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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

I will pop back in long enough to say this is a valid point, but as Helfer has made publicly clear, she was offered surreptitious recording devices by three separate parties (offers she says she declined). Devices that could only have been detected by a very invasive search. So confiscating the phone / having her leave the phone with a third party doesn't solve the problem.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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”?

In my opinion, boundary maintenance is not solely a public process, except generally, in that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, "These are the rules.  We love all of our members and want them to participate to the fullest extent.  However, in cases of serious transgression, apostasy, and/or repeated, open defiance of the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ, we cannot allow such things to continue unabated and unredressed." 

You're right that the standing of the individual member is no business of anyone else in the Church of Jesus Christ, but I don't think it needs to be for membership actions in the Church of Jesus Christ to constitute boundary maintenance.  In any event, whether I agree with such actions or not, there will always be those who insist on publicizing what otherwise would be a private process and a private result, known only to a comparative few.  On the issue of action taken regarding membership as boundary maintenance, see here (last accessed April 23, 2021), a thread started by Don Bradley, whose story many here are familiar with as someone who has undergone action taken against his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ and then been rebaptized after a change of heart: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65403-apostasy-boundary-maintenance-and-strong-communities/.

I don't think that it is necessary for the general membership to know what specific action has been taken against a person's membership in particular cases for such action to serve as boundary maintenance.  It is sufficient to know, generally speaking, that the Church of Jesus Christ cannot and will not brook repeated, open defiance, open, serious, unrepented-of sin, and apostasy.  An analogy might be found in the criminal law: Does the law serve as a specific deterrent in that someone might say to himself, "Wow!  If I commit [Crime (A)] which is comprised of [Specific Elements (B) through (E)], I could be subject to [Penalty (F)].  Therefore, I better be really careful to make sure that, for example, I only commit [Specific Elements (B), (C), and (D), but not (E)] so I'm not subject to [Penalty (F)]"?  Probably not.  The overwhelming majority of even the most calculating criminals are not calculating enough to think things through with that degree of specificity, so the specific "nuts and bolts" of the law aren't likely to be a deterrent in specific cases.  But even if I don't know that the law says, specifically "If a person does [Elements (A) through (E)] he's guilty of [Crime (F)], the potential penalty for which is [Penalty (G)]," I'm expected to know, at least, that, for example, murdering people is wrong.

Similarly, is the average member (or, say, the "average rebellious member" ) of the Church of Jesus Christ thinking, "Well, the Church of Jesus Christ defines [Sin (A)] as being comprised of [Elements (B), (C), (D), and (E)], so if I commit some other sin that does not involve [Element (E)], I'm in the clear as far as the possibility of any action being taken against my membership"?  Probably not.  Again, even the most calculating member wouldn't be calculating enough to think things through with that degree of specificity. 

And, in any event, given the fact that action taken against Church membership isn't a one-size-fits-all process, and we believe that inspiration is supposed to be a part of the mix, results may differ even for people who commit "the exact same sin" (my phrase).  If I committed a serious sin at this point in my life in the Church of Jesus Christ, I would expect to be treated differently than if someone who was just baptized last year did the same thing.  "Where much is given, much is required."  And "where, as yet, less is given, [comparatively speaking] less is [should be] required."  (See Doctrine and Covenants 82:3.) 

As Jacob said (one of my favorite verses in all of scripture because it is so short, and yet, it's a good rule, "O be wise; what can I say more?" (Jacob 6:12).  Or, as it was put (somewhat less succinctly, but succinctly, still) by King Benjamin in Mosiah 4:29-30:
 

Quote

 

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

30 But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.

 

 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will pop back in long enough to say this is a valid point, but as Helfer has made publicly clear, she was offered surreptitious recording devices by three separate parties (offers she says she declined). Devices that could only have been detected by a very invasive search. So confiscating the phone / having her leave the phone with a third party doesn't solve the problem.

Oh, I agree. One would have to take extreme measure to absolutely ensure that no recording was possible whatsoever.

Of course, if she was flipping out over them simply asking her to leave her phone, I can only imagine how she would have reacted to the sort of protocols that would be needed in order to guarantee no possible recordings.

 

[california boy]

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that all of these high profile cases are all about "Boundary Maintenance" by a Church claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  Yet Christ's very crucifixion on the cross was about "Boundary Maintenance" by the Church in His day.  The High priest judge in Christ's day, Caiaphas also claimed to have the authority from God to oust Christ for the sole reason of going against His Church leaders.    His guilt was a forgone conclusion, and the necessity of Christ testifying was more of a show then trying to determine fault.  The Church couldn't have a trouble maker like Christ around.  Boundaries must be protected at all costs.  In this case, the ultimate cost.

Just something to think about.  

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that all of these high profile cases are all about "Boundary Maintenance" by a Church claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  

Not remotely.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that all of these high profile cases are all about "Boundary Maintenance" by a Church claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  Yet Christ's very crucifixion on the cross was about "Boundary Maintenance" by the Church in His day.  The High priest judge in Christ's day, Caiaphas also claimed to have the authority from God to oust Christ for the sole reason of going against His Church leaders.    His guilt was a forgone conclusion, and the necessity of Christ testifying was more of a show then trying to determine fault.  The Church couldn't have a trouble maker like Christ around.  Boundaries must be protected at all costs.  In this case, the ultimate cost.

Just something to think about.  

I'm not finding this all that deep.

The bible seems clear that the ruling religious class in Jesus's day, as well as the Romans, weren't sincerely trying to do what they believed was right.  It's going to be hard for you to find evidence to support the idea that the people involved here (both locally and up) are also insincere and just trying to hold on to their powerbase.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by bluebell

[Rivers]

Is it true that Natasha was criticizing the church using vulgar language?

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Does anyone find it a bit ironic that all of these high profile cases are all about "Boundary Maintenance" by a Church claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  Yet Christ's very crucifixion on the cross was about "Boundary Maintenance" by the Church in His day.  The High priest judge in Christ's day, Caiaphas also claimed to have the authority from God to oust Christ for the sole reason of going against His Church leaders.    His guilt was a forgone conclusion, and the necessity of Christ testifying was more of a show then trying to determine fault.  The Church couldn't have a trouble maker like Christ around.  Boundaries must be protected at all costs.  In this case, the ultimate cost.

Just something to think about.  

Had Judas not killed himself, should he have been allowed remain in the Twelve?

[InCognitus]

3 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Is it true that Natasha was criticizing the church using vulgar language?

See the post from Helix (here) for some examples.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

Had Judas not killed himself, should he have been allowed remain in the Twelve?

Maybe not.  But I don't see any evidence Christ would have run him out of the Church.  Do you?  His approach to those who sinned was not the same as the Church today.  He seemed more to want to keep them close to Him, not cut them out of the Church. 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not finding this all that deep.

The bible seems clear that the ruling religious class in Jesus's day, as well as the Romans, weren't sincerely trying to do what they believed was right.  It's going to be hard for you to find evidence to support the idea that the people involved here (both locally and up) are also insincere and just trying to hold on to their powerbase.

I think Church leaders at the time of Christ were very sincere in protecting what they believed was right and looked at Jesus as a threat to their authority because He was teaching a different gospel and people were responding.  They felt they had to get rid of Him before more followed his beliefs.  

[Calm]

On 4/22/2021 at 12:06 PM, Vellichor said:

This article may be of interest: https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/shame-mental-health-and-religion/?fbclid=IwAR1VBvGEMqNUNBaITmEPR5BI81dQPZ8y5kAauepuzlOMLq9JkMwt2sb75YU

It includes links that shed more light on this case.

A key sentence: "Natasha Helfer is not in trouble with the Church because the Church is trying to tell her how to do her job. She’s in trouble with the Church because she’s trying to tell it how to do its job."

 

I just read this and find it insightful and expresses well some concerns I have about the profession of therapist based on reports of students in grad programs or applying being told they should change their career or even are rejected from a program because of their personal beliefs as well as devout and doubting members who have expressed feeling pressured by therapists to change their religious beliefs (ranging from close family members to almost strangers).  I recognize this is anecdotal evidence, so while I have concerns I am not stating this is the current state of the profession. I would like to see Bennion’s evidence mentioned below, though his too may be anecdotal as it sounds like it is in the beginning stages. 

 

Quote

A simple solution would be to recognize that there are a variety of beliefs about these contentious issues and that we can each, as professionals of conscience, advocate for these different visions with respect and tolerance. However, Helfer and my colleagues who signed the letter do not make adequate space for a difference of opinion about this and other important matters of faith and values. 

Quote

I’m not the only one who sees increasing hostility to religion and traditional values in all of the mental health associations, so Helfer and her professional supporters might be correct that it is no longer possible to hold traditional beliefs about a host of important matters and be allowed to practice my profession. But I hope they are wrong, not only for my own professional standing, but even more seriously, for the people of faith who will never seek treatment in the first place, because they do not trust us to respect their deeply held beliefs.

 

Quote

There is chilling new evidence emerging that even many LDS therapists end up steering their clients away from nourishing faith practices that they profess to share, often doing great harm in the process. 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Other useful quotes Imo...I really don’t like the collapse quote feature. 

Quote

It is helpful for us to remember what therapists can do and what they can’t do. After all the ongoing abuses committed by the profession, after exposures of fraudulent research, and foundational studies retracted for failure to replicate, it is long past time we show a little intellectual humility in our “expert” pronouncements. It’s my job to help the client on the couch get better. It’s not my job as a therapist to tell “the Patriarchy,” or the Church, how they’re wrong and that its doctrines, beliefs, and practices must change. It’s also profoundly disempowering to tell our clients, as Helfer and others seem prone to do, that they don’t need to change, but that the rest of the world does [language warning]. We do our best work when we help clients build resilience and deal with the world as it is. While both clients and therapists can be agents of change in the world at large, our own healing cannot be held hostage waiting for 16 million Latter-day Saints to agree with us, not to mention most of the non-western world.

 

Quote

Even as she upbraids President Russell M. Nelson for harming her clients’ mental health, or isshocked that Elder Tad R. Callister (formerly of the Presidency of the Seventy) would share the Church’s position on sexual behavior with students at a Church-sponsored school, she also feels free to opine further on matters well outside her professional competence. For example, last year she wrote, “the true value of Christian theology is choosing relationship over ideology—every time.”

I am not a theologian either, but as a statement of theology, I find this lacking. That piece of pithy pablum is neither theology nor is it particularly Christian. It is also false, and she would know it if she gave it a moment’s thought. She would object, as would I, to telling a battered housewife to prioritize her relationship with her abusive husband over some abstract “ideology” that says she doesn’t deserve to be beaten and needs to leave immediately. It wouldn’t matter one whit to either of us that her husband says he wants to maintain a relationship with her. 

 

Quote

Of course, the issues of masturbation and pornography use are far less serious than criminal sexual assault, but the principle still applies: we can heal shame without undermining and casting off traditional moral standards. No question that shame often is one of the drivers of compulsive sexual behavior. But properly addressing this does not require us to tell our clients that there is nothing wrong with their behavior when their values tell them otherwise.  On the contrary, this is likely causing harm to some of them.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think Church leaders at the time of Christ were very sincere in protecting what they believed was right and looked at Jesus as a threat to their authority because He was teaching a different gospel and people were responding.  They felt they had to get rid of Him before more followed his beliefs.  

Seriously?  

The people that Christ called hypocrites and white sepulchers full of dead bones?  The people who paid Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray his friend and then wouldn't take the money back when he was wracked with guilt because it was blood money and they knew it was a sin to be associated with it?  The people who Christ accused of stealing money from poor and widows and used it to live lavishly?

These are the people who you judge to have been very sincere in their religious beliefs?

Paul was sincere.  He did horrible things but he did them because he sincerely believed what he was doing was right.  Christ called him to repentance and he immediately obeyed.  The religious leaders were not sincere.

And another thing.  If it's wrong for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to assume that people only leave the church for insincere reasons (as as to sin) then why isn't it wrong for you to assume that the leaders only do things for insincere reasons?

This whole line of reasoning seems like a giant double standard.

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Seriously?  

The people that Christ called hypocrites and white sepulchers full of dead bones?  The people who paid Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray his friend and then wouldn't take the money back when he was wracked with guilt because it was blood money and they knew it was a sin to be associated with it?  The people who Christ accused of stealing money from poor and widows and used it to live lavishly?

These are the people who you judge to have been very sincere in their religious beliefs?

Paul was sincere.  He did horrible things but he did them because he sincerely believed what he was doing was right.  Christ called him to repentance and he immediately obeyed.  The religious leaders were not sincere.

And another thing.  If it's wrong for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to assume that people only leave the church for insincere reasons (as as to sin) then why isn't it wrong for you to assume that the leaders only do things for insincere reasons?

This whole line of reasoning seems like a giant double standard.

When did I say that I thought church leaders are not sincere in their beliefs and actions?

I also did not say there was a direct comparison between church leaders but rather similar boundary protection which ultimately lead to Christ’s crucifixion

Edited April 24, 2021 by california boy

[Calm]

This may have already been posted, but a search didn’t bring it up.  I think it a useful summary of why it is appropriate to hold a council for the purpose of determining if Parker’s public advocacy crosses the line even if she sees it as part of her professional life.  
 

Quote

A Church statement explains why this conduct can lead to sanctions: “When [advocacy] goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause[,] or creating literature for members to share in their local congregations, the Church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled.”[8]

https://dwsrmwolf.wordpress.com/2021/04/19/excommunication-as-proper-boundary-maintenance/

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/19/2021 at 1:24 PM, helix said:

Then she insisted that the church is morally wrong for using the word pornography on Easter Sunday, as saying it will put porn in our minds, and that's wrong.

I’m confused. I thought she approved of pornography.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m confused. I thought she approved of pornography.

Maybe she approves for the couple to watch or read something together to help them get aroused. For some, especially if raised to believe it's a sin outside of marriage, it might be helpful to get in the mood, more for women then men probably. So I'm thinking for only those reasons. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m confused. I thought she approved of pornography.

It was a strange shaming, as from what I have read she sees porn as both positive and negative, so even if she accepts there is improper use, simply thinking about porn shouldn’t be inherently harmful, so what is the issue of it being mentioned across the pulpit triggering thinking about it?

 
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4409139&itype=CMSID#gallery-carousel-446996

Quote

Before we educate students about the positive and negative aspects of porn, we need a positive curriculum that educates them about sexuality and human development.

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

When did I say that I thought church leaders are not sincere in their beliefs and actions?

I also did not say there was a direct comparison between church leaders but rather similar boundary protection which ultimately lead to Christ’s crucifixion

If one group was not sincerely trying to do what they thought God wanted, but was instead trying to do what was necessary to keep their power base, and the other group is sincerely trying to do what God wanted, then there is no direct comparison and it's not similar boundary protection.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Seriously?  

The people that Christ called hypocrites and white sepulchers full of dead bones?  The people who paid Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray his friend and then wouldn't take the money back when he was wracked with guilt because it was blood money and they knew it was a sin to be associated with it?  The people who Christ accused of stealing money from poor and widows and used it to live lavishly?

These are the people who you judge to have been very sincere in their religious beliefs?

Paul was sincere.  He did horrible things but he did them because he sincerely believed what he was doing was right.  Christ called him to repentance and he immediately obeyed.  The religious leaders were not sincere.

And another thing.  If it's wrong for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to assume that people only leave the church for insincere reasons (as as to sin) then why isn't it wrong for you to assume that the leaders only do things for insincere reasons?

This whole line of reasoning seems like a giant double standard.

You might want to read some history about the Pharisees and the Sadducees outside the Bible. The writers of the gospels certainly had an agenda to paint the Jewish leaders in the worst light possible and indeed the Jews as well. So much pain and misery has been the result. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/20/2021 at 7:31 AM, Teancum said:

I n this case Natasha Helfer is fairly public through social media and a podcast so her Utah leaders easily have stalked her to see it she was an evil apostate quite easily.

Oh, please!    While anyone who has been the victim of genuine stalking has my sympathy (for the record it's reprehensible, if someone needs to see that I've said it) as someone who's been accused of stalking when I never have done anything of the sort, "stalking" is an overused word.  If everything referred to when someone decides to use the word "stalking" actually is stalking, then nothing is stalking.  It does a disservice to people who genuinely are terrorized.  With due respect, knock it off.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m confused. I thought she approved of pornography.

Apparently, if one is eighteen or older, anything goes.

P.S.: I'm not attributing that stance to Ms. Helfer Parker, lest there be any confusion.  She is, however, fond of invoking the "adulthood" trope when it comes to many things that leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have proclaimed are harmful.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe she approves for the couple to watch or read something together to help them get aroused. For some, especially if raised to believe it's a sin outside of marriage, it might be helpful to get in the mood, more for women then men probably. So I'm thinking for only those reasons. 

If one or the other of a couple need the aid of pornography to engage in intimate relations with a partner, in my opinion, there are deep, deep problems in the relationship that pornography will only greatly exacerbate, and will do nothing to solve.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Seriously?  

The people that Christ called hypocrites and white sepulchers full of dead bones?  The people who paid Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray his friend and then wouldn't take the money back when he was wracked with guilt because it was blood money and they knew it was a sin to be associated with it?  The people who Christ accused of stealing money from poor and widows and used it to live lavishly?

These are the people who you judge to have been very sincere in their religious beliefs?

Paul was sincere.  He did horrible things but he did them because he sincerely believed what he was doing was right.  Christ called him to repentance and he immediately obeyed.  The religious leaders were not sincere.

And another thing.  If it's wrong for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to assume that people only leave the church for insincere reasons (as as to sin) then why isn't it wrong for you to assume that the leaders only do things for insincere reasons?

This whole line of reasoning seems like a giant double standard.

Not to mention that insincerity is at the very core of hypocrisy.