Recent Church Actions (Nyt Link)

[Gervin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/us/critical-online-comments-put-church-status-at-risk-mormons-say.html?src=rechp

 

fyi

[Madmardigan]

I find this funny:

“It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman

Umm, what do you think those two websites are for? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be private but I could be wrong.

[omni]

This is turning into a PR nightmare.  It'll be interesting to see where this all leads to...

[bluebell]

I find this funny:

“It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman

Umm, what do you think those two websites are for? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be private but I could be wrong.

Some people are just not very bright.

[Tiki]

The Robe

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AUwjl_1JctU

[Zakuska]

The Robe

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AUwjl_1JctU

Very apropos. This whole thing also reeks of Josiahn temple reform. Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

Some people are just not very bright.

 

This. Some people don't realize that posting on the internet is like screaming in the middle of town square was in the past except with a larger audience and still somehow expect their words to have no repercussions.

 

This is turning into a PR nightmare.  It'll be interesting to see where this all leads to...

 

I really don't think people that hold this kind of stuff against the church are potential converts in any case. At least not with their current mindset anyways.

[omni]

I find this funny:

“It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman

Umm, what do you think those two websites are for? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be private but I could be wrong.

 

You see nothing wrong with church leaders monitoring members FB and Twitter pages?

[The Nehor]

You see nothing wrong with church leaders monitoring members FB and Twitter pages?

 

Nope.

 

I doubt they are monitoring everyone. Mostly because that would be incredibly boring. Someone referred it to them or this person did or said something so that a local leader decided to check in on their blog.

 

This can be summed up as:

 

"HOW DARE SOMEONE LOOK AT THINGS I SAID PUBLICLY??????"

[Rain]

From the article:

"She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. "

So her bishop works with the NSA?

[Duncan]

From the article:

"She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. "

So her bishop works with the NSA?

 

I am not sure what the "NSA" is (Nicaraguan Sith Association?) but I doubt even Maxwell Smart couldn't pin anonymous online chat room messages to Kate Kelly, unless perhaps they seized her computer

[Zakuska]

If publically airing ones doctrinal and other greavances with ones preisthood authorities is an excommunicable offense like this recent rash of witch hunts has shown, Then Paul should have been excommunicated for blogging about his greivances with Peter. On doctrinal AND procedural grounds.

GAL 2

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Just sayin.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[Rain]

NSA is a US government agency which has been in the news a lot over monitoring email for security reasons. My question was meant to be a joke.

The quote wasn't in reference to KK, but another woman identified only by her first name so she could remain anonymous.

[Duncan]

NSA is a US government agency which has been in the news a lot over monitoring email for security reasons. My question was meant to be a joke.

The quote wasn't in reference to KK, but another woman identified only by her first name so she could remain anonymous.

[Alan]

NSA is a US government agency which has been in the news a lot over monitoring email for security reasons. My question was meant to be a joke.

The quote wasn't in reference to KK, but another woman identified only by her first name so she could remain anonymous.

 

If you read the article you will see she was only indentified when her husband re-posted her comments by email to an aquaintance.

 

Generally speaking, these people will get their just desserts. They present one face to the church (and perhaps their neighbours, family etc) and a different one online. Wolves in sheeps clothing for the most part IMO.

[why me]

This is turning into a PR nightmare.  It'll be interesting to see where this all leads to...

I wouldn't call it a PR nightmare. Most people realize that the church needs to take back the narrative. No church can survive with members constantly challenging its doctrine or polices, even on the internet. I have had this feeling for quite some time that the church is losing its unity, especially on the internet. Not only are exmembers disagreeing with the leadership but also active members are questioning and disagreeing with the leadership,

 

I don't know where god fits into all this. Are lds leaders inspired or not? It seems to me at least on the internet, many members do not think that lds leaders are leading with inspiration and revelation. And if this is true, the lds church probably sees the need to take action now before it get too out of control.

 

This is from the OW website:

 

   The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday. Priesthood, we are taught, is essential to this process.  Ordain Women believes women must be ordained in order for our faith to reflect the equity and expansiveness of these teachings.

 

http://ordainwomen.org/mission/

 

So, OW movement believes that women must be ordained into the priesthood which means that their PR spin about wanting the GAs to only pray over the issue is false. They will not take no for an answer which technically means that they do not believe that the leadership is inspired.

 

What recourse does the church have?

 

Also,  from their mission statement:

 

The fundamental tenets of Mormonism support gender equality: God is male and female, father and mother, and all of us can progress to be like them someday.

 

Is god male and female, father and mother? And if they are referring to heavenly mother, how do they know that she had the priesthood? Has this ever been claimed by the lds church? I have never heard it so I ask this question questioningly.

Edited June 19, 2014 by why me

[Rain]

If you read the article you will see she was only indentified when her husband re-posted her comments by email to an aquaintance.

 

Generally speaking, these people will get their just desserts. They present one face to the church (and perhaps their neighbours, family etc) and a different one online. Wolves in sheeps clothing for the most part IMO.

I read the article linked in the OP. Are you talking about the printed article?  This is what it says in the online article:

 

 

 

 

 

 

But there are also those who never sought the spotlight, like Dana, a member in the church’s Buena Vista stake in Virginia, who did not want her last name used because she has family in the church. She was very active in the church but supports the ordination of women and same-sex marriage, which church doctrine prohibits.

 

She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. On June 1, she said, her bishop phoned and told her to stop posting or face a church disciplinary hearing. Instead, four days later, she and her family resigned their church membership.

 

“It was just bizarre,” she said. “I was trying to quietly leave the church because of doctrinal reasons, and I hastily left the church because of my bishop.”

 

 

Edited June 19, 2014 by Rain

[bluebell]

So, it's all her bishop's fault she's not a member anymore. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

And she's a little deluded if she actually believes that her bishop had the ability to break into the chat room and find out she was the one behind the anonymous comments. I'm guessing her bishop doesn't work for the CIA. Besides that, what bishop would have the time to hang out in chat rooms hacking into servers getting out personal information just in case one of them happened to be in his ward?

I'm guessing her 'anonymous' post wasn't as secretive as she thought it was and that someone told her bishop about it.

[Tacenda]

So, it's all her bishop's fault she's not a member anymore. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

And she's a little deluded if she actually believes that her bishop had the ability to break into the chat room and find out she was the one behind the anonymous comments. I'm guessing her bishop doesn't work for the CIA. Besides that, what bishop would have the time to hang out in chat rooms hacking into servers getting out personal information just in case one of them happened to be in his ward?

I'm guessing her 'anonymous' post wasn't as secretive as she thought it was and that someone told her bishop about it.

From reading on a couple of private FB group posts and comments, which I have now left, stepping back from all things Mormonism, they were saying they think it might be the "Strengthening Church Members Committee" that were reading the chat rooms and relaying. I've never been in the chat rooms to know. Apparently, to me anyway, there were people joining these private FB groups or were long time members, not sure of the how's, could be a few dissenters. Edited June 19, 2014 by Tacenda

[rpn]

It sounds to me like church leaders are having some difficulty with where the edge is.   (And of course wise members would seek to stay far away from the edge.)   Or maybe they are having trouble articulating to the member involved the concerns. 

 

 

If tweeting congratulations to people getting civilly married crosses the boundary, is it only if it mentions being the first, and because of a contested court ruling?   Is "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"  include thought and personal interaction only?   or does it require funding or participation or writing the letters to the bishop in support of those who oppose current church practices?

 

Is OW a problem only to the extent that it resists the church's efforts to avoid disruptions of meetings?  Or to the extent that it seeks members by creating discussion groups? 

 

Maybe the boundary maintenance which Jan Shipps describes is as hard for the church to figure out as it is for the member.    And maybe local leaders mistake being provided information as directives to discipline.   Maybe bishops should be trained that when they hear or read something that concerns them, they should first get to know the member some in the context of their lives to see who they are.  This could involve asking them to come in, but it could also be inviting them over for bbq or doing a service project with them.   Then when an interview happens, it ought to be a chance for the member to describe where they are at and where they plan to be in five years in their spiritual journey, and describe what they are doing.   If the only thing a bishop or SP sees or knows is the comments from people who TELL them what they perceive as BAD things about the member, there is no way that the conversation can lead to the gentle correction that may be necessary. 

 

This is true because those who question as a personality trait, generally end up on the marriage equality side  (or other causes) because that is what they perceive to be the CARING compassionate place to be.   Members in these places are not out to destroy the church: they believe that they are  needed to nurture and bless (and sometimes outsiders use that righteous desire to steer them into more and different actions). 

 

People don't get corrected by top down edicts, but by understanding clear or changed hearts.  

Edited June 19, 2014 by rpn

[stemelbow]

Nope.

 

I doubt they are monitoring everyone. Mostly because that would be incredibly boring. Someone referred it to them or this person did or said something so that a local leader decided to check in on their blog.

 

This can be summed up as:

 

"HOW DARE SOMEONE LOOK AT THINGS I SAID PUBLICLY??????"

Holy shmolies...now we can't share our personal thoughts online if they disagree with Church policy/doctrine?

This is toeing a ridiculous line, if you ask me. Its one thing to call a court for someone who has been uncompromising (at least that's how the Church views Kelly) and persists to use her activity as a means of agitation. It's another to call a court because he/she twitters his/her support for gay marriage.

There has to be some room to play. Otherwise we'll truly be part of a controlling organization. I don't get the impression, from the Church's public statements that monitoring individuals online activity is an encouraging avenue for the church to take.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So, it's all her bishop's fault she's not a member anymore. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

And she's a little deluded if she actually believes that her bishop had the ability to break into the chat room and find out she was the one behind the anonymous comments. I'm guessing her bishop doesn't work for the CIA. Besides that, what bishop would have the time to hang out in chat rooms hacking into servers getting out personal information just in case one of them happened to be in his ward?

I'm guessing her 'anonymous' post wasn't as secretive as she thought it was and that someone told her bishop about it.

Her story seemed the most self serving of the group. She was on her way out of the church, she just resigned a little ahead of schedule. We don't even know what she posted and it was likely a little more than "I think women should be ordained."

Edited June 19, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CA Steve]

Are you now or have you ever been a Mormon apostate?

[Madmardigan]

Holy shmolies...now we can't share our personal thoughts online if they disagree with Church policy/doctrine?

This is toeing a ridiculous line, if you ask me. Its one thing to call a court for someone who has been uncompromising (at least that's how the Church views Kelly) and persists to use her activity as a means of agitation. It's another to call a court because he/she twitters his/her support for gay marriage.

There has to be some room to play. Otherwise we'll truly be part of a controlling organization. I don't get the impression, from the Church's public statements that monitoring individuals online activity is an encouraging avenue for the church to take.

 

It's a problem when a Bishop is tweeting and and posting on Facebook opinions that are contrary to church doctrine.

 

It's also possible you may be called into a Bishops office if you tweet things contrary to church doctrine and depending on what you say in the interview things will play out from there.  I highly doubt if you are critical every once in a while the church does anything.  Its the constant nitpicking that seems to do it.  All of the people in the article seemed to have a problem with how often they did it.

[stemelbow]

It's a problem when a Bishop is tweeting and and posting on Facebook opinions that are contrary to church doctrine.

 

It's also possible you may be called into a Bishops office if you tweet things contrary to church doctrine and depending on what you say in the interview things will play out from there.  I highly doubt if you are critical every once in a while the church does anything.  Its the constant nitpicking that seems to do it.  All of the people in the article seemed to have a problem with how often they did it.

Most likely. I don't like the idea of keeping tabs on people for their belief, lack thereof, or opinions that differ from doctrine or policy. Isn't enough to call them in for interviews and asking them? Not sure it's a good idea to engage in such monitoring.