Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Cal is one of the most consistent, kind, honest and helpful I have found on this board or any board. For that matter FairMormon goes out of their way to help people with their doubt and to increase faith. Cal and others here do that for me. They are "good people" as my dad used to say.I will endorse that comment and add that her acts and those of others like her are far more praiseworthy in aiding those whose faith is flagging than is the Dehlin approach. 4
why me Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The Ensign had awesome Church history articles in the 70s and early 80s. This is true. See my link in post 391. We knew much back then. I think that many people read too much into the hiding part. And I think that critics have used this "the church hides its history" approach for their own gain by giving their own interpretation. Back in the 70s much was discussed in class. We knew about the polygamy, the first vision accounts, the head in the hat approach etc. I truly think that this gave way to more faith promoting articles and to more how we should live articles. Maybe it was the changing times that caused the change. But now since the JSP are on line and more material is coming out on line by the church, one will no longer be able to claim with a straight face that the church is hiding its history. Edited January 19, 2015 by why me
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Excommunication is spiritual violence not love. I have known nearly a dozen people who have been excommunicated, including the man who was serving as my elders quorum president when I left on my mission. The vast majority of them have taken the event as a blessed opportunity to start again and return to the faith. Not one of them would agree with you. 1
Teancum Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 "Face value" in my experience usually amounts to what our first impressions of words are….which may be much more about our own assumptions than the assumptions of the author in his choice of the words, which in my opinion is more likely to be come close to by the reader taking into account the author's/speaker's ongoing commentary on a subject and not just a sentence or two in one talk.Probably. You do it, I do it and Smac is doing it.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Probably. You do it, I do it and Smac is doing it.Taking a statement at "face value" is too easily given as a rationalization for taking it out of context, which is inexcusable. Furthermore, having observed both cal and Smac online for years, I can say it would be out of character for either of them to do that.
Calm Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Probably. You do it, I do it and Smac is doing it.Yep, but I never claim that I am reading the word's face value as if that has some inherent value over a more complete contextual, nuanced approach. 2
stemelbow Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 I was surprised to see this thread had grown to 21 pages by this morning. Some of the thoughts I read that were included here were interesting. I'm confused on a couple of points. I know that Church takes the position that man can bind on earth and heaven certain things--that if a man is given the keys to do so he may be authorized to withhold eternal blessings or not. But, if that man is acting against the will of God, I can't imagine that binding is effective. Why people get upset about the idea is weird in that sense. Ultimately God is judge. If some guy on earth uses his authority in a way that is against God's will and tries to excommunicate someone from God's graces, or whatever, while on this earth and God does not sanction it, then the effort by this guy is ineffective. THat's my take. If people are so upset about excommunication, just realize, God is judge and He is in control in the end. He'll make up for man's mistakes. The would be no happier with Dehlin if he repented, renounced his stated efforts in terms of fighting the purposes of the Church and returned to Church. I'm sure the local leaders would welcome him with open arms. But he is not interested in doing so. He has suggested already he is happy to be excommunicated if the Church wants him to repent and renounce his feelings on these certain matters. No one seems to think excommunication is a happy thing, or something we should use on anyone carelessly, vindictively, or for public embarrassment. Dehlin is making a fuss about all of this. It's now worth noting in this weird world of discussing Mormon things on the internet. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 But, if that man is acting against the will of God, I can't imagine that binding is effective. Why people get upset about the idea is weird in that sense. Bingo! It would seem that much of the hand-wringing over the supposed spiritual damage of excommunication is by people who don't actually believe in restored priesthood authority anyway, but they don't seem to be able to resist picking up any available stick that can be used to beat the Church with.
Pahoran Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Dehlin's excommunication is irrelevant. Furthermore, his excommunication is not a win for the LDS church or a loss for the moderates, liberal or Ex-Mormon. If the non-conservative members were smart, they would laugh this off due to its broader and general irrelevance to the issues. His excommunication should make little waves outside of drawing more people to him. Excommunication is a joke. If Church membership is a "joke," then so is excommunication. But not otherwise. BTW Val, I really like your avatar. Isn't that the picture of Jesus telling the woman taken in adultery to "Go thy way and sin no more?" Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Taking a statement at "face value" is too easily given as a rationalization for taking it out of context, which is inexcusable. Furthermore, having observed both cal and Smac online for years, I can say it would be out of character for either of them to do that. But President Uchtdorf's words do not mean what Teancum is trying to claim or imply that they mean. Not on their face, and not in any other way. He is engaging in a rather deliberately tendentious reading thereof in order to exploit them for a purpose for which they were never intended.Regards,Pahoran 1
why me Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) I would bet a dollar that those who have now left the church were active supporters of excommunication when they were active members and understood the reasons for it. But now, being out of the church, they beat the church over the head with it. I call it changing circumstances. However, those who beat the church over the head with it know very well that the church must do it so that those who have been exed can come back with a clean slate. This shows the beauty of excommunication: it allows the exed member to come back and begin again by being born again through baptism. Edited January 19, 2015 by why me 1
rockpond Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Cal is one of the most consistent, kind, honest and helpful I have found on this board or any board. For that matter FairMormon goes out of their way to help people with their doubt and to increase faith. Cal and others here do that for me. They are "good people" as my dad used to say. I will endorse that comment and add that her acts and those of others like her are far more praiseworthy in aiding those whose faith is flagging than is the Dehlin approach. Amen.
ERayR Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I am blushing. Accept the compliments gracefully. You deserve them. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Excommunication is serious. It ruins your chance at celestial glory and exaltation.That depends entirely upon the reaction of the person excommunicated. Whether it is the final step out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the first step back into it is entirely up to that person. 2
DBMormon Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I totally agree with you Scott, but whose fault is it, the churches or all Johns? Does the church deserve any blame? The current church essays are also leading several away. I'm not at a computer but read a quote by a church historian today, I think it was Arrington, that predicted this would happen if the church wasn't open, he strongly urged the church to do that but was shut down, and now look what has happened in the internet age. Oh, just remembered it was a post by DB Mormon on FB, I'll c/p tomorrow the quote by Leonard Arrington. But I don't hold John totally blameless, yes he was great to provide a place to land, for those of us that needed someone to relate to but he shouldn't have been so open as to even doubt the existence of God too. If he truly wanted people to try to stay in the church, if that's what we wanted, he should have maybe left out many, many podcasts and kept the ones that encourage one to stay, if that truly was his intention. It may or may not have been that way in the beginning, and may have just evolved to be what it is now.Tacenda in the past 4 months I have gotten an equal number of people in faith crisis attribute their crisis to faith sources as much as critical ones. Anecdotal but still a significant number out there losing faith over the gospel essays #1 essay causing this in my anecdotal experience - race and Priesthood, #2 = Polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvoo Edited January 20, 2015 by DBMormon
DBMormon Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I totally agree with you Scott, but whose fault is it, the churches or all Johns? Does the church deserve any blame? The current church essays are also leading several away. I'm not at a computer but read a quote by a church historian today, I think it was Arrington, that predicted this would happen if the church wasn't open, he strongly urged the church to do that but was shut down, and now look what has happened in the internet age. Oh, just remembered it was a post by DB Mormon on FB, I'll c/p tomorrow the quote by Leonard Arrington. But I don't hold John totally blameless, yes he was great to provide a place to land, for those of us that needed someone to relate to but he shouldn't have been so open as to even doubt the existence of God too. If he truly wanted people to try to stay in the church, if that's what we wanted, he should have maybe left out many, many podcasts and kept the ones that encourage one to stay, if that truly was his intention. It may or may not have been that way in the beginning, and may have just evolved to be what it is now."I realize that the general authorities who were alarmed by our publications did not think it appropriate to discuss matters directly with me, and I can understand why. I thought candor and openness were healthy; they thought forthright history was dangerous to the faith of the weak and provided ammunition for those who made anti-Mormon arguments by taking facts out of context. I thought that providing context for problem quotations and episodes was the best solution; they believed such explanations would never catch up with the use of snippets by the opposition..."... the prophet is not always a determining force in church government. What we really have is a form of collective leadership consisting of the three members of the First Presidency and the twelve members of the Quorum of Apostles. This collective leadership had determined that they must be essentially unanimous. Despite the inevitable wide-ranging diversity of views, the presiding quorums agreed early in church history to maintain a public posture of unanimity so as to minimize dissent and fictionalization within the general membership. If any particular person expresses a strong feeling about a particular matter, his views will normally prevail through the courtesy of others" (pp. 149-150)."With great sadness, I cataloged evidences of anti-intellectualism in the church in a July diary entry: Eugene England and Lowell Bennion were not permitted to publish with Deseret Book or Bookcraft by direct intervention of two members of the Twelve. Carol Lynn Pearson was blacklisted from church publications until she was able 'through prayers and tears' to get one of the Twelve to reverse the decision. Jim Allen was viewed with suspicion because of Story of the Latter-day Saints. The Church News could not review Building the City of God or any other book by our History Division employees without specific clearance from the Twelve. Claudia Bushman and Scott Kenney could not be published or mentioned because of their connection with Exponent II and Sunstone. Several Mormon intellectuals were publishing under pseudonyms." (p. 154)."That fall I reflected: 'At the time of my appointment as Church Historian, ... I had an unshakable conviction that it was possible, if a man was clever enough, to write professional history that would be accepted as such by the profession, and at the same time be acceptable to the intelligent LDS reader. My confidence in that conviction has been shaken during the past few months.' I gave up thinking there was any way to reach the extreme conservatives who saw a 'liberal' in every intelligently written 'fair' book. Some general authorities concerned with protecting the young and bureaucrats fearful of being censured for liking the wrong thing refused to sanction any of our writings and publicly criticized works they deemed controversial..."I summarized, 'it is not that they disapprove of me as Church Historian; they would disapprove of any professional historian, any intellectual, any independent-minded writer. They want someone who (1) has written little history; (2) saturates history with scriptural allusions and references; and (3) obstinately refuses to mention controversial episodes.' Although the tone of this entry comes close to bitterness and discouragement, it suggests my overwhelming desire to feel 'approved' at a time when I was clearly on a collision course with vocal elements among our superiors. It would have helped me if I could have observed hurts and humiliations more impersonally, as points in a game between two very unequally matched opponents, and to find moral victories in decisive tactical losses."
Svawd Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Those who want John excommunicated must be worried if he continues he'll put their testimony in jeopardy.
Tacenda Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) "I realize that the general authorities who were alarmed by our publications did not think it appropriate to discuss matters directly with me, and I can understand why. I thought candor and openness were healthy; they thought forthright history was dangerous to the faith of the weak and provided ammunition for those who made anti-Mormon arguments by taking facts out of context. I thought that providing context for problem quotations and episodes was the best solution; they believed such explanations would never catch up with the use of snippets by the opposition..."... the prophet is not always a determining force in church government. What we really have is a form of collective leadership consisting of the three members of the First Presidency and the twelve members of the Quorum of Apostles. This collective leadership had determined that they must be essentially unanimous. Despite the inevitable wide-ranging diversity of views, the presiding quorums agreed early in church history to maintain a public posture of unanimity so as to minimize dissent and fictionalization within the general membership. If any particular person expresses a strong feeling about a particular matter, his views will normally prevail through the courtesy of others" (pp. 149-150)."With great sadness, I cataloged evidences of anti-intellectualism in the church in a July diary entry: Eugene England and Lowell Bennion were not permitted to publish with Deseret Book or Bookcraft by direct intervention of two members of the Twelve. Carol Lynn Pearson was blacklisted from church publications until she was able 'through prayers and tears' to get one of the Twelve to reverse the decision. Jim Allen was viewed with suspicion because of Story of the Latter-day Saints. The Church News could not review Building the City of God or any other book by our History Division employees without specific clearance from the Twelve. Claudia Bushman and Scott Kenney could not be published or mentioned because of their connection with Exponent II and Sunstone. Several Mormon intellectuals were publishing under pseudonyms." (p. 154)."That fall I reflected: 'At the time of my appointment as Church Historian, ... I had an unshakable conviction that it was possible, if a man was clever enough, to write professional history that would be accepted as such by the profession, and at the same time be acceptable to the intelligent LDS reader. My confidence in that conviction has been shaken during the past few months.' I gave up thinking there was any way to reach the extreme conservatives who saw a 'liberal' in every intelligently written 'fair' book. Some general authorities concerned with protecting the young and bureaucrats fearful of being censured for liking the wrong thing refused to sanction any of our writings and publicly criticized works they deemed controversial..."I summarized, 'it is not that they disapprove of me as Church Historian; they would disapprove of any professional historian, any intellectual, any independent-minded writer. They want someone who (1) has written little history; (2) saturates history with scriptural allusions and references; and (3) obstinately refuses to mention controversial episodes.' Although the tone of this entry comes close to bitterness and discouragement, it suggests my overwhelming desire to feel 'approved' at a time when I was clearly on a collision course with vocal elements among our superiors. It would have helped me if I could have observed hurts and humiliations more impersonally, as points in a game between two very unequally matched opponents, and to find moral victories in decisive tactical losses."Thanks for showing these quotes. Today my browser prompted me to make updates, have put it off for so long it wouldn't wait. But dang, I'm now unable to copy and paste. Need to figure it out. Edited January 20, 2015 by Tacenda
Pahoran Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Those who want John excommunicated must be worried if he continues he'll put their testimony in jeopardy. Either that, or we believe the scriptures when they describe such people as "grievous wolves... not sparing the flock." And are not completely callous and indifferent about it. Take your pick. But maybe your mind-reading skills aren't quite up to snuff. Regards, Pahoran 2
carbon dioxide Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Those who want John excommunicated must be worried if he continues he'll put their testimony in jeopardy.It is just an action to keep order and the house clean. 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I don't speak of the effects of excommunication but the act of excommunication in adopted contemporary sense that pervades the LDS church.Excommunication is spiritual violence not love.So would you rather just let the rats run around and do whatever they want? The Church has to do something. John is sowing contention. Is contention love? Edited January 20, 2015 by carbon dioxide 1
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Those who want John excommunicated must be worried if he continues he'll put their testimony in jeopardy.Maybe I just get perverse pleasure at laughing at people about to go to hell. Did you even think of that?I mean I don't but there are other reasons to boot him. Even if it were just for his own spiritual good he needed the boot.
Avatar4321 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 This is true. See my link in post 391. We knew much back then. I think that many people read too much into the hiding part. And I think that critics have used this "the church hides its history" approach for their own gain by giving their own interpretation. Back in the 70s much was discussed in class. We knew about the polygamy, the first vision accounts, the head in the hat approach etc. I truly think that this gave way to more faith promoting articles and to more how we should live articles. Maybe it was the changing times that caused the change. But now since the JSP are on line and more material is coming out on line by the church, one will no longer be able to claim with a straight face that the church is hiding its history.no one has ever been able to honestly claim that. Especially while sourcing church produced documents to make the claim.
Avatar4321 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Those who want John excommunicated must be worried if he continues he'll put their testimony in jeopardy. one of us want John excommunicated. We want him to repent and rejoin us in full fellowship so he can regain the blessings be is throwing away and so he doesn't lead any more people away. 1
Recommended Posts