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

[IHAQ]

In any other walk of life the procedural mistakes made would be sufficient to repeal the decision and for the process to be started again with someone more appropriate (competent? less malicious?) in the chair. The Church Handbook of Instruction is now on trial. If the appeal is unsuccessful, then the contents of the CHI don't mean squat.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

There’s a certain Orwellian(?) reality us plebeians endure when we are faced with, and then have to jump through, complicated legal procedures while those in power just ignore the rules they impose on us and get away with it. If there were any sense of justice within the LDS corporation the Stake President would be fired and disciplined for exercising unrighteous dominion, failure to follow due process as outlined in the CHI, and for bringing shame to the Mormon gerontocracy.

What’s brilliant about the appeal is the appellant understands the uselessness of the appeal itself, but exposed their corruption and venality within the letter she published.

The CotCoJCoLDS may not be evil, but it’s pretty damn close when I can’t tell if it’s Oceania or East Asia, because it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is total and complete submission to the state.

- Doc

[Bought Yahoo]

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.

When not allowed to argue the merits (no adequate disclosure prior to the "trial"), what do people in adversarial situations - e.g., lawyers - do? Any idea?

When all of your work is on your phone, and you have no reason to think that you will not be allowed to use it, you would just quietly acquiesce?

You have never done anything that anyone else would describe with a loaded word like "whining"?

Anybody dispassionate would wonder: If the documents are so important, and you'd want to make sure your adversaries saw them, why leave them on your phone? And then get all pissed when you couldn't use your phone? Why make such a big deal about the procedure when there were more important things?

Sorry, she's whining. A major whiner. And, on appeal, why not make your merits case then if you weren't allowed to make your merits case below?

[Bought Yahoo]

I just also have to say that Natasha would not have been treated this way if she were a he with the same professional designations. Patriarchy at its worst.

I love it when people argue such speculation. Sorry, your proposition is easy to make and impossible to refute and groundless.

[malkie]

When not allowed to argue the merits (no adequate disclosure prior to the "trial"), what do people in adversarial situations - e.g., lawyers - do? Any idea?

When all of your work is on your phone, and you have no reason to think that you will not be allowed to use it, you would just quietly acquiesce?

You have never done anything that anyone else would describe with a loaded word like "whining"?

Anybody dispassionate would wonder: If the documents are so important, and you'd want to make sure your adversaries saw them, why leave them on your phone? And then get all pissed when you couldn't use your phone? Why make such a big deal about the procedure when there were more important things?

Sorry, she's whining. A major whiner. And, on appeal, why not make your merits case then if you weren't allowed to make your merits case below?

She said explicitly that she did not want her adversaries to see them.

Why make a big deal about procedure?

In any other walk of life the procedural mistakes made would be sufficient to repeal the decision and for the process to be started again with someone more appropriate (competent? less malicious?) in the chair. The Church Handbook of Instruction is now on trial. If the appeal is unsuccessful, then the contents of the CHI don't mean squat.

She did refer to the merits of the case in her appeal, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. As far as I can see, the main purpose of appeal was to highlight the failures in procedure that did not allow her to make her case on the merits to begin with. Perhaps she would rather talk more about the merits when the procedural issues have been resolved.

As a lawyer, could you not see answers to your questions by yourself?

Your continued use of loaded language makes it clear that you are not "Anybody dispassionate".

[Bought Yahoo]

Arguing procedure is for the birds. There is no real procedure here.

I'd like to see the merits. I don't see the merits.

Being a lawyer has nothing to do with this.

Face it. She's a whiner.

[Dr Moore]

As a lawyer, could you not see answers to your questions by yourself?

Your continued use of loaded language makes it clear that you are not "Anybody dispassionate".

BY is a lawyer? God help us. He/she doesn't even read.

[Bought Yahoo]

As a lawyer, could you not see answers to your questions by yourself?

Your continued use of loaded language makes it clear that you are not "Anybody dispassionate".

BY is a lawyer? God help us. He/she doesn't even read.

Specially not your illiterate stuff.

[dastardly stem]

I'm interested in how these excommunications play out. I get that Natasha Helfer is feeling hurt, so I don't mean to make light of it. On the basis, it seems, used to excommunicate her the Church should be busy excommunicating people left and right (I personally haven't used the term prick for many years, but I certainly have made many statements that might in some measure compete with the sentiment). Of course, the real reason is she has a public presence of sorts. It makes me wonder how many excommunications occur for people who aren't holding a public platform sharing ideas that can be construed as opposed to the Church, in some way.

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.

[dastardly stem]

Arguing procedure is for the birds. There is no real procedure here.

I'd like to see the merits. I don't see the merits.

Being a lawyer has nothing to do with this.

Face it. She's a whiner.

Of course you don't see the merits. And you'd whine that she's whining anyway. Apparently it's your defense mechanism. Have fun whining about whining, I guess. If you can't understand the reasons for all of this, you're being absolutely boneheaded.

Plainly this is all about her public acknowledgement of expert findings on healthy sexuality, which contradict the old traditions Church leaders have been telling people are from God. And she has a public following. The Church continues to look foolish when one considers scientific findings and that's a big old problem for the Church. It needs authority, priesthood, and invisible characters to lead the way.