Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

And now, Gina Colvin faces a Disciplinary Council.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Alan said:

She's an apostate who bleats on about herself and joined another church.

We don't need members like that. We need people who will build Zion not tear it down.

So yes, good riddance.

What an awful, judgmental attitude and about as unChrist like as one can be.  

Aren't you serving as a Bishop?

Link to comment
15 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

It depends on who you know. 

My personality and my career have made me a safe place for people to share their stories.  I hear a lot of stuff. 

I imagine that Sister Prim and Brother Pious don’t have many folks opening up to them so they don’t believe it happens at all, whereas someone like me has heard enough stories to know that humans are human. 

Right now i have one ex bishop who is living with his GF and one ex stake president whom I believe has some sex addiction stuff because enough folks have confided to me their stories of him and he recently left his wife.  

Nothing suprises me, so I just try to love folk where they are and not expect much. 

Just curious, as one who seems to attract the inside scoop, have you ever in all of your years heard of anyone having 7...yes 7...leaders (4 of which were Stake Presidents) involved in adultery/pedophilia?  I don't doubt that it happens here or there, but 7 times?   Nothing smells fishy to you?

By the way, she was 11 and 13 years old.  I don't think people would have been seeking her out as a safe place to share secret information about leaders. 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Nope, no surprise. Just 'furious and vehement opposition':

She also re-posted earlier today a bit of satire entitled 'LDS Church to excommunicate Jesus Christ', which may imply somewhat how she sees herself in all this? Almost certainly how she sees the Church.

I just listened to her podcast regarding the West Virginia abuse case. She shouldn't be upset over the excommunication, she should be happy over it.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Exiled said:

She shouldn't be upset over the excommunication, she should be happy over it.

Indeed. I’m always confused when people make choices that leave them unhappy. When I was studying in America, I had an LDS flatmate who decided to leave the Church and then whinged and moaned abiut it till we had to ask him to desist. It seemed he needed to be miserable to get the most of the experience. I sincerely hope he’s actually happy now. 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
20 hours ago, JulieM said:

What an awful, judgmental attitude and about as unChrist like as one can be.  

Aren't you serving as a Bishop?

People say this all the time when someone says or does something they don't like. "UnChrist-like" this and "unChrist-like" that. They think they are adopting some high moral judgment about someone else's judgment. The irony appears lost on them. But when we read the gospels we see a Christ who called it as it was. He labeled people as hypocrites, as snakes, as dogs etc and physically removed the money changers from the temple using a whip which he had made for the purpose.

So my advice to you is to examine what you mean by unChrist-like before you start throwing accusations around and label people.

As for this apostate, I stand by what I said. We are engaged in a serious business here. We have a commission to establish and build Zion in preparation for the Lord's return. We have to stop this navel gazing and get on with it. The church is not a warm fuzzy touchy feely social club. This woman doesn't want to be involved in Zion building so she's leaving. Great... one less distraction.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Alan said:

So my advice to you is to examine what you mean by unChrist-like before you start throwing accusations around and label people.

Alan, this one is a no brainer. 

Read Smac's post for what a Christlike attitude/behavior/action is for this situation and then see if you're following His example:

On 11/29/2018 at 7:11 AM, smac97 said:

The Savior sought out the one who left the ninety and nine.  He didn't say "good riddance."  

So yes, what you posted was unchristlike. 

And, if you are still serving as a Bishop, I hope you wouldn't treat one of your flock who goes inactive or joins another church with this attitude:

"good riddance!"  "one less distraction."

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
On 11/28/2018 at 5:20 PM, MustardSeed said:

It depends on who you know. 

My personality and my career have made me a safe place for people to share their stories.  I hear a lot of stuff. 

I imagine that Sister Prim and Brother Pious don’t have many folks opening up to them so they don’t believe it happens at all, whereas someone like me has heard enough stories to know that humans are human. 

Right now i have one ex bishop who is living with his GF and one ex stake president whom I believe has some sex addiction stuff because enough folks have confided to me their stories of him and he recently left his wife.  

Nothing suprises me, so I just try to love folk where they are and not expect much. 

There is a big difference in working in a career where you will hear these kind of things from people that need your help and having bishops and stake presidents who have done those things.

Obviously people move around, get sick and released etc so this changes, but if one lives to age 80 in the same home with no boundary changes, one can expect to have about 16 bishops and 8 stake presidents. But let's be more generous to account for moving etc and double the number to 48 total.

Specifically speaking about your career how many former/present bishops and SP with adultery/pedophile problems do you see compared to all of the people you see? If every 7 in 48 people you see is even a bishop or stake President I would be a little surprised, but I wouldn't question it from you. If every 7 in 48 were a bishop/SP with adultery/pedophile problems I would be much surprised, but wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility.

Now if we start talking about the general population of bishops/SP, 7 out of 48 really becomes questionable.

Link to comment
On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 4:32 AM, Alan said:

She's an apostate who bleats on about herself and joined another church.

We don't need members like that. We need people who will build Zion not tear it down.

So yes, good riddance.

I will refrain from going into a long lecture about Zion: Zion as  a location, Zion as a people, Zion as a stake, Zion as a state of mind, Zion as a kingdom, Zion as a church, Zion as a family etc. I'm sure you'd likely disagree with my review anyway so I'll just comment about needs.

First, you treat this as if Gina exists to meet the group needs of "we", which I assume you mean to be the church as you view it. If Gina doesn't fit the way you believe she should then she is not meeting your need as a member of the organization. I find if insulting and also selfish to treat another person as if her purpose is to meet your needs as if she exists to serve/bless/uplift the church instead of the church existing to serve/bless/uplift her. I think you've got this backwards. The church exists to bring people closer to God, not to meet it's own institutional needs.

Second, you act as if she has such a low value that she can easily be discarded, as if she's a cog in a machine that isn't functioning as well as you think she should, therefore it's ok to toss her aside. Not just ok, but you've devalued her enough that you find it necessary and even good to not just eject her from the organization but also rescind salvific ordinances. And you say "good riddance".

Third, my understanding is the Gina still attends LDS church with her family and serves (or would like to serve) in a calling. If that's correct it sounds to me like she is wanting to associate with the people of Zion, a stake of Zion in building the church for good. True, she would also like to build up another church as well. Personally, I don't see that as a negative thing. I see Gina as seeking to do good and be a good influence wherever she is and I see her trying to stay engaged in the church even through her struggles with it as an organization. But you say "good riddance".

Instead of looking at how these people (Reel, Dehlin, Kelly, Colvin etc) have failed in meeting the needs of the church  I think it's worth considering how the church has failed them in providing for or supporting their spiritual needs. But regardless of whether you or I believe a person has value to the church it seems that the most critical assessment is whether or not the worth of their soul is valued by God. "Good riddance" doesn't indicate that you value them at all. You may want to rethink that a bit.

Link to comment

Jana Reiss is weighing in.  See here:

Quote

Podcaster and blogger Gina Colvin recently announced that she is facing a disciplinary council from the leadership of her local congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is because she recently received a baptism and confirmation in the Anglican Communion and participates regularly in her local Anglican congregation in New Zealand. This is an issue to LDS leaders, however, because the current LDS Handbook of Instructions defines “apostasy” as including members who “formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”

Gotta love how she presents this as merely "an issue to LDS leaders," as if they are intruding into areas where they don't belong.  As if the concept of members of the Church in good standing using their membership in the Church to bolster their attacks on the Church, and draw members out of the Church, and dissuade others from joining the Church, is nothing to worry about.  I wonder why she behaves this way.  It can't be that she's just ignorant and thoughtless.  I think it's something else.  Perhaps something about pushing a preferred narrative, which pushing is hindered by addressing obviously important issues (such as whether the leaders of the Church should ignore apostasy in the Church).

Quote

Colvin’s disciplinary hearing comes shortly on the heels of the excommunication of Mormon activist Sam Young, who drew public attention to the issue of sexually explicit questioning during clergy interviews with adolescents.

Elsewhere, podcaster Bill Reel is currently undergoing a disciplinary procedure for his aggressive criticism of the LDS Church and its leadership.

"Aggressive criticism."  Well, that's one way to put it.

Quote

Colvin, Young, and Reel are among several high-profile Mormon activists to face disciplinary action and (potential) excommunication in recent years. From the perspective of LDS leadership, excommunications are necessary to protect other members of the church from whatever “spiritual threat” is being posed by the ideas, words, and actions of those being disciplined. It is an exercise in boundary maintenance.

Yep.  There it is again: "From the perspective of LDS leadership..."

Quote

Are rank-and-file Mormons grateful for this protection? Do they support their leaders disciplining and excommunicating those who are guilty of what the Church defines as “apostasy”?

I'm not sure we can rely on Jana to formulate a poll that meaningfully and fairly presents this issue.

Quote

The 2016 Next Mormons Survey specifically asked self-identified American Mormons how “troubled” they are by the excommunications of “feminists, intellectuals, and activists.” (See here for survey information and methodology.) The survey found that:

  • Nearly three in five Mormons (57%) say that they are very troubled (26%) or somewhat troubled (31%) by these excommunications.
  • Among those who are active and attend church at least weekly, 50% are troubled.
  • Among those who say that they believe all or most of LDS Church teachings wholeheartedly, 53% are troubled.
  • Among those who are current temple recommend holders, 43% say they are troubled.
  • Among Millennials, the numbers are higher: 66% say they are troubled.

The gloss here seems fairly innocuous.  "[Are you troubled that the Church excommunicates] feminists, intellectuals, and activists?"

Um, any context given?  Any explanation as to the conduct underlying these excommunications?  Any quotes from the people being excommunicated?  Any explanation as to the rather extreme rarity of excommunications?  It seems not.  There are plenty of people who are "feminists, intellectuals, and activists" who remain in full fellowship in the Church. 

Context doesn't seem to be Jana's strong point.

Quote

By almost any measure, these high-profile excommunications appear to be worrisome to roughly half of faithful and active Latter-day Saints, and two-thirds of younger members.

Oh, I dunno.  I think if the people being polled were given summaries of the various actions and statements made by the people being disciplined (Sam Young, Bill Reel, and Gina Colvin all have plenty of  risible things to say), and then asked something like "Do you think that actions and statements such as these are compatible with continuing membership in the Church?", I think the poll results would be . . . interesting.

Quote

These excommunications should be worrisome to LDS church leaders as well. We asked Latter-day Saints in our survey to report, on a scale of 0-10, how confident they are that they will remain committed members of the Church for the rest of their lives. Not surprisingly, this was a high number on average (8.3). For those who said they were very troubled by the excommunications of activists, intellectuals, and feminists, however, this average dropped by 10%.

...

Based on this information, it’s important to gauge how effective and worthwhile excommunication is as a tool for Mormon boundary maintenance. It’s not just that excommunication ostracizes the individual who is being disciplined (and often their spouses, children, and immediate circle of friends). It’s that it may also negatively affect other members in the pews.

This is, I think, a worthwhile point.  But there is another one to be made, one which Jana does not address in her survey (that's sort of understandable, given her proclivities): Should the leaders of the Church also be concerned with doing what Jana is apparently tacitly advocating?  Namely, that the Church ignore public and obvious apostate behavior by members of the Church?  What effect would ignoring such behavior have on members "remain[ing] committed members of the Church for the rest of their lives?"  Does Jana know?  Does she care?

I suspect not.  I think it's more about her advancing a preferred narrative.  Hence my generalized distrust in her survey.

Quote

Do those who leave the LDS Church because they are troubled by high-profile excommunications outnumber those who are leaving because they have actually fallen prey to whatever is being written or said by these accused “apostates”?

Hard to say.  Jana does not seem to have meaningfully addressed the issue of "those who are leaving because they have actually fallen prey to whatever is being written or said by these accused 'apostates.'"  And that is really too bad, because that number seems to be fairly substantial.  But meaningfully addressing it may well go against her preferred narrative, so...

Quote

Excommunication appears to be successful in deterring some members from behaviors the Church is aiming to curb, whether it’s publicly criticizing religious leaders or becoming a member of another denomination while remaining a Latter-day Saint. But it may also have the unfortunate side effect of chilling the enthusiasm and commitment of other Church members, particularly younger ones.

Is it worth it, in the long run?

Yes, it is worth it.  We have received no small number of fairly clear directives regarding this issue:

  • D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
  • D&C 85:11 - "And they who ... are found to have apostatized ... shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
  • D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
  • D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
  • Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
  • 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
  • D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
  • D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
  • Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
  • 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Strange that Jana doesn't mention any of these.  She seems to imply that discipline of members of the Church is just a do-it-if-you-wanna kind of the thing, something that is purely discretionary, something that the leaders of the Church can just ignore.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Strange that Jana doesn't mention any of these.  She seems to imply that discipline of members of the Church is just a do-it-if-you-wanna kind of the thing, something that is purely discretionary, something that the leaders of the Church can just ignore.

Jana also does not address the covenants made by those who are speaking out against the church and have been disciplined.  "LDS leadership" takes those covenants seriously, as does, I believe, God.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Jana also does not address the covenants made by those who are speaking out against the church and have been disciplined.  "LDS leadership" takes those covenants seriously, as does, I believe, God.

Yep.  Doesn't fit her preferred narrative, I think.  Keeping covenants is hard.  Keeping covenants goes a long way in undermining efforts to legitimize/justify/defend internal agitation and apostasy in the Church (which, frankly, is what I think Jana is trying to do).

Thanks

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Jana Reiss is weighing in.  See here:

Gotta love how she presents this as merely "an issue to LDS leaders," as if they are intruding into areas where they don't belong.  As if the concept of members of the Church in good standing using their membership in the Church to bolster their attacks on the Church, and draw members out of the Church, and dissuade others from joining the Church, is nothing to worry about.  I wonder why she behaves this way.  It can't be that she's just ignorant and thoughtless.  I think it's something else.  Perhaps something about pushing a preferred narrative, which pushing is hindered by addressing obviously important issues (such as whether the leaders of the Church should ignore apostasy in the Church).

"Aggressive criticism."  Well, that's one way to put it.

Yep.  There it is again: "From the perspective of LDS leadership..."

I'm not sure we can rely on Jana to formulate a poll that meaningfully and fairly presents this issue.

The gloss here seems fairly innocuous.  "[Are you troubled that the Church excommunicates] feminists, intellectuals, and activists?"

Um, any context given?  Any explanation as to the conduct underlying these excommunications?  Any quotes from the people being excommunicated?  Any explanation as to the rather extreme rarity of excommunications?  It seems not.  There are plenty of people who are "feminists, intellectuals, and activists" who remain in full fellowship in the Church. 

Context doesn't seem to be Jana's strong point.

Oh, I dunno.  I think if the people being polled were given summaries of the various actions and statements made by the people being disciplined (Sam Young, Bill Reel, and Gina Colvin all have plenty of  risible things to say), and then asked something like "Do you think that actions and statements such as these are compatible with continuing membership in the Church, I think the poll results would be . . . interesting.

But again, context isn't really Jana's thing.

This is, I think, a worthwhile point.  But there is another one to be made, one which Jana does not address in her survey (that's sort of understandable, given her proclivities): Should the leaders of the Church also be concerned with doing what Jana is apparently tacitly advocating?  Namely, that the Church ignore public and obvious apostate behavior by members of the Church?  What effect would ignoring such behavior have on members "remain[ing] committed members of the Church for the rest of their lives?"  Does Jana know?  Does she care?

I suspect not.  I think it's more about her advancing a preferred narrative.  Hence my generalized distrust in her survey.

Hard to say.  Jana does not seem to have meaningfully addressed the issue of "those who are leaving because they have actually fallen prey to whatever is being written or said by these accused 'apostates.'"  And that is really too bad, because that number seems to be fairly substantial.  But meaningfully addressing it may well go against her preferred narrative, so...

Yes, it is worth it.  We have received no small number of fairly clear directives regarding this issue:

  • D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
  • D&C 85:11 - "And they who ... are found to have apostatized ... shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
  • D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
  • D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
  • Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
  • 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
  • D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
  • D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
  • Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
  • 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Strange that Jana doesn't mention any of these.  She seems to imply that discipline of members of the Church is just a do-it-if-you-wanna kind of the thing, something that is purely discretionary, something that the leaders of the Church can just ignore.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your bias is showing. (I'm sure you'll take that as a compliment)

You seem to have a real problem with Jana Reiss. You are criticizing her for stating that "LDS leaders" have a problem with apostasy. Seriously...you take issue with that? Funny. It seems pretty accurate, as well as expected. You think she's pushing an agenda because she is citing "LDS leaders" who are clearly the ones who create, implement and enforce the policies regarding church discipline.

You seem to take exception with the characterization that Bill Reel has engaged in "aggressive criticism" of the church. Really? You don't agree with that. Honestly, I thought you would applaud that characterization. She didn't see he is being disciplined for something innocuous like "asking questions" or "expressing doubts" but rather for "aggressive criticism". But that characterization isn't strong enough? I guess there's no pleasing some people ;) 

You disparage Jana and impugn her character every chance you can. You seem to suggest that she's some kind of a hack, and not a well-educated writer who has engaged on a multi-year effort to understand the shifting demographics within the church. She's doing this research and sharing her findings. She has given far more information about this than the church has. I'd welcome the church's participation in sharing information. I hope they're trying to understand this issue, though I haven't seen much evidence of that. Jana seems to be the one doing the hard work on this, but all you can do is attack.

Quote

pushing a preferred narrative

I'm not sure we can rely on Jana to formulate a poll that meaningfully and fairly presents this issue

Does Jana know?  Does she care? ...I suspect not

Context doesn't seem to be Jana's strong point...But again, context isn't really Jana's thing

But there is another one to be made, one which Jana does not address in her survey (that's sort of understandable, given her proclivities):  ... I think it's more about her advancing a preferred narrative ... But meaningfully addressing it may well go against her preferred narrative, so...

 

You criticize her for not giving specific examples in her survey. I'll point out the obvious. It's hard to give specific examples of current events in a poll that was done well over a year ago. I'll also point out that the poll seems to be trying to gauge the general favor/disfavor with which "self-identified" poll respondents feel towards church discipline. Her approach seems much more reasonable and appropriate than the one you seem to be advocating, namely state all of the worst behavior of specific individuals and then ask if they should be disciplined. It's not about the specific individuals. It's about the general practice and I think she makes that point. She states the limitation of "self-identified" respondents. Again, I would think you would appreciate her stating that limitation of the poll, but you seem more prone to attack than attempt understanding.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your bias is showing. (I'm sure you'll take that as a compliment)

I've never hidden my affection for the Church.

Quote

You seem to have a real problem with Jana Reiss. You are criticizing her for stating that "LDS leaders" have a problem with apostasy. Seriously...you take issue with that? Funny. It seems pretty accurate, as well as expected. You think she's pushing an agenda because she is citing "LDS leaders" who are clearly the ones who create, implement and enforce the policies regarding church discipline.

I'm not particularly impressed or persuaded by many of her positions on and statements about the Church.  Not sure that equates to "a real problem."

Quote

You disparage Jana and impugn her character every chance you can.

Not really.  I'm critical of some of her published statements, yes.  As for her "character," I think the worst I have said is that I think she has engaged in "efforts to legitimize/justify/defend internal agitation and apostasy in the Church."  That seems to be what she is doing.

Quote

You seem to suggest that she's some kind of a hack, and not a well-educated writer who has engaged on a multi-year effort to understand the shifting demographics within the church.

I never said any of this.  I never disparaged her education or intellect.

Quote

She's doing this research and sharing her findings.

And I am critiquing her research and findings.

Quote

You criticize her for not giving specific examples in her survey. I'll point out the obvious. It's hard to give specific examples of current events in a poll that was done well over a year ago.

Yes, that is true.

I've read quite a bit of Jana's writings.  I think she has a particular narrative that she wants to tell, and I think that this narrative is congruent with her opinions and is more or less critical of the Church, and I suspect that the questions in her poll are drafted in such a way to predispose persons taking the poll to dislike or not think much of the Church.  In other words, I think that the poll was crafted around telling her narrative.  I find that problematic (though I hardly give it much thought).

Quote

I'll also point out that the poll seems to be trying to gauge the general favor/disfavor with which "self-identified" poll respondents feel towards church discipline. Her approach seems much more reasonable and appropriate than the one you seem to be advocating, namely state all of the worst behavior of specific individuals and then ask if they should be disciplined.

My position advocates for context.  I think that context is lacking in Jana's poll.  I think decontextualized and somewhat loaded/barbed questions may taint some of the legitimacy of the poll.

And if so, that's too bad, because an impartial and fair-minded poll pertaining to difficult issues in the Church would be very nice to see.  I just don't think we are getting that from Jana.

Quote

It's not about the specific individuals. It's about the general practice and I think she makes that point. She states the limitation of "self-identified" respondents. Again, I would think you would appreciate her stating that limitation of the poll, but you seem more prone to attack than attempt understanding.

Oh, the irony.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Alan said:

People say this all the time when someone says or does something they don't like. "UnChrist-like" this and "unChrist-like" that. They think they are adopting some high moral judgment about someone else's judgment. The irony appears lost on them. But when we read the gospels we see a Christ who called it as it was. He labeled people as hypocrites, as snakes, as dogs etc and physically removed the money changers from the temple using a whip which he had made for the purpose.

So my advice to you is to examine what you mean by unChrist-like before you start throwing accusations around and label people.

As for this apostate, I stand by what I said. We are engaged in a serious business here. We have a commission to establish and build Zion in preparation for the Lord's return. We have to stop this navel gazing and get on with it. The church is not a warm fuzzy touchy feely social club. This woman doesn't want to be involved in Zion building so she's leaving. Great... one less distraction.

If we are to build Zion, we have to become a Zion people. The Lord taught us to have charity for the lost sheep. 

The Lord loves this woman enough to have died for her. I think He would want us treating her as if she has worth

Link to comment
On 11/28/2018 at 4:12 PM, Teancum said:

The truth claims of the LDS Church or more likely than not, not true.

The truth claims of the Church are more likely than not, true.

There.  Now that you've made an unsubstantiated assertion, and I have responded with an equally valid one to counter it, we can carry on.

😀

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The truth claims of the Church are more likely than not, true.

There.  Now that you've made an unsubstantiated assertion, and I have responded with an equally valid one to counter it, we can carry on.

😀

Thanks,

-Smac

Evidence demands a verdict does it not? Grand claims require evidence.

I likely know as much about the history and truth claims surrounding the LDS Church and its foundations.  Apparently we have both come to differing conclusions based on the evidence. 

Link to comment
On 11/28/2018 at 7:31 PM, smac97 said:

I think it would if you consider the perspective of the employee.  And even with you being the owner, it should work.  Can you honestly say that if you had an employee that publicly accused you of serious misconduct, on questionable/ambiguous grounds, would you just lump it?  And then if he did the same thing the next week?  And the next?  And the next?  Would you just be unceasingly indifferent to your employee's continuing efforts to attached your character and tear down and destroy your reputation?

And what if the employee was actively seeking out your customers and presenting them with disparaging and insulting stories about your business and its operations?  Again, would you just remain silent week after week, month after month, while your employee actively seeks to tear down what you are trying to maintain and improve?

Bill Reel publicly accusing Elder Holland was not civil.  

Sam Young poublicly accusing the Brethren of cowardice, and of being indifferent to (or worse, actively facilitating) the sexual abuse of children was not civil.

Kate Kelly doxxing her bishop was not civil.

That is appreciated.  You can and should be able to air concerns, but the time and place and manner of such things is very important.

It does a bit.  I don't understand how your personal feeling of authenticity is contingent upon what others think of you.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you make a valid and strong argument above. I am not sure I am entirely comfortable that the comparisons are the same but I am sympathetic to your points.

As far as authenticity I guess that is my own personal hang up.

Best regards

Link to comment
On 11/28/2018 at 8:24 AM, The Nehor said:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the primary appeal of all these spiritual progression and faith models is that those who create and accept them always place themselves smugly at the top. They seem more like self-gratification then a guide.

Sounds like something someone in Stage 2 would say.

Link to comment

Someone can correct me on this, but it was my understanding that joining another church was not grounds for discipline so much as it was consider sufficient reason to remove the name of the member who converted to anther church from the LDS church records. 

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Evidence demands a verdict does it not?

In a sense, yes.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Grand claims require evidence.

I quite agree.  The nature of that evidence, however, appears to be very much in dispute.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I likely know as much about the history and truth claims surrounding the LDS Church and its foundations.  Apparently we have both come to differing conclusions based on the evidence. 

Aye, there's the rub!

Have we made any progress through this exercise?

-Smac

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Someone can correct me on this, but it was my understanding that joining another church was not grounds for discipline so much as it was consider sufficient reason to remove the name of the member who converted to anther church from the LDS church records. 

Formally joining another church and advocating it's teachings falls under the heading of apostasy, which would trigger a disciplinary council according to Handbook 1, 6.7.3.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...