The Purge Continues With The Excommunication Of Adrian Larsen

[Danzo]

Yes, but not "rebellion against church leaders".

 

In this church (like it or not) the church is the priesthood which are the leaders.

We are not a club.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Danzo

[Danzo]

Does the handbook represent "latter-day revelation"?

yes

[JAHS]

Does the handbook represent "latter-day revelation"?

I would certainly hope so, because that's what our bishops are using now.

"whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (D&C 1:38)

[Danzo]

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.

 

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

Do you think that people who " Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders."

even after they have been corrected should be considered members in good standing?

Edited October 20, 2014 by Danzo

[bluebell]

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

That's how I read it as well.

Not that his leader was following what he believed to be God's will, but that he was doing what he was told.

Given that a lot of the post is about how Larsen (and his wife) are unashamedly obedient to God despite personal risk (of such a type that none of their accusers has ever been faced with), his words about his stake president are kind on the surface while presenting himself as the better man where it really counts.

[rockpond]

 

In this church (like it or not) the church is the priesthood which are the leaders.

We are not a club.

 

Actually, what you are describing sounds more like a club to me.

[rockpond]

yes

 

When has it ever been presented as such?  I have a copy and it makes not pretense of being a revelation.

[rockpond]

I would certainly hope so, because that's what our bishops are using now.

 

Well, that is kinda the point that Brother Larsen makes in the blog post I linked.  They are following it, but it doesn't always match scripture.  And there is no pretense of it being revelation.  We don't even know who authored it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Sounds like you are willing to hang your hat on that hook.  That is really not a very compelling argument.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When has it ever been presented as such?  I have a copy and it makes not pretense of being a revelation.

You would not know what a revelation looked like if it bit you in the butt.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

 

Let me ask you a question.

 

Do you think that people who " Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders."

even after they have been corrected should be considered members in good standing?

 

I think it depends on if what the leaders are asking of him/her is correct.  In this case, asking him to remove his blog or lose his membership does not sound appropriate if they can't identify something false in what he is writing.

[Danzo]

Well, that is kinda the point that Brother Larsen makes in the blog post I linked.  They are following it, but it doesn't always match scripture.  And there is no pretense of it being revelation.  We don't even know who authored it.

You are advocating that church leaders not follow the handbook?

[rockpond]

Sounds like you are willing to hang your hat on that hook.  That is really not a very compelling argument.

 

I'm not even sure what you mean by that response.

[rockpond]

You are advocating that church leaders not follow the handbook?

 

No.

[rockpond]

You would not know what a revelation looked like if it bit you in the butt.

 

Nice.

 

What about Handbook 1 suggests to you that it is revelation?

[Danzo]

I think it depends on if what the leaders are asking of him/her is correct.  In this case, asking him to remove his blog or lose his membership does not sound appropriate if they can't identify something false in what he is writing.

The charge was apostasy, not false witness.

 

No need to show something was false, just something that was in rebellion.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Danzo

[rockpond]

The charge was apostasy, not false witness.

 

No need to show something was false, just something that was in rebellion.

 

Again, I understand what you're saying.*

 

I just don't think it is appropriate to excommunicate someone because you dislike their blog.  It seems like you'd need a more solid reason.

 

* And you don't need to come back to me with the fact that they were justified based on the handbook.  I agree that they are.

[JAHS]

Nice.

 

What about Handbook 1 suggests to you that it is revelation?

The Handbook is supported and authorized by Church leaders to be used by the Church. Just because it is not proclaimed to be "revelation" from God does not mean that revelation was not used to produce it.  Like I said earlier  "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Edited October 20, 2014 by JAHS

[rockpond]

The Handbook is supported and authorized by Church leaders to be used by the Church. Just because it is not proclaimed to be "revelation" from God does not means that revelation was not used to produce it.  Like I said earlier  "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

 

I'm sorry - I can't apply that verse universally as you seem to want to do here... it fails too often.

 

Was revelation used to produce the definition of apostasy that differs from the scriptural definition?

[JAHS]

Again, I understand what you're saying.*

 

I just don't think it is appropriate to excommunicate someone because you dislike their blog.  It seems like you'd need a more solid reason.

 

* And you don't need to come back to me with the fact that they were justified based on the handbook.  I agree that they are.

The Handbook also states:

"These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply when seeking the guidance of the Spirit."

 

So it's not just the handbook but by revelation to Bishops  that allows them to make such decisions. 

[rockpond]

The Handbook also states:

"These instructions can facilitate revelation if they are used to provide an understanding of principles, policies, and procedures to apply when seeking the guidance of the Spirit."

 

So it's not just the handbook but by revelation to Bishops  that allows them to make such decisions. 

 

I understand.  I currently serve in a Bishopric and while we frequently consult the handbook we also always strive for revelation.

[Boanerges]

After reading some of the pieces on his blog, Larsen's excommunication is not surprising. His "follow the Saviour only" approach to the Gospel -- as well as that idea's outgrowing corollary that there is no need for presiding priesthood leaders who hold the keys of salvation -- is out of step with what we have always been taught. As far as his wife's excommunication is concerned, it's likely it was verified to the satisfaction of the local leaders that she is in sympathy with her husband and agrees with his "we need the Saviour only" take on the Gospel.

 I think this is another one of those examples where it's OK to believe that but teaching it is another story. I certainly believe we should focus on the Savior, and Pres. Monson has told us several times to follow the Savior - even just two weeks ago. I can see how as Christians some might believe there is no need for a prophet, that all we really have to do is believe, be baptized, etc. I think it's fine to believe that and I do buy into it to a certain extent - but I would never openly blog about it, preach it from the pulpit, bear testimony of it, etc. Holding a belief is one thing, teaching it is another.

 

(This guy, of course, even did much more than that in encouraging people to leave the church and openly rebel - clearly fitting the description of an apostate.)

Edited October 20, 2014 by Boanerges

[why me]

 I think this is another one of those examples where it's OK to believe that but teaching it is another story. I certainly believe we should focus ont he Savior, and Pres. Monson has told us several times to follow the Savior - even just two weeks ago. I can see how as Christians some might believe there is no need for a prophet, that all we really have to do is believe, be baptized, etc. I think it's fine to believe that and I do buy into it to a certain extent - but I would never openly blog about it, preach it from the pulpit, bear testimony of it, etc. Holding a belief is one thing, teaching it is another.

 

(This guy, of course, even did much more than that in encouraging people to leave the church and openly rebel - clearly fitting the description of an apostate.)

Plus, he took the excommunication public which usually shows the true intent of getting some needed publicity. I can see the martyr syndrome in his blog about it. He did wrong and just should accept the consequences. But because he took it public it is obvious that he did not have good intentions toward the lds church. He could have just reported his excommunication in a humble way, recognized his fault and continue.

[JAHS]

Again, I understand what you're saying.*

 

I just don't think it is appropriate to excommunicate someone because you dislike their blog.  It seems like you'd need a more solid reason.

 

* And you don't need to come back to me with the fact that they were justified based on the handbook.  I agree that they are.

 

Well, we have already established the fact that revelation received by the Bishop is a valid reason to impose the excommunication, or do you think the Bishop in this case did not receive correct  revelation on the matter? There were no doubt other facts in the case that were not revealed due to confidentiality or were simply not shared by the accused.

Also, I agree with what Why Me said.

Edited October 20, 2014 by JAHS

[rpn]

The problem with his argument is that rebellion against the leaders God has chosen, IS rebellion against God.   Whether God agrees with their actions and decisions,  whether God inspired those actions and decisions, we will likely never know.   But if we believe that it is His church and He runs it, then we have to also believe that (a) this is what He thought was necessary for Bro. Larsen and/or His church, or He doesn't think it necessary or appropriate, but He didn't take action to stop it for reasons that He found compelling  (maybe so He had the evidence for justice against an abusive leader like Alma articulated the reason he couldn't invoke priesthood power to  stop the killing of innocents.)   If the latter, then Brother and Sister's appeal may result in correction, or somehow their faithful response will be okay.   (And maybe a test of their discipleship.)   Unfortunately writing what he did does not suggest a faithful response (though it is too early to assess that since when people write too soon, it is often not what they would write after they have worked through the pain.)