TR revoked for #metoo apostasy

[_Water Dog]

http://kutv.com/news/local/church-remov ... er-divorce

Not sure how I feel about this. I think I disagree with everybody, but if I have to choose sides I think I side with the stake president on this. Thoughts?

In context this woman was stirring up drama at church, going around telling anybody who would listen that her husband and some other woman in the ward had an affair... which turns out to have been nonphysical in nature.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

r/exmo say if be savannah's stek pres

[_Meadowchik]

24:50
Stake President's words, from the Mormonleaks audio,

"Your temple recommend was not taken away because you disagreed with a decision we made. And I'm the one who took the temple recommend away, so I know why we took your temple recommend. We took your temple recommend away because you emphatically said you would not stop talking about this with other people. That is the singular reason for which your temple recommend was taken away."

[_tapirrider]

her husband and some other woman in the ward had an affair... which turns out to have been nonphysical in nature.

Like Joseph Smith's marriages to those women who were already married.

[_CameronMO]

her husband and some other woman in the ward had an affair... which turns out to have been nonphysical in nature.

Like Joseph Smith's marriages to those women who were already married.

[Guest]

http://kutv.com/news/local/church-removes-womans-temple-recommend-after-refusing-keep-quiet-about-her-divorce

Not sure how I feel about this. I think I disagree with everybody, but if I have to choose sides I think I side with the stake president on this. Thoughts?

In context this woman was stirring up drama at church, going around telling anybody who would listen that her husband and some other woman in the ward had an affair... which turns out to have been nonphysical in nature.

My wife and I were watching the News Last night when this story came on. Usually when it comes to church matters, we just agree to disagree. Needless to say I was shocked when my very TBM wife began to tear into the sanctimonious, insensitive, Church always comes first, my way or the highway mentality exhibited by this stake president. After picking my lower jaw up from off the floor, I said, tell me how you really feel about this. She then went on and gave me a woman's perspective. Stating, here we have a woman scorned by her husband, in the throws of divorce, seeking a compassionate loving, safe understanding ear in which she can seek understanding over the emotional, non-physical affair that her husband had been engaged in with a fellow ward member no less...and instead of offering a loving sympathetic ear this stake president instead tells her to shut the F up, stop talking to her support group about any of her husbands dalliances and if she failed to heed his male authority he will consider her in apostasy for not sustaining her male church leaders and the icing on the cake was his threat to pursue church discipline against her if she doesn't shut the F up and stop speaking her truth...oh turn in your temple recommend just for starters.

This was a first class male fail on the part of this SP. All he had to do was offer some compassionate understanding, listened to this woman, asked how he could help her, kindly ask that she consider refraining from talking about her situation with her fellow ward members due to the divisive damage it is causing in her ward but expressing understanding if she still feels the need to do so given the circumstances, offer to pay for some professional counseling and none of this would have blown up in his face. Instead he allowed his male authority to get in his way threatened church discipline and took away her temple recommend...turning her into one of us. Total “F” up on the part of the state President.

Major Mistakes by this SP:

01. He put the churches needs before the needs of this woman
02. He failed to listen to this woman
03. He allowed his ego to get in the way
04. He pulled his male authority card on her and when she refused to buckle, he takes her recommend away
05. He threatened Church discipline on an innocent party when no discipline was being threatened against the guilty parties
06. He ordered her, using his male only priesthood authority to shut up and stay quiet. Ordering a gage order on any woman, who tend to be more verbal then men, to shut up and remain quiet, is never a good idea.

[_Water Dog]

Like Joseph Smith's marriages to those women who were already married.

I was making this point on the other thread. Emotional vs physical, I don't see an appreciable difference. An affair, or relationship, means whatever it means to those involved. In this case we have no idea and it doesn't matter. The debate is whether this woman's social shaming behavior is appropriate. And then separately, if it's not, was the SPs reaction justified?

[_Meadowchik]

Like Joseph Smith's marriages to those women who were already married.

I was making this point on the other thread. Emotional vs physical, I don't see an appreciable difference. An affair, or relationship, means whatever it means to those involved. In this case we have no idea and it doesn't matter. The debate is whether this woman's social shaming behavior is appropriate. And then separately, if it's not, was the SPs reaction justified?

Is it social shaming or is it seeking support? Does it have to be one or the other? And, why be afraid of the natural fall-out of someone's bad choices? How about letting the grown ups work through it instead of calling for silence?

[_Cylon]

http://kutv.com/news/local/church-removes-womans-temple-recommend-after-refusing-keep-quiet-about-her-divorce

Not sure how I feel about this. I think I disagree with everybody, but if I have to choose sides I think I side with the stake president on this. Thoughts?

In context this woman was stirring up drama at church, going around telling anybody who would listen that her husband and some other woman in the ward had an affair... which turns out to have been nonphysical in nature.

I don't know how you could read that story and side with the stake president. He doesn't even give any reason for telling her to shut up. "Keep quiet about your problems" is not one of the requirements to pass in your temple recommend interview. There's no justification for his demand in the first place, so he just retreats behind "you disobeyed my direct command" as the reason for revoking her recommend. This is straight up abuse of power on the part of the stake president.

[_Water Dog]

Is it social shaming or is it seeking support? Does it have to be one or the other? And, why be afraid of the natural fall-out of someone's bad choices? How about letting the grown ups work through it instead of calling for silence?

Did you actually listen to the interview? It seems to me that she wasn't seeking support, she wanted to leverage the church social structure for revenge. Understandably she's hurt, but we also don't know anything about her or the situation. There seems to be this assumption that she's the "victim" in all this. Says who? I'm not convinced. Just looks like an emotional lady having a tantrum.