Page 3 of 3
Re: No recording Bishops and Meetings
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:37 am
by Not Buying It
Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:30 am
She was interviewed on the KUTV Channel 2 news and they even played excerpts of the recording.
One clarification. The affair, apparently, was an "emotional" rather than a physical one, whatever that means.
THIS is why members need to be able to record their leaders. This stake president was way out of line, and the poor woman had no recourse whatsoever. His behavior deserves to be dragged out into the light of day, and he deserves every bit of the ridicule and embarrassment that will follow from the recording being made public. In a system where members have no power and little option for appeal of a wrongheaded decision made by a leader, this kind of thing is essential. If we want Church leaders to be more careful about what they say and do, they need to be afraid of consequences if they don’t. I think this brave woman deserves a lot of credit. Excerpts from Mormonleaks below:
Mr. Clayton asked Ms. Hadlock to meet with him in May or June of 2016 to discuss what he viewed as discord among ward members because of the divorce. This meeting was recorded:
Recording here
In this meeting, Ms. Hadlock questions the rationale used to revoke her temple recommend. She is upset because it was done, from her perspective, for not supporting the Bishop’s decision to allow her ex-husband to ordain their son. Mr. Clayton disagrees states that the reason the temple recommend was revoked was because she refused to stop talking to members of the ward about her divorce.
Mr. Clayton says that her refusal to stop talking about her divorce is apostasy as she is not following the counsel of her priesthood leaders. He states that one must follow their priesthood leaders otherwise they are in apostasy.
Mr. Clayton asked Ms. Hadlock to meet a second time on January 15, 2017. This meeting was recorded:
Recording here
In this meeting, Mr. Clayton tells Ms. Hadlock that he is considering changing the ward boundaries so that she and the woman with whom her ex-husband had an affair are no longer in the same ward (according to Ms. Hadlock the boundaries were changed shortly after this meeting).
Mr. Clayton mentions that he knows that Ms. Hadlock recorded their previous meeting and accuses her of being disingenuous. Ms. Hadlock affirms that her actions were legal.
The subject of the temple recommend being revoked is brought up and Mr. Clayton states that her recommend was not taken away because she would not stop talking about the divorce. He says that it was taken away for her not following the counsel of her leaders and that is apostasy.
At the end of the meeting Mr. Clayton asks Ms. Hadlock to take some time to consider whether or not she can follow the counsel of her leaders and if she can’t, he will start proceedings for a disciplinary council.
On January 16, 2017, Mr. Clayton sent Ms. Hadlock an email outlining the four things she must do for her temple recommend to be reinstated. The Bishop was carbon copied on the email.
Email here
Re: No recording Bishops and Meetings
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:24 am
by StarbucksMom
Wow, crazy stuff. Is the church feeling the heat yet?? This stake president perfectly exemplifies everything that is wrong with the male only, volunteer only, untrained priesthood leadership.
On the heels of church youth interviews, domestic violence victims counseled to stay, and stories like this of priesthood abuse; do you think the church will start considering trained, paid clergy? They need to. They could start with full time CES people/seminary teachers/religion teachers. And train them (some) in counseling, abuse etc. Yup, the top execs would have to open up their wallets and actually leave local wards with some of the cash they take in. You know, like normal Christian churches do. What a concept.
When I really start thinking about this, it makes my blood boil. Just how much money they take in, and how little is spent on individual wards/members/humanitarian work. It's truly disgusting and evil.
Re: No recording Bishops and Meetings
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:21 pm
by Palerider
I'm wondering if the husband here was obedient when the SP told him he had to beg forgiveness from his wife and accept the fact that he might have to be in the dog house for a couple of years as he worked to restore her faith in him and save the marriage? And I cannot fathom how the church could be so quick to forgive the break-up of the home on his account and that he would be eligible to ordain his child fairly soon.
Instead the husband crashes the marriage, upsets the wife no end and because she has a difficult time dealing with it she gets reprimanded???
I'm sure I don't know the whole story here but......
...why does it always seem like the woman is taking the hit in these stories?
Re: No recording Bishops and Meetings
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:42 pm
by alas
Palerider wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:21 pm
I'm wondering if the husband here was obedient when the SP told him he had to beg forgiveness from his wife and accept the fact that he might have to be in the dog house for a couple of years as he worked to restore her faith in him and save the marriage? And I cannot fathom how the church could be so quick to forgive the break-up of the home on his account and that he would be eligible to ordain his child fairly soon.
Instead the husband crashes the marriage, upsets the wife no end and because she has a difficult time dealing with it she gets reprimanded???
I'm sure I don't know the whole story here but......
...why does it always seem like the woman is taking the hit in these stories?
I honestly think it is because they as men identify with the other man. They cannot put themselves in the woman's shoes enough to say, "well, I would be highly offended if my wife fell in love with someone else, broke up the marriage, then was nominated as "mother of the year." Since men HOLD the priesthood, they cannot imagine what it feels like not to have it. They just can't imagine how women feel about not having the priesthood, when they see obviously unworthy men dishonering the priesthood. It is like saying that this adulterer is more loved by God than I am when I have done everything I could to be worthy, but still his penis makes him more righteous, no matter what sin he commits. It gives men a free pass to commit any sin and still be more loved by God than the most righteous woman.
I got the same crap from bishops about my abusive father. They felt like because they would be terribly upset if their daughter refused to let the grandchildren spend overnight, that obviously I was terribly unforgiving. They just were not capable of comprehending that I was protectin my children from a known child molester.
This is part of why the male only bishop can be so harmful to women.
So, rather than imagine how the mother feels and telling the man no, he looks at it from the church's position that the man did not (quite) break the law of chastity, so therefore he is worthy. He doesn't see that since the offensive man is still in the repentance process until his wife has enough restitution to fully forgive, he is not in a position to ordain his son and make the whole family situation worse. He doesn't want to make the "poor man" eat more humble pie. So, he humiliates the woman by declaring the scum to be more loved by God than she is.