The Purge Continues With The Excommunication Of Adrian Larsen

[Calm]

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

 

?

An even greater reason to take notice and caution with his blog by his leaders since he is basically telling people he is backed by God in his challenges to the Church, claims of the Church being dishonest, etc.

[KevinG]

I once compiled my personal revelations from God.

 

#1  Keep it to yourself.

 

The publication was very short.

[Calm]

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?

I think it is a nobrainer that there might be a wee bit of a problem if one sets up one's blogging as a command from God and then condemns the Church for apostasy.

His followers are calling him an Abinadi...who stood up to the wicked, apostate priests of King Noah. I wonder where they got that idea.

[Calm]

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.

Comparing his excommunication to facing a firing squad may not be whining, but playing a drama king isn't better IMO.

[KevinG]

I think it is a nobrainer that there might be a wee bit of a problem if one sets up one's blogging as a command from God and then condemns the Church for apostasy.

His followers are calling him an Abinadi...who stood up to the wicked, apostate priests of King Noah. I wonder where they got that idea.

 

Because Korihor didn't have the same pizzazz?

[KevinG]

Comparing his excommunication to facing a firing squad may not be whining, but playing a drama king isn't better IMO.

 

The Danites just aren't as good a shot as they used to be.

[Calm]

I meant where he acknowledged that  his SP as a good man doing the best he could and acting entirely within his authority.

As the guy who yells "fire" at the execution. Very nice of him.

[Calm]

The Danites just aren't as good a shot as they used to be.

That's because the bullets aren't real. They can shoot all day long, he is above all harm because they have no authority or power to touch him.

[Calm]

Because Korihor didn't have the same pizzazz?

Korihor doesn't fit the circumstances since he wasn't called by God to preach to the apostates.

[rockpond]

Comparing his excommunication to facing a firing squad may not be whining, but playing a drama king isn't better IMO.

 

I know that you understood his metaphor, Cal.  I didn't really see him playing "drama king"... excommunication of oneself and their spouse is a pretty big deal.

 

But obviously the other posters here don't share in any of my concerns about this.  So I will stop.  I'd just really rather see us engage more as a church rather than excommunicate these members -- especially members who are believers.  I don't see how this disciplinary action made us any stronger as a faith community.   It saddens me and worries me.  I probably went off point quite a few times here but my main goal was to understand if we have any room for different thought and how is it permissible to express.

 

My thread has turned into something entirely different than I had hoped.  

[KevinG]

 

My thread has turned into something entirely different than I had hoped.  

 

That my friend is the universal condition of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion kind.

[Avatar4321]

I know that you understood his metaphor, Cal.  I didn't really see him playing "drama king"... excommunication of oneself and their spouse is a pretty big deal.

 

But obviously the other posters here don't share in any of my concerns about this.  So I will stop.  I'd just really rather see us engage more as a church rather than excommunicate these members -- especially members who are believers.  I don't see how this disciplinary action made us any stronger as a faith community.   It saddens me and worries me.  I probably went off point quite a few times here but my main goal was to understand if we have any room for different thought and how is it permissible to express.

 

My thread has turned into something entirely different than I had hoped.

you keep claiming he is a believer. But the evidence doesn't show that. The evidence shows him being critical of the church and its leaders. The evidence shows he cares more about his blog than his covenants. The evidence shows he feels he has been called outside of proper channels to preach his version of the gospel. And the fact that he feels the need to preach his version tells you that he doesn't believe what the church teaches.

[Avatar4321]

Can priesthood leaders ask anything of us?  Does there need to be any justification for their requests?

 

What if his faith is what pushed him to keep the blog?

was Joseph justified in asking Heber C. Kimball for his wife?

a religion that cannot ask us to sacrifice all things does not have the power to produce the faith necessary to save us.

[rockpond]

you keep claiming he is a believer. But the evidence doesn't show that. The evidence shows him being critical of the church and its leaders. The evidence shows he cares more about his blog than his covenants. The evidence shows he feels he has been called outside of proper channels to preach his version of the gospel. And the fact that he feels the need to preach his version tells you that he doesn't believe what the church teaches.

 

I disagree, I think the evidence shows that he is a believer.  Following spiritual promptings to write one's beliefs is not the equivalent of being called outside of proper channels.

 

He doesn't believe ALL that the church teaches.  But I know very few people who believe ALL that the church teaches.

[rockpond]

was Joseph justified in asking Heber C. Kimball for his wife?

a religion that cannot ask us to sacrifice all things does not have the power to produce the faith necessary to save us.

 

In my opinion, no, he wasn't.

 

Who gets to determine what sacrifices we are to make?  The stake president?

[Rob Osborn]

I know that you understood his metaphor, Cal.  I didn't really see him playing "drama king"... excommunication of oneself and their spouse is a pretty big deal.

 

But obviously the other posters here don't share in any of my concerns about this.  So I will stop.  I'd just really rather see us engage more as a church rather than excommunicate these members -- especially members who are believers.  I don't see how this disciplinary action made us any stronger as a faith community.   It saddens me and worries me.  I probably went off point quite a few times here but my main goal was to understand if we have any room for different thought and how is it permissible to express.

 

My thread has turned into something entirely different than I had hoped.

I think I understand where you are coming from. I used to blog for years (rockofsalvation.blogspot.com) on my own views of heaven, salvation, etc, that doesnt jive with our current dotrine. However, I have never been questioned or asked in front of any disciplinary council. I think the difference is the approach and if we are truly questioning versus outright accusing.

[Avatar4321]

In my opinion, no, he wasn't.

 

Who gets to determine what sacrifices we are to make?  The stake president?

and when Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac was that justified?

I disagree, I think the evidence shows that he is a believer.  Following spiritual promptings to write one's beliefs is not the equivalent of being called outside of proper channels.

 

He doesn't believe ALL that the church teaches.  But I know very few people who believe ALL that the church teaches.

so you concede he doesn't believe, so how is he a believer?

[rockpond]

and when Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac was that justified?

so you concede he doesn't believe, so how is he a believer?

 

First question: Yes.  Are you saying that there is equivalence between the Lord and the Stake President in this case?  

 

Second question:  Belief isn't binary.  I didn't concede that "he doesn't believe".  I said that he doesn't believe ALL that the church teaches.  Who does?  My wife is as strong a believer as any I've ever met but she doesn't "believe in" polygamy (I suspect that is a relatively common situation).

 

But more importantly, are we supposed to believe what the "church teaches" or are we supposed to believe truth as testified by the Spirit?

[Avatar4321]

Who is authorized to ask for sacrifice if not those who hold the keys?

false dilemma. The spirit teaches the same thing the church teaches. They are not mutually exclusive..

why do you want to justify this mans apostasy so badly? Why do you want to see him as a believer when he doesn't have the faith to sacrifice a blog?

[KevinG]

Who is authorized to ask for sacrifice if not those who hold the keys?

false dilemma. The spirit teaches the same thing the church teaches. They are not mutually exclusive..

why do you want to justify this mans apostasy so badly? Why do you want to see him as a believer when he doesn't have the faith to sacrifice a blog?

 

...or his pride.  I too wonder why the concern about publicity surrounding a man who if allowed to continue would draw others away from the body of the LDS Church? 

[rockpond]

Who is authorized to ask for sacrifice if not those who hold the keys?

 

That is an interesting perspective... to look at it as a sacrifice being asked of him by the SP for no other reason than just to sacrifice something.  Does an SP have the keys for that kind of thing?  i.e.  Make this sacrifice or lose your membership?

 

false dilemma. The spirit teaches the same thing the church teaches. They are not mutually exclusive..

 

I believe that is false.  The church is a group of fallible mortals.  Of course there are things that the church teaches that are not going to be confirmed by the Holy Spirit as truth.

 

why do you want to justify this mans apostasy so badly? Why do you want to see him as a believer when he doesn't have the faith to sacrifice a blog?

 

I don't see the "sacrifice of the blog" as having been a valid request.  Presenting it as a sacrifice being asked of him is not entirely consistent with what Larsen has shared of the events.

 

I'm not willing, like so many others here, to make the conclusion that he is apostate.  He is a believer unless you are going to call him a liar.  Further, as Larsen quoted, the church has said that members can blog and share their thoughts.

 

Most importantly, I don't see this excommunication as being consistent with scripture... Larsen's main point on the post that I originally linked to.

 

Maybe these voices need to be heard and engaged with rather than excommunicated and shunned as apostate.

[rockpond]

...or his pride.  I too wonder why the concern about publicity surrounding a man who if allowed to continue would draw others away from the body of the LDS Church? 

 

It seems that Larsen places his belief in Christ above his belief in the institution of the LDS Church.

[KevinG]

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.

[KevinG]

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, unless my ego got in the way.  If I'm the smartest guy in the room, I'm probably wrong.

[KevinG]

 

Maybe these voices need to be heard and engaged with rather than excommunicated and shunned as apostate.

 

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.