Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What harm is she doing?

Whether she is harming or helping is likely a personal bias.  (I think she has some valid points as I have concerns about how some bishops have discussed sexual topics with members and discipline of some teens and young adults that I have heard about from trusted friends, others not so much...I have my doubts about her increase in suicide claims due to GC for example based on how she has used claimed stats in the past; I do think there should be more training and oversight of bishops as long as chastity is a topic of church discipline and ability to give feedback to SL about leaders’ performance in the area and other areas that can easily move into ‘inappropriate’ and to have at least a moderate ability to discuss issues with other leaders besides the local leaders who are seen as the problem.)

She has on numerous occasions publicly criticized church leaders and policy and I believe, publicly taught her own version of church doctrine. She founded an organization that at times publicly advocates for the Church to change policy and interpretation of doctrine.  
 

She also is the founder of a professional organization using “Mormon” in its name and I wouldn’t be the least surprised if she was asked to change it by the Church and refused to do so. At the very least, such a name may cause confusion that the organization and its members has been approved by the Church. 
 

While none of these things may be morally wrong (whether they are or not is more personal bias than objective), some still qualify for the Church’s definition of apostasy:

Quote
  • Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders

  • Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

  • Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members

  • Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

  • Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#p1
 

Found a letter commenting on the “Mormon” therapist group (put in quotes because one doesn’t need to be a church member to be part of it).  Whether or not Josh Weed still disagrees with the group’s stance, I don’t know, but I personally find it troubling as described here (this is rather personal to me even though I was never a therapist, but was at one time planning that career path until I figured out I wouldn’t be able to leave work at work enough to avoid sleepless night obsessing about clients, was going to go research and teaching route instead till health interfered).

https://web.archive.org/web/20160331032939/http://www.joshweed.com/2016/03/the-truth-about-mormon-mental-health_24.html?m=1

She has also publicly criticize the Church Nov 15 policy on gay families ( https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2019/12/policy-reversal-process-requires-repentance.html ) and made claims that General Conference increases suicides ( https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213174880942838&set=a.1054132029763&type=3&theater ).

An example of her public criticism is here:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/04/21/commentary-lds-church-has/

 

Not debating whether she is right or wrong, just speaking to whether she technically falls into the category of “apostasy”....in this case  the first condition. 
 

Her blog is here if you want to look at her public POV: 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/author/natashaparker

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Ms. Helfer-Parker is part of Dehlin's thrive circle and so he might want to make more out of this than is warranted for publicity sake, you know, giving the church a black eye.  She's been away from Kansas for more than 1 1/2 years, so, perhaps she should be tried where she now lives?  Does apostasy occur in a specific place or does it reside with the individual?  You obviously are assuming that she did something of a sexual nature because she is a sex therapist and so of course that has to be what it is about.  But what if it is for apostasy?  Apostasy follows the person and so she should be tried where she is.

I was not aware that she is a sex therapist, nor am I familiar with the claims against her.  I made no claim that she was suspected or guilty of sex abuse or anything related thereto.  So your statement is a lie.  You might want to go back an reread my comments, Harry.

Whatever she may or may not have done in Kansas is best dealt with in Kansas, because the witnesses are there.  Plain and simple.  There is a reason why secular criminal and civil trials typically take place in the jurisdictions in which they occurred.  If you cannot understand that, there is no help for you.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Latter Day Witness said:

This is my first post on this forum, and I’m unlikely to post again. I feel so strongly, however, about what has been said here that I feel compelled to add my witness. 
 

I have witnessed horrific spiritual abuse in disciplinary councils.  I have seen behavior by church leaders so shameful that I couldn’t believe it was happening.
 

I have been a part of a disciplinary council of a public figure. The order to excommunicate the individual was given well in advance by the Committee for Strengthening Church Members. The actual disciplinary council was a formality and resembled a kangaroo court.  The evidence against the individual was all compiled by the COB and local leaders simply carried out orders.  The accused was not given any meaningful chance for a defense or to influence the outcome.

My experience with non-public figures has been mixed. Some good results but the majority have been filled with shaming and humiliation. 
 

I’m not here to argue these issues. I just want to add my witness to what the previous poster has described.It saddens me to see it happen all too often.

Pretty funny.  All the right buzzwords. You seem to want to deny the church its own autonomy. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
56 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Pretty funny.  All the right buzzwords. You seem to want to deny the church its own autonomy. 

More importantly, he seems to deny any degree of inspiration in such proceedings.  Getting the fox out of the henhouse seems to me of prime importance.  Local leaders have the necessary authority to act.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
11 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've sat in on multiple church courts as both a member of the bishopric and also as a member of the high council.. Too many to count  I've long believed that these courts should be abandoned by the church and abolished.  They rarely achieve the intended goals. They do nothing to aid the healing of the accused and are often nothing more than spiritual overreach and abuse.  I've yet to see a single member whose membership was stripped of them return to the fold, not one.  Oh the stories I could tell. 

That is a very odd claim.  I know of several men who have returned to the Church after excommunication.  That is not so unusual as you depict.  Also, it is sometimes very important to keep the fox out of the hen house.  Moreover, I used to minister to a group of former male members in a Federal Prison -- all were very sorry for what they had done (at least those who came to Sunday Meetings).

I recall one anti-Mormon in Provo, telling us in his anti-Mormon meeting that his disciplinary court had been very much a court of love.  He stated that in the presence of me and the late Gene England and his wife.

11 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've often wondered why the church puts its members through these ordeals. The humiliation alone is beyond the pale for these poor souls.  I've witnesses grown men (and women) reduced to such a depths of humiliation that I've had to worry about them taking their own lives after being put through their so called courts of love.  It's been terrible to witness fellow human beings being put through these spiritually abusive courts, no matter what you call them, they are shameful and barbaric.

There is nothing that a court can achieve that couldn't also be achieved by a private one on one consultation with a bishop through confession, nothing.

I thought that the rule was that public wrongs must be vetted publicly, and private wrongs remain private.

11 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church puts its own hubris and self interests above those of its own members.

From what I can ascertain with this particular case, it seems like a witch hunt

Well, of course, it is always a "witch hunt" to the evil one.  That is a phrase regularly used by our former Liar in Chief, who is no longer in the WH.  What of the priesthood?  Have they responsibilites to their Master?  Why would you put it in terms of hubris and selfishness?  Are those the only considerations of a Church?

11 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Why is the church after this poor woman.  She did nothing to the church and should be left alone in peace.  It's situation like this that I sincerely wonder who is in charge and why are they abusing these poor people. Its truly embarrassing and so unnecessary and only serves the interests of the church. 

Abuse can work both ways, grasshopper.  Smac and calm have shown us her abusive program in detail.  Are you recommending that such abuse should be ignored?  Should a Burger joint ignore an employee who openly declares that the burgers here are horrible and will give you terminal acne?  :diablo:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I am not saying a Bishop  trained as therapist can not be a good Bishop. She went on to explain that Bishops should basically deal with Bishop things and  therapists should deal with therapy things. Each should stay 'in their lane' in those moments. I wish all Bishops were trained therapist. I think they would do their jobs a lot better if that was the case.

So whose "lane" does sexual behavior fall into? 

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was not aware that she is a sex therapist, nor am I familiar with the claims against her.  I made no claim that she was suspected or guilty of sex abuse or anything related thereto.  So your statement is a lie.  You might want to go back an reread my comments, Harry.

Whatever she may or may not have done in Kansas is best dealt with in Kansas, because the witnesses are there.  Plain and simple.  There is a reason why secular criminal and civil trials typically take place in the jurisdictions in which they occurred.  If you cannot understand that, there is no help for you.

There’s a difference between not understanding something and not wanting to understand something when it undermines a false narrative. 

Link to post

I know of a few cases where this has happened and a Court/Membership Council was held somewhere the person does not live.

I have never dealt with a high-profile case though so not sure how that changes things other than making everyone miserable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, rongo said:

This is one of the reasons leaders can put a move restriction on a record. 

I was involved with a situation similar to this. It resulted in multiple conversations with the helpline, and the top Kirton-McConkie attorney there (he that hath ears to hear, let him hear! --- I don't want to mention the name) spanning several years --- including after I hadn't been a bishop for a couple of years (fact-finding, following up, having me call and talk to new bishops/stake presidents in a new state, etc.). 

I had recommended at the time that we put a move restriction to keep the record in our stake and administer the discipline, but the stake presidency didn't approve it, and then it became a mess once the record left for a ward/stake in another state. If there is a problem that needs to be taken care of with ecclesiastical authority, there can certainly be situations where it is best to do it where the people know the situation. This is particularly true where there are attempts to avoid discipline via moving, looking for friendlier/sympathetic leaders, etc. 

I know nothing about the case you are talking about in the OP, and don't have an opinion on that. 

I've also seen the move restriction in some instances to prevent a person from running away from discipline. Moving from place to place can certainly muddy the waters. However, in this case it feels like a bit of an abuse. She lived in her Kansas stake for many years. They knew who she was and she's been doing and saying the same thing for years. She really hasn't changed so it shouldn't be any surprise to her prior stake president. He had ample opportunity to discipline her while she resided in his stake.

Now, she's been removed from his stake for well over a year and he decides to hold a disciplinary council? Why? Has she escalated in some way? Not that I can tell. In fairness, I don't know if the stake president holding the DC was also her stake president while she lived in Kansas. Maybe it's a new SP who wants to lay down the law. Whatever.

But now she has moved to Utah. She is notified of a DC in Kansas and now she has to make a trip to attend her DC. There is time and expense involved there. It seems overly aggressive. IF there is substantial reason to hold a DC the Kansas SP can inform the current SP.

Here's an article about the case. Mormon sex therapist Natasha Helfer faces discipline and possible expulsion from the LDS church - The Washington Post

It should be noted, that many of the things she has advocated for have since been removed from For the Strength of Youth and/or the church handbook.

Also, it is somewhat unusual for her DC to be conducted by the stake instead of her bishop.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Like 3
Link to post
13 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is fair.  The priesthood leader with intimate detailed knowledge is the best to handle it. Public figures often want to frustrate or delay.  Once a person is in the discipline process it takes hold. You can't move away.  It's like being a lawyer.  If I'm being disciplined by the state bar I can't simply resign and pick up in a different state. 

The NT clearly requires a discipline procedure.  Paul writes about it with a wordplay for castration.  It must be completed.

She moved from the stake 1 1/2 years ago. Does that sound like she was running away. There was no pending discipline when she moved. The DC was called 1 1/2 years later. I'm wondering how her old SP has the best knowledge of what she is doing? Is he tracking her social media, watching her in forums, attending her conferences to gather dirt? He obviously isn't stopping by the house to chat. If her sins were so egregious why did it take him  18 months after she moved to call the DC?

This is an abuse

  • Like 2
Link to post
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm wondering how her old SP has the best knowledge of what she is doing? Is he tracking her social media, watching her in forums, attending her conferences to gather dirt?

Isn't that the SCMC's job?

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was not aware that she is a sex therapist, nor am I familiar with the claims against her.  I made no claim that she was suspected or guilty of sex abuse or anything related thereto.  So your statement is a lie.  You might want to go back an reread my comments, Harry.

Whatever she may or may not have done in Kansas is best dealt with in Kansas, because the witnesses are there.  Plain and simple.  There is a reason why secular criminal and civil trials typically take place in the jurisdictions in which they occurred.  If you cannot understand that, there is no help for you.

Can you explain or justify the lapse in time between when she lived in Kansas and when the DC was called? How is it justifiable to call someone to a DC  1 1/2 year after they move away?

Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More importantly, he seems to deny any degree of inspiration in such proceedings.  Getting the fox out of the henhouse seems to me of prime importance.  Local leaders have the necessary authority to act.

Seems like the "fox" is already out of the Kansas henhouse and has been for quite a while. The SP is calling her back to the henhouse to then kick her out. Seems like a solid plan. If the Utah SP is concerned about her being in his henhouse, then he should convene the DC and save her from traveling across multiple states to a DC.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Isn't that the SCMC's job?

Possibly. If that's still a thing. It always kind of operated in secret so I don't know how much credence to place in the idea of the SCMC is.

More likely, the SP assigned a high councilor to track her statements and activities and then report back.

Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Possibly. If that's still a thing. It always kind of operated in secret so I don't know how much credence to place in the idea of the SCMC is.

More likely, the SP assigned a high councilor to track her statements and activities and then report back.

RFM had a phone call with someone on the SCMC a couple years back. Just sayin'

Link to post
4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

RFM had a phone call with someone on the SCMC a couple years back. Just sayin'

It just sounds so... "illuminati-esque" that without any person knowledge of it I'm taking it with a grain of salt :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have witnessed no such things, and therefore I disbelieve what you have written.

You've posted many things that have happened in your world that don't happen in Utah, or maybe even the US. Mormonism sure sounds different in your world Hamba! Maybe the church should send some leaders your way to see how it's done. 

Link to post
9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It just sounds so... "illuminati-esque" that without any person knowledge of it I'm taking it with a grain of salt :) 

That's the thing anyone could have spoken to him about it, it's like leaving a negative review for a restaurant that you've never been to before

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, smac97 said:

So have I.

I've long come to exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that membership councils are essential to the long-term viability of the Church.  I've explained my reasoning here:

As I have said before, I don't want members to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community. 

DonBradley (who left the Church and later returned to it) commented on this sentiment here:

I agree with this.  Getting rid of membership councils is simply unrealistic.

Which is often attributable to the individual, who has chosen to abandon the covenant path.

But there are also more than a few instances when they do achieve (or in some way facilitate) a person's reconcilation with the Lord and His Church.

This is a material overstatement.  I have personal experience with many who have spoken of disfellowshipment or excommunication being a difficult and painful, but necessary part of their "healing."

This is also a material overstatement.

I too have been in many, many disciplinary councils.  What you are saying here is profoundly at odds with what I have observed.

I have seen several.

Generally the member engages in conduct that is a substantial violation of his or her covenants.  

The Church has an extensive mandate regarding disciplinary matters in the Church.

The Church nevertheless bends over backwards to accommodate wayward members.

Your characterization here is incorrect and unfair.

Yes, that can be a tough thing.  Hence my appreciation for the Church's efforts to keep such matters confidential.

A few years back I attended a sentencing hearing of a friend who had pleaded guilty to serious criminal charges.  He had hoped for probation, but was given a sentence of several years and immediately taken into custody in front of his wife, family and friends.

And yet . . . the sentence was appropriate.  Because the wrong had been committed.  Because he had admitted to it.  Because there need to be consequences for misconduct.  Because no society can function where severe misconduct is deliberately ignored or left unaddressed.

The Church has no ability to incarcerate or fine or otherwise punish its members, except that it can put constraints on or terminate the membership of the individual.  When such measures are necessary, the Church goes to great lengths to keep such matters confidential and to encourage the individual to do all that he or she can to return to full fellowship and membership in the Church.

Patently untrue.  They are pictures of decorum and kindness.  Your characterization is absurd and patently inaccurate.

You are mostly, but surely not entirely, correct.  Again, look at the mandates above.  

D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death..."

D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."

D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."

D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."

D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."

3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."

D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."

D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."

D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."

How do you account for these?

Utterly untrue.

The Church takes seriously the mandates given to it by Jesus Christ.  Disciplinary proceedings are an unpleasant, but plainly necessary, component of the Kingdom of God.

As for Natasha Helfer, I'll leave the matter to those with stewardship.  If there is an error or mistake by those in authority, then that's on them.  We as bystanders don't have the whole story, nor the standing.

Thanks,

-Smac

My heart breaks for those members who have been subjected to a church court.  I recently ran into a former member of my stake in a local restaurant having lunch with his wife.  He like the the others I've had experience with, decided not to return to the church, as soon as our eyes met, I could see his entire demeaner change. It was if a dark cloud of humiliation and embarrassment hung over him.  The change was palpable.  I smiled and waved a hand of acknowledgement at him.  It was as if our minds had a Spock Mind Meld moment.  I literally felt the depth of his pain, embarrassment and humiliation that I had in part contributed to.  While I had not been one of those who had asked inappropriate personal questions of this man, I had certainly been in the room where he was asked these questions.  I didn't tie the rope around his neck but I held the coats of those who did. I was a party to his spiritual lynching.

After this chance encounter, I wondered how this might have turned out differently for this man.  Why was it necessary for his sins to be shared with nearly 20 of his fellow neighbors?  What eternal purpose did it serve? What if he had been able to confess to his bishop and leave it there, might things have been different for this man.  I will never know.  But I do know that being subjected to this church court was not in his best interests.

  • Like 2
Link to post
36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've also seen the move restriction in some instances to prevent a person from running away from discipline. Moving from place to place can certainly muddy the waters. However, in this case it feels like a bit of an abuse. She lived in her Kansas stake for many years. They knew who she was and she's been doing and saying the same thing for years. She really hasn't changed so it shouldn't be any surprise to her prior stake president. He had ample opportunity to discipline her while she resided in his stake.

I think it's as simple as this is now on the Brethren's radar (whereas she wasn't on the radar before), and it has been brought to the attention of the stake presidents involved. While there will be the standard boilerplate that it is strictly a local matter, in high profile cases, I don't believe this is true. The Brethren don't dictate the outcome of the councils (cf. Gina Colvin and Grant Palmer), but most stake presidents are not going to want to go against the clear concern of the Brethren.

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But now she has moved to Utah. She is notified of a DC in Kansas and now she has to make a trip to attend her DC. There is time and expense involved there. It seems overly aggressive. IF there is substantial reason to hold a DC the Kansas SP can inform the current SP.

The short-notice travel requirements are a problem --- an actual problem, and a PR problem (Kate Kelly's, too). This could be remedied by putting it further out, but even then, I don't know that I would fly out if the outcome were fairly certain. If it were me, I would want to attend personally even then, but then, I wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. 

I am absolutely against Zoom disciplinary councils, so it has to be in person. To be honest, in both Kelly's and now this case, she could reasonably easily fly out. She might have to reschedule some things, but it would be done in a matter of a few hours. Financially, she makes a lot more than I do, that's for sure, and even I could fly out somewhere if I needed to. I think the protests on the part of the subjects are part of the PR battle over it --- leveraging public opinion against the council, and against the Church. 

What if the stake presidency offered to fly out to her (high councils are no longer required)? That might be a way to defuse the travel requirement. But then it would beg the question of why not just have the Utah stake presidency do it in the first place. I wonder if they are perceived as less of a "hanging judge" in this matter (and I'm just wondering --- I have no knowledge, either way). 

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It should be noted, that many of the things she has advocated for have since been removed from For the Strength of Youth and/or the church handbook.

Can you please name some of these (for my own interest)? For example, I would say that the Church's stance on masturbation has not been changed, based on this from the current FtSoY:

"Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body."

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also, it is somewhat unusual for her DC to be conducted by the stake instead of her bishop.

Not with a recent handbook change (assuming that she's endowed). Bishops pretty much have prospective elders and unendowed people now. Also, high profile cases are certain to be under the stake presidency now. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

Whether she is harming or helping is likely a personal bias.  (I think she has some valid points as I have concerns about how some bishops have discussed sexual topics with members and discipline of some teens and young adults that I have heard about from trusted friends, others not so much...I have my doubts about her increase in suicide claims due to GC for example based on how she has used claimed stats in the past; I do think there should be more training and oversight of bishops as long as chastity is a topic of church discipline and ability to give feedback to SL about leaders’ performance in the area and other areas that can easily move into ‘inappropriate’ and to have at least a moderate ability to discuss issues with other leaders besides the local leaders who are seen as the problem.)

She has on numerous occasions publicly criticized church leaders and policy and I believe, publicly taught her own version of church doctrine. She founded an organization that at times publicly advocates for the Church to change policy and interpretation of doctrine.  
 

She also is the founder of a professional organization using “Mormon” in its name and I wouldn’t be the least surprised if she was asked to change it by the Church and refused to do so. At the very least, such a name may cause confusion that the organization and its members has been approved by the Church. 
 

While none of these things may be morally wrong (whether they are or not is more personal bias than objective), some still qualify for the Church’s definition of apostasy:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#p1
 

Found a letter commenting on the “Mormon” therapist group (put in quotes because one doesn’t need to be a church member to be part of it).  Whether or not Josh Weed still disagrees with the group’s stance, I don’t know, but I personally find it troubling as described here (this is rather personal to me even though I was never a therapist, but was at one time planning that career path until I figured out I wouldn’t be able to leave work at work enough to avoid sleepless night obsessing about clients, was going to go research and teaching route instead till health interfered).

https://web.archive.org/web/20160331032939/http://www.joshweed.com/2016/03/the-truth-about-mormon-mental-health_24.html?m=1

She has also publicly criticize the Church Nov 15 policy on gay families ( https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2019/12/policy-reversal-process-requires-repentance.html ) and made claims that General Conference increases suicides ( https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213174880942838&set=a.1054132029763&type=3&theater ).

An example of her public criticism is here:

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/04/21/commentary-lds-church-has/

 

Not debating whether she is right or wrong, just speaking to whether she technically falls into the category of “apostasy”....in this case  the first condition. 
 

Her blog is here if you want to look at her public POV: 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/author/natashaparker

I'm aware of her but don't really follow her or have never read her blogs. But read some other person's thoughts on her this morning, and I do see a problem or discrepancy with how there are women that have never experienced orgasm, maybe their husbands have never attempted to help them feel what they feel each time they have sex. Natasha is apparently trying to help many women and probably men as well that are in the church and have felt sex shamed into thinking that behavior wrong.

I read this in the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/04/16/mormon-sex-therapist-expulsion-lds/  That might be a concern as well: 

But others in the counseling field see Helfer’s treatment as more ominous. As of Thursday, more than 200 health-care professionals signed a letter to the stake president saying they are concerned that withdrawing Helfer’s membership will create a culture of stigma and shame for clients seeking therapy.

In the person's thoughts I read over today she mentioned how women are discriminated against somewhat for being stopped to know their own bodies. I've never done that, it's been ingrained in me that it's wrong. But luckily my husband is thoughtful enough to help me out, but I'll bet there's plenty out there that need Natasha's help and their husbands aren't as caring maybe. And I feel that because members are taught not to masturbate, more men in the church need their wives to take care of them. And because it's been so instilled in me, I wouldn't like my husband doing that. And that puts the burden on me. I know this is getting too graphic, but has been on my mind a lot throughout my marriage. 

Also, I remember reading that Natasha is in the middle of a divorce and the stake president, is her husband's former boss. So that doesn't seem right if there's a correlation. 

After this long response, and I do appreciate your thoughts, always do, I want to end and say that I'll bet the church cringes when things like this take off, and articles etc. make the church look bad. 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is a very odd claim.  I know of several men who have returned to the Church after excommunication.  That is not so unusual as you depict.  Also, it is sometimes very important to keep the fox out of the hen house.  Moreover, I used to minister to a group of former male members in a Federal Prison -- all were very sorry for what they had done (at least those who came to Sunday Meetings).

I recall one anti-Mormon in Provo, telling us in his anti-Mormon meeting that his disciplinary court had been very much a court of love.  He stated that in the presence of me and the late Gene England and his wife.

I thought that the rule was that public wrongs must be vetted publicly, and private wrongs remain private.

Well, of course, it is always a "witch hunt" to the evil one.  That is a phrase regularly used by our former Liar in Chief, who is no longer in the WH.  What of the priesthood?  Have they responsibilites to their Master?  Why would you put it in terms of hubris and selfishness?  Are those the only considerations of a Church?

Abuse can work both ways, grasshopper.  Smac and calm have shown us her abusive program in detail.  Are you recommending that such abuse should be ignored?  Should a Burger joint ignore an employee who openly declares that the burgers here are horrible and will give you terminal acne?  :diablo:

I'm merely asking the question: Can we not find a more loving, private and compassionate process to help the one seeking help from the church instead of subjecting them to such a spiritually brutal and damaging process?  We could if the church put the sinners needs ahead of their own self interests. Did Jesus hold a court for the woman caught in adulty?  No he turned to her accusers and said Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...the crowd slowly dispersed and each had to reflect on their own sinfulness. He then told her to go and sin no more.

I'm disappointed that so many here support the status quo.  The process is in great need of reform.

Link to post

Correct me if I am wrong but a woman isn't brought before the Stake Presidency, High Council and a clerk or two anymore-I thought that was just for MP holders? Isn't a woman just brought before her Bishopric? or are "high profile" people brought before the Stake people?

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm merely asking the question: Can we not find a more loving, private and compassionate process to help the one seeking help from the church instead of subjecting them to such a spiritually brutal and damaging process?  We could if the church put the sinners needs ahead of their own self interests. Did Jesus hold a court for the woman caught in adulty?  No he turned to her accusers and said Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...the crowd slowly dispersed and each had to reflect on their own sinfulness. He then told her to go and sin no more.

I'm disappointed that so many here support the status quo.  The process is in great need of reform.

What are your thoughts about the recent change basically eliminating the high council from the process? It's mostly going to be just the stake presidency or bishopric. Do you see this as a step towards a "more loving, private and compassionate process?" Or, is your only goal eliminating the ability to remove and restrict membership in any way, worlds without end?

Are you really advocating for what used to be called "informal probation" (via a one-on-one with the bishop) being the only thing that can ever be done?

Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

L

Also, it is somewhat unusual for her DC to be conducted by the stake instead of her bishop.

No it isn't. Again, you want to deny a church its autonomy.  The basic thought there is any church has complete freedom to specify conditions of membership. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...