"What Women Know"...

[MorningStar]

I think if I were a bishop and I saw someone's name on the list, I would just talk to them and ask them what's up.

[Drewm777]

Then I would bet that you wouldn't last in that calling. Good Bishops are loving, not spiteful. Your attitude just doesn't reflect love--just a desire to shut people up with a firm hand.

I think your definition of love and your criticism, is, well, narrow.

To let apostates openly teach false doctrine and/or support it is damaging to other members of the church. To discipline such behavior is an act of love both for the sinner and for those who might be damaged by their behavior. The handbook outlines this.

Dreww, I think when priesthood leaders are actually in a position where they make these kinds of decisions, they are done with more of a spirit of love and concern, rather than using priesthood authority to try and force a member to renounce their feelings or face discipline.

When a man is called to preside over a ward or stake, they are expected to exercise priesthood authority as outlined in the 121st section of the D&C. I'm not sure making snap judgements would be the best way to follow these guidelines. I think that may be what others have objected to...that was my concern with your comments.

Did no one actually read the post? I said, such action would be taken out of concern to protect the members of the ward from apostate teachings and practices. I'm sorry if you see that as judgmental or exercising the priesthood improperly. It is not. For some reason, people think that discipline and love are not compatible. They are.

I think if I were a bishop and I saw someone's name on the list, I would just talk to them and ask them what's up.

That might not be a bad place to start. I'd then counsel them to renounce those beliefs. If they did not, then I would proceed with discipline.

[emeliza]

I think your definition of love and your criticism, is, well, narrow.

To let apostates openly teach false doctrine and/or support it is damaging to other members of the church. To discipline such behavior is an act of love both for the sinner and for those who might be damaged by their behavior. The handbook outlines this.

I think you should talk to the person first and not just go all gunho with discipline. I don't think you need to set up a council just because someone signs a petition. I think instead you should meet with the person to determine what is going on and how to work/help them. I know as a parent I don't discipline my children every time they do something wrong. Sometimes I just talk to them about it and let them make a decision to change for the future. I guess you could call it a warning. At the same time it also helps me to understand what is going on in their mind and if they need help somewhere else and that is why they are acting out.

I can guarantee you if all I ever did was throw the book at them, they would just act worse and worse until I basically was unable to help them.

[Drewm777]

Drewn-in regards to women being out of line(hear me out...hahah):

People get out of line all the time. I think the point is though sometimes things course correct rather easily before we have to bring in the big guns.

Sure, if they will repent. Disciplinary councils do NOT, however, always excommunicate or discipline individuals. You can have a council that does not have a negative end. It simply gives them a chance to be accountable, to show their innocence, or to repent. I have seen all of these outcomes. Some end with a "go thy way and sin no more" where us others end with a "I turn you over to the buffetings of Satan."

I think you should talk to the person first and not just go all gunho with discipline. I don't think you need to set up a council just because someone signs a petition. I think instead you should meet with the person to determine what is going on and how to work/help them. I know as a parent I don't discipline my children every time they do something wrong. Sometimes I just talk to them about it and let them make a decision to change for the future. I guess you could call it a warning. At the same time it also helps me to understand what is going on in their mind and if they need help somewhere else and that is why they are acting out.

I can guarantee you if all I ever did was throw the book at them, they would just act worse and worse until I basically was unable to help them.

I agree. As I said above, discipline is for those who refuse to submit to council.

[emeliza]

Sure, if they will repent. Disciplinary councils do NOT, however, always excommunicate or discipline individuals. You can have a council that does not have a negative end. It simply gives them a chance to be accountable, to show their innocence, or to repent. I have seen all of these outcomes. Some end with a "go thy way and sin no more" where us others end with a "I turn you over to the buffetings of Satan."

And sometimes the Bishop can meet with people prior to it being brought to a disciplinary council to determine the situation. The point is instead of going into the meeting with your head all geared to bringing the person to repentance, you should go into the meeting with the idea of helping the person work thru any issues they have and explain things to them.

[Drewm777]

And sometimes the Bishop can meet with people prior to it being brought to a disciplinary council to determine the situation.

Right. Like I said above, talking to an individual before holding a council is often the way to go. However, some sins warrant a council no matter how repentant the person is. That's up to the Bishop to decide.

The point is instead of going into the meeting with your head all geared to bringing the person to repentance, you should go into the meeting with the idea of helping the person work thru any issues they have and explain things to them.

There is no difference between wanting to bring a person to repentance and trying to help "the person work thru any issues they have and explain things to them."

Stop the hellfire and brimstone lectures you are derailing the thread. I strongly suggest you make this your last post in this thread ~ Mods

[Douglas Hunter]

The 2,000 stripling warriors tried (and succeeded) in stopping those unrighteous desires.

That IS a success story and it is NOT 'unutterable sadness' that God would keep people making moral choices safe while allowing people who have made immoral choices and have sought war to reap what they have sowed.

War is sad, and destructive, yes-but that does not mean that good cannot come out of war, or that war is NEVER necessary or the right decision...especially when we are talking about a war fought to defend principles and loved ones, as the war in the BOM was.

One of many possible replies:

In line at lunch I cross my fork and spoon

to ward off complicity-the ordered life

our leaders have offered us. Thin as a knife,

our chance to live depends on such a sign

while others talk and The Pentagon from the moon

is bouncing exact commands: "Forget your faith;

be ready for whatever it takes to win: we face

annihilation unless all citizens get in line."

I bow and cross my fork and spoon: somewhere

other citizens more fearfully bow

in a place terrorized by their kind of oppressive state.

Our signs both mean, "You hostages over there

will never be slaughtered by my act." Our vows

cross: never to kill and call it fate.

- William Stafford

[koakaipo]

Sure, if they will repent. Disciplinary councils do NOT, however, always excommunicate or discipline individuals. You can have a council that does not have a negative end. It simply gives them a chance to be accountable, to show their innocence, or to repent. I have seen all of these outcomes. Some end with a "go thy way and sin no more" where us others end with a "I turn you over to the buffetings of Satan."

I agree. As I said above, discipline is for those who refuse to submit to council.

Yeah, I get how councils work but to set one up in the first place is a bit of a to do in the first place, right?

Is that step even necessary when I am thinking about the guidelines used to identify apostasy.

I think it all goes back to looking at the motivations for signing the petition. I dont' think it has to be as confrontational as you are making it, just as I think some of the folks involved with the drawing up of the petition didn't have to make it as confrontation as they did either. It's almost synergystic watching the two sides react honestly.

I have to say as a woman alot of what the petition talks too (minus the stripling warrior deal) are somewhat common topics of discussion I've heard as a lifelong Mormon gal. Maybe that's why I'm not quite getting the urgency here.

[John Larsen]

News flash for those ultra-pacificts:

War first started in Heaven. Yep there was a war in Heaven, and Satan and his angels were cast down from Heaven. So ask these people if they thought that was was wrong. Was God wrong in fighting a war to cast Satan and his Angels out of Heaven? Or should God just have 'gotten along' with the Devil? That is the Question those ultra-pacificts should answer. However the truth is they can't answer that question, because Satan is the author of that deception, and he rarely exposes himself for what he really is.

Are you suggesting the War in Heaven involved physical violence?

John

[bluebell]

One of many possible replies:

In line at lunch I cross my fork and spoon

to ward off complicity-the ordered life

our leaders have offered us. Thin as a knife,

our chance to live depends on such a sign

while others talk and The Pentagon from the moon

is bouncing exact commands: "Forget your faith;

be ready for whatever it takes to win: we face

annihilation unless all citizens get in line."

I bow and cross my fork and spoon: somewhere

other citizens more fearfully bow

in a place terrorized by their kind of oppressive state.

Our signs both mean, "You hostages over there

will never be slaughtered by my act." Our vows

cross: never to kill and call it fate.

- William Stafford

Pretty words.

[MorningStar]

That's probably one of the most sexist, and insulting things that i've ever heard.

Raising kids instead of choosing to work outside the home is a waste of talented brains and skills?

My own mother worked (and is also a nurse and a VERY good one) but she would feel like a failure if her son believed such a thing.

Yes, it does seem to imply that only the talentless, brainless people should stay home with their kids and that the smart, talented women owe it to the world to go to work. My ward is filled with intelligent, talented women who have chosen to stay home with their kids. After doing childcare before I had children, I knew I could never put my kids in daycare. When it came down to it, the moms felt like they had to choose their jobs, so they would bring their kids sick. I couldn't do it anymore because it broke my heart. They were sick and they wanted their moms. One lady would pretend like her son was not really sick, but the truth was, she was afraid of losing her job. Her son was throwing-up like crazy and she kept insisting that he had kind of a sensitive stomach. He was dry heaving after a while and when I called her, she was resisting coming to pick him up. She finally did and she still brought him the next morning. I know if we depended on two incomes and were desperate for me to keep my job, I might end up dealing with it the same way and I didn't want to do that. I've also seen parents take very little thought about who watches their kids when they are desperate and I would have a very hard time trusting anyone else to watch my kids all day, every day. I saw this show years ago where these parents had secretly recorded their nanny and she did nothing but lay on their bed all day watching TV. If the little toddler came into the room, she would yell at him to go out. She wasn't doing anything for him, she didn't say one kind word, and the last time he went in there for some attention, she snapped at him and he said, "I just came in to tell you I love you." It broke my heart. Not even that got a positive response out of her. He finally went into the living room, pulled his little foam couch over himself, and went to sleep. I was horrified. The woman was perfectly capable of acting nice when the parents were around. I wasn't a mom when I saw that and that was the first time I thought, "Wow! Little children are so forgiving! He loves her and she is so horrible to him." He deserved so much more. I also observed a daycare worker at McDonald's once who referred to all of the kids she brought there as "little monsters". I wondered if she called them that in front of their parents? She had this way about her like she was pretending to be funny, but it seemed like it was just a job to her. I doubted she was really attached to those kids.

When I was 18, I wanted to be a famous singer. Now I don't care about that. I realized my focus at the end of my life would be all about my family and what a joy they are to me. I knew that fertility is so temporary, so we didn't wait long. I wanted to have a family and I wanted to be there for my kids. I do a lot with my musical talents while being a mom and I don't have to be well known are paid for it to be fulfilling. I think too many people measure their worth based on the money they make and the degrees they have earned. I don't think the value of people can be found on paper though. I know that there are moms who absolutely have to work and many who feel called to be in a profession. I know that many people who can make it work. But I also have friends who feel trapped in their careers because they rely on that second income, but they desperately want to stay home with their kids. They had no idea they would feel that way until they became moms. I am amazed by them though because they deal with the same challenges and somehow have to function at work. I can't imagine. I read the blog of one friend who got very little sleep the night before her first day of going back to work because of her colicky baby and she had to get up at 5am to get herself ready, feed her baby, pump, get her baby to daycare, and then to work. She was sobbing her eyes out and wondered why she even bothered trying to put make-up on. She now feels that she belongs at home with her daughter, but she and her husband would lose their house.

I have had people say to me many times, "When you go back to work ..." Why do people assume I will do this? I have no plans to. I would rather volunteer in the community and at my kids' schools. I would rather be available to help someone when they can't find anyone else because they're at work. I would like to work on Family History. One day a woman called me crying hysterically because she thought she was having breast cancer symptoms and her mom had died of it. She needed someone to drive her to the doctor and I was so glad to be available to her to do that and to calm her down. I would like to spend more time praciticing music too, working on projects around the house, trying out new recipes, developing new talents, and I would like to go back to college or maybe go to massage school. I think it would be fun to have a massage room in my house, earn a little extra on the side, and pamper my friends and family for no charge. If I had to get a job, I would, but I feel I have just as much worth being at home.

[Drewm777]

Stop the hellfire and brimstone lectures you are derailing the thread. I strongly suggest you make this your last post in this thread ~ Mods

Why do I suspect that the mod is someone who is posting on this thread? Just because you can't agree with me doesn't give you a right to threaten me. I have not broken any rules. I have not called anyone names, I have not done anything. On the other hand, I was, however, told I lack love and charity, which is, honestly, offensive, not true and a personal attack (which does violate the rules). I have never received such poor treatment from a Mod around here. I have contributed substantially to this message board and have never had problems. I believe your censure is unwarranted and really shocking for MA&DB.

Yeah, I get how councils work but to set one up in the first place is a bit of a to do in the first place, right?

Right, I said above at least twice that it might not be necessary. However, a disciplinary council does not necessarily represent a negative or terrible process like some have painted it to be. That's all I was saying.

[Drewm777]

Stop the hellfire and brimstone lectures you are derailing the thread. I strongly suggest you make this your last post in this thread ~ Mods

One further point, I never mentioned hell at all. The reference to the "buffetings of satan" is from scripture and refers to excommunication. It has nothing to do with hellfire and brimstone nor is it a lecture. Nor does it derail the thread!!! I was answering the original post and defending my answer against those who attacked it. I had every right to do so. Once again, I am offended by your lack of judgment on this.

EDIT: I thought the original poster had asked what we would do if we were the ecclesiastical leader...? Did I dream that, or was it somewhere else? Either way, it was well within the topic of discussion and questions asked: "I wonder if they could face some sort of rebuking? What do any of you think of this?"

[Teancum]

Sorry, but Sister Beck is expressing the positives of certain characteristics of faithfulness. She makes no comment in here about the aspects of faithlessness.

The lack of a specific statement to support your claim means instead that your claim has to be inferred (interpreted) from her comments.

Your claim that faithlessness must be the default is your interpretation only - not Sister Beck's specific statement. Hence, your claim that Sister Beck says that such sisters as you describe are faithless is not supported by her talk.

And that, in effect, was the main tactic of the petition. It deals very little with actual statements from Sister Beck's talk, and instead gives free rein to interpretations / inferences that suit the liberal needs of those composing the petition.

Sorry but I think based on the talk in total the implication I came up with is pretty clear. Guess we will have to disagree.

[koakaipo]

gotcha drewn-I just worry sometimes when both sides seem to be---on some level at least---creating self fulfilling prophecies of the other. I see it as a dance in this sense. And I worry the end result is dehumanizing one another into bad cliches like the lobotomized housewife vs. the selfish career woman, or the Utah mormonnazi vs. the non Utah relativist.

[Teancum]

You are reading into this...is that necessary? Anyone who has been around Mormonism in the last decade knows that the attributes of motherhood do not require birthing children. That is why all women are given the stupid little handout gifts on Mother's Day now. Do you value motherhood? Do you have the attributes for it (which is basically what godhood consists of). All poor Sis. Beck has said here is that there needs to be a desire for this...and if someone has no desire to nuture and protect I do think they are in trouble in the character development department.

Then why oh why are you defending working as a wonderful lifestyle for 99% of the women without that luxury? I also control my job...that is why I have such sympathy for women who cannot. Even at that there were times when I had to choose between my daughter's needs and my professional needs. I think it goes without saying that you would not want a life without your children. I think it also goes without saying that those who choose not to have children aren't making an informed choice...you can't do that without experiencing parenthood. Parenthood and the inexplicable bond is not something that can be observed, explained or transferred.

1: I simply disagree with you Julianne. As noted, the talk, taken in whole, pretty much says if you are faithful you stay home, have kids and be a wonderful homemaker. If you do not, then you are not. If I am reading into it Sister Beck made it extremely easy to do so. I am amazed that you conclude differently given your seemingly strong attitude about women doing what they want.

2: As for defending working for women as a wonderful lifestyle where did I do that? All I am defending is the right for women to choose and still be considered faithful LDS if they do not choose the traditional role. Please don't tell be you have never seen women in the Church who are not more traditional be put down because of it.

Heck, recently a woman in my ward who is a good friend of the family and who taught seminary to my kids commented about my daughter who has no kids yet "When is she going to get with the program?" I wondered what business of hers it was.

[Drewm777]

Yes, it does seem to imply that only the talentless, brainless people should stay home with their kids and that the smart, talented women owe it to the world to go to work. My ward is filled with intelligent, talented women who have chosen to stay home with their kids. After doing childcare before I had children, I knew I could never put my kids in daycare. When it came down to it, the moms felt like they had to choose their jobs, so they would bring their kids sick. I couldn't do it anymore because it broke my heart. They were sick and they wanted their moms. One lady would pretend like her son was not really sick, but the truth was, she was afraid of losing her job. Her son was throwing-up like crazy and she kept insisting that he had kind of a sensitive stomach. He was dry heaving after a while and when I called her, she was resisting coming to pick him up. She finally did and she still brought him the next morning. I know if we depended on two incomes and were desperate for me to keep my job, I might end up dealing with it the same way and I didn't want to do that. I've also seen parents take very little thought about who watches their kids when they are desperate and I would have a very hard time trusting anyone else to watch my kids all day, every day. I saw this show years ago where these parents had secretly recorded their nanny and she did nothing but lay on their bed all day watching TV. If the little toddler came into the room, she would yell at him to go out. She wasn't doing anything for him, she didn't say one kind word, and the last time he went in there for some attention, she snapped at him and he said, "I just came in to tell you I love you." It broke my heart. Not even that got a positive response out of her. He finally went into the living room, pulled his little foam couch over himself, and went to sleep. I was horrified. The woman was perfectly capable of acting nice when the parents were around. I wasn't a mom when I saw that and that was the first time I thought, "Wow! Little children are so forgiving! He loves her and she is so horrible to him." He deserved so much more. I also observed a daycare worker at McDonald's once who referred to all of the kids she brought there as "little monsters". I wondered if she called them that in front of their parents? She had this way about her like she was pretending to be funny, but it seemed like it was just a job to her. I doubted she was really attached to those kids.

When I was 18, I wanted to be a famous singer. Now I don't care about that. I realized my focus at the end of my life would be all about my family and what a joy they are to me. I knew that fertility is so temporary, so we didn't wait long. I wanted to have a family and I wanted to be there for my kids. I do a lot with my musical talents while being a mom and I don't have to be well known are paid for it to be fulfilling. I think too many people measure their worth based on the money they make and the degrees they have earned. I don't think the value of people can be found on paper though. I know that there are moms who absolutely have to work and many who feel called to be in a profession. I know that many people who can make it work. But I also have friends who feel trapped in their careers because they rely on that second income, but they desperately want to stay home with their kids. They had no idea they would feel that way until they became moms. I am amazed by them though because they deal with the same challenges and somehow have to function at work. I can't imagine. I read the blog of one friend who got very little sleep the night before her first day of going back to work because of her colicky baby and she had to get up at 5am to get herself ready, feed her baby, pump, get her baby to daycare, and then to work. She was sobbing her eyes out and wondered why she even bothered trying to put make-up on. She now feels that she belongs at home with her daughter, but she and her husband would lose their house.

I have had people say to me many times, "When you go back to work ..." Why do people assume I will do this? I have no plans to. I would rather volunteer in the community and at my kids' schools. I would rather be available to help someone when they can't find anyone else because they're at work. I would like to work on Family History. One day a woman called me crying hysterically because she thought she was having breast cancer symptoms and her mom had died of it. She needed someone to drive her to the doctor and I was so glad to be available to her to do that and to calm her down. I would like to spend more time praciticing music too, working on projects around the house, trying out new recipes, developing new talents, and I would like to go back to college or maybe go to massage school. I think it would be fun to have a massage room in my house, earn a little extra on the side, and pamper my friends and family for no charge. If I had to get a job, I would, but I feel I have just as much worth being at home.

I appreciate your insights. Thanks

[Teancum]

These women are more than a little out of line, my friend. They condemn statements made by the First Presidency (the Proclamation to the World) and also the Book of Mormon in their manifesto. They are apostates and I don't care if it's your mom, sister, or the relief society president.

Actually, I would.

There was nothing self-righteous about my email. This is the truth and I stated it to them, that's all:

1. They are opposing the Lord's anointed

2. They are publicly teaching false doctrine.

Both of those, according to the handbook, are grounds for excommunication if they do not repent.

As noted we can only hope you hold no Church authority to exercise discipline.

[Drewm777]

gotcha drewn-I just worry sometimes when both sides seem to be---on some level at least---creating self fulfilling prophecies of the other. I see it as a dance in this sense. And I worry the end result is dehumanizing one another into bad cliches like the lobotomized housewife vs. the selfish career woman, or the Utah mormonnazi vs. the non Utah relativist.

I'm not sure I follow all you're saying. I never made any statements about what women should or should not do. I do think, however, that the petition mentioned in the OP openly criticizes church leaders, scripture, and doctrine. As such, a person who openly preaches or gives support to such views is in apostasy. Apostasy does in fact warrant church discipline. Now, if a person repents, they'll be forgiven. If not, there can be no mercy.

As noted we can only hope you hold no Church authority to exercise discipline.

Once again, the personal attacks are wonderful.

Keep them coming.

[jwhitlock]

Sorry but I think based on the talk in total the implication I came up with is pretty clear. Guess we will have to disagree.

Right. It's clear because you infer it from the talk. Got it.

Based on the talk in total, Sister Beck was talking about attributes of "Women who know". It did not, as far as I can see, make judgments on those who did not have those attributes.

Given the lack of specific statements in that context, you seem to feel free to make your own interpretation from what you infer in the talk and claim clarity for it. You expand the talk beyond what was meant and then condemn Sister Beck for what you infer from her comments - without any clear support for your inference.

You bet we're going to disagree - because you haven't made a logical case for your interpretation. Not from the tone of the entire talk, nor from your attempts to claim "clarity" in your inference of what was not specifically said.

What is clear to me from your comments is that you are shaping Sister Beck's talk in the light of your own assumptions and prejudices - and claiming them as clear fact. Hence, when you claim Sister Beck said that sisters who don't share the attributes she lists are "faithless", your claim is not factual. Without specific statements from Sister Beck supporting your claim of "faithlessness", the "clarity" you claim is an illusion.

[Teancum]

I'm sorry, Juliann, but I really think you have misspoke. I absolutely would have a disciplinary council.

For what it's worth, I've already sat in several disciplinary councils (it was a student ward....). I've already served in a bishopric and been a branch president. I'm only 25 so I'll probably doomed to a life of such service. I'm guessing I might be a bishop some day, although that is not my personal ambition.

I think you're off base to pass judgment on whether my views are charitable or not. Ever heard of tough love? What about love for all the people out there that might be swayed by such apostates in the church? When leaders choose not to discipline someone who is in apostasy (or for other heinous sins), they indirectly condone the behavior in the sight of others. True charity requires discipline, and I would discipline any woman (or man) in my ward who signed her (his) name to such a document who is not willing to renounce it en toto. To do otherwise would be to jeopardize the spiritual lives of others. If someone chooses a route of apostasy, that's fine, but I would never let them do it at the possible risk of members of whom I am the shepherd without making a clear and resolute call of danger to all.

Ah 25 and so full of wisdom and charitable love. I was like you back then. Give yourself 20 years more or so of life, a lot of challenges, sickness, life threatening diseased, wayward kids, money challenges, watching friends divorce, working through your own marriage problems, much stupidity in many you love and maybe you will be ready to be a bishop then. God knows you are not now. But life has a way of breaking us down and humbling us. Mercy and meekness must be part of being a good church leader, especially a judge in Israel. I thought like you, really, until I was about 38 years old or so. I am glad I was not in position to exercise unrighteous dominion like you seem ready to do before I was ready for power over peoples spiritual standing in the Church.

By the way, there are ways to work through issues like this before you discipline and usually such action in these cases can be avoided.

[Drewm777]

Right. It's clear because you infer it from the talk. Got it.

Based on the talk in total, Sister Beck was talking about attributes of "Women who know". It did not, as far as I can see, make judgments on those who did not have those attributes.

Given the lack of specific statements in that context, you seem to feel free to make your own interpretation from what you infer in the talk and claim clarity for it. You expand the talk beyond what was meant and then condemn Sister Beck for what you infer from her comments - without any clear support for your inference.

You bet we're going to disagree - because you haven't made a logical case for your interpretation. Not from the tone of the entire talk, nor from your attempts to claim "clarity" in your inference of what was not specifically said.

What is clear to me from your comments is that you are shaping Sister Beck's talk in the light of your own assumptions and prejudices - and claiming them as clear fact. Hence, when you claim Sister Beck said that sisters who don't share the attributes she lists are "faithless", your claim is not factual. Without specific statements from Sister Beck supporting your claim of "faithlessness", the "clarity" you claim is an illusion.

I would agree with your post. The talk's statements are founded and based in church doctrine. If that's offensive to an individual, that's unfortunate. Such an individual, even if opposed to church doctrine, should never preach against it. However, I don't think most of the ideas people are claiming Sister Beck taught are anything but their own preconceived ideas that they're putting into her mouth.

[Teancum]

I think your definition of love and your criticism, is, well, narrow.

To let apostates openly teach false doctrine and/or support it is damaging to other members of the church. To discipline such behavior is an act of love both for the sinner and for those who might be damaged by their behavior. The handbook outlines this.

Did no one actually read the post? I said, such action would be taken out of concern to protect the members of the ward from apostate teachings and practices. I'm sorry if you see that as judgmental or exercising the priesthood improperly. It is not. For some reason, people think that discipline and love are not compatible. They are.

That might not be a bad place to start. I'd then counsel them to renounce those beliefs. If they did not, then I would proceed with discipline.

You could not do so as a bishop without your SPs permission. Hopefully he would be smarter then you and less foolish.

Stop the personal attacks now.

[alter idem]

I think your definition of love and your criticism, is, well, narrow.

To let apostates openly teach false doctrine and/or support it is damaging to other members of the church. To discipline such behavior is an act of love both for the sinner and for those who might be damaged by their behavior. The handbook outlines this.

Did no one actually read the post? I said, such action would be taken out of concern to protect the members of the ward from apostate teachings and practices. I'm sorry if you see that as judgmental or exercising the priesthood improperly. It is not. For some reason, people think that discipline and love are not compatible. They are.

That might not be a bad place to start. I'd then counsel them to renounce those beliefs. If they did not, then I would proceed with discipline.

I know what you meant about a disciplinary court. I just don't think that the way you suggested it be used had anything to do with love. Your initial reaction was to immediately call everyone who signed it "apostates" who should be tried by a church court. Doesn't sound very loving.

A church court is not something to be taken lightly. I realize that a decision of "no action taken" can be made, but just going through a court can have a profound effect on the person's family and relationship with their leaders. In a case like this, I"d say a church court would be more of a last resort than the first step.

I agree with those who said that if a signer's leaders felt they should do something about it, it should start with a discussion. Not a threat of a church court.

To let apostates openly teach false doctrine and/or support it is damaging to other members of the church. To discipline such behavior is an act of love both for the sinner and for those who might be damaged by their behavior. The handbook outlines this.

I also don't see how you've connected the dots of signing a statement to "openly teaching false doctrine to other church members" I don't see how anyone in their wards would even know they'd singned that statement unless they went searching on the internet for it.

[Drewm777]

Ah 25 and so full of wisdom and charitable love.

The mocking continues. Did I ever claim to be "so full of wisdom and charitable love"? I was only defending my view against the attack that I must lack love or charity.

Maybe I should start a personal attack too so I can get in style!

I was like you back then. Give yourself 20 years more or so of life, a lot of challenges, sickness, life threatening diseased, wayward kids, money challenges, watching friends divorce, working through your own marriage problems, much stupidity in many you love and maybe you will be ready to be a bishop then. God knows you are not now. But life has a way of breaking us down and humbling us. Mercy and meekness must be part of being a good church leader, especially a judge in Israel. I thought like you, really, until I was about 38 years old or so. I am glad I was not in position to exercise unrighteous dominion like you seem ready to do before I was ready for power over peoples spiritual standing in the Church.

Thanks for the sob story, lecture, and more judgment. You obviously didn't read what I had to say, or, like you do with Sister Beck, are judging my thoughts and putting words into my mouth. You're great at that, it seems.

By the way, there are ways to work through issues like this before you discipline and usually such action in these cases can be avoided.

Right, and this makes the fourth time that I've said that would be acceptable in my view unless the person was unwilling to repent. I guess I have confirmed you didn't read my posts for sure.

I guess now I'm supposed to lecture you about being judgmental, proud, etc, etc, etc. However, I won't return the favor.