The Purge Continues With The Excommunication Of Adrian Larsen

[rockpond]

I did read some of the blogs and liked some of the scriptures and analogies and then others irritated me. There seemed to be the feeling that the core of truth is or was in the gospel and with some of his thinking it may be able to be righted. It is quite tedious to read and it finally isn't worth the time and the take away for me is that despite his desire to help save the church, he is sewing seeds of dissension. Certainly he is now on the apostate circuit and soon he will have a Mormon Stories podcast,the equivalent of getting your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone for Rock Stars.

 

Mormon Stories interviews both those who have left the church and those who are active, faithful members.

[KevinG]

I completely agree.  Can we also agree that there is a difference between teaching a sunday school class and writing on one's personal blog?

 

Personal blogs and public teachings are so conflated these days as to be nearly indistinguishable from each other.  Presenting one's self as a public authority on Mormonism, be it through discussion boards, blogs, webcasts, radio or print materials... puts one in a place of responsibility for the message.  If I were to publish online about an organization I represented (which we do through the priesthood), you bet I'd be held accountable to their authorities for what I said.

 

The level of accountability and authority would have to be a local and case by case, call.  That is one reason I'm loathe to second guess a Stake President's decision, based on only one side of the story.  How many times was this person asked or counselled "we don't teach that..." only to disregard the counsel and set himself apart from the church and its teachings?

 

I think it is rather disingenuous to seek an audience for your teachings, then complain that they were only personal musings, when corrected.

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Yes, there is a difference.  More people read a blog than pay attention in class. 

 

You win the internet today.

[rockpond]

Brother Larsen got to decide which was more important to him, his blog or his membership. His decision, in contrast to Bro. Woolley , who, according to Nibley's account in ' Approaching Zion' ,got to choose between his dance hall and his membership, was to choose his blog.

At times we forget or down play the fact that the God of the Old Testament had a favorite meme, ie. obedience. Christ also seemed in favor of obedience as a way to show the love of God. The more sophisticated of us now have nuanced that meme considerably.

 

Larsen says that he felt called of God to write the blog.  

 

Is there any limit as to the demands that priesthood leaders can make while threatening our membership?  Why was it okay for them to order him to take down the blog?  Or is that not even a question we get to consider?

[KevinG]

Larsen says that he felt called of God to write the blog.  

 

Is there any limit as to the demands that priesthood leaders can make while threatening our membership?  Why was it okay for them to order him to take down the blog?  Or is that not even a question we get to consider?

 

If someone separates themselves from the body of the church by preaching a different set of beliefs, excommunication is a rather natural consequence of that action.  Using words like threatening and demanding don't really reflect the process of disciplinary hearings.

 

Very few organizations would use a process that calls upon someone to privately explain their situation, and assigns advocates for them, to "threaten".  

 

If someone says to me they were inspired by God to leave the LDS Church, my honest answer is always, listen to God.

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[rockpond]

Personal blogs and public teachings are so conflated these days as to be nearly indistinguishable from each other.  Presenting one's self as a public authority on Mormonism, be it through discussion boards, blogs, webcasts, radio or print materials... puts one in a place of responsibility for the message.  If I were to publish online about an organization I represented (which we do through the priesthood), you bet I'd be held accountable to their authorities for what I said.

 

The level of accountability and authority would have to be a local and case by case, call.  That is one reason I'm loathe to second guess a Stake President's decision, based on only one side of the story.  How many times was this person asked or counselled "we don't teach that..." only to disregard the counsel and set himself apart from the church and its teachings?

 

I think it is rather disingenuous to seek an audience for your teachings, then complain that they were only personal musings, when corrected.

 

I don't know who is right and who is wrong in this case.  As you noted, we only have one side of the story.  I'm trying to look at it for some of the broader implications.  If priesthood leaders have the ability to threaten membership if we don't remove blogs, do they need to identify the reasons for making such a demand?  Did the SP do that and Larsen is just lying about it?

[rockpond]

If someone separates themselves from the body of the church by preaching a different set of beliefs, excommunication is a rather natural consequence of that action.  Using words like threatening and demanding don't really reflect the process of disciplinary hearings.

 

Very few organizations would use a process that calls upon someone to privately explain their situation, and assigns advocates for them, to "threaten".  

 

If someone says to me they were inspired by God to leave the LDS Church, my honest answer is always, listen to God.

 

Larsen didn't separate himself.  He was an active, temple-recommend holding church member who shared his beliefs on his blog as he felt he was called to do.

 

If your priesthood leader tells you to remove your blog and turn over your temple recommend or be excommunicated is that not a threat/demand?

[KevinG]

I don't know who is right and who is wrong in this case.  As you noted, we only have one side of the story.  I'm trying to look at it for some of the broader implications.  If priesthood leaders have the ability to threaten membership if we don't remove blogs, do they need to identify the reasons for making such a demand?  Did the SP do that and Larsen is just lying about it?

 

My assumption is that he would have been counseled prior to the action of excommunication.  That is almost always the case unless the sin is egregious and public, and/or the person counseled refuses to be contacted in any way to answer the summons to the disciplinary counsel.  Church discipline is progressive and always intended to bring the offending individual back to active status.

 

If that wasn't done (i.e. random sniping of apostates through public blogs) then the process was not followed properly.  However I doubt that is the case.

[KevinG]

Larsen didn't separate himself.  He was an active, temple-recommend holding church member who shared his beliefs on his blog as he felt he was called to do.

 

If your priesthood leader tells you to remove your blog and turn over your temple recommend or be excommunicated is that not a threat/demand?

 

Is that how it happened?  Can you verify that?

[KevinG]

Here is a very good description of the process, and how it has worked every time I've witnessed it (either as one who needed to repent, or one who was counseling).

 

A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings

BY ELDER M. RUSSELL BALLARD

 

The bishopric, in consultation with the stake president, has the responsibility and authority to hold disciplinary councils for all ward members. However, if excommunication of a Melchizedek Priesthood holder is thought to be a possibility, the matter is transferred to the stake presidency, who, with the assistance of the high council, may convene a stake disciplinary council.

An appeal of a decision of a ward disciplinary council goes to the stake presidency and high council. Any further appeals go to the First Presidency.

Missions and districts have jurisdiction similar to that of stakes and wards, with mission presidents having jurisdiction over the missionaries and branch members in districts over whom they preside.

A disciplinary council begins with an opening prayer, followed by a statement of the reason for the council being convened. The member is asked to tell in simple and general terms about the transgression and to explain his or her feelings and what steps of repentance he or she has taken. The member may respond to clarifying questions from the leaders. Then he or she is excused, and the leaders counsel together, pray, and reach a decision.

The council takes into consideration many factors, such as whether temple or marriage covenants have been violated; whether a position of trust or authority has been abused; the repetition, seriousness, and magnitude of the transgression; the age, maturity, and experience of the transgressor; the interests of innocent victims and innocent family members; the time between transgression and confession; whether or not confession was voluntary; and evidence of repentance.

Those who sit on the council are to keep everything strictly confidential and to handle the matter in a spirit of love. Their objective is not retribution; rather, it is to help the member make the changes necessary to stand clean before God once more.

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is that how it happened?  Can you verify that?

No, he cant.

[rockpond]

Larsen didn't separate himself.  He was an active, temple-recommend holding church member who shared his beliefs on his blog as he felt he was called to do.

 

If your priesthood leader tells you to remove your blog and turn over your temple recommend or be excommunicated is that not a threat/demand?

 

Is that how it happened?  Can you verify that?

 

I don't know, all we have is Larsen's side of the story.  But what Larsen is saying is very concerning to me as are the recent excommunications and threats of disciplinary action for other LDS bloggers and podcasters.

 

I feel like maybe the church needs to make some official pronouncements here... is it okay to share your thoughts, interpretations, and ideas on a blog (as our spokeswoman recently said on the radio) or is it not?  What are the boundaries?

[The Nehor]

I respect your interpretations of his writings but I don't think you've shown that he is being deceptive.  Just as your interpretations are yours, his interpretations are his.  The two of you obviously disagree -- is that grounds for excommunication?  Is that what we want in the church?  Should those who express dissenting views on these threads also face disciplinary action?

Yes it is grounds for excommunication and I do want those with dissenting views kicked out. They can say what they like but not while also claiming to be a member of the LDS church in good standing. His views are apostate. He says that the church is in a state of apostasy. Not sure why his membership matters to him at that point......I certainly wouldn't care if I held his views.

[The Nehor]

Larsen says that he felt called of God to write the blog.  

 

Is there any limit as to the demands that priesthood leaders can make while threatening our membership?  Why was it okay for them to order him to take down the blog?  Or is that not even a question we get to consider?

Then Larsen should write the blog and expect God to back up his decision instead of whinging about it. Many prophets of old were cast out of their community. They did not waste their time whining about it. Perhaps more tellingly they did not do it and then get praised by "the world" for it.

There is a limit. If they threaten unjustly they go to hell. It was okay. Because the blog was opposed to the gospel and the church designed to support it. It led people to damnation. He can do that (most people do) but he cannot do it while claiming full fellowship in the church.

[rockpond]

Yes it is grounds for excommunication and I do want those with dissenting views kicked out. They can say what they like but not while also claiming to be a member of the LDS church in good standing. His views are apostate. He says that the church is in a state of apostasy. Not sure why his membership matters to him at that point......I certainly wouldn't care if I held his views.

 

I haven't read all of his posts.  Can you quote for me where he claims that the church is in a state of apostasy?

[The Nehor]

I haven't read all of his posts.  Can you quote for me where he claims that the church is in a state of apostasy?

Maybe tonight when I am off of work.

[rockpond]

Then Larsen should write the blog and expect God to back up his decision instead of whinging about it. Many prophets of old were cast out of their community. They did not waste their time whining about it. Perhaps more tellingly they did not do it and then get praised by "the world" for it.

There is a limit. If they threaten unjustly they go to hell. It was okay. Because the blog was opposed to the gospel and the church designed to support it. It led people to damnation. He can do that (most people do) but he cannot do it while claiming full fellowship in the church.

 

Again, can you cite what in his blog was "opposed to the gospel and the church"?

 

p.s.  He isn't "whining" about anything.  He published a post in the same way he has done before.  Your characterizations of the man (that you don't know) speak more to you than to him.

Edited October 21, 2014 by rockpond

[The Nehor]

Again, can you cite what in his blog was "opposed to the gospel and the church"?

For that one I recommend just starting at the beginning and reading a few posts.

[rockpond]

For that one I recommend just starting at the beginning and reading a few posts.

 

I have and he is quite supportive of the church and a firm believer in the gospel.

[KevinG]

Again, can you cite what in his blog was "opposed to the gospel and the church"?

 

p.s.  He isn't "whining" about anything.  He published a post in the same way he has done before.  Your characterizations of the man (that you don't know) speak more to you than to him.

 

Yet you are comfortable with his description of the intent of an entire Stake High Council (i.e. sharing the description of their actions as threats?)

 

Please read Elder Nelsons description of the disciplinary counsel process before proceeding.

[KevinG]

I have and he is quite supportive of the church and a firm believer in the gospel.

 

Believer in the Gospel I can see.  Supporter of the Church, not so much as an institution or the persons in authority in his Stake.

[KevinG]

All people accused of apostasy are victims of the church.  Much like all men in prison are innocent.

[rockpond]

Believer in the Gospel I can see.  Supporter of the Church, not so much as an institution or the persons in authority in his Stake.

 

Did you read his comments on his stake president?

[rockpond]

All people accused of apostasy are victims of the church.  Much like all men in prison are innocent.

 

With that statement are you proclaiming Larsen's guilt?  Were you in the disciplinary council?

[The Nehor]

I have and he is quite supportive of the church and a firm believer in the gospel.

No.

He starts out by telling us that the Church is not teaching principles necessary for exaltation. Then he starts reading from the Lectures on Faith and suggests that the church villainously culled it from the canon to hide it from us. Later he tells us that the gospel has not been taught completely since 1944 but now he is here to tell us the truth and how to find eternal life. Never mind that the "suppressed stuff" he is re revealing is in many if not most faithful LDS homes and that his spin on the text is wrong in any case.

If I was the Stake President I would call into my office and ask him to stop. If he did not I would excommunicate him.