rongo Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Not helpful, Tsuzuki. I'm looking for specifics, not lofty generalities about being true to herself. What, specifically, was she excommunicated for, and what, specifically, would she have to renounce (or at least give confidence that she is no longer apostate)?
Stone holm Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Not helpful, Tsuzuki. I'm looking for specifics, not lofty generalities about being true to herself. What, specifically, was she excommunicated for, and what, specifically, would she have to renounce (or at least give confidence that she is no longer apostate)?Sometimes when a person is exed, they get to looking at the Church from the outside and if they stay exed long enough and still attend, they see enough blemishes that unless they feel some urge or push to go through the hoops for rebaptism...well they just feel like they have made their peace with God and if the Church really wants them it knows where to find them. Meanwhile they come to Church on Sunday and life goes on. They hear enough that the Church can get along without any specific person, that they take that as true and let the Church get along without them.
teddyaware Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Sometimes when a person is exed, they get to looking at the Church from the outside and if they stay exed long enough and still attend, they see enough blemishes that unless they feel some urge or push to go through the hoops for rebaptism...well they just feel like they have made their peace with God and if the Church really wants them it knows where to find them. Meanwhile they come to Church on Sunday and life goes on. They hear enough that the Church can get along without any specific person, that they take that as true and let the Church get along without them. Just love to hear inspiring stories about faithful positive thinkers who overcome the odds. Edited June 27, 2014 by teddyaware 2
Rain Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Yes, there are some who seem to invariably describe their pride and stubbornness as integrity.Regards,PahoranAnd vice versa. 1
Pahoran Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 And vice versa. Are there people who describe their own integrity as pride and stubbornness? If you say so! Regards, Pahoran
Robert F. Smith Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Yeah, she's already famous. Though Lavina Fielding Anderson would probably be more similar to Kate Kelly, complete with the petition to appeal the excommunication. And Lavina Fielding Anderson continues to attend church after all these years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavina_Fielding_AndersonWhat similarities do you find between Kelly and Anderson? I see none. Why does everyone comment on what a good member Lavina Fielding Anderson is? I know, she attends Church regularly, but why hasn't she been re-baptized after all these years? I think it's the same boat KK is in: re-baptism will require her to lose face with her group of admirers, and this will require a lot of humility and lack of pride. Putting myself in her shoes, it would be very embarrassing, and you (me, too) would have to be extremely humble to "toe the line" after worldwide fame and accolades. I don't know that this is the case for LFA, but why hasn't she been baptized yet? Does anyone know?I know Lavina. She is and always has been a faithful, believing Mormon. She is a bright and cheerful person. Her public statement on the matter is that she doesn't know what would be required to be rebaptized. Perhaps you could make some suggestions. She holds a doctorate and is a professional writer & editor (she used to work for the Church magazines). What got her excommunicated was apparently a detailed, factual article on abusive and improper conduct by some LDS leaders. Being exed for presenting factual material raises the question whether a professional LDS news reporter could actually report unflattering news about the LDS Church without being called to a disciplinary council. The same could be applied to professional historians writing factual books about the Church in which members and leaders are described warts & all. What is odd is that a very prominent figure, such as the late Sterling McMurrin, could say virtually anything (he was an apostate) and not be exed, while a kind and faithful believer might find his/her membership in jeopardy. This may have much to do with the judgment of local leaders, who might not be particularly interested in the nuances we discuss here. Another consideration is that the Brethren are strong men who can presumably take a hit now and then without having their feathers ruffled. Thus, while it is true that endowed members are duty bound (by covenant) not to speak ill of the Brethren, there may be cases in which professional standards call for the unvarnished truth being put into print. Or is that a bridge too far? 4
Rain Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Are there people who describe their own integrity as pride and stubbornness?If you say so!Regards,PahoranYes, they are usually pretty humble people. Though some may just want to look humble.
strappinglad Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 One man's unvarnished truth is another man's hit piece. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Have you seen/heard of anything about Maxine Hanks, while you're at it? I have encountered her several times at recent academic conferences. She is a wonderfully intelligent, nice, and thoughtful person. She is also a close friend of Lavina Fielding Anderson. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) One man's unvarnished truth is another man's hit piece.True enough. However, consider, if you will, the case of the late Juanita Brooks, who received her masters from Columbia University, became Dean of Women at Dixie College, and was on the Board of the Utah Historical Society. She wrote many important books and articles on Mormon history, the most important of which was The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950), for which she was ostracized by local Mormons (but not punished by the Church). She was the wife of Will Brooks, the Sheriff of Washington County, Utah (1927-1934). She has been praised on a couple of occasions in the pages of The Ensign by the late Davis Bitton. In fact, this past March 23, 2014, assistant LDS Church historian Richard Turley presented the 31st annual Juanita Brooks Lecture at the St. George Tabernacle, in which he spoke openly about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the trial of John D. Lee. Just what are the correct limits on professional journalism or history writing by faithful members? Does the passage of time make such a great difference?! Edited June 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith 1
Calm Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 She is someone I would like to sit down and absorb her insight and her passion, a person like makes me want to live.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 She is someone I would like to sit down and absorb her insight and her passion, a person like makes me want to live.About which of these great women are you speaking?
Kenngo1969 Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Being true to yourself can be a hard thing. Some call it pride. Others call it integrity. King Benjamin exhorted, “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend” (Mosiah 4:9). The Lord told Isaiah, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Jacob tells us, “How great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth call things, and there is not anything save he knows it” (2 Nephi 9:20). More succinctly (and I think declaration can be directed more broadly at people who don’t think God knows what He’s doing or that He can’t do it without their help, although He said it within the context of translating the Book of Mormon), “I am able to do mine own work” (2 Nephi 27:20). The only thing I have left to give back to God that He didn’t give me first is my will. Here, as in all other things, Christ is our model: “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38). It goes without saying that this wasn’t just something Christ said. Fortunately for all of us, He was able to “walk it like He talked it”: In the garden, where “the rubber really met the road” for Him, He said, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Anybody who wishes to do so can tell God, at the judgment, if he or she wishes to do so, “Lord, I wasn’t true to you, but hey, at least I was true to me and to my integrity.” Perhaps you, or Kate Kelly, don’t have any doubt, but personally, I wonder how my integrity possibly can stack up against all of that. And to forestall the inevitable objection, the Lord also said, “. . . [W]hether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same” (Doctrine & Covenants 1:38). Do you think that Maxine Hanks lacks integrity or has not been true to herself, while, conversely, believing that Lavina Fielding Anderson has integrity and is being true to herself? If so, why? Edited June 27, 2014 by Kenngo1969
Analytics Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 In order to be rebaptized, she would have to confess to wrongdoing, and it seems she can't do that in good conscience. Agreed. From my point of view, when an excommunicated member attends church weekly, doesn't wear her garments, doesn't partake of the sacrament, doesn't pray, and doesn't participate in discussions, she is personifying meekness and humility. If she were to fall into line and say she was wrong to research and publish on the topic of ecclesiastical abuse and promise not to do it any more nor to talk about it, she could get rebaptized and would gain more friends than she'd lose; the church loves it when a prodigal child comes home. If she were motivated by having lots of friends and being loved and accepted by her community, that's the obvious path to take. Maybe she really thinks what she did was wrong, but isn't repenting because of pride or whatever. That seems unlikely from my point of view. In any event, I'm prone to give her the benefit of the doubt. 1
rongo Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 If LFA really doesn't know what is required to be rebaptized, has she asked her bishop and stake president? If they don't know, they can find out. I think there has to be more to it than you represent, Robert. It's not like it's the same bishop and stake president, either. It happened way back in 1993. That's 21 years . . .
Analytics Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 ...The only thing I have left to give back to God that He didn’t give me first is my will. Here, as in all other things, Christ is our model: “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38). It goes without saying that this wasn’t just something Christ said. Fortunately for all of us, He was able to “walk it like He talked it”: In the garden, where “the rubber really met the road” for Him, He said, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Anybody who wishes to do so can tell God, at the judgment, if he or she wishes to do so, “Lord, I wasn’t true to you, but hey, at least I was true to me and to my integrity.” Perhaps you, or Kate Kelly, don’t have any doubt, but personally, I wonder how my integrity possibly can stack up against all of that. And to forestall the inevitable objection, the Lord also said, “. . . [W]hether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same” (Doctrine & Covenants 1:38). Do you think that Maxine Hanks lacks integrity or has not been true to herself, while, conversely, believing that Lavina Fielding Anderson has integrity and is being true to herself? If so, why? I have nothing but respect for Maxine Hanks. In general, I don’t see my role to judge and condemn others for following their own path. I do what I think is right, and I presume that others are doing the same. I think you and I think of different things when one says, "be true to yourself." The paradox of Mormonism is that you are told to follow two different voices: you are told to obey what God tells you through the Holy Ghost, and you are told to obey the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church. Ideally, they are saying the same thing, and are merely redundant. But what if they are not? Emerson thought about this issue and may have anticipated your response: I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." If the sincere impulses one feels in his or her heart contradict the Church, what path should you take? Sure, the church’s hierarchy says that even if the Church’s leaders are wrong you’ll still be blessed for obediently following them. But it’s hard to imagine God condemning you for instead following the revelation he gave you directly.
CA Steve Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 About which of these great women are you speaking? For me it would be any of them.
Analytics Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 If LFA really doesn't know what is required to be rebaptized, has she asked her bishop and stake president? If they don't know, they can find out. I think there has to be more to it than you represent, Robert. It's not like it's the same bishop and stake president, either. It happened way back in 1993. That's 21 years . . . What if there really isn't anything more to it? What if the Church actually made a mistake in this particular case? If she actually didn't do anything that merits excommunication and her excommunication is ironically another incidence of ecclesiastical abuse, what’s the path back? Presumably there isn’t a statute of limitations on appealing an excommunication. The First Presidency could reverse the excommunication on appeal, and simply undo it with the stroke of a pen. But that raises the question: if the institutional church really were wrong about this, does it have the humility to admit it and fix it?
Stone holm Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 From what I have heard about Lavina, she is situated in that uncomfortable place where she would have to violate her conscience by in essence confessing a lie and saying that it was inappropriate to factually report abuse. This is similar to the situation that others may find themselves in, and is very different from the situation where a person is excommunicated for sinful personal behavior such as stealing, illicit sex, etc. 3
rongo Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 What are the particulars about the abuse that LFA alleged? I'm not really familiar with the specifics. Thanks!
Yirgacheffe Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Agreed. From my point of view, when an excommunicated member attends church weekly, doesn't wear her garments, doesn't partake of the sacrament, doesn't pray, and doesn't participate in discussions, she is personifying meekness and humility. If she were to fall into line and say she was wrong to research and publish on the topic of ecclesiastical abuse and promise not to do it any more nor to talk about it, she could get rebaptized and would gain more friends than she'd lose; the church loves it when a prodigal child comes home. If she were motivated by having lots of friends and being loved and accepted by her community, that's the obvious path to take. Maybe she really thinks what she did was wrong, but isn't repenting because of pride or whatever. That seems unlikely from my point of view. In any event, I'm prone to give her the benefit of the doubt.The Catholic church abuse horror comes to mind here, why should someone be disciplined for reporting ecclesiastical abuse? 1
ERayR Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 In order to be rebaptized, she would have to confess to wrongdoing, and it seems she can't do that in good conscience. And as long as she feels that way she shouldn't. If the time ever comes when she feels differently I suspect she knows how to proceed from there.
ERayR Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 Maybe she really thinks what she did was wrong, but isn't repenting because of pride or whatever. That seems unlikely from my point of view. In any event, I'm prone to give her the benefit of the doubt. It is not for you nor me to give.
ERayR Posted June 27, 2014 Posted June 27, 2014 I have nothing but respect for Maxine Hanks. In general, I don’t see my role to judge and condemn others for following their own path. I do what I think is right, and I presume that others are doing the same. I think you and I think of different things when one says, "be true to yourself." The paradox of Mormonism is that you are told to follow two different voices: you are told to obey what God tells you through the Holy Ghost, and you are told to obey the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church. Ideally, they are saying the same thing, and are merely redundant. But what if they are not? Emerson thought about this issue and may have anticipated your response: I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." If the sincere impulses one feels in his or her heart contradict the Church, what path should you take? Sure, the church’s hierarchy says that even if the Church’s leaders are wrong you’ll still be blessed for obediently following them. But it’s hard to imagine God condemning you for instead following the revelation he gave you directly. That is, to me, the only way to live but in doing so one must be willing to accept the consequences and be careful not to act to unduly influence others in their struggles.
Recommended Posts