Share this Episode

Comments 32

  1. Natasha is one of my favorite people in the Post Mormon space and I respect her desire to retain her membership. I just sent her Stake President an email to show my support. I simply told him that “We Don’t Know what we don’t know” and that it is not in the Church’s best interest to remain inflexible, intolerant, unapologetic and prideful. We have to learn to trust the people that have spent years studying and researching. Natasha has done this! Listen to her stories! One of my favorite quotes from the late Maya Angelou is “When you know better, you do better!” The Church is so far off base with threatening Natasha this way. Do better Church! Now is your chance to do what a so called Christ centered religion should do.

  2. Listening to this right now and am heartbroken. Just wanted to send love to Natasha and say that I totally agree with her belief that the church is too invested in “othering” anyone not in the tribe. I am so sorry that I ever followed that mindset–it has cost me dearly in relationships that could have been stronger and could have supported me in ways that my religion or the leaders within that religion never could. I wish that the leaders could see how much damage they do to members by encouraging, if not mandating, that members draw a red line between believers and non-believers. I don’t even know exactly what red line Natasha’s local leaders are drawing, but I guess there are all kinds of arbitrary lines drawn, and leaders believe the lines are more important than the people it affects.

    I am so glad to be out of the church, but it might never have been necessary, had church leaders and family members not drawn lines long ago against my loved ones, who were and are the most important and supportive people in my life. If this religion is all about our continued relationships with loved ones in the life hereafter, why aren’t our relationships with our loved ones more important to the church now?

  3. The church should be commending and supporting this person, not “disciplining” her. Just shows how backwards the church is in regards to these issues.

  4. I strongly encourage those wishing to hold a vigil outside the chapel to remain home. Why? The vigil will hinder her desire to remain a member of record. She can receive their support through social media. I totally agree the disciplinary court process is a travesty even disgusting. The vigil will do her more harm than good if she wishes to advance her work within the church.

  5. How many more members can the church afford to lose over the blunt instrument of excommunication? And I’m referring, of course, not to Natasha Helfer but to those who will be disgusted, once again, by the cruelty and dishonesty of excommunicating another before considering the validity of what they represent.

    Members aren’t stupid. They can see that it’s more than an attempt to punish an individual or protect the institution from damage. It’s an attempt to avoid the consequences of the wrong-headed path they, themselves are on and unwilling to abandon. But those members who are committed to the truth, to decency, to support for emotionally and sexually healthy lives will see what’s happening. That’s why the members they lose with each of these public vendettas are the honest, the bright, the courageous, the forward thinking and those interested in protecting the next generation from the unhealthy repressive and authoritarian atmosphere within the church.

  6. Natasha-please get professional therapy for yourself through this ordeal and beyond. It was painful to listen to how you have been targeted for erasure by a church you want to remain a member of, yet who does not have your best interests as their priority.

    I noticed that the timing of the church’s assault coincides with your impending divorce and formal loss of male protection. My hope is that you are able to claim your own power and refuse to relinquish your personal, spiritual, or professional authority.

    1. She probably has many reasons for wanting to retain her membership despite their cruelty toward her, but as an excommunicated member she loses credibility with members and therefore loses power to help them when they have such need for healing. Many members close their ears to those labeled “apostate”, if she retains her membership these people will still hear her.

      1. I assume this is the very reason she has been targeted for removal now that she is without a “priesthood head” – perceived by a group of entitled white males bullies, uneducated in her field, as a virus spreading the contagion of choice, self determination, and mental and sexual health to other Mormon members. These white male bullies retain power over their congregations only as long as none of the members challenge them. I notice they need to band together – 12 or 15? of them to face 1 lone woman.

        I have polygamous Mormon ancestors, was promised to the church by my mainstream Mormon parents before I was conceived, and escaped.

  7. Listening to this interview was profoundly moving – What pain and anguish the LDS church has brought to this impressive professional woman. I have long followed Mormon Stories and this was one of the saddest I have ever watched. I can’t fathom what the leaders are thinking to take this action in Kansas when Natasha clearly no longer lives within the bounds of the Stake/Ward there. The only motivation that makes sense is that they have done this to create additional hardships and to seek an emotional advantage over the victim of this harsh and violent procedure. Call it whatever they want – it is still a spiritual rape. I am convinced that taking such action is intentional in order to create further trauma for Natasha and her family. Consequently, I find it difficult to accept that they call themselves Christian.

    My prayer for Natasha is that she knows how very respected she is in her professional role. Although I am never Mormon, my husband is of pioneer stock – and the atrocities he experienced and witnessed as an LDS member were enough to motivate his exit from the church. We have lived with many of the hostile behaviors from our active LDS family members that were described during the interview. The shunning and inappropriate judgements of us have gone way beyond acceptable boundaries. Such behaviors have caused immeasurable pain which has fractured our family relationships beyond repair. Undoubtedly, Natasha is correct to call out these things in her professional capacity as a mental health provider. There are many like us – who are immensely grateful for the wisdom and bravery of Natasha Helfer.

    Although the coming days will be challenging, my hope is that you may know peace and comfort . By expressing your ethical and scientifically based positions, you have provided necessary mental health support to all in your Mormon community.

  8. This bishop and this stake president are flouting the doctrine and practices of the LDS church.

    It is well established that a bishop and a stake president has spiritual jurisdiction for everyone living WITHIN their ward and stake boundaries. It follows that they do not have spiritual jurisdiction for anyone OUTSIDE their ward and stake boundaries. Natasha was outside their ward and stake boundaries for a year before they initiated contact with her.

    This bishop and stake president are operating outside of their spiritual jurisdiction and have been doing so for over a year and a half now. I remember a talk when President Eyring was spiritually unable to counsel someone outside his spiritual jurisdiction — in his case, he had been released as bishop. (See Rise to Your Call, October 2002 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/rise-to-your-call?lang=eng ) Eyring stated, “Nothing came. In my heart and mind there was only silence. After a few moments, I said: ‘I’m sorry. I appreciate your kindness and your trust. But I’m afraid I can’t help you.'” Apparently, this bishop and stake president lack the spiritual self-awareness and spiritual restraint that President Eyring had.

    D&C 121:37 states, “when we undertake … to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” It is abusive and coercive for this bishop and this stake president to initiate spiritual counseling with someone living out of state. It is even more abusive and coercive to initiate a membership council with someone living out of state. Amen to the priesthood and authority of these men.

    1. This would be my opening statement to the SP and Bishop. I would request that those in attendance have their scriptures and that talk. In short based on D+C how you rationalize you having authority over me? Based on Eyring – how do you rationalize your connection to the spirit to know how to as Eyring tried – to counsel me.

      So – before the court begins and in front of everyone present – I suggest Natasha demand the SP and Bishop establish their authority.

    2. Actually, the general handbook instructs a new stake president to confer with the current one, i.e. the stake president where she now lives with the one where she used to live, to determine between them who would be more appropriate to run a disciplinary council. In Natasha’s case they did discuss this, as she mentions, and the current Utah stake president delegated and agreed that her previous one in Kansas would be better suited to do it since he knows her better, even if it’s very little. Natasha mentions that he worked with her husband and the bishop in Kansas probably knows her too, whilst the Utah ones have no idea who she is and can only go by her online presence. Then the handbook instructs the Kansas stake to keep or hold on to her membership records and complete this process. Now had Natasha moved and requested her records move immediately back in 2019 or 2020, and gone to her local ward for that, and her records were moved to Utah before in 2021, well then you would have the scenario you describe here. But currently, because her records never left Kansas and both stake presidents discussed this situation, and she never became a member of the Utah stake (with her records moving etc) then everything is being done correctly as per handbook instructions. Plus the 1st presidency will surely concur with the way things are currently being handled since they are following the instructions in the general handbook which the 1st presidency has written. So appeals based on this geographical location will surely fail. But any appeal that is based on fairness, claiming that the process is unfair or missing information or time, well that has a better chance of success. So if Natasha is exed, I would recommend framing her appeal to the first presidency on the ground of unfairness to explain herself adequately in just 1hr, unfairness because her witnesses didn’t have more than 2min to talk, or couldn’t travel with such short notice, or unfairness because they forced the current relief society pres, who she doesn’t know, to support her and not a friend from Utah because they couldn’t travel or things along those lines. Hopefully an appeal wont be necessary and she is only put on probation possibly, but I won’t bet on that. My bet is that they will remove her membership because these hearings are more to rubber stamp and complete the process a stake president already thinks should be done before hand.

  9. Another sad example of Mormon leaders using disciplinary councils as a cudgel to fight a culture war they are badly losing. I am so sorry that Natasha has been caught in the crossfire.

  10. Another example of how harmful the church can be. I was raised Mormon , came out at 17 and the amount of deeeep layers of shame still harm me today. Constantly unpacking . Sex therapists are so needed . The harm the church causes can not be tolerated.

  11. I am commenting due to similar treatment by another orthodox religion I became affiliated with as a teenager. I have been informally iced out of the organization I have been immersed in for almost 50 years. Without a hearing of any sort, no direct communication with me, I have been covertly, through widespread gossip and slander, I have been shunned by the entire body of believers of whom I have received love and support. This occurred exactly at the time I was widowed after 31 years of marriage. My husband’s final year of life was a battlefield of 70 days in hospital, open heart surgery, cancer, being bedridden for the last 2 months of his life. To say I was traumatized is putting it mildly. Yet this is when an “elder” that had been stewing about a piece of gossip he had been made privy to years previously concerning something I had done when I was 17 years old. It was only after my husband was gone that he acted against me and no one came to my defense. Even though there are strict procedures to handle such a matter the actual procedure that was followed a systematic investigation behind my back which became a mission through explosive gossip to separate souls from souls. This is why gossip is included in the same category as murder in the scriptures.
    You may ask why did I not fight back? I lost my father and a brother 10 months apart from each other starting when I was four and then my mother married a pedophile who proceeded to sexually and psychologically abuse me for six more years until I ran away from home at age 12. My mother was entirely on board for all of it. Keeping secrets became a very well honed skill. I then lived in foster homes. I actually became a Mormon briefly as a teenager because my father had been a Mormon and came from pioneer stock. However I became attracted to another fundamental style of religion a couple of years later. Either way it was always going to be a bumpy ride for me concerning spirituality because if my stepfather had one goal it was to destroy me as a human being and warp me into his sickness. Thus I have always felt like an outsider, condemned in my own heart. I had been damaged to the point where stability was a place I could visit, but I couldn’t live there. But rather than religion providing me comfort and guidance I always felt the patriarchal eyes glaring at the back of my head And I was proved right by the attack from behind from so called leaders of the flock. Now, I live in isolation in anguish. Why are there shepherds who want to kill those they are responsible for? I think I know the answer. They are individuals who psychologically are damaged and have their own agendas, their own drive for power and importance. Yes, Mormons do not have the market cornered on poisonous pedagogy. A male oriented group will always have those who are predatory and self righteously want to destroy the weak. They don’t have the mind of Christ. They don’t have the desire to hold a lost lamb to their Bosom as Jesus did. They think they are Jehus full of righteous indignation. They don’t realize they have tide mill stones around their necks because a lack of mercy. But the wounded and destroyed litter their path.

  12. This post deeply concerns me. Here is a sister – of ours (ALL members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; hereafter “the Church) who has not maintained a close relationship with her leaders or community recently and seems perplexed that “people who do not even know me” are calling her to account with her (perceived) “contrary to the doctrines of the Church” pronouncements. If she cares so much about her membership (as she claims) why in the world would she seek the forum of an excommunicated member to rant – and reinforce – misconceptions. I am sad that Natasha claims that she loves the Gospel but obviously picks and chooses what that means (as opposed to: respectfully allowing the Church to do its thing). There is no mention of praying to find out, “What does Father want from me? How does He desire that I respond? IS there anything that I am doing or believing that is truly out of alignment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?” Rather, it is all about, “Hey, I’m right, all the data support me, so if there is anything wrong here it is the Church’s perspective.” That is how I would approach such a summons.

    (I apologize that my previous paragraph is too synoptic to be able to adequately express my nuanced perspective on this; I feel Natasha is spiritual, a GREAT help to MANY struggling Mormons – including member of the Church) and others, and has a very beautiful heart.)

    I see misconceptions on all sides here (THANK YOU for sharing the letter from the Stake President with the specific questions! I’ve never seen that before and it was enlightening). Unfortunately, rants like this have the effect of amplifying misconception. For example:

    – The Stake President’s use of the term “Doctrine” – as cited in his letter, he is citing at MOST policy, his opinion or view of Church teachings, etc., but certainly no actual “doctrine.” As was pointed out, Steve Young (and I might add: Carol Lynn Pearson) and many other celebrities, who openly express ideas contrary to (perceived) Church positions are still celebrated in the greater Church culture. To me this would be like singling out David Archuleta (30 and unmarried) or Sheri Dew for not exemplifying the commandment to marry and have children (what happened to 1 Nephi 3:7 – no commandment without providing a way to abide by it; let’s hold them accountable!). That would obviously be completely silly.

    – The perpetual harping (over and over again by Brother Dehlin) on what the Church “should” do distracts from what I feel are the more meaty issues, and also distracts from clarity. In my view, the reason for the Church is to provide a structure for personal salvation via the salvific ordinances of the Gospel, to spread the Gospel, to do work for our kindred departed (I hate the word “dead”) and to address poverty (that is a rephrase of the Church’s stated mission). Providing counseling services, education, historical accuracy, etc. are certainly wonderful things to be addressed by Mormonism, but certainly not the province of the Church (directly). Criticizing the Church for non-gospel-directly-related issues (as I defined them in this bullet point) is, well, silly. Rather, members are called upon to do what they can to create beauty in Zion (as Natasha CLEARLY has done) – but not in the name or appearance of distracting or diverting from the Church’s mission (as the accusations against Natasha seems to hint at).

    – I’m not sure how to address this, but it is a common theme in Mormon Stories Broadcasts (admittedly I’ve seen only a few, maybe 50, typically only concerning people I personally know or admire), that identifying as a “Mormon” in the LDSaint Church sense is not possible for “the Church” to derail via disciplinary counsels. One of the most fundamental principles (I believe: doctrines, not merely policies, since they are grounded in scripture) is that the Lord expects true converts to be active, participating, contributing members of His Church as a necessary, even minimum, requirement to demonstrate being on His side. It is cute and culturally popular these days to denigrate the notion of organized religion (or a particular Church or set of beliefs), especially by those exiting such formal structures, to ameliorate their internal distress (LDSaint speak: ignore the Light of Christ/conscience to the point of becoming past-feeling about an issue, including about the significance of the Church) by saying, “Well, no matter what they do to me, I will still identify as Mormon; I love Jesus Christ and His gospel and will continue to strive to live it.” Such a statement is impossible from the perspective that the Church is an essential part of being Christian/following Christ. It is easy to characterize my previous statement as black/white, and perhaps it is to an extent. I certainly believe that there are many ways to “Mormon” – but not one of them is to live or teach contrary or detrimentally to the teachings of the Church. I also know of instances where Church policies were changed due to grass-roots-up concerns, but not one of such changes resulted from ranters, demonstrations, etc. (although: when change comes, the ranters and demonstrators love to take credit).

    Finally, for now (there are so many things I’d love to respond to from the podcast, but alas, time does not allow. I have been involved in disciplinary counsels as a leader, as a witness/advocate for people in the “hot seat,” and otherwise, and I have never experienced anything but very strong feelings of love and the Holy Ghost in such meetings. One person for whom I was a support was very hostile in his appearance (there were f-bombs; to me it was amusing; the high counsel did not respond at all negatively, but simply lovingly kept listening), yet the stake president et al. deemed my dear brother’s membership and temple-worthiness far more important than his presentation.

    I will pray for Natasha and those who will interview her/convene the Council. Her voice has certainly done a lot of good, regardless of how some with narrow views and understandings of the Gospel perceive her. I think it WOULD be helpful to avoid using terms such as “ecclesiastical pricks” – simply because it is too easy to see dismissiveness (of Church authority, respect for Church leadership, etc.). I agree with a semi-recent conference talk about focusing on the swine (OUR often unrighteous determination of who “they” are) rather than on the pearls (the gist of the talk: that is the WRONG approach; btw Natasha did not get this wrong, in my view). As the apostle Paul taught in the NT, even though HE knew perfectly well that it was fine with God to eat ANY meat, he abstained from eating any meat that might be offensive to his audience, because he thereby could prevent them, however unintentionally, from coming to Christ (some missions are more important than others; see 1 Cor 8:13).

  13. It’s absurd for the Stake President’s letter to suggest that the use of the term “Mormon” might blur the lines between a female mental health professional’s counsel and church doctrine. To anyone familiar with the LDS church’s male leadership structure and certainly to every church member client, it would be crystal clear that female mental health professionals would have always been counseling as mental health professionals and never counseling as priesthood leaders. The LDS church has been a patriarchy for 200+ years. Members got the message.

    Moreover, every church member client understands that church leaders provide doctrine, mental health professionals provide mental health counseling, and a term like “Mormon” is not going to confuse anybody. “Mormon” merely signals that the mental health professional has a cultural understanding that is essential to serve those clients.

  14. I am a NeverMo and yet, I have spent hundreds of hours listening to John’s podcasts. It would be so easy for me to say, “Natasha- you don’t need this church,” but I do realize that the church means so much to many of its members. So I won’t say that. Instead, what I’ll say is this- You yourself say that your work is your calling and if the church does not recognize that, does not recognize all that you have done for its members and does not want to recognize you as a member anymore then perhaps you will be freer to help the people who need you, to save the lives whom the church’s policies threaten, to speak and practice within the guidelines of what has been proven to help people. I am the mother of a transgendered son and I think that my freedom from religion helped me and my entire family tremendously to accept my child as he is without the trauma of having to worry about what a religion, a faith, would say. You can believe in the good that the LDS church has within it as much as you want without its official acknowledgement of your membership. Their loss, not yours. I wish you happiness, health, joy, and the ability to continue to follow your calling, do the work which, if I believed in a god I would call God’s Work but which I can sincerely call The Important Work. The Saving Work. The Work To Which You Have Been Called.

    1. Mary, very eloquent letter to Natasha, but “just leaving” isn’t as simple as the church meaning so much to her. For a believing LDS person, her highest salvation depends on her membership and her still having the ordinances which were given to her.

      1. That’s true. And I recognize that. It’s horrifying that a church would teach that but I do realize that for true believing members it’s a fact of life. And…beyond.

  15. Thats super messed up the church spied on her facebook and twitter. Glad John Dehlin has people in the church telling him whats going on.

  16. Doesn’t it strike you, John, Margie and Natasha, that the church leadership does NOT want Natasha to become an honored and used source for members who “live in the shadow of the church headquarters”? Doesn’t the timing and the need to do this in Kansas support a real fear of her practice in SLC? She is a threat to their base. Now, with their manufactured and predetermined decision to expel her from the membership, ‘They’ can dismiss her as an apostate. Small minds, self absorbed importance, and their desperate antics is the very 2-edged sword that will inflict the mortal wound should They look into the mirror.

    I am sorry for your pain, Natasha. Truth walks with you. There will be a day when you can look back and know that you are not part of the circus. Be well, keep up the important work, and thrive in spite of what they tried to do to your soul.

  17. Placing the meeting in Kansas is not reasonable. Both Stake Presidents know Natasha equally little; if the meeting must occur, Utah is the best fit. Holding it in Kansas is strategic to impede Natasha and limit other people who wish to gather near her in support. As an active LDS member, I do not want to arrive at that conclusion but it is probably correct.

  18. I was thinking they were holding the court in Kansas because it is a two-party recording state, which means both parties have to agree to be recorded. But a quick google search shows that both Utah and Kansas are a one-party recording state. Which means the leaders might have wanted to bar her from bringing her cell phone because legally she could record the proceedings. I could be wrong…

  19. What’s the worst this church “court” can do? Say mean things to Natasha in private? She faces no material consequences at all.

    By contrast, during this “Mormon Stories” interview Natasha threatens her Stake President’s job, suggesting his employer should investigate him for “discrimination”. She also threatens the jobs and professional licenses of any clinician — therapist or not — who disagrees with her on certain controversial issues, recommending that the state investigate them.

    Does this seem inconsistent to anyone else?

  20. Some relevant background. Natasha was a commenter in a review of a sex talk by Wendy Nelson.
    https://athoughtfulfaith.libsyn.com/178-the-truths-about-marital-intimacy-a-critique-of-wendy-nelsons-sex-talk-helfer-parker-and-de-azevedo-hanks-part-one

    Here is the original talk “Aunt Wendy’s Four truths about Love and Marriage”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlBE59Kipxo

    It was a respectful review and had some positive comments but as you can imagine it may be appropriate to get some additional input for comparison.
    Natasha is a great source for that additional viewpoint.

    In Aunt Wendy’s talk truth number four includes the requirement that for “true” sex the Holy Ghost needs to be involved.
    This created a good set of jokes about threesomes on social media, and was a bit embarrassing for the church.

    A quick review of Aunt Wendy’s background. She was a professor of marriage and family therapy at BYU prior to her retirement in 2006. Not married until age 55 she was expected to remain a virgin and with no related sexual experiences (masturbation) until her marriage. She says she counseled thousands of couples. Can you imagine going to a therapist about sexual difficulties in marriage and the counselor is a single virgin who has never masturbated, never had an orgasm?

    Wendy Nelson is the second polygamous wife of the Mormon prophet Russell Nelson. In order for a man to possess his wife after death she must not have been promised to another man before his second marriage. Thus, the Mormon man who loses a wife, in order to increase his dominion in the afterlife, prefers to select a virgin who can be all his. The scripture defining Mormon marriage is D&C 132. It has numerous references to the woman being given and received and referred to as property. In verse 61, and again in verse 62, it bluntly states the women belongs to the man.
    Being married to the Mormon prophet Wendy is expected to fully uphold the doctrine of the church. Aunt Wendy is required by scripture to have her advice be consistent with a sexist world where the woman is the property of the man.
    This sexist past has been overcome by the much of the world but is cemented in Mormon scripture. Canonized scripture can be very difficult to change. Mormon Bishops are taught to shame children from 8 years and older for any sexual thoughts or actions. The mechanism for this shaming is to have formal private sex talks between the older Bishop man and the child. For more than a thousand personal accounts of this abuse see…
    https://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

    With the recent persecution of Natashia the church has rushed to publish something resembling sexual advice. The BYU school of Family Life created a web page recently that included some advice about getting back to the celibate state after a marriage ends.
    “Although [divorced members] likely won’t be able to replace sexual intimacy, you may be able to identify ways that you can start to fill the holes that were once filled by sex.”
    https://covenantintimacyconversations.byu.edu/

    Again, creating much enjoyment in the social media before the page was remove for repairs.

    So from the church we have…
    1. D&C 132 proclaiming repeatedly as scripture that the woman is property of the man.
    2. Aunt Wendy suggesting threesomes with the Holy ghost
    3. BYU sex advice wondering how to fill the holes that were once filled by sex.
    4. Young children manipulated and shamed repeatedly alone in a room with an older man.

    Or you might want to join the real world and get some informed advice.
    Natasha didn’t have enough respect for the opinions of the prophet’s property (wife) and she’ll be punished for it.

  21. As an observer, a belief that a person in this situation would know the direction this would lead previous to making their choices. Making choices comes with consequences good or bad. There were many other alternate routes one could have taken to achieve the same goal without the issues and been productive. This may be a great learning experience for future endeavors. Many count on a more unifying approach.

  22. I hate the cruel and heartless way the church deals with people in these situations and my sympathies go out to Natasha…especially because she did not want to lose her membership. I have to say though, that while I don’t support the way the church handled this, isnt it their right to disassociate themselves from a high profile person like Natasha who promotes , fosters, teaches and counsels so many key things that fly in the face of what the church states as their moral dogmas?

    The church isn’t a friendly place for someone like Natasha to promote and support masturbation, premarital sex, same sex attraction, LGBTQ etc, etc. And then to be doing this as a Mormon would be something the church can not ignore. How can they not see her as an enemy to their core doctrines? Im just saying that I can see why they feel compelled to act, to preserve their beliefs.

    Don’t get me wrong…I left the church 4 years ago and I can’t stomach any of it now. They need to find a better way of dealing with these situations if they continue to insist on requiring certain adherences…and really, that , in and of itself is understandable. Its one thing to have doubts and less than fully committed beliefs and then another to be like Natasha , who has no doubts about what she thinks is right and she fully knows it does not align with church teaching. And then she is promoting those highly contrary things , as a Mormon, in a high profile way.

    God bless you, Natasha. I’m so sorry that you have been tossed aside and disregarded as having no further value to the church. They don’t know how to keep the good people they have!

  23. I attended Sunstone for the first time (and only, so far) in 2016, from the UK. Natasha’s presentation there on porn ‘addiction’ etc was the first talk I attended; it set up such a high expectation for the rest of the symposium as it was probably the most sensible talk I was able to hear there. She was so articulate, and came across as such an intelligent, informed, and all around professional, without compromising sensitivity or empathy. Plus she is beautiful! As usual, the church has let down one of its finest. Their loss. Much love to you, Natasha, keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.