DiscussMormonism.com

A transcript of Natasha's letter of appeal of her membership council, posted on the natashahelfermft Facebook page April 22, 2021. Names have been redacted.

My official letter of appeal to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to the results of my memebership council.

April 22, 2021

Dear President Nelson and members of the First Presidency,

I am aware that a membership council was held in my behalf on Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 7:30 pm at the Derby Kansas Stake Center. What I am not aware of is whether or not your office was contacted about this council, since I wrote a letter expressing concerns about a conflict of interest between [Stake President] and myself, prior to the event. If it is the case that you were contacted, I’m guessing my appeal here is moot since you already agree with the decision made. Regardless, this is my official letter of appeal.

I am sad that the council decided to proceed not only without me being able to personally share my thoughts in my defense, but also without being willing to meet with the 6 witnesses that had been approved prior to the council. All 7 of us signed the contract agreement that we would not make any recording of any kind during these proceedings. I will have you know, for your benefit, that I was offered three different types of recording devices that unless you would have been willing to physically frisk me, I could have easily taken into the meeting regardless of the status of my cell phone. I refused all such offers. Not to mention, my phone was where I had gathered several of my prepared answers to questions I could only guess at. Because at no time was I given instructions as to what I should expect in this meeting. So, when the gentleman in question offered the compromise that instead of turning my phone off, I could send my document via email to a member of the stake presidency so they could print my material off, that was a definite no. I did not want them seeing anything I had prepared beforehand, since I didn’t know which of my notes would be relevant. If the Church office needs help knowing how to provide better language in regards to contracts dealing with confidentiality, I’d be happy to help. I regularly help couples contract much more important things than how a phone should be used. This entire misunderstanding could have been avoided by simply mentioning something like, “Be aware that you will not be able to bring a cell phone or computer into the meeting. If you have notes you want to refer to, make sure you bring them in writing.”

I am also sad, that the letters I receive from [Stake President] continue to either flat out lie, mischaracterize me or mischaracterize the events as they have occurred. For example, “I am sad you chose to not comply with our requests to preserve the sacred nature of this gathering…” is a lie. I had willingly and sincerely signed the contract about upholding confidentiality. And it is not true that I was offered the “option to print any documents.” I was offered to email my private documents to a member of the stake presidency, so that they could print them out for me. I remind you that this was all taking place at 7:30 pm when I knew I only had one hour for all witnesses to share their thoughts, me included. I would have had to be afforded a computer where I could privately copy/paste the notes I needed, and then print them off myself. That offer was never forthcoming.

I am also sad that the church spokesman, Eric Hawkins, also lied when he stated in the Salt Lake Tribune, “All but one of the participants complied with that request (of leaving cellphones outside of the room) and had brought their statements in writing.” First of all, there was no prior agreement that statements would be brought in writing. When one of the sisters realized they were being dismissed, she asked the gentleman if he would at least be willing to take statements they had in writing. He agreed and only three of my witnesses had such documents available. Therefore, the council was planning on going forward without ANY of the witnesses statements that had been previously approved, and yet were offered 3 - which Steve claims they read. Secondly, NONE of the witnesses were invited to enter under ANY condition. None were asked if they would be willing to turn off their phones or leave their phones outside, etc. After a period of about 10-15 minutes, they were told that they were being dismissed, and if they wouldn’t leave the police would be called.

I am mostly sad, no… downright disgusted, that 5 temple-recommend & calling-holding sisters who had travelled from out of state to attend this meeting, were locked out of our own meeting chapel, left to stand on the sidewalk with no seating arrangements, were refused the use of a toilet, and were not allowed to witness on my behalf even though they too, had complied with all the agreements. How is this in any way, shape or form excusable? I humbly ask that all of them be offered a personal and public apology. The grief and disbelief I saw in their eyes was the most painful part of my day. It is also a lie that this council had nothing to do with my practice as a therapist. Every single concern of “misconduct” that [Stake President] brought to my attention in his letter dated November 8, 2020 had to do with how I conduct myself as a mental health professional. Saying that the sole purpose was to consider my “repeated, clear and public opposition to… the Church, its doctrines, its policies and its leaders” is exactly related to my public stances on sexual and mental health. There are no other times I speak critically about the church that I can think of. Every criticism I offer relates to the age old tension between scientific data and religious dogma as it is understood at the time.

I hope the above points specify many of the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision of this council. Not to mention the complications and undue distress of holding this council in a place I no longer reside, the extreme short notice, the accommodations I had to make with clients and work that came at quite a large financial cost to me and my family, the wasted cost of all my witnesses both in travel, lodging and their own lives being disrupted, etc. Even after working tirelessly for almost two weeks, I was still not able to gather and provide all of the relevant information I would have wanted to present in a matter as important as retaining my membership in this Church. Lastly, many of your own guidelines in the General Handbook of Instructions were not followed in this case (i.e. I requested that the entire high council be present which was denied - supported by GHI).

I will be sending a copy of this letter to [Stake President] and I request that this be the last time I am required to have any contact with him personally. I will also be sending a copy to President [redacted] of the Derby Kansas Stake, President [redacted] of the [redacted] Utah Stake, the area authorities of both stakes, as well as your general office.

As far as the four things that were shared as expectations of me “for repair and returning to full fellowship,” I’d like to address them next.

Cease to use disparaging and vulgar language to describe the Church and its leaders. There is plenty of room in the Church for diversity of thought on many issues while still being civil and kind.

I agree. And I apologize that my use of the term “patriarchal prick” was so offensive and caused such discomfort. At the same time, if grown men are so appalled at such vulgar language (the only term I can find in my history that would be considered such), I ask you to consider how a 12 year old might respond to what I consider disparaging and vulgar language to describe those who are struggling to uphold your standards. Some examples include…. Lazy, prideful, deceived, destroyers, deluded, offended, worldly, misled, fallen, children of Satan, unfaithful, unclean, unnatural, perverse, in the grasp of Satan, bad influences, etc. These terms are used in clear, repeated ways over many of our pulpits. Are you aware that name calling, especially of young, impressionable children and teens can have the following effects:

a. Destroys the bond between the person hearing the names and the person calling the names.
b. It can crush a youngster’s self-image.
c. It can break down communication.
d. It can change a child’s brain structure, and
e. It can be remembered and continue to harm a person for years to come. I’d be glad to offer you journaled references to any of these claims if you ask.
Begin to attend Church meetings regularly. I would love to regularly attend Church meetings. I miss the fellowship with my fellow saints, participating in the ritual of the Sacrament and singing hymns. Sadly, I do not feel the Spirit in many of the church meetings I attend, especially when the things that are shared in regards to mental or sexual health are incorrect and even harmful. Since it is not my place to correct those teachings in those spaces, it harms me instead of edifies me to participate in church attendance at this time. Did you know that “sex and gender affirming spaces” are considered those that:

a. Use respectful & inclusive language (including preferred pronouns),
b. Experiences of discrimination and harassment are understood through a lens that recognizes social and historical contexts,
c. Each person’s internal and individual experience of gender identity, gender expression and/or sexual orientation are respected,
d. Minorities are included in the activities and leadership of their groups.
I’d be glad to attend my local ward meetings weekly, if you’d be open to considering my notes/feedback as to what I observed as being non-inclusive or potentially harmful for any mental health concern. I would offer the service for free as my “calling”.

Earnestly study the scriptures.

I’m not sure why it is assumed that I don’t, because I do, so we can check that one off the list. In addition, I would love to send you a weekly journal article from the mental health professions on a topic I believe you and our ward communities could benefit from. Are you willing to study such materials?

Meet regularly with your bishop.

I would love to meet with my bishop if my records could be transferred to my local stake. I would be willing to meet in the spirit of mutual counsol, where he could offer me spiritual guidance, while at the same time be open to some of my ideas from a professional perspective. I am neighbors with my Utah bishop and enjoy his and his family’s company tremendously.

I strongly believe that this supposed conflict between science and religion need not be, especially as professionals and spiritual leaders agree to interact respectfully and take seriously the considerations of the general welfare of our people. I believe we both have contributions to make. Especially in a church that claims revelatory powers, where changes can be made in the name of loving Heavenly Parents that know we are still in the process of learning ourselves. I invite all of you to consider this an opportunity to begin your relationship with me again. Albeit feisty, I am very forgiving and giving. I want nothing more than to use my professional expertise to help those in our church. I have many other colleagues, both in and out of the church, that feel the same way. Please take us up on our offers to educate, train and find healthy areas of compromise. As we strive to “love one another” and “lean not unto our own understandings,” there is much universal wisdom to tap into.

Respectfully,

Natasha Helfer, LCMFT, CST, CST-S

Additional questions that address my concerns in regards to this particular council and its results:

Why was I only allowed 1 hour to present my case? GHI Section 32.10.3
Why was not all relevant information presented in this process? GHI Section 32.10.3
Why are these charges coming up now, when my “opposition” has been present for many years? Section 32.6.32
Why were my concerns about my conflict of interest with [Stake President] ignored? And was the first Presidency alerted to this situation? Section 32.9.7
This is Kattie Niu Mount’s experience as my witness.

I strongly believe that if the LDS church were open to and inviting of professional & scientific evidence regarding relationships and mental & sexual health best practices, inclusive for minorities of all kinds, and creating safe spaces, as well as training all leaders on these things, they could grow as an institution and be seen as a healthy alternative for those who are still seeking a belief in Jesus. If they'd put a strong focus on how to coach youth so they feel included & wanted & not shamed (regardless of their gender identity & sexual orientation), as well as teaching them *real* coping mechanisms in handling what life throws at them, they would build an amazing following of youth who feel safe & healthy within a religious institution. That's certainly not happening now within the LDS church.

People are leaving all kinds of high-demand religions in droves, not only because they have issues with the dogma but, even more so, because of the religious trauma that is being perpetuated on them from a very young age. The most common stories you hear from those who are inactive or who have left the church have some element of religious trauma, which is now being classified as an unique type of PTSD by mental health experts. If the leaders of these institutions would take the time to listen to them and understand where they are going wrong, they might be considered a healing community not a harmful one. This is something that no religious community should put up with but historically they are the ones who keep it hidden and protect those who perpetrate it, damning those who are victims instead of helping them.

Bought Yahoo wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:20 pm

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.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:57 am

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.

Jeff Bennion wrote:Like Helfer, I have clients who deal with shame which harms their mental health. Sometimes that shame is debilitating. 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.) These natural behaviors include kink, polyamory, same-sex sexual activity, various fetishes, and prostitution. All of these behaviors are included under the benign-sounding umbrella term, “sexual health.”

They don’t believe any of these practices are wrong, per se; only that there are healthy and unhealthy ways to engage in them. If some behavior is expressed in an unhealthy way, that is always because of some underlying pathology manifesting through the behavior. Some sex therapists recommend masturbation as a tool to help reduce compulsive, unhealthy pornography use. And according to Helfer herself, pornography is a form of sex education for teens and adults. The goal of therapists aligned with this point of view isn’t to change these behaviors, but rather to reduce shame and increase acceptance, both among the clients themselves, and society at large.

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

The sex offenders I have worked with, some of them guilty of rape, or sexual abuse of children, often have a lot of shame. Yet not one would suggest that we eliminate the laws which criminalize these actions so that sex offenders no longer feel shame. That’s because the people in charge at AASECT still think that rape and sexual abuse are wrong. But when it comes to BDSM, polyamory, kink, pornography, prostitution, and so on, what they really mean is, since we don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong with these behaviors, and since some people feel shame about them, no one else, not even religious leaders, should tell them it’s wrong. Since they believe these behaviors each have a healthy version available, any shame that results seems unnecessary. Or as Natasha Helferputs it, having a clearly articulated standard of sexual morality “creates an artificial problem” (emphasis added). I think it would come as a surprise to most believing Latter-day Saints that the concepts of sin and the fallen nature of man would be considered artificial constructs to Helfer and many who think as she does. Most Christians rather tend to believe these notions are fundamental to our mortal experience.

Doctor Scratch wrote:On the one hand the answer is "No," because the Mopologists seem to circulate on the fringes of some kind of "boy's club" where they occasionally get access to the Brethren.

Doctor Scratch wrote:I know that DeN Robbers remembers a thread from a long time ago where Dr. Peterson speculated that Heavenly Father might have impregnated the Virgin Mary via "artificial insemination." (As I observed at the time: wouldn't the entail Him having to masturbate?)