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

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That would be ironic.

Not sure why it would be ironic if because there were significant numbers of outsiders in the vicinity including press, the SP was holding a precouncil meeting for those attending as part of the council on how to deal with confrontations in preparation for what might happen afterwards.

[Calm]

Quote

 

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

Since a person can appeal the result of a council, it seems there are some rights given by the Church that are expected to be allowed by the SP and when are not, might result in restoration of membership. 
 

Having said that, I think analogies between courts of law and councils as some sort of court are often inappropriate and therefore a waste of time due to the significant differences of purpose and type of organizations involved. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you allowed representation at a church trial?

Yes.  You can represent yourself.  

And it's not a "church trial."  It's a membership council.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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?

Yes.  That has happened to me many, many times.  I've even had a few instances where I was given a few hours notice.

And c'mon.  She had a lot more than "7 days notice."  The council had been in the works for months.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to where in the guidance that was very recently published it says “no cellphones”?

Can you point to where in the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure it says "Stand up when the judge enters the room and takes the bench?"  I've never seen such a provision, but it's what everyone does.

It's common knowledge that recording a council is not allowed.  It's right there in the handbook, actually.  The one Helfer-Parker quoted from when she wrote to her stake president.  Section 32.10.3:

Quote

No participant in a membership council is permitted to make an audio, video, or written recording. A clerk may take notes for the purpose of preparing the Report of Church Membership Council. However, such notes are not to be a word-for-word record or transcript. After the report is prepared, he promptly destroys any notes.

Helfer-Parker specifically invoked this provision in her letter to the stake president (by waiving it and asking the stake president to have the council recorded).  

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to a single trial that is conducted in secret where the accused can’t even take notes?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?  Do you still enjoy torturing puppies on weekends?

</sarcasm>

Let's dispense with the loaded questions, okay?

The trial was not "secret."  As for taking notes, I'm not sure that's prohibited.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to a trial where someone is limited to one hour including all witnesses?

Holy cow.  Are you serious?  Lawyers are limited all the time by substantial time constraints, by rules of evidence, and other things.

I have regularly been obligated to argue a dispositive motion (one that is intended to fully resolve a lawsuit) in less than an hour.  A judge will often schedule a one-hour hearing that is intended to let both sides speak, and the judge ask questions.  So thirty minutes to sum up your case is quite a common thing.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are some glancing similarities to court sure. But they don’t survive scrutiny. 

The similarities I am pointing out seem pretty relevant.  

Again, I can't imagine Helfer-Parker acting in a petulant, immature, loud, disrespectful manner to the commissioner hearing her divorce case.  She's simply too mature, educated and sensible to be ignorant of how inappropriate and wrong that would be.  And yet she behaved that way in the stake center in Kansas.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since a person can appeal the result of a council, it seems there are some rights given by the Church that are expected to be allowed by the SP and when are not, might result in restoration of membership. 
 

Having said that, I think analogies between courts of law and councils as some sort of court are often inappropriate and therefore a waste of time due to the significant differences of purpose and type of organizations involved. 

Have you ever heard of an appeal being granted on procedural grounds or even at all? I sure haven’t. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Holy cow.  Are you serious?  Lawyers are limited all the time by substantial time constraints, by rules of evidence, and other things.

I have regularly been obligated to argue a dispositive motion (one that is intended to fully resolve a lawsuit) in less than an hour.  A judge will often schedule a one-hour hearing that is intended to let both sides speak, and the judge ask questions.  So thirty minutes to sum up your case is quite a common thing.

Please point me to one trial where an individual was limited to one hour to make their defense. Should be easy since it’s so common place. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  That has happened to me many, many times.  I've even had a few instances where I was given a few hours notice.

So just to be clear your client was told of their charges and given a few hours to prepare their case and appear in court for their actual trial? I have a hard time believing this but am open to correction. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[helix]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I'm trying to find any comparable social situation where her adversarial behavior would be tolerated and lovingly accepted for weeks and years.  With one side expected to show patience and maturity, and the other side allowed to lash and fight continually.

These don't work:

• Before a judge in a courtroom?  Absolutely not.
• As a spouse in marriage?  Perhaps patience for some time, but it quickly meets the definition of an abusive relationship. 
• As a patient in a doctor's office?  Not a chance. 
• As a customer of a club or a gym?  Absolutely not. 
• As a student or faculty member at a university?  No, universities embrace professional adversarial relationships.  Her behavior would start stretching a university's professional code of conduct.  Further, a university requires constructively working with others in academic teams, committees, publishing papers, etc.  (I can't imagine trying to publish a paper with a tactic of being adversarial to the editor.) 
• As a sinner to God?  He will always love you, but we are punished for our actions if we do not abide by His commandments. 

These do work:

• As an elderly person with a failing mind?  Yes, the person isn't responsible for his or her actions, and won't learn.  Caregivers must maturely accept all abuse directed their way.
• As a young child to a parent?  Yes, the parent should keep working with that child, to show a good example, as the child isn't mature enough yet.  But at 18, society treats that child as an adult. 
• As a mentally handicapped person in a care facility?  To some degree, depends on the level of handicap and the ability for the person to learn.

Helfer clearly isn't in the bottom three, she has her mental faculties intact.  And her actions wouldn't and shouldn't work in the top six.  So why should her stake president be expected to tolerate her behavior when no other social situation permits it? 

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not sure why it would be ironic if because there were significant numbers of outsiders in the vicinity including press, the SP was holding a precouncil meeting for those attending as part of the council on how to deal with confrontations in preparation for what might happen afterwards.

Ironic because while holding a meeting about how to deescalate possible issues they escalate the issue and create a confrontation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, helix said:

I'm trying to find any comparable social situation where her adversarial behavior would be tolerated and lovingly accepted for weeks and years.  With one side expected to show patience and maturity, and the other side allowed to lash and fight continually.

These don't work:

• Before a judge in a courtroom?  Absolutely not.
• As a spouse in marriage?  Perhaps patience for some time, but it quickly meets the definition of an abusive relationship. 
• As a patient in a doctor's office?  Not a chance. 
• As a customer of a club or a gym?  Absolutely not. 
• As a student or faculty member at a university?  No, universities embrace professional adversarial relationships.  Her behavior would start stretching a university's professional code of conduct.  Further, a university requires constructively working with others in academic teams, committees, publishing papers, etc.  (I can't imagine trying to publish a paper with a tactic of being adversarial to the editor.) 
• As a sinner to God?  He will always love you, but we are punished for our actions if we do not abide by His commandments. 

These do work:

• As an elderly person with a failing mind?  Yes, the person isn't responsible for his or her actions, and won't learn.  Caregivers must maturely accept all abuse directed their way.
• As a young child to a parent?  Yes, the parent should keep working with that child, to show a good example, as the child isn't mature enough yet.  But at 18, society treats that child as an adult. 
• As a mentally handicapped person in a care facility?  To some degree, depends on the level of handicap and the ability for the person to learn.

Helfer clearly isn't in the bottom three, she has her mental faculties intact.  And her actions wouldn't and shouldn't work in the top six.  So why should her stake president be expected to tolerate her behavior when no other social situation permits it? 

Here you go:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/investigations/2019/04/04/louisville-kentucky-police-stopped-frisked-handcuffed-black-teen-for-wide-turn/3210229002/

 

When you feel like your due process rights are being violated, or that you don’t even have due process rights, people often act similarly. 
 

Im not saying she is right. I don’t understand where she is coming from, because it seems like she should have just left the church behind long ago. But her feelings appear genuine.

Edited April 22, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since a person can appeal the result of a council, it seems there are some rights given by the Church that are expected to be allowed by the SP and when are not, might result in restoration of membership. 
 

Having said that, I think analogies between courts of law and councils as some sort of court are often inappropriate and therefore a waste of time due to the significant differences of purpose and type of organizations involved. 

It's kind of hard to know how the council/trial was conducted when she wasn't allowed to be there not have any representation AND she is not even given a copy of the official council report.  I wonder how you appeal a process and trial you have no information about other than the final result.

Edited April 22, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

The obvious disconnect I'm seeing here is that while people like me are critical of the church in this action we can also recognize that Natasha didn't help herself with her behavior. Do I think some of her bad behavior is at least understandable? Yes but it still wasn't great behavior. We can admit that.

On the other hand, those defending the church seem incapable of recognizing any possible failing of the SP in any of this which is just astounding.

[helix]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Here you go:

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/investigations/2019/04/04/louisville-kentucky-police-stopped-frisked-handcuffed-black-teen-for-wide-turn/3210229002/

This is close.  I'd agree that a police officer should be expected to receive abuse hurled their way, and always retain composure and professionalism, even if the other person has their mental faculties intact.  That's the best example so far that I can think of. 

Though the cop has legal recourse to (appropriately) arrest and jail the individual, write a ticket and let the person go, or simply drive away if the person is obnoxious.  If the cop abuses his power, he or she can lose the job.

Though the cop doesn't have any formal relationship a citizen, so the cop has the ability to do his or her job and then walk away.  A cop/citizen relationship is nothing like a priest/parishoner relationship.

Edited April 22, 2021 by helix

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you ever heard of an appeal being granted on procedural grounds or even at all? I sure haven’t. 

I have only know of one appeal (Gileadi) and I don’t know the grounds for it being granted.

The only other one I remembered being appealed was Kelly’s iirc. Was Dehlin or Snuffer’s appealed?  Runnels resigned, so no appeal there. 
 

I have heard rumors of others, but can’t remember if anything specific was said as to why they were overturned. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, helix said:

This is close.  I'd agree that a police offcier should be expected to receive abuse hurled, and always retain composure and professionalism, even if the other person has their mental faculties intact.  That's the best example so far that I can think of. 

Though the cop has legal recourse to (appropriately) arrest and jail the individual, write a ticket and let the person go, or simply drive away if the person is obnoxious.  If the cop abuses his power, he or she can lose the job.

Though the cop doesn't have any formal relationship a citizen, so the cop has the ability to do his job and then walk away.  A cop/citizen relationship is nothing like a priest/parishioner relationship. 

 

You missed the key part. This cop (though not holding the individual officer responsible since he is just following department policy), is harassing a citizen without any reasonable justification. Can you imagine how different your life would be if you got stopped searched and detained for things like jay walking, wide turns, or going 1 mph over the speed limit? This individual is helpless to do anything about it. He has no rights in a situation that dehumanizes him based on where he happens to live. I’m not saying Natasha is right, but that is the the frame of mind you are looking for. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On the other hand, those defending the church seem incapable of recognizing any possible failing of the SP in any of this which is just astounding.

All of us defending the Church don’t see any possible failing of the SP?  
 

If I haven’t been clear before, let me now state...I think the SP could have been more specific with instructions about recording and notes and phones and even if there was a meeting going on, I think he should have come to meet Parker as soon as she arrived. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's kind of hard to know how the council/trial was conducted when she wasn't allowed to be there not have any representation AND she is not even given a copy of the official council report.  I wonder how you appeal a process and trial you have no information about other than the final result.

Yep, kind of a mystery. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ironic because while holding a meeting about how to deescalate possible issues they escalate the issue and create a confrontation.

I should have seen where you were going. I think I will blame lack of sleep again.  Being useful for that is the only good thing about my sleep disorder.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

All of us defending the Church don’t see any possible failing of the SP?  
 

If I haven’t been clear before, let me now state...I think the SP could have been more specific with instructions about recording and notes and phones and even if there was a meeting going on, I think he should have come to meet Parker as soon as she arrived. 

You've been the voice of reason for so long that you get taken for granted. 😉

[helix]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This cop (though not holding the individual officer responsible since he is just following department policy), is harassing a citizen without any reasonable justification. Can you imagine how different your life would be if you got stopped searched and detained for things like jay walking, wide turns, or going 1 mph over the speed limit?

I've had a cop do that to me.  When I was a teenager, I was on a pedestrian bridge one evening watching a lightning storm.  The cops received calls that someone else nearby was throwing rocks.  One set of cops arrived, questioned me, and left.  Another set of cops arrived a few minutes later, shined lights in my face, and demanded I immediately leave public property.  When I said it was a public sidewalk and it's nowhere near curfew, he threatened to arrest me and throw me in jail while we sort it out. 

But I don't see how this pertains at all to Helfer's situation.  She initiated the matter by spending years publicly hurling attacks at the church and attempting to redefine theological sins while brandishing her membership credentials.  The stake president's job is to inject himself into that, as that is part of the rules of church membership.

Edited April 22, 2021 by helix

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can you point to where in the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure it says "Stand up when the judge enters the room and takes the bench?"  I've never seen such a provision, but it's what everyone does.

But someone not familiar with the ruling would be able to comply just by watching others and doing so. There is no prep needed. 
 

Otoh, if one is not warned ahead of time one won’t have access to one’s phone and one believes one will have it and acts on that belief, one can’t prepare ahead not to have it (though personally it seems strange to me she didn’t anticipate the possibility).

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Please point me to one trial where an individual was limited to one hour to make their defense. Should be easy since it’s so common place. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx
 

Quote

With rare exceptions, each side is allowed 30 minutes argument and up to 24 cases may be argued at one sitting.

Not exactly what you are thinking of, I am guessing, but had to join in the fun. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you ever heard of an appeal being granted on procedural grounds or even at all? I sure haven’t. 

I have.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have.

I am assuming you would share some details if you could....but could you say if procedural reason or not?

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have only know of one appeal (Gileadi) and I don’t know the grounds for it being granted.

Was his even appealed? I seem to remember that his excommunication was pushed by a general authority for his book on Isaiah, and I couldn't for the life of me find anything apostate in that book. I think other general authorities prevailed upon the First Presidency to overturn it "with prejudice" (no record of it ever having happened). 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The only other one I remembered being appealed was Kelly’s iirc.

Usually, the celebrity excommunication appeals are not a serious attempt to appeal the decision, but rather, continuing theater directed against "the Man" (Church hierarchy). 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Smug as well....

Just being honest and forthright.  My response to discovering my own ignorance in such matters when I was young was to set about learning something about it.  You may find the facts disconcerting or threatening, but your choice of response is your own.  You are not alone in wanting to lash out at the bearer of bad news.