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

[Teancum]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

No you are not.  You are being smug and arrogant.  I made one sentence of a remark and you assume I have some sort of thin knowledge or am not well read on LDS doctrine and teaching about God.  Well you are wrong and you look like a foolish bully at the moment. 

Stop the name calling if you want to stay in the thread. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

Was his even appealed?

Might be an assumption on my part. Not remembering why I remember it as an appeal. 
 

Some details, but not the why or rebaptism:

https://www.deseret.com/1996/3/8/19229461/scholar-rebaptized-into-lds-church

http://avrahamgileaditestimony.blogspot.com/?m=1

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

I'm not quite sure how to disentangle the matters in the case I'm aware of. The final determination was that the council, called by a bishopric, should never have happened, and the outcome was therefore thrown out. Wrong had certainly occurred. It didn't, however, meet the threshold of a membership council. Does that make sense?

[Calm]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not quite sure how to disentangle the matters in the case I'm aware of. The final determination was that the council, called by a bishopric, should never have happened, and the outcome was therefore thrown out. Wrong had certainly occurred. It didn't, however, meet the threshold of a membership council. Does that make sense?

Not really, but that is okay. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not quite sure how to disentangle the matters in the case I'm aware of. The final determination was that the council, called by a bishopric, should never have happened, and the outcome was therefore thrown out. Wrong had certainly occurred. It didn't, however, meet the threshold of a membership council. Does that make sense?

Did the bishop convene one without stake president approval? 

It was always nice to be able to tell people that the next step was for them to meet with the stake president, and he would decide what the next step would be (no council, stake-level, ward-level). 

[helix]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not quite sure how to disentangle the matters in the case I'm aware of. The final determination was that the council, called by a bishopric, should never have happened, and the outcome was therefore thrown out. Wrong had certainly occurred. It didn't, however, meet the threshold of a membership council. Does that make sense?

Several years ago during a leadership training, President Monson went out of his way to mention incorrect approaches for holding a council.  It sounded as though he just got through managing one or more of these improperly held councils.  The verbiage made it sound like the council's finding of excommunication was incorrect and had to be restarted with a correct council. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really, but that is okay. 

Let me try again. A ward member did something wrong. The bishop then convened a membership council, with the outcome being loss of membership. On appeal, it was determined that the wrongdoing was insufficient for a council to have been convened in the first place, and the person was restored to full fellowship. I think that's kind of procedural? Because something wrong had occurred, but the council was void because it had been a mistake?

By the way, a quick search of this question on ex-Mormon Reddit turned up four people who had experienced successful appeals.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Let me try again. A ward member did something wrong. The bishop then convened a membership council, with the outcome being loss of membership. On appeal, it was determined that the wrongdoing was insufficient for a council to have been convened in the first place, and the person was restored to full fellowship. I think that's kind of procedural? Because something wrong had occurred, but the council was void because it had been a mistake?

By the way, a quick search of this question on ex-Mormon Reddit turned up four people who had experienced successful appeals.

Thanks for the clarification. I think I am not familiar enough with details of process to fill in the gaps. This was helpful. 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No you are not.  You are being smug and arrogant.  I made one sentence of a remark and you assume I have some sort of thin knowledge or am not well read on LDS doctrine and teaching about God.  Well you are wrong and you look like a foolish bully at the moment. 

Of course I do.  However, there is all the difference in the world between being a good doctrinal scriptorian and a theologian.  Bruce R. McConkie was certainly a good scriptorian.  Trouble was, he did not know anything about theology and did not realize how wrong he could be.  He later had to confess publicly to his (and other of the Brethren's) ignorance on a matter of great importance.  I very much appreciated his frank comments -- a comeuppance which was long overdue.  I can cite his 1978 comments for you, if you wish.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, helix said:

Several years ago during a leadership training, President Monson went out of his way to mention incorrect approaches for holding a council.  It sounded as though he just got through managing one or more of these improperly held councils.  The verbiage made it sound like the council's finding of excommunication was incorrect and had to be restarted with a correct council. 

In the past (this was changed somewhat with recent handbook changes), the stake president had the option of having a woman facing possible excommunication being tried at either the ward or stake level. Melchizedek priesthood holders facing potential excommunication had to be at the stake level. I think that now, any endowed person (male or female) facing possible excommunication is at the stake level, and it will almost always involve only the stake presidency (no high council). 

I've had instances where the stake president determined that excommunication is off the table, and so it was held at the ward level with the most severe outcome being disfellowshipment. That's all in the past, though. 

I'm uncomfortable with the almost complete removal of the high council from the stake process simple by "executive order" (simple policy change), since an entire D&C section on stake level councils involving the high council is nullified. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Quote

 

You can represent yourself.  

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

 

Come on.  It is a trail/court.  Putting lipstick on a pig does not make it something else.

 

Quote

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

This is simply not true. Helfer was aware of the court on Easter.  No mention of a court before that.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Teancum

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Come on.  It is a trail/court.  .....................................

Correct.  In the State of Israel, where religious courts hold trials everyday and have full state authority, they are clearly trials -- even if the terminology used by the various denominations might not actually use that word.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

and it will almost always involve only the stake presidency (no high council). 

I had forgotten this. Makes it more reasonable to expect him to come meet Parker himself for me. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

...................

4. That Helfer-Parker chose to publicize and sensationalize the council made the situation more difficult.  It lessens the likelihood of good faith that I would otherwise have extended, and instead places her squarely among the irritating instances of people trying to parlay a membership council into 15 minutes of fame, to exert pressure on the local leaders of the Church, to publicly embarrass the Church, and so on.  Kate Kelly.  John Dehlin.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Jeremy Runnells.  I have hoped that Helfer-Parker would have differentiated herself from these folks.  Instead, she emulated them.  Pretty disappointing......................

11. She apparently has publicly called the leaders of the Church "patriarchal pricks" and has refused to retract or apologize for such.  Kinda hard to square this with the "They're coming after me because of my professional actions as a therapist" stuff.

12. I think the tone and tenor of virtually all of the comments to her on Facebook are what she was looking for: sympathy and encouragement and affirmation for her, vilification and disparagement and ugliness directed at the Church:

• They had their minds made up before you ever stepped in the building. This seems to be the outcome they needed to save their reputations. I'm disgusted. As a member and as a colleague in mental health. I admire your grit, tenacity and authenticity.
• What is just as troubling is he showed absolutely zero interest in exploring the hard science on the things Natasha is sharing. He is blindly following instructions given him from Salt Lake without no thought at all of how many children will die by doing so.
• This is most definitely conditional love and not even love, it's controlling, manipulative and abusive-none of which are love. It makes me sick.
• Perhaps various media outlets would like to see this. That was my first thought. I am sorry for how you have been treated, and that the outcome is not what you had hoped for. That letter is condescending and abusive.
• If anyone would like a classic example of Narcissistic Abuse, here it is in black and white.
• Yeah, every word of that was classic narcissistic gaslighting with a healthy dose of sanctimonious manipulation.
• I'm so incredibly sorry Natasha, this has been shockingly wrong and abusive every step of the way.
• Wow. There are no words.  I stand with you. I mourn with you. And I celebrate with you.  You are a pillar of strength and truth and no council, letter, or group of men have the right to tell you otherwise.
• This "council of love" has held nothing but disdain, lies, and heartlessness from start to finish.
• I’m honestly so disappointed in an organization I have dedicated my entire life and money to.
• Sue them all. Sue them for defamation and abuse.  ... They should have THEIR membership called in to question for how this went down. This was behind dirty and they had their minds made up.
• This is an abuse of power and a violent act. I’m so sorry, Natasha. You have my solidarity. I will never support an institution that pulls this.
• This is full of gaslighting and condescension. It reeks of entitlement and privilege and there is an underlying theme of oppression ... It’s simply disgusting and awful.
• F**k. 
• So it sounds like they didn’t like being called Patriarchal Pricks.
• Ugh! Notice that they never specify what exactly this "repetitive, clear, and public opposition" is. Though from. the vulgar language comment I'm guessing it was the term "Patriarchal Prick."
• Yeh.... THAT was a GREAT word. Tells it like it actually IS!
• I think I’ll start a company that sells T-shirts with patriarchal pricks printed on the front!
• The alliteration is spectacular.
• Seems the prick is a bit sensitive... as pricks are.
• So impressed by you. In all things.
• It feels like the ultimate hostage situation. The SP says do what I say or else you’ll lose all the blessings like being with your family in the eternities. We will humiliate you for a year until you’ve proven yourself to our standards. That’s bullshit.
• This is gross. So much gaslighting and control. I hate it.
• This kind of abuse is the worst. The kind that appears so sweet and kind.  Wow. Christ's church, huh?
• I would go to church, look this *** in the eye and take the sacrament.
• Same here...
• and chew with your mouth open while you do it.
• take an handful..
• can you imagine just clearing off the tray?
• This is disgusting, appalling, and infuriating. I am beyond ashamed of a church who treats people this way.
• Not surprised. This letter is full of lies, obfuscation, and gaslighting. That’s not surprising either.
• The news outlets now need to follow up on this and embarrass the Church.
• I'm hoping Peggy Fletcher Stack (SLTrib) works her magic to write a story that 1) is solid in terms of journalism and accuracy and ethics, but also 2) shows, however subtly, that the church is the bad guy in this disgusting "morality play".
• A strong woman cannot stand in the church! You are loved and we are amazed at your strength!
• I'm so sorry Natasha xxx you are clearly such a beautiful soul. No religion can hide your obvious natural spiritual energy...
• This letter is so disturbing and wrong in so many ways. I’m so sick of being associated with this religion.
• Such cowardly language-- "it was the decision of the council to withdraw your Church membership . . ." They don't even use the language of excommunication.
• each year they couch their hate speech in softer cloth
• Thousands stand with you and beside you. And we wonder which of us are next in leadership roulette.
• Eff them. Disturbing and disgusting behavior on their part. So much love to you, I so admire you.
• I deeply admire how honest and vulnerable and real you have been through all of it. You are glorious in every way, dear, beautiful goddess.
• I tried my dang best to not compare Mormonism with narcissistic abuse, but this was the tipping point.

These are just a few of the first 100 or so comments.  There are many hundreds more................

The words caustic and hysterical come to mind.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think so. This was set up as an adversarial relationship.

To some extent, you are correct.  The adversarialness of it is akin to someone who commits a crime not against an individual, but against a community.  

The adversaries, then, are A) the individual accused, and B) the community, the laws of which have been purportedly violated.

The "judge" decides whether that has, in fact, happened. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She was summoned to trial.

By a "Judge in Israel," acting under authority.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

She was told how the proceedings would go.

Correct.  The procedures are not up to her, or even to the stake

president.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When she arrived they added another requirement (the phone).

Not really.  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They had all the power. 

It's not a question of "power."  And no, "they" didn't have it all.  She is a beneficiary of the procedures set forth in the handbook.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I don't think that's an apt characterization.  Who was it that publicly called the leaders of the the Church "patriarchal pricks?"

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IF they wanted to find a solution the SP would have acted differently.

They did have a solution.  She could have printed out her notes.  Instead, she started yelling and being disruptive.  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suspect he was relieved there was a good excuse to hold the DC in absentia. 

It's just as legitimate to suspect that she was looking for "a good excuse."  Jeremy Runnells made a speech at his council, then stood up and walked out.  Denver Snuffer fabricated a pretext for not attending his council.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Jesus wasn't there.

How do you know?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Facile.  I don't think we have anywhere close to the full story.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know it's not what she wanted but she will likely be better off leaving the church in her rear view.

In a sense, I agree with you.  If the council was correct in its adjudication, then she's no longer violating her covenants.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Meh.  More loaded terms.

I like the structure of the Church.  I like that there is a heirarchy.  That there is recognized authority.  That there are procedures and policies in place to guide those in authority to do their job right.  They mess up in ways large and small here and there, but generally the system works the way it can and should.

@helix's post deserves a repeat viewing:

Quote

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? 

He is spot-on here.  Helfer-Parker's temper tantrum was beneath her dignity.  As an educated, credentialed, experienced, intelligent person.  A judge wouldn't put up with her immature nonsense in a courtroom.  A spouse wouldn't (shouldn't) put up with it in a healthy marriate.  A doctor wouldn't put up with it in his office.  A university would, in a sane world, not put up with it (alas, universities these days seem to be thrilled with faculty and students behaving atrociously in public fora).  An employer would not put up with it in the workplace.  A library would not put up with it in the stacks.  A restaurant would not put up with it in the dining area.  And on and on and on.

But somehow what she did is appropriate and acceptable in the hallways of a consecrated religious edifice?  Yeah, no.

The Church has mandates to fulfill.  We are told three separate times that the Lord's house is one of order:

Quote

Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing, and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God. - D&C 109:8

Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God. - D&C 88:119

Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.  - D&C 132:8

There are all sorts of scriptures that speak of authority, organization, governance, unity, and so on.  

None of that, none of that, was advanced by the immature, obnoxious behavior exhibited by Helfer-Parker.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

It's certainly true in fits and spurts.  In some places.  At some times.  

But it sure won't happen when we see behavior like Helfer-Parker's in a stake building in Kansas.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

If this was being said in good faith, I would respond.  But as it's just sneering and snark, I won't.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Or . . . the Church could continue to reach out in kindness and fellowship, as it does so often.  In usually unheralded ways.

It's the attention-seekers that want their 15 minutes, and the antics they play up in public, that end up distorting the picture of how discipline in the Church works.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

You can represent yourself.  

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

Come on.  It is a trail/court. 

Come on.  It's a membership council.  That's what it's called.

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Putting lipstick on a pig does not make it something else.

Unlike "a trial/court," the Church has very limited jurisdiction over the individual. 

There is no compulsion involved (unlike civil courts, which can use the force of law to compel the individual to attend, to obey the court's instructions, and so on).

There is no violence or threat of violence involved (unlike civil courts, the authority of which is ultimately based on the ability for the organs of the state to use physical force against the individual).

There is no possibility of the individual being deprived of property (unlike civil courts, which can exercise jurisdiction over such things).

There is no possibility of the individual being deprived of liberty (unlike civil courts, which can incarcerate people in certain circumstances).

There is no possibility of the individual being deprived of life (unlike civil courts, which can sentence people to the death penalty in certain circumstances).

The only thing the Church can do is invite the individual to participate in the council, and the worst the council can do is place constraints on, or withdraw, the membership of the individual.

There are some similarities between membership councils and civil courts, but also some vast differences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

@Hamba Tuhan @Calm @rongo Thank you for the information on membership appeals that you are familiar with. I ran out of rep points so this will have to suffice.

[Kenngo1969]

I know a similar contribution was posted earlier in the thread.  While this article makes many of the same points, it is not identical.  (One of its authors is the author of the earlier contribution.)  And it does bring up other issues that have been discussed on the Board in the past such the issue of what, now, apparently, are called membership councils as a necessary form of boundary maintenance.  https://latterdaysaintmag.com/excommunication-and-spiritual-violence/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I know a similar contribution was posted earlier in the thread.  While this article makes many of the same points, it is not identical.  (One of its authors is the author of the earlier contribution.)  And it does bring up other issues that have been discussed on the Board in the past such the issue of what, now, apparently, are called membership councils as a necessary form of boundary maintenance.  https://latterdaysaintmag.com/excommunication-and-spiritual-violence/

Can someone help me understand how “boundary maintenance” (which I believe the church has a right to) can be kept private? To be effective, doesn’t it have to be public?

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Come on.  It's a membership council.  That's what it's called.

Unlike "a trial/court," the Church has very limited jurisdiction over the individual. 

There is no compulsion involved (unlike civil courts, which can use the force of law to compel the individual to attend, to obey the court's instructions, and so on).

There is no violence or threat of violence involved (unlike civil courts, the authority of which is ultimately based on the ability for the organs of the state to use physical force against the individual).

There is no possibility of the individual being deprived of property (unlike civil courts, which can exercise jurisdiction over such things).

There is no possibility of the individual being deprived of liberty (unlike civil courts, which can incarcerate people in certain circumstances).

There is no possibility of the individual being deprived of life (unlike civil courts, which can sentence people to the death penalty in certain circumstances).

The only thing the Church can do is invite the individual to participate in the council, and the worst the council can do is place constraints on, or withdraw, the membership of the individual.

There are some similarities between membership councils and civil courts, but also some vast differences.

Thanks,

-Smac

Call it what you will it is still an event that puts the member on trial for their membership.  The comparison to civil courts is irrelevant.  It is actually quite comical to watch you gyrate around this and the Church.  They think changing the name of the event and potential results changes something.  It doesn't.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm uncomfortable with the almost complete removal of the high council from the stake process simple by "executive order" (simple policy change), since an entire D&C section on stake level councils involving the high council is nullified. 

I was wondering about that as well. The process is, after all, canonized.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Correct.  The procedures are not up to her, or even to the stake

president.

Then why did the SP refuse to bring in the HC when Helfer requested it.  That is in  the handbook.  Did the SP have the authority to deny  the request?

You know the SP could have easily diffused the situation. Why in the world would they deny the bathroom to witnesses who were in goo standing.  The people at the vigil were a fair distance way from the meeting house.  Regarding the phone, why couldn't the SP simply let her use it and request she keep it visible and show them periodically that it was not in recoding mode  So Helfer got angry.  I don't blame her.  She likely felt that the whole thing was not fair to her. She had worked had in a short period of time to prepare.  She had communicated respectfully to the SP leading up to it. She was frustrated that her time was limited to one hour including the witnesses which it totally ridiculous.  He would not even grant her 30 more stinking minutes when she asked for 90 minutes. Did Helfer escalate things as well that evening. Yes.  But this SP did as well and to not acknowledge that makes me take you less seriously. The SP did a bad job and did nothing to help diffuse the situation. Seems to me he really did not want to. And oh the police?  Really?  

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

To some extent, you are correct.  The adversarialness of it is akin to someone who commits a crime not against an individual, but against a community.  

The adversaries, then, are A) the individual accused, and B) the community, the laws of which have been purportedly violated.

Yep- but it's as if the prosecutor is also the judge. Not much of a separation there.

The "judge" decides whether that has, in fact, happened. 

But it's also the judge who decides if things have likely happened and calls the trial in the first place.

By a "Judge in Israel," acting under authority.

Correct.  The procedures are not up to her, or even to the stake

president.

Not really.  

It's not a question of "power."  And no, "they" didn't have it all.  She is a beneficiary of the procedures set forth in the handbook.

Yet, by not being allowed into her own council and not receiving the official copy of the church report she really has no idea whether or not procedures were followed, does she? So those procedures and policies do her little good.

I don't think that's an apt characterization.  Who was it that publicly called the leaders of the the Church "patriarchal pricks?"

Who acted like it before she called them out?    I joke but obviously there are 2 sides to the conflict. She feels like they treated her badly and she said so. I get that they don't like, and she said it in an unartful manner that but it doesn't necessarily mean she is wrong.

They did have a solution.  She could have printed out her notes.  Instead, she started yelling and being disruptive.  

A very poor one. But we've gone round and round about why emailing your adversary your notes may not be a great idea.

It's just as legitimate to suspect that she was looking for "a good excuse."  Jeremy Runnells made a speech at his council, then stood up and walked out.  Denver Snuffer fabricated a pretext for not attending his council.

That's possible but it's also possible the SP put up additional barriers making it harder for her to have a fair trial.

I like the structure of the Church.  I like that there is a heirarchy.  That there is recognized authority.  That there are procedures and policies in place to guide those in authority to do their job right.  They mess up in ways large and small here and there, but generally the system works the way it can and should.

It works for you. Cool. It worked for me for a long time too. Now it doesn't. 

But somehow what she did is appropriate and acceptable in the hallways of a consecrated religious edifice?  Yeah, no.

You mean, outside the doors of the religious edifice, don't you? But most of us here have conceded that she behaved badly. Have you accepted the possibility that the SP's management of this process and his relationship with Parker may also deserve some blame?

The Church has mandates to fulfill.  We are told three separate times that the Lord's house is one of order:

What are your thoughts about the way the church has removed the high council from the discipline process despite the scriptural basis for their participation? Does that seem orderly to you?

There are all sorts of scriptures that speak of authority, organization, governance, unity, and so on.  

None of that, none of that, was advanced by the immature, obnoxious behavior exhibited by Helfer-Parker.

OK. I'm not defending her behavior, though I am extending her some grace based on the emotionally charged situation.

It's certainly true in fits and spurts.  In some places.  At some times.  

But it sure won't happen when we see behavior like Helfer-Parker's in a stake building in Kansas.

Again, you mean Outside the stake building. She wasn't allowed inside.

If this was being said in good faith, I would respond.  But as it's just sneering and snark, I won't.

I said it in partly in jest because I don't expect the church to do it, but there's also a level of seriousness to it. If the church wants to be Zion it really should clean up its rolls in a significant way. But I suspect that 16 million membership could decrease to about 5 million pretty easily. I don't think they want that.

Or . . . the Church could continue to reach out in kindness and fellowship, as it does so often.  In usually unheralded ways.

It's the attention-seekers that want their 15 minutes, and the antics they play up in public, that end up distorting the picture of how discipline in the Church works.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To some extent, you are correct.  The adversarialness of it is akin to someone who commits a crime not against an individual, but against a community.  

The adversaries, then, are A) the individual accused, and B) the community, the laws of which have been purportedly violated.

Yep- but it's as if the prosecutor is also the judge. Not much of a separation there.

Proposition 1: There must be some form of boundary maintenance in the Church.

Proposition 2: We cannot have some sort of ugly Torquemada/Robespierre love child set up in the Church.  In other words, no "prosecutor."

Proposition 3: The "Judge in Israel" can be given a framework of policies and procedures within which he can perform the necessary functions attendant to boundary maintenance, protection against wolves, and so on.

Proposition 4: The individual subject to discipline can also be given a framework wherein he can defend himself, call witnesses, submit evidence, and so on.

Proposition 5: The vast majority of the time the issues at hand are not in factual dispute.  Rather, the dispute is a "question of law."  There is no question that Helfer-Parker has said and done the things we have been discussing here.  No factual dispute about that.  The quesiton, then, is whether her undisputed actions merit discipline.  Do they constitute some form of apostasy.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The "judge" decides whether that has, in fact, happened. 

But it's also the judge who decides if things have likely happened and calls the trial in the first place.

Not really.  See Proposition 5 above.  It's not like Helfer-Parker is denying writing and speaking the things she has written and spoken.  

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

By a "Judge in Israel," acting under authority.

Correct.  The procedures are not up to her, or even to the stake

president.

Not really.  

It's not a question of "power."  And no, "they" didn't have it all.  She is a beneficiary of the procedures set forth in the handbook.

Yet, by not being allowed into her own council

She started yellilng.  And she refused to cooperate.  It's her own fault.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and not receiving the official copy of the church report she really has no idea whether or not procedures were followed, does she?

I have had many instances of showing up for a hearing only to have the other person (usually representing himself) not show up.  He can't thereafter complain that he wasn't given an opportunity to be heard.  He was given an opportunity.  He just didn't take it.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So those procedures and policies do her little good.

Yeah, well.  That's what happens when you behave like a petulant child in a grown-up world.  You may end up losing benefits that were available to you.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think that's an apt characterization.  Who was it that publicly called the leaders of the the Church "patriarchal pricks?"

Who acted like it before she called them out?

Again, @helix's post deserves a repeat viewing:

Quote

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? 

He is spot-on here.  Helfer-Parker's temper tantrum was beneath her dignity.  As an educated, credentialed, experienced, intelligent person.  A judge wouldn't put up with her immature nonsense in a courtroom.  A spouse wouldn't (shouldn't) put up with it in a healthy marriate.  A doctor wouldn't put up with it in his office.  A university would, in a sane world, not put up with it (alas, universities these days seem to be thrilled with faculty and students behaving atrociously in public fora).  An employer would not put up with it in the workplace.  A library would not put up with it in the stacks.  A restaurant would not put up with it in the dining area.  And on and on and on.

But somehow what she did is appropriate and acceptable in the hallways of a consecrated religious edifice?  Yeah, no.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I joke but obviously there are 2 sides to the conflict.

Right.  But there is no set of circumstances under which a person of Helfer-Parker's age, intellect, education, credentials, and experience is justified in behaving the way she did.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But somehow what she did is appropriate and acceptable in the hallways of a consecrated religious edifice?  Yeah, no.

You mean, outside the doors of the religious edifice, don't you? But most of us here have conceded that she behaved badly. Have you accepted the possibility that the SP's management of this process and his relationship with Parker may also deserve some blame?

Honestly, not really.  I've been in front of too many judges.  I've been in too many depositions and mediations.  I've been in too many adversarial situations where preserving order, decorum and civility is plainly needed so that the proceedings can, well, proceed.

I don't fault the stake president for requiring her to turn off her phone, as there are ample prior examples of phones being misused during proceedings (including by Helfer-Parker's buddies John Dehlin and Sam Young).

I don't fault the stake president for communicating through an intermediary.

I don't fault the intermediary's efforts to work out a solution whereby she could print out her notes.

I don't fault the intermediary asking her to leave when she started shouting and behaving improperly.

I don't fault the stake president for continuing in an in absentia context.

If Helfer-Parker had acted like the intelligent, educated person she is, a logistical solution could have been found and she could have participated in the council.  Instead, she behaved very poorly.  Shockingly poorly for a person of her intellect, education and stature.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Church has mandates to fulfill.  We are told three separate times that the Lord's house is one of order:

What are your thoughts about the way the church has removed the high council from the discipline process despite the scriptural basis for their participation? Does that seem orderly to you?

Yes.  The Church hasn't "removed the high council from the discipline process," and instead has narrowed the circumstances in which they are involved.  Likewise, the Church has become more flexible in that councils that were previously convened at the stake level can - and usually are - now convened at the ward level.

This improves things in two principal ways.  First, the logistics of convening a stake-level council with the stake presidency are difficult.  I was on my stake's high council for 3.5 years, during which I participated in, I think, 3 dozen or so disciplinary councils (I didn't keep track).  That means three dozens instances of coordinating the schedules of seventeen men, in addition to the person under discipline, family members, witnesses, and so on.  And in the end the high council functioned only in an advisory, not decision-making, capacity.  The recent changes reduce, but do not eliminate, the need for convening the high council.

Second, I think it's fair to say that most or all of the people under discipline would have preferred to have fewer people involved in the process.  Facing discipline about one's transgressions is difficult enough.  Having to fess up to it before a roomfull of people from your neighborhood - even nice and well-intentioned ones - made things even more challenging.  The recent changes mostly alleviate this issue.

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are all sorts of scriptures that speak of authority, organization, governance, unity, and so on.  

None of that, none of that, was advanced by the immature, obnoxious behavior exhibited by Helfer-Parker.

OK. I'm not defending her behavior, though I am extending her some grace based on the emotionally charged situation.

Any grace for the stake president?

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If this was being said in good faith, I would respond.  But as it's just sneering and snark, I won't.

I said it in partly in jest because I don't expect the church to do it, but there's also a level of seriousness to it. If the church wants to be Zion it really should clean up its rolls in a significant way. But I suspect that 16 million membership could decrease to about 5 million pretty easily. I don't think they want that.

I don't think the path toward Zion requires large-scale excommunications.  I don't think that's what the Lord wants us to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She started yellilng.  And she refused to cooperate.  It's her own fault.

Quote

and not receiving the official copy of the church report she really has no idea whether or not procedures were followed, does she?

I have had many instances of showing up for a hearing only to have the other person (usually representing himself) not show up.  He can't thereafter complain that he wasn't given an opportunity to be heard.  He was given an opportunity.  He just didn't take it.

Quote

So those procedures and policies do her little good.

Yeah, well.  That's what happens when you behave like a petulant child in a grown-up world.  You may end up losing benefits that were available to you.

Since you continue to refuse to acknowledge the simple fact the the SP could have done a lot to diffuse the situation as I noted in a post above I no longer take your arguments seriously.  Helfer added to the mix but the SP and the others there certainly did as well.  For crying out loud, they refused to let some of the witnesses use the bathroom.  Members all in good standing.  And as I have noted the SP could have let the phone in and taken steps to ensure Helfer was not recording even though she committed not to. I imagine ultimately the SP was happy not to hear her or the witnesses and already had decided on the outcome.  At least that is my suspicion.