Sleeping With The Enemy

[halconero]

Never implied any different. However, notice that the Church did not take issue with the speech nor deny any doctrines. Notice how it backs up my earlier statement here that Stake Presidents have a lot of leeway.

When you're ready to debate me on the issues that you have misrepresented me on, let me know. Start a thread so you don't derail this one.

With that logic we can say that the Church obviously votes Democrat as they congratulated President Obama on his win. Notice that they didn't take any issue with his policies or politics? Obviously they support him.

Oh, and the pope too. Remember how we congratulated the Francis I? Must mean we support Catholic doctrine because we didn't specifically damn them all to hell for pedo-baptism and the immaculate conception.

Me thinks you're reading too much into the church statement. "Oh look, the church is disavowing this man's statements as doctrinally binding on the whole church. It must mean that they're doctrinally binding on the whole church."

[Kenngo1969]

Fair enough.  Of course, that's assuming that my beloved bishop makes it all the way down the 7th question without throwing up his hands in frustration

I hope he's truly beloved in your eyes for some reason other than that you simply enjoy hearing about any attempts people might make to "push his buttons" (my phrase).  Bishops and Stake Presidents often are in the thankless, "no-win" position equivalent to that in which middle managers in secular organizations find themselves: they get pressure both from above and from below, and, at times, seemingly can please no one.  Having a lay leadership in His Church is one way God gets revenge on those who are prone to criticize: "You think you can do a better job in the calling whose current holder you just criticized?  Fine!  Here's your chance to prove it." (And for what it's worth, I hope I can be forgiven for having at least a short list of people who I think should have their crack at my current calling when I'm released.)

Edited February 25, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

A close family member of mine was brought in to speak to the bishop because of a five word FB post in support of SSM. She was told by the bishop that if she continued to publicly support SSM she would face disciplinary action . When she asked for clarification he said disfellowship or excommunication and he used question seven as his justification.

I would take that to the stake president.

 

Even IF it is a violation of q7 which is questionable, being ineligible for a recommend is not a cause for discipline.  Will he disfellowship everyone in the ward without a recommend?  Highly problematic behavior imo.

[jkwilliams]

I would take that to the stake president.

 

Even IF it is a violation of q7 which is questionable, being ineligible for a recommend is not a cause for discipline.  Will he disfellowship everyone in the ward without a recommend?  Highly problematic behavior imo.

 

Indeed. Smacks of unrighteous dominion.

[mtomm]

And what if I disagree with the church's position on illegal immigrants?  Like this:  I don't think people who are breaking the law by being here illegally should be baptized, called on missions, hold church callings.  Am I no longer eligible for a temple recommend?  

[Kenngo1969]

And what if I disagree with the church's position on illegal immigrants?  Like this:  I don't think people who are breaking the law by being here illegally should be baptized, called on missions, hold church callings.  Am I no longer eligible for a temple recommend?  

The Church's position on illegal immigration doesn't necessarily implicate fundamental doctrine in the way that its position on, e.g., gay marriage does.

[thesometimesaint]

Indeed. Smacks of unrighteous dominion.

 

Agreed.

[Nemesis]

Everyone read the board rules