over kids' hair...

https://www.aol.com/news/slain-microsoft-exec-suspects-got-090006221.html

That sounds like it should be from the Onion!

Whoa! That was written in a way that was really hard to follow. I'm still not sure who was Mormon or were they all?

Oh, good, you couldn’t follow it either. I was afraid I was experiencing an early symptom of dementia. :)

Yes, I found it hard to follow too. But maybe that's because of the rugby ;-)

If only I had rugby as an excuse. Sounds a lot cooler. Or would that be chiller?

Mom is all tatted up and she cares about hair color?

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mom is all tatted up and she cares about hair
> color?

I noticed that too. Either she is a convert or went through her own phase. Not a stereotypical TBM.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mom is all tatted up and she cares about hair
> color?

It was the dad who was upset about purple hair (which the daughter does not have, but wants). The ex wife [mom] initially went to the bishop, who confirmed that IT IS NOT A SIN to have purple colored hair.

However, the dad became enraged and went to confront the bishop. The dad interrupted an interview with some unknown party (he barged through the door). The dad confronted the bishop and told him that his ex wife had left the church.

The bishop stood his ground that he could counsel/minister to anyone who requested to meet with him.

That's when the dad threatened to beat up the bishop in the parking lot. The bishop called the police because the dad was out of control.

The bishop sounds like the only one with common sense. The slain man, the ex-wife, and her second husband all seem like a bunch of lunatics.

First, I think this is a very sad story.

It sounds like a murder for hire against Gardner's first husband (the slain ex Microsoft exec Bridegan). The hitman has agreed to testify against the wife (who left the church) Gardner and Gardner's new husband Fernandez-Saldana. Gardner has full sleeve tattoos in her arraignment photos.

It sounds like Bridegan was a hothead, alpha male narcist who was arguing about his daughter's choice of purple hair. He was seeking the bishop to side with his personal revelation that it's a sin. And the bishop was trying to influence the daughter that she should not disrespect her parent's wishes to not have purple hair. Apparently, Bridegan did not like the bishop's advice and invited him to step out into the church parking lot so he could kick his ass. The bishop called the cops instead.

It sounds like Briegan's perfect celestial marriage fell apart and the wife left him and the church. Then Bridegan believed that everyone (including the bishop) was conspiring against him. I think his extreme paranoia motivated the ex wife and new husband to hire a hitman. (I'm not conding murder, but I think understand why the ex conspired to take out Bridegan).

Whoa. Your last paragraph flabbergasts me. The immediate assumption that Bridegan was the problem. Enough of a problem to justify killing?

In the article it is the ex wife and her new husband who are disparaging Bridegan. No surprise. Divorces are most often like that with each side blaming the other.

On top of that I know a lot of divorces where the woman remarries and tries every means possible to cut the ex completely out of the picture and his children. Story as old as the hills. This is common. On top of that she has the church in the mix who of course will side with her. So no surprise the bishops wife as "witness" is giving disparaging remarks.

Bridegan was upset because the church was having control over his children. What was he supposed to do? Take the fabled "high road" that leads straight off a cliff? Bow to the Bishop no matter what the bishop is doing? Let the wife turn his children against him?

There is no reason to take sides with anyone in this type of situation. This is a poorly written account with a lot of missing information. Still, plotting murder to get your own way? That is why they will go to jail as they should.

It was hard to make sense of, but that is my take.

Your observations have valid points.

After my divorce the Relief Society ladies projected me as an abusive and immoral man, while the Bishop attempted to take away the image of me as my boys father, and instead make him the father figure. One neighbor treated my youngest with absolute disdain, because the kid would not bow down to his priesthood authority.

Of course the blatant lies and fabricated stories by my former spouse did not help. The church did significant emotional damage to my youngest child. I was able to pull him out of that situation once he got to be 18. He has since stayed in regular contact with me since he trusts no one else who is remotely associated with the church.

I see errors made by the participants from all sides to the story. The biggest error that anyone can make is involving a bishop who has no training or skills for such matters. I am glad that I made it clear in a rational calm conversation to the bishops after my divorce, that I was the father of my children and they were not! Bishops are nothing but fall guys for the Q15, anyone who takes on that responsibility should go through a deep physiological exam, and expect to be run over by the metaphorical bus at any given time.

I don't read it that way. Bridegan's ex-wife left the church. For whatever reason, Bridegan went to the bishop for advice on a relatively minor matter, his childrens' hairstyles. The bishop gave the kids sane advice that is similar to what many other people would have given -- that it was not a matter of "sin," as Bridegan thought, but that the kids should listen to their parents anyway. For whatever reason, Bridegan took exception to that perfectly sensible advice, and challenged the bishop to a fight in the church parking lot (which was declined.)

The bishop is the only one who comes off well in that account.

Yes the hairstyle is a minor item, but what it shows is that people expect a bishop to have an answer for everything, and they don't, and they should not.

A bishop should stick to one theme, and that is doctrine and nothing else. But members put a Bishop in that position, and many a bishop errs on getting involved. As an example I was ES to a bishop who got involved in a heated argument at 3:00 A.M. over the color of "Oven Mitts" by a husband and wife in the ward, at their house...... I kid you not.

Minor or not, this is the mistake people in the church and bishops make all the time. They think they should be involved, when in all reality they should not. Innocent or not, the bishop should not have been involved in the hair style snit, and the parents should never have involved the bishop in the hair style snit.

I do not think it was wise at all for the Bishop to have even entertained the argument, it had nothing to do with leading his flock. Once you open the door even a slight crack, the flood waters will come pouring through. Although the Bishop had no involvement with the murder, he did end up in the written body of a story all about murder. I would go to great length to avoid that mistake.

"I think his extreme paranoia motivated the ex wife and new husband to hire a hitman"

I understand the "get them before they get you" logic, but doesn't his death prove his paranoia was justified? Nobody blamed Phil Hartman for getting killed by his wife.

Is that typical wife behavior where you live? We don't get that much around here.

Was the wife having sex? Once you commit the sin next to murder, what's one more step?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2024 08:34PM by bradley.

From my reading of the situation, Gardner had already left the church when the incident happened, and the bishop involved was not her ecclesiastical leader.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2024/02/06/mario-fernandez-saldana-interview-released-in-jared-bridegan-case/72490478007/

"Fernandez Saldana would explain how the kids were afraid to ask Bridegan questions over a fear of rejection. Abigail once asked if she could dye her hair purple. Bridegan told Abigail she would not be accepted into the church if she had purple hair. Fernandez Saldana took the children to a Bishop for the Church of Latter-Day Saints, who they happened to be friends with. According to Fernandez Saldana, Bridegan drove to the local Church of Latter-Day Saints in Neptune Beach and confronted the bishop. Fernandez Saldana stated Bridegan got into an argument with the Bishop because he was befriending Gardner. He would go on to explain how Bridegan drove by the bishop's house and this prompted the bishop to contact their legal section."

It sounds like the bishop was just dragged into the middle of a very bad custody dispute and tried to play the role of peacemaker. It does emphasize the fact that mormon bishops have no training to address problems like this. I agree with Silence is Golden that the bishop should have stayed out of it, but if he got involved, it should have been limited to confirming that having purple hair is not a sin.

Church leaders and missionary presidents encourage missionaries to marry as soon as possible and start having boat loads of children. The couple knew each other TWO MONTHS. That is insane.

This whole sad mess can be placed at the feet of mormon leaders.
They only care about creating life long tithe payers.
A microsoft executive would be a trophy fish for them.

I read the article. What a mess!

I have been following this case since I first became aware of it about a year ago. Frankly, I am surprised it has not come up on this board before now.

I only know of this woman from her mother's blog on the Stampin' Up web site. In a few years' time, I have watched her style change from well-dressed and well-groomed to the opposite end of the spectrum. Due to the changes, I suspected that she had left the church, but I did not know for sure. I am aware that many people from her generation "decorate" themselves in this way but I do not find this attractive on anyone. However, each of us follows his own muse. I do not judge anyone based on his or her personal style.

When she got engaged, I wondered what she saw in him, plus I was appalled that they were choosing to marry before knowing each other better. He hadn't completed his education and attended college during their brief marriage. They lived in large and expensive house as newly-weds. She got pregnant with twins and the boy was born with a heart defect that will shorten his life expectancy. This caused them to relocate twice during the marriage. He needs to live at sea level in order to breathe and be near specialists who can treat his condition. This stress from this situation alone could crush many marriages.

It sounds like they did not have an ideal marriage but I have no idea what really happened during its duration. All the facts are not known to us. Yes, she made a comment about getting "someone to shut him up" but it sounds like something people say when they are angry rather than a serious request to locate an assassin for hire.

I do not know what "dirt" the detectives dug up in their search. The man's second wife has made many public comments indicating that she believes the first wife is guilty. She should not be making these comments. She sounds vindictive to me. I see it as a public smear campaign.

Judging by the comments left news articles online, Shanna Gardner seems to already have been convicted by the public. I find this disturbing, since in the USA a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. I wonder how she will get a fair trial. One would need to be King Solomon the Wise to judge.