stemelbow Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Our branch president banned one of our investigators from setting foot inside the building on my mission (with our full support). He began propositioning several sisters in the branch, and the branch president told him that we would get the police if he ever came in the building (the police station was right across the street from the chapel). He came to church with the other elders' mentally-ill eternal investigator. She contacted government officials to try and get them to turn off the satellites because the rays were bouncing off walls and giving her headaches. She had a restraining order against her stemming from following a couple home and asking for her daughter back (she had had an abortion as a teenager, but became convinced that her daughter had lived, and believed the the daughter with the couple was actually hers. She thanked them for taking care of her but wanted her daughter back). He came to church in a tuxedo. He and the lady investigator started up a help group (with newspaper ads) that read, in English: "VOICE. We can help." We taught him the first discussion, and he wanted the priesthood so he could start baptizing people in the lake in the park. He stated that he was Jesus reincarnated and that his new mission was to save the world through his art and music. We promptly stopped teaching him after this eventful first discussion, and his first time at church ended with him propositioning several women, and telling them that they would not be able to resist him. We fully agreed with and supported the ban on coming to church. He was a disruptive and disturbing influence, his profound mental illness notwithstanding. he may not fit well with the modern church, but put him back in history 150 years or so and he'd a fit right in, seems to me. I suppose sexually harassing women at church, these days, is a decent enough reason to disinvite someone.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 From a practical perspective (I'm currently in a calling where we use Handbook 1), we go to the handbook when we are unsure of an answer. Does it always give us the needed answer? No. Do we still rely on inspiration to guide our actions? Yes. But the handbooks provide guidance from those with more experience and with the mantel of leading the church as a whole. All I'm saying is that if the issue of unorthodox/non-literal belief among active members became large enough, don't you think some guidance from the general authorities would be prudent? I'm honestly shocked at the amount of push-back I am receiving on this idea. I really didn't think it would be controversial.In actuality, you and I are not all that far apart on this. I'm just thinking that what you are calling for is already in place. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 The Book of Mormon teaches monotheism while the Book of Abraham teaches polytheism . The Book of Mormon adheres to the teachings found in The Creeds of the 4th and 5th century .The Book of Mormon teaches monotheism in the correct sense that has become corrupted in the Christian sects from before the deaths of all the apostles on through the centuries. That is, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are one God: one in purpose and glory but three separate and distinct individuals. This is the concept that is reflected in Jesus's intercessory prayer recorded in John 17. Much of Christendom has misunderstood the concept reflected in this chapter -- just as you obviously have misunderstood the concept of monotheism taught in the Book of Mormon.
rockpond Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 In actuality, you and I are not all that far apart on this. I'm just thinking that what you are calling for is already in place. Perhaps I'm wrong. Glad to hear it. In terms of a disciplinary council, I don't think that "apostasy" is well defined in the handbooks. I assume a complete lack of literal/historical belief would fall under that apostasy label IF it were to come to a disciplinary council. Which I think is a question in itself. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Glad to hear it. In terms of a disciplinary council, I don't think that "apostasy" is well defined in the handbooks. I assume a complete lack of literal/historical belief would fall under that apostasy label IF it were to come to a disciplinary council. Which I think is a question in itself.I would say that apostasy as a general concept is quite a bit broader than the definition that constitutes an offense warranting a Church-imposed penalty. But then, you are the one with a copy of Handbook 1, not I. Edited to add: Perhaps the definition, for good reason, is not as explicit as you want. There needs to be some room for local priesthood leaders to seek their own divine direction and deliberate on their own part. Just a thought that occurred to me. Edited January 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I would say that apostasy as a general concept is quite a bit broader than the definition that constitutes an offense warranting a Church-imposed penalty. But then, you are the one with a copy of Handbook 1, not I. Edited to add: Perhaps the definition, for good reason, is not as explicit as you want. There needs to be some room for local priesthood leaders to seek their own divine direction and deliberate on their own part. Just a thought that occurred to me. I do think that they want local priesthood leaders to seek their own divine direction and I agree that's why it is somewhat vague. I was responding to the point that was raised by someone else (some time back) of what to do when non-literal believers desire to share those ideas regularly in Sunday meetings and classes. If that were to become a widespread problem, I could see wanting some guidance from our leaders in SLC. Again, I'm only referring to guidance (the type of guidance that the handbooks provide) not an abdication of local priesthood pastoral responsibilities.
canard78 Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) EDIT: Ignore this one, it's too much of a tangent to the thread. I've started a new one Scott. The Book of Mormon teaches monotheism in the correct sense that has become corrupted in the Christian sects from before the deaths of all the apostles on through the centuries. That is, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are one God: one in purpose and glory but three separate and distinct individuals.This is the concept that is reflected in Jesus's intercessory prayer recorded in John 17.Much of Christendom has misunderstood the concept reflected in this chapter -- just as you obviously have misunderstood the concept of monotheism taught in the Book of Mormon.This is a genuine question, not a throwaway quip. Is there somewhere that teaches the following in the Book of Mormon. There may well be, I'm just scratching my head trying to think of where it is. It may be implied in places but I was wondering if it's said explicitly anywhere. Especially in the 1830 version as opposed to the one later corrected (although I'd even take the current version for these as I can't think of any off the top of my head).- Father, Son and Holy Ghost are united in purpose by are three distinct individuals. - Father and Son have a body of flesh and bloodSo imagine a Trinitarian read the Book of Mormon in 1830. What would correct their misunderstanding? Edited January 10, 2015 by canard78
Kevin Christensen Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 EDIT: Ignore this one, it's too much of a tangent to the thread. I've started a new one Scott.This is a genuine question, not a throwaway quip. Is there somewhere that teaches the following in the Book of Mormon. There may well be, I'm just scratching my head trying to think of where it is. It may be implied in places but I was wondering if it's said explicitly anywhere. Especially in the 1830 version as opposed to the one later corrected (although I'd even take the current version for these as I can't think of any off the top of my head).- Father, Son and Holy Ghost are united in purpose by are three distinct individuals.- Father and Son have a body of flesh and bloodSo imagine a Trinitarian read the Book of Mormon in 1830. What would correct their misunderstanding? 2 Nephi 25:5 explains that "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." So one thing that changed many of my misunderstandings and could change many ethnocentric 1830 misreadings would be that. Learning the context. As Margaret Barker says, you have to stand where they stood in order to see what they saw. Remove the beams from your own eye, and then you can see clearly. FWIW Kevin ChristensenWest Jordan, UT (visiting family) 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 2 Nephi 25:5 explains that "there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." So one thing that changed many of my misunderstandings and could change many ethnocentric 1830 misreadings would be that. Learning the context. As Margaret Barker says, you have to stand where they stood in order to see what they saw. Remove the beams from your own eye, and then you can see clearly. FWIW Kevin Christensen West Jordan, UT (visiting family)Thank you, Kevin. This is good. What I had in mind (and I haven't yet visited canard78's new thread to see whether it has been brought up there) is the passage in the account of the resurrected Christ's visit to the Nephites in America wherein He prays to the Father and expresses concepts identical or similar to the ones in His intercessory prayer of John 17. It means that the New Testament and the Book of Mormon are consistent in how they teach the unity of the Godhead. It doesn't mean that either is wrong. Only that those who misunderstand the teachings are misguided. I'll provide a scripture reference later, and perhaps I'll visit the thread that Canard started for me.
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Even thou the Book of Mormon agrees with the Creeds, it isn't canonized like the Creeds since it's not written by a Prophet or Apostle or God breathed like the Bible
HOLY CATHOLIC Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 No where does the Book of Mormon teach ONE GOD in purpose but ONE GOD by nature represented by separate and distinct persons [ Father Son and Holy Ghost ] which the Creeds of the Christian Faith teach.
Ham Clam Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I would say that people who want to stay in the Church, but believe the BOM is non-historical are more liberal Protestants who believe LDS scripture is inspiring and believe it in ways that fit their framework (there theological concepts are important to me, this is God giving specific directions to this church, ect).
DBMormon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 John Dehlin recently posted this on his FB feed: Let me be clear, this discussion isn't about whether Dehlin is correct (I understand him to be saying that the Book of Mormon is not historical). What I want to know is whether or not the Church, as you understand it, is interested in having people who openly agree with him (about the Book of Mormon not being historical) to be "active members"? Should it be? What would happen if you had a Gospel Doctrine class with 10% of the people who didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or even the New Testament)? How about 20%? Or 50%? At what point does it become unacceptable? In the past, it has been taught "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." And this has been closely linked to the historicity of the Book of Mormon; if it isn't "true" (including historically), then the rest of the truth claims of the Church involving Joseph Smith and Priesthood authority are on very shaky ground. So is there room for someone who doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical record (as Joseph Smith claimed it was)? And if so, how many people are there room for until it fundamentally changes the nature of what it means to be a "Mormon"?Elder Holland answers this directly and I cede to his view http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive. 1
Ham Clam Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 HOLY CATHOLIC, have you read the Book of Mormon articles from Dialogue or the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies from the Neil A. Mawsell Institute?
Ham Clam Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Elder Holland answers this directly and I cede to his view http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html... and yo, DBMormon, when will you update your signature to the current URL of your podcast? Sorry, I'm just nit-picking.
DBMormon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Recently we were advised to not let a certain man come to our meetings on Sundays. He's a weird kid (I call him kid but he's in his early 30s and lives with is mom). He's been showing up and it's been suspected that he's recorded scenes from sacrament on his phone, which I kinda doubt. He's sat by me a time or two and while he's using his phone I haven't seen him video'ing anything. So as we discussed it, I objected, "let him come. he's not hurting anything". The priesthood quorums set out to schedule men to sit by all the doors of the building. Lock the doors and let people in as they come. But if he came, don't let him in. I was scheduled to do it, "ah too bad I have to teach that hour". This went on for weeks without the guy showing up. One week he finally decided to come again. Just as he was walking towards the building the EQP drove into the parking lot. He got out and ran in to talk to the bishop (let's just say people are afraid to confront this kid). "he's here...he's here...what shall we do?" The bishop went out to see him, greeted him kindly and asked him not to come back. Behind the bishop was a crew of other men and leaders looking intimidating. The kid left. We haven't seen him since, at least not at Church.We got rid of that unbeliever, we did. Although, I admit, I don't feel a bit good about it.That's Sad and based on your description of his wrongs... unexcusable Edited January 12, 2015 by DBMormon
DBMormon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 ... and yo, DBMormon, when will you update your signature to the current URL of your podcast? Sorry, I'm just nit-picking. Thanks.... Fixed! 1
Ham Clam Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 ... and HOLY CATHOLIC, introduce yourself in the Social Hall and charm us like the rest of the regular Catholic posters here. Sorry, it just feels like your here to be hostle.
DBMormon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Anecdotally, Jeff Burton told a story a couple of time about his being a teacher in High Priests. At the time an older version of the handbook stated that one need have a testimony to teach. Jeff was publicly acknowledging he did not have a testimony of the BOM or the restoration and so his HPGL wanted to release him. Jeff wrote President Packer and President Packer called the ward Leader and notified him that "faithfulness" was enough and the next addition of the handbook was changed to reflect this.
Tacenda Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Anecdotally, Jeff Burton told a story a couple of time about his being a teacher in High Priests. At the time an older version of the handbook stated that one need have a testimony to teach. Jeff was publicly acknowledging he did not have a testimony of the BOM or the restoration and so his HPGL wanted to release him. Jeff wrote President Packer and President Packer called the ward Leader and notified him that "faithfulness" was enough and the next addition of the handbook was changed to reflect this.Awesome, especially coming from Pres. Packer!
HappyJackWagon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 stemelbow, on 08 Jan 2015 - 12:23 PM, said:Recently we were advised to not let a certain man come to our meetings on Sundays. He's a weird kid (I call him kid but he's in his early 30s and lives with is mom). He's been showing up and it's been suspected that he's recorded scenes from sacrament on his phone, which I kinda doubt. He's sat by me a time or two and while he's using his phone I haven't seen him video'ing anything. So as we discussed it, I objected, "let him come. he's not hurting anything". The priesthood quorums set out to schedule men to sit by all the doors of the building. Lock the doors and let people in as they come. But if he came, don't let him in. I was scheduled to do it, "ah too bad I have to teach that hour". This went on for weeks without the guy showing up. One week he finally decided to come again. Just as he was walking towards the building the EQP drove into the parking lot. He got out and ran in to talk to the bishop (let's just say people are afraid to confront this kid). "he's here...he's here...what shall we do?" The bishop went out to see him, greeted him kindly and asked him not to come back. Behind the bishop was a crew of other men and leaders looking intimidating. The kid left. We haven't seen him since, at least not at Church.We got rid of that unbeliever, we did. Although, I admit, I don't feel a bit good about it.DBMormon: That's Sad and based on your description of his wrongs... unexcusable How strange. We've followed a similar procedure in the past but it has been because physical threats had been made and it was perceived as a safety issue. I assume the SP would have also had to agree on this course of action. Seems like extreme overkill if the kid was truly just recording in Sacrament meeting.. 1
ERayR Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 How strange. We've followed a similar procedure in the past but it has been because physical threats had been made and it was perceived as a safety issue. I assume the SP would have also had to agree on this course of action. Seems like extreme overkill if the kid was truly just recording in Sacrament meeting.. As I stated in another thread, as I read some of these posts i think my ward must be exceptional. In the last ten years the only thing that I remember is a person with Thiretts (sp) stopped for sacrament meeting on his way through and we had a retarded young man the Bishop and YM leaders worked with for several months until he stopped coming. And oh there is the young woman who is emotionally disturbed that the YW leaders have been working with for three years. She is making great improvements. We haven't had anybody that caused a mobilization of the Danites.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 We haven't had anybody that caused a mobilization of the Danites.Congratulations. Over the years I've seen bomb threats. We've had a prophetess claim the apostacy of the church who was going to set things straight in meetings. We've had domestic disputes that overflowed into gun threats at the church. We've had death threats against the bishop by a mentally disturbed person with access to weapons. Comparing safety precausions to unauthorized Danite violence is pathetic. I look forward to your next snarky remark.
DBMormon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 How strange. We've followed a similar procedure in the past but it has been because physical threats had been made and it was perceived as a safety issue. I assume the SP would have also had to agree on this course of action. Seems like extreme overkill if the kid was truly just recording in Sacrament meeting..assumed he was recording, the poster admits there was not solid evidence... that is what makes it horrible to me.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 assumed he was recording, the poster admits there was not solid evidence... that is what makes it horrible to me.Right. There may be legitimate reasons to ban a person from the church, but I don't see how recording (even if the accusation is true) is grounds for bannishment and guarded doors.
Recommended Posts