LDS Freedom Forum

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 5:38 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 4:46 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 9:40 am

TheDuke wrote: ↑March 11th, 2023, 9:10 pm Abuse is terrible as is covering it up. But, this story smells fishy. As stated earlier the council is nothing like any of us has ever heard of, the written list would never be used, never heard of that and there is no printer. There are no specifics, it would not be such a bad thing, I mean the list and all and only disfellowship? Lastly, why haven't we heard about this. Between this group and anti-LDS open lawsuit in the USA over last several decades would have been reported. It is/would be open court, not some behind the scenes approach, supposedly had a lawyer. Too many things are way out there and not consistent with any LDS procedures anywhere at any time, and no other visible evidence. Worse, it seems stuff like this takes away from real issues of abuse.

I find it interesting that most things that seem “fishy” are such simply because you have never heard of it. If that’s how you measure truth, by your own experience, and casting aside other people’s experiences, then this whole church stinks to high heaven.

It does call into question your experiences as a HC? Fishy, as in a mix of bishop and SP and HC? That never happens! NEVER! Any time the SP and stake officials get involved, the bishop is out. Not out of the full picture but out of the council of voting. You must know that. You can have either but not both. Two juristictions like fed and state, but not combined. Then if you have SP and HC you get them all ,not 2x2 and the SP must be there. or you can get SP w/i or w/o counselors and no HC but not with bishop. All that and you'll likely never get SP for a woman and end up in disfellowship. If it is heading towards that then it is the bishops role, not SP. SP only for endowment PH holders and possibly RS endowed adulterers. Never heard of this process. And like I said if she had a lawyer in it, and there was any merit, as there sure would be if this were true. Then we'd know about it by someone on some forum, good or bad vis the net! You can just keep seeing LDS leadership evil, fine.

But don't bother to respond without some evidence of wrong doing. Not saying how much, just any. We don't even have a name to look up on the net.

If I were to publish my issues with LDS leaders, I would at the very least make my claims look like they were real, with realistic processes. Not some crazy non-mormon view of a mormon PH council. IMO. and BTW I have a right to my opinion, I surely don't need to give it up because you have an axe to grind.

Yes, I made up the two years I was a HC.

BTW, I have seen HCs called to visit on specific assignments w/ Bishops.

But of course that never happened because you’ve never experienced it.

And I have seen a SP give a specific set of steps for a person who was excommunicated.

We all live in our own paradigms.

TheDuke wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 5:55 pm
have you seen a stake court with 2x2 HC and no SP but a bishop? Not sure who's paradigm that is. but you are right we all have our own. Just 15.999 of16, M LDS has about the same paradigm when it comes to Stake councils............................

Atrasado wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 5:08 pm The problem is the courts. In Utah, I've heard on good authority, that the Church controls all of the courts. I'm pretty sure that in other places the Church's fixers and their briefcases of money will also win more times than not.

I believe God will expose them such that no one will disbelieve the evidence.

CMajor wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 1:52 pm The corporation church makes a mockery of Truth, and by so doing they serve the satan god. The 18 month timeline..... their own demise comes within that time period.

The LAW of the LAND originated from the LAWS of GOD, for God will not be mocked. He will bring judgement, First against those profess to know him, but do not know him, and the blaspheme his name in their Courts of Hell.

Fear not, for this year - all EVIL will be unmasked, the tables will be turned.

(not saying Christ comes back, many more events must come to pass first. The clean-up of church leaders [swamp creatures] and politicians comes
next)

FoxMammaWisdom wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 6:29 pm

Atrasado wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 5:08 pm The problem is the courts. In Utah, I've heard on good authority, that the Church controls all of the courts. I'm pretty sure that in other places the Church's fixers and their briefcases of money will also win more times than not.

Church controls all the courts.
Otherwise crap like this would be booted off the bench instead of voted back in 12-0.
Screenshot_20230312-174859-959.png
Check allllll the judges Freemason rings too.

I believe God will expose them such that no one will disbelieve the evidence.

I sure hope He hurries. And I sure hope other people don't have to go through hell in order to have evidence they will not disbelieve. There's plenty of indisputable evidence out there - the problem is people choose to believe an EASIER story.

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:36 pm There is insufficient evidence to know what really happened in the church court and whether it was justified. Where in the lady's explanation are the quotes of what she said, how many times she said it and to whom. In other words, where is the other side of the story? I'll refrain from jumping on the anti-church bandwagon until I know the rest of the story.

I don't doubt that she was abused, and nobody should ever have to go through abuse! However, we simply don't have enough evidence to determine what really happened.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:43 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:36 pm There is insufficient evidence to know what really happened in the church court and whether it was justified. Where in the lady's explanation are the quotes of what she said, how many times she said it and to whom. In other words, where is the other side of the story? I'll refrain from jumping on the anti-church bandwagon until I know the rest of the story.

I don't doubt that she was abused, and nobody should ever have to go through abuse! However, we simply don't have enough evidence to determine what really happened.

The problem is, you'll NEVER hear "the other side of the story." From what I understand, most church courts require that you sign a paper stating that you will not record the meeting. If you don't sign it, they'll just kick you out of the church w/o giving you the opportunity to express your reason for whatever happened. The church, almost universally, does not want ANY record of ANY church courts. Kirton McConkie has a policy in place where all recordings of bishops calling in to report abuse cases were intentionally deleted. They don't want ANY transparency.

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:55 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:43 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:36 pm There is insufficient evidence to know what really happened in the church court and whether it was justified. Where in the lady's explanation are the quotes of what she said, how many times she said it and to whom. In other words, where is the other side of the story? I'll refrain from jumping on the anti-church bandwagon until I know the rest of the story.

I don't doubt that she was abused, and nobody should ever have to go through abuse! However, we simply don't have enough evidence to determine what really happened.

The problem is, you'll NEVER hear "the other side of the story." From what I understand, most church courts require that you sign a paper stating that you will not record the meeting. If you don't sign it, they'll just kick you out of the church w/o giving you the opportunity to express your reason for whatever happened. The church, almost universally, does not want ANY record of ANY church courts. Kirton McConkie has a policy in place where all recordings of bishops calling in to report abuse cases were intentionally deleted. They don't want ANY transparency.

I want the other side of the story from the lady - as in what she said against the Church and it's leadership, who she said it to and how often. Not the Church.

I was a Public Defender a long time ago and it was my job to make sure my client's rights were protected and to make sure they had a fair day in court. The absolute first thing I learned doing that work was that regardless of how much my clients seemed to be truthful, there was always another side of the story. In order to be prepared to represent my client, I had to know both sides of the story. In this situation, we don't know the other side of the story.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:58 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:55 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:43 pm

The problem is, you'll NEVER hear "the other side of the story." From what I understand, most church courts require that you sign a paper stating that you will not record the meeting. If you don't sign it, they'll just kick you out of the church w/o giving you the opportunity to express your reason for whatever happened. The church, almost universally, does not want ANY record of ANY church courts. Kirton McConkie has a policy in place where all recordings of bishops calling in to report abuse cases were intentionally deleted. They don't want ANY transparency.

I want the other side of the story from the lady - as in what she said against the Church and it's leadership, who she said it to and how often. Not the Church.

I was a Public Defender a long time ago and it was my job to make sure my client's rights were protected and to make sure they had a fair day in court. The absolute first thing I learned doing that work was that regardless of how much my clients seemed to be truthful, there was always another side of the story. In order to be prepared to represent my client, I had to know both sides of the story. In this situation, we don't know the other side of the story.

In reality, we don't have any of the sides, other than the brief items she alludes to. We have little to no detail regardless of the side a person was to argue.

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm Very true, which makes it even more odd that so many people are jumping on the anti-Church bandwagon.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:58 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:55 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:43 pm

The problem is, you'll NEVER hear "the other side of the story." From what I understand, most church courts require that you sign a paper stating that you will not record the meeting. If you don't sign it, they'll just kick you out of the church w/o giving you the opportunity to express your reason for whatever happened. The church, almost universally, does not want ANY record of ANY church courts. Kirton McConkie has a policy in place where all recordings of bishops calling in to report abuse cases were intentionally deleted. They don't want ANY transparency.

I want the other side of the story from the lady - as in what she said against the Church and it's leadership, who she said it to and how often. Not the Church.

I was a Public Defender a long time ago and it was my job to make sure my client's rights were protected and to make sure they had a fair day in court. The absolute first thing I learned doing that work was that regardless of how much my clients seemed to be truthful, there was always another side of the story. In order to be prepared to represent my client, I had to know both sides of the story. In this situation, we don't know the other side of the story.

In reality, we don't have any of the sides, other than the brief items she alludes to. We have little to no detail regardless of the side a person was to argue.

cyclOps wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:29 pm Which makes this thread meaningless.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:43 pm

cyclOps wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:29 pm Which makes this thread meaningless.

No... see my follow-up comment. ^^^

We do have details from her, not all, but a few... and the church... NOTHING.

cyclOps wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:29 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:58 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 2:55 pm

I want the other side of the story from the lady - as in what she said against the Church and it's leadership, who she said it to and how often. Not the Church.

I was a Public Defender a long time ago and it was my job to make sure my client's rights were protected and to make sure they had a fair day in court. The absolute first thing I learned doing that work was that regardless of how much my clients seemed to be truthful, there was always another side of the story. In order to be prepared to represent my client, I had to know both sides of the story. In this situation, we don't know the other side of the story.

In reality, we don't have any of the sides, other than the brief items she alludes to. We have little to no detail regardless of the side a person was to argue.

Which makes this thread meaningless.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:24 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm Very true, which makes it even more odd that so many people are jumping on the anti-Church bandwagon.

It's not "odd". If the church wanted to ensure justice was served, they'd make the proceedings public. They'd demand the evidence and hold any and all accountable. But no, what does occur is the church leaders are tasked with "defending the good name of the church."

And this isn't the first case most of us have heard about. It's just another "same old, same old." I have friends who were exxed for far lesser items, other than the church leaders disagreeing with them. The church defends traditions, not the truth.

cyclOps wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:48 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:43 pm

cyclOps wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:29 pm Which makes this thread meaningless.

No... see my follow-up comment. ^^^

We do have details from her, not all, but a few... and the church... NOTHING.

Exactly. Meaningless.

Any conclusion or opinion based upon the OP is pointless.

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:56 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:24 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm Very true, which makes it even more odd that so many people are jumping on the anti-Church bandwagon.

It's not "odd". If the church wanted to ensure justice was served, they'd make the proceedings public. They'd demand the evidence and hold any and all accountable. But no, what does occur is the church leaders are tasked with "defending the good name of the church."

And this isn't the first case most of us have heard about. It's just another "same old, same old." I have friends who were exxed for far lesser items, other than the church leaders disagreeing with them. The church defends traditions, not the truth.

You're missing the point. The lady could have disclosed what she said, but she didn't. I'm not asking what occurred in the Church court, I'm asking what exactly did she do that got her to the Church court. I'm not saying the Church has clean hands. I'm saying we don't know enough to make a determination, yet many in this thread have spouted a lot of anti-church vitriol.

Did the gal say once, to her bishop, that she was angry with the Church? Or did she say that the Church harbors and protects pedophiles at all levels of leadership 1000 times, on every forum she could find, on every podcast that would have her and on and on? Bottom line is that we don't know - end of story.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 4:03 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:56 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:24 pm
It's not "odd". If the church wanted to ensure justice was served, they'd make the proceedings public. They'd demand the evidence and hold any and all accountable. But no, what does occur is the church leaders are tasked with "defending the good name of the church."

And this isn't the first case most of us have heard about. It's just another "same old, same old." I have friends who were exxed for far lesser items, other than the church leaders disagreeing with them. The church defends traditions, not the truth.

You're missing the point. The lady could have disclosed what she said, but she didn't. I'm not asking what occurred in the Church court, I'm asking what exactly did she do that got her to the Church court. I'm not saying the Church has clean hands. I'm saying we don't know enough to make a determination, yet many in this thread have spouted a lot of anti-church vitriol.

Did the gal say once, to her bishop, that she was angry with the Church? Or did she say that the Church harbors and protects pedophiles at all levels of leadership 1000 times, on every forum she could find, on every podcast that would have her and on and on? Bottom line is that we don't know - end of story.

Dude, look, she is most likely going to take this to trial. She has a lawyer. All this does is give us a glimpse into what happened in this specific interaction w/ her church leaders. Nothing more, nothing less.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 6:14 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑March 12th, 2023, 5:55 pm
have you seen a stake court with 2x2 HC and no SP but a bishop? Not sure who's paradigm that is. but you are right we all have our own. Just 15.999 of16, M LDS has about the same paradigm when it comes to Stake councils............................

It wasn’t a stake court. She specifically said that in what she wrote. Details, details.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 4:56 pm It wasn't a bishop's court either, which is why I am a little suspicious of her story.

In my last post, someone asked if I was going to be called to a full disciplinary court presided over by the stake president. My ward meets in the stake house, so it was unclear, but there was no full court. Someone who knows better will correct me - is it called a bishop's court? It was held in the high council room, with eight of us seated at one end of the conference table. My bishopric sat at the head of the table, and I sat to their right, with the two high councilmen assigned to our ward sitting between us. The clerk/exec-sec (who was only there to take notes) and a stake-level guy sat across from me. The only person I recognized was my bishop. It was basically just me and seven men I didn't know

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 4:41 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 4:03 pm

Mala_Suerte wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 3:56 pm
You're missing the point. The lady could have disclosed what she said, but she didn't. I'm not asking what occurred in the Church court, I'm asking what exactly did she do that got her to the Church court. I'm not saying the Church has clean hands. I'm saying we don't know enough to make a determination, yet many in this thread have spouted a lot of anti-church vitriol.

Did the gal say once, to her bishop, that she was angry with the Church? Or did she say that the Church harbors and protects pedophiles at all levels of leadership 1000 times, on every forum she could find, on every podcast that would have her and on and on? Bottom line is that we don't know - end of story.

Dude, look, she is most likely going to take this to trial. She has a lawyer. All this does is give us a glimpse into what happened in this specific interaction w/ her church leaders. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually it is less. All it does is give us her version of what happened.

bbrown wrote: ↑March 17th, 2023, 11:45 pm A bishops court isn’t set up the way she described. Unless they’ve changed it in the last few years. Ive experienced plenty of attacks and harassment from church leaders , I have no doubt they are pulling all kinds of idiocy but the story we have lacks detail and doesn’t follow church norms for disciplinary hearings. Maybe they have unusual instructions from the stake? We don’t have enough in this version of this story. Maybe there is more out there?