A very widely known Mormon professional counselor and sex therapist, Natasha Helfer, has been summoned to a disciplinary council.

Natasha is smart, talented, well trained. She has worked side by side for years with John Dehlin, also with Lindsay Hansen Park and Sunstone.

She has a degree in Psychology from BYU. It appears to me she has a very non-standard LDS testimony.....and I do not think she embraces Joseph Smith or the truth claims of Mormonism. And I am guessing she will eventually be free and greatly unburdened as a FORMER member. Nevertheless, this kind of thing is emotional and difficult to navigate.....

Mormons don't need sex therapists!!

They have Holy McGhost to guide them!

Believe me, he's seen it all.

It’s good that the church is protecting the likes of Ammon Bundy from such pernicious influences as Helfer.

Yeah, if they started going after crooks, I’m sure many of us would have family members called to disciplinary councils. I certainly do. But no, just high profile people who dare admit or even allude to the fact that JS was an easily-provable con artist. Crooks don’t hurt the bottom line. As long as they give the Corp of Rusty their 10% of the haul from their crimes, it’s all good. But do things to slice into the gravy train of high-income members finding out the truth and you gotta have that label of excommunication put on you rso the sheeple know to steer clear.

In looking at her website, I can see a number of things that would likely piss off (oh, sorry - "concern") the Mormon leadership. Good luck to her however this resolves.

Absolutely, Summer! I think the only "testimony" the LDS leaders want to hear is "I know Joseph Smith was a Prophet" "I know the Church is true" "I am faithful to attend my Relief Society meetings".....etc. Crazy stuff....

mythb4meat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely, Summer! I think the only "testimony"
> the LDS leaders want to hear is "I know Joseph
> Smith was a Prophet" "I know the Church is true"
> "I am faithful to attend my Relief Society
> meetings".....etc. Crazy stuff....

Question is... Did the Twelve bare testimony of Joe, Book of Mormon and True Church in conference?

Some say they did not do so.

I don't think she is still a Facebook "friend" of mine, but I used to read her stuff daily, but couldn't keep up with her many initiatives. I think she listed herself among those with "nuanced" belief in the church -- which fits probably most of the attending members today.

She had been in trouble with the church before, like when she worked for them as an adjunct psychological counselor (as I understand the situation), and then wrote something or expressed belief about masturbation being natural and not a sin. I think that after that, they not only quit having her do stuff on the behalf of the church, but also sort of black-balled her. Anyway, Natasha, like most people, doesn't need the church anymore. Her knowledge and wisdom would run laps around that of Russ Nelson, anyway.

cludgie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Her knowledge and wisdom would run laps
> around that of Russ Nelson, anyway.

And therein lies the problem.

The church leaders are probably planning to kick her out of the church for claiming that there is no such thing as sex addiction. If there is no sex addiction then the church's whole model of controlling people through their sex drive becomes ineffective. If there is no sex addiction and sex is not bad or addictive, then you don't need the church's help to repent of your non-existant addiction. People who feel guilty often give the church money as a part of that process. How can the church leaders guilt you if you do not believe that you have a problem that you need their help with? In other words, she's bad for their business.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2021 01:25AM by azsteve.

She will tell the Stake Presidency and High Council they all are in dire need of a blow job and then send them all a bill for counseling.

Isn't the fact that she's a woman allow her bishop to handle her court of love & kisses at the ward level?

That's the way Brother Joe played it.

She should at least pass out her business card. Maybe on the sly as she shakes their sexually repressed hands on the way out. Accompanied with a little wink that says, "I've had some interesting conversations with your wife."

She, being a woman can be kicked out of the church by a council of only a bishop, a bishop's counselor, and a ward clerk, three men. Now if she was a man who was ordained to Elder or higher, it would take a stake president's council and the whole group of twelve high councelors (if I remember correctly), to kick her out of the church. How is that fair to the average woman?

Nothing is fair to the average woman.

Or man either for that matter.

I just found an updated version of the church manual that was published in March of 2021. It used to be that a woman could always be excommunicated by her Bishop in a Bishop's court. It used to be that Melchesedic Priesthood holders could only be excommunicated by a Stake President's church court. Everyone else could be excommunicated by a Bishop's church court. This made it much more difficult to excommunicate the average male adult church member, while no woman had such a privilege.

That has changed. So my post above is not accurate. Now they draw this line at whether or not a person has gone through the endowment ceremony or not. So now, believe it or not, men and women are treated equally when it comes to the church court system. An endowed man or woman can only be excommunicated by a Stake President's church court. All others (men and women) can be excommunicated in a Bishop's court. They didn't specify whether or not a Melchesedic priesthood holder who had not been through the temple could be excommunicated in a Bishop's church court now or not now. If a Bishop's court can now excommunicate Elders who have not been through the temple, that would be a major change of church policy.

I don't know when this change took place. But now it makes sence as to why it is the Stake President who has gone after her now. They don't just want her to change her behavior or to disfellowship her if she doesn't retract what she said. They are planning to excommunicate her. I am guessing that Natasha Helfer has probably been through the temple. I am sure that at the church court they will probably act with courtesy toward her outwardly. They'll talk about solemn prayer and act all sad. They'll give her time to speak and appear to be paying attention to her, but won't listen to what she says. Then they'll kick her ass out of the church. Then they'll act all sad again outwardly, while smiling inwardly. They'll feel justified inwardly, without realizing the damage done by them.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2021 09:35PM by azsteve.

I would encourage her to "X" their sorry butts just like Jeremy Reynolds chose to do.

But, if she really wants to be stay in, I hope it has this outcome for her. I guess I was never indoctrinated enough, thank gawd, because I would only have taken Jeremy Reynold's stance at the silly court...that is if I chose to attend the court at all.

Instead, I chose to resign, and I felt wonderful euphoria sticking it to them.

did you mean "axed"?

Yea, axe their sorry butts...

As usual, the church has just shot its own self in the foot for even considering this. The great thing about the story of Natasha's pending church court is that the story has now appeared in the Washington Post. This is more great publicity for the church, wot-wot? Land o' Goshen, people will be lining up to enter the waters of baptism.

Great job, Washington Post!

We're not sure yet if they even held the church court on her or not. They probably did. She wasn't allowed to be there if they did hold it. The current church manual says that the person being tried can have two witnesses if the witnesses are worthy members. Natasha brought two temple-recommend-holding female witnesses with her. Both witnesses had been pre-approved to testify. They were not even allowed to come in to the building to use the restrooms. Then the church leaders called the police and everyone had to leave.

Natasha had her notes on her phone that she wanted access to during the church trial. The church leaders asked her to surrender her phone before she could come in to the building. She said "no". She had signed a paper agreeing to not record the meeting. She claimed to have also told her friend's that she intended to keep that agreement and re-iterated to her friends that she wanted them to keep the agreement not to record anything. Those church leaders were just paranoid. Since the rules outlined in the church manual were not followed, it'll be interesting to see whether or not the church court was held.

In the news, the church called the court "sacred." Also, the church insists that all courts are a local affair, called by the person's local leaders. That, of course, is a lie. If SLC leadership is fed up and offend by a well-known or "celebrity" member, leadership at the aposthole level will dictate to the person's stake how it will all pan out, and the result is known in advance. But then they publicly insist that, yeah, it looks a little fishy, but it was the person's local leaders who make the call.