Here's Your Chance To Request Your Own Disciplinary Council

[ksfisher]

First, the Church is not alone is working with a situation which involves adult males being in a room alone with underage girls.

Second, the bishops in the Church are strictly and strongly instructed to always be chaperoned when counseling with a woman or a youth of either gender. I think this greatly reduces the risk of impropriety or accusations of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.

Third, I think the solution of bringing in additional parties to the confessional space creates as many problems as it solves, if not more. A young person who is in a room to confess about something embarrassing could easily find that confessing to two or more people is worse than confessing to just one.

Fourth, here's a proposal for a relatively minor but potentially far-reaching and effective improvement: I wonder if it would be good to have the Church hire carpenters to go around to all of the church buildings and cut narrow windows into the doors to the bishops' offices, then fit those window spaces with glass windows. The window would be small and higher up on the door so as to be above the eyeline of passing children (who might be tempted to look into the office out of simple curiosity). Many (most?) bishops' offices these days have white noise speakers affixed nearby to prevent eavesdropping. I wonder if these small windows might give a youth or woman some peace of mind, as it seems exceedingly unlikely that a depraved person would try to engage in any untoward conduct when there is a window in the doorway.

What do you think?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The problem I can see with your idea in #4 is that some people may not want anyone who happens to pass by the bishops office knowing that they are meeting with the bishop.  Especially if this is a sensitive matter that may require counseling over many weeks.  But, of course, no member of the church would ever look in such a window.

[Calm]

the depth of discussion is actually controlled by the counselled person anyway, who can always turn to a trusted confidant or advocate of his or her choosing anywhere along the line if it is felt that more discussion is needed.....

Not really. Children are especially vulnerable but adults (females and males) can be as well. An untrained or even a trained counsellor can take the conversation into areas that the interviewee is uncomfortable with even if the interviewee doesn't say one word. One only has to look at the cases of abuse of the therapist's role for evidence this happens even in trained situations.

Hopefully the spiritual insight and usual attitude of serving others (rather than being there for personal gratification) lessens such errors and removes intentional abuse significantly, but protection from temptation is not part of the mantle nor is protection from error, so it will happen. How to minimise it without sacrificing other beneficial aspects is, IMO, a difficult question.

[Calm]

Frankly, I don't think there is a state in the Union which would accept Seth's say-so about what the law is (that a YW leader counts as clergy) or should be (that a YW leader should count as clergy).

Do we know of cases of part time youth pastors attached to churches? There must be some case law out there about those that might apply.

[CV75]

Not really. Children are especially vulnerable but adults (females and males) can be as well. An untrained or even a trained counsellor can take the conversation into areas that the interviewee is uncomfortable with even if the interviewee doesn't say one word. One only has to look at the cases of abuse of the therapist's role for evidence this happens even in trained situations.

Hopefully the spiritual insight and usual attitude of serving others (rather than being there for personal gratification) lessens such errors and removes intentional abuse significantly, but protection from temptation is not part of the mantle nor is protection from error, so it will happen. How to minimise it without sacrificing other beneficial aspects is, IMO, a difficult question.

I agree with this, and the part I bolded lines up with my comment that "the depth of discussion is actually controlled by the counseled person."

 

I didn't mention the training of leaders in interviewing abuse victims (which I've seen done and was well-received) because I was trying not to take the of ordination women into the realm of required skill sets for performing priesthood functions such as these ("Whom the Lord calls He qualifies").

 

The "spiritual insight and usual attitude" you mention is not anecdotal, thank goodness!

 

Did I correctly read your last sentence to mean that we need to do more to create a safe space (policy- and procedure-wise) to protect leaders from temptation  and error while counseling? I would say that while that occurs (rarely), it would make up a small proportion of the overall call for disciplinary councils!

[Zakuska]

It can happen, yes.

 

Yes, it's possible.

 

No, that's not the assumption under which I am operating.

 

As your proposed assumption is a straw man, I'd say we should not take it far at all. 

 

Another straw man. I have never said that we cannot consider this possibility.

 

I don't think there is a "much better way." There may be revisions and tweaks available, but radical changes are not, I think, feasible for reasons both practical and doctrinal/revelatory.

And regardless of whether proposed changes are minor or substantial, I utterly reject the hostile and rebellious manner by which folks like Kate Kelly seek to reform the Church. I reject such tactics. I do not believe they are compatible with the Restored Gospel and the structured organization which God has placed on the earth. In fact, I think we are warned against such contentions in 1 Corinthians 12:

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be amore feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

 

I think it is profoundly unhealthy to see church members resenting their callings, or the callings of others, in effect becoming the foot which says "Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body."  Re-read verse 25 above and consider its application to Kate Kelly's recent call for Latter-day Saints who agree with her to "raise hell" in the Church.

 

I also think it is profoundly unhealthy to turn service in the Church into a gender-based grudge match.  I love and respect the women of the Church.  I also love and respect the men of the Church.  We are all members of the body of Christ, and I believe that God has set us "every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

 

I agree that there are ways the Church can improve.  But we don't make improvements by resenting each other, or by demeaning each other, by claiming one gender is better than the other, or that one works harder than the other, or that the we are all feet or all eyeballs (see above).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree Smac. We shouldn't be envious of each others callings in the church.  But I also see nothing in there that states that some be handicapped by their gender and banded from ever being called to the position of an eye or a heart and relegated to the duty of a foot for eternity, solely based on Gender. (pun intended). Priests and Priestesses ,roles in the Temple are roughly identical and Equal, with the exception of BOD and sealing,  Why not take that equality out of the temple and into our daily church lives on a ward level? Let women again... like in the Days of Joseph Smith, exercise their Healing powers and authority more fully?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

So doing business with a Church-owned entity should be treated the same as dealing with your SP or Bishop in spiritual matters?  I can't agree with that.  Church businesses are not the Church and have nothing to do with the Gospel.  They are simply a means of allowing the Church to carefully manage assets in order to maximize how those funds are used for Church activity.  So the disposal of the funds may eventually be Gospel-driven.  But how those funds are generated is clearly secular.  Unless you want to call City Creek a place of worship.

I'm not calling it a place of worship. That's an unwarranted conclusion.

 

But I have long viewed the priesthood pattern of leadership described in D&C 121 as being applicable in virtually any management setting, be it religious or secular. That pattern is sheer genius, which should not be surprising, as it reflects the mind of God.

 

I believe in the universal application of that pattern so fervently that it is going to take far more than your mere contradiction of it to dissuade me.

 

What it gets right down to, sethpayne, is charity. Those attributes listed in D&C 121 are the components of charity. And "charity never faileth."

 

Also, I think your example of giving sacrifices falls flat.  In Kirtland and Nauvoo the Church absolutely *needed* the sacrifice of its members to complete temples etc...  In this case the Church had literally hundreds of other locations for MTC expansion.  There was absolutely no need make members feel like they had to sacrifice their (valuable) views so the Church could build its own building with views.  Again, why not build it across the street where the empty playing fields are?  I can think of many locations.

And in that specific situation, the matter was re-examined, other solutions were found, and the member neighbors ultimately were not called upon to make that sacrifice. It was settled amicably, as far as I can tell. I don't get your lingering resentment over this. Do you own property near the MTC?

 

And by the way, the occasional need to sacrifice for the kingdom of God is not a matter that we left behind in the 19th century. Again, many men called as mission presidents forsake lucrative earning capacity to answer the call. And that's just one example among many. I suppose any one of them could refuse on the theory that there are others who could do it. But that would not be in accordance with the law of sacrifice and the law of consecration, nor would it be an exercise of faith that, sooner or later, brings miracles, blessings and growth.

 

 

But again .... it seems that you are arguing that whatever the Church asks you to do is right.  Always.  No matter what.

 

 

No, I've not said that; neither has Smac. This is another unwarranted conclusion.

 

 I simply see things differently.  This Church is run by humans.  I will gladly make sacrifices for God.  But essentially throwing away many thousands of dollars simply so the Church can build a tower with great views?  Nope.  I wouldn't do it but hey, if these Church members felt like they should give up a chunk of equity for no apparent rational reason, that's their choice.  Again, this is not Kirtland or Nauvoo.  This is Provo in 2014.  The Church owns a lot of land and had many options.  There was no need, unlike in Kirtland and Nauvoo, to ask the saints to "sacrifice" anything.  The Church could have put its tower in a million other places.

 

I've already addressed this above. But wow! I seem to have struck a nerve with my chance selection of an example. I wonder why.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

But I'm curious about something else.  I would have to go through all of your posts but I don't recall you ever admitting or mentioning that the Church made a mistake or could improve.

I have never claimed that the Church is infallible. I reject the concept. The scriptures do not require it, and in fact acknowledge that there will be mistakes made by the servants of God.

I don't think it makes sense to impute onto me an idea that I have never espoused (that the Church is incapable of making a mistake) simply because I have never specifically expressed its opposite (that the Church is capable of making a mistake). Instead, just ask me what I think and I will usually tell you. I'm not shy.

 

By this, I mean that you have made general statements that such things can/do/will happen.  But I've not seen a specific example from you.

So I have acknowledged that the Church can make mistakes, but since I have not specified what those mistakes have been, you somehow glean from that the conclusion that I think the Church is incapable of making a mistake?

I'm not sure what to say to that.

 

Is this because of what you mentioned on another thread about not expressing your opinions on these things in public?

Pretty much. I have thrown my lot in with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has my devotion, my allegiance and my respect. I also sustain the Brethren. They have a heavy burden to bear, and I would not help in coping with that burden by publicly criticizing them or the Church and dictating to them how to run the show. To the extent the Church may need, in my view, some improvement on a policy or practice or some such, I will generally not publicly declare my opinion on the subject.

Let me also say that I have also thrown my lot in with my wife. She has my devotion, my allegiance, an dmy respect. She, like the leaders of the Church, has areas in which she can improve. However, I would not do her or our marriage any favors by going online and publishing her flaws to the world, along with unsolicited dictates as to how she should improve herself. Such conduct would be seen as reprehensible, perhaps even as a violation of my covenants to her and a violation of the trust she has in me.

Why do I bring up my wife? Because I think that Latter-day Saints should treat the Church and its leaders more like a family member than like, say, a government entity. I think Kate Kelly's tactics are adversarial and aggressive because she thinks the Church is like some state or local government which is answerable to its constituents, and which constituents are therefore free to publicly criticize, cajole, protest, defame, the whole nine yards. However, the Church and its leaders are not answerable to the Saints the same way governments are answerable to their constituencies.

In my life I have had constraints placed upon me and my public statements regarding certain things. Some of these constraints are self-imposed. Constraints against me publicly speaking out against my wife, for example. I also constrain myself from publicly criticizing my employer. When I was in the Army, I was constrained by my status as a soldier from publicly disparaging those in my chain of command. As a member of the Utah State Bar, I am constrained from publicly criticizing the judiciary. Do you think such constraints make sense? Do you think Latter-day Saints should consider some constraints when publicly speaking about their Church and its leaders?

 

So that even if someone here  makes a good point (not me, of course) and identifies a real problem, you will not comment or express your true feelings on it because this is a public forum?

Pretty much. I will not betray the Church by publicly speaking against it, by speaking out of turn, or by "airing the family's dirty laundry." I likewise will not betray my wife by speaking against her, by speaking out of turn, or by "airing the family's dirty laundry."

 

Of course you don't have to answer that.  But I'm genuinely curious because you do admit that the Church makes mistakes but I've never seen you give an example or engage in a conversation about how such things could be improved.

This is not the appropriate venue for me to air my views about such things. I likewise do not go to online fora and give examples of my wife's flaws or mistakes. She has them, to be sure, but I would not betray her trust by openly discussing them with strangers or with people who have no legitimate grounds to be privy to such information.

 

Of course, I probably missed it as I have not read all of your posts.  And certainly if your position is one where defense of the Church should always be the default public position even if our private views may be different -- that is something I can understand even though my personal approach may differ.

I believe the Church is what it claims to be. It is not a man-made institution, and it is guided by men and women who themselves are guided by revelation. They are not perfect, but nobody is. They can make mistakes, but I believe that in overwhelming measure the decisions made by the leaders of the Church are good and correct and in accordance with God's will. For these and other reasons, the Church deserves my devotion and respect. Generally, I undermine that devotion and respect when I publicly criticize the Church, the same way I would undermine the devotion and respect I have to my wife if I publicly criticized her. This is particularly so where I air public criticisms in such a way as to embolden critics and enemies of my faith. My wife is adored by all who know her. But if she somehow had made an enemy of some group of people, I think it would be a betrayal of her if I went to an online forum frequented by that group and publicly aired criticisms of my wife to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 26, 2014 by smac97

[toon]

Since it is easier to voluntarily give up one's temple recommend or level of participation or even to write a letter of resignation from the Church, I wonder what such a request is supposed to accomplish, and what the "stranger" is to do if the response to the request is in the manner expected.

 

It's so that those submitting anything can claim they're martyrs.

 

I'm certainly not the most faithful member, have my questions and doubts, and struggle at the borders.  I also have some sympathy for Kate Kelly.  But I don't understand this.  Seems grandstanding to me.

 

Someone who truly valued their membership, even if they're were on the fringes, wouldn't considering some publicicty stunt like this.

[watermelongirl]

Anecdotal accounts by nature are used to build unfounded generalizations and are hardly reliable.

Often I would agree with this, but the subject matter that we're discussing involves a great deal of conjecture with almost no available statistics. Without anecdotes, it's easy to dismiss all of this as being a nonissue (which some are doing). I think in this case it is important to listen to the anecdotes because if at least some of them are true, it is enough to work to change the system.

 

Both victim and sinner can always discuss sex at any level of detail they desire with anyone they trust. In confession, counselling and councils, the primary topic is returning to the Lord, and in the case of sin, one aspect of that is repentance, which does involve a stage of discomfort (sin is only comfortable for those who enjoy, rationalize or justify it). Some kinds of repentance does require priesthood involvement, but not the level of information that one may share with a personal confidant to meet an individual's additional needs.

 

As I mentioned before, the level of detail divulged is controlled by the victim and the sinner, anecdotal instances (or unfounded fears) of prurient probing by Church leaders aside. As a general rule, “some level of detail” is a far cry from in-depth discussion, and personal preference and style are interpersonal equilibria that doctrinally (if not anecdotally!) can be moderated by the Holy Spirit.

Calmoria addressed this one really well. I think that in an authority situation, the person in authority is just as, if not more, likely to control the amount of detail discussed as the person doing the confessing.

 

I believe that safe space is a welcome concept for all involved in priesthood counseling, but your link that I responded to indicates that ordaining women is a prime means of accomplishing that.

That's not at all what I was advocating in that post. It would definitely be a shift in roles, but not ordination. Not sure where you're getting that.

[smac97]

Interesting.  Thanks, Smac.

 

But I want to make sure I've understood your correctly.  Can a Bishop, under current Church guidelines, have a female chaperone when interviewing a young woman?  Or is it required to be a member of the Bishopric?

My understanding is this: By "chaperone" I am referring to a Melchizedek priesthood holder nearby (typically in the foyer or hallway by the bishop's office). The chaperone is not in the bishop's office during bishop interviews. And a chaperon is usually not necessary if the bishop is meeting with a couple or with an adult man.

Does the law consider Bishopric counselors to be clergy?  If not, do the same legal concerns apply in the hypothetical situation you described?  Could a YW pres or RS pres be considered clergy under the law since their role is more than simply administrative.  It is often ecclesiastical -- especially in the case of an RS pres.  Not to mention the EQ pres!

These are good questions. I'm not exactly sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

My understanding is this: By "chaperone" I am referring to a Melchizedek priesthood holder nearby (typically in the foyer or hallway by the bishop's office). The chaperone is not in the bishop's office during bishop interviews. And a chaperon is usually not necessary if the bishop is meeting with a couple or with an adult man.

These are good questions. I'm not exactly sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's my understanding that bishop's counselors are not to hear confessions; that during temple recommend interviews, if one seeking a temple recommend begins to confess a sin, the counselor is to immediately terminate the interview and take the person to see the bishop.

 

Having said this I add that I've not been in a bishopric. This is based upon past conversations with bishopric members.

[smac97]

It's my understanding that bishop's counselors are not to hear confessions; that during temple recommend interviews, if one seeking a temple recommend begins to confess a sin, the counselor is to immediately terminate the interview and take the person to see the bishop.

 

Having said this I add that I've not been in a bishopric. This is based upon past conversations with bishopric members.

Yes, that is my understanding. I guess I was thinking of disciplinary councils, both at the ward and stake level, in which statements are heard by bishopric counselors, the ward clerk, the members of the high council, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, that is my understanding. I guess I was thinking of disciplinary councils, both at the ward and stake level, in which statements are heard by bishopric counselors, the ward clerk, the members of the high council, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, OK. That hadn't occurred to me.

 

But disciplinary councils are relatively rare and are certainly not held in the course of typical interviews of a young person by a bishop. Which is what we're talking about here, the notion of having others, including non-priesthood holders, present during youth interviews by a bishop.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

I'm not calling it a place of worship. That's an unwarranted conclusion.

 

But I have long viewed the priesthood pattern of leadership described in D&C 121 as being applicable in virtually any management setting, be it religious or secular. That pattern is sheer genius, which should not be surprising, as it reflects the mind of God.

 

I believe in the universal application of that pattern so fervently that it is going to take far more than your mere contradiction of it to dissuade me.

 

What it gets right down to, sethpayne, is charity. Those attributes listed in D&C 121 are the components of charity. And "charity never faileth."

 

And in that specific situation, the matter was re-examined, other solutions were found, and the member neighbors ultimately were not called upon to make that sacrifice. It was settled amicably, as far as I can tell. I don't get your lingering resentment over this. Do you own property near the MTC?

 

And by the way, the occasional need to sacrifice for the kingdom of God is not a matter that we left behind in the 19th century. Again, many men called as mission presidents forsake lucrative earning capacity to answer the call. And that's just one example among many. I suppose any one of them could refuse on the theory that there are others who could do it. But that would not be in accordance with the law of sacrifice and the law of consecration, nor would it be an exercise of faith that, sooner or later, brings miracles, blessings and growth.

 

 

No, I've not said that; neither has Smac. This is another unwarranted conclusion.

 

I've already addressed this above. But wow! I seem to have struck a nerve with my chance selection of an example. I wonder why.

 

Scott, I certainly understand your viewpoint.  Mine is simply different.  But I do want to clarify a few things.

 

Of course, I never suggested that we leave sacrifice in the 19th century.  I served a mission, family members have served as MPs etc.. and you are right -- it can come during earning high-earning years.  Of course we should still sacrifice.  That is part of being Christian.  But I can't find an example of Christ asking for sacrifices for no reason.

 

I personally find the MTC issue very troubling.  As I said, the Church had many other options that would not  have reduced the value of member homes.  The Church could have accomplished exactly what it wanted without asking members to reduce the value of their home.  Why should members sacrifice their home equity when it is not required and is, ultimately, merely a loyalty test.  I see no scriptural basis for this whatsoever.  I understand we disagree on this issue but I see this as an unfortunate example of the Church putting members out for no good reason -- other than to fulfill the wishes of whomever really wanted a tall MTC tower.  How does the location of the MTC tower impact the "Kingdom of God?"  It doesn't.  The tower could have been built anywhere near the MTC without decreasing the value of member homes.  

Edited June 26, 2014 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

I have never claimed that the Church is infallible. I reject the concept. The scriptures do not require it, and in fact acknowledge that there will be mistakes made by the servants of God.

I don't think it makes sense to impute onto me an idea that I have never espoused (that the Church is incapable of making a mistake) simply because I have never specifically expressed its opposite (that the Church is capable of making a mistake). Instead, just ask me what I think and I will usually tell you. I'm not shy.

 

So I have acknowledged that the Church can make mistakes, but since I have not specified what those mistakes have been, you somehow glean from that the conclusion that I think the Church is incapable of making a mistake?

I'm not sure what to say to that.

 

Pretty much. I have thrown my lot in with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has my devotion, my allegiance and my respect. I also sustain the Brethren. They have a heavy burden to bear, and I would not help in coping with that burden by publicly criticizing them or the Church and dictating to them how to run the show. To the extent the Church may need, in my view, some improvement on a policy or practice or some such, I will generally not publicly declare my opinion on the subject.

Let me also say that I have also thrown my lot in with my wife. She has my devotion, my allegiance, an dmy respect. She, like the leaders of the Church, has areas in which she can improve. However, I would not do her or our marriage any favors by going online and publishing her flaws to the world, along with unsolicited dictates as to how she should improve herself. Such conduct would be seen as reprehensible, perhaps even as a violation of my covenants to her and a violation of the trust she has in me.

Why do I bring up my wife? Because I think that Latter-day Saints should treat the Church and its leaders more like a family member than like, say, a government entity. I think Kate Kelly's tactics are adversarial and aggressive because she thinks the Church is like some state or local government which is answerable to its constituents, and which constituents are therefore free to publicly criticize, cajole, protest, defame, the whole nine yards. However, the Church and its leaders are not answerable to the Saints the same way governments are answerable to their constituencies.

In my life I have had constraints placed upon me and my public statements regarding certain things. Some of these constraints are self-imposed. Constraints against me publicly speaking out against my wife, for example. I also constrain myself from publicly criticizing my employer. When I was in the Army, I was constrained by my status as a soldier from publicly disparaging those in my chain of command. As a member of the Utah State Bar, I am constrained from publicly criticizing the judiciary. Do you think such constraints make sense? Do you think Latter-day Saints should consider some constraints when publicly speaking about their Church and its leaders?

 

Pretty much. I will not betray the Church by publicly speaking against it, by speaking out of turn, or by "airing the family's dirty laundry." I likewise will not betray my wife by speaking against her, by speaking out of turn, or by "airing the family's dirty laundry."

 

This is not the appropriate venue for me to air my views about such things. I likewise do not go to online fora and give examples of my wife's flaws or mistakes. She has them, to be sure, but I would not betray her trust by openly discussing them with strangers or with people who have no legitimate grounds to be privy to such information.

 

I believe the Church is what it claims to be. It is not a man-made institution, and it is guided by men and women who themselves are guided by revelation. They are not perfect, but nobody is. They can make mistakes, but I believe that in overwhelming measure the decisions made by the leaders of the Church are good and correct and in accordance with God's will. For these and other reasons, the Church deserves my devotion and respect. Generally, I undermine that devotion and respect when I publicly criticize the Church, the same way I would undermine the devotion and respect I have to my wife if I publicly criticized her. This is particularly so where I air public criticisms in such a way as to embolden critics and enemies of my faith. My wife is adored by all who know her. But if she somehow had made an enemy of some group of people, I think it would be a betrayal of her if I went to an online forum frequented by that group and publicly aired criticisms of my wife to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Thanks, Smac.  I understand your perspective much better.

 

Previously I had been confused because yes, you acknowledged mistakes in a general sense, but did not engage anything specific.  I (wrongly) interpreted this as akin to saying "My Mom and Dad make mistakes all the time."  Can you give me an example? "I can't think of any."  Which (i wrongly) inferred to mean that in truth, you really didn't see any mistakes in any non-abstract or concrete ways.  My mistake.   And please know that my comments were not meant as an insult.  They were based on a faulty understanding on my part.

 

Again, thanks for sharing your perspective.  We actually agree more than we disagree.  I just may happen to be more vocal/comfortable about discussing certain issues in public but I would never disparage anyone who prefers to keep such things completely private.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I certainly understand your viewpoint.  Mine is simply different.  But I do want to clarify a few things.

 

Of course, I never suggested that we leave sacrifice in the 19th century.  I served a mission, family members have served as MPs etc.. and you are right -- it can come during earning high-earning years.  Of course we should still sacrifice.  That is part of being Christian.  But I can't find an example of Christ asking for sacrifices for no reason.

Thing is, the reason is not always clear to us initially. Very often it is not.

 

And if we need an example of Christ requiring a sacrifice for no apparent reason, if you accept, as I do, that Christ is the God of the Old Testament, we need look no further than the requirement for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. So dramatic is this that we have even applied it as a name for a special category of sacrifices that we call Abrahamic sacrifices. These, of course, are the kind that we are talking about here -- where the reason for it is not clear, at least initially.

 

If you need an example from Christ's mortal ministry, I would cite His encounter with the rich young ruler, to whom He said that he must sell all he has and give the money to the poor and then to follow Him. Obviously, the young man could not see the purpose of such drastic sacrifice, because he "went away sorrowing."

 

I personally find the MTC issue very troubling.  As I said, the Church had many other options that would not  have reduced the value of member homes.  The Church could have accomplished exactly what it wanted without asking members to reduce the value of their home.  Why should members sacrifice their home equity when it is not required and is, ultimately, merely a loyalty test.  I see no scriptural basis for this whatsoever.  I understand we disagree on this issue but I see this as an unfortunate example of the Church putting members out for no good reason -- other than to fulfill the wishes of whomever really wanted a tall MTC tower.  How does the location of the MTC tower impact the "Kingdom of God?"  It doesn't.  The tower could have been built anywhere near the MTC without decreasing the value of member homes.  

 

 

Initially, this may have seemed like the only viable option. Again, we don't always see the reasoning at first. I would say, moreover, that I can easily see how expansion of the Missionary Training Center -- whether it be building upward on landlocked space or through some other means -- would indeed impact the Kingdom of God. In theory, greater capacity to call and train more missionaries over a shorter period of time translates into a larger and stronger missionary force and, ultimately, more souls saved in a shorter time period than would otherwise have been the case.

 

But you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge what eventually did happen: that the Church re-examined the matter and eventually came up with a different solution. So there is no need for lingering indignation on this matter.

 

And it may well be that the solution they finally arrived at is not the optimum solution from a number of standpoints, but, out of charitable regard for neighboring property owners, the Church settled on it to relieve them of the burden. In that case it would be an example of kindness, mercy and consideration in the call for sacrifice -- which is what you seem to be calling for here.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

I think the more appropriate question to such a person would be something like: What can we, working together, do to reconcile you with the Church so that your participation in and fellowship with your fellow Saints is faithful, authentic and without acrimony?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I disagree. For anyone who honestly agrees with most of those bullets the response will involve things like denying the divinity of Christ, the necessity of the Atonement, the need for modern prophets, etc. What concessions would you suggest we make so they can authentically be included in the faith other than telling them to find some kind of Unitarian faith with no dogma at all?

[smac97]

I disagree. For anyone who honestly agrees with most of those bullets the response will involve things like denying the divinity of Christ, the necessity of the Atonement, the need for modern prophets, etc. What concessions would you suggest we make so they can authentically be included in the faith other than telling them to find some kind of Unitarian faith with no dogma at all?

Well, unacceptable doctrinal concessions are not what I had in mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

 

But you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge what eventually did happen: that the Church re-examined the matter and eventually came up with a different solution. So there is no need for lingering indignation on this matter.

 

 

Quite true.  I'll stop my belly-aching.

[The Nehor]

Well, unacceptable doctrinal concessions are not what I had in mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yet in that letter that is their contention. We can work with social and cultural issues that make things difficult for people to feel included and participate and we do do that but if your problem is with the doctrine you are pretty much out of luck.

[smac97]

Yet in that letter that is their contention.

And they may or may not be unequivocal in their positions on doctrinal issues. Not everyone pulls a my-way-or-the-highway approach to the Gospel, a la Kate Kelly. Most people are willing to reconsider their positions if given the opportunity.

We can work with social and cultural issues that make things difficult for people to feel included and participate and we do do that but if your problem is with the doctrine you are pretty much out of luck.

Well, maybe. A lot of things can happen when the Spirit is present, along with humility, earnestness, and sincerity.

Thanks,

-Smac

[strappinglad]

As I read the recommended letter and the 10 first bullet points, I am grateful that I am not a Bishop. Were I to interview a person who agreed with any 2 of those points, I would ask if they wanted to have their names removed from membership. If they said ,no , I would have to inquire , why not ? Personal integrity should trump a desire to stay in " the Club" for social or some other reason.

[CV75]

Often I would agree with this, but the subject matter that we're discussing involves a great deal of conjecture with almost no available statistics. Without anecdotes, it's easy to dismiss all of this as being a nonissue (which some are doing). I think in this case it is important to listen to the anecdotes because if at least some of them are true, it is enough to work to change the system.

 

Calmoria addressed this one really well. I think that in an authority situation, the person in authority is just as, if not more, likely to control the amount of detail discussed as the person doing the confessing.

 

That's not at all what I was advocating in that post. It would definitely be a shift in roles, but not ordination. Not sure where you're getting that.

In that case, and because it is such a personal and individual matter, I think these issues would be best resolved at the local levels according to the personalities involved. We have the correct principles (doctrines) and can govern ourselves. No need to appeal to higher authority.

 

As I explained in other terms, discussion is a two-way process. An authority cannot engage someone who doesn’t want to or is unable emotionally or otherwise to participate in a discussion. Personal discomfort is another matter, which is where the Holy Ghost can help. This is another reason why individual circumstances and needs, and abuses and exceptions, are best handled at the local level. And this is instance where another person may help.

 

If you are talking about inviting or assigning (instead of ordaining) women to provide various counseling functions to address the spiritual needs of members who would respond better to their ministry, so much of this is already part and parcel of being a visiting teacher, a leader of an auxiliary, etc. This sort of service is already arranged after more specific discussion in councils and interviews within the current structure. There are people do know how to make this work so that an individual’s particular needs are met in the Lord’s way! Leadership trainings are full of such success stories.

 

Maybe more stringent formalities will be instituted over time, but the general direction I think has been to decentralize and simplify by becoming more inclusive in decision-making and assigning ministry.

[Guest]

Truly a miracle. Here I thought God would have to bundle the tares to be burned and here they are bundling themselves and rushing to the bonfire. A real time-saver for us. Not sure Satan has thought this through.

You truly have a gift for using humor to state the obvious. Well done!

[Avatar4321]

Often I would agree with this, but the subject matter that we're discussing involves a great deal of conjecture with almost no available statistics. Without anecdotes, it's easy to dismiss all of this as being a nonissue (which some are doing). I think in this case it is important to listen to the anecdotes because if at least some of them are true, it is enough to work to change the system.

 

Calmoria addressed this one really well. I think that in an authority situation, the person in authority is just as, if not more, likely to control the amount of detail discussed as the person doing the confessing.

 

That's not at all what I was advocating in that post. It would definitely be a shift in roles, but not ordination. Not sure where you're getting that.

 

Maybe the Lord doesn't want us to change the system. Maybe He wants us to follow Him regardless.