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

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, helix said:

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. 

I don't think so. This was set up as an adversarial relationship. She was summoned to trial. She was told how the proceedings would go. When she arrived they added another requirement (the phone). They had all the power.  Even though the church states it is for her eternal benefit to help her repent, the SP treated this as adversarial and Natasha followed suit.

IF they wanted to find a solution the SP would have acted differently. I suspect he was relieved there was a good excuse to hold the DC in absentia. 

Jesus wasn't there. This turns out to be a beef between the (non)local Kansas leaders who claim to be acting on Jesus' behalf (but didn't behave like he would have IMO) and Natasha because they didn't like the way she spoke about church leaders.

I know it's not what she wanted but she will likely be better off leaving the church in her rear view. It's moments like these that illustrate the vast divide between those who like the authoritarianism of the church and people like me who want nothing to do with that. It leaves me wondering why we bother.

“And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness: and there was no poor among them.” ( Moses 7:18 .) 

 

This clearly isn't true in the church. The church should really clean its membership out so that it truly represents one heart and one mind. Excommunicate everyone who doesn't follow its teachings and practices with joy in their hearts, voices and actions. The membership may only end up representing a small fraction of what the church claims as membership but they should just go ahead and do it. Both the hard-core and soft-core members may be best served by disaffiliation of the unclean.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

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

It is possible the SP was in another meeting or having a discussion prior to inviting her in at the time and that is why there was a representative rather than himself at the door. 

I can easily see that knowing there was press and supporters outside, attendees were sharing ideas on how to react or prepare for confrontations or getting instructed in church policy (for dealing with press, etc) from the SP. 

I think it likely the presence of many others outside besides those involved in the council caused concern about crowd control and needing to limit access to the church itself.  
 

It became more complicated which ended up in becoming too frustrating for Parker and possibly made it difficult for the SP to think quickly of ways to defuse the situation...especially since he and/or others might be thinking they were doomed to be trashed by those outside no matter what they did based on what happened at other vigils. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

Regarding Helfer's position on the court and what it was for or what the Church's concerns were here is what she recently posted publicly:

As I’m looking over the letters I’ve been receiving... I want to remind everyone that this is the letter I received initially about concerns they had with my “misconduct”. They are now trying to paint it like my discipline was only about being in clear opposition to the church, its leaders and its doctrines (mischaracterizing me as some rude rebel). Well... you can’t separate the two. The only reason why I’m in clear opposition, is because I publicly talk as a sexual health professional about sexual health scientific evidence that yes, disagrees with much of what is taught over the pulpit. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths. And it’s so obvious, even a middle schooler on a debate team could observe this tactic. Unimpressed.

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Instead, she started yelling. 

There isn't much there worth responding to, but she said she raised her voice so that the people inside (you know the decision makers that couldn't even be bothered to speak with her face to face) could hear her. You keep comparing this to a court of law, but in court each side actually has rights. At a church court, the person summoned has whatever rights the SP deems appropriate to bestow upon them. 

Peace,
John

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

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.

There is no guilty by association here.  Rather, there is guilt by emulation.  

And I'm describing what she has done, not what she may do, so no "prophecy," either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  They are not on equal footing.  The question here is the purpose / intent / motivation for the membership council.  The council was convened by the stake president in Kansas.  He has first-hand knowledge of why he convened the council.  Helfer-Parker does not.  The stake president is a competent witness as to his motive.  Helfer-Parker's say-so is based on her conjecture and speculation.

See the post I just put up.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no guilty by association here.  Rather, there is guilt by emulation.  

And I'm describing what she has done, not what she may do, so no "prophecy," either.

Thanks,

-Smac

You missed my point. I was speaking to the justification for the alleged precautions before the fact, not after.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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

John Dehlin was there, wasn’t he?

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

John Dehlin was there, wasn’t he?

Yes. Before you go there, I agree that raises the probability of antagonistic behavior. I don't agree that someone should be treated as lumped in with Runnels, et al, based only on some similarities.  That being said, her behavior was more like them than not, so my comment may be moot.  I guess I'm just wondering aloud if sometimes people act the way we expect them to because we set them up for it.

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, helix said:

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.

Check out the recent post I made with Helfer Comments and the November 2020 letter. I revert back to my original position that you took exception with.  Helfer at least believed the council had a lot to do with her professional career.  She provides a letter for evidence.

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.

A fair point.  And her yelling in the stake center, apparently very loudly ("I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me..."), likely shut down further efforts to sort things out.

This is why decorum and civility are important.  Again, I have been in court hundreds of times, mostly involving foreclosures and evictions.  The proceedings are, for a lay person, understandably scary, stressful, etc.  All the more reason to behave well, and to maintain civility and decorum, and to cooperate.  The proceedings are important.  They are not a venue for shouting at, insulting, and refusing to cooperate with the people running the show.  Proceedings in court are neither the time nor place for someone to show off just how bold and brassy they are.  They are, instead, a venue for evaluating and deciding important matters.  Solemnity, decorum, civility.  These play an important role in the proceedings being effective and efficient and appropriate.

I think similar expectations are appropriate in an ecclesiastical disciplinary setting.  

Helfer-Parker is presently going through a divorce in Utah.  It's being handled by Commissioner Minas.  I had a hearing before him last month.  While I have very little experience in family law, I'm reasonably confident that Commissioner Minas would have a very low patience threshold if she were to show up in his courtroom and start yelling at him or at his court clerk when told to turn off her phone or put it away.  More to the point, I don't think she would behave that way, because she is a mature, well-educated and -credentialed, and generally intelligent person.  Such people recognize the need for civility and decorum in a courtroom, and so seldom need to be told how to behave.  There is an unspoken but clear understanding about basic notions of behavior while in court.

So why did Helfer-Parker, this mature, well-educated and -credentialed, and generally intelligent person, feel at liberty to act in the petulent, disrespectful, obnoxious ways as even she describes?  Well, it may be that she had ulterior motives.  Perhaps she wanted to exploit the situation, like Jeremy Runnells did, who apparently never intended to participate in his council, but who wanted his 15 minutes. 

Or perhaps she wanted to try to undermine or sabotage or delegtimize the proceedings, like Denver Snuffer, who showed up at his council and then fabricated a last-minute pretext for refusing to participate.

Or perhaps she's less mature and in control of herself than it would seem.  That, coupled with pretty big doses of contempt for and resentments against the Church and the stake president, and also her wanting to showboat a bit, resulted in her behaving in ways that she would never descend to in other important contexts (such as in a courtroom).

Perhaps she's under a lot of stress.  I could understand that, but then I just can't imagine a person of her intellect and education behaving immaturely in court.  If she can control herself in that context, I would think she could have controlled herself in Kansas.  She just didn't want to.

I read her email to the stake president and was quite impressed with it.  But I can't help but wonder if her writing, which is erudite and clear and reasonable, is a veneer for the sassy n' brassy Natasha that seems much more on display in her YouTube videos and in other media.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I guess I'm just wondering aloud if sometimes people act the way we expect them to because we set them up for it.

I agree, but I think that works as much for the SP as it does for Parker. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

A fair point.  And her yelling in the stake center, apparently very loudly ("I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me..."), likely shut down further efforts to sort things out.

This is why decorum and civility are important.  Again, I have been in court hundreds of times, mostly involving foreclosures and evictions.  The proceedings are, for a lay person, understandably scary, stressful, etc.  All the more reason to behave well, and to maintain civility and decorum, and to cooperate.  The proceedings are important.  They are not a venue for shouting at, insulting, and refusing to cooperate with the people running the show.

I think similar expectations are appropriate in an ecclesiastical disciplinary setting.  

Helfer-Parker is presently going through a divorce in Utah.  It's being handled by Commissioner Minas.  I had a hearing before him last month.  While I have very little experience in family law, I'm reasonably confident that Commissioner Minas would have a very low patience threshold if she were to show up in his courtroom and start yelling at him or at his court clerk when told to turn off her phone or put it away.  More to the point, I don't think she would behave that way, because she is a mature, well-educated and -credentialed, and generally intelligent person.  Such people recognize the need for civility and decorum in a courtroom, and so seldom need to be told how to behave.  There is an unspoken but clear understanding about basic notions of behavior while in court.

So why did Helfer-Parker, this mature, well-educated and -credentialed, and generally intelligent person, feel at liberty to act in the petulent, disrespectful, obnoxious ways as even she describes?  Well, it may be that she had ulterior motives.  Perhaps she wanted to exploit the situation, like Jeremy Runnells did, who apparently never intended to participate in his council, but who wanted his 15 minutes. 

Or perhaps she wanted to try to undermine or sabotage or delegtimize the proceedings, like Denver Snuffer, who showed up at his council and then fabricated a last-minute pretext for refusing to participate.

Or perhaps she's less mature and in control of herself than it would seem.  That, coupled with pretty big doses of contempt for and resentments against the Church and the stake president, and also her wanting to showboat a bit, resulted in her behaving in ways that she would never descend to in other important contexts (such as in a courtroom).

I read her email to the stake president and was quite impressed with it.  But I can't help but wonder if her writing, which is erudite and clear and reasonable, is a veneer for the sassy n' brassy Natasha that seems much more on display in her YouTube videos and in other media.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or, maybe she just lost control.  It happens.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I agree, but I think that works as much for the SP as it does for Parker. 

I agree with this, as well.  The whole exercise seemed like a series of escalations by both sides of the situation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So why did Helfer-Parker, this mature, well-educated and -credentialed, and generally intelligent person, feel at liberty to act in the petulent, disrespectful, obnoxious ways as even she describes?

Because, despite your comparison a church court in no way resembles a court of law, where you have rights, due process, representation, an impartial judge and jury, and a clear understanding of the process. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

So why did Helfer-Parker, this mature, well-educated and -credentialed, and generally intelligent person, feel at liberty to act in the petulent, disrespectful, obnoxious ways as even she describes?

Because, despite your comparison a church court in no way resembles a court of law, where you have rights, due process, representation, an impartial judge and jury, and a clear understanding of the process. 

First, that is simply not so.  The handbook has all sorts of policies in place regarding "rights" and "due process."  

Second, if the stake president had been partial during the council, then she can argue that in her appeal. 

Third, in her email to the stake president she quoted portions of the handbook, to which she has free and unfettered access.  And she's an educated and intelligent woman, so it's a bit off to say she did not have "a clear understanding of the process."

Fourth, she never participated in "the process."

Fifth, you did not address my point.  If, as I think we can agree, Helfer-Parker has the capacity to behave well in a legal proceeding in court, she could have done the same in the stake center in Kansas.  She didn't.  Why?

Sixth, nothing you've said here justifies petulent, disrespectful, obnoxious behavior from a person of Helfer-Parker's age, education, experience and intellect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Or, maybe she just lost control.  It happens.

And yet ever since she has been essentially bragging about what she did.  Her post-council behavior is kinda hard to square with an "I had a temporary heat-of-the-moment loss of self-control"-style explanation.

She seems proud of what she did in Kansas.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is possible the SP was in another meeting or having a discussion prior to inviting her in at the time and that is why there was a representative rather than himself at the door. 

I can easily see that knowing there was press and supporters outside, attendees were sharing ideas on how to react or prepare for confrontations or getting instructed in church policy from the SP. 

I think it likely the presence of many others outside besides those involved in the council caused concern about crowd control and needing to limit access to the church itself.  
 

It became more complicated which ended up in becoming too frustrating for Parker and possibly made it difficult for the SP to think quickly of ways to defuse the situation...especially since he and/or others might be thinking they were doomed to be trashed by those outside no matter what they did based on what happened at other vigils. 

That would be ironic.

I understand having concerns and taking precautions but there is a point where it is taken too far...like refusing to allow the person for whom the DC is being held, to enter the building.

You're right, the situation became more fraught when it became a public spectacle, but that really shouldn't have been a surprise. And it could be argued that the SP fired the first shots in this particular skirmish.

[helix]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

Local leaders have the responsibility of representing Jesus Christ's position in the church.  It is very much a marriage and not a parent-child relationship. 

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

I've said many times that marriage is imperfect, filled with miscommunications and misinterpretations.  Everyone makes mistakes in this church.   The stake president made mistakes.  I recall on social media someone got mad at the stake president because in his letter, he said that she should listen to her bishop, and seek "His counsel".  The poster was upset that "His" was capitalized, but it wasn't clear if this was a typo and referred to the bishop, or confusingly switched to Jesus Christ.  That's another communication mistake.  Do we get further upset at the stake president for this latest error?

Just like in a marriage, we make mistakes.  How we respond to these mistakes shows our heart's intent. 

I don't see the stake president's mistakes as showing any pattern of egregious, malicious, or spiteful intent.  I do struggle to find anything in Helfer's mistakes showing she sincerely wants to work with this church.  

Marriages can be hard to navigate.  I've had friends go through awful times with their spouses.  They get into this terrible area of wondering if they are being Christlike for forgiving and working with them, or being suckers because this fits the definition of an abusive relationship.  I bet the stake president had similar thoughts.  She was quite clearly treating this marriage in oppositional and adversarial tones, and checking numerous boxes that would indicate this relationship was falling apart.  Fortunately the handbook gives guidance at which point a relationship has gone too far south, and the stake president made the call to cut off the marriage for at least the next year.    

 

[ttribe]

Just now, smac97 said:

And yet ever since she has been essentially bragging about what she did.  Her post-council behavior is kinda hard to square with an "I had a temporary heat-of-the-moment loss of self-control"-style explanation.

She seems proud of what she did in Kansas.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know.  I've seen people double down out of pride.  Who knows?  I'm hesitant to even infer intent, at this point; it just seems pointless and potentially hurtful.

[smac97]

On 4/22/2021 at 2:22 PM, ttribe said:

You missed my point. I was speaking to the justification for the alleged precautions before the fact, not after.

The stake president took precautions because he apparently thought that Helfer-Parker might misbehave at the council.  Lo and behold, she did.

Turning off a cell phone is standard in a disciplinary council. 

That she needed it for notes is understandable and reasonable. 

That the council would not proceed if she kept the phone on was also understandable and reasonable.

There could and should have been a workaround whereby she was given an opportunity to print out her notes, then turn of the phone.  A win-win solution.

Instead, she started yelling.  In a sacred space.  Loudly.  Disruptively.  That shut things down pretty quick, as she was asked to leave.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 30, 2021 by smac97

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The stake president took precautions because the thought that Helfer-Parker would misbehave.  Lo and behold, she did.

Turning off a cell phone is standard in a disciplinary council. 

That she needed it for notes is understandable and reasonable. 

That the council would not proceed if she kept the phone on was also understandable and reasonable.

There could and should have been a workaround whereby she was given an opportunity to print out her notes, then turn of the phone.  A win-win solution.

Instead, she started yelling.  In a sacred space.  Loudly.  Disruptively.  That shut things down pretty quick, as she was asked to leave.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, but I've already stated I don't want to engage in conjecture as to her intent.  Have at it, if that's what you wish to do.

[helix]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

  I guess I'm just wondering aloud if sometimes people act the way we expect them to because we set them up for it.

At some point, people need to be responsible for their own actions.  The stake president didn't make her lash out this way.  John Dehlin didn't make her lash out this way.  This is on her.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, that is simply not so. 

Are you allowed representation at a church trial? Can you imaging receiving a summons to appear at trial with exactly 7 days notice from the time you are being told charges are being brought? Can you point to where in the guidance that was very recently published it says “no cellphones”? Can you point to a single trial that is conducted in secret where the accused can’t even take notes? Can you point to a trial where someone is limited to one hour including all witnesses? There are some glancing similarities to court sure. But they don’t survive scrutiny. 

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There isn't much there worth responding to, but she said she raised her voice so that the people inside (you know the decision makers that couldn't even be bothered to speak with her face to face) could hear her.

Right. 

And yelling in a stake center, likely in anger (she sure gives that impression) was singularly inappropriate.  Immature.  Petulant.

And again with the gloss ("couldn't even be bothered...").

Have you ever been in court?  Bailiffs and court clerks regularly handle logistical issues prior to a hearing, such as instructing someone to turn off their phone.  Not because the judge "couldn't be bothered," but because order and decorum need to be established first.

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You keep comparing this to a court of law, but in court each side actually has rights.

Yes.  The same can be said for Helfer-Parker.  She even invoked those rights when she wrote to her stake president by, inter alia, asking that the High Council participate in her membership council.

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

At a church court, the person summoned has whatever rights the SP deems appropriate to bestow upon them. 

Patently untrue.  Flagrantly false.

Thanks,

-Smac