Mormons In The Middle - Conference

[rongo]

We have a brother in the ward who has been excommunicated for 28 years. Most members aren't aware of this, because he attends his meetings regularly, wears a white shirt and tie, and doesn't "act" in any way as if he's under discipline. Perceptive members would notice that he doesn't take the sacrament, pray, give talks, or participate in class discussion, but he listens attentively and is friendly and engaging in the hallways or at any other time. His rebaptism requires First Presidency approval, and there have been several unsuccessful applications over the years (although the most recent attempt did give us a firm timetable on when the approval would be given, assuming that he continues to do well. He has been doing very well for years).

When I was a bishop, I asked the stake president about having him play the organ in sacrament meeting (he is an accomplished pianist and organist, with recorded albums). The CHI at that time (and the current one) states that non-members can play organ or piano for church meetings, and it was regarded as an assignment, not a calling. Both he and our second stake president have authorized this, and he has told me that being allowed to associate with music in a church setting have been a saving lifeline for him during tough times, especially with the rejections from the Office of the First Presidency.

Our current bishop has also had a brother who had been disfellowshipped at the stake level (I felt he should have been excommunicated), and who has since gone further and done other things (when he asked for counsel as to whether to reconvene and excommunicate, my input was that while he deserves it, I don't think it will help him repent any more than disfellowshipment already is), helping with the Scout troop. Again, as an assignment, not a sustained calling. Of course, non-members can be assigned or appointed to serve in ward Scout troop capacities, even as Scoutmaster, as long as they meet the criteria. In my view, I don't think he does from a moral standpoint, but it's outside of my authority at this point.

Edited May 1, 2013 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

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

It depends on the definition. Obviously, the terminology is confusing.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Very pertinent. Thanks for this.

I was led to believe the pertinent instruction was in Book 1, or I would have tried to look this up myself.

[Scott Lloyd]

We have a brother in the ward who has been excommunicated for 28 years. Most members aren't aware of this, because he attends his meetings regularly, wears a white shirt and tie, and doesn't "act" in any way as if he's under discipline. Perceptive members would notice that he doesn't take the sacrament, pray, give talks, or participate in class discussion, but he listens attentively and is friendly and engaging in the hallways or at any other time. His rebaptism requires First Presidency approval, and there have been several unsuccessful applications over the years (although the most recent attempt did give us a firm timetable on when the approval would be given, assuming that he continues to do well. He has been doing very well for years).

When I was a bishop, I asked the stake president about having him play the organ in sacrament meeting (he is an accomplished pianist and organist, with recorded albums). The CHI at that time (and the current one) states that non-members can play organ or piano for church meetings, and it was regarded as an assignment, not a calling. Both he and our second stake president have authorized this, and he has told me that being allowed to associate with music in a church setting have been a saving lifeline for him during tough times, especially with the rejections from the Office of the First Presidency.

Our current bishop has also had a brother who had been disfellowshipped at the stake level (I felt he should have been excommunicated), and who has since gone further and done other things (when he asked for counsel as to whether to reconvene and excommunicate, my input was that while he deserves it, I don't think it will help him repent any more than disfellowshipment already is), helping with the Scout troop. Again, as an assignment, not a sustained calling. Of course, non-members can be assigned or appointed to serve in ward Scout troop capacities, even as Scoutmaster, as long as they meet the criteria. In my view, I don't think he does from a moral standpoint, but it's outside of my authority at this point.

Not addressing these examples, but speaking in theory, I see a substantial difference between being a non-member and being a member who has been disfellowshiped or excommunicated. With the latter, there is the matter of covenants previously made having been violated.

[rongo]

Not addressing these examples, but speaking in theory, I see a substantial difference between being a non-member and being a member who has been disfellowshiped or excommunicated. With the latter, there is the matter of covenants previously made having been violated.

I do, too. I have learned by experience, though, that "being led by the Spirit" isn't just a trite phrase we repeat in the Church. There are appropriate and legitimate exceptions authorized by the Spirit and priesthood keys. Including things that the handbooks say cannot ever be done (such as sealing women to more than one man, or men being sealed to more than one living woman ---- I have personally seen these authorized by the First Presidency, despite the clear strictions to the contrary in CH1).

[Scott Lloyd]

I do, too. I have learned by experience, though, that "being led by the Spirit" isn't just a trite phrase we repeat in the Church. There are appropriate and legitimate exceptions authorized by the Spirit and priesthood keys. Including things that the handbooks say cannot ever be done (such as sealing women to more than one man, or men being sealed to more than one living woman ---- I have personally seen these authorized by the First Presidency, despite the clear strictions to the contrary in CH1).

Point taken.

But let us sustain the rule and then deal with the exceptions case by case if, whenever and wherever they may occur, of course, as you say, being led by the Spirit.

Moreover, I was speaking, in theory, of unrepentant persons. I should think that a repentant attitude would make a great deal of difference as to whether the Spirit would prompt a priesthood leader to make an exception.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It depends on the definition. Obviously, the terminology is confusing.

Perhaps. DBMormon who attended and presented and just might describe himself as a Mormon in the middle certainly is not lukewarm. He strikes me as very passionate and very engaged in the things that he believes in. It's my opinion that the scripture is misapplied very frequently.

[rongo]

Point taken.

But let us sustain the rule and then deal with the exceptions case by case if, whenever and wherever they may occur, of course, as you say, being led by the Spirit.

Moreover, I was speaking, in theory, of unrepentant persons. I should think that a repentant attitude would make a great deal of difference as to whether the Spirit would prompt a priesthood leader to make an exception.

Yeah, I don't think anyone would ask an unrepentant person with a lousy attitude towards Church and the commandments to do anything.

An interesting corollary to this is the question of why priesthood leaders allow people to continue to serve in callings if they have pornography/masturbation problems they are struggling to control (I've been asked this by women before who think that nobody with any problem like that should be serving in any calling). Aside from the flippant response ("There wouldn't be enough people to fill all callings"), there is good reason why this decision falls under the keys of the common judge in Israel. For many, being able to continue serving is part of their repentance/recovery.

Women with this attitude are probably not aware that women, sometimes women they hold on a pedestal and think are spiritually above them, struggle with things like this, too. I have had stake and ward leaders (high council, auxiliary presidencies, etc.) who have been working through repentance without formal discipline, and people would be stunned if they knew.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I don't think anyone would ask an unrepentant person with a lousy attitude towards Church and the commandments to do anything.

I would hope not. But sometimes I read things that trouble me with respect to this.

An interesting corollary to this is the question of why priesthood leaders allow people to continue to serve in callings if they have pornography/masturbation problems they are struggling to control (I've been asked this by women before who think that nobody with any problem like that should be serving in any calling). Aside from the flippant response ("There wouldn't be enough people to fill all callings"), there is good reason why this decision falls under the keys of the common judge in Israel. For many, being able to continue serving is part of their repentance/recovery.

I think it worth observing here that there are degrees of severity and gravity in the wide catalog of sins. I've never accepted the sectarian notion that one sin is just as bad as another, and therefore all sins should be regarded and dealt with equally. (This generally translates into a too-permissive attitude with regard to the more serious sins.) For example, I don't regard masturbation as being of the same magnitude as sexual transgression with another person (same or opposite gender), though the one can quickly lead to the other.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I think the biggest issue is if they are public with their sins as opposed to private...iow, if they are proud of their sins and secure in them, then probably not the best to have in any teaching or other position they might be held up as an example or role model.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the biggest issue is if they are public with their sins as opposed to private...iow, if they are proud of their sins and secure in them, then probably not the best to have in any teaching or other position they might be held up as an example or role model.

It's not often acknowledged in these days of political correctness -- perhaps it should be more often -- that one of the purposes of Church discipline, in addition to paving the way for repentance by the one being disciplined, is to protect the Church membership from the influence or malevolence of the offender (see 3 Nephi 18:31).

Edited May 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Perhaps. DBMormon who attended and presented and just might describe himself as a Mormon in the middle certainly is not lukewarm. He strikes me as very passionate and very engaged in the things that he believes in. It's my opinion that the scripture is misapplied very frequently.

So the Lord shouldn't spew me from his mouth?

[DBMormon]

the section of the handbook quoted is not the part I was speaking of. My thoughts had to do more with discipline

One can gather what I am thinking of by reading Bro. Mitch Mayne's talk.

http://mitchmayne.bl...ference_14.html

I want here to take a step to the side to address for the larger audience the entire concept of church discipline, since not every listener will be a member of my church. First, I want to point out that the church has every right to decide who is a member in good standing and who is not. Any organization does. If we’re a Boston Red Sox fan group, it is perfectly fair to remove the guy who always wears the Yankees gear from the group. So I don’t have a problem with excommunication in theory, and neither should you. Second, let me just say here that disciplinary councils in the Mormon church are exceptionally rare. In most of our congregations this year, exactly no one will be excommunicated.

I want to suggest that the actual policies of the church imply that such a thing should be uncommon for gay people; at least that it should not be even close to the norm for LGBT people to face church discipline. Here I want to leave the world of conjecture and opinion and delve straight into LDS church policy, and for this part of my talk I’d like to thank my good friend Bishop Matt Marostica of the Berkeley Ward for his wise instruction. I’m going to speak now about what it actually says in the Church Handbook of Instructions, so I have very little fear that what I’m about to say represents anything other than the actual policy of the LDS church. I don’t make any claim to speak for the LDS church, but the church’s own manual does.

The Church Handbook of Instructions is a document that any reader would conclude is written with exceptional care. As this is the document that guides the policies of the church throughout the world, it is pored over, edited and re-edited to ensure that it accurately reflects the

policies that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would like to see instituted everywhere it operates. It is not a book to be trifled with, as every bishop or stake president will tell you.

In that Handbook of Instructions, where it talks about church disciplinary councils, there is a short list that gives very few reasons -- very few things that a church member may have done -- that would require a bishop or stake president to convene a church disciplinary council, which is the council that could in theory end with a disfellowshipment or an excommunication. Veryfew. And homosexual behavior is not one of them.

It then lists certain things for which a bishop or stake president may chooseto convene a council, and there we see homosexual behavior listed as one possibility.

Okay, so there are two lists: the short list of things that require church discipline, and a longer list of things that do not require it, but for which discipline is a possibility. Now then, there are two things that absolutely must pop out at any serious reader of the Handbook:

First, it should be abundantly clear that if a bishop or stake president institutes a policy whereby church members who are LGBT always face a disciplinary council -- and forget whether or not they are disfellowshipped or excommunicated; we’re just talking about convening a council at all -- that church leader is acting outside of the policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That is a guaranteed fact. The End.

When the church says “must,” and gives a very short list, we assume that it means what it says. The local leader is not at liberty to institute anotherpolicy that adds to the list. That would be a different policy, not supported by the Church. Just as you would be out of bounds to independently add something to the second list -- for example, you can’t just randomly decide to start holding disciplinary councils for people who aren’t full tithe payers --, you are also out of bounds to independently decide to move things from the second list to the first.

The second thing that seems obvious is that disciplinary councils are to be entered into with exceptional care and tons of thought and prayer. The small set of things that require a disciplinary council are real horror stories -- I won’t list them here since they’re in a handbook that is not available to the general public, but trust me on that one -- so one is left to assume that whenever I’m convening a council I’m dealing with an exceptionally serious matter, presumably a matter on par in egregiousness or extent with those horror stories.

So to any local church leader who may be looking for a way not to force their gay members to be involved with church discipline, I’d just encourage them to read their Handbook. It’s right there, plain as day. And to a bishop or stake president who is disfellowshipping or excommunicating gay members as a matter of policy, I’d like to use this forum to encourage them to re-think that position to get more in line with church policy. This isn’t just my opinion. Again: read your own Handbook, and read it carefully this time. Yours will say the same thing mine does. You may choose, with love and care and prayer and presumably fear and trembling, to occasionally hold disciplinary hearings for offenses not on the first list. But you don’t have to, and it cannotbe your policy.

Now I have read the handbook and share that what he quotes is accurate and that while I don't take his exact view on it I absolutely see room for that interpretation, It also leaves room to handle this situations outside of formal church discipline. This is gray area.

Edited May 2, 2013 by DBMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So the Lord shouldn't spew me from his mouth?

I won't tell The Lord what to do, but I think the church is made better by passionate people like you.

[DBMormon]

I won't tell The Lord what to do, but I think the church is made better by passionate people like you.

Awesome, But I think you made some here just throw up in their mouth a little bit. lol

[Bob Crockett]

Awesome, But I think you made some here just throw up in their mouth a little bit. lol

I think that disagreeing with your positions shouldn't be seen as something personal. Sunstone symposia are simply not places to which to recommend members, as we were counseled by the Brethren in the 1990s.

[DBMormon]

By the way,

I would classify myself as a middle way mormon. But I would define that differently then many middle wayers may describe it.

I am middle in that I am

between Folwers Stage 3 and stage 5

between perfect knowledge and without faith

Between an immature naive understanding of the gospel and Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens

Between defending the church at all costs and thinking the church is not what it claims

Between knowing nothing bad about the church therefore thinking it perfect and thinking all is bad about the Church and thinking it evil

I am sure there are others.

Edited May 2, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

I don' t subscribe to labels and personal definitions.

But, I disagree with the apparent position you took in your Kirtland talk that the Church is not the only way to exaltation and that it does not possess all the truth. Do you really believe that?

Edited to add: I tell people in anguish that the Church isn't for everybody, but only in the sense that some just don't want to live to its standards or believe in its claims.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[canard78]

I don' t subscribe to labels and personal definitions.

But, I disagree with the apparent position you took in your Kirtland talk that the Church is not the only way to exaltation and that it does not possess all the truth. Do you really believe that?

Edited to add: I tell people in anguish that the Church isn't for everybody, but only in the sense that some just don't want to live to its standards or believe in its claims.

The church teaches both that it does not contain all truth yet and that there are other 'ways' provided in this life for the huge diversity in God's family.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith, Articles of Faith 1)

We can't have all the truth if there is still some left to show us.

And:

Latter-day Saints believe that all human beings are God’s children and that He loves all of us. He has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon but other people as well to carry out His purposes through all cultures and parts of the world. God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions. The restored gospel holds a positive relationship with other religions. Intolerance is always a sign of weakness. The Latter-day Saint perspective is that of the eleventh article of faith: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” (Articles of Faith 1:11).

The Church teaches that members must not only be kind and loving toward others but also respect their right to believe and worship as they choose. George Albert Smith, the eighth President of the Church, publicly advocated the official Church policy of friendship and tolerance: “We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you. . . . We have come here as your brethren . . . to say to you: ‘Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good, in order that you may be happier and in order that you may be prepared to enter into the presence of our Heavenly Father.’”[3]

On February 15, 1978, the First Presidency of the Church issued the following declaration: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. . . . Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are the sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father.”[4] In the words of Orson F. Whitney, an Apostle, the gospel “embraces all truth, whether known or unknown. It incorporates all intelligence, both past and prospective. No righteous principle will ever be revealed, no truth can possibly be discovered, either in time or in eternity, that does not in some manner, directly or indirectly, pertain to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”[5]

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/global-mormonism-21st-century/20-church-cross-cultural-world

[Bob Crockett]

The church teaches both that it does not contain all truth yet and that there are other 'ways' provided in this life for the huge diversity in God's family.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith, Articles of Faith 1)

I am willing to have myself be set straight, but Bro. Reel believes and teaches that there are other paths to exaltation and the church does not have the exclusive truth. In the jargon, he believes in universal salvation. I am, once again, asking him if that is his position and if he says that is the church's position. He's a church official. I am not.

That is quite a bit different than your responsive point, that there are truths yet to be learned. I have always understood that other belief systems hold some truths but that the Priesthood is the exclusive possessor of the truths necessary for exaltation. No?

As a second point of discussion, I would like Bro. Reel's view on the proposition that God's saving grace does not come until we have done all that we can do in this life and the next up to judgment to merit His grace. It seems from his Kirtland talk that he doesn't believe this, but I'm not sure.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Nevo]

I would like Bro. Reel's view on the proposition that God's saving grace does not come until we have done all that we can do in this life and the next up to judgment to merit His grace. It seems from his Kirtland talk that he doesn't believe this

Nor should he. Christ's grace is not available to us until the final judgment? What a dismal doctrine...

Edited May 2, 2013 by Nevo

[DBMormon]

I don' t subscribe to labels and personal definitions.

But, I disagree with the apparent position you took in your Kirtland talk that the Church is not the only way to exaltation and that it does not possess all the truth. Do you really believe that?

Edited to add: I tell people in anguish that the Church isn't for everybody, but only in the sense that some just don't want to live to its standards or believe in its claims.

You believe our Church has all truth? Then why do we have a prophet and why have revelations, some of which change doctrine/policy/practices. Why article of faith #9 - much yet to be revealed? what is revealed? could it be more truth?

The position of the Church having all truth will be very difficult to defend and likely impossible.

The gospel is perfect, God uses Man to officiate his church in delivering his gospel. Man is imperfect and even with revelation, it means he runs the Church imperfectly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say the Church wasn't the only way to salvation - your misquoting me.

I stated that being a member in the LDS church in this life gives no advantage to salvation(being a mormon gives one a higher % chance at returning to Heavenly Father ) then a equally loving, charitable, kind, truth seeking, progress-making Baptist, Jew, Muslim, Athesist who presses forward with steadfastness. One will have to receive the ordinances delivered by this church, but this Church will deliver them to all who have ever lived. But God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of ALL men. The church quickens the pace and saves one from heartache and gives one a family to support through trials, something a Heavenly Father cares much about. But he is rescuing all his children.

Remeber the Rich man who Christ said had less of a chance then a camel through an eye of a needle (based on that man's own effort and experiences) so Peter followed up with then how can any of us (I wonder if peter was pricked in his heart for he was no better then the Rich man) and Christ said "With God all things are possible"

Hope that clarifies

Edited May 2, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

As a second point of discussion, I would like Bro. Reel's view on the proposition that God's saving grace does not come until we have done all that we can do in this life and the next up to judgment to merit His grace. It seems from his Kirtland talk that he doesn't believe this, but I'm not sure.

God's Grace helps me before, during, and after I do all I can do.

Ether 12:27 - I can not do it all (now) I am working towards (pressing forward with steadfastness) to do it all some day (perfection somewhere in the eternities). God Grace will help me now in my falling short to improve through his grace. My responsibility knowing the truth is to stay in covenant (be willing to do what he requires) keep the laws and ordinances and "TRYING" to follow Christ and his teachings. And repenting when I don't. He in turn promises me his spirit. Over time his Grace (him and I working together with his divine help) will perfect me - though not in this life.

As Canard said, your view is dismal

No way the majority of church Leaders read 2nd Nephi 25:23 the way you do.

It's weird - my view made a church magazine recently (modern revelation trumps old policies)

http://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/08/his-grace-is-sufficient?lang=eng

Please show me a sermon that we have to expend our own best efforts first or do all we can do first (written in the last 10 years)? I actually doubt you could find one in the last 30 but being unsure we'll say ten.

Edited May 2, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Nor should he. Christ's grace is not available to us until the final judgment? What a dismal doctrine...

The grace of salvation. The question is whether one is saved forever when one goes to the altar or whether one is saved after enduring to the end. See Romans 11 where Paul warns the church members that they will lose their salvation if they stumble as did the Jews.

I made that clear in my posts that I was distinguishing between daily dispensations of grace and the ultimate reward.

[Bob Crockett]

You believe our Church has all truth? Then why do we have a prophet and why have revelations, some of which change doctrine/policy/practices. Why article of faith #9 - much yet to be revealed? what is revealed? could it be more truth?

The position of the Church having all truth will be very difficult to defend and likely impossible.

. . . .

I didn't say the Church wasn't the only way to salvation - your misquoting me. . .

I stated that being a member in the LDS church in this life gives no advantage to salvation. . . . But God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of ALL . . . But he is rescuing all his all his children.

Hope that clarifies

I am not misquoting you. You believe in universal salvation, the doctrine God rejected in the pre-existence. God will not exalt everybody. Universalism is often the refuge of members of the church who leave the Church but want to find something to believe. That is why the Unitarian Universalists are so popular in Salt Lake.

Universalism essentially teaches that "why bother," Jesus loves me and I will be saved in the end.