A Breath of Fresh Air

[Mortal Man]

Getting back on track, this thread is not about whether the church is true or who has the best testimony, but rather, what to do with heretics?

Should they be:

A) stoned?

B) banished?

C) ostracized?

D) despised?

E) pitied?

F) fixed?

G) ridiculed?

H) tolerated?

Should we follow Matthew 5:29 or 44?

[WalkerW]

Getting back on track, this thread is not about whether the church is true or who has the best testimony, but rather, what to do with heretics?

Should they be:

A) stoned?

B) banished?

C) ostracized?

D) despised?

E) pitied?

F) fixed?

G) ridiculed?

H) tolerated?

Should we follow Matthew 5:29 or 44?

Heresy was something that arose in the debate between what would become Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. See Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).

So, I'm not sure what the Restoration has to do with "heretics" or how you are defining the term. Not believing the doctrines of the Church has little to do with being a heretic and more to do with there being no point in being a Mormon if such is the case.

And surely you aren't taking the rabbinic rhetoric of Matt. 5:29 at face value.

[volgadon]

Getting back on track, this thread is not about whether the church is true or who has the best testimony, but rather, what to do with heretics?

Should they be:

A) stoned?

B) banished?

C) ostracized?

D) despised?

E) pitied?

F) fixed?

G) ridiculed?

H) tolerated?

Should we follow Matthew 5:29 or 44?

You forgot I) drawn and quartered and J) defenestrated.

[volgadon]

And surely you aren't taking the rabbinic rhetoric of Matt. 5:29 at face value.

Even if he did, it is a personal instruction containing nothing about plucking your neighbour's eye out.

[mfbukowski]

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

"The knower contributes to what he calls known".

He not only contributes- he creates it all. Nothing can be "known" without a knower. "Facts" do not exist without our individual or collective experience of them.

Collective experience is called "science", whereas religion is fully "known" and experienced individually or subjectively.

That's the only difference.

[mercyngrace]

Getting back on track, this thread is not about whether the church is true or who has the best testimony, but rather, what to do with heretics?

Should they be:

A) stoned?

B) banished?

C) ostracized?

D) despised?

E) pitied?

F) fixed?

G) ridiculed?

H) tolerated?

Should we follow Matthew 5:29 or 44?

Heretics aren't enemies. They are brethren and ought to be treated as such.

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another... My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

[Mortal Man]

Heretics aren't enemies. They are brethren and ought to be treated as such.

For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another... My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

mercy's here!

Another breath of fresh air.

[Doctor Steuss]

Getting back on track, this thread is not about whether the church is true or who has the best testimony, but rather, what to do with heretics?

I think they should be given generous gifts of candy.

(My mailing address is available upon request)

[mercyngrace]

mercy's here!

Another breath of fresh air.

Hey there Mortal Man!

( <- Following Paul's admonition in 2 Cor. 13:12.)

I've watched Dehlin's video before and I admire his thoughtful attempts to help those members who are trying to stay in the church as well as those who need help understanding their struggles.

One thing I have a small issue with is the categorizing of people - internet mormons, chapel mormons, cafeteria mormons, new order mormons, TBMs, etc. This business of creating "-ites" just doesn't seem useful. If we got down to living the basics, the golden rule for example, and charitably allowed each other to be who we are and where we are in our testimonies at the moment - extending love and withholding judgment all the while, we might just be surprised by the results.

I'm reminded of what Pres. Monson told the sisters at our last General RS mtg.

Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun who worked among the poor in India most of her life, spoke this profound truth: “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” The Savior has admonished, “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” I ask: can we love one another, as the Savior has commanded, if we judge each other? And I answer—with Mother Teresa: no, we cannot.

Mortal Man, I don't care if you are attending because of your family or in spite of your reservations about historical issues, doctrinal dilemmas, or institutional practices. I care about you. Where you choose to go from there is up to you but you're always welcome to sit on my pew.

[Mortal Man]

Hey there Mortal Man!

( <- Following Paul's admonition in 2 Cor. 13:12.)

Works for me!

I've watched Dehlin's video before and I admire his thoughtful attempts to help those members who are trying to stay in the church as well as those who need help understanding their struggles.

One thing I have a small issue with is the categorizing of people - internet mormons, chapel mormons, cafeteria mormons, new order mormons, TBMs, etc. This business of creating "-ites" just doesn't seem useful. If we got down to living the basics, the golden rule for example, and charitably allowed each other to be who we are and where we are in our testimonies at the moment - extending love and withholding judgment all the while, we might just be surprised by the results.

I'm reminded of what Pres. Monson told the sisters at our last General RS mtg.

Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun who worked among the poor in India most of her life, spoke this profound truth: “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” The Savior has admonished, “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” I ask: can we love one another, as the Savior has commanded, if we judge each other? And I answer—with Mother Teresa: no, we cannot.

I won't argue with that.

Mortal Man, I don't care if you are attending because of your family or in spite of your reservations about historical issues, doctrinal dilemmas, or institutional practices. I care about you. Where you go choose to go from there is up to you but you're always welcome to sit on my pew.

Thanks mercy.

Hey, can you rub down my shoulders before I go back into the ring against volgadon?

[volgadon]

Hey, can you rub down my shoulders before I go back into the ring against volgadon?

Why waste the time, you aren't going to have any left when we're done.

[mercyngrace]

How about I just separate you two and sit in between you like I do with my boys at church? (That way I can put an arm around each of you and give you a smack in the back of the head when you get out of line - also as I do with my boys in church...)

[3DOP]

I watched or listened to the entire video. I am Catholic and we have similar problems. If I understand him correctly, he is asking us to be realistic.

I like to draw a distinction about when we are guilty of judging. Our faith and morals requires all of us to believe that certain actions are wrong. We cannot accuse somebody of this bad judging merely because they hold that it is wrong to steal, or that a certain belief is mistaken. The problem comes when we begin to judge motives. When we tell ourselves accusatory reasons for why someone steals, or why someone doesn't believe in God. To judge as we would wish to be is to make an effort to always try to understand the reasons for why another person we know, or another person in history committed crimes or believed in error.

We can take the role of prosecutor, or the role of advocate for the defense. Without ever saying that error is admissible or sins and crimes are acceptable, we can always mitigate or even exonerate the "guilty" party. I believe that we who would be true followers of Christ, and I include myself, must self-consciously develop a continual HABIT of always trying to imitigate or exonerate parties that we must admit have done wrong. Whether it is our children, our employer, someone at the 4-Way stop, our siblings, a vilified historical character, or someone on the news, we CAN and should notice whether we are acting interiorly toward that person as prosecutor or advocate. As I said above, I don't think we will be so far from the truth (realism), if we try to understand better why someone, from our perception, has failed God, themselves, us, or others in some way. Besides, we are not assigned the job of accuser by God. That job is already taken by the devil from how I understand things.

We can give the guy who runs the 4-Way the finger, or we can figure he is distracted about his wife's brain tumor. Our choice

Thanks for the video, and at least as far as page 5 goes, a nice discussion.

God Bless.

3DOP

[mercyngrace]

I watched or listened to the entire video. I am Catholic and we have similar problems. If I understand him correctly, he is asking us to be realistic.

I like to draw a distinction about when we are guilty of judging. Our faith and morals requires all of us to believe that certain actions are wrong. We cannot accuse somebody of this bad judging merely because they hold that it is wrong to steal, or that a certain belief is mistaken. The problem comes when we begin to judge motives. When we tell ourselves accusatory reasons for why someone steals, or why someone doesn't believe in God. To judge as we would wish to be is to make an effort to always try to understand the reasons for why another person we know, or another person in history committed crimes or believed in error.

We can take the role of prosecutor, or the role of advocate for the defense. Without ever saying that error is admissible or sins and crimes are acceptable, we can always mitigate or even exonerate the "guilty" party. I believe that we who would be true followers of Christ, and I include myself, must self-consciously develop a continual HABIT of always trying to imitigate or exonerate parties that we must admit have done wrong. Whether it is our children, someone at the 4-Way stop, our siblings, a vilified historical character, or someone on the news, we CAN and should notice whether we are acting interiorly toward that person as prosecutor or advocate. As I said above, I don't think we will be so far from the truth (realism), if we try to understand better why someone, from our perception, has failed God, themselves, us, or others in some way. Besides, we are not assigned the job of accuser by God. That job is already taken by the devil from how I understand things.

Thanks for the video, and at least as far as page 5 goes, a nice discussion.

God Bless.

3DOP

Beautifully written, 3DOP.

[Stargazer]

Me too. I was expecting conference to be the same old, same old, but this year it felt different.

I am puzzled by this. April Conference was excellent, thru and thru, but I felt the same way about October's last year. And the previous April.

Maybe I am too easily impressed.

[William Schryver]

The Correlation Committee is too paralyzed by fear and denial to act responsibly in this matter. The deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach has failed. The more they tighten their grip, the more members will slip through their fingers. The rank-and-file must take matters into their own hands before thousands more families are destroyed.

Pursuant to discovering the mind of the apostate evangelist, one must usually swirl his way through many pans of the sand and gravel of quotidian apostate conversation in order to glean a dram of true comprehension. But vexed by a certain catalyst, the evangelist will, on occasion, of his own prompting and volition, unlimber the caissons of inhibition, and fire a solid shot of pure bullion that tears through the layers of pretension to the very soul of understanding, exposed to view in the candid gleam of a naked beam piercing through the clouds of his otherwise well-practiced masquerade.

[consiglieri]

I am curious about what you think your covenant of "obedience" means? Seriously? Or do you feel you never made such a covenant? How does this relate to the idea of "authority"? Or do you reject both? Does obedience have any value in and of itself (fostering humility- learning to conform to someone else's will)?

I know I have been antagonistic toward you sometimes, but if we can bury the hatchet for a little bit I am genuinely curious about that, and it would help me to understand you as a human being better. That is probably not important to you at the moment, but I promise to be totally charitable should you feel you want to answer. I am trying to repent of my jerkiness and I could use your help if you are so inclined.

Laying the gloves aside for the moment, then, let me say that I have been giving some thought to your questions, and find it difficult to put into words, but will give it my best shot.

The first has to do with the tension in the LDS Church between obedience and agency. Both are extolled individually, but agency does not exist in absolute obedience and obedience does not exist in absolute agency. There must be some point of balance between the two.

The question then becomes where on the sliding scale should our balance rest. People will surely differ on how they answer this question, but nobody should think they are exercising agency by being unquestioningly obedient. Are they choosing to yield obedience? Yes, they are. Are they forced to be obedient? No, they are not. Then how can I say that they have given up their agency?

Because agency, for me, means more than simply the ability to make a choice. It means thinking through the implications and ramifications of the choice prior to making it. It means not ceding the power to ponder and consider implications and ramifications to somebody else who then makes the decision for you which you unquestioningly obey.

It means living with the results and consequences of the choice, having those results and consequences become part of who you are, and laying the groundwork for new choices to be made (or choices to be refused) in the future. It means being required to take full responsiblity for the choices we make, and not be able to shunt it off on somebody who told us what to do.

This passage from Percy Bysshe Shelley speaks to me:

Power, like a desolating pestilence,

Pollutes, whate'er it touches; and obedience,

Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,

Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,

A mechanized automaton.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William Schryver]

consiglieri:

Because agency, for me, means more than simply the ability to make a choice. It means thinking through the implications and ramifications of the choice prior to making it. It means not ceding the power to ponder and consider implications and ramifications to somebody else who then makes the decision for you which you unquestioningly obey.

In the same spirit of inquiry expressed by mfbukowski above, I would really appreciate it if you could give some kind of example, from real life LDS experience, of the thing you seem to be implying with this statement. In other words, within the context of LDS experience, what is an example of the phenomenon of "ceding the power to ponder and consider implications and ramifications to somebody else who then makes the decision for you which you unquestioningly obey."

My initial reaction was to contend that I am entirely unfamiliar with this "ceding" of power to which you refer, but I have decided that I will await your clarification before stating so unequivocally.

[Deborah]

Because agency, for me, means more than simply the ability to make a choice. It means thinking through the implications and ramifications of the choice prior to making it. It means not ceding the power to ponder and consider implications and ramifications to somebody else who then makes the decision for you which you unquestioningly obey.

So are you saying that because people choose to follow the leaders without questioning every action or decision they have ceded power. What of those who trust that God is truly inspiring those at the head of his church and don't need to think through every issue but choose to follow the counsel? Often we have to test the words by following the counsel and seeing the fruits of the resulting action.

That doesn't mean if something doesn't apply to us from the get-go we have to wrestle with why we were told to do that. Hopefully we are in tune enough to know when counsel applies and when it doesn't. In fact that point was made at Conference that not everything that is said is for every person who is listening because we are all at different points in our lives.

Agency is the right to choose to follow God or not follow God. It's not about the right to question every word and then decide if you like it or not.

[William Schryver]

The Correlation Committee is too paralyzed by fear and denial to act responsibly in this matter. The deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach has failed. The more they tighten their grip, the more members will slip through their fingers. The rank-and-file must take matters into their own hands before thousands more families are destroyed.

Because agency, for me, means more than simply the ability to make a choice. It means thinking through the implications and ramifications of the choice prior to making it. It means not ceding the power to ponder and consider implications and ramifications to somebody else who then makes the decision for you which you unquestioningly obey.

“… we have a high and more noble duty to perform. We shall spread the banner to the breeze for a radical reform in [Mormonism], as the departure from moral rectitude, and the abuse of power, have become intolerable.”

It is no mistake that William Law is almost universally regarded, among apostates and apostates-in-progress, as probably the single most heroic character in the history of Mormonism. After all, he “took matters into his own hands” and, in the process, laid “the groundwork for new choices to be made (or choices to be refused) in the future.”

[mfbukowski]

Laying the gloves aside for the moment, then, let me say that I have been giving some thought to your questions, and find it difficult to put into words, but will give it my best shot.

The first has to do with the tension in the LDS Church between obedience and agency. Both are extolled individually, but agency does not exist in absolute obedience and obedience does not exist in absolute agency. There must be some point of balance between the two.

The question then becomes where on the sliding scale should our balance rest. People will surely differ on how they answer this question, but nobody should think they are exercising agency by being unquestioningly obedient. Are they choosing to yield obedience? Yes, they are. Are they forced to be obedient? No, they are not. Then how can I say that they have given up their agency?

Because agency, for me, means more than simply the ability to make a choice. It means thinking through the implications and ramifications of the choice prior to making it. It means not ceding the power to ponder and consider implications and ramifications to somebody else who then makes the decision for you which you unquestioningly obey.

It means living with the results and consequences of the choice, having those results and consequences become part of who you are, and laying the groundwork for new choices to be made (or choices to be refused) in the future. It means being required to take full responsiblity for the choices we make, and not be able to shunt it off on somebody who told us what to do.

This passage from Percy Bysshe Shelley speaks to me:

Power, like a desolating pestilence,

Pollutes, whate'er it touches; and obedience,

Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,

Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,

A mechanized automaton.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks for your answer, I am glad we can talk about this.

I have never felt the tension you are suggesting, and have always felt on one hand, that I have made covenants to "follow the rules", but yet have always felt free to study the matter out and receive a testimony of the principle myself.

My personal belief is that we should do nothing unless we feel in our hearts it is right, and should do nothing which feels wrong to us, and I have never felt constrained to do so in the church.

I have learned both in life and in the church that doing something you at first do not want to do, often brings benefits which are unrealized later, like exercise. I never wanted to exercise, but when I do, I find I feel better. I never want to do my home teaching, but when I do, I feel better.

So for me, obedience to callings and commandments even if at first seems to be a constraint, often becomes a benefit.

Everything we do seems to be a trial at first- I mean getting up for work when the alarm goes off is not fun, and if left to my "agency" might not happen at all.

I have never in any way felt I needed to be "unquestioningly obedient" in the church at all, I have just learned to try some new things which have led to benefits in my life.

I see it more as an Alma 32 thing- "try it- you'll like it!" and I have always liked it and grown individually for my obedience. I wonder why it seems so different for you, or am I misunderstanding?

[Mortal Man]

It is no mistake that William Law is almost universally regarded, among apostates and apostates-in-progress, as probably the single most heroic character in the history of Mormonism. After all, he “took matters into his own hands” and, in the process, laid “the groundwork for new choices to be made (or choices to be refused) in the future.”

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." -- John Bradshaw's tombstone

[William Schryver]

The Correlation Committee is too paralyzed by fear and denial to act responsibly in this matter. The deny/obfuscate/whitewash approach has failed. The more they tighten their grip, the more members will slip through their fingers. The rank-and-file must take matters into their own hands before thousands more families are destroyed.

Because agency, for me, means more than simply the ability to make a choice. It means thinking through the implications and ramifications of the choice prior to making it. It means not ceding the power to ponder and consider implications and ramifications to somebody else who then makes the decision for you which you unquestioningly obey.

“… we have a high and more noble duty to perform. We shall spread the banner to the breeze for a radical reform in [Mormonism], as the departure from moral rectitude, and the abuse of power, have become intolerable.”

It is no mistake that William Law is almost universally regarded, among apostates and apostates-in-progress, as probably the single most heroic character in the history of Mormonism. After all, he “took matters into his own hands” and, in the process, laid “the groundwork for new choices to be made (or choices to be refused) in the future.”

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." -- John Bradshaw's tombstone

Pursuant to discovering the mind of the apostate evangelist, one must usually swirl his way through many pans of the sand and gravel of quotidian apostate conversation in order to glean a dram of true comprehension. But vexed by a certain catalyst, the evangelist will, on occasion, of his own prompting and volition, unlimber the caissons of inhibition, and fire a solid shot of pure bullion that tears through the layers of pretension to the very soul of understanding, exposed to view in the candid gleam of a naked beam piercing through the clouds of his otherwise well-practiced masquerade.

”If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, chapter 3, paragraph 18

Only when we fail to understand their motives and tactics do the fifth-columnist apostate evangelists pose a threat to the "rank and file" they seek to persuade to "take matters into their own hands."

Let us therefore be discerning of those who fight against Zion.

[SkepticTheist]

Well said, and I agree. Although I felt like I was reading a bunch of Thesaurus entries in that statement ...

Pursuant to discovering the mind of the apostate evangelist, one must usually swirl his way through many pans of the sand and gravel of quotidian apostate conversation in order to glean a dram of true comprehension. But vexed by a certain catalyst, the evangelist will, on occasion, of his own prompting and volition, unlimber the caissons of inhibition, and fire a solid shot of pure bullion that tears through the layers of pretension to the very soul of understanding, exposed to view in the candid gleam of a naked beam piercing through the clouds of his otherwise well-practiced masquerade.

Only when we fail to understand their motives and tactics do the fifth-columnist apostate evangelists pose a threat to the "rank and file" they seek to persuade to "take matters into their own hands."

Let us therefore be discerning of those who fight against Zion.

[William Schryver]

Well said, and I agree. Although I felt like I was reading a bunch of Thesaurus entries in that statement ...

It was composed as poetry, not prose.