Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 It's impressive that you don't know the man but can still speak to his intentions without even providing quotes to backup your conclusions.You don't know him either. Spare us please.
Calm Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 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. As Christians certainly, but as LDS Christians if you included temple ordinances I don't see how one can at the same time claim we can dispense with a prophet. 2
rockpond Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 You don't know him either. Spare us please. The difference is that I am not making accusations against him as Nehor is doing.
JAHS Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 I would alter that to "like it or study it and and ponder it in hopes of receiving direction from the Lord about it bringing peace to your heart and mind and soul".I agree but it seems the man in question has already received the answers he wants god to give him.
Calm Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) He seems to see Church membership as nonessential to his salvation so I do agree with bluebell that the use of an analogy of death sentence seems contradictory: I believe Joseph Smith was called of God and taught truth. I believe the Book of Mormon is indeed "the most correct of any book on earth...and a man will get nearer to god by abiding by its precepts than by any other book." I write about the process of coming to Christ personally, because it's increasingly clear to me that salvation is in Christ alone, and that no institution, man, or position belongs between you and Christ, no matter who they are or what they claim. The keeper of the gate IS the Holy One of Israel, and he employeth NO servant there. (2 Nephi 9:41) https://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609 Reading this comment and others he has made, I would suggest he is claiming revelation for his teachings, including the ones where he says the Church is in apostasy: Both the title of this blog and the header scripture were given me by revelation. I'm still learning why. http://www.totheremnant.com/2014/06/why-this-blog.html Accusations of the Church (refers to it in a monolithic way) being dishonest: http://www.totheremnant.com/2014/08/history-hearsay-and-heresy-part-5-aint.html (btw there is additional research that debates this conclusion, see Fairmormon for the reference) Edited October 20, 2014 by calmoriah 4
6EQUJ5 Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 It's only "strange" if you assume that Mr Larsen's version is complete, and completely truthful. Indeed. Strange assuming that Adrian's account is accurate and truthful.
rockpond Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 He seems to see Church membership as nonessential to his salvation so I do agree with bluebell that the use of an analogy of death sentence seems contradictory: https://www.blogger.com/profile/17173995703995901609 My understanding in reading the post is that he is saying that what they have imposed on him is *the Church's* equivalent of the death penalty. But it isn't really an appropriate analogy since re-baptism is an option.
bluebell Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 The difference is that I am not making accusations against him as Nehor is doing. Aren't you making accusations against his stake president though? I'm sincerely asking and not trying to be snarky. It seems like you have been implying that the Stake president did not utilize revelation in deciding to excommunicate him. Am i misunderstanding you? 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) Indeed. Strange assuming that Adrian's account is accurate and truthful.There is no way to know that unless you are either him or his stake president. This whole thing is a waste of time. At the very least we would need the SP side. We are not ever going to get that. I don't know who this dude is. I don't care. He was ex'ed. I have very little reason to believe that he was unjustly ex'ed. I side with the SP. Edited October 20, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
6EQUJ5 Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 There is no way to know that unless you are either him or his stake president. This whole thing is a waste of time. Well hold on. What you are saying is that nothing like this should ever be discussed because one party chooses to remain silent. They don't have to. If they feel they are being defamed I would hope they break confidentiality and defend themselves. So I don't think it's a waste of time. But I don't think it's all that important, either.
rockpond Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 Aren't you making accusations against his stake president though? I'm sincerely asking and not trying to be snarky. It seems like you have been implying that the Stake president did not utilize revelation in deciding to excommunicate him. Am i misunderstanding you? No, I am not making any accusations against the stake president. I have no idea whether or not the stake president used revelation in the excommunication process.
bluebell Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 No, I am not making any accusations against the stake president. I have no idea whether or not the stake president used revelation in the excommunication process. If that's true, then how can you disagree with the excommunication? If you don't know whether or not God condoned it, how can you flatly judge it as wrong? 2
rockpond Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 There is no way to know that unless you are either him or his stake president. This whole thing is a waste of time. At the very least we would need the SP side. We are not ever going to get that. I don't know who this dude is. I don't care. He was ex'ed. I have very little reason to believe that he was unjustly ex'ed. I side with the SP. Well hold on. What you are saying is that nothing like this should ever be discussed because one party chooses to remain silent. They don't have to. If they feel they are being defamed I would hope they break confidentiality and defend themselves. So I don't think it's a waste of time. But I don't think it's all that important, either. I tend to think what's happening is important for all of us (which is why I opened the thread). Is the position of the church as follows: "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) Or is it that we are going to excommunicate you if you blog things that we disagree with?
rockpond Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 If that's true, then how can you disagree with the excommunication? If you don't know whether or not God condoned it, how can you flatly judge it as wrong? Have I given the impression that I "flatly judged it as wrong"? Because I haven't. I don't know all the facts.
Storm Rider Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 With the very little, too insufficient to make this judgment, knowledge of the things he has written about, it seems this man does not understand the purpose of a church, let alone the kingdom of God on earth. He seems to place himself outside of the organization that Jesus instituted for the perfecting of the saints. He seems to have confused the need for personal salvation with the need for communal salvation - which is the very purpose of the saints. We meet together for a reason, a purpose, and a directive from God to unite and aid one another. He has moved the gospel of us to a gospel of me. The great atrocity of the era of the 60's was this need and worship of the self. Life exits for me, what I want, what I think I need from a concept of us, we, our, need. At this late hour when most are sleeping I weep for the soul of this man that has lost his way. I fully acknowledge that many will be swayed by the selfishness that he displays while cloaking himself in misuse of the scripture to support his cause. I reject it utterly as a misunderstanding of scripture and of the body of Christ. 1
ksfisher Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 If they feel they are being defamed I would hope they break confidentiality and defend themselves. The proceedings of all disciplinary councils are confidential. A Stake President would never break that confidentiality. 2
rockpond Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 The proceedings of all disciplinary councils are confidential. A Stake President would never break that confidentiality. I liked how the SP in the Kate Kelly case handled it... Since their communications were primarily written, he publicly gave her permission to share the letters he had written to her so that people could get the full story. That way he kept his confidentiality but allowed her to publish both sides. But that was a unique circumstance in which much was handled through written correspondence.
Avatar4321 Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 The difference is that I am not making accusations against him as Nehor is doing.instead you are making accusations that the stake president who holds the keys to discipline those who apostatize is doing so with no revelation and with no need to in an effort to purge people from the church. And then you are trying to deny doing that.so why should I believe the stake president got it wrong or has some secret agenda to purge people out of the church without justification? Especially when the blog clearly shows a spirit of rebellion rather than humility? 1
ksfisher Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 (edited) I liked how the SP in the Kate Kelly case handled it... Since their communications were primarily written, he publicly gave her permission to share the letters he had written to her so that people could get the full story. That way he kept his confidentiality but allowed her to publish both sides. But that was a unique circumstance in which much was handled through written correspondence. I think you are correct, the Kate Kelly situation was an extraordinary circumstance where Kelly had partially released the contents of the written decision. Hopefully that situation will not happen again. Edited October 20, 2014 by ksfisher
rockpond Posted October 20, 2014 Author Posted October 20, 2014 instead you are making accusations that the stake president who holds the keys to discipline those who apostatize is doing so with no revelation and with no need to in an effort to purge people from the church. And then you are trying to deny doing that.so why should I believe the stake president got it wrong or has some secret agenda to purge people out of the church without justification? Especially when the blog clearly shows a spirit of rebellion rather than humility? I have never said that he did so without revelation, none of us know. Larsen acknowledged the SP's keys & authority in his post. I don't know if there is any concerted effort to purge members/bloggers with differing views but those excommunications do seem to be happening. We could debate right or wrong endlessly but we'll never have both sides of the case. You don't need to believe that the SP got it wrong. I don't know anything about a "secret agenda". And there certainly could be justification for the excommunication of Larsen. As for him showing a spirit of rebellion in his blog... I don't see it.
Danzo Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 As for him showing a spirit of rebellion in his blog... I don't see it. We must be looking at different blogs.
cinepro Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 If poor writing is a sin, I think I know why he got ex'd. 3
Popular Post The Nehor Posted October 20, 2014 Popular Post Posted October 20, 2014 The difference is that I am not making accusations against him as Nehor is doing. I am making observations, not accusations. I am doing it by reading the text you provided. I make my living writing. I know a little about it. He thinks he is doing the right thing. He is not. He posted it publicly to humiliate and shame the Church. We're not talking about some nuance buried in one paragraph. It is his central theme. He comes at it from the angle of "helping" but everyone does that as a matter of course. It is how you write this kind of a piece. It is a critique and he knows the Church is not going to listen to his babbling (or he might have sent it privately) so he did it publicly to drum up public support. This is Reading Comprehension 101 here. I learned this stuff in Middle School. Why was the piece written? What was the intended audience? What changes are likely to result from the piece being sent? What conclusions are the reader meant to draw? If you don't think the intended result is to convince people that the Church was wrong and that it was intended to air this as publicly as possible I do not know what to think. You might think the result is a good thing. You would be wrong. 9
The Nehor Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 If poor writing is a sin, I think I know why he got ex'd. Seconded.
WysteriaBlue Posted October 20, 2014 Posted October 20, 2014 Nehor has a very good and balanced point of view here...he had other avenues that he could have taken and chose not to...and there were consequences. And I agree with his point about discernment and bias... Don't just read the one link that the OP offered..go to his blog site and read what he wrote over the last 6 months and then make your own real and reasonable determination as to why the church acted, what were the rules and precedents and doctrine, and what was the real issue of the church with what he wrote. Don't take Nehor's op or my op or the op of this thread...read and investigate and weigh in your own mind what all the options and opinions and consequences could/should and did occur. wb 3
Recommended Posts