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

[JustAnAustralian]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I don't think I said a "few people" did I?

No I'll admit that numbers weren't specified.

[mgy401]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As long as we are talking about "fortunes" and being able to help, its my understanding that a certain organization has a real fortune to the tune of 125 billion in cash and assets. Seems like they could help out too, no?

But then, the Church isn’t the entity whining about how the supposed unfairness of the proceeding in the first place.  And of course, the gravamen of the proceeding is that she’s actively trying to undercut the Church’s mission by justifying sin.  I realize that it would be a sort of utopia for some folks to see the Church compelled to actually pay its critics for their “services”,  but that’s not really how the world works . . .

[HappyJackWagon]

On 4/16/2021 at 7:15 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I was referring to the fortune Dehlin has amassed online for his anti-Mormon podcast.  Boundary maintenance is a scholarly term used by Shipps to refer to the rules of various organizations to maintain their integrity.  This applies to the Roman Catholics as much as to Presbyterians and Mormons.

The reason is the same as when any ordinary civil or criminal trial is held in a given jurisdiction.  They do not usually move the venue for the convenience of the defendant.  It is entirely normal to hold trials where the violation occurred.  It isn't a Mormon thing, it is just ordinary procedure.

OK. So we can just accept it's a trial. Call it a church court. Get away from the euphemisms of it being court of love. She is a defendant and apparently presumed guilty. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On 4/16/2021 at 7:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yup.  If a lie is just an accusation from someone that there was a lie, of course.  Is that your standard for lies?  Mere assertion?  Does evidence ever matter?  In the tis-so, tis-not world, I expect that sort of thing.  Is that as far as you go, or do you have a better approach?  Somebody will probably counter that Trump has integrity and never lies, and that Q-anon is a teller of truth. 

That is just a mess of a paragraph. Could you rephrase?

[HappyJackWagon]

Do we know the result of Natasha's trial?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

But then, the Church isn’t the entity whining about how the supposed unfairness of the proceeding in the first place.  

Right. Why would they be complaining exactly? They are doing what’s most convenient for themselves. 

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

And of course, the gravamen of the proceeding is that she’s actively trying to undercut the Church’s mission by justifying sin.  I realize that it would be a sort of utopia for some folks to see the Church compelled to actually pay its critics for their “services”,  but that’s not really how the world works . . .

What are you talking about? How is reimbursing travel expenses paying “critics for their ‘services’”?

To be clear, the church can do whatever it wants. It’s a free country.

The optics of making a single Mom travel to a place she hasn’t lived for 18 months on short notice aren’t awesome. 
 

If amassing a “fortune” obligates someone to pay for the travel expenses (which I don’t think it does), we shouldn’t be looking to John Delhin here. The church is good for it. 

[helix]

On 4/16/2021 at 10:20 AM, rongo said:

No, her case is definitely in the "apostasy" pile, not the "sin" pile.

As has been said earlier in the thread, her views on their own wouldn't get her in trouble, in and of themselves. It is her public advocacy and criticism of the Church that is the problem. People on this thread who agree with all or many of her points aren't giving interviews, making videos, on John Dehlin's board, and rallying the troops for petitions. 

This is the classic celebrity disciplinary council trajectory. You can bet that there are going to be candlelight vigils at the stake center. If she's smart, she won't do selfie videos with Mike Norton about it.    Think Sam Young will show up in Kansas and self-promote?

A near perfect prediction.  Except at the end, replace Mike Norton with John Dehlin.

[Harry T. Clark]

On 4/16/2021 at 12:43 AM, 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.

I'll remember to stay off your lawn and tell my kids to do the same.  Do you always accuse those who ask you questions about your motivations of lying?  Maybe that says something about why you seemed to bring out the tried and true "the excommunication must be about sexual transgression" meme to support your approval of the Kansas stake taking jurisdiction over this matter?  In any case, I think the accused has an obvious disagreement with the church over sex and what is sexual transgression.  Her views aren't confined to Kansas and her views follow her personally.  As a practicing attorney, there are cases where the jurisdiction over a case follows the person. Divorce is one.  In a defamation case, jurisdiction can occur where the defamation was made or where it landed.  A lot of times, jurisdiction turns on the convenience of the parties.  In this case, the accused is committing apostasy acts all over the internet and not just in Kansas.  Perhaps there are witnesses in Kansas but does the case actually turn on the witnesses there?  I think her views govern regardless of what a witness says because I don't think the accused will deny her views.  So, why are the witnesses even needed?  Just ask her and she will try to defend her apostasy or at least admit to promoting her views openly.  Nothing more would be needed to prove the case.  But let's give Dehlin another p.r. spectacle so we can pretend that the leadership doesn't insert itself into these matters.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do we know the result of Natasha's trial?

I think they said it was cancelled because she would not hand over her phone (she said she had notes on it) before going in.  And then the police were called to get her supporters off the property.  I'm guessing they will reschedule.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do we know the result of Natasha's trial?

Turned into a bit of a circus. 

[Kenngo1969]

Weird.  There's nothing on her blog since September of 2020.  Perhaps COVID-19 has made us all less interested in s*x therapy?     https://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The optics of making a single Mom who has declared open war against fundamental teachings of the Church and wants to continue to wage that war from under the umbrella of her nominal church membership travel to a place she hasn’t lived for 18 months on short notice aren’t awesome. 
 

FIFY.   

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If amassing a “fortune” obligates someone to pay for the travel expenses (which I don’t think it does), we shouldn’t be looking to John Delhin here. The church is good for it. 

Robert can speak to himself; but from my perspective it’s not a mere matter of whoever has more resources.  It’s a matter of who has the resources and wants to help Helfer achieve her objectives.

The Church doesn’t.  Dehlin, apparently, does.  

[helix]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Turned into a bit of a circus. 

Exactly what she and John Dehlin wanted.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

FIFY.   

Just FYI, that is explicitly against board guidelines. Don’t want to see you get banned. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

and wants to help Helfer achieve her objectives.

How exactly does attending a disciplinary council (membership council?) help Helfer achieve her objectives? And what are the church’s stated purposes for these council’s? Don’t they want to help their members repent? Is this better achieved by meeting in person, or not?

Edited April 19, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, helix said:

Exactly what she and John Dehlin wanted.

I'm not one for mind reading; you're welcome to take that exercise elsewhere.

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

what are the church’s stated purposes for these council’s? Don’t they want to help their members repent? Is this better achieved by meeting in person, or not?

"Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal

1. Help protect others

2. Help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance

3. Protect the integrity of the Church"

 

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Don’t they want to help their members repent? Is this better achieved by meeting in person, or not?

"Restricting or withdrawing a person’s membership is not intended to punish. Rather, these actions are sometimes necessary to help a person repent and experience a change of heart. They also give a person time to prepare spiritually to renew and keep his or her covenants again."

 

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

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I'll remember to stay off your lawn and tell my kids to do the same.  Do you always accuse those who ask you questions about your motivations of lying?  Maybe that says something about why you seemed to bring out the tried and true "the excommunication must be about sexual transgression" meme to support your approval of the Kansas stake taking jurisdiction over this matter? 

You have now lied about what I actually said twice, Harry.  At least you are consistent.  It is usually advisable to read what someone has actually said before lashing them with false claims.  Well, pettifogging makes short work of such ethical norms.

33 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

In any case, I think the accused has an obvious disagreement with the church over sex and what is sexual transgression.  Her views aren't confined to Kansas and her views follow her personally.  As a practicing attorney, there are cases where the jurisdiction over a case follows the person. Divorce is one.  In a defamation case, jurisdiction can occur where the defamation was made or where it landed.  A lot of times, jurisdiction turns on the convenience of the parties.  In this case, the accused is committing apostasy acts all over the internet and not just in Kansas.  Perhaps there are witnesses in Kansas but does the case actually turn on the witnesses there?  I think her views govern regardless of what a witness says because I don't think the accused will deny her views.  So, why are the witnesses even needed?  Just ask her and she will try to defend her apostasy or at least admit to promoting her views openly.  Nothing more would be needed to prove the case.  But let's give Dehlin another p.r. spectacle so we can pretend that the leadership doesn't insert itself into these matters.

I have no problem with Dehlin producing another spectacle, and I see no reason why we should try to prevent that.  What would be helpful would be for ignorant observers from the sidelines to stop pontificating about what the case entails when in fact they don't actually have the facts at hand.  Let the case go forward as the local authorities wish to take it forward.  I see no reason to second guess them.

At the same time, if I were Dr Dehlin (who may believe that the LDS Church is an evil, conspiratorial corporation), I would make every effort to obtain surreptitious recordings of a trial and then broadcast it far and wide.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is just a mess of a paragraph. Could you rephrase?

You can see from my emoji that I am probably not capable of rephrasing. 

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do we know the result of Natasha's trial?

Has her trial already been held?

[helix]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How exactly does attending a disciplinary council (membership council?) help Helfer achieve her objectives? And what are the church’s stated purposes for these council’s? Don’t they want to help their members repent? Is this better achieved by meeting in person, or not?

Her stated goal is attention.  We've all seen this dog and pony show before, many times.  She wants to give the church a black eye and get as many followers to her cause as she can on her way out.  She's crafting a narrative that the church is punishing her for believing in science, instead of for her open attacks on the church and insisting she is a rightful authority on the definition of sin. 

The church's goal is repentance and/or clarity of teachings.  Some individuals enter these councils wanting to improve.  Some do not and their positions are incompatible with this church.  The church's goal is NOT intimidation to others, as the church deliberately tries to keep these meetings quiet and personal.

She and Dehlin are deliberately milking this attention and spinning the narrative as negatively as they can for the church.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK. So we can just accept it's a trial. Call it a church court. Get away from the euphemisms of it being court of love. She is a defendant and apparently presumed guilty. 

Is the terminology important to you, or are we permitted to use generic terms?  Anti-Mormon Chuck Larson told a meeting of his anti-Mormon friends that his LDS trial had been a "court of love."  I was at that meeting, as was Gene England.  If such trials are so horrible, and if guilt is assumed before the fact, why would someone like Larson not complain?

Moreover, I thought we lived in a country in which innocence was presumed until proven guilty.  Perhaps you don't agree.

[rongo]

Granted, this is speculation about unknown things, but . . . this is a message board.

Helfer has quoted from her summons letter, but has not posted a copy of it (unlike most of these other celebrity disciplinary council media campaigns) because it „contains some personal details.“ That sounds to me like there might be more going on than what people assume (assumption: it’s for her public criticism and opposition to the Church). In other words, it might be at least partially for cause (adultery, etc.), and not just for public apostasy. That would go against her martyr narrative.

As far as the other items she gave as reasons:

1) Public advocacy of marriage equality: This would depend on how adversarial she’s been against the Church, publicly. I don’t think harboring these views, and even discussing them with people would trigger disciplinary action unless it rose to the level of publicly attacking the Church. It’s defnitely contra to Church doctrine and policy.

2) Teaching that masturbation is healthy and not a sin: This is definitely contra to Church doctrine and policy. I don’t think advising people in this way professionally would be a problem, but publicly condemning the Church over it very well could.

3) Teaching that sexually explicit materials is healthy and not a sin: See #2 above. I don’t personally think that either #2 or #3 are healthy or not a sin, but I think #3 is worse, even if the APA considers this to be „best practices.“ At the very least, publicly criticizing and condemning the Church over this one might prompt the Church to act.

4) Public criticism of Church leaders: I don’t know how far she’s gone with this one, but this can definitely be actionable.

5) Urging people to leave the Church: She denies this, but there may be written and video evidence to the contrary. If true, I believe that it would be actionable.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think they said it was cancelled because she would not hand over her phone (she said she had notes on it) before going in.  And then the police were called to get her supporters off the property.  I'm guessing they will reschedule.

Oh...wow.

Did they tell her in advance to bring notes on something other than an electronic device? That seems reasonable for her to bring info/notes on her phone. I'm assuming they were trying to prevent her from recording the proceedings. I wonder if they asked her not to and she refused or if they just didn't believe her when she said she wouldn't.

So now she has to fly home and then do another round trip to Kansas for this spectacle? This whole thing is a fiasco.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is the terminology important to you, or are we permitted to use generic terms?  Anti-Mormon Chuck Larson told a meeting of his anti-Mormon friends that his LDS trial had been a "court of love."  I was at that meeting, as was Gene England.  If such trials are so horrible, and if guilt is assumed before the fact, why would someone like Larson not complain?

Moreover, I thought we lived in a country in which innocence was presumed until proven guilty.  Perhaps you don't agree.

I assume you mean anti-member-of the church-of jesus christ-of latter-day saints.  

I did too. You seem very fine with treating her as guilty and inconvenience to her be damned. After all, she kind of deserves it, right?

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Granted, this is speculation about unknown things, but . . . this is a message board.

Helfer has quoted from her summons letter, but has not posted a copy of it (unlike most of these other celebrity disciplinary council media campaigns) because it „contains some personal details.“ That sounds to me like there might be more going on than what people assume (assumption: it’s for her public criticism and opposition to the Church). In other words, it might be at least partially for cause (adultery, etc.), and not just for public apostasy. That would go against her martyr narrative.

As far as the other items she gave as reasons:

1) Public advocacy of marriage equality: This would depend on how adversarial she’s been against the Church, publicly. I don’t think harboring these views, and even discussing them with people would trigger disciplinary action unless it rose to the level of publicly attacking the Church. It’s defnitely contra to Church doctrine and policy.

2) Teaching that masturbation is healthy and not a sin: This is definitely contra to Church doctrine and policy. I don’t think advising people in this way professionally would be a problem, but publicly condemning the Church over it very well could.

3) Teaching that sexually explicit materials is healthy and not a sin: See #2 above. I don’t personally think that either #2 or #3 are healthy or not a sin, but I think #3 is worse, even if the APA considers this to be „best practices.“ At the very least, publicly criticizing and condemning the Church over this one might prompt the Church to act.

4) Public criticism of Church leaders: I don’t know how far she’s gone with this one, but this can definitely be actionable.

5) Urging people to leave the Church: She denies this, but there may be written and video evidence to the contrary. If true, I believe that it would be actionable.

Apparently she went through a divorce and her ex-husband works with/for the Stake President. Kind of adds a layer of ICK to the whole thing for me. Who knows what salacious, personal accusations could have been funneled from her ex to the SP.