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

[Dr Exiled]

Why the secrecy? The idiots should let the public hear what goes on inside their kangaroo courts of love if the accused allows it. Let people use their cell phones for heaven's sake. What do they have to hide? What are they afraid of? Of course publicity kills the "it's about sexual transgression" rumor that accompanies these things a lot of times.

[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.

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.

I'd like to see her discuss all that. In her appeal letter. Cite chapter and verse. Enlist experts. Cite studies.

Instead she whines about her phone.

[malkie]

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.

CHI would beg to differ that there is "no real procedure".

You can wish to see the merits - doesn't mean that you will, or are entitled to do so.

Your being a lawyer suggests to me that you are asking questions whose answers you are aware of, and may use or have used to your advantage in court. In other words, it sounds disingenuous.

Your saying that she's a whiner doesn't make it so. Perhaps display a little compassion?

[malkie]

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

Specially not your illiterate stuff.

Ahhhh - your case is greatly strengthened by insulting someone who disagrees with you.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd like to see her discuss all that. In her appeal letter. Cite chapter and verse. Enlist experts.

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.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

- Doc

[Dr Moore]

Helfer, like many of her colleagues at AASECT (the organization through which she is certified as a sex therapist), believes that we shouldn’t say any sexual behavior is wrong because that pathologizes a practice that is just a natural variation in human sexual behavior. (I hasten to add that there are many good and faithful Latter-day Saints who are members of AASECT yet who do not endorse their views on these and other matters.)

Suggesting some, perhaps many other "good and faithful Latter-day Saints" who promote the very same ideas for which Natasha was accused of apostacy.

Jeff Bennion has given expert testimony confirming to the LDS community that Natasha was excommunicated for one, and only one, thing: saying rude things about the brethren.

[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.

CHI would beg to differ that there is "no real procedure".

You can wish to see the merits - doesn't mean that you will, or are entitled to do so.

Your being a lawyer suggests to me that you are asking questions whose answers you are aware of, and may use or have used to your advantage in court. In other words, it sounds disingenuous.

Your saying that she's a whiner doesn't make it so. Perhaps display a little compassion?

I've repeatedly said that I loved her writings and respected her greatly, and that I was greatly saddened by the proceedings against her.

But I think she has been terrible about assessing what needs to be said. Instead of whining about her phone, recordings, friends and a bathroom, she should have discussed the merits of her position. I think most people would agree.

[Bought Yahoo]

Suggesting some, perhaps many other "good and faithful Latter-day Saints" who promote the very same ideas for which Natasha was accused of apostacy.

Jeff Bennion has given expert testimony confirming to the LDS community that Natasha was excommunicated for one, and only one, thing: saying rude things about the brethren.

I don't know who the f..k is Jeff Bennion, but I would agree from reading her letters that that is the only real merits she addresses, which suggests that is what got her, and the only think that got her.

[Bought Yahoo]

I'd like to see her discuss all that. In her appeal letter. Cite chapter and verse. Enlist experts.

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.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

- Doc

It isn't complicated or Orwellian. If you're being tried for your membership in the Church, and you've lost, on appeal do you want to complain about the bathroom and your phone, or do you want to launch into the merits. Doesn't that make sense?

[Lem]

If I recall correctly, the letter Natasha received said she could appeal on grounds of procedural error or unfairness in the process. She puts forward plenty of evidence about that, starting with the conflict of interest the stake president has, being the employee of her ex-husband.