LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.

commonwealth
captain of 100
Posts: 164

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by commonwealth »

Life may get difficult for church leaders if they stand to be recorded. But then again, maybe it should - maybe this will serve as a system of checks and balances against error.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by brianj »

Of course all we have here is one side of the story. This woman accuses her husband of an "emotional affair," something I have never heard of outside Utah Mormon culture. What is an emotional affair? To me it sounds like a flimsy excuse for throwing a big fit.

And what was the "talking" she claims she was doing? Was she incessantly and loudly complaining about not seeing her stake president punish her ex husband?

Everyone in my ward knows that I'm going through a painful divorce that's been dragging on for well over a year now. Several people know I need to talk about it, and a couple people are even willing to listen. My bishop is willing to send me to LDS Family Services so I can talk about it with a counselor. People who know what's going on know that my wife is regularly committing adultery and that I'm bothered by the lack of action by her bishop. But I do what I can to not hold a grudge, I don't frequently complain about her bishop's inaction, I try to forgive, and I generally try to focus on how to deal with my emotions so I can move forward. And I have never had a negative interaction with priesthood leaders over the situation. Therefore I want to know the side of the story she's not telling.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9831

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by JohnnyL »

IF the OP is correct, sounds good to me.

"Emotional affair."
Divorce.

"talk to my friends" vs. "talking to way too many people, too much, nothing done against them," etc.

"No longer active"?

Seems like lots of inaccuracies and empty blanks. IOW, a sensationalized story with little substance not because it's not there, but because of the way the story was told.

Just saw brianj's post as I was going to post--yeah, a lot along those lines. And the fact that she came out now, like this, with this, seems to reinforce her negative part in it. I can't say, because I don't know what and how she told the news vs. how they decided to spin it.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by gardener4life »

We believe that a man may be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions. (Individual responsibility, individual testimonies, and individual applications of the plan of Salvation. "Each case is different" and not necessarily a pattern for all.) (Level of rebellion is also different case by case. Rebellion doesn't mean that they don't have real grievances but it can be having a spirit of 'war' and not being able to let it go.)

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by Rose Garden »

I listened to part of the recordings. She was telling everyone her husband had an emotional affair with this woman in the ward and people were thinking they had been sleeping together. That was what the stake president was trying to get her to stop talking about.

User avatar
LdsMarco
captain of 100
Posts: 606

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by LdsMarco »

Recording the meeting already shows to me that she's trouble. The fruits she bears is the fruits of apostasy.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9831

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by JohnnyL »

LdsMarco wrote: February 17th, 2018, 8:45 am Recording the meeting already shows to me that she's trouble. The fruits she bears is the fruits of apostasy.
I would say recording might be ok, but not sharing it, especially to a news station!

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by AI2.0 »

This other thread on the forum is directly related to this problem of a person recording their interview without the knowledge of their ecclesiastical leader.

Some of you might want to look at it.

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=47640

It seems that they tried to pass a bill in Utah which would make this illegal--if it passed, Utah would have been only one of about 13 states who don't allow a person to record another person without their knowledge.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by AI2.0 »

My own feeling, the fact that she went to the News media with a recording of their private conversation--she is under the mistaken notion that she has a right to a Temple Recommend. She's dead wrong, she does not.

Her Husband may be a total jerk, he may be having some kind of an affair, and she made have some valid reasons for wanting a divorce, BUT all that doesn't really matter, because she's not entitled to a Temple recommend. The Bishop's calling includes determining a person's worthiness to enter the temple. Her Bishop determined that she was not worthy to hold one and he had the right to revoke it.

She does have the right to go above his head and appeal his decision. I trust that they will look at this in an objective manner and decide what is correct. But, if the decision of higher ups is that she's not worthy to hold one, then she ought to humble herself and abide by their decision, and change her ways--or she just proves that their decision was the correct one. It isn't just immorality or breaking the word of wisdom or not paying tithing that keeps people from having a recommend.

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by EmmaLee »

I agree that she should not have gone to the media about this - no good (for anyone) was going to come from doing that. I still don't understand though, why her recommend was taken away BEFORE she shared any of this with the media? On what grounds, exactly, did they remove her recommend? I mean, if the divorced women I know at church were asked to stop talking about their divorces, ALL their recommends would be taken away as they ALL still talk about their divorces (which they initiated, every one of them) and their ex-husbands (who are still active members at church and in our community) constantly. Just by what I heard on the tape, her stake president (or was it her Bishop?) sounds very condescending, but that's just going by the little bit I heard, of course. Guess it goes back to what was said on the thread about Porter's wives reporting abuse to their Bishops - Bishops/Church leaders are not counselors or therapists or police - don't go to them as such.


User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by Joel »

Eagle Mountain Utah Silver Lake Stake President Recordings

The following audio recordings and emails involve a Mormon woman and her Stake President. A Stake President is one level higher than a Bishop and oversees multiple congregations. More can be read about the position of Stake President here.

The recordings are conversations that take place between Tiercy Hadlock and Russ Clayton. At the time of the recordings, Ms. Hadlock was a member of the Silver Creek Ward in the Eagle Mountain Utah Silver Lake Stake.

Ms. Hadlock was divorced in April 2016. A major component of the divorce was the fact that her husband had an emotional affair with a woman who attended their same ward.

After Ms. Hadlock and her ex-husband separated, but before the divorce was finalized, her bishop permitted her ex-husband to ordain their teenaged son in a Priesthood advancement based on his verbal declaration that he was worthy to do so. Ms. Hadlock expressed to both the Bishop and Mr. Clayton that she disagrees with and does not support this decision. At the same time, Ms. Hadlock was sharing with some of her friends who happened to live in the same ward boundaries the details of why she was getting a divorce. She also shared these details with friends who did not live within the ward boundaries. At some point prior to the finalization of the divorce, Mr. Clayton revoked Ms. Hadlock’s temple recommend.

A temple recommend is what is required for a Mormon to enter into one of the many temples located around the world and participate in essential Mormon ordinances and rituals. More information on Temple Recommends can be found here.

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

On June 21, 2017, Mr. Clayton sent Ms. Hadlock and email in which he apologizes for not being more understanding of her feelings.

Email here

DesertWonderer2
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1164

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by DesertWonderer2 »

An onvious one-sided story w edited recordimgs to support that flawed story. Nothing to see here.

Finrock
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4426

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by Finrock »

Stop talking about the details of your divorce with other people. Primarily because this involves someone who still lives in your ward. This direction includes everything that did and didn’t happen between and ; past and present. It is nobody’s business, and only promulgates speculation and gossip.
Does the bishop have authority from God to tell a person to stop talking to other people about the details of their divorce? I might understand a request to not be disruptive during Sunday School or Sacrament, but a blanket ban on discussing the details of one's divorce with other people?

-Finrock

thisisspartaaa
captain of 100
Posts: 770

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by thisisspartaaa »

Sounds like she got upset over the emotion affair (whatever that is) and started a bunch of drama over it.

When you hear affair it implies sex. Slander like that has no place in the church and when she was told to stop it she decided to make even more drama.

User avatar
LdsMarco
captain of 100
Posts: 606

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by LdsMarco »

JohnnyL wrote: February 17th, 2018, 10:51 am
LdsMarco wrote: February 17th, 2018, 8:45 am Recording the meeting already shows to me that she's trouble. The fruits she bears is the fruits of apostasy.
I would say recording might be ok, but not sharing it, especially to a news station!
It's in the handbook. No recording.

BackBlast
captain of 100
Posts: 570

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by BackBlast »

Finrock wrote: February 17th, 2018, 6:39 pm
Stop talking about the details of your divorce with other people. Primarily because this involves someone who still lives in your ward. This direction includes everything that did and didn’t happen between and ; past and present. It is nobody’s business, and only promulgates speculation and gossip.
Does the bishop have authority from God to tell a person to stop talking to other people about the details of their divorce? I might understand a request to not be disruptive during Sunday School or Sacrament, but a blanket ban on discussing the details of one's divorce with other people?

-Finrock
Having gone through the divorce of my parents, then after marriage, the divorce of my wife's parents. The fall out and such of that. Bitter people can quickly run afoul of gossip and murmuring in their tellings and retellings. I don't know what happened here, but with my experience I could easily see that the telling of the narrative is problematic to the spiritual health of the teller and listener alike as well as poison existing relationships within the ward or stake. Though you might as well tell the sun not to rise with your personal might and expect obedience.

And in words I once read. Giving an order you know won't be obeyed will only weaken your authority.

I'm not in his shoes, I don't think I would do the same. But... I'm NOT in his shoes (thank goodness :D )

Rand
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2472

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by Rand »

Why is it so important to be right? Man, what people will do to themselves, and their eternal salvation.

Rand
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2472

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by Rand »

commonwealth wrote: February 16th, 2018, 8:38 pm Life may get difficult for church leaders if they stand to be recorded. But then again, maybe it should - maybe this will serve as a system of checks and balances against error.
The problem is, just like the lost, or stolen 116 pages, recordings can be edited and changed to make the point you want to make. They are a solitary voice. The Bishop will also have to record the conversations to protect himself... whoa, hold on! That's not okay...
Either way, its a problem.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9831

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by JohnnyL »

LdsMarco wrote: February 17th, 2018, 8:58 pm
JohnnyL wrote: February 17th, 2018, 10:51 am
LdsMarco wrote: February 17th, 2018, 8:45 am Recording the meeting already shows to me that she's trouble. The fruits she bears is the fruits of apostasy.
I would say recording might be ok, but not sharing it, especially to a news station!
It's in the handbook. No recording.
If it were held in the chapel, correct.

diligently seeking
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1272

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by diligently seeking »

Aint a one of us who does not battle daily, to some extent, with the big problem of receiving and giving offense. We can be vindictive heart stirred up people or we can let Christ heal us...

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by AI2.0 »

thisisspartaaa wrote: February 17th, 2018, 6:55 pm Sounds like she got upset over the emotion affair (whatever that is) and started a bunch of drama over it.

When you hear affair it implies sex. Slander like that has no place in the church and when she was told to stop it she decided to make even more drama.
Are you sure you want to minimize the damage an emotional affair can do to a marriage? It can destroy a marriage as easily as a sexual affair. And it's not slander if it's true.

From what I've read, the problem here is that the Stake Pres. seems to have felt that the husband's carrying on (whether sexual or non-sexual) with another woman was no big deal and he let the man ordain his son, not even a period of probation, it seems. Not an appropriate response to a serious breach of marital trust and it is surprising. First, If I was the Stake Pres. I'd be very concerned about the husband getting involved with another woman in his ward, and being a endowed (his wife was endowed so likely he was too) he is held to a higher standard for behavior, IMO--and I don't know how much I'd believe that it hadn't actually involved some sexual contact. If given more time before they were found out, that's the natural course where it was heading. Realigning boundaries to put the 'other woman' in a different ward is odd too--why not just put her in the other ward by executive order--no need to redo boundaries and affect other members as well. The whole thing is just odd.

The woman should not have recorded him and she should not have taken it to the press, but I understand why she did it. The Stake Pres. didn't take it seriously, he didn't empathize with her. She felt like she was being victimized again, by her Stake Pres. And someone needs to inform the SP that it's not 'apostasy' to not follow his counsel. He's not her father and she's not three. An ecclesiastical leader gives counsel but he can't force someone to follow it. If she wanted to get a divorce from her husband who got involved with a neighbor (and who knows what else he's done), she can do that. And, in the woman's defense, the SP did apologize later to her--he knew he had handled this poorly.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by brianj »

AI2.0 wrote: February 18th, 2018, 4:09 pm
thisisspartaaa wrote: February 17th, 2018, 6:55 pm Sounds like she got upset over the emotion affair (whatever that is) and started a bunch of drama over it.

When you hear affair it implies sex. Slander like that has no place in the church and when she was told to stop it she decided to make even more drama.
Are you sure you want to minimize the damage an emotional affair can do to a marriage? It can destroy a marriage as easily as a sexual affair. And it's not slander if it's true.

From what I've read, the problem here is that the Stake Pres. seems to have felt that the husband's carrying on (whether sexual or non-sexual) with another woman was no big deal and he let the man ordain his son, not even a period of probation, it seems. Not an appropriate response to a serious breach of marital trust and it is surprising. First, If I was the Stake Pres. I'd be very concerned about the husband getting involved with another woman in his ward, and being a endowed (his wife was endowed so likely he was too) he is held to a higher standard for behavior, IMO--and I don't know how much I'd believe that it hadn't actually involved some sexual contact. If given more time before they were found out, that's the natural course where it was heading. Realigning boundaries to put the 'other woman' in a different ward is odd too--why not just put her in the other ward by executive order--no need to redo boundaries and affect other members as well. The whole thing is just odd.

The woman should not have recorded him and she should not have taken it to the press, but I understand why she did it. The Stake Pres. didn't take it seriously, he didn't empathize with her. She felt like she was being victimized again, by her Stake Pres. And someone needs to inform the SP that it's not 'apostasy' to not follow his counsel. He's not her father and she's not three. An ecclesiastical leader gives counsel but he can't force someone to follow it. If she wanted to get a divorce from her husband who got involved with a neighbor (and who knows what else he's done), she can do that. And, in the woman's defense, the SP did apologize later to her--he knew he had handled this poorly.
It would help a lot of us if you would define emotional affair.

Something else that would really help is knowing just what this woman's ex husband allegedly did. Did he have a friendship with a woman he could open up with, when his wife was too judgemental and self centered to let him freely express himself?

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9831

Re: LDS leader revokes woman's temple recommend for refusing to 'stop talking' about divorce

Post by JohnnyL »

AI2.0 wrote: February 18th, 2018, 4:09 pm
thisisspartaaa wrote: February 17th, 2018, 6:55 pm Sounds like she got upset over the emotion affair (whatever that is) and started a bunch of drama over it.

When you hear affair it implies sex. Slander like that has no place in the church and when she was told to stop it she decided to make even more drama.
Are you sure you want to minimize the damage an emotional affair can do to a marriage? It can destroy a marriage as easily as a sexual affair. And it's not slander if it's true.

From what I've read, the problem here is that the Stake Pres. seems to have felt that the husband's carrying on (whether sexual or non-sexual) with another woman was no big deal and he let the man ordain his son, not even a period of probation, it seems. Not an appropriate response to a serious breach of marital trust and it is surprising. First, If I was the Stake Pres. I'd be very concerned about the husband getting involved with another woman in his ward, and being a endowed (his wife was endowed so likely he was too) he is held to a higher standard for behavior, IMO--and I don't know how much I'd believe that it hadn't actually involved some sexual contact. If given more time before they were found out, that's the natural course where it was heading. Realigning boundaries to put the 'other woman' in a different ward is odd too--why not just put her in the other ward by executive order--no need to redo boundaries and affect other members as well. The whole thing is just odd.

The woman should not have recorded him and she should not have taken it to the press, but I understand why she did it. The Stake Pres. didn't take it seriously, he didn't empathize with her. She felt like she was being victimized again, by her Stake Pres. And someone needs to inform the SP that it's not 'apostasy' to not follow his counsel. He's not her father and she's not three. An ecclesiastical leader gives counsel but he can't force someone to follow it. If she wanted to get a divorce from her husband who got involved with a neighbor (and who knows what else he's done), she can do that. And, in the woman's defense, the SP did apologize later to her--he knew he had handled this poorly.
I agree with some of this, and understand, but also think about what comes to the front.

[I did not listen to the whole recordings, if that's what they were.]

First, I don't understand why this was the SP and not the bishop. The SP might have known about the husband, but I don't know why he would really talk about

What I will write is not to say she's wrong, etc. An "emotional affair". A possibly endowed man. Unknowns, even from her side.

*How many women (and I myself have heard of a few) have been called in to the SP's office for refusing to covenant the first covenant in the endowment?
*How many women have been called in to the SP's office for frivolous divorce?
*How many have been called in for taking the children unfairly, and often on top of that, not allowing or following visitation rights, etc.?

Can we say, probably 0 out of all the cases that happen?
And this, often after "emotional affairs", and often more. The most a few of them would get is a temple recommendation being revoked.

You can't force someone to follow counsel, but you can impose restrictions on church membership. But you did bring up an interesting point. Most leaders I know are slow to and dislike bringing up "accusations" against members--apostasy is the most loathsome of them all. This seems like it would have had to have been a serious situation with multiple warnings. I hope that in the future, when leaders are recorded (whether it happened this time or not), they state the case from the beginning and go through a timeline. At least this way, there will be more protection, and someone who is reminded of their sins might not be quick to run to the media "for help". I know many who would much prefer to lie about what happened, with nothing to back it up, than to provide a full recording which included such details. I wonder if his apology was about that--"handling it poorly", not "doing the wrong thing". On the other hand, maybe being recorded makes you realize, whoops, that really was bad...

So, what if, as has been mentioned and sustained by some on this board, my SP were to ask me to stop doing energy healing. Would it be proper to revoke my temple recommend? or discipline me? Or am I really a three-year old, and the SP is my father?

Perhaps it will be a good thing, in the end.
Last edited by JohnnyL on February 20th, 2018, 6:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply