natasha helfer's response to her stake pres telling her she could appeal her excommunication

[Bought Yahoo]

I think the appeals overturn councils relatively often.

But, as there is only minimal description of the procedural aspects of a disciplinary council in the first place, and because the New Testament doesn't even proscribe any procedure at all, procedure is only an afterthought here. Or it should be.

Imagine you being excommunicated over your objections to Church policy and procedure pertaining to, lets say, people of Native American descent. Let's say you had the power to publish your objections on Facebook. It seems to me that you'd create an eloquent appellant letter detailing the Church's atrocities against Native Americans, past and present. So all the world could see. And the world is watching because you're a semi-famous person and you have the backing of hundreds of fellow scholars who have signed a letter on your behalf.

But she didn't do that. Why, I want to know.

As somebody who is on the very fringe and margin of belief, I pay attention to such things.

[Lem]

I think the appeals overturn councils relatively often.

Really? I would assume from the context you are referring to lds disciplinary councils, is that correct? I would be interested why you think these councils are overturned "relatively often."

[Kishkumen]

So does she reveal the grounds for her excommunication in this letter? She seem to be, like many others, hung up on procedure rather than the merits.

It seems odd that she would arrive at her council with documents contained only on her phone. And then go ballistic over the phone issue.

I've read a lot of her stuff. Frankly I'm surprised here. I would have never suspected her of such whining.

Stop being an asshole.

[Kishkumen]

This excommunication may go down as one of the most foolhardy in church history. FUBAR process from start to finish: SP no longer had boundary jurisdiction, SP conflict of interest due to personal friendship with Natasha's ex, calling the cops to evict active, calling-holding members from a parking lot, utter refusal to come out and meet with any parties outside, refusal to even let witnesses use the bathroom or have chairs to sit outside while waiting... and apparently a total lack of proper procedural intervention on any of the above by Area or SLC authorities after numerous appeals along the way. Then there is the lack of one-on-one counseling beforehand and fabricated nature of the justifications given for formal excommunication. It's just stupid, stupid, stupid all the way through.

Agreed. This kind of organizational behavior undercuts the church’s own authority. The perception of fairness bolsters the Church’s credibility and authority. This stuff shows them to be weak and desperate.

[Kishkumen]

But this is the sort of nonsense you have to have at least two letters after your name to believe.

Polygamy.

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Checks out!

[Kishkumen]

Years back, near to one of the last meetings I ever went to, the counselor in the SP, whom I believe still holds that calling, offered a threat to all who heard him in a stake conference. "To those who are intent to complain about the Church", is how I believe he put it, "Watch out what you post publicly on social media. We'll find out. We're watching that closely." I chuckled to my wife about it, trying to imagine the Stake Presidency scouring member's social media to uncover wolfs in sheep's outfits. It'd be awesome to think they've been filling up a file of any content I might have passed on, liked, or spouted off on. If I were called to attend a disciplinary council I'd likely want to see it, and giggle my way through it. Granted if they are worried about people's eternal souls, they'd have to call me in--in what would be a vain attempt to get me in line. If they are all about protecting the Church, they have no reason to call on me. I'm assuming they are feeling they have no reason.

What an enlightening thread! A member of a stake presidency boasts at stake conference, threateningly, that stake leaders are monitoring member activities on social media. Talk about nuts! Hilarious! What a loser of an outfit.

[Philo Sofee]

Years back, near to one of the last meetings I ever went to, the counselor in the SP, whom I believe still holds that calling, offered a threat to all who heard him in a stake conference. "To those who are intent to complain about the Church", is how I believe he put it, "Watch out what you post publicly on social media. We'll find out. We're watching that closely." I chuckled to my wife about it, trying to imagine the Stake Presidency scouring member's social media to uncover wolfs in sheep's outfits. It'd be awesome to think they've been filling up a file of any content I might have passed on, liked, or spouted off on. If I were called to attend a disciplinary council I'd likely want to see it, and giggle my way through it. Granted if they are worried about people's eternal souls, they'd have to call me in--in what would be a vain attempt to get me in line. If they are all about protecting the Church, they have no reason to call on me. I'm assuming they are feeling they have no reason.

What an enlightening thread! A member of a stake presidency boasts at stake conference, threateningly, that stake leaders are monitoring member activities on social media. Talk about nuts! Hilarious! What a loser of an outfit.

If they actually had testimonies, and really believed, every single one of them would be ON social media POSTING, describing, defending, sharing, enjoying uplifting loving conversations, and exploring the scriptures pointing out why they have the truth. That they have to resort to this kind of empty threat is the purest evidence they don't really believe any of it at all. They are all in it for social image and prestige or something like that. Can you imagine Jesus telling the Apostles at their missionary commission "Now, I'm going to be watching you carefully, and if you don't get out there and knock on at least 200 doors a day, ask 20 golden questions, and baptize 44 people a month, I'm going to KNOW! And you're going to get into big trouble, I am going to hold a council against you." Can you possibly even imagine that approach?!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think the appeals overturn councils relatively often.

Really? I would assume from the context you are referring to lds disciplinary councils, is that correct? I would be interested why you think these councils are overturned "relatively often."

BY,

Why don’t you try giving Lem’s quoted statement a thorough answer? It would be illuminating.

- Doc

[IHAQ]

I think the appeals overturn councils relatively often.

Really? I would assume from the context you are referring to lds disciplinary councils, is that correct? I would be interested why you think these councils are overturned "relatively often."

I don’t know of a single case of a Church Court’s decision being overturned on appeal.

[cwald]

Really? I would assume from the context you are referring to lds disciplinary councils, is that correct? I would be interested why you think these councils are overturned "relatively often."

I don’t know of a single case of a Church Court’s decision being overturned on appeal.

Me either.

I know this is difficult for some people to hear. But as many of us know who have gone through this process, it really is a blessing in disguise. It hurts...bad... for a long time. But in the end it really is for the best. I was a mess for a couple of years, but my life is pretty good and has been for ten years now. Really good. Thank you church leaders and officials for being dicks and chasing me and my family out of this cult religious organization.