Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

“No Action” for Gina Colvin

Recommended Posts

   I am happy to see this. That is all I can say right now.

 

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's an interesting result.  Of all the "high profile" disciplinary councils recently, this one seemed the most clear cut to me:  She was baptized into another church.  That specific action is listed in the handbook.  But, I suppose she may have talked to the council and explained that somehow it meant something different to her (just me surmising).

At any rate, I'm glad to still have her as a member of the Church.

IIRC it wasn't just being baptized into another church that the handbook defined as apostasy, it was being baptized into another church and advocating for that church. Perhaps her local LDS church leaders decided she didn't meet that criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is great news!

from her Facebook...

”Dear friends,

Firstly, I would like to thank you all so very much for your prayers.  The strength and the sincerity of them have been felt and have buoyed me up during a difficult few days.  Thank you for the candles, the blessings, the poetry and the waves of loving support.

As I had made clear, I  hadn't intended on going, but in the 11th hour, both my Bishop and my Stake President reached out and encouraged me to go to the council.  After a very tender exchange, I was moved by the spirit and agreed to attend.

Could I say 'thank you' to all of those who sent letters.  Each of those letters were read by my Bishop and their collective witness was taken very seriously.

Thank you to my friends who ditched prior plans and came with me and held vigil at the church.  And thank you to my former Bishop, Pete Cammock whose presence and voice was wise and wonderful.

Much to my surprise, the council was a very sacred experience for all who attended.  I found it profoundly moving.

The result of the council, Nathan and I are very pleased to announce,  is 'no action'.

I still don't agree with Disciplinary Councils but under the circumstances, this was Mormonism (or whatever its supposed to be called these days) at its best.

xxxx”

 

I admit im surprised by the decision for No Action as I’m not accustomed to seeing a positive outcome in situations like this. Props to her leaders for their compassion!

This is great news.  I imagine her great distance from HQ might have been an influencing factor.  I would love to see a change of tone and tactics based on new directions to leaders.  Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad it was a positive experience for her.  I wonder if she will resign her membership, given that she thinks very poorly of the church in general?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's an interesting result.  Of all the "high profile" disciplinary councils recently, this one seemed the most clear cut to me:  She was baptized into another church.  That specific action is listed in the handbook.  But, I suppose she may have talked to the council and explained that somehow it meant something different to her (just me surmising).

At any rate, I'm glad to still have her as a member of the Church.

Sounds suspiciously ecumenical to me.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is great news.  I imagine her great distance from HQ might have been an influencing factor.  I would love to see a change of tone and tactics based on new directions to leaders.  Maybe that is wishful thinking on my part.  

Yesterday I fought the urge of posting that, as this goes against the grain of the narrative, that the explanation would surface that it must be because SLC doesn’t have a strangle-hold on New Zealand yet, thus not having to reevaluate false notions in light of new evidence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Baptism into a particular church implies the following:  1- accepting/believing that this church properly represents the Lord and has the authority to perform this ordinance;  2- making the commitment publicly to live by the teachings of said church;  3- striving to accept the challenges and trials that will come their way and attempting to do God's Will to grow and become faithful in overcoming/meeting the test.

For Gina Colvin to turn around and accept baptism into another church implies she desires to take the "cafeteria approach" to choosing what parts of which church she "fancies" or feels comfortable with.  She will have to resolve on her own what parts to follow or disregard.  A very clear indication that her "commitment" with either church was very flimsy and carnally minded.

1 Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, rockpond said:

That's an interesting result.  Of all the "high profile" disciplinary councils recently, this one seemed the most clear cut to me:  She was baptized into another church.  That specific action is listed in the handbook.  But, I suppose she may have talked to the council and explained that somehow it meant something different to her (just me surmising).

At any rate, I'm glad to still have her as a member of the Church.

The handbook reads "Formally  join another church and advocate its teachings."  So just joining another church would not be enough.  Advocating the teachings of another church is a subjective call and it appears that the council did not feel like Colvin had done this. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Judd said:

Yesterday I fought the urge of posting that, as this goes against the grain of the narrative, that the explanation would surface that it must be because SLC doesn’t have a strangle-hold on New Zealand yet, thus not having to reevaluate false notions in light of new evidence.

I think there is some truth to this- in the "mission field" people actually believe that bishops have authority over their flock because they do not have the issues of GA supervision over every decision.   When you have a GA in your ward or stake of the next one over, and former stake presidents in every other household the gossip up the leadership line I think becomes VERY difficult for bishops.   Every other brother becomes a "whistle blower" because if you are a bishop you are defacto under scrutiny of the patriarch or former SP in your ward- and these folks have connections to those above you in the leadership hierarchy.

"Hey Bob- did you hear what that new bishop in X ward did?  You oughta call Frank and make sure he gets a little training"

That is not likely to happen in New Zealand or even California.  Again, sorry folks but Utah is not the rest of the church.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I know of course that this is sarcasm but I know that bishops CAN and do take actions against advice of leaders without getting "fired", because I have had that experience.

The entire idea of priesthood keys demands it- if God called me and I am the person who has the keys from God to be the individual's "Judge" in Israel- countermanding my revelation calls into question the whole enterprise.   

Yeah, and if they want to they can overturn a Bishop’s decision (only by lessening the discipline) or hold a new council at a higher level. There are no “no double jeopardy” provisions in church discipline. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think there is some truth to this- in the "mission field" people actually believe that bishops have authority over their flock because they do not have the issues of GA supervision over every decision.   When you have a GA in your ward or stake of the next one over, and former stake presidents in every other household the gossip up the leadership line I think becomes VERY difficult for bishops.   Every other brother becomes a "whistle blower" because if you are a bishop you are defacto under scrutiny of the patriarch or former SP in your ward- and these folks have connections to those above you in the leadership hierarchy.

"Hey Bob- did you hear what that new bishop in X ward did?  You oughta call Frank and make sure he gets a little training"

That is not likely to happen in New Zealand or even California.  Again, sorry folks but Utah is not the rest of the church.

I'm in a bishopric in Salt Lake and I don't think we've ever felt any such pressure or scrutiny.  The former leaders in our ward are very happy to let someone else do the heavy lifting now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm in a bishopric in Salt Lake and I don't think we've ever felt any such pressure or scrutiny.  The former leaders in our ward are very happy to let someone else do the heavy lifting now.

Good to know!

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The handbook reads "Formally  join another church and advocate its teachings."  So just joining another church would not be enough.  Advocating the teachings of another church is a subjective call and it appears that the council did not feel like Colvin had done this. 

From a strictly visceral standpoint, I couldn't care less that she joined another church. What I find bothersome is her continued public and vocal faultfinding of the Church of Jesus Christ and the inspired and authorized servants of God who lead it. Maybe I'm missing something, but that appears not to have been an issue in this disciplinary council.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From a strictly visceral standpoint, I couldn't care less that she joined another church. What I find bothersome is her continued public and vocal faultfinding of the Church of Jesus Christ and the inspired and authorized servants of God who lead it. Maybe I'm missing something, but that appears not to have been an issue in this disciplinary council.

In that regard I also find the decision interesting. 

I would hope that Colvin takes this opportunity to reevaluate what she has written in the past and possibly change the tone of what she will write in the future.  

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In that regard I also find the decision interesting. 

I would hope that Colvin takes this opportunity to reevaluate what she has written in the past and possibly change the tone of what she will write in the future.  

I hope that too, but I fear it may only make matters worse by emboldening her in that she now feels vindicated. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From a strictly visceral standpoint, I couldn't care less that she joined another church. What I find bothersome is her continued public and vocal faultfinding of the Church of Jesus Christ and the inspired and authorized servants of God who lead it. Maybe I'm missing something, but that appears not to have been an issue in this disciplinary council.

This.   That is what bothers me also.  I would like to think that she has been treated kindly and maybe she will tone down the rhetoric.  She can be very warm and complimentary of her Church experience.  I think that always goes over better in any situation.  I am guessing in other high profile cases that they weren't always that way.  

Sometimes I really like Gina and her podcast.  Then there is vitriol (swearing, crude on several occasions if I remember right).  

I haven't listened to her podcast about an abuse case in West Virginia.  There are far too many abuse cases and I hate that it would ever happen.  Interviews keep coming up over and over as the problem according to many social justice types.  My daughter doesn't want to have interviews with her parents.  She says she would never talk to the bishop about her problems with her parents there.  I started a youth temple recommend interview on Sunday and was asking if the girl lives the law of chastity.  She asked what that meant, I basically said the commandments that she is taught in Church and by her parents.  She kept pressing me and I said that these are really questions to talk about with your parents and maybe they should be there.  Then she said she thought the answer was no and started to confess to me.  I stopped the interview and said that I shouldn't talk about those with her, but her parents or the bishop.  She wanted to talk to the bishop, without her parents.  I really love her family.  Her father is inactive/unbelieving, but nice.  Another inactive/unbelieving father won't let us interview or progress any of his children in the Church. In both cases the rest of the family is trying to stay engaged.  It was a very delicate situation and I hope that I did well.  Not that I was inappropriate, but that the girl felt like it was all in a loving, faithful manner.  I hope it was overall a positive experience.  Much like my interviews were over the last 50 years.  I was trying to think of a negative one and I really couldn't.  Repentance was always a wonderful feeling.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear it may only make matters worse by emboldening her in that she now feels vindicated. 

I have to trust that her bishopric acted under inspiration. I've certainly gone into a disciplinary council with an outcome in mind and been soundly corrected.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Gina Colvin is not so strident a critic as made out to be here. Her pre-DC  interview with John Dehlin speaks to that. The interview is very long, but worthwhile,  and suggests why Gina perhaps was not seen as needing to be disciplined at this time. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1935175713445298&id=73624634300

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I know of course that this is sarcasm but I know that bishops CAN and do take actions against advice of leaders without getting "fired", because I have had that experience.

Yep, same here.  In the one disciplinary council where I was presiding, we ended up putting the individual on informal probation.  The stake president was astonished (because he felt disfellowshipment was warranted), and said that he'd have to pray about it.  He let the decision stand, for what it's worth.

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The entire idea of priesthood keys demands it- if God called me and I am the person who has the keys from God to be the individual's "Judge" in Israel- countermanding my revelation calls into question the whole enterprise.   

Indeed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×