rockpond Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 It seems that Larsen places his belief in Christ above his belief in the institution of the LDS Church. I've never found the two to be in conflict... I'd suggest that we have well documented cases of such. But I don't wish to derail the thread with them. 1
rockpond Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 We don't have enough information to know if he was or was not engaged prior to his disciplinary counsel. However, given your experience, my experience, church practices and policies, and the experience of most other High Priests shared here- if he wasn't engaged personally and privately it would be an aberration in the modern history of the LDS Church. Larsen states that the ideas in his blog were not discussed with him nor was he told what was incorrect. This seems to be similar to other bloggers' experiences that I've heard of.
rockpond Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 The blog is a form of media, no more or less endowed with power than print, or speech. As such preaching apostate beliefs through a personal blog, papers, over the pulpit, or any public forum are not substantially different from each other. The Bishop and Stake President hold the authority to judge the members of their Stake and Wards. In this case a Melchizedek Priesthood holder is subject to the authority of the Stake President who is the Presiding authority over those quorums in the Stake. 107:73-74 it says,This is the duty of a bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere. They absolutely have the authority to decide if someone they have stewardship over is preaching or sharing false doctrine, and asking them to stop doing it. Any Saint is welcome to their own revelations (and crazy ideas). They are not welcome to assume authority they don't have, or publish in opposition to the correlated teachings of the church as a whole. According to the church spokesperson, it isn't apostasy: "Church leaders are not asking members not to blog, and they are not attacking the rights of honest explorers of faith to have these conversations in the so-called Bloggernacle." (Church Spokeswoman Ally Isom on KUER radio, June 16th)
Avatar4321 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I'd suggest that we have well documented cases of such. But I don't wish to derail the thread with them.I suggest we dont
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 According to the church spokesperson, it isn't apostasy: "Church leaders are not asking members not to blog, and they are not attacking the rights of honest explorers of faith to have these conversations in the so-called Bloggernacle." (Church Spokeswoman Ally Isom on KUER radio, June 16th) Then we really don't know what the issue was do we? I remember the big stink one General Authority (70) made in the 80s about the brethren losing their authority, and leaving the church because of it. Only later it was revealed (not by the church) that he had been committing adultery with a young lady.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 So were back to Larson's word against the Stake President. Has he appealed to the general authorities as is his right? Or was he content to make a public issue out of what could have been a very private matter? His actions do not fill me with confidence in his understanding of Christ's Church. 1
Matt1074 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 It's only "strange" if you assume that Mr Larsen's version is complete, and completely truthful. But simply reading the link shows that his version of events is not only unrepentant -- actually it's rather arrogantly defiant -- but it's rather self-serving, too. If his Stake President were to tell the story, would any of us be able to recognise Mr Larsen's version from the SP's description? I trow not. Of course, we all know he won't do that. Mr Larsen knows that, too. In fact, he's counting on it. Regards,PahoranYou are a coward, and the very reason people leave the LDS Church. You refuse to engage in any discussion that allows any fact as the basis for the discussion, you revert to childish insults when shown for the internet troll that you are, and your pathetic insults are what led to an entire thread being closed, which I highly suspect you did on purpose because the facts being presented in that thread were not facts you liked. For you to call this Larsen man a liar behind the anonymity and safety of your keyboard while he is out being true to himself and you are merely hiding your cowardice safely and anonymously is all the proof anyone needs about what kind of person you are. I have all the answers I needed from this forum, so I thank you for being a large part of those answers. The LDS Church is a secret combination, and people like you are a big part of that. May God have mercy on your soul for those you have turned away from Him because they could not separate Him from the LDS Church as I have. May God have mercy on your soul.
rockpond Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 Then we really don't know what the issue was do we? It is possible that the Stake President wasn't aware of the church's position on "freedom to blog".
rockpond Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 So were back to Larson's word against the Stake President. Has he appealed to the general authorities as is his right? I believe he plans to appeal. But, as he noted, that process hasn't seemed to help any of his predecessors.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I believe he plans to appeal. But, as he noted, that process hasn't seemed to help any of his predecessors. That he knows of... those people were likely to have handled things without the public knowing. 1
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 You are a coward, and the very reason people leave the LDS Church... Sounds like a personal issue. I smell the moderators coming!
rockpond Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 That he knows of... those people were likely to have handled things without the public knowing. I was referring to other bloggers who have shared their experiences publicly. But I do not have first hand knowledge of that... just sharing what I've heard and what Larsen referred to.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 It is possible that the Stake President wasn't aware of the church's position on "freedom to blog". Less likely than his counseling Brother Larson for the content of his teachings, which others have pointed out were rather unorthodox and included criticism of the brethren. But guess what? We're still in speculation land. You prefer to speculate that Brother Larson was a victim of unrighteous dominion, while I prefer to speculate that the church authorities probably did their best to handle the situation within the spirit and letter of practices and doctrines. We've pretty much worn this one out. 2
Matt1074 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 Sounds like a personal issue. I smell the moderators coming!Actually it's not. What I said was not personal to me, it is simply a factual statement. I'm sure the moderators will ban me or some such nonsense, but I wasn't going to be able to stick around much longer anyway. I've seen all I needed to see here, time for me to move on. Boards like this are for those who don't want to deal in facts, or just want to hide like cowards behind their keyboards. The way of the world. I'll move on now so the moderators don't have to ban me for being to honest, that seems a trait mormons don't handle well.
rockpond Posted October 21, 2014 Author Posted October 21, 2014 Less likely than his counseling Brother Larson for the content of his teachings, which others have pointed out were rather unorthodox and included criticism of the brethren. But guess what? We're still in speculation land. You prefer to speculate that Brother Larson was a victim of unrighteous dominion, while I prefer to speculate that the church authorities probably did their best to handle the situation within the spirit and letter of practices and doctrines. We've pretty much worn this one out. So do you, personally, feel that what Larsen has written on his blog is worthy of excommunication or that there is some other sin that he's just not sharing with us that is the real cause of the disciplinary action? For me it is either that Larsen's not telling the whole truth or, yes, he was the victim of unrighteous dominion.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Actually it's not. What I said was not personal to me, it is simply a factual statement. I'm sure the moderators will ban me or some such nonsense, but I wasn't going to be able to stick around much longer anyway. I've seen all I needed to see here, time for me to move on. Boards like this are for those who don't want to deal in facts, or just want to hide like cowards behind their keyboards. The way of the world. I'll move on now so the moderators don't have to ban me for being to honest, that seems a trait mormons don't handle well. A textbook flounce. -I expect to be banned for the truth-I wasn't going to stick around-I know all I need to know about you-You can't handle the truth-You are cowards behind the keyboard-Mormons don't handle honesty well Not too many points for originality, but you are consistent with most 20 post wonders. It is surprising more trolls don't learn to keep up the act for at least a few days. Its more fun that way. Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG 1
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 So do you, personally, feel that what Larsen has written on his blog is worthy of excommunication or that there is some other sin that he's just not sharing with us that is the real cause of the disciplinary action? For me it is either that Larsen's not telling the whole truth or, yes, he was the victim of unrighteous dominion. Again I didn't read his post or the Stake Presidents statements. I am saying that this kind of exhibition is common among those who are more interested in being proven right, than any kind of reconciliation with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In my experience (and yours by admission) unrighteous dominion in place of a prayerful disciplinary counsel is rare. This could not have been an arbitrary decision on the part of the Stake President. He would have had to have convened a counsel. So unless it is the entire High Counsel exercising unrighteous dominion parsimony suggests something else is going on here. But you or I have no first hand knowledge with which to judge the case impartially. None whatsoever.
Matt1074 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 A textbook flounce. -I expect to be banned for the "TRUTH"-I wasn't going to stick around-I know all I need to know about you-You can't handle the TRUTH!-You are cowards behind the keyboard-Mormons don't handle honesty well Not too many points for originality, but you are consistent with most 20 post wonders. It is surprising more trolls don't learn to keep up the act for at least a few days. Its more fun that way.Fascinating that all those things are a common experience for people like me coming here to find answers. That should tell you a few things about this site and those that have found their internet clique here. I do like how you added lots of exclamation points and all caps to my statement though... quoting it wasn't good enough, you had to throw in a bunch of nonsense as well. If all we 20 post wonders find are internet cowards who don't like answering simple questions about factual matter regarding the LDS Church, what would you have us do? Stick around and be lied to for 40 posts? I'll pass, good day to you, I was warned about joining this church, I should have listened.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Fascinating that all those things are a common experience for people like me coming here to find answers. That should tell you a few things about this site and those that have found their internet clique here. I do like how you added lots of exclamation points and all caps to my statement though... quoting it wasn't good enough, you had to throw in a bunch of nonsense as well. If all we 20 post wonders find are internet cowards who don't like answering simple questions about factual matter regarding the LDS Church, what would you have us do? Stick around and be lied to for 40 posts? I'll pass, good day to you, I was warned about joining this church, I should have listened. I call "poopiepatties" on your claim to come here looking to find answers. On the other hand if you are genuine about your questions you will find many here, including me, willing to answer them. If you can drop the 'tude and stop accusing Mormons of all being liars and secret combinations for a moment. I'll be nice if you are! Look I'll even edit out the offending exclamation points. You are over 25 posts now, I think that entitles you to start a thread. Go ahead and ask your genuine questions, and you may be pleasantly surprised by my humanity and open mindedness for a (insert scary music here) Mormon! Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG
Matt1074 Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I call "poopiepatties" on your claim to come here looking to find answers. On the other hand if you are genuine about your questions you will find many here, including me, willing to answer them. If you can drop the 'tude and stop accusing Mormons of all being liars and secret combinations for a moment. I'll be nice if you are! Look I'll even edit out the offending exclamation points. You are over 25 posts now, I think that entitles you to start a thread. Go ahead and ask your genuine questions, and you may be pleasantly surprised by my humanity and open mindedness for a (insert scary music here) Mormon!I asked them, the thread was closed because the answers did not lead where those on this forum wanted them to and/or the answers were pointed out for being false. You can call poopie on whatever you want, I really wanted to find peace with some very troubling parts of the LDS Church, all I found were false answers, one very cowardly internet troll (not you by the way) and a locked thread. I will continue my search elsewhere. All the best to you, seriously.
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 I asked them, the thread was closed because the answers did not lead where those on this forum wanted them to and/or the answers were pointed out for being false. You can call poopie on whatever you want, I really wanted to find peace with some very troubling parts of the LDS Church, all I found were false answers, one very cowardly internet troll (not you by the way) and a locked thread. I will continue my search elsewhere. All the best to you, seriously. I went back and read. You were given good articles that used source materials and you out of hand dismissed them. You are also quick to call Mormons liars. Continue your search but don't be afraid of the honest truth. I recommend "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Lyman Bushman if you want some good history on Joseph Smith that lets you draw your own conclusions. Do not assume those who present Joseph as a pedophile, adulterer, or other calumny are being more "honest" than the Latter-day Saints about their own history. That would be a mistake too. FairMormon is not the Gospel but they do a good job of addressing things with fact, history and doctrine. Don't be too quick to discount them. 2
KevinG Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 ...aaaaand he's gone. The only remaining question is will I go to hell for driving such an inquisitive and open minded young Saint away from the Church? What say ye, brothers of the secret combination of MD&D? 1
Jeanne Posted October 21, 2014 Posted October 21, 2014 The Kingdom of God = the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The Kingdom of God = the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsNot even close.
Recommended Posts