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

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Don't do it.

I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND!!!

 

Fool me once...

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I always try to stay at least one step ahead of them...

On a not-unrelated note, is there a modern cure for the vapours, or is it still smelling salts?

Edited May 24, 2021 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

On a not-unrelated note, is there a modern cure for the vapours, or is it still smelling salts?

Definitely the ice bucket challenge.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Like your accusing the Church of Jesus Christ of “coercing” it’s members?  
 

Born and raised in the Church, active in it all my life, I’ve yet to encounter a single instance of coercion, not even from fellow members acting on their own part who, like me, are imperfect. 

You probably weren't told to marry a woman and promised if you did you would become straight did you.  Tell me that wouldn't have changed your entire life as well as the person you married.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

You probably weren't told to marry a woman and promised if you did you would become straight did you.  Tell me that wouldn't have changed your entire life as well as the person you married.

Sorry, but that doesn’t strike me as coercion, even if what you were told could be blamed on the Church, which, I’m not convinced it could. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, you're grossly exaggerating what I said. But I do enjoy seeing you in high dudgeon mode.

“Dudgeon”? Nah. You’re engaging in histrionics again. 
 

But if I were you, I’d be wary of using that word. I know what it means, but a person I know was permanently banned from this board for applying it to another poster when a member of the moderation team didn’t know the definition but was apparently certain it must be something perfectly vile. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70223-woman-loses-temple-recommend-for-talking-about-her-divorce/page/19/

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

“Dudgeon”? Nah. You’re engaging in histrionics again. 
 

But if I were you, I’d be wary of using that word. I know what it means, but a person I know was permanently banned from this board for applying it to another poster when a member of the moderation team didn’t know the definition but was apparently certain it must be something perfectly vile. 

Now that’s funny. No histrionics here, just enjoying the show. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Now that’s funny. No histrionics here, just enjoying the show. 

I’ll be here all week. Tell your friends. 
 

And try the chicken. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll be here all week. Tell your friends. 
 

And try the chicken. 

Now that’s offensive. 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry, but that doesn’t strike me as coercion, even if what you were told could be blamed on the Church, which, I’m not convinced it could. 

Of course you don't

[smac97]

It looks like Natasha Helfer is trying to add a minute or two to her Fifteen Minutes:

Quote

Sex therapist Lisa Butterworth has long been willing to delve into sensitive sexuality questions with clients who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They seek her out to have open and frank conversations about the faith's strict rules.

But after seeing another prominent sex therapist she considers a close friend and colleague recently kicked out of the church, Butterworth is worried fewer church members will seek help in fear of being reprimanded.

I think this would be a bit more compelling as a concern if there was . . . well, evidence of "members ... being reprimanded" for seeking therapeutic counsel.

It would also be a bit more compelling if Helfer's (former) stake president hadn't expressly rejected her claim that she was being disciplined because of her work as a therapist.

It would also be a bit more compelling if Helfer hadn't publicly called the leaders of the Church "patriarchal pricks" and thereafter doubled-down on that.

Quote

Butterworth, a church member living in Idaho, is among a contingent of mental health professionals who fear Natasha Helfer's ouster will further embolden a culture of shame. She wrote a letter condemning the decision that's been signed by over 800 mental health professionals.

Helfer was excommunicated and lost her appeal last month to remain in the faith known widely as the Mormon church — a move critics say reflects the church doubling down on some of its more conservative views on sexuality. The Salt Lake City-based church has cited comments she made in support of removing the stigma around pornography, masturbation and same-sex marriage, saying that contradicts church teachings.

Such an ouster is rare and is the harshest punishment available for a member of the faith like Helfer, who had cultivated a national reputation of pushing for mental health advocacy among church members. The majority of her patients come from a Latter-day Saint background, and many are mixed-faith couples in which one person belongs to the church and another has left.

"The majority of her patients come from a Latter-day Saint background."

Her obnoxious, intemperate, uncivil, boorish behavior, laid bare during her publicizing of her own membership council, may well have made observant Latter-day Saints less inclined to go to her for advice.  

So through her own misconduct she may have alienated some of her clientele.  And for that she blames . . . the Church.

Right.  That makes sense.

Quote

Lauren Rogers, who was raised in the church, started a petition urging the church to reverse the decision and organized a protest outside its Salt Lake City headquarters. She said she wanted to fight for Helfer after her brother was excommunicated in 2015 for sharing his experience as a gay church member online.

I don't know who Lauren Rogers' brother is, but I suspect that "excommunicated in 2015 for sharing his experience as a gay church member online" is not an altogether accurate summary of what happened.

Quote

"I wanted to make up for not being there for (my brother) and be there for this woman who was trying to protect people like him in the church," said Rogers, who lives in Maricopa, Arizona. "Excommunication needs to done away with. I think it's an abusive practice ... and it's a tool the church uses to silence people."

Excommunication is an unpleasant, by very necessary, component of "boundary maintenance."  Don Bradley said it well (responding to a comment I had made regarding the Calderwoods and Kate Kelly) :

Quote

Quote

Look, I don't want them 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.

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 

 

What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.

Back to the article:

Quote

Helfer said she fears her case could set a precedent for removing other professionals and result in devastating consequences for church members who may no longer feel safe seeking treatment.

"Doing this to me alone is sending the message both to clinicians and, more importantly, to the public that you shouldn't trust sex therapists," Helfer said. "Even if it doesn't necessarily mean that other professionals will directly be affected, it will affect the population as to who will seek out those kinds of services."

Sure, Natasha.  When and if such a pogrom happens, you can issue an "I told you so."  Otherwise...

Again, her stake president said that her work as a therapist was not a part of her losing her membership in the Church.

Quote

The message of Helfer's excommunication and that of other members seems to be that the faith can tolerate diverse opinions but "when that behavior seeks to influence others, then that's when the church takes official action," said Kathleen Flake, a professor of Mormon studies at the University of Virginia.
...
In Helfer's case, her former church leaders in Kansas sent her a letter in April after holding a disciplinary hearing explaining the reasons for her removal. The letter said her professional activities did not play a role but that she could no longer be a member because of a "pattern of clear and deliberate opposition to the Church, its doctrine, policies, and its leaders."

I think that's correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 9, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

It is unfortunate, but I see Helfer and others’ constant pushing of the narrative she was excommunicated for her therapy work as a more likely cause of fewer members seeking help than her actual excommunication as causing some to question the acceptance of therapy in the Church. If she had kept quiet about it, few would know in the first place and second, a number might have made assumptions that it was for other reasons. Plus it should be clear to the vast majority of members that publicly speaking out against the Church is the foundational issue, not therapy itself. 
 

It is not like the bishop or SP can access a database that lists everyone seeking therapy or the reasons why they do it. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Placing this here in case anyone's interested: https://kutv.com/news/local/body-cams-show-lds-leaders-asking-police-to-remove-excommunicated-therapist-and-supporters

[JustAnAustralian]

Parts of the body cam video were amusing. At ~24 minutes the police are explicitly telling a woman that the people in charge of the property have asked people to leave and instead of actually leaving, she's trying to convince them she has a right to be there.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Parts of the body cam video were amusing. At ~24 minutes the police are explicitly telling a woman that the people in charge of the property have asked people to leave and instead of actually leaving, she's trying to convince them she has a right to be there.

The variety in the reports is interesting as well, what details are used. One officer was consistently adding physical descriptions, for example. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

At ~24 minutes the police are explicitly telling a woman that the people in charge of the property have asked people to leave and instead of actually leaving, she's trying to convince them she has a right to be there.

The patience of the police is remarkable. Whenever I run across a slightly cranky officer, I remind myself that s/he has probably spent all day dealing with, at worst, criminals and, at best, insufferable, self-entitled gits. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Parts of the body cam video were amusing. At ~24 minutes the police are explicitly telling a woman that the people in charge of the property have asked people to leave and instead of actually leaving, she's trying to convince them she has a right to be there.

I also learned from the body cam video that the Stake President had been doxxed. Classy.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The patience of the police is remarkable. Whenever I run across a slightly cranky officer, I remind myself that s/he has probably spent all day dealing with, at worst, criminals and, at best, insufferable, self-entitled gits. 

From the police report: “She thanked us for doing our duty in this ridiculous situation. I told her this is not the most ridiculous thing we do.”

That struck me as funny. 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Parts of the body cam video were amusing. At ~24 minutes the police are explicitly telling a woman that the people in charge of the property have asked people to leave and instead of actually leaving, she's trying to convince them she has a right to be there.

Yep  It's almost like she was trying to provoke a confrontation or something.  

And why would the police say this:

Quote

“No one ever said you guys were being unruly. The person in charge wanted everybody to leave. Sorry that it comes to this, but that was their request and that’s why we’re here," an officer explained to a member of the group that was gathered in the parking lot.
...
"It was a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize us,” Helfer told 2News about local Church leaders calling police. “There’s been no precedence to any type of violence at these type of events. I’m not the first person where there’s been a support group at an ex-communication.”
...
Unable to reach an agreement on her having access to her phone during the council, Helfer says she was informed the hearing would take place without her. She went to the parking lot to be with the crowd gathered in her support, and that’s when police arrived.

Body-camera video recorded a church leader motioning an officer inside the building.

“We agreed to let them congregate in the pavilion, but now there’s no reason for them to be here. They’ve been very peaceful, they’ve been a little bit belligerent, but no threats of violence, though they’ve posted a lot of stuff on social media trying to drum up support,” the unidentified church leader said.

Officers spoke with several people in the group who objected to being told to leave the property.

“We’re just decent people. The police didn’t need to be brought into this,” one woman told the officer. “This is such a waste of your time thank you for doing your duty in a ridiculous situation.”

An officer wrote that he and the other officers "sat back and watched as the group of people slowly left the area."

Sounds like it was Helfer was doing the mischaracterizing.  She seems to have been claiming "local Church leaders" had accused her and her followers of engaging in, or threatening to engage in, "violence."

The lady claiming "{t}he police didn't need to be brought into this" was, I think, wrong.  When the owner of private property asks you to leave the property, and when you refuse to leave, and/or when your behavior exceeds the scope of the license upon which your presence on the property is predicated (such as Helfer yelling in the doorway, their loitering outside, etc.), then the owner calling the police is the appropriate course of action.  The police can facilitate a peaceful and orderly diffusion of the situation, as happened here.

The "unidentified church leader" was not only factually correct when he said "there's no reason for them to be here {now}," he was also prudent and likely prescient.  I wonder if he suspected, as I do, that Helfer and/or some of her supporters were hanging around the building so as to create a scene with the local church leaders as they left the building.  I further suspect that this confrontation would have been recorded on video and posted on social media to create further spectacle and controversy, to garner more attention and adulation for Helfer, and so on. 

Natasha Helfer continues to not impress.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 2, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

When the owner of private property asks you to leave the property, and when you refuse to leave, and/or when your behavior exceeds the scope of the license upon which your presence on the property is predicated

Something in one of the reports suggested to me they were trying to get more people to come down. I can imagine the Stake President didn’t want someone to have to stay all night just in case. 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds like it was Helfer was doing the mischaracterizing. 

It appears the only thing said was “they weren’t leaving”, which was true.  Even with the presence of the police they didn’t immediately cooperate.  Going off of memory but it sounds like it was at least 45 minutes or more by the time the last woman left (iirc, it took her another 20 minutes).

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Something in one of the reports suggested to me they were trying to get more people to come down. I can imagine the Stake President didn’t want someone to have to stay all night just in case. 

If so, that would only have exacerbated things.  Ratcheted the tension up, not down.  

And I have to think that a person of Helfer's intellect would know that, which would mean she was intending to make the situation worse.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

21 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Parts of the body cam video were amusing. At ~24 minutes the police are explicitly telling a woman that the people in charge of the property have asked people to leave and instead of actually leaving, she's trying to convince them she has a right to be there.

That last car was a hoot.

"Can I ask what the legal standing is for me since I'm a member of this faith and my tithing dollars helped [build this building]?"

Her companion: "We came here, we flew here, we bought tickets at the last minute [...] we kept our agreement at great cost to ourselves..."

The sniffles and open weeping, as the sun sets and darkness falls on their activism, and they weren't able to do much activism.  To be ushered off the property by cops.  It must have been quite a letdown.  Not even a reporter to talk to.

The bodycam continues to run for a while.  I hope the cop was able to leave before his shift ended.

Edited July 2, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Parts of the body cam video were amusing. At ~24 minutes the police are explicitly telling a woman that the people in charge of the property have asked people to leave and instead of actually leaving, she's trying to convince them she has a right to be there.

I don’t know what point they were trying to make about the presence of the “property owner,” but the bishop in this instance is the agent for the property owner. It’s not a difficult concept, really. 
 

And having paid tithing doesn’t bestow on anyone the right to squat on property in defiance of a request to vacate it. 
 

The police, by the way, behaved impeccably in this situation.