The Purge Continues With The Excommunication Of Adrian Larsen

[MorningStar]

We don't have the whole story and we won't have the whole story because the church doesn't speak publicly about it.  I doubt they would excommunicate his wife simply for being married to him.

[ERayR]

We don't have the whole story and we won't have the whole story because the church doesn't speak publicly about it.  I doubt they would excommunicate his wife simply for being married to him.

 

Biting tongue.  Biting tongue.

[rockpond]

Ah, you must think everyone in prison is innocent as well.

From reading what I did of his blog he appears to be quite guilty of the rebellion that he was accused of.

You asked if I disagreed with the outcome. You didn't ask if I thought he was guilty of what they "charged him of".

[JAHS]

His attitude in this blog leads me to believe that excommunication was the correct action. He acts like they have taken away his eternal life forever.

There is such a thing as repentance and readmission into the church. 

[Rob Osborn]

His blog goes against the church as a whole. He created his own apostacy. The main issue is his blatant accusations against church leaders.

[rockpond]

His blog goes against the church as a whole. He created his own apostacy. The main issue is his blatant accusations against church leaders.

 

What do you see as the false accusations he made?

[Danzo]

What do you see as the false accusations he made?

Apostasy is rebellion, not bearing false witness. (that would be a different charge.) I think that from what little I read of his blog, that he is probably guilty. 

 

It is always dangerous to make judgments against the church based on ex parte  accusations.

[Danzo]

You asked if I disagreed with the outcome. You didn't ask if I thought he was guilty of what they "charged him of".

 

If you agree with the charge, why disagree with the outcome? do you think Ex communication is not appropriate when it comes to apostasy?

[bluebell]

I haven't read much of his blog so i may be misunderstanding him, but i'm confused.  He appears to believe that the LDS church isn't doing things the way that God wants them done.

 

But he then declares that being excommunicated from this 'wrong' church is the equivalent of an eternal death sentence.

 

Which is it; does the church have the authority and approval of God to unseal on earth and in heaven, or doesn't it?  It sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth but like i said, i could definitely be misunderstanding what he is trying to say.

 

I do find these kinds of blogs generally annoying because the author always presents himself as being practically perfect and free from flaws and a complete victim of his priesthood leaders (who are often described as 'good' men, but obviously lacking and no where as good or godly as the author himself).

 

As the common saying goes, "i don't care how flat you make a pancake, it has two sides". 

[rockpond]

If you agree with the charge, why disagree with the outcome? do you think Ex communication is not appropriate when it comes to apostasy?

 

I agree that he is likely guilty of the charge but I don't agree that the charge was appropriate.  Did you read the post that I linked in the OP?  In that, Brother Larsen talks about the definition of apostasy -- scriptural vs handbook.

[rockpond]

Apostasy is rebellion, not bearing false witness. (that would be a different charge.) I think that from what little I read of his blog, that he is probably guilty. 

 

It is always dangerous to make judgments against the church based on ex parte  accusations.

 

Where is apostasy defined as rebellion against church leaders?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think that's an unfair and unwarranted conclusion. While it's possible that the accounts could differ, there is no reason to believe that Brother Larsen is being untruthful and "counting on" his stake president's silence.

Well, there is a fact that you are probably unaware of and that is that the SP cannot possibly in good light ever give his side to the story.  So he is in fact counting on this silence.

[JAHS]

Where is apostasy defined as rebellion against church leaders?

 

Church handbook definition of apostasy:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority

[Danzo]

Where is apostasy defined as rebellion against church leaders?

 

Look it up.

 

The word apostasy comes from the Greek word for rebellion.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy

 

 

"Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt, fromapo- + histasthai to stand — more at stand"

[rockpond]

I do find these kinds of blogs generally annoying because the author always presents himself as being practically perfect and free from flaws and a complete victim of his priesthood leaders (who are often described as 'good' men, but obviously lacking and no where as good or godly as the author himself).

 

I don't think that is the case with Brother Larsen, from his post:

 

Now, I honestly believe my Stake President is a good man, doing his best in a difficult situation. He was under great pressure to excommunicate me, and told me he had no choice. He had to play the role of both accuser and impartial judge in my council, which is something I know I could never pull off and get right.  I understand why he did what he did, and I think I even understand why he did it the way he did it. I cannot claim to agree, but he acted within his authority.

[Danzo]

I agree that he is likely guilty of the charge but I don't agree that the charge was appropriate.  Did you read the post that I linked in the OP?  In that, Brother Larsen talks about the definition of apostasy -- scriptural vs handbook.

 

In my profession, people are always trying to redefine the law according to some twisted interpretation. Based on writings of so and so and what some possible meaning of a word is.  I usually have to tell them that their interpretation of the the law is irrelevant,  It is only the Judge's (and appellate court's) definition that matters.   

Edited October 20, 2014 by Danzo

[rockpond]

Well, there is a fact that you are probably unaware of and that is that the SP cannot possibly in good light ever give his side to the story.  So he is in fact counting on this silence.

 

While it is true that the SP cannot give his side of the story due to confidentiality.  It is conjecture to state that Brother Larsen "is counting on" that. For all we know, the SP could completely agree with the summary of events provided by Brother Larsen on his blog.

[rockpond]

 

 

Church handbook definition of apostasy:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority

 

 

That is the handbook definition, not the scriptural definition -- which is the point that Brother Larsen makes in his post.

[rockpond]

Look it up.

 

The word apostasy comes from the Greek word for rebellion.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy

 

 

"Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt, fromapo- + histasthai to stand — more at stand"

 

Yes, but not "rebellion against church leaders".

[rockpond]

In my profession, people are always trying to redefine the law according to so twisted interpretation. Based on writings of so and so and what some possible meaning of a word is.  I usually have to tell them that their interpretation of the the law is irrelevant,  It is only the Judge's (and appellate court's) definition that matters.   

 

Exactly, by church handbook definitions and policy, the outcome of the DC was likely correct.  But you asked if I agreed with the outcome -- I do not.  I do not think that we should be using those handbook definitions and policy to excommunicate people.  I don't believe that they align with scripture.

[ksfisher]

 

I don't think that is the case with Brother Larsen, from his post:

 

Now, I honestly believe my Stake President is a good man, doing his best in a difficult situation. He was under great pressure to excommunicate me, and told me he had no choice. He had to play the role of both accuser and impartial judge in my council, which is something I know I could never pull off and get right.  I understand why he did what he did, and I think I even understand why he did it the way he did it. I cannot claim to agree, but he acted within his authority.

 

He's describing the Stake President as just a pawn.

[JAHS]

That is the handbook definition, not the scriptural definition -- which is the point that Brother Larsen makes in his post.

Then he doesn't believe in or support latter-day revelation from our current prophets. And if he displays this attitude to the world with his blogs, then he is acting in open rebellion to the church and it's leaders. I know that sounds circular but that's what we have; like it or leave it. 

[Danzo]

I don't think that is the case with Brother Larsen, from his post:

 

Now, I honestly believe my Stake President is a good man, doing his best in a difficult situation. He was under great pressure to excommunicate me, and told me he had no choice. He had to play the role of both accuser and impartial judge in my council, which is something I know I could never pull off and get right.  I understand why he did what he did, and I think I even understand why he did it the way he did it. I cannot claim to agree, but he acted within his authority.

 

 

Sounds like his apostasy was against people who were higher than his stake president (more reason to excommunicate).

 

Lets see what he said 

 

"He was under great pressure to excommunicate me"

 

Yet, according to his words, the stake president met with him several times trying to get him to take down his blog (hardly evidence the man was out to get him)

 

 

"and told me he had no choice."

 

Yet Larsen, it seams (from his own words) had several choices.  

 

" He had to play the role of both accuser and impartial judge in my council"

 

seems normal for a church disciplinary counsel.

 

The stake president believed for some reason that this guy was preaching false doctrine and rebellion.

The stake president asked that the guy stop.

The guy didn't stop.  

 

Ergo

Rebellion against the church

Ergo Apostasy

 

A stake president (branch president, bishop) has an obligation to see that false doctrine is kept out of the church, and the church is not lead astray.

[rockpond]

Then he doesn't believe in or support latter-day revelation from our current prophets. And if he displays this attitude to the world with his blogs, then he is acting in open rebellion to the church and it's leaders. I know that sounds circular but that's what we have; like it or leave it. 

 

Does the handbook represent "latter-day revelation"?

[rockpond]

 

Sounds like his apostasy was against people who were higher than his stake president (more reason to excommunicate).

 

Lets see what he said 

 

"He was under great pressure to excommunicate me"

 

Yet, according to his words, the stake president met with him several times trying to get him to take down his blog (hardly evidence the man was out to get him)

 

 

"and told me he had no choice."

 

Yet Larsen, it seams (from his own words) had several choices.  

 

" He had to play the role of both accuser and impartial judge in my council"

 

seems normal for a church disciplinary counsel.

 

The stake president believed for some reason that this guy was preaching false doctrine and rebellion.

The stake president asked that the guy stop.

The guy didn't stop.  

 

Ergo

Rebellion against the church

Ergo Apostasy

 

A stake president (branch president, bishop) has an obligation to see that false doctrine is kept out of the church, and the church is not lead astray.

 

First, rebellion against church leaders is only the definition of apostasy in the church handbook, not in scripture (which is Brother Larsen's point).

 

Second, Brother Larsen is claiming that nobody ever identified any false doctrine in his writings.