband to print up was exactly the solution I thought up one evening when he was out and so I waited...and fell asleep and he was in bed himself by the time I woke up for my usual night wandering. It didn’t register until the next day that I could have just called him and asked for his password even though I had done that multiple times before.
 

Sometimes when people think of solutions, they get fixated on that one option and others don’t occur to them. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That Helfer-Parker was not the first person to try to disrupt - and thereby hope to delegitemize to some extent - a membership council by refusing to behave property.  Jeremy Runnells is a good example of this.  Bill Reel is another.  And Denver Snuffer, who - like Helfer-Parker - showed up at the council only to find a last-minute reason to dramatically refuse to participate.

Guilt by association can also create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The witnesses brought written statements except for one. That was not in reference to Helfer. 

Easy yet that solution wasn't offered. She was offered something that even you apparently would not comply with and then she was invited to leave.

Last I checked, this isn't about what Helfer was physically capable of doing. It's not like she held any cards here. She had no access to the church (even the restroom apparently). Was she supposed to break in? Church leadership offered a solution that was ridiculous on its face. Helfer said no. (It sounds like she was very agitated and annoyed at this point, which I believe is entirely understandable). Helfer was then invited to leave (police were available to make sure everyone left).

So after she is called to a church trial in another state, she travels at her own expense and shows up for the meeting, she is met by someone at the door who tells her to turn off her phone. She says no because she already agreed not to record and because she had notes on her phone. The surrogate then suggests she email the notes to someone in the church to print them off. She says "no". They invite her to leave.

That sounds an awful lot like the SP/church trying to keep her out rather than finding a way for her to participate. She should be very annoyed and angry.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, helix said:

 

Membership withdrawal can be done to protect the church's image and protect the fellow members.  Though for that to occur, the church would need to publicly announce it, which they refrained from doing.  Another reason is because a person is repeatedly publicly pushing views at a level which the handbook indicates would riggers a membership council.  The latter fits her situation. 

That can be, but only if they make it publicly known. 

And what do you think would have happened if Natasha continued on as she had before post excommunication. You don't think the church would have announced it? We will never know, but as you said, excommunicating apostates inherently has to be public to protect the church.

Just now, helix said:

She is saying she is being punished for statements made as part of her professional career.  

But as the stake president said "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" 

Again, compare that to what she said "The reasons I am being called to such a meeting all have to do with the fact that I am a mental health professional and a certified sex therapist in fact one of only a handful within my community and I am public and vocal about my stances supporting and educating about sexual health which it seems they do not see as in compliance with doctrine"

She pushed the professional narrative, and he insists her professional career never had anything to do with it.  We never had a statement from him that her professional career was a reason.  This was all a lie started and pushed by her.

I'm sorry, but that is just a difference of opinion. Ms Helfer heard the SP's concerns and feels strongly that his concerns have everything to do with her "professional career." The SP feels differently. Feel free to take the SP's word and disregard Ms Helfer's take on it. That's your right, but "liar" seems a bit over the top to me.

[ttribe]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

So after she is called to a church trial in another state, she travels at her own expense and shows up for the meeting, she is met by someone at the door who tells her to turn off her phone. She says no because she already agreed not to record and because she had notes on her phone. The surrogate then suggests she email the notes to someone in the church to print them off. She says "no". They invite her to leave.

That sounds an awful lot like the SP/church trying to keep her out rather than finding a way for her to participate. She should be very annoyed and angry.

Or, at the very least, it's understandable why she might be.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So after she is called to a church trial in another state, she travels at her own expense and shows up for the meeting, she is met by someone at the door who tells her to turn off her phone. She says no because she already agreed not to record and because she had notes on her phone. The surrogate then suggests she email the notes to someone in the church to print them off. She says "no". They invite her to leave.

That sounds an awful lot like the SP/church trying to keep her out rather than finding a way for her to participate. She should be very annoyed and angry.

Indeed, but this is all on the irrational Ms Helfer, who threw a hissy fit at the door. What was the poor grown up Stake President supposed to do? Actually go to the door and talk to her?

[Vellichor]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Based on the her communications with the SP, he takes issue with many of her public stances around addiction and masturbation as well as others. 

 

This is not about her public stances around addiction and masturbation. It is because she calls herself "The Mormon Therapist," markets herself to Latter-day Saints, and repeatedly and publicly calls out Church leaders for THEIR stances around addiction, masturbation, and other issues, proclaiming that THE CHURCH is wrong. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Vellichor said:

This is not about her public stances around addiction and masturbation. It is because she calls herself "The Mormon Therapist," markets herself to Latter-day Saints, and repeatedly and publicly calls out Church leaders for THEIR stances around addiction, masturbation, and other issues, proclaiming that THE CHURCH is wrong. 

I completely agree with all of that. Except for maybe the "The" part (I might be wrong). All of that though is part of her professional work in her eyes. She saw the harm done to her gay child by the church, saw the harm done to others by certain teachings and spoke out about them as a sex therapist. 

 

Is that all her opinion? Yes. But its her opinion as a professional sex therapist in her role as a sex therapist. 

 

Thanks,

John

Edited April 22, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, helix said:

Membership withdrawal can be done to protect the church's image and protect fellow members.  But that doesn't fit here, because the church would need to publicly announce it, which they refrained from doing. 

 

Or they could have expected if members asked if she was a member of the church when deciding if they want her as a therapist, she would be honest and tell them ‘no’.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, it would be, but maybe in the heat of the moment it didn’t occur to the surrogate to do it that way and he was thinking more in terms of ‘my computer’ and ‘my printer’, so his brain went to her sending it to him and having him print it.  And she was too stressed about it not going the way she imagined, it didn’t occur to her either.

It is easy for me to imagine this because when my printer ran out of ink, me emailing it to my husband to print up was exactly the solution I thought up one evening when he was out and so I waited...and fell asleep and he was in bed himself by the time I woke up for my usual night wandering. It didn’t register until the next day that I could have just called him and asked for his password even though I had done that multiple times before.
 

Sometimes when people think of solutions, they get fixated on that one option and others don’t occur to them. 

You are always so d*mn reasonable. I don't think there was any bad faith here in this offer. I'm sure they didn't think it would be offensive to offer (though I would have been offended in the moment for sure- I'm a bit of a hot head sometimes). And I'm sure the miscommunication on the cell phone was a mistake as well.

Edited April 22, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[helix]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 to just email them to opposing counsel

Opposing?  No no no no no.  You fundamentally misrepresent the point of these meetings. 

If a husband and wife find their marriage struggling, and they go into a counseling session, is it right if the husband says "I don't want to find a solution with my opposing counsel!"  "You mean your wife" "Yes!  Her!  My opposing counsel!"

These meetings are supposed to be for all sides to find a solution.   Jesus Christ describes membership in the church as a marriage, and He is the bridegroom.  The hope is common ground, but the meeting may devolve into a member shouting and walking out the door without trying to find common ground (which Helfer did).   And like a marriage, if one side spent the week prior sowing discord, rallying friends in opposition to the other, spread lies far and wide about the reason for the marital trouble, and then comes into meeting with the partner intent on fighting everything, sometimes that person makes a marriage incompatible. 

It's very sad when it occurs, I wish it doesn't, but sometimes it does, and it's not the other party's fault.  Marriages are full of misunderstandings, mistakes, and miscommunications, but sometimes one side has an incompatible combativeness that makes the marriage impossible. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by helix

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

All of that though is part of her professional work in her eyes

I agree. I think she sees her profession as therapist and advocate/activist.  She gets paid for her podcasts on MormonStories, for example. 
 

She formed the Mormon Health Association at least in part to act as professional association advocating and educating for changes.
 

 Also the way she has described her work on Facebook it suggests she sees sharing her life publicly will help women see more opportunity and therefore promote change, which she sees as a (divine?) calling from some of her language (speaking about being inspired, revelation even iirc).

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I see this woman as such a zealot....

That is pretty ironic coming from you...

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your response is entirely normal.  Most people don't appreciate being confronted by their own ignorance.  I never did.  The solution is to break out the books and learn something.  And it does take time . . .

Smug as well....

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are always so d*mn reasonable.

Can I use you as a reference next time my family thinks otherwise?  

There are things she did that cause me to eye roll, some of her language and some of her comments seem to lean towards shaming about sex in ways she is telling others not to do....and the highly personal stuff on her work FB page.

But this is not one of them. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, helix said:

Opposing?  No no no no no.  You fundamentally misrepresent the point of these meetings. 

Absolutely opposing. The church has employees that mine public statements of potential apostates and puts them in a file. Once some threshold is met they are sent to a SP for potential action. Giving an organization like this something to dig through? Yes opposing.

Quote

If a husband and wife find their marriage struggling, and they go into a counseling session, is it right if the husband says "I don't want to find a solution with my opposing counsel!"  "You mean your wife" "Yes!  Her!  My opposing counsel!"

Whose the husband and whose the wife here? This is more like a parent child relationship. There is no equal footing between the church and Helfer. Absolutely not. The church is calling on Natasha Helfer to repent or be expelled. No negotiation. No middle ground. What type of marriage do you have?  (This was said tongue in cheek btw)

Quote

These meetings are supposed to be for all sides to find a solution.   Jesus Christ describes membership in the church as a marriage, and He is the bridegroom. 

The church and Christ are married. Sure. But that says nothing about the relationship between the church and its members.

Quote

The hope is common ground, but the meeting may devolve into a member shouting and walking out the door without trying to find common ground (which Helfer did).  

She didn't make it through the door and was invited to leave in the presence of law enforcement. Who walked out?

Quote

And like a marriage, if one side spent the week prior sowing discord, rallying friends in opposition to the other, spread lies far and wide about the reason for the marital trouble, and then comes into meeting with the partner intent on fighting everything, sometimes that person makes a marriage incompatible. 

It's very sad when it occurs, I wish it doesn't, but sometimes it does, and it's not the other party's fault. 

I notice that all of this in your opinion falls on Helfer and no responsibility to the SP.

Edited April 22, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Can I use you as a reference next time my family thinks otherwise?  

There are things she did that cause me to eye roll, some of her language and some of her comments seem to lean towards shaming about sex in ways she is telling others not to do....and the highly personal stuff on her work FB page.

But this is not one of them. 

I completely agree as well. I personally think that based on my read of church policy excommunication was inevitable here. I don't understand her strong desire to stay (though based on every interview that I have heard from her, I believe her to be sincere in a way that I definetly never got from Dehlin or the CES letter guy). 

I just personally think that the church could have and should have handled the situation better. It was clear that there was going to be a dog and pony show, and it clear that guidance was being given from headquarters on how to handle the situtation (so I don't think that local leadership is entirely to blame here). -I'm not saying the church told the SP to excommunicate (such direct guidance wouldn't be needed anyway), only that church public affairs was involved in how to conduct the hearing.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Every church building as an internet-connected computer.  It would have been quite easy to take her to the clerk's office, have her log on to her email account, print out the notes, then log off the account and go the council. 

Easy yet that solution wasn't offered.

How do you know that?

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She was offered something that even you apparently would not comply with and then she was invited to leave.

After having turned the proceedings into a sideshow spectacle before they even began.  

There should have been a compromise reached.  I think that could have happened in any number of ways.  Instead, she started yelling.  In the stake center.  Instead she did this:

Quote

"The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point...  I was like 'Absolutely not!  I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career.  I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most of them inappropriate, none of your business.  No!  This is my property.  These are my notes.  And you're giving me 20, 40 minutes at most to defend...the whole thing is so ridiculous that I was just like no.'  So then he said 'Well we're inviting you to leave then' I was like 'Peace out!  Peace out!"... [In a childish mocking tone] 

This behavior was petulant and immature.  It was beneath her dignity.  As an adult woman, as an endowed member of the Church, as a well-educated and credentialed person.

I am singularly unimpressed with how she behaved.  I have been in court hundreds of times, and have seen judges and court personnel say and do things to maintain decorum and discipline and dignity in the proceedings.  Only rarely have I seen such wanton immaturity and disrespect for the proceedings as could be compared to the above, even though the proceedings are often important, stressful, etc.  And I have never seen such misconduct from someone of Helfer-Parker's age, experience, education and social standing.  

And what on earth is she doing in characterizing her obnoxious behavior as "very Latina?"

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Last I checked, this isn't about what Helfer was physically capable of doing. It's not like she held any cards here.

It wasn't a power play.  A judge in a courtroom maintains control not because of a desire to subjugate, but because the proceedings are important.  Because decorum and civility and propriety are needed in order to facilitate the functions of the court.  Because long experience has shown that it is important to respect the process and the system, even if there is disagreement and/or dislike as to the parties.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She had no access to the church (even the restroom apparently).

Yeah, not really buying into this.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was she supposed to break in?

She was supposed to behave like an intelligent, mature, educated woman.  Instead, she ended up throwing a tantrum.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Church leadership offered a solution that was ridiculous on its face.

Not really buying this, either.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Helfer said no. (It sounds like she was very agitated and annoyed at this point, which I believe is entirely understandable).

But not acceptable.  

If someone of her education, intellect and social standing behaved this way in a courtroom, I would be both shocked and embarrassed for her.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Helfer was then invited to leave (police were available to make sure everyone left).

Given how she behaved, that seems to have been a prudent precaution.

Thanks,

-Smac