mormonnewb Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 See my sig line, the part in red.It doesn't show up on the mobile version. Care to cut and paste?
Popular Post KevinG Posted February 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 4, 2015 Apostasy tends to be a self selecting process. Church disciplinary hearings on matters of public apostasy tend to be formalities after the fact. This of course does not prevent the apostates from complaining bitterly about how they were the offended party. 6
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 That's funny because I'm reading this thread on a mobile device and so I scrolled upon the text of your post before seeing who wrote it. I originally thought it was from someone on my side of the aisle because that same description could apply the Church's narrative. In fact, I'd argue that if the Church wasn't so "selective" in its retelling of the facts (recent efforts excepted) and so confident in its SEO optimization strategies (someone earnestly seeking "truth" will go past the first page of results), Dehlin wouldn't have much of an audience to speak to. if you're going to speak to historical matters particularly as you attempt to define the attitudes and motivations of those long gone, you're going to run into disagreement. there will always be an audience when it comes to such matters. But to your point, if the Church only listed historical data and let the readers reason together the narrative, you'd have a point. But that's not typically how this all works. No one is boring enough to list data and let the audience decide.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) It doesn't show up on the mobile version. Care to cut and paste?Sure. I'll give you the entire sig while I'm at it. I'm especially fond of the quote from Elder Nelson. I added it a few days ago because of its timeliness. "Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God." -- Elder Russell M. NelsonNobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears. Edited February 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Apostasy tends to be a self selecting process. Church disciplinary hearings on matters of public apostasy tend to be formalities after the fact. This of course does not prevent the apostates from complaining bitterly about how they were the offended party. Sure it does. Plenty of such apostates have prevented from complaining bitterly about how they were the offended party. Indeed, I've spoken with plenty, as I suggested earlier, some of whom actually feel excommunication was a help for them.
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 All of your points are valid, but they seem to be based on the assumption that Dehlin is an ecclesiastic leader (eg, no church could have someone who thought the Bible was a fairy tale speaking from the pulpit). I agree that Dehlin shouldn't be a bishop or teaching SS, EQ, YM, primary, etc. And I suspect that my dear brother has no desire to do so. However, I think there is a difference between being disqualified from positions of leadership in the Church and being disqualified from MEMBERSHIP. Sure. I'm pretty much disqualified from positions of leadership but I remain a member.
why me Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Thanks for your input. I understand what you mean about the Catholics, LDS, and EV's each having their own doctrine per say, and having to stick to them. But in our church there seems to be a lot of wiggle room in some areas where things have changed significantly. I guess that is the beauty of our faith, that it has that clause, it can change over time with a living prophet and being guided through revelation or the spirit. I just don't like that our church didn't give me enough trust from the beginning to let it all hang out. When I was 8 yrs. old and went into the bishops office for my baptismal interview, I had no idea the real JS story. I had the Santa Claus version. Though I totally believe in the Santa Claus version as far as the spirit of it's meaning comes. So in that respect I think I can strive to believe in Mormonism and lean on the spirit of it all. Since I really don't believe anyone has seen Christ when they were alive and Christ was resurrected except for the apostles and Mary etc. I'm still trying to accept Christ now, because once that bubble burst I'm trying to pick up those pieces and not lose Christianity. I really liked the cut and dry, but it didn't sink in enough that the church can change or that we have fallible prophets. I was truly one of the ones that believe he should be infallible. Lame I know!All religions give the santa clause version to their members. However, lds members know morre about their history than most people of other faiths How much should you have known at 8? Like I said, back in 2003 a book was published about hyrum and sold in the lds bookshop and it is still being sold. The polygamy issue is in that book. Did you read it 12 years ago? And if not, why? In the 70s I read Leonard Arrington's Mormon Experience. It had everything about polygamy and in it it told not about the lack of women but about ancient isreal and its practice. Did you read that book? My NYC ward was all abuzz about that book and no one left the church because of it. I think that we all need a reality check about what was hidden. Pick up Mormon Experience by Leonard and see what we read back then. It is an interesting book. Edited February 4, 2015 by why me 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Sure. I'm pretty much disqualified from positions of leadership but I remain a member.There are things that even a non-office holding member could do that would make him ineligible for membership -- particularly if he uses his membership as a credential while doing them. Edited February 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Stemelbow I agree... in fact the quiet ones are the majority of cases. Those of us who have gone through church discipline, repented, and recommitted ourselves to discipleship, rarely appeal to public opinion. Edited February 4, 2015 by KevinG
mormonnewb Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Sure.I'll give you the entire sig while I'm at it. I'm especially fond of the quote from Elder Nelson. I added it a few days ago because its timeliness.I partially agree with the quote about selective facts, and for us, I think that's progress!
Calm Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Never mind... Edited February 4, 2015 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I partially agree with the quote about selective facts, and for us, I think that's progress!Whether it's progress or not depends on the part you agree with.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Never mind...The ever-helpful calmoriah. Both the original sig line and my copy-and-paste show up on my iPod touch. Go figure. Actually, now that I think about it, I do believe the version that I access with my iPod is the full site, not the mobile site. Edited February 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
mormonnewb Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 There are things that even a non-office holding member could do that would make him ineligible for membership -- particularly if he uses his membership as credential while doing them.You ruined our moment of agreement, but you do bring up a very good point. I agree that the Church's motive in ex'ing Dehlin is to take away his credibility as a Mormon -- to marginalize him like a Tanner or Decker.I just don't think it will work. In fact, it only adds to the narrative that the Church has something to hide. When members come across "non-correlated materials," they often feel betrayed; that the Church has been "hiding" the truth from them. And what does the Church do in response -- it excommunicates the very person who has been exposing "the truth" (and yes, I acknowledge that it isn't the WHOLE truth). This plays into the very narrative that so many of you decry.The person in a faith crisis isn't going to rest on the Church's stamp of approval to determine who is a credible source. If that were the case, she would not have sought out Mormon Stories in the first place (after all, the Church has DOZENS of podcasts).So while ex'ing Dehlin marginalizes him amongst the faithful (who don't listen to him anyway), it only boosts his credibility as someone who "speaks truth the power" among those with the shakiest testimonies.Aside from the propriety of excommunication, it just seems like a counterproductive exercise for the Church. In fact, Dehlin's vascillation (and I can relate) between being in or out of the Church was damaging his own brand. But now, the Church has made it easy for him. Simply from a strategic standpoint, I can't see an upside to his excommunication for the Church.
why me Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) All of your points are valid, but they seem to be based on the assumption that Dehlin is an ecclesiastic leader (eg, no church could have someone who thought the Bible was a fairy tale speaking from the pulpit).I agree that Dehlin shouldn't be a bishop or teaching SS, EQ, YM, primary, etc. And I suspect that my dear brother has no desire to do so. However, I think there is a difference between being disqualified from positions of leadership in the Church and being disqualified from MEMBERSHIP.John holds the priesthood and he broadcasts his disbelief to all those who will listen. He is also beginning a business which to my understanding has the name Mormon in it. Something to do with mental health. John has been given chances in the past. He was welcomed back by his ward when he returned to church. And then left again and began another crusade against the lds church. In mormonism the best way to deal with such a member who encourages others to leave, is to excommunicate. But the good news is that he can always return. Edited February 4, 2015 by why me
mormonnewb Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Sure. I'm pretty much disqualified from positions of leadership but I remain a member.I'm also a proud member of Team DQ.
USU78 Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I partially agree with the quote about selective facts, and for us, I think that's progress! "progress" presupposes a past deficiency. I dispute the existence of such a past deficiency.
why me Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Aside from the propriety of excommunication, it just seems like a counterproductive exercise for the Church. In fact, Dehlin's vascillation (and I can relate) between being in or out of the Church was damaging his own brand. But now, the Church has made it easy for him. Simply from a strategic standpoint, I can't see an upside to his excommunication for the Church.If his new business has the word mormon in it, I think that it would be best for him to be exed since he would be capitalizing on him being a mormon. The church is strengthening its brand by taking charge of the situation. And most people understand that no church can tolerate a priesthood member who disbelieves and actively goes to the press to announce it. I tend to give people some credit of understanding.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 You ruined our moment of agreement, but you do bring up a very good point. I agree that the Church's motive in ex'ing Dehlin is to take away his credibility as a Mormon -- to marginalize him like a Tanner or Decker.I actually don't see a great deal of difference. Whether you seek to destroy the Church by opposing it from without or trying from within to redefine it out of existence, the effect is the same. 1
bluebell Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I'm also a proud member of Team DQ. Who doesn't love some good Dairy Queen? 4
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 You ruined our moment of agreement, but you do bring up a very good point. I agree that the Church's motive in ex'ing Dehlin is to take away his credibility as a Mormon -- to marginalize him like a Tanner or Decker. I just don't think it will work. In fact, it only adds to the narrative that the Church has something to hide. When members come across "non-correlated materials," they often feel betrayed; that the Church has been "hiding" the truth from them. And what does the Church do in response -- it excommunicates the very person who has been exposing "the truth" (and yes, I acknowledge that it isn't the WHOLE truth). This plays into the very narrative that so many of you decry. The person in a faith crisis isn't going to rest on the Church's stamp of approval to determine who is a credible source. If that were the case, she would not have sought out Mormon Stories in the first place (after all, the Church has DOZENS of podcasts). So while ex'ing Dehlin marginalizes him amongst the faithful (who don't listen to him anyway), it only boosts his credibility as someone who "speaks truth the power" among those with the shakiest testimonies. Aside from the propriety of excommunication, it just seems like a counterproductive exercise for the Church. In fact, Dehlin's vascillation (and I can relate) between being in or out of the Church was damaging his own brand. But now, the Church has made it easy for him. Simply from a strategic standpoint, I can't see an upside to his excommunication for the Church. I think the actual decision to ex-communicate is that of his local leaders, even if they may have been asked to pursue it from higher up. As it is, I don't know that we're so privy to what they are thinking--whether they want it done because they don't want Dehlin to influence other members or if they want it done for many other things, even added to that. We won't know. Not sure a up side for the Church is factored in on their side or not. But it could be. maybe though, they are thinking far more locally--excommunicating him may help keep other local members in buying into what he's selling.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 John holds the priesthood and he broadcasts his disbelief to all those who will listen. He is also beginning a business which to my understanding has the name Mormon in it. Something to do with mental health. John has been given chances in the past. He was welcomed back by his ward when he returned to church. And then left again and began another crusade against the lds church. In mormonism the best way to deal with such a member who encourages others to leave, is to excommunicate. But the good news is that he can always return.Can always return if he repents. That's a substantial qualifier. 2
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Who doesn't love some good Dairy Queen? DQ so far has three members it seems--a black man, a woman, and a tiny white guy who pretends he has something interesting to say.
Popular Post USU78 Posted February 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 4, 2015 Thanks for your input. I understand what you mean about the Catholics, LDS, and EV's each having their own doctrine per say, and having to stick to them. But in our church there seems to be a lot of wiggle room in some areas where things have changed significantly. I guess that is the beauty of our faith, that it has that clause, it can change over time with a living prophet and being guided through revelation or the spirit. I just don't like that our church didn't give me enough trust from the beginning to let it all hang out. When I was 8 yrs. old and went into the bishops office for my baptismal interview, I had no idea the real JS story. I had the Santa Claus version. Though I totally believe in the Santa Claus version as far as the spirit of it's meaning comes. So in that respect I think I can strive to believe in Mormonism and lean on the spirit of it all. Since I really don't believe anyone has seen Christ when they were alive and Christ was resurrected except for the apostles and Mary etc. I'm still trying to accept Christ now, because once that bubble burst I'm trying to pick up those pieces and not lose Christianity. I really liked the cut and dry, but it didn't sink in enough that the church can change or that we have fallible prophets. I was truly one of the ones that believe he should be infallible. Lame I know! Some interesting prophetic behaviors which the believing Christian has to come to terms: Hosea's marriage to the prostitute, Gomer: Hosea 1:2Isaiah running around naked for 3 years: Isaiah 20:2-3Moses a polygynist: Numbers 12:1Micah running around naked: Micah 1:8Samuel executes King Agag: 1 Sam 15:22-23 That's just a few bits of strangenesses, yet . . . Mormon polygyny is a dealkiller, apparently. Please explain why, if you can. 6
stemelbow Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Some interesting prophetic behaviors which the believing Christian has to come to terms: Hosea's marriage to the prostitute, Gomer: Hosea 1:2 Isaiah running around naked for 3 years: Isaiah 20:2-3 Moses a polygynist: Numbers 12:1 Micah running around naked: Micah 1:8 Samuel executes King Agag: 1 Sam 15:22-23 That's just a few bits of strangenesses, yet . . . Mormon polygyny is a dealkiller, apparently. Please explain why, if you can. Running around naked doesn't seem so bad to me, but I get your point. I think it's the dealkiller because it was more recent. Those stories from the OT are much easier to dismiss for various reasons. 1
Recommended Posts