Mormon excommunication was not designed to happen this way, say scholars

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

I didn't find anything about my excommunication as being sacred.  It was more like shutting a door that would never be able to open again.  There wasn't any animosity.  It was more coming to grips that there would be no place for me in the Church ever again.  

I can see that from your perspective. The Spirit was always really strong at the ones I've been involved with --- they were special, sacred experiences. For the subjects of them, too. They were also very draining. 

I had a man who first came to me for help. He told me he was gay (which was a surprise), but didn't want to be. He had been involved with Evergreen and North Star, and their usefulness or effectiveness had expended itself. I was able to consult with Dr. Dean Byrd, who was very helpful and informative. He told us that some men are able to curtail gay tendencies, but most aren't able to (he said that any gay activity after the late teens drastically reduces the chances for success). For those who want to remain active and in good standing with the Church, they need to learn to come to terms with that and navigate that orientation within a context of keeping covenants and commandments. None of this was a surprise to him, but he had hoped that there might be some way.

He also wanted to square his life with the Church, and he agreed that he would need to be excommunicated to do that. He bore a very powerful testimony at his DC about God's existence, but he felt that God had tried and ultimately needed to give up on him (that broke my heart). He said that his mission was the only happy years of his life. He confessed to his mission president of things that he had lied about in order to go on his mission (involving homosexuality), and he wanted to send him home and excommunicate him, but in consulting with Salt Lake, Elder Ballard asked if he could speak with him (the missionary). After talking to him, he told the president that he felt we should leave him in his mission and let him complete it. 

After the announcement of excommunication, he thanked everyone and shook their hands, and then he said that he was not going to come through the doors of the Church again. This surprised all of us, because he had been supportive and cooperative, but he was hurting. 

He continued to come to church every Sunday in a white shirt and tie, and I left him his space for a few weeks because of what he had said (I said hi, of course). After a few weeks, I asked him if I could talk to him for just a few minutes. I told him that it was great to see him, but that I was surprised he was there because of what he had said. He replied that this is the only true church, and where else could he go? I still see him and say hi to him in the store when I see him (we're no longer in the same ward). 

I don't think he would say that the process was sacred to him, but it was to me. I think he would say that his feelings about the process are very complicated.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The principle here is not founded on hubris, but on scripture.

Scripture can contain hubris.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

1) For the 99%+ of disciplinary councils that involve adultery, fornication, etc., I think that all parties involved by mutually agreement agree on confidentiality and don't want any details released or discussed with the public.

Yep.

For the tiny percentage of people under discipline who want their council publicized, I think it's pretty much always based on bad motives.  They want to disrupt or, short of that, delegitimize the council.  They want to make the Church look bad.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

2) For the celebrity apostate circus-style ones, or even if there isn't a circus atmosphere, I think the best thing to do would be to assume that the subject will record and edit/release footage.

Yep.  And take countermeasures, such has having them sign an agreement to not record, and also having them leave recording devices outside the room.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think going through the non-disclosure theater is a waste of time and makes the Church look bad.

Hmm.  I think "non-disclosure theater" is giving the individual a chance to put pen to paper and thereafter act honorably.  It also is part of the "record," as a written agreement to not record, followed by the individual violating that agreement, would likely factor into the appeal.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Plus, the recorders and publishers feel like they are in the right in violating the non-disclosure, and the Church isn't going to (or be able to) enforce consequences for violating it beyond what probably would have happened in the DC anyway (where the Church technically could sue, it isn't going to out of PR reasons).

It's not about civil liability.  It's about reasonable measures to maintain confidentiality.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I would take that leverage away and simply assume they are going to record.

I don't understand.  You would let them record?  Even though the Church says not to?  Why would you go against the Church's express written policies?

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think what leaders could do better is to disarm the drum banging.

Okay.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Dispense with non-disclosure docs, assume it will be recorded

Sorry.  Can't go along with that.  It's akin to a "Heckler's Veto."  I see no reason for the Church to capitulate to deliberate and calculated misconduct.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

(and let that inform what is and isn't said),

Don't you see a problem with that?  Don't you see how that could undermine the effort of the parties to be candid with their thoughts?

I am currently having an exchange with an attorney.  I represent a real estate agency, and he represents a former employee of that agency who absconded with some client files.  He is being pretty candid in his communications because he knows that I can't use in court anything he says.  This is because Rule 408 of the Utah Rules of Evidence disallows the admission into evidence of "conduct or a statement made in compromise negotiations."  If that rule was not in place, compromise and settlement efforts would be very difficult.  Having the rule in place allows both sides a measure of "safety" in being candid about their respective positions.

I think something similar can be said regarding the Church's policies about confidentiality.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

and allow people to defend themselves as they see fit.

But that's the thing.  Recording the meeting virtually guarantees that people will not speak "as they see fit" because they know that whatever is said will be broadcast from the mountaintops.  It would materially alter the tone and tenor of the council, and not in a good way.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Even if that means you're subjected to a manifesto. I've had councils that last more than three hours from start to finish, and they weren't contentious.

Most councils aren't that long.  And don't need to be that long.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think the short limits on testimony and witnesses are unforced errors.

Sometimes, perhaps.  But then letting the individual dictate the length and content of the council could create substantially more problems.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It's the person's membership that's at stake, don't give him/her ammo to claim it was a kangaroo court or that the fix was in. 

I fear that what you are proposing would encourage disruptive, obnoxious behavior.  

It's the Church's meeting.  The bishop or stake president is the one presiding.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

3) In this particular case, with Helfer requesting a full high council court, I think they should have done so.

I don't.  In her email she made it clear that she wanted the council recorded and published to benefit "Mormon history."  It seemed pretty clear that she was trying to turn the council into a referendum on the Church and its doctrines and policies, rather than about her behavior.  She sure seemed to be working the media hard to craft a "they're just coming after me because I'm a modern-day Galileo-esque sex therapist" narrative prior to the hearing.

It was within the stake president's discretion to allow that or not.  He may have surmised - likely correctly, IMHO - that she had an ulterior motive for requesting High Council participation, and did not want to facilitate it.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The handbook allows for it in rare cases where it seems apropos, but with the cross-country and short time frame nature of it, they were boxed in and it was logistically difficult. 

And likely inappropriate.  From Section 32.9.2 of the Handbook:

Quote

32.9.2

High Council

Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when:

• There are contested facts.

• They would add value and balance.

• The member requests their participation.

• A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved (see 32.9.7).

Contested facts?  Apparently not.

Would they "add value and balance?"  Possibly, but that does not seem to be why she wanted their participation.  From her email to her stake president:

Quote

I would also like to request that all members of the high council attend this meeting. Section 32.9.2 of the General Handbook states “Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations. For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when: (bulleted point #3) the member requests their participation.” Please let them know on my behalf. 

I would like to request that I be informed, as soon as possible, of who will be present in this membership council, as well as their current callings in the Derby, Stake. 

So she wanted the High Council to participate because the Handbook says she can request their participation.

But then she went a step further and wanted the stake president to identify "who will be present in this membership council."  This request is from the same person who has gone to great lengths to sensationalize and publicize the council, who had a big "vigil" of supporters nearby, and who is so unapologetically crass as to publicly call the leaders of the Church "patriarchal pricks" and then brag about doing so later on.

Golly!  Why would this kind of person want prior disclosure of "who will be present in this membership council, as well as their current callings?"  Surely she wouldn't doxx them?  Surely she wouldn't set loose her supporters to contact and harass and attempt to influence (or even intimidate) these participants, or else publicly "out" them after the council if things hadn't gone her way?

Nah.  No chance of that.  Natasha Helfer-Parker has demonstrated restraint and self-discipline all the way down the line.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

In short, there are some simple things that could be done to disarm the inevitable atrocity stories in cases like this. 

And there are perhaps far more serious issues that could arise if the Church started to let people in open rebellion dictate how a membership council is to be administered.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet your are making a monster out of her.  Excessively. 

Piffle.  I have called her conduct immature, obnoxious, unseemly, and beneath her dignity.  

I have repeatedly characterized her as an experienced, well-educated, well-credentialed, intelligent person.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and disparaging her witnesses. 

Not really.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

After all they can't be objective correct? 

They aren't presenting themselves to be objective.  And I didn't fault them for being partial to Helfer-Parker.

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet the SP?  Wonderful dude.

You've met him, then?  You know him well?  You can speak intelligently as to his character?  Intelligence?  Spiritual acumen?  

Nope.  

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

For not being there you sure are making a lot of negative conclusions about Helfer and her witnesses.  Again, excessively.

Conclusions based on what she has freely admitted to, and what her supporters have publicly said/written about themselves.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I can't quite agree with you here.  I think she knew perfectly well that her clinical work was not relevant to the council.  I think she brought it up in order to deflect attention from her public statements about the Church and its leaders.  

It is intriguing to continue to watch you.  When I bring up things the SP could have done better you all but dismiss them.  Yet you impugn Helfer with the worst.  You were not there yet you describe her actions in the worst way possible.  You dismiss her points of what she tried to do to lead up to the council. Your ignore that fact that she agrees not to record the event and told those who attended with her not to as well. The vigil, which I watched some of, was a small group and quite calm and reserved.  You dismiss the account of the witness I posted and biased, emotional and having an agenda?  And you aren't and don't? You have no reason to question the integrity of her account other than it does not fit your interpretation of the event and your narrative.  And now you are a mind reader and again impugn Helfer with the worst motives.  In the other thread you mentioned having trouble taking me seriously after one of my comments.  Well after the last few posts by you I am struggling to take you seriously as well.  

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I can see that from your perspective. The Spirit was always really strong at the ones I've been involved with --- they were special, sacred experiences. For the subjects of them, too. They were also very draining. 

I had a man who first came to me for help. He told me he was gay (which was a surprise), but didn't want to be. He had been involved with Evergreen and North Star, and their usefulness or effectiveness had expended itself. I was able to consult with Dr. Dean Byrd, who was very helpful and informative. He told us that some men are able to curtail gay tendencies, but most aren't able to (he said that any gay activity after the late teens drastically reduces the chances for success). For those who want to remain active and in good standing with the Church, they need to learn to come to terms with that and navigate that orientation within a context of keeping covenants and commandments. None of this was a surprise to him, but he had hoped that there might be some way.

He also wanted to square his life with the Church, and he agreed that he would need to be excommunicated to do that. He bore a very powerful testimony at his DC about God's existence, but he felt that God had tried and ultimately needed to give up on him (that broke my heart). He said that his mission was the only happy years of his life. He confessed to his mission president of things that he had lied about in order to go on his mission (involving homosexuality), and he wanted to send him home and excommunicate him, but in consulting with Salt Lake, Elder Ballard asked if he could speak with him (the missionary). After talking to him, he told the president that he felt we should leave him in his mission and let him complete it. 

After the announcement of excommunication, he thanked everyone and shook their hands, and then he said that he was not going to come through the doors of the Church again. This surprised all of us, because he had been supportive and cooperative, but he was hurting. 

He continued to come to church every Sunday in a white shirt and tie, and I left him his space for a few weeks because of what he had said (I said hi, of course). After a few weeks, I asked him if I could talk to him for just a few minutes. I told him that it was great to see him, but that I was surprised he was there because of what he had said. He replied that this is the only true church, and where else could he go? I still see him and say hi to him in the store when I see him (we're no longer in the same ward). 

I don't think he would say that the process was sacred to him, but it was to me. I think he would say that his feelings about the process are very complicated.

This is much closer to what my experience is.  I think it is a common path for those of us who are gay.  I have heard many similar stories time and time again.  I probably knew at age 12 when I first realized I was gay how this would always end.  But like your friend, I made a valiant effort to have a different outcome.  Like most of us, I struggled for years to try and become straight.  Did everything the Church asked me to do including a mission, getting married, serving wherever asked and as diligent as I could.  Attended Evergreen, and even flew down to Los Angeles to meet regularly with David Matherson the principle author of the Evergreen manual who claimed to be able to use reparative therapy to overcome being gay. Yeah the same guy who a couple of years ago, announced that he was unable to overcome being gay and now has a male partner.  It is the path that most gay members walk.  There is nothing sacred about this path or the court that finalizes that relationship with the Church.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Frankly, I find that hard to belief.  Every disciplinary council in which I have participated has ended with words of kindness, warmth, and an invitation to repent and return to fellowship in the Church.

Again, I have a hard time believing that.  It is just too far removed from my experience in the Church, and from the doctrines and policies and practices of the Church.  

In virtually every circumstance, the door is always "open" to the individual.  There is always a place for you in the Church.  I have a hard time believing that you were told otherwise.

Of course you know more about my excommunication than I do.  You always do.

I've spent years listening to you rail against the Church.  Many hundreds of posts.  You haven't been shy about expressing your opinions.  No problem there.

But when you come along and make assertions which seem facially unlikely, which contravene the doctrines and practices of the Church, which run counter to my fairly extensive personal experience in terms of disciplinary councils, which - not surprisingly - cast the Church in a bad light, I have a hard time going along with that.

I've never claimed to know more about your excommunication than you do.  What I am saying is that your characterization of it seems pretty . . . off.  Very different from every experience I have had in disciplinary councils.  It just seems unlikely that you were told that "the door" to the Church is forever and permanently closed to you, and that there will never be a place for you in the Church.

I just don't believe such things were said.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They aren't presenting themselves to be objective.

Nor are you. Not  one whit.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I think "non-disclosure theater" is giving the individual a chance to put pen to paper and thereafter act honorably.  It also is part of the "record," as a written agreement to not record, followed by the individual violating that agreement, would likely factor into the appeal.  

It does do that, and people can complain when people violate what they had agreed to do. But, that won't matter at all to people who think that the Church is wrong and abusive. Any and all means, even lying on a form, are fair play to them.

In Helfer's case, she and the witnesses signed the agreements, yet the theater still threw a wrench in the works (intentionally on their part, I think).

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  You would let them record?  Even though the Church says not to?  Why would you go against the Church's express written policies?

I wouldn't encourage or "allow" it. But, I would recognize the reality on the ground that they (celebrity apostate types) are probably going to, even if they say they won't. That's better than not letting people use the restroom and acting really paranoid about it. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry.  Can't go along with that.  It's akin to a "Heckler's Veto."  I see no reason for the Church to capitulate to deliberate and calculated misconduct.

Then these high-profile councils are never going to be held with the people and witnesses there. There is going to be this non-disclosure/device theater at every one of them.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Don't you see a problem with that [assuming something might be recorded]?  Don't you see how that could undermine the effort of the parties to be candid with their thoughts?

I absolutely see that. It isn't ideal, but there is no way to enforce it, short of getting jamming equipment from the Israeli government.  Being aware of the possibility of being recorded does help the leaders to think carefully about what they say (and don't say), and how it's said. It does inhibit being completely candid, but I think that is the "best of all possible worlds," given the circumstances. 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that's the thing.  Recording the meeting virtually guarantees that people will not speak "as they see fit" because they know that whatever is said will be broadcast from the mountaintops.  It would materially alter the tone and tenor of the council, and not in a good way.

In the apostates' case, I think it would lead to grandstanding and pompousness, which gives them more rope to hang themselves with. That's not ideal as far as tone and tenor, I agree. In the leaders' case, I think it affords the opportunity to come across well. All under the assumption of possible recording, not known recording. They should not knowingly be recorded.

 

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Contested facts?  Apparently not.

Would they "add value and balance?"  Possibly, but that does not seem to be why she wanted their participation.

They are contested inasmuch as she denies that what the stake president saw in her statements constitutes what he saw in them.

Hers is certainly one of the "difficult cases" of D&C 102 and the new handbook. I think high council deliberation at a minimum would have been useful and helpful. And it would have given her a meaningful and harmless concession. I'm not saying that leaders (who preside) have to make "concessions," but where they can be made while adding value, why not? 

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I can't quite agree with you here.  I think she knew perfectly well that her clinical work was not relevant to the council.  I think she brought it up in order to deflect attention from her public statements about the Church and its leaders.  

It is intriguing to continue to watch you. 

It's sort of tiresome watch you continue to personalize this thread.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

When I bring up things the SP could have done better you all but dismiss them. 

I don't dismiss them.  I place them within the circle of things he could have done.  What I am not doing is following your example and replacing could with should.

The stake president was there.  You and I weren't.  The stake president had a number of options available to him that were well within his discretionary authority.  He exercised that discretion.  That's it, then.  Not much point in carping about what he could have done.  You, then, seem to want to declare what he should have done.  I just won't follow you there.  I'll not second guess the stake president as to his reasonably-made discretionary decisions.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet you impugn Helfer with the worst. 

Piffle.  I have said her behavior was inappropriate, unseemly, obnoxious, and immature.  Because, well, it was.

I have also noted, repeatedly, that she is an intelligent, experienced, well-educated and well-credentialed person.  Her behavior was well beneath her dignity.  

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You were not there yet you describe her actions in the worst way possible. 

No, I don't.  

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You dismiss her points of what she tried to do to lead up to the council.

No, I don't.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your ignore that fact that she agrees not to record the event and told those who attended with her not to as well.

No, I don't ignore that fact.  I just don't find it dispositive. 

She had publicized and sensationalized the council, rather than keep it a private, quiet religious meeting. 

She had asked for the High Council to participate, and then asked for them to be identified by name ahead of time.  Golly, no alarm bells going off with that request!

She showed up with a recording device in her hand and refused to leave it outside.

She then started yelling in anger at the doorway.  Of the stake center.  A consecrated building.

And she had previously publicly called the leaders of the Church "patriarchal pricks," and thereafter bragged about and repeated that calumny.

I'm looking at all of the surrounding facts and circumstances that have been discussed.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The vigil, which I watched some of, was a small group and quite calm and reserved. 

I'm glad to hear that.  Would that Helfer-Parker had behaved that way.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You dismiss the account of the witness I posted and biased, emotional and having an agenda? 

I discount it because it comes across as biased, emotional, and heavily slanted and unfair, yes.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And you aren't and don't?

I do try to rise above my biases and emotions.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You have no reason to question the integrity of her account other than it does not fit your interpretation of the event and your narrative. 

Tell you what.  I'll tell you what I think, and I'll let you tell me what you think.  I'll refrain from telling you what you think and what your motives are, and ask that you reciprocate.  How's that?

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And now you are a mind reader and again impugn Helfer with the worst motives. 

I haven't read minds.  I've read words.  And listened to audio files, and watched video files.  

It doesn't take a mind-reader to read Helfer-Parker's account of her own behavior and find that she behaved in an unseemly, inappropriate, uncivil way.

It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that Helfer-Parker is an experienced, educated and intelligent person.

It doesn't take a mind-reader to find her self-described behavior as being quite incongruent with her status as an experienced, educated and intelligent person.

It doesn't take a mind-reader to surmise that Helfer-Parker would likely not behave that way in a clinical setting, or in a courtroom, or in any other venue where civility, decorum, and basic notions of good behavior are not only expected, but required.

It doesn't take a mind-reader to survey all of her conduct prior to, during and after the council and reach reasoned and informed conclusions about what she did, and likely why.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In the other thread you mentioned having trouble taking me seriously after one of my comments.  Well after the last few posts by you I am struggling to take you seriously as well.  

I can deal with that.  Particularly if it means you will stop personalizing this thread by trying to make it about me instead of the topic at hand.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

can deal with that.  Particularly if it means you will stop personalizing this thread by trying to make it about me instead of the topic at hand.

Fair enough. I think we have exhausted the topic anway.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

They are contested inasmuch as she denies that what the stake president saw in her statements constitutes what he saw in them.

This is sort of where my experience as a lawyer kicks in.  What you are saying here is that the facts are "contested" if she views them in a way differently than her stake president does.

But that's not how I see things.  A "fact" is contested if the parties disagree as to what happened.  The who, what, when, where.  

Differences in perspectives on what the facts mean does not make the facts "contested."  In legal parlance, judges are asked to make both "findings of fact" (what happened) and "conclusions of law" (how the law should be applied to those facts).  

As regarding Helfer-Parker, the "findings of fact" (what she said/wrote) are apparently not in dispute.  The "conclusions of law" (whether what she has said/written amounts to apostasy) is very much in dispute.  And that's fine.  She can argue "the law" all she likes.  But I don't think she was trying to do that, as evidenced by her efforts to characterize the council as a referendum on her clinical work, rather than on her public statements about the Church.  

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Hers is certainly one of the "difficult cases" of D&C 102 and the new handbook.

Well, maybe.  Maybe not.  That there are strong emotions involved doesn't mean the case is difficult.

I have not done much of a survey of the writings of Natasha Helfer-Parker.  What I did survey I found to be pretty good (in the clinical sex therapist context).  However, I suspect she has said and done a lot of things that could reasonably be construed as "apostasy."  From Section 32.6.3.2 of the Handbook:

Quote

32.6.3.2

Apostasy

Issues of apostasy often have an impact beyond the boundaries of a ward or stake. They need to be addressed promptly to protect others.

The bishop counsels with the stake president if he feels that a member’s action may constitute apostasy. The bishop or stake president may place informal membership restrictions on the member (see 32.8.3). The stake president promptly counsels with the Area Presidency. However, only the stake president decides whether a membership council or other action is necessary.

As used here, apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following:

• 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.)

The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a person who has sinned. “But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people” (3 Nephi 18:31).

I think the first three bullets are likely indicative of the concerns of the stake president.

We don't know the particulars of what triggered the council.  

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think high council deliberation at a minimum would have been useful and helpful.

I agree. 

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

And it would have given her a meaningful and harmless concession.

What are your thoughts about her wanting their names disclosed to her beforehand?  Any warning bells about that part of her request?

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not saying that leaders (who preside) have to make "concessions," but where they can be made while adding value, why not? 

A fair point.  If I had been in the stake president's shoes, I would have been pretty concerned about her request for the High Council to participate, coupled as it was with a request that the participants be identified and disclosed to her ahead of time.  Given what behavior I have seen from her, that would have set off all sorts of warning bells about her trying to doxx the High Council members, either beforehand (to influence them to her point of view) or afterwards (to shame or "call them out" if things hadn't gone her way).  It would also have made me leery about her trying to turn the council into a referendum on the Church's doctrines and policies, rather than on her conduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've spent years listening to you rail against the Church.  Many hundreds of posts.  You haven't been shy about expressing your opinions.  No problem there.

But when you come along and make assertions which seem facially unlikely, which contravene the doctrines and practices of the Church, which run counter to my fairly extensive personal experience in terms of disciplinary councils, which - not surprisingly - cast the Church in a bad light, I have a hard time going along with that.

I've never claimed to know more about your excommunication than you do.  What I am saying is that your characterization of it seems pretty . . . off.  Very different from every experience I have had in disciplinary councils.  It just seems unlikely that you were told that "the door" to the Church is forever and permanently closed to you, and that there will never be a place for you in the Church.

I just don't believe such things were said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is this an accusation of lying?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

I just don't believe such things were said.

Is this an accusation of lying?

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting.  You state that the poster has a long history of railing against the church (thus establishing motive), you state that none of your experiences resemble his reported experience (thus establishing your 'normative' situation), and then you conclude by stating that you don't believe that the things he reports were said were ever actually said.  That leaves you with two possibilities: 1) CB's memory of an event in which he participated is faulty; or 2), he is lying.  You are walking a fine line, counselor.

[MiserereNobis]

I say you take a page from the history of the Catholic Church. Man, we used to really know how to run discipline courts...

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I say you take a page from the history of the Catholic Church. Man, we used to really know how to run discipline courts...

Yeah, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about her wanting their names disclosed to her beforehand?  Any warning bells about that part of her request?

That was an unreasonable and unnecessary demand/request. Providing a high council court is reasonable, but she doesn't need to know their names in advance. As you point out, only mischief lay behind that request. 

 

[smac97]

Just now, rongo said:

Quote

What are your thoughts about her wanting their names disclosed to her beforehand?  Any warning bells about that part of her request?

That was an unreasonable and unnecessary demand/request. Providing a high council court is reasonable, but she doesn't need to know their names in advance. As you point out, only mischief lay behind that request. 

But if "mischief lay behind" the request for the High Councils members to be identified to her beforehand, would it have been reasonable to suspect that the request for the High Council participation to also have "mischief" behind it?  That she was looking to turn the council into a spectacle?  Into a referendum on the Church's doctrines and policies, rather than on her conduct?

For me, the second part of the request (identifying the HC members) tainted the first part (requesting their participation).  YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Spanish? Piffle (to use smac's word). Let's go bigger to the inquisition that has full jurisdiction over the entire Church. It used to be called the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition." Now with that title, you know these guys mean business, but then someone wimped out and renamed it to its current name of "Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith." I hope they don't rename it again to "courts of love"  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Spanish? Piffle (to use smac's word). Let's go bigger to the inquisition that has full jurisdiction over the entire Church. It used to be called the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition." Now with that title, you know these guys mean business, but then someone wimped out and renamed it to its current name of "Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith." I hope they don't rename it again to "courts of love"  

As long as among their weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms, I'm good.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But if "mischief lay behind" the request for the High Councils members to be identified to her beforehand, would it have been reasonable to suspect that the request for the High Council participation to also have "mischief" behind it?  That she was looking to turn the council into a spectacle?  Into a referendum on the Church's doctrines and policies, rather than on her conduct?

For me, the second part of the request (identifying the HC members) tainted the first part (requesting their participation).  YMMV.

Sure, but no harm accrues from them simply being there and participating in the process (without providing her a roster beforehand). That's a "concession" you can easily grant her, while adding value to the council anyway, in my view. Even if her motives for wanting a larger audience than just the stake presidency aren't good. 

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It seems like there are three options for her focus on it being her work as a sex therapist that caused the excommunication. 

1) She did not understand the outreach (failure of the bishop and SP to be clear).  2) She did understand the stated outreach and reasons for the counsel but she thinks they are lying.  3) She knows it's not because of her work as a sex therapist but she plays to that angle because she believes it will get her the most sympathy and supporters.

Sadly, because I've followed her since 2013 and believe she is intelligent, I think the correct answer is #3. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure, but no harm accrues from them simply being there and participating in the process (without providing her a roster beforehand). That's a "concession" you can easily grant her, while adding value to the council anyway, in my view. Even if her motives for wanting a larger audience than just the stake presidency aren't good. 

Fair enough.  Point well made.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because they are not intended to be a dog-and-pony show, or a venue for someone in a state of rebellion to publicly "show up" the Church.

Removed because I really don't have the energy to quibble over such a menial subject.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Damien the Leper