Mormons In The Middle - Conference

[Nevo]

The Church warns its members against symposia and similar gatherings that include presentations that (1) disparage, ridicule, make light of, or are otherwise inappropriate in their treatment of sacred matters or (2) could injure the Church, detract from its mission, or jeopardize its members’ well-being. Members should not allow their position or standing in the Church to be used to promote or imply endorsement of such gatherings. (Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.1.40)

Closing Plenary Session...

Bishop Kevin Kloosterman: “The Bishop’s Confession: My Journey as a Mormon LGBT Ally”

Bishop Bill Reel: “God’s Amazing Grace”

Patriarch Karl Ricks Anderson: “The Savior in Kirtland”

Hmm.

[Scott Lloyd]

I note that this session is by one "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." (link). I suspect you would be the first bishop in the Church to recommend Rob Bowman to his ward (Personally, I find Mr. Bowman scarily persuasive.)

Is this the same guy who is the erstwhile contributor to this board and has consistently presented anti-Mormon Evangelical arguments here? The one who is the "director of research" at the anti-Mormon ministry IRR? And Bill Reel is featuring him at his conference? And he's recommending it as "spiritual" and "uplifting" to Latter-day Saints?

I'm speechless.

Edited to add:

"Mormons in the Middle" indeed. In the middle of an anti-Mormon ambush.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Is this the same guy who is the erstwhile contributor to this board and has consistently presented anti-Mormon Evangelical arguments here? The one who is the "director of research" at the anti-Mormon ministry IRR? And Bill Reel is featuring him at his conference? And he's recommending it as "spiritual" and "uplifting" to Latter-day Saints?

I'm speechless.

Edited to add:

"Mormons in the Middle" indeed. In the middle of an anti-Mormon ambush.

I would be shocked. Maybe it is a typo and they really mean Matthew Bowman.

[DBMormon]

I note that this session is by one "Robert M. Bowman, Jr." (link). I suspect you would be the first bishop in the Church to recommend Rob Bowman to his ward (Personally, I find Mr. Bowman scarily persuasive.)

When I was orginally told about the conference I was told Mathew Bowman was one of the speakers. I too am confused. I certainly hope Robert Mathew Bowman wasn't being passed off as Matthew Bowman or since they couldn't get him they went for the next closest thing

I agree. When I first made aware of this It entailed some LDS therapist discussing abuse issues, Pro LDS seminars and the final session in the Kirtland Temple where I am speaking. Some things have obviously been added since then. This was originally put together by a group calling themselves Mormons in the Middle. It was then picked up by Sunstone as well and combined with their planned Kirtland Conference which was to take place a week earlier but got combined with this. I assume some of the seminars came from Sunstone. Whose to credit for which seminars came from who? don't know. Some of these sessions were late editions and I withdraw my endorsement of the Conference as a whole being something a Bishop would want his ward to attend.

Edited April 24, 2013 by DBMormon

[Nevo]

For the record, I like Rob Bowman. I think he's a good man, and in his interactions on this board he has shown himself to be a gentleman and a scholar. But there's no question that he's a critic of Mormonism—a formidable one in my opinion—so I wouldn't personally recommend him to Latter-day Saints struggling with their faith.

Furthermore, if I was an LDS bishop I would be very wary about using my position in the Church to promote a conference featuring the number of disaffected/excommunicated/critical voices as are found in this particular conference. This is strictly for the Sunstone crowd, not for unsuspecting TBMs.

[volgadon]

I would be shocked. Maybe it is a typo and they really mean Matthew Bowman.

I doubt it. Rob Bowman has brought this up in the past, so I'm sure that it is him.

[Scott Lloyd]

For the record, I like Rob Bowman. I think he's a good man, and in his interactions on this board he has shown himself to be a gentleman and a scholar. But there's no question that he's a critic of Mormonism—a formidable one in my opinion—so I wouldn't personally recommend him to Latter-day Saints struggling with their faith.

To his credit, Rob Bowman has been polite here (which would seem to be a necessity if you're an anti-Mormon on an LDS-centric board such as this one).

But I don't remember him being all that formidable. Several of the regulars here are more than a match for him, in my view. Much of what he brings up is of no great moment. His quibbling over the words to the hymn "Praise to the Man" is an example.

Furthermore, if I was an LDS bishop I would be very wary about using my position in the Church to promote a conference featuring the number of disaffected/excommunicated/critical voices as are found in this particular conference. This is strictly for the Sunstone crowd, not for unsuspecting TBMs.

I would agree with this. Sunstone is not all bad, but in a way, it appears that Bill made a Faustian bargain when he joined forces with them for this conference. I wonder what Karl Ricks Anderson thinks about being on the same bill as one of the worthies from IRR.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

My talk from the conference is posted here

http://mormondiscuss...lk-at-kirtland/

Karl Anderson gave a great talk and afterwards told Bro. Kloosterman he appreciated his efforts

Kevin spoke of LGBT/SSA issues and essentially called for us to be kinder as a poeple. He didn't violate any doctrine and kindness is always a good thing.

Meeting was great. It was obvious there were non traditional believers there but that made it kind of interesting.

Edited April 30, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Bro. Reel:

You don't see any difficulty appearing at a Sunstone conference where you're described as, and you describe yourself as, a Mormon bishop? I ask only because I appeared on Van Hale radio program once and remained silent when he described me a Mormon bishop, which caused me some angst both then and now. He seemed to want to emphasize the point as if it could be said that a bishop would have more traction on matters of Church history than an ordinary member. It seems that you let your position be advanced frequently. I have published in Sunstone but I would not let my church position be identified, and my position was a straight-up defense of the Church. (I am a Sunday School teacher.)

I listened to your talk. I thought it was very well done and I hope that it touched the hearts of the fringe people there. Whereas I believe that the sine qua non for obtaining God's grace is doing all that is possible to keep the commandments (Rev. 22:12-15) and it is risky business adopting a view which minimizes the role commandment-keeping plays in meriting God's grace (1 Nephi 3:21), your talk didn't really come quite out and say that striving for perfection should be ignored. But, it seems to me that you pick and choose from certain vague scriptures in the Book of Mormon to circumvent 2 Nephi 25:23.

Tell me, do you think that practicing homosexuals ought to be given temple recommends, or callings in the Church? I'm not sure what Kloosterman's position seems to be on that point or whether you agree with him. I'm not sure how compassionate one can be if a bishop cannot extend callings, cannot give them recommends, and if they are MP holders, should take some action. I home teach a gay member, but I don't see him getting too far in the church unless he changes.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Bro. Reel:

You don't see any difficulty appearing at a Sunstone conference where you're described as, and you describe yourself as, a Mormon bishop? I ask only because I appeared on Van Hale radio program once and remained silent when he described me a Mormon bishop, which caused me some angst both then and now. He seemed to want to emphasize the point as if it could be said that a bishop would have more traction on matters of Church history than an ordinary member. It seems that you let your position be advanced frequently. I have published in Sunstone but I would not let my church position be identified, and my position was a straight-up defense of the Church. (I am a Sunday School teacher.)

I listened to your talk. I thought it was very well done and I hope that it touched the hearts of the fringe people there. Whereas I believe that the sine qua non for obtaining God's grace is doing all that is possible to keep the commandments (Rev. 22:12-15) and it is risky business adopting a view which minimizes the role commandment-keeping plays in meriting God's grace (1 Nephi 3:21), your talk didn't really come quite out and say that striving for perfection should be ignored. But, it seems to me that you pick and choose from certain vague scriptures in the Book of Mormon to circumvent 2 Nephi 25:23.

Tell me, do you think that practicing homosexuals ought to be given temple recommends, or callings in the Church? I'm not sure what Kloosterman's position seems to be on that point or whether you agree with him. I'm not sure how compassionate one can be if a bishop cannot extend callings, cannot give them recommends, and if they are MP holders, should take some action. I home teach a gay member, but I don't see him getting too far in the church unless he changes.

Bob -

1.) They described me and Bro Kloosterman as Bishops. He wasn't even serving any longer. They never asked us, they just printed it.

2.) Have I mentioned it (being a Bishop). yes but a whole lot less then you insinuate.

3.) I will admit though that others like to mention it. In their pain and anguish of faith crisis, they see one Bishop speaking out about the struggle to help them hang on to show someone out there relates and that person can bridge a little bit the gap between local members and stake and general leaders. I agree they see it as a validating point. I was uncomfortable at first with it. But now, no. I don't flaunt it, it does come up at times. On stayLDS and newordermormon - CWALD informed people who I was, not me. Which was fine, but i didn't. I only did it on this site because people wrote me off. Go back and read my first thread on faith crisis and see how long it took for me to say it. 17th page I think after being called a troll and an anti mormon.

My podcast does not talk much about it, unless it comes up as a point in an interview such as the one I did today with Author Brad Wilcox.

4.) My view of grace is no less doctrinal then yours. we have different views and I am convinced of my view but respectfully allow you your view as well.

I see my view as no different then

http://www.lds.org/n...icient?lang=eng

http://www.byutv.org...ert-millet-1998

5.) In regards to changing current Doctrine to allow Homosexual behavior to NOT disqualify one from the temple or getting a recommend? I don't have a horse in the race. i have never advocated such a change. But if that change came through the Lords annointed servant, I would welcome it ans sustain it. In regards to Callings, I may allow some callings to be held though I would not violate the handbook or stake instruction.

Any chance I can get those CFRs from the post that got you booted?

Hope that helps clarify my position

DB

Edited April 30, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

1.) They described me and Bro Kloosterman as Bishops. He wasn't even serving any longer. They never asked us, they just printed it.

It seemed just another way to embarrass the church; just as Rees keeps mentioning in Sunstone that he was a bishop in California when he publishes his anti-Mormon screed. It seems to be quite a feather in Sunstone's cap to get an existing bishop to speak, although like I say, your talk was rather touching and effective.

4.) My view of grace is no less doctrinal then yours. we have different views and I am convinced of my view but respectfully allow you your view as well.

I see my view as no different then

http://www.lds.org/n...icient?lang=eng

http://www.byutv.org...ert-millet-1998

Neither MIllet nor Wilcox are authorties in the Church. Nor do they go as far as you do in your definition of grace.

Your view of salvation by grace is quite a bit different than the Church's. I believe that St. Augustine tortured the definition of grace to lead to what most evanglicals have it today. In this post, when I use the word "salvation" I mean it in the traditional evangelical way, rather than the Mormonspeak of "exaltation."

Other than the daily dispensations of grace we get from God in the form of answers to prayer, the "grace" of salvation comes only after the end of a long life of enduring to the end, keeping the commandments, and repenting. Your speech says you don't agree with this concept. Nowhere do the scriptures say that all you need to do is "try" to keep the commandments and "try" to repent. Repentence, in a particular, is an affirmative act, a "work," towards obtaining grace. Without repentence, no grace of salvation. There's no "trying" about it.

Salvation is not "universal" as you say in your speech, although you do not use that term. The debate between those who argue for universal salvation and limited salvation has been raging for centuries, and the Church falls down on the side of limited salvation. Your speech says, expressly, that the Church does not have all the truth, implying that it does offer the only means to salvation. Well, you're wrong. I'd like you to state what alternative routes there might be to exaltation in the celestial kingdom that does not entail dying before the age of 8 or submitting to LDS priesthood ordinances.

When the Lord says that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, it means (in part) that they acknowledge the one and only true and living Church.

5.) In regards to changing current Doctrine to allow Homosexual behavior to NOT disqualify one from the temple or getting a recommend? I don't have a horse in the race. i have never advocated such a change. But if that change came through the Lords annointed servant, I would welcome it ans sustain it. In regards to Callings, I may allow some callings to be held though I would not violate the handbook or stake instruction.

Not as strong as I'd have appreciated, but thank you nonetheless.

Any chance I can get those CFRs from the post that got you booted?

I can't even see that thread, much less respond to it. Edited to say: I don't want to inflame matters by carrying on with what caused your concern in the first place. I think my post said it well enough. If you have specific questions I will answer them.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Not as strong as I'd have appreciated, but thank you nonetheless.

I'm just wondering what sort calling someone who is openly violating the law of chastity — arguably grounds in itself for disfellowshipment or excommunication — would be worthy to hold.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

I'm just wondering what sort calling permit someone who is openly violating the law of chastity — arguably grounds in iteself for disfellowshipment or excommunication — would be worthy to hold.

Well, I agree, but I've been there and done that as a former XXXXX in the Church. I've put people in callings where they're hopelessly mired in major sin, hoping they'd come around.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I agree, but I've been there and done that as a former XXXXX in the Church. I've put people in callings where they're hopelessly mired in major sin, hoping they'd come around.

I can see being lenient or patient in meting out discipline -- but giving them a calling? As a member I would have a very difficult time sustaining someone knowing that person was engaging in serious sexual sin and showing no inclination to repent.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, you're right. I really had no legitimate excuse.

[DBMormon]

I'm just wondering what sort calling someone who is openly violating the law of chastity — arguably grounds in itself for disfellowshipment or excommunication — would be worthy to hold.

The new handbook allows some flexibilty. I won't quote it here but I certainly would be open to letting them do non formal callings. Usher, do the program, assign prayers for a class, ect...

Would I call them as sunday school president, likely not.

Edited May 1, 2013 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

The new handbook allows some flexibilty. I won't quote it here but I certainly would be open to letting them do non formal callings. Usher, do the program, assign prayers for a class, ect...

It's probably Book 1 that you're referring to, so there's no point in providing a citation as I can't easily access it. But I do find it astounding that the handbook would provide for such a thing.

[DBMormon]

It's probably Book 1 that you're referring to, so there's no point in providing a citation as I can't easily access it. But I do find it astounding that the handbook would provide for such a thing.

It isn't that it provides for it, but rather the language that limited it in the previous handbook has been removed. The handbook no long explicitly forbids it.

[rpn]

There are few callings that require a worthiness interview. It is true that unworthiness can interfere, even impede the purpose of the calling (because it makes example hard and diminishes spiritual sensitivity). But that is just as true for the TR-holder who isn't living the gospel or yelled at her kids that day, as it is for the huge sinner who isn't, but who is still humble and faithful enough to seek the Lord's help with the calling, so others don't suffer because of their own unworthiness.

Church leaders let sinners grow in callings all the time, even "serious sinners".

[Scott Lloyd]

There are few callings that require a worthiness interview. It is true that unworthiness can interfere, even impede the purpose of the calling (because it makes example hard and diminishes spiritual sensitivity). But that is just as true for the TR-holder who isn't living the gospel or yelled at her kids that day, as it is for the huge sinner who isn't, but who is still humble and faithful enough to seek the Lord's help with the calling, so others don't suffer because of their own unworthiness.

Church leaders let sinners grow in callings all the time, even "serious sinners".

Be that as it may, until now, it has been unheard of to allow people to hold Church callings who are carrying on, unrepentant, with behavior that may well warrant excommunication. Unheard of to me at least.

Perhaps it is symptomatic of the times, when society in general is losing its capacity for moral indignation.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Deborah]

Mormons in the middle is so disturbing in light of Revelation 3:16 "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

[DBMormon]

Be that as it may, until now, it has been unheard of to allow people to hold Church callings who are carrying on, unrepentant, with behavior that may well warrant excommunication. Unheard of to me at least.

Perhaps it is symptomatic of the times, when society in general is losing its capacity for moral indignation.

or perhaps your understanding is inaccurate

Edited May 1, 2013 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

or perhaps you understanding is inaccurate

I doubt it.

This is from Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Disfellowshipment is a temporary suspension of membership privileges. A disfellowshipped person remains a Church member but may not enter Church temples, hold Church callings, exercise the priesthood, partake of the Sacrament, or participate openly in public meetings. An excommunicated person is no longer a member of the Church, and all priesthood ordinances and temple blessings previously received are suspended. Excommunicants may not pay tithing and, if previously endowed in a temple, may not wear temple garments. They may attend Church meetings. Excommunicants may later qualify for rebaptism after lengthy and full repentance and still later may apply for a formal restoration of their original priesthood and temple blessings.

(Emphasis mine)

To me, it stands to reason that if a person is engaging in behavior that may well lead to his being disfellowshiped or excommunicated, but for whatever reason has yet to undergo formal disciplinary procedure, it would be unwise to give that person a Church calling.

You tell me now that the current Church handbook (Book 1) has been changed with respect to this. I am at a disadvantage, as I don't have access to Book 1 to verify what you say. But the above quote reflects a normative understanding in the Church of Jesus Christ. So I don't think it can be said that my understanding on this matter has been inaccurate.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Mormons in the middle is so disturbing in light of Revelation 3:16 "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Who says that Mormon's who consider themselves in the middle are lukewarm?

[ksfisher]

From Handbook 2, 19.1.1

"A person must be called of God to serve in the Church (see Articles of Faith 1:5). Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call. They consider the worthiness that may be required for the calling. They also consider the member’s personal or family circumstances. Each calling should benefit the people who are served, the member, and the member’s family.

Leaders may extend a Church calling only after (1) a person’s membership record is on file in the ward and has been carefully reviewed by the bishop or (2) the bishop has contacted the member’s previous bishop to determine that the member is worthy for the calling and to verify that his or her membership record does not include an annotation or a comment about unresolved Church discipline.

People who are not members of the Church may be called to some positions, such as organist, music director, and assistant Scout leader. However, they should not be called to teaching or administrative positions or as Primary music leaders. The allowance to call nonmembers to some positions does not apply to excommunicated members, who may not have any callings."

There are several paragraphs from the section that I've left out, but these seem to be the ones from handbook 2 applicable to callings and worthiness.