Does the Church control?

[mercyngrace]

I've got a pretty good view of how the church operates behind the scenes, and so when I hear stories that don't mesh with the inner workings, I tend to be a little skeptical. Of course, every skeptic is wrong now and then.

H.

Me, too, just as a result of growing up with the church in our area - lots of leadership opportunities. You're right that requesting no-contact and removing your name from church records is different. I didn't mean to blur that if I did.

Right now, my father has so many less actives to visit - most who haven't been to church in years - that when someone wants to be left alone, they absolutely honor that request. It helps prioritize efforts such that those who are receptive to visits get them. Per his own telling, he also explains to those who say they are no longer members or don't want to be members exactly what they need to do to officially leave the church.

There are so many inactive elders in his ward that the HPG has had to assume responsibility for a large number of them. It's a very transient community and so just keeping up with people who actually want to come to church is hard.

[Deborah]

"All in favor or sustaining President Monson raise your right hand. All opposed just go to the back and we will excommunicate you right now." Is that real choice?

CFR that someone who raises his hand in opposition is excommunicated. If someone is excommunicated it's not for that it's for other issues.

[Deborah]

Doesn't this scripture refer to baptism, specifically, and the ordinances, generally? I don't think it means, "follow lot's of rules".

It was part of the Sermon on the Mount and there is no reference to baptism specifically.

[LeSellers]

["Strait is the gate and narrow the way"] was part of the Sermon on the Mount and there is no reference to baptism specifically.

It doesn't refer to baptism at all, not specifically, not explicitly, not implicitly. It does refer implicitly (and perhaps more so) to "following lot's [sic] of rules."

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

It doesn't refer to baptism at all, not specifically, not explicitly, not implicitly. It does refer implicitly (and perhaps more so) to "following lot's [sic] of rules."

Lehi

Yikes! You better read this talk.

H.

[erichard]

CFR that someone who raises his hand in opposition is excommunicated. If someone is excommunicated it's not for that it's for other issues.

I am sure that if someone raised their hand in opposition that they would not be excommunicated just for that. But if they presented evidence for their decision they could easily be excommunicated. This is from personal experience. That is somewhat of a reference.

I agree that a lot of persons who disagree with the church leadership act up and commit sins that get themselves excommunicated. But that of itself does not mean that EVERY one who chooses to not sustain the leadership should be excommunicated.

The bottom line is: do you accept that the law of God allows for members to have legitimate controversies over the President of the church, and that it is the responsibility of the members to deal with the Church President if he errs. (Which I claim is found in D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48)

Or do you believe that the Lord would never allow the President of the church to get into a position where members were justified in not sustaining him? (Which has no scriptural basis, but much tradition basis.)

Richard

[Monster]

I was thinking that the mere fact that one person claims to hold control of your salvation by being able to administer ordinances and then claims you must obey a set of rules to receive those ordinances is a form of control. They are imposing behavior requirements on you and doling out a reward. Now I do not say that is all bad. Every organization does this to some effect. But with the church they try to make the stakes so very high. You exaltation, your family, your eternal happiness is bound to the behavior that they require. Sure you have the ability to say no but for some there is a high cost in employment or family relations if they do not conform.

I think it is a mistake to claim you are not under control because you have a choice. Sometimes people feel they do not have a choice if they want to maintain peace at home. They must conform to keep others they love happy.

[Deborah]

I think it is a mistake to claim you are not under control because you have a choice. Sometimes people feel they do not have a choice if they want to maintain peace at home. They must conform to keep others they love happy.

People always have a choice. They need to decide if they want to live with the consequences of those choices. Sports games have rules. If someone doesn't obey the rules they get penalized or kicked off the team. Without rules the games mean nothing. I just think this idea that because an organization has rules they expect people to abide by to receive the full benefits of that organization that somehow that is control or taking away choice. Only those who have made choices and then don't like the consequences complain about "control."

[Deborah]

Yikes! You better read this talk.

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

[One Clear Voice]

I am sure that if someone raised their hand in opposition that they would not be excommunicated just for that. But if they presented evidence for their decision they could easily be excommunicated. This is from personal experience. That is somewhat of a reference.

I agree that a lot of persons who disagree with the church leadership act up and commit sins that get themselves excommunicated. But that of itself does not mean that EVERY one who chooses to not sustain the leadership should be excommunicated.

The bottom line is: do you accept that the law of God allows for members to have legitimate controversies over the President of the church, and that it is the responsibility of the members to deal with the Church President if he errs. (Which I claim is found in D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48)

Or do you believe that the Lord would never allow the President of the church to get into a position where members were justified in not sustaining him? (Which has no scriptural basis, but much tradition basis.)

Richard

I don't remember the last time I sustained anyone during church all the way down to the Ward level most of who I do not know. I rarely give a vote of thanks. It all has been explained to me why we sustain. I'm still a member in good standing and have never been questioned for my actions.

[LDSToronto]

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

Nothing to do with cheese. However, it does show a clear link between baptism and the 'strait gate and narrow way'. Earlier, Lehi claimed that the strait gate and narrow way "doesn't refer to baptism at all, not specifically, not explicitly, not implicitly."

An apostle differs.

H.

[ERayR]

Deborah,

Even if you do not believe that D&C 107:81-84 allows for legitimate controversies over the church President (or one of his counselors), the very fact that two options are presented to members (all in favor, and then all opposed) should convince you that one should not be excommunicated for choosing one of the options offered them. Right?

"All in favor or sustaining President Monson raise your right hand. All opposed just go to the back and we will excommunicate you right now." Is that real choice?

You can read about D&C 107:81-84 on the church CES site here. It acknowledges: "The Church is so organized that no member or officer, from the President to the last member received, is ‘exempted from the justice and the laws of God.’"

Richard

One is not excommunicated for choosing the not sustainng option. One is excommunicated when one carries that opposition to a very public forum and openly and activly carries on that opposition.

[LeSellers]

Lehi claimed that the strait gate and narrow way "doesn't refer to baptism at all, not specifically, not explicitly, not implicitly."

An apostle differs.

I don't see how.

The cited passage was from Matt 7, Elder Hales quotes from 2 Nephi. The Matthew account does not mention baptism at all. Neither does the Nephite record, but I'll leave it to an Apostle to decide how we may liken that scripture unto us.

Lehi

[erichard]

One is not excommunicated for choosing the not sustainng option. One is excommunicated when one carries that opposition to a very public forum and openly and activly carries on that opposition.

If they go about it respectfully and carefully, and otherwise keep the commandments, why do they not have the right to carry on that opposition without being excommunicated?

107 verse 83 says: "And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him."

What you are saying ends any possible controversy before it is settled by the law of God. I do not agree that D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48 support such a position.

Richard

[ERayR]

If they go about it respectfully and carefully, and otherwise keep the commandments, why do they not have the right to carry on that opposition without being excommunicated?

107 verse 83 says: "And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him."

What you are saying ends any possible controversy before it is settled by the law of God. I do not agree that D&C 107:81-84 and JST Mark 9:40-48 support such a position.

Richard

I don't know of any organization that condones public opposition from its members. If you own ABC Widget Company and I work for you and I go public that ABC Widget is not all they claim to be you are not going to keep giving me a paycheck. Now if I want to come to you privatly and discuss our differences you will probably listen to me and I will be able to keep working for you. You may not agree but you will listen. If I go public you will not keep me on your payroll.

[Monster]

People always have a choice. They need to decide if they want to live with the consequences of those choices. Sports games have rules. If someone doesn't obey the rules they get penalized or kicked off the team. Without rules the games mean nothing. I just think this idea that because an organization has rules they expect people to abide by to receive the full benefits of that organization that somehow that is control or taking away choice. Only those who have made choices and then don't like the consequences complain about "control."

In principle I agree with you we always have a choice. If I am standing on a railroad tressle and a train is coming I have the choice to jump to my death or get hit by the train. It is a choice but neither seems like a good choice.

When you are happy in an organization like the church you can not understand why others are not. You may think it is just that they are not trying hard enough or they have some underlying problem. You do not see how they struggle to find a path that works for them and their family. LIke standing on the tressle they feel like there are no good choices.

Hence why they feel like they are being controlled.

[Monster]

I don't know of any organization that condones public opposition from its members. If you own ABC Widget Company and I work for you and I go public that ABC Widget is not all they claim to be you are not going to keep giving me a paycheck. Now if I want to come to you privatly and discuss our differences you will probably listen to me and I will be able to keep working for you. You may not agree but you will listen. If I go public you will not keep me on your payroll.

A volunteer organization is not like a business you work for. If i am being compensated then yes I have to fall in line to some degree. With the church we not only volunteer but we pay to belong. Just like if you paid to have your carpets cleaned and you felt like they did a bad job would you not complain. You may not be entirely correct, but that does not mean you do not have the right to voice opposition to the the carpet cleaning company.

When the church starts compensating us for being members then we have to shut up.

[Deborah]

When you are happy in an organization like the church you can not understand why others are not. You may think it is just that they are not trying hard enough or they have some underlying problem.

You must not have paid much attention to previous threads because you assume all of us who are currently happy in the church were always so. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us have questioned at one time or another. Most of us have had times when we just wanted to disappear from notice. Funny thing is when I had those periods I in fact had Bishops who were very understanding and never coerced or threatened or in any way made me feel that I shouldn't feel the way I did. They in fact were very supportive and asked what they could do to help.

[erichard]

I don't know of any organization that condones public opposition from its members. If you own ABC Widget Company and I work for you and I go public that ABC Widget is not all they claim to be you are not going to keep giving me a paycheck. Now if I want to come to you privatly and discuss our differences you will probably listen to me and I will be able to keep working for you. You may not agree but you will listen. If I go public you will not keep me on your payroll.

Hi,

The government of the Lord's church is to be a government by law, not a government by men. No one is above that law. The law in D&C 107:81-84 clearly allows controversies over even the President of the church.

They cannot be spiritual controversies, but they can be temporal controversies. Such controversies are settled by a special trial described in these verses. One can hope that any such controversy could be settled through dialog without such a trial. But if it comes to such a trial, then the law is that that trial ends the controversy.

That means that until such a trial members are justified in not setting the controversy aside.

It is true that putting private laundry (so to speak) out in public is bad for any organization. I would agree that it would be best if the controversy was dealt with without public fanfare. But I am not convinced that a public announcement of the matter gives the leadership the right to overrule the right of legitimate dissent authorized by D&C 107:81-84, and kick the member out.

I thought Monster's answer was pretty good too. The D&C laws are the law the church is to live by (according to the D&C) even if the church is incorporated under US law.

Richard

[Deborah]

The law in D&C 107:81-84 clearly allows controversies over even the President of the church.

So are you contending is that the current or recent prophets have something that needs to be presented to a Church Court because no one knows about it except you? That is so arrogant and lacks any understanding of how closely these men work with each other and how many years they have worked together before a man becomes prophet. Do you not think anything that wasn't proper would have been discovered long before a man sits in the Prophet's seat.

Joseph Smith had many faults but it was always the Lord who chastised him. Even after the Martin Harris fiasco the Lord told him that he is still his prophet. I would be very careful about making judgments about men who sit in the prophet's seat as he is in the Lord's hands. Furthermore we can observe from the Elder Lee incident that those close to him will recognize the signs of apostasy and take action as needed.

[erichard]

So are you contending is that the current or recent prophets have something that needs to be presented to a Church Court because no one knows about it except you? That is so arrogant and lacks any understanding of how closely these men work with each other and how many years they have worked together before a man becomes prophet. Do you not think anything that wasn't proper would have been discovered long before a man sits in the Prophet's seat.

Joseph Smith had many faults but it was always the Lord who chastised him. Even after the Martin Harris fiasco the Lord told him that he is still his prophet. I would be very careful about making judgments about men who sit in the prophet's seat as he is in the Lord's hands. Furthermore we can observe from the Elder Lee incident that those close to him will recognize the signs of apostasy and take action as needed.

Hi Deborah,

There are a lot of members, not just me, that have had controversies over the present church leadership.

The incessant mantra in the church is that it is not even possible to have a legitimate controversy over these men, so little is heard of these many, many controversies.

There are many religious groups of men who work with each other and are united in their claims and teachings.

So it is clear that groups of men can collectively come together into churches without real revelation from the Lord. If the LDS church has become another one of them, then it fits right in with the myriad of other Gentile churches without revelation.

I am not saying there is not "inspiration" in all these Gentile churches, by the way.

The Lord predicts a latter-day SHIFT from Gentile to Israel in scriptures. He predicts the Gentiles will pollute the holy church of God. He predicts a cleansing of his church.

If members are pacified with the present leadership and feel all is well, and it turns out that the Lord has decided to replace the present Gentile leaders with men who will do His bidding, then all the efforts to keep the present leadership above any possible controversy will not stop the Lord in His work. It is His church, after all.

The politics of God are very different than the politics of men. The Lord is not after a lot of members if they are not interested in living all of His laws and teachings.

Richard

[Deborah]

The Lord predicts a latter-day SHIFT from Gentile to Israel in scriptures. He predicts the Gentiles will pollute the holy church of God. He predicts a cleansing of his church.

CFR.

I watched Pres. Monson as he was sustained as prophet and like many others saw the mantle fall on him. I think it is you who have shifted from the holy church of God, not the leadership. I have seen Pres. Hinckley barely able to speak because of hoarseness and then when it came time for the dedicatory prayer to the temple speak with a voice of strength and power and then return after to his weak voice. So I do not question that they are led by God.

[Sleeper Cell]

A volunteer organization is not like a business you work for. If i am being compensated then yes I have to fall in line to some degree. With the church we not only volunteer but we pay to belong. Just like if you paid to have your carpets cleaned and you felt like they did a bad job would you not complain. You may not be entirely correct, but that does not mean you do not have the right to voice opposition to the the carpet cleaning company.

When the church starts compensating us for being members then we have to shut up.

CFR, that a member has to pay to belong to the LDS church.

What really disturbs me is that you seem to be saying that, to some extent, your loyalty is for sale. Shouldn’t loyalty be more a matter of honoring your commitments to an organization, rather than a matter of whether the organization pays you for honoring your commitments?

Until fairly recently, I was a law enforcement volunteer. Not only was I not paid, I had to pay for my uniforms and some of my equipment (i.e., I actually had to “pay to belong“). This fact did not exempt me from having to “fall in line” to some degree, even when off duty. Had I gone around badmouthing the department -- even off duty -- I would have expected to be terminated (and justly so).

[erichard]

CFR.

I watched Pres. Monson as he was sustained as prophet and like many others saw the mantle fall on him. I think it is you who have shifted from the holy church of God, not the leadership. I have seen Pres. Hinckley barely able to speak because of hoarseness and then when it came time for the dedicatory prayer to the temple speak with a voice of strength and power and then return after to his weak voice. So I do not question that they are led by God.

"The Lord predicts a latter-day SHIFT from Gentile to Israel in scriptures."

The latter-day shift is spoken of in 3 Nephi 16:7-13, 1 Nephi 14:42 and some other D&C verses.

"He predicts the Gentiles will pollute the holy church of God."

This is spoken of in Mormon 8:38

"He predicts a cleansing of his church."

This is spoken of in D&C 84:54-59

Given that you have a firm testimony that the Lord is please with President Monson, I would think you would have no problem in allowing other members to claim the right to NOT sustain him, not reject evidences for their concerns, and to seek to settle their controversy over him based on the D&C instructions. What does President Monson have to fear from having controversies over him settled if he is right with the Lord?

Of course, that is only if members truly have such a right.

If someone begrudgedly agrees that the scriptures do allow members such a right, but then in every way seek to reject and demonize any attempt by a member to claim that right-- then what is going on? Why the fear?

If someone is certain that the controversy will not stand up before the Lord, why not allow controversies to be settled over church leaders?

Richard

[why me]

]

Given that you have a firm testimony that the Lord is please with President Monson, I would think you would have no problem in allowing other members to claim the right to NOT sustain him, not reject evidences for their concerns, and to seek to settle their controversy over him based on the D&C instructions. What does President Monson have to fear from having controversies over him settled if he is right with the Lord?

Of course, that is only if members truly have such a right.

If someone begrudgedly agrees that the scriptures do allow members such a right, but then in every way seek to reject and demonize any attempt by a member to claim that right-- then what is going on? Why the fear?

If someone is certain that the controversy will not stand up before the Lord, why not allow controversies to be settled over church leaders?

Richard

The current system works quite well. If there were a different way such as you suggest, I would assume that chaos would occur like it does in so many other churches. Paul cautioned the early saints to be of one heart and one mind. He cautioned this because of schisms inside the church proper. And paul also cautioned against following other leaders who were coming to the surface during his time.

However, if one sees a church leader doing something that he or she should not be doing: visiting a whorehouse, robbing, stealing, cheating on a spouse etc. it is perfectly okay to raise one's hand when it comes to not sustaining the person.