Teancum Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. Active members are likely around 5 million already.
HappyJackWagon Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Proposition 1: There must be some form of boundary maintenance in the Church. agree Proposition 2: We cannot have some sort of ugly Torquemada/Robespierre love child set up in the Church. In other words, no "prosecutor." False. D&C sets up the way the high council and presiding leader operate. They are split into 2 groups. One group is set up to speak on behalf of the individual and are essentially a defense or advocate for the individual. The other group is designed to fill a prosecutor role, presenting evidence and asking questions about the guilt of the individual. When the high council is removed from that you are left with only the stake presidency which has already determined that the individual should be called for a DC with the possible impact of excommunication. I'm not aware if they divide duties like I described amongst the high council. But either way, you have a small group of 3 men acting as a prosecutor (bringing charges and making the case), as the judge (rendering final judgement), and executioner (execute on the final judgement). 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. Yes, they "can" be but aren't necessarily communicated of such things in a proper way. In this case she was given a pretty limited framework. Then when she submitted her witnesses some were disregarded and rejected before they could give evidence. Still, by being banned from her own DC for not allowing a new rule to be introduced at the last minute, she wasn't able to benefit from any framework that had previously been communicated. 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. And in this case the SP decided they merited discipline and then refused to let her defend herself, provide context etc. So be simply calling the DC we can see the SP had already decided there was a level of apostasy and there was no one to defend her. This is a dictatorial model. Not really. See Proposition 5 above. It's not like Helfer-Parker is denying writing and speaking the things she has written and spoken. She started yellilng. And she refused to cooperate. It's her own fault. 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. 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. 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 know you don't. You don't seem capable of seeing anything beyond your own personal agenda 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. 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. It has severely limited the HC despite scripture which defines the role of the HC. Even in this case the HC did not appear to be included despite Natasha's request to have them present, which seems to go against the policy for when HC should be included. So the church isn't following scripture in favor of the handbook and the SP didn't follow the handbook. 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. If it improves on canonized revelation I would think the church should canonize a new revelation making the correction. Or are you arguing that policy trumps canonized scripture? 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. She requested the HC be included. Just like her other requests about the amount of time she could present and have witnesses, and the witnesses she wanted to call, this was rejected by the SP. This illustrates how his actions as prosecutor, judge, and executioner create an unfair environment for the individual. Any grace for the stake president? Sure. I think he probably felt he was following the spirit in his actions leading to the excommunication which again illustrates the danger in having the prosecutor also be the judge without other voices advocating for the defense. Just because he believes he was doing right doesn't mean he was, or that he was fair in the process. 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
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Quote 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? Yes. It's a discretionary decision. See Section 32.9.2: Quote 32.9.2 High Council Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when: There are contested facts. They would add value and balance. The member requests their participation. A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved (see 32.9.7). "{T}he stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when..." 1 hour ago, Teancum said: You know the SP could have easily diffused the situation. Helfer-Parker shouting in anger at the doorway before the council had even begun did not portend her behaving well in the council itself. If Helfer-Parker is going to be excused/justified in her overtly obnoxious and immature misconduct, perhaps a bit of leeway and grace could also be extended to the stake president regarding things he could have done better. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Why in the world would they deny the bathroom to witnesses who were in good standing. The people at the vigil were a fair distance way from the meeting house. We don't know. I think it's fair to surmise that virtually all of the problems arose because Helfer-Parker chose to publicize and sensationalize the council. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: 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. Right. Like Helfer-Parker was signalling she would go along with that. Look at what she herself admitted to yelling at the stake president: Quote "The second time as he went in I did raise my voice because I wanted them to hear me. [Mimicking speaking to the entire group and not to the spokesman while using a mocking tone] 'Ya I'm not going to agree to anything I haven't been told about!' And my energy was very Latina in there by that point... I was like 'Absolutely not! I have let you do this to me my entire Mormon career. I have let you decide what the rules are and how I need to show up and the questions you are going to ask me, most of them inappropriate, none of your business. No! This is my property. These are my notes. And you're giving me 20, 40 minutes at most to defend...the whole thing is so ridiculous that I was just like no.' So then he said 'Well we're inviting you to leave then' I was like 'Peace out! Peace out!"... [In a childish mocking tone] 'No really please...please let me come in...like...please take me even though I don't want to give you my phone.' No." Put yourself in the stake president's shoes. Would you have thought, having heard the foregoing yelling, "Boy, I sure am glad Natasha Helfer-Parker is behaving so calmly and reasonably. I am sure she will agree to keep her phone visible and show it to me periodically to confirm that it's not in a recording mode." 1 hour ago, Teancum said: So Helfer got angry. I don't blame her. Right. You blame the stake president. Got it. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: 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. Not ridiculous at all. One hour is eminently reasonable. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: He would not even grant her 30 more stinking minutes when she asked for 90 minutes. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether the stake president should have gone along with that. But you vilify him anyway, despite him acting well within a reasonable exercise of his discretionary authority. But you have no problem with Helfer-Parker shouting in anger at the doorway. Got it. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Did Helfer escalate things as well that evening. Yes. And you "don't blame her" for anything she did. No such consideration for the stake president, though. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: But this SP did as well Not so. He did not yell. He did not refuse to participate in the council. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: and to not acknowledge that makes me take you less seriously. I won't acknowledge what has not been established. I'm not particularly inclined to second-guess the stake president as to his discretionary decisions. I wasn't there. I have know experience with Helfer-Parker. I lack stewardship. And so on. If Helfer-Parker had behaved like the educated, rational adult she is, I'm pretty sure a mutually acceptable logistical solution could have been found. Instead, she had previously turned the tension up to 11 by publicizing and sensationalizing the council, and then exceeded the bounds of decorum and civility by shouting at the doorway, such that she was asked to leave. This was a reasonable request. I've heard of instances of bishops asking loud/disruptive peopel to leave a church meeting. The thing, though, is that those situations mostly involve people with mental illness issues, or else people who are acting maliciously (McKenna Denson being a good example). That's the level to which Helfer-Parker lowered herself through her obnoxious behavior. And you "dont' blame her" for it. Well, I do. I blame her for her own immature and obnoxious behavior. She's not mentally ill. She's not a child or a teenager. She's not some ignorant bumpkin who doesn't know better. She is a mature, highly-educated, highly-educated, intelligent person. She knew better. I can't imagine her acting the way she did in a counseling session with one of her clients. Or in court. Or in a doctor's office. That said, I'm not going to hold it against her. It needs to be water under the bridge. At this point I hope she gets control of herself. I hope she files an appeal if she feels her excommunication was improper. If it was, I hope it is reversed. If it is upheld, I hope she waits a year and then seeks re-baptism. And I hope along the way she forgives the stake president for any real or perceived trespasses. I hope she does what is necessary to have her temple blessings and covenants restored to her. These things are all within her reach. 1 hour ago, Teancum said: The SP did a bad job and did nothing to help diffuse the situation. Nothing the stake president exceeded the bounds of the Church's policies and procedures, or normative standards of civility, decorum, confidentiality, and so on. Helfer-Parker, meanwhile, went out of her way to publicize and sensationalize what should have been a somber and quiet and private religious meeting. She brought the press in. And she went way out of bounds in shouting at the doorway. Membership councils are difficult. Helfer-Parker made hers considerably more so through her behavior in the first instance (publicizing and sensationalizing the council beforehand) and in the second (shouting in anger at the doorway). Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 2 hours ago, Teancum said: Quote Quote Quote Quote 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. Come on. It is a trail/court. Come on. It's a membership council. That's what it's called. Call it what you will Let's call it what the Church calls it. It's the Church's meeting. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: it is still an event that puts the member on trial for their membership. And that's all it can do. The Church has very limited jurisdiction over the individual. There is no compulsion. No violence. No threat of violence. No threat to the individual's life, liberty or property. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: The comparison to civil courts is irrelevant. Again, there are some similarities between membership councils and civil courts, but also some vast differences. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: It is actually quite comical to watch you gyrate around this and the Church. Right back atcha. You are excusing/justifying/rationalizing Helfer-Parker's patently immature and obnoxious and unseemly behavior. 2 hours ago, Teancum said: They think changing the name of the event and potential results changes something. It doesn't. Funny that you seem to object to comparisons of membership councils to civil courts, but then insist on calling the council a "trial/court." Thanks, -Smac 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: private I keep seeing this repeated. Can you help me understand the following: If the church’s purpose here is (as described by its defenders in this thread) boundary maintenance, to “help protect others”, and to protect the “integrity” of the church. In a case of public apostacy, how is this accomplished if the whole thing is kept “private”?
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: Since you continue to refuse to acknowledge the simple fact Again, I won't ackowledge what has not yet been demonstrated. 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: the the SP could have done a lot to diffuse the situation Again, I'm not particularly inclined to second-guess the stake president as to his discretionary decisions. I wasn't there. I have know experience with Helfer-Parker. I lack stewardship. And so on. 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: as I noted in a post above I no longer take your arguments seriously. Right back atcha. You are excusing/justifying Helfer-Parker's patently immature and obnoxious behavior, while faulting the stake president for what you think he ought to have done. Armchair quarterbacking at its finest. 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: Helfer added to the mix She created the mix. She chose to ratchet up the tension to 11 by publicizing and sensationalizing what should have been a quiet and private religious meeting. She then exceeded the bounds of decorum and civility by shouting in anger at the doorway. 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: but the SP and the others there certainly did as well. I think they were in the midst of trying to sort out a logistical issue. I think they could have succeeded in finding a mutually acceptable solution. Instead, Helfer-Parker got angry, shouted at the door, behaved in a disruptive and immature way, and was reasonably asked to leave the premises. 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: For crying out loud, they refused to let some of the witnesses use the bathroom. Members all in good standing. I don't know what happened here. It sure sounds weird to not let someone use the bathroom. So weird, in fact, that I find it a bit suspect. But if that is what happened, it was wrong. 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: 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. Right. You fault the stake president for not exercising his discretionary authority in a way you personally prefer. Meanwhile, you excuse and justify and rationalize Helfer-Parkers patently immature and obnoxious behavior. 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: 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. I imagine the stake president was not inclined to let Helfer-Parker behave inappropriately in a sacred and private religious meeting. I have no idea where folks like you get the idea that a stake president or bishop are afraid of listening to a person under discipline or witnesses. Anyone with experience in such councils know that these are standard and quite unremarkable parts of the council process. Thanks, -Smac 2
Tacenda Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't know what happened here. It sure sounds weird to not let someone use the bathroom. So weird, in fact, that I find it a bit suspect. But if that is what happened, it was wrong. I like how you are open minded enough that you didn't discount this immediately out the door. I know that by association (Mormon Discussions Podcast) this doesn't look good but this podcast is about a mixed faith couple. Kattie, being the faithful one and is the witness for Natasha and this is in her own words on what happened with the bathroom incident. She's the Stake Young Women's Leader, I believe. Hope I got that right. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2021/04/marriage-on-a-tightrope-102-katties-kansas-experience/
california boy Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Proposition 1: There must be some form of boundary maintenance in the Church. agree Proposition 2: We cannot have some sort of ugly Torquemada/Robespierre love child set up in the Church. In other words, no "prosecutor." False. D&C sets up the way the high council and presiding leader operate. They are split into 2 groups. One group is set up to speak on behalf of the individual and are essentially a defense or advocate for the individual. The other group is designed to fill a prosecutor role, presenting evidence and asking questions about the guilt of the individual. When the high council is removed from that you are left with only the stake presidency which has already determined that the individual should be called for a DC with the possible impact of excommunication. I'm not aware if they divide duties like I described amongst the high council. But either way, you have a small group of 3 men acting as a prosecutor (bringing charges and making the case), as the judge (rendering final judgement), and executioner (execute on the final judgement). 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. Yes, they "can" be but aren't necessarily communicated of such things in a proper way. In this case she was given a pretty limited framework. Then when she submitted her witnesses some were disregarded and rejected before they could give evidence. Still, by being banned from her own DC for not allowing a new rule to be introduced at the last minute, she wasn't able to benefit from any framework that had previously been communicated. 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. And in this case the SP decided they merited discipline and then refused to let her defend herself, provide context etc. So be simply calling the DC we can see the SP had already decided there was a level of apostasy and there was no one to defend her. This is a dictatorial model. Not really. See Proposition 5 above. It's not like Helfer-Parker is denying writing and speaking the things she has written and spoken. She started yellilng. And she refused to cooperate. It's her own fault. 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. 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. 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 know you don't. You don't seem capable of seeing anything beyond your own personal agenda 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. 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. It has severely limited the HC despite scripture which defines the role of the HC. Even in this case the HC did not appear to be included despite Natasha's request to have them present, which seems to go against the policy for when HC should be included. So the church isn't following scripture in favor of the handbook and the SP didn't follow the handbook. 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. If it improves on canonized revelation I would think the church should canonize a new revelation making the correction. Or are you arguing that policy trumps canonized scripture? 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. She requested the HC be included. Just like her other requests about the amount of time she could present and have witnesses, and the witnesses she wanted to call, this was rejected by the SP. This illustrates how his actions as prosecutor, judge, and executioner create an unfair environment for the individual. Any grace for the stake president? Sure. I think he probably felt he was following the spirit in his actions leading to the excommunication which again illustrates the danger in having the prosecutor also be the judge without other voices advocating for the defense. Just because he believes he was doing right doesn't mean he was, or that he was fair in the process. 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 There is little doubt that this thing is a big hot mess. You bring up some very valid points. But unfortunately, you are arguing with a person who is so blinded by his own agenda that he has no interest in seeing another point of view. In his mind, the Church is always perfect, everything is done exactly how God wants it, and anyone who brings up facts that show ways of how things could have been handled better, they are outright dismissed. Valient effort though. I appreciate seeing both points of view. I am sure I am not alone. 3
california boy Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I like how you are open minded enough that you didn't discount this immediately out the door. I know that by association (Mormon Discussions Podcast) this doesn't look good but this podcast is about a mixed faith couple. Kattie, being the faithful one and is the witness for Natasha and this is in her own words on what happened with the bathroom incident. She's the Stake Young Women's Leader, I believe. Hope I got that right. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2021/04/marriage-on-a-tightrope-102-katties-kansas-experience/ Openminded? That is not a word that come to mind when I read his responses. Edited April 23, 2021 by california boy 1
Tacenda Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, california boy said: Openminded? That is not a word that come to mind when I read his responses. He has been when reading his thoughts on Natasha (not in every incident) and then in the instance with the bathroom, he is open to it being what some have said happened.
california boy Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tacenda said: He has been when reading his thoughts on Natasha (not in every incident) and then in the instance with the bathroom, he is open to it being what some have said happened. AFTER dismissing it as weird and suspect. Why not just say If it happened, it was wrong. Sorry, but throughout his response, he shows complete lack of any attempt to see another point of view. Re read his response to HappyJack and see if there is an open minded approach to the idea that perhaps the Stake President railroaded this whole thing, refusing even basic accommodations to hear what she had to say granting her 30 minutes of his time, and refusing her witnesses that she is allowed to present to defend herself. SMAC dismisses all of those concerns. How does he dismiss them? Blames the victim.
Tacenda Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, california boy said: AFTER dismissing it as weird and suspect. Why not just say If it happened, it was wrong. Sorry, but throughout his response, he shows complete lack of any attempt to see another point of view. Re read his response to HappyJack and see if there is an open minded approach to the idea that perhaps the Stake President railroaded this whole thing, refusing even basic accommodations to hear what she had to say granting her 30 minutes of his time, and refusing her witnesses that she is allowed to present to defend herself. SMAC dismisses all of those concerns. How does he dismiss them? Blames the victim. I'll take a look, I remember where he said he felt for Natasha and something about liking her, maybe not in those words.
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Proposition 1: There must be some form of boundary maintenance in the Church. agree I'm glad we agree on that. Truly. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Proposition 2: We cannot have some sort of ugly Torquemada/Robespierre love child set up in the Church. In other words, no "prosecutor." False. D&C sets up the way the high council and presiding leader operate. They are split into 2 groups. One group is set up to speak on behalf of the individual and are essentially a defense or advocate for the individual. Well, no. Not advocacy. Half the counsel looked after the interests/rights of the individual, and the other half looked after the interests/rights of the Church. But the members of the high council did not act as "a defense or advocate." Not in my experience. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The other group is designed to fill a prosecutor role, presenting evidence and asking questions about the guilt of the individual. Again, that does not conform to my experience at all. The council was divided in half to ensure that neither the individual nor the Church was treated unfairly. There was no "advocacy" function, either for the individual or for the Church. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: When the high council is removed from that you are left with only the stake presidency which has already determined that the individual should be called for a DC with the possible impact of excommunication. The members of the High Council always acted in an advisory capacity only. The decision is made by the stake presidency. And in almost all instances the facts are not in dispute. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm not aware if they divide duties like I described amongst the high council. But either way, you have a small group of 3 men acting as a prosecutor (bringing charges and making the case), as the judge (rendering final judgement), and executioner (execute on the final judgement). The analogy does not hold up well. The prosecutor "making the case" thing is almost always absent, since the facts are virtually never in dispute. There is also no corollary to the "executioner." There is no "execution." There is nothing to be done to effectuate the stake presidency's judgment except to notify the Church regarding the individual's membership status. But yes, the stake presidency is most definitely in the role of "the judge." No quesiton there. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. Yes, they "can" be but aren't necessarily communicated of such things in a proper way. If you were saying this in 2019, you would have a stronger point. The handbook was not publicly available then. But it is now. And in this case Helfer-Parker availed herself to it (she quoted it, in fact). She knew what the parameters were going in. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: In this case she was given a pretty limited framework. Not so. She had full access to the Handbook. She had access to the same policies and procedures as were available to the stake president. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Then when she submitted her witnesses some were disregarded and rejected before they could give evidence. Yes. That seems to be within the discretionary authority of the stake president. Civil judges are given a framework for the admission of evidence and witness testimony, but they are also given considerable discretionary authority to work within that framework. So it is, I think, with stake presidents. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Still, by being banned from her own DC for not allowing a new rule to be introduced at the last minute, I disagree with that characterization. She was asked to leave the premises because she was behaving in a disruptive, disrespectful, immature and unseemly manner. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: she wasn't able to benefit from any framework that had previously been communicated. A result of her own misconduct. I just can't get on board with this ongoing effort to infantilize Natasha Helfer-Parker. She's an adult. She is well-educated and credentialled in a professional field. She is, or should be, a mature person capable of controlling her emotions and behavior. She didn't. She became disruptive. She behaved in a patently immature and obnoxious way that was singularly inappropriate given the context. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. And in this case the SP decided they merited discipline and then refused to let her defend herself, provide context etc. Patently false. Manifestly misleading. Her absence was attributable to her own misconduct. If a mentally ill person walks into a church building and starts shouting in anger during religious meetings on Sunday, the bishop would be fully justified in asking him to leave. Such behavior is patently inappropriate. In legal parlance, it exceeds the scope of the license granted by the Church to invitees. Are you seriously going to suggest that the Helfer-Parker should have been held to a behavioral standard lower than what would be expected of a mentally ill person? 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: So be simply calling the DC we can see the SP had already decided there was a level of apostasy Rank speculation. You don't know this. And in any event, I'm not sure I have a particular problem with the stake presidency having made most or all of his decision on the matter prior to the council. Civil judges do this all the time. In law school I attended a lecture by a sitting federal judge who said that about 90% of the time the judge has already made up his mind on your motion before the hearing at which the argument on the motion is received. He said this in the context of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, where the facts of the case are not in dispute. He said that most judges make their minds up based on the briefs and the evidence submitted with it, and that it is something of a rarity to have oral argument change the judge's mind. In the context of a membership council, I think most of the time the facts are not in dispute. That being the case, I could see the stake president taking something other than a "My mind is a blank slate going into this"-style approach. He already knows the facts of the case, and the witnesses are likely not going to be arguing the facts, but rather mitigation. In Helfer-Parker's case, I imagine her witnesses were going to talk about what a wonderful person she is, how her therapy has helped others, and so on. A decent portion of such input would not have been particularly relevant to the issues that were at hand. "She's a great therapist, ergo she is excused from keeping the covenants that bind the rest of us'" just isn't a winning argument. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: and there was no one to defend her. This is a dictatorial model. Nonsense. She misbehaved. She exceeded the bounds of decorum and civility that are necessary for the proceedings, and was asked to leave. This can happen in civil court. If a person behaves obnoxiously in litigation, either in the courtroom or in a deposition or in other contexts, the judge has the option of "striking the pleadings" and entering a default against the person. The individual certainly has the right to appear in court and defend herself. But proper behavior is a required element of exercising that right. "There was no one to defend" Jeremy Runnells, either. Or Denver Snuffer. Because they chose to not participate. The same goes for Helfer-Parker. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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 know you don't. You don't seem capable of seeing anything beyond your own personal agenda I see things just fine. And my "personal agenda?" What is that? I'm just commenting on this story, like you are. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. 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. It has severely limited the HC despite scripture which defines the role of the HC. Not "despite." D&C 102 lays out the guidelines for how the High Council functions when it participates in a dispute. It does not appear to articulate precise paramaters for when the High Council so functions. So it looks like that function can expand or retract per instructions from those in authority (presumably the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Even in this case the HC did not appear to be included despite Natasha's request to have them present, which seems to go against the policy for when HC should be included. I don't think that's correct. If the High Council is involved, then Helfer-Parker would be entitled to invoke the provisions of D&C 102. If. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: So the church isn't following scripture in favor of the handbook I see nothing about the current policies that contravene the scriptures. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: and the SP didn't follow the handbook. That's simply not so. The handbook leaves the decision to the stake president whether to involve the High Council. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. If it improves on canonized revelation I would think the church should canonize a new revelation making the correction. Or are you arguing that policy trumps canonized scripture? No. I'm saying that the policy doesn't conflict with scripture. I'm also saying that First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve have quite a bit of discretionary authority. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. She requested the HC be included. And the stake president has the discretion to accept or reject that request. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Just like her other requests about the amount of time she could present and have witnesses, and the witnesses she wanted to call, this was rejected by the SP. He went along with some witnesses, and not with others, right? As fo rthe amount of time she requested, that was within the discretion of the stake president to accept or reject. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: This illustrates how his actions as prosecutor, judge, and executioner create an unfair environment for the individual. Nothing of the sort. 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Any grace for the stake president? Sure. Sure doesn't seem like it. Thanks, -Smac 2
ksfisher Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: In the context of a membership council, I think most of the time the facts are not in dispute. In my experience on such councils the facts of what happened had already been determined beforehand. What was brought to light in the council was the attitude of the person involved. And that attitude, and the persons willingness to return to the covenant path, seemed to be most influential on the final decision. 2
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Quote private I keep seeing this repeated. Can you help me understand the following: If the church’s purpose here is (as described by its defenders in this thread) boundary maintenance, to “help protect others”, and to protect the “integrity” of the church. In a case of public apostacy, how is this accomplished if the whole thing is kept “private”? By way of illustration: A few years back I had a friend who, at the time, was going through a pretty rough patch in his marriage. He had moved out. Counseling was of middling effect. Times were tough. One day I happened across his Facebook page and noticed that he had written a rather long tirade about his wife. It was . . . ugly. As he had previously spoken with me and sought out out my advice, I felt it was okay to put my oar in. I called him and told him I had seen his FB post. I encouraged him to take it down immediately. Our conversaation when something like this: Friend: "Why should I take it down? Everything I said in there is true. She really is behaving that way. She really is saying those things." Me: "Okay. But take a step back and look at the larger picture. You have said on numerous occasions that you want to preserve and rehabilitate and strengthen your marriage. How do you think your wife will react if and when she hears about or reads what you have said publicly about her? Will it strengthen or weaken your relationship with her?" Friend: "Well, it will probably make things worse. But what I am saying is true!" Me: "Yeah, but just because it is true doesn't necessarily make it useful or necessary to publicly declare to the world. Are you willing, right now, to give me your social security number? Your bank account username/password? Your email username/password?" Friend: "No." Me: "Why not?" Friend: "Because you don't need to know that stuff, and it's none of your business." Me: "Darn right. So it is with your dispute with your wife. The rest of the world doesn't need to know that stuff, and it's none of our business." I then encouraged him to read a 1987 article by Pres. (then Elder) Oaks entitled Criticism. I told him that it lays out some very good reasoning and analysis for resolving disputes within the Church, and that some of the principles he lays out have some utility in other contexts, such as disagreements between spouses. For example: Quote One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times. I think most people who have been married for a while, and are in a healthy relationship, would agree that "airing the family's dirty laundry" usually does a lot more harm than good. Quote The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: “The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: “Mark them which cause divisions … and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.) In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.) A husband does a great wrong when he breaches his wife's trust and confidence by publicly disclosing information about her that she reasonably expected to be kept in confidence. Not because the information is false, but because the public release of it is inappropriate, because it can be embarrassing or damaging, because the motive to release it is often malicious, and so on. Quote The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit. Helfer-Parker has publicly called the leaders of the Church "patriarchal pricks." And she is apparently proud of that, even now. Res. Ipsa. Loquitur. Quote The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority. Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love. The entire article is worth a read. Several reads, actually. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 9 minutes ago, ksfisher said: In my experience on such councils the facts of what happened had already been determined beforehand. What was brought to light in the council was the attitude of the person involved. And that attitude, and the persons willingness to return to the covenant path, seemed to be most influential on the final decision. Yep. And in Helfer-Parker's case, she went out of her way to publicize and sensationalize her council. Then she showed up at the council, refused to cooperate, and shouted in anger. Her attitude gave no indication of penitence, remorse, or regret. To the contrary, most of what she has said before and after indicates she's in full-blown rebellion mode. Thanks, -Smac 1
Teancum Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yep. And in Helfer-Parker's case, she went out of her way to publicize and sensationalize her council. Then she showed up at the council, refused to cooperate, and shouted in anger. Her attitude gave no indication of penitence, remorse, or regret. To the contrary, most of what she has said before and after indicates she's in full-blown rebellion mode. Thanks, -Smac And still the SP could have diffused the situation. I am sure I could have. And yes I do think Helfer should have been in better control and is at fault as well. See I can admit that. Yet you go on about how in the right the SP was. He wasn't. Edited April 23, 2021 by Teancum 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: By way of illustration: A few years back I had a friend who, at the time, was going through a pretty rough patch in his marriage. He had moved out. Counseling was of middling effect. Times were tough. One day I happened across his Facebook page and noticed that he had written a rather long tirade about his wife. It was . . . ugly. As he had previously spoken with me and sought out out my advice, I felt it was okay to put my oar in. I called him and told him I had seen his FB post. I encouraged him to take it down immediately. Our conversaation when something like this: Friend: "Why should I take it down? Everything I said in there is true. She really is behaving that way. She really is saying those things." Me: "Okay. But take a step back and look at the larger picture. You have said on numerous occasions that you want to preserve and rehabilitate and strengthen your marriage. How do you think your wife will react if and when she hears about or reads what you have said publicly about her? Will it strengthen or weaken your relationship with her?" Friend: "Well, it will probably make things worse. But what I am saying is true!" Me: "Yeah, but just because it is true doesn't necessarily make it useful or necessary to publicly declare to the world. Are you willing, right now, to give me your social security number? Your bank account username/password? Your email username/password?" Friend: "No." Me: "Why not?" Friend: "Because you don't need to know that stuff, and it's none of your business." Me: "Darn right. So it is with your dispute with your wife. The rest of the world doesn't need to know that stuff, and it's none of our business." I then encouraged him to read a 1987 article by Pres. (then Elder) Oaks entitled Criticism. I told him that it lays out some very good reasoning and analysis for resolving disputes within the Church, and that some of the principles he lays out have some utility in other contexts, such as disagreements between spouses. For example: I think most people who have been married for a while, and are in a healthy relationship, would agree that "airing the family's dirty laundry" usually does a lot more harm than good. A husband does a great wrong when he breaches his wife's trust and confidence by publicly disclosing information about her that she reasonably expected to be kept in confidence. Not because the information is false, but because the public release of it is inappropriate, because it can be embarrassing or damaging, because the motive to release it is often malicious, and so on. Helfer-Parker has publicly called the leaders of the Church "patriarchal pricks." And she is apparently proud of that, even now. Res. Ipsa. Loquitur. The entire article is worth a read. Several reads, actually. Thanks, -Smac I will merely point out that you didn’t answer the question. If the church is conducting boundary maintenance in a case of public apostasy, I don’t see how it’s purpose can be achieved with a “private” council. Hopefully this will be my last post in this thread, so feel free to have the last word.
MustardSeed Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 Leaders are sorely undertrained for many situations at church. SP was dealing with a traumatized (whether you think she should have reacted that way or whether she deserved to experience it is inconsequential to me) individual who was breaking down. That takes skill to handle. So many emotions are at play in so many SP/bishop interactions - and yet even a highly skilled therapist would mark such an event as a unique experience calling on his or her top skills. 3
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 56 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Quote I don't know what happened here. It sure sounds weird to not let someone use the bathroom. So weird, in fact, that I find it a bit suspect. But if that is what happened, it was wrong. I like how you are open minded enough that you didn't discount this immediately out the door. I've paid a lot of attention to various disciplinary councils throughout the years. Kate Kelly. The Calderwoods. John Dehlin. Sam Young. Bill Reel. Jeremy Runnells. There does seem to be certain commonalities where self-appointed notables are involved. A person who truly valued their membership in the Church (that is, valuing membership for its intended purposes, rather than for ulterior purposes such as keeping the gravy train a'runnin') would not seek to publicize and sensationalize the council, would not stoke public resentment and anger against the Church and/or its local leaders, would not publicly brag about themselves and their virtues, would not publicly denigrate the local leaders, would behave well before, during and after the council, would treat the council with respect and decorum and civility and maturity, and so on. That's what I think, anyway. That is not to say that membership councils are ironclad. Mistakes can be made. Avraham Gileadi is a good example of this. I have a good friend who lost his membership under circumstances that he feels were very unjust. And the mistakes can be heat-of-the-moment ones. So a stake functionary could well have erred in not allowing people into the stake center to use the bathroom. I could imagine some context for this. The building is empty, and needs to remain secured. Helfer-Parker had apparently orchestrated a "vigil" nearby. We've seen plenty of shenanigans at high-profile councils in the last few years. Jeremy Runnells made a speech, then stood up and walked out, and then climbed into the bed of a truck parked on or near the church grounds and used a microphone and speaker to calumnate against the Church. Kate Kelly threatened to sue her local leaders. Denver Snuffer showed up at the hearing with his family in tow and insisted that they all be admitted to the council. John Dehlin called a press conference right after his council. And so on. So perhaps the stake functionary needed to maintain physical security of the building, but also needed to be shuttling messages back and forth between Helfer-Parker and the stake president. Perhaps the response to the request to use the bathroom wasn't a "No," but rather a "Not just this instant. Give me a moment and I'll be right back..." And meanwhile Helfer-Parker was doing her ratchet-things-up-to-11, shouting at the doorway thing (I am still flummoxed that she characterized her behavior as "very Latina"). 56 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I know that by association (Mormon Discussions Podcast) this doesn't look good but this podcast is about a mixed faith couple. Kattie, being the faithful one and is the witness for Natasha and this is in her own words on what happened with the bathroom incident. She's the Stake Young Women's Leader, I believe. Hope I got that right. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2021/04/marriage-on-a-tightrope-102-katties-kansas-experience/ I listened to portions of it. She said she asked to use the bathroom, and the guy said "No one is allowed in {the building} until it's your turn." She then said she asked: "'Could you just ask them if I could use the restroom?' It just seemed so silly to me. And the woman I was with said 'Come on, let's just go in,' and he was like enforcing. He didn't touch us, but he stood there and said 'You are not coming in.' And we were so kind. And I'm like 'I'm a temple-recommend holder, in the Young Women's. I'm not the enemy here. This is so bizarre to me. I was shocked." Huh. So it sounds like things got confrontational. Things are already tense. Helfer-Parker's sensationalized the hearing beforehand, orchestrated a vigil, and so on. And now a stake functionary is trying to maintain physical security of the building. To be sure, I think accommodating a request to use the bathroom would be appropriate. Assuming Kattie's narrative is accurate, he could have better responded with something like "Let me take care of a few things and I'll be right back." But then, the woman with Kattie could also have done better by not provoking a confrontation. Also, Kattie's angry that the stake president for not allowing them entry. I dunno. Should the stake president have allowed witnesses in but not Helfer-Parker herself? That seems kinda weird. And what about Helfer-Parker's behavior? Any frustration about how she blew up the council? Or does Kattie exempt Helfer-Parker from normative expectations of civilized behavior in a church setting? And now Kattie's publicizing all of this by working with one of the most virulently anti-mormon websites on the Internet? Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I will merely point out that you didn’t answer the question. Yep. Got lost in the woods. You asked: "If the church’s purpose here is (as described by its defenders in this thread) boundary maintenance, to “help protect others”, and to protect the “integrity” of the church. In a case of public apostacy, how is this accomplished if the whole thing is kept 'private'?" First, I'm not sure what you mean by "public" apostasy. How is that different from a "private" apostasy? Second, why should someone seeking to publicize their apostasy be treated differently than a person who is in a state of "private" apostasy? Are we privileging celebrity here? Third, the Church's membership councils are, or should be, private. The parties should address the dispute privately, and not in the public sphere. 8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: If the church is conducting boundary maintenance in a case of public apostasy, I don’t see how it’s purpose can be achieved with a “private” council. The three purposes of discipline are not mutually exclusive. Thus the welfare of the individual can be as important a consideration as the protecting others and protecting the integrity of the Church. And regardless of how "public" one's apostasy is, the proceedings can and should be given strong measures of decorum, civility, and presumptive confidentiality. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 33 minutes ago, Teancum said: Quote Yep. And in Helfer-Parker's case, she went out of her way to publicize and sensationalize her council. Then she showed up at the council, refused to cooperate, and shouted in anger. Her attitude gave no indication of penitence, remorse, or regret. To the contrary, most of what she has said before and after indicates she's in full-blown rebellion mode. And still the SP could have diffused the situation. I am sure I could have. Well, perhaps so. But I'm not going to armchair quarterback. 33 minutes ago, Teancum said: And yes I do think Helfer should have been in better control and is at fault as well. See I can admit that. Yet you go on about how in the right the SP was. He wasn't. I think he mostly was. He may or may not have erred, but most of what he did falls well within the policies and procedures, and within his discretionary authority. Thanks, -Smac
Amulek Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 2 hours ago, Teancum said: 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 don't know that I want to get dragged into this thread, but I saw this comment and couldn't help but wonder: What steps, do you think, would need to be taken to ensure that a smartphone is not recording? I mean, they make apps for recording which are specifically designed to continue recording in the background, when your screen is locked, etc. So how do you ensure that a phone isn't being used for recording? It seems like 'leaving it in another room' is a pretty sensible answer to that question - though destroying it would also probably work. 4
rongo Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 3 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. It really isn't that hard to coordinate. Every stake council we had was on a Sunday --- sometimes during the Church block, if needed (our stake asked me to attend, be with, and answer questions at councils involving my members, so I sometimes missed church for the disciplinary council). If the high council can go to church or go to high council meetings, they can attend disciplinary councils, generally. At the ward level, we would have them whenever was best for the person involved and the bishopric, and that could be any day (not a MIA night, to avoid people in the building when the person needed to withdraw and be resummoned). 3 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. I would say they sharply reduce the high council's involvement, approaching near elimination. Which I don't like because of the D&C, and no section added. I think big changes (and I consider this to be a big change) should require codified revelations, not the "executive order" of simple policy changes (because it's superseding a D&C section). In addition, I think it was wrong not to involve the high council if the subject specifically requests it, for the reasons in the D&C section (preserving and observing rights --- more witnesses beyond the stake presidency). 3 hours ago, smac97 said: 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. I think the reasoning behind the policy change is to respond to activists who decry women facing 15+ men, but in my experience, the high council was a huge asset in "defusing" and "destressing" embarrassment and shame. Several had been through stake DCs as the subject themselves, and they were very good at conveying love and a desire to alleviate as much discomfort as possible. In some ways, facing only the bishopric with a clerk in the corner can be tougher, I think. I just don't like how the lion's share of the high council's reason for existing has been eliminated. Sure, this one can be over JustServe, and that one can be over stake sports (which is also on the decline), etc., but the big scriptural mandate for a high council has been eliminated in almost all cases.
Tacenda Posted April 23, 2021 Posted April 23, 2021 52 minutes ago, smac97 said: I've paid a lot of attention to various disciplinary councils throughout the years. Kate Kelly. The Calderwoods. John Dehlin. Sam Young. Bill Reel. Jeremy Runnells. There does seem to be certain commonalities where self-appointed notables are involved. A person who truly valued their membership in the Church (that is, valuing membership for its intended purposes, rather than for ulterior purposes such as keeping the gravy train a'runnin') would not seek to publicize and sensationalize the council, would not stoke public resentment and anger against the Church and/or its local leaders, would not publicly brag about themselves and their virtues, would not publicly denigrate the local leaders, would behave well before, during and after the council, would treat the council with respect and decorum and civility and maturity, and so on. That's what I think, anyway. That is not to say that membership councils are ironclad. Mistakes can be made. Avraham Gileadi is a good example of this. I have a good friend who lost his membership under circumstances that he feels were very unjust. And the mistakes can be heat-of-the-moment ones. So a stake functionary could well have erred in not allowing people into the stake center to use the bathroom. I could imagine some context for this. The building is empty, and needs to remain secured. Helfer-Parker had apparently orchestrated a "vigil" nearby. We've seen plenty of shenanigans at high-profile councils in the last few years. Jeremy Runnells made a speech, then stood up and walked out, and then climbed into the bed of a truck parked on or near the church grounds and used a microphone and speaker to calumnate against the Church. Kate Kelly threatened to sue her local leaders. Denver Snuffer showed up at the hearing with his family in tow and insisted that they all be admitted to the council. John Dehlin called a press conference right after his council. And so on. So perhaps the stake functionary needed to maintain physical security of the building, but also needed to be shuttling messages back and forth between Helfer-Parker and the stake president. Perhaps the response to the request to use the bathroom wasn't a "No," but rather a "Not just this instant. Give me a moment and I'll be right back..." And meanwhile Helfer-Parker was doing her ratchet-things-up-to-11, shouting at the doorway thing (I am still flummoxed that she characterized her behavior as "very Latina"). I listened to portions of it. She said she asked to use the bathroom, and the guy said "No one is allowed in {the building} until it's your turn." She then said she asked: "'Could you just ask them if I could use the restroom?' It just seemed so silly to me. And the woman I was with said 'Come on, let's just go in,' and he was like enforcing. He didn't touch us, but he stood there and said 'You are not coming in.' And we were so kind. And I'm like 'I'm a temple-recommend holder, in the Young Women's. I'm not the enemy here. This is so bizarre to me. I was shocked." Huh. So it sounds like things got confrontational. Things are already tense. Helfer-Parker's sensationalized the hearing beforehand, orchestrated a vigil, and so on. And now a stake functionary is trying to maintain physical security of the building. To be sure, I think accommodating a request to use the bathroom would be appropriate. Assuming Kattie's narrative is accurate, he could have better responded with something like "Let me take care of a few things and I'll be right back." But then, the woman with Kattie could also have done better by not provoking a confrontation. Also, Kattie's angry that the stake president for not allowing them entry. I dunno. Should the stake president have allowed witnesses in but not Helfer-Parker herself? That seems kinda weird. And what about Helfer-Parker's behavior? Any frustration about how she blew up the council? Or does Kattie exempt Helfer-Parker from normative expectations of civilized behavior in a church setting? And now Kattie's publicizing all of this by working with one of the most virulently anti-mormon websites on the Internet? Thanks, -Smac Yes, I get what you're saying. I know this will be a shock, but I don't like the fact that these situations are turned into a zoo. And agree that if the persons doing this truly care about remaining in the church then they should avoid these circumstances at all costs. I guess the Stake President could indeed feel that there could be a crazy out there or a hater and could be violent. There is enough out there that are the disgruntled exLDS or LDS member. I'm very put off by it all. I didn't get to listen to the whole podcast with Kattie. So missed part of what you've mentioned here. I wish those that didn't like most of what the church is doing, could move on. It's just not the right fit for them. Let those that believe in it continue in peace. I know, maybe I'm turning a big wide circle here. I totally agree with what you've said. Non believers just need to move on or keep their hatefulness private. Of course there are harms the church has done in the name of policy or doctrine but that's most religious entities out there, so I guess to me, some religions scare me. Was hoping the LDS would be the least harmful, still hoping it will be.
Recommended Posts