Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities

[smac97]

Smac97 and Bernard, please say you don't live in Davis County, or in my ward. Your analogies seem unChristlike and Pharasitic.

This raises a few questions:

1. Do you perhaps perceive a wee bit of irony in using one breath to condemn and exclude others who disagree with you from your circle of faith (not only am I not good enough to live in you ward, I might taint your delicate self by - quelle horreur! - living in the same county!), and then using the next breath to accuse those others of being "Pharisaical" (I think that's what you were going for with "Pharasitic")?

2. Don started this thread by quoting the following statement which I made in another thread: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community." Please explain what is "unChristlike and Pharasi(cal)" about that statement.

3. I really don't get your accusation of Pharicism ("Hypocritical observance of the letter of religious or moral law without regard for the spirit"). CFR, please, regarding what I have said or done that merits your accusation of hypocrisy and disregard for the "the spirit" of the law.

4. I have set forth some thoughts about how a community of faith will sooner or later be required to engage in "boundary maintenance" (that is, we cannot disregard apostasy when it appears in our community). Don Bradley, who started this thread, seems to agree with this sentiment (he and I may disagree as to some particulars, I don't really know). Have you accused him of being "unChristlike and Pharasi(cal)?" If not, why not?

5. Perhaps the defining feature of Pharisaism is its hypocrisy ("a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess").  In your post, you seem to be condemning others (me and Bernard) for explaining why apostate behavior can trigger the unfortunate necessity of "boundary maintenance" in a community of faith (please also note the reluctance I expressed when such measures are required ("Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it...")).  And you do so by declaring your fervent desire to exclude me and Bernard from your particular community.  And not only do you want us to not be in your ward, you seem to want to exclude us metaphorical lepers from the entire county in which you reside.  And you desire this solely because we have expressed our beliefs.  And not only do you desire this, you have publicly accused fellow Latter-day Saints whom you barely know of being "unChristlike."  So with these considerations in mind, please explain how my position vis-à-vis exclusion from a community of faith is " "unChristlike and Pharasi(cal)," but your position vis-à-vis exclusion from a community of faith ("please say you don't live in Davis County, or in my ward") is not.

 

I'm all ears.

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited November 8, 2015 by smac97

[Nevo]

Smac's marching band analogy perfectly captures how some wish the Church were: everyone marching in lockstep, strictly obedient to authority, playing the same tune. And anyone deviating from this machine-like "unity" gets shown the door. Discipline and conformity are the highest virtues.

[jwhitlock]

 

Experience No. 3 - The "Marriage" Community:

I have been married for 18 years to a wonderful woman. She is kind, intelligent, warm, beautiful, gentle, spiritual, strong, creative and an all-around good and decent person. But on occasion she makes mistakes (as do I, but we're talking about her for the moment). When such events arise, we speak privately, one with another, and give and seek counsel, and we generally work things out. We have also on occasion received counsel from her parents and mine about how to strengthen our marital relationship.

With that said, what I would not under any circumstances is try to compel changes in my wife's behavior or choices by publicly "airing the family's dirty laundry." I think that if I were to go online and publicly castigate and find fault with my wife, if I were to itemize her faults and shortcomings in online blog rants, if I were to publish to the world demands as to how she should alter her behavior to suit my preferences and expectations, then I think very few people who find such tactics appropriate. Indeed, I think my wife would be justifiably upset at my betrayal of confidences, at my deliberate attempt to humiliate her, at my attempt to use public opinion as a coercive instrument to bend her to my will. I also think her parents and siblings (and, for that matter, my parents and siblings) would likewise be upset with me along these same lines.

And you know what? These folks would be right and I would be wrong. This is not to say that my wife is without blemish or fault. Surely she has areas of her life and her ways of doing things that could improve. But the tactics described above are mendacious, coercive, manipulative, divisive, unrighteous, unkind and - perhaps most pertinent of all - ineffective. Such tactics would not affect positive change. They would only humiliate and anger and alienate my wife and make me a Grade-A Jerkface.

 

 

 

I found this analogy especially interesting. During the PBS program "The Mormons", Margaret Toscano did exactly this. Her public castigating of her brother in law for a private family matter did not particularly help her self-serving agenda.

[jwhitlock]

Smac's marching band analogy perfectly captures how some wish the Church were: everyone marching in lockstep, strictly obedient to authority, playing the same tune. And anyone deviating from this machine-like "unity" gets shown the door. Discipline and conformity are the highest virtues.

 

Did you actually read the analogy? Do you actually know anything about how marching bands operate?

 

They don't march in lockstep. They weave patterns on the field through their interactions.

 

They follow the rules because there is joy in creating the pattern on the field. It is not "strict obedience to authority" for its own sake.

 

They don't play the same tune. There are many different parts to the tune that come together to make great music.

 

And, as Smac was very clear, there is no "machine-like unity". He was very specific in the analogy about the director working with all kinds of different individuals with whatever they had, with patience.

 

Your post here was nothing more than an egregious misrepresentation of the analogy. Analogies are meant to teach, and the analogy was actually quite beautiful when applied to the church. Your response was nothing more than ugliness.

[Calm]

Smac's marching band analogy perfectly captures how some wish the Church were: everyone marching in lockstep, strictly obedient to authority, playing the same tune. And anyone deviating from this machine-like "unity" gets shown the door. Discipline and conformity are the highest virtues.

Thankfully I am thinking Smac is someone who knows the difference between a marching band and our faith community.

 

It is unfortunate when there are those who don't (not saying you don't, though I do think there is a wide range of marching bands and you may be thinking of the more extreme, less developed kind that goes for the less effort by everyone just moving forward as one as opposed to Smac thinking of the more developed, integrated ones where the different parts all work in harmony together managing somehow not to trip each other up and creating a beautiful picture as a whole out of varying parts).

 

None of the analogies are a perfect match to the faith community....and probably even within the faith community there are going to be subgroups that require a greater cohesion than others (for example for a ward council to function well, I think a higher level of commitment to working as a group will be needed than for a Sunday School class).  But using analogies does give one an opportunity to think about what requirements we expect of ourselves and of others and to seriously consider whether they help create a better working community or are better at creating a collection of separate individuals or something else altogether.

Edited May 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I have an analogy. Once in awhile someone on the board will say, not only to me, in an exasperated tone, why would you stay in the church when you don't believe it?

Now for the analogy. Would you (whoever cares to answer) stay in the church if you didn't believe and keep attending? And if you didn't believe all of it what kind of member would you be? Would you still fit somewhere if you desired to stay? Maybe service in the church makes you happy, or the social end, or living chaste lives, or you like the worshipping style.

Or would you turn and run for the door as fast as you can? I hope that gives a clue as to what kind of member you have that stays anyway. Although they might voice their opinion on things, would it be easier to just not care at all and leave? Not for the member that has faith that they can make it work.

[Nevo]

the analogy was actually quite beautiful when applied to the church.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

None of the analogies are a perfect match to the faith community.... But using analogies does give one an opportunity to think about what requirements we expect of ourselves and of others and to seriously consider whether they help create a better working community or are better at creating a collection of separate individuals or something else altogether.

 

I agree that the analogies were thought-provoking. It is worth thinking about what it means to be "one" and what that actually looks like. The scriptures picture Zion as a covenant community where hearts are "knit together in unity and love one towards another," where people lift each other and strengthen each other. To my mind, at least, this is a bit different than a community that seeks to cast off any that are perceived as hindering its progress (those who are out of step, out of sync, etc.).

[Kenngo1969]

Tacenda:

 

Still waiting for your answers to Smac97's questions.  [insert-guy-looking-at-watch-and-whistling-icon-here!]  

[Calm]

A marching band wouldn't really work if some members stopped their own routine and helped a struggling member (perhaps they twisted an ankle for example) move along with the group or if they took over for a time the duties of someone sick as well as doing their own, etc. which we are supposed to do as commanded by Christ so in some ways I think the analogy lacks.  

 

Also, I don't think we ever come close to 'marching in time' with one another and our harmony is rather pitiful if viewed from a standpoint of missed notes, etc.  The marching band analogy works better for the ideal of what we are working for but at the moment, I think the beauty of the community is that we are all struggling together and are managing to survive inspite of the lack of coordination and less than stellar performance of being in tune.

 

We are kind of like a 7th grade marching band.  The only ones that can really love the performance are our parents and teachers.

Edited May 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Tacenda:

Still waiting for your answers to Smac97's questions. [insert-guy-looking-at-watch-and-whistling-icon-here!]

Post 50.

[Jeanne]

A marching band wouldn't really work if some members stopped their own routine and helped a struggling member (perhaps they twisted an ankle for example) move along with the group or if they took over for a time the duties of someone sick as well as doing their own, etc. which we are supposed to do as commanded by Christ so in some ways I think the analogy lacks.  

 

Also, I don't think we ever come close to 'marching in time' with one another and our harmony is rather pitiful if viewed from a standpoint of missed notes, etc.  The marching band analogy works better for the ideal of what we are working for but at the moment, I think the beauty of the community is that we are all struggling together and are managing to survive inspite of the lack of coordination and less than stellar performance of being in tune.

 

We are kind of like a 7th grade marching band.  The only ones that can really love the performance are our parents and teachers.

I like this Cal,,.so many of us march to the beat of a different drummer..

Edited May 25, 2015 by Jeanne

[Tacenda]

I like this Cal,,.so many of us march to the beat of a different drummer..

Agree with you Jeanne, Cal's analogy of a 7th grade band is the church I know. Isn't it all about perfecting the saints, some catch on fast and others it takes some time, hopefully with some unconditional love mixed in.

[smac97]

Smac's marching band analogy perfectly captures how some wish the Church were:

 

I make no apology for hoping that the Church becomes more unified. I think God wants us to become more unified:

• That they may be one, as we are: John 17:11.
• All continued with one accord in prayer: Acts 1:14.
• We, being many, are one body in Christ: Rom. 12:5.
• Be perfectly joined together: 1 Cor. 1:10.
• Be perfect … of one mind: 2 Cor. 13:11.
• Ye are all one in Christ: Gal. 3:28.
• Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: Eph. 4:3.
• Being of one accord, of one mind: Philip. 2:2.
• Be … united in all things: 2 Ne. 1:21.
• United unto the church of Christ: 3 Ne. 28:23.
• Your duty to unite with the true church: D&C 23:7.
• One in me as I am one in the Father: D&C 35:2.
• If ye are not one ye are not mine: D&C 38:27.
• Be one, even as I have commanded you: D&C 51:9.
• The Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind: Moses 7:18

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

(1 Cor. 12:4-27)

Unity in purpose, effort, righteousness, faith.  I think these are attributes which we should be actively seeking to achieve, not apologizing for.

 

everyone marching in lockstep,

I really don't get this. You are characterizing unity as an innately bad thing. In contrast, the scriptures above (and many others) treat it as a central facet of the ideal "Zion" community we are supposed to be seeking. What gives?

 

strictly obedient to authority,

The analogy, as applied to the Church, would speak well of striving for obedience to God's commandments, as communicated to us through prophets and apostles. And again, obeying the commandments of God is a central facet of the ideal "Zion" community we are supposed to be seeking, and yet you are badmouthing it. Why?

 

playing the same tune.

Um, have you ever listened to a marching band? Or any band? They are playing "the same tune," but they do so by playing unique and separate parts played on unique and separate instruments. And have you ever watched a field show? Each member of the band is given a unique role to play, a unique part of an overall pattern. In fact, the more I think of the analogy, the more apt it becomes. And yet here you are, sneering at the notion of a community of faith coming together to act in cooperation and unity to achieve a larger objective. I really don't understand you.

 

And anyone deviating from this machine-like "unity" gets shown the door.

Did you even read my analogy? I really don't think you did.

 

Discipline and conformity are the highest virtues.

Nope. Love of music and a desire to put on a good show are what members of a marching band hold as "the highest virtues." Discipline and unity (I'll decline to go along with your snide use of the term "conformity") are parts of the means to that end.

Speaking of the Church, loving God and desiring to further His "work and (His) glory" are "the highest virtues." Discipline and unity are parts of the means to that end.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

I have an analogy. Once in awhile someone on the board will say, not only to me, in an exasperated tone, why would you stay in the church when you don't believe it?

First, I have never said such a thing, nor do I believe such a sentiment is appropriate. Latter-day Saints are commanded "to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ." (D&C 20:59.) I don't think we fulfil that mandate when we impliedly tell folks to leave the church for want of faith.

Second, what I have said apparently bears repeating: "I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community." And this (in the Marching Band analogy): "Mr. Miller could work with mediocre musicians, musicians with difficult family circumstances, musicians with physical or emotional ailments, and even lazy/indifferent musicians who were in the Band for social reasons rather than musical ones and who only put forth just enough effort to get by. But students who were disruptive, who engaged in conduct which materially hindered the Marching Band from progressing as a unit, these folks had to be shown the door. Nobody wanted to see them leave, but Mr. Miller really had no choice. Preserving the cohesiveness of the Marching Band so as to allow it to pursue its raison d'être required the exclusion of those few who were actively disrupting and inhibiting that effort."

Third, this thread pertains to people who are excommunicated. The analogies I provided were about people who are engaging in conduct sufficiently violoative of sacred covenants and commandments, and also deleterious to the overall health of the Church, that excommunication may be an unfortunate necessity. I am persuaded that such disciplinary actions are actually quite rare, which means that the Church can and does accommodate quite a spectrum of differing viewpoints. That accommodative ability, however, has its limits, as evidenced by the relatively rare instances of excommunications we see in the Church.

Now for the analogy. Would you (whoever cares to answer) stay in the church if you didn't believe and keep attending?

With respect, I decline to answer. My willingness to share my perspective on sacred things only goes so far.

And if you didn't believe all of it what kind of member would you be? Would you still fit somewhere if you desired to stay? Maybe service in the church makes you happy, or the social end, or living chaste lives, or you like the worshipping style.

Although I decline to answer for myself, I will say this: I welcome people in the Church regardless of their level of faith. Only those who are materially disruptive or actively seeking to harm the Church must be excluded from our community of faith. Again: "We are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Agree to disagree.

I agree that the analogies were thought-provoking. It is worth thinking about what it means to be "one" and what that actually looks like. The scriptures picture Zion as a covenant community where hearts are "knit together in unity and love one towards another," where people lift each other and strengthen each other. To my mind, at least, this is a bit different than a community that seeks to cast off any that are perceived as hindering its progress (those who are out of step, out of sync, etc.).

I don't think the rare (very rare, actually) instances of excommunication are at all fairly described as "a community that seeks to cast off any that are perceived as hindering its progress (those who are out of step, out of sync, etc.)."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 26, 2015 by smac97

[Tacenda]

Smac97 said..."Although I decline to answer for myself, I will say this: I welcome people in the Church regardless of their level of faith. Only those who are materially disruptive or actively seeking to harm the Church must be excluded from the our community of faith"

Me: Ok, I can get behind this!

Edited May 26, 2015 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

"Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to a choice between incompatible modes of community life." Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 94.

 

In the cases of Dehlin and Kelley, I see a clear choice between incompatible modes of community life. I agree with Don that my issue was not the attitudes but the persistent public tactics.  As I noted in a one of my posts, they used the media to summon the church to a trial to be held in the Court of Public Opinion.  They went about telling us that our mode of community life was incompatible with theirs. If we could simply be open and tolerant enough to conform to their views, then they could cease their fully legitimate protests and pressure.  And of course, that sort of thing is perfectly legitimate when they do it.  Oppressive and tyrannical when we do it.

 

When I participated on the Mormon Stories board under the Coe interview, I found very quickly that I was not welcome.  When it was mentioned that I'd offered to be interviewed for Mormon Stories, at least one person said I was not appropriate.  My Mormon story was not appropriate for their community.  So my comments were deleted, my presence in essence erased.

 

"When paradigms change, there are usually shifts in determining the legitimacy of both problems and proposed solutions." Kuhn, 109.

 

That is one of the reasons why some otherwise Big Tent Mormons are so uncompromisingly intolerant of the the Old FARMS.  They have decided that the problems we claim to have solved and the solutions we offer are not even legitimate.  So the wonderfully Tolerant Big Tent they propose excludes us. 

 

Dehlin's self definition always involved his ability to openly face problems.  So during the Bushman and Givens interviews, I noticed he questioned them about "the problems."  It was, I noticed, the same set of problems.  He seemed impressed in both cases with the solutions that Bushman and Givens offered, but I couldn't but realize that the answers from the first interview did not carry over to the second.  He asked them again as though the answers had not been given.  Then recently when I read his appeal, I noticed that he included a list of issues that came up when first began exploring questions.  Yep.  Same list.  Hundreds of interviews, years of effort, and nothing has changed for him.

 

For him, the existence of the questions is paradigmatic, and nothing we offer counts.

 

Back in 1995 in "Paradigms Crossed" I had this:

interesting use of Kuhn, not sure I buy it though. Kuhn's argument basically is that scientific progress normally occurs when someone from a somewhat different scientific field has to cross over to another in a search for an answer and perceives that the controlling theory is a mess. Perceiving it is a mess because the scientist is not impeded from straightening it out due to over allegiance to the controlling orthodoxy. This suggests that if there is a parallel, that great spiritual leaps forward would not be expected to come from the core leadership of the Church, but rather from a person on the fringe not overly wedded to orthodoxy correctly perceiving a mess and overthrowing the controlling orthodoxy. I am not suggesting that this right approach when it comes to the evolution of policy and doctrine, am just pointing out that applying Kuhnian logic here leads to a rather radical conclusion. I find Kuhn fascinating when it comes to the evolution of science, but drawing parallels of his logic to the evolution of the Church would get you in hot water rather rapidly.

[Kevin Christensen]

interesting use of Kuhn, not sure I buy it though. Kuhn's argument basically is that scientific progress normally occurs when someone from a somewhat different scientific field has to cross over to another in a search for an answer and perceives that the controlling theory is a mess. Perceiving it is a mess because the scientist is not impeded from straightening it out due to over allegiance to the controlling orthodoxy. This suggests that if there is a parallel, that great spiritual leaps forward would not be expected to come from the core leadership of the Church, but rather from a person on the fringe not overly wedded to orthodoxy correctly perceiving a mess and overthrowing the controlling orthodoxy. I am not suggesting that this right approach when it comes to the evolution of policy and doctrine, am just pointing out that applying Kuhnian logic here leads to a rather radical conclusion. I find Kuhn fascinating when it comes to the evolution of science, but drawing parallels of his logic to the evolution of the Church would get you in hot water rather rapidly.

I've been quoting Kuhn as relevant to church issues since 1991 and it's never gotten me into hot water. If the core leadership of the church were isolated from changes,

due to inconveniences like death, for instance, then, perhaps the model might have problems. But death happens, and change happens, and each prophet

brings his own perspectives and concerns to the matters at hand. And we do get radical changes now than then, with things like the end of polygamy, and the end of the priesthood ban, and the relatively recent embrace of 12 step recovery.

And if you pay attention, we get things like President McKay overruling the committee that wanted to reject Nibley's 1957 Priesthood manual, and things like a few deaths opening the way for the publication of John Sorenson's ideas in the Ensign, and from Deseret Book. And the Joseph Smith Papers Project.

All of those things signal paradigm change happening within the hierarchy.

One of the functions of the church leadership, according to Ephesians is to prevent the church from being tossed about to and fro by every wind of doctrine. That doesn't mean no changes, but that the changes have to demonstrate something more than wind power before they are adopted.

My sister was working as an accountant in the church office building when President Hinkley became the president, rather than the de-facto president, and reported on the impressive changes he made, over the squawking of some of the bureaucrats.

Apart from the headquarters, which isn't the whole church, but a portion of it, I've seen lots of fascinating changes in scholarship in the past fifty years.

I occasionally refer to John Boyd's ideas.

Boyd hypothesized that all intelligent organisms and organizations undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. Boyd breaks this cycle down to four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:

Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses

Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective

Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective

Action: the physical playing-out of decisions

Of course, while this is taking place, the situation may be changing. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a planned action in order to meet the changes. This decision cycle is thus known as the OODA loop. Boyd emphasized that this decision cycle is the central mechanism enabling adaptation (apart from natural selection) and is therefore critical to survival.

Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels. In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level. In 2003, this power to the edge concept took the form of a DOD publication "Power to the Edge: Command ... Control ... in the Information Age" by Dr. David S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes. Boyd argued that such a structure creates a flexible "organic whole" that is quicker to adapt to rapidly changing situations. He noted, however, that any such highly decentralized organization would necessitate a high degree of mutual trust and a common outlook that came from prior shared experiences. Headquarters needs to know that the troops are perfectly capable of forming a good plan for taking a specific objective, and the troops need to know that Headquarters does not direct them to achieve certain objectives without good reason.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited May 28, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[stemelbow]

Would not kicking people out because of apostasy be considered disregarding apostasy?

Has there been a time when the Church has disregarded apostasy and thus became weaker?

Guess I'm still not sure what is meant by disregarding apostasy.

Can we not acknowledge that some members believe differently, even if that differently is seen by many as being apostate?

[smac97]

Would not kicking people out because of apostasy be considered disregarding apostasy?

Let's refine that a bit: Taking no disciplinary action (possibly, but not necessarily, including excommunication) against an unrepentant person deemed guilty of apostasy by persons in authority and acting in accordance with the Church's laws and procedures would, I think, "be considered disregarding apostasy."

 

Has there been a time when the Church has disregarded apostasy and thus became weaker?

I'm not sure what sort of data and metrics we have by which a coherent answer to this question could be provided.

 

Guess I'm still not sure what is meant by disregarding apostasy.

Really?  If a Latter-day Saint went public with sordid details about his being in an ongoing adulterous relationship, and if his statements glory in these acts and declare his lack of remorse and desire to continue in these acts, and if the Church became aware of and did nothing in response to such public declarations, would any rational person be able to dispute the Church's stance as "disregarding" that person's sinful conduct?

 

If we, as rational human beings, can discern what it means to "disregard" unrepentant adultery, then I think we can do the same with what it means to "disregard" unrepentant apostasy (with the caveat that such determinations are the responsibility of priesthood leaders having stewardship of the person in question).  Put another way, the Church should not ignore unrepentant apostasy or play dumb when it arises.  In this the Church has a fairly clear mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

As I have said before regarding the Calderwoods: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

I stand by this statement.

 

Can we not acknowledge that some members believe differently, even if that differently is seen by many as being apostate?

Yes, I suppose we can acknowledge that. But if a person "believes differently" and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, then it appears that the Church must proceed according to the divine mandate given to it by God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 28, 2015 by smac97

[stemelbow]

Let's refine that a bit: Taking no disciplinary action (possibly, but not necessarily, including excommunication) against an unrepentant person guilty of apostasy would, I think, "be considered disregarding apostasy."

hmmm...So in your view apostasy is disregarded if no disciplinary action is taken? Wow...we'd really have to nail down what is apostasy then, it seems. 

I'm not sure what sort of data and metrics we have by which a coherent answer to this question could be provided.

Makes ya wonder how your original statements holds water, then. no offense of course.

 

Really?  If a Latter-day Saint went public with sordid details about his being in an ongoing adulterous relationship, and if his statements glory in these acts and declare his lack of remorse and desire to continue in these acts, and if the Church became aware of and did nothing in response to such public declarations, would any rational person be able to dispute the Church's stance as "disregarding" that person's sinful conduct?

I would suggest that if, say, the Church did not discipline an unrepentant adulterer, there are perhaps other ways to address it. Therefore there'd be no disregarding the action, if such were the case.

 

If we, as rational human beings, can discern what it means to "disregard" unrepentant adultery, then I think we can do the same with what it means to "disregard" unrepentant apostasy.

There are some unresolved "ifs" there, I think. Aside from that, this is clearly comparing apples and oranges, in my mind. I know some might compare unrepentant adultery to unrepentant believing differently from the Church's position on any position.

Put another way, the Church should not ignore unrepentant apostasy or play dumb when it arises.

The Church mostly does this, though. Most active LDS who, say, support SSM, aren't disciplined. Most active LDS who, say, think polygamy was not commanded of God, aren't disciplined. Thus, one would have to really nail down what it means to be in apostasy to make this all clear.

In this the Church has a fairly clear mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

As I have said before regarding the Calderwoods: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

I stand by this statement.

That's fine, of course. I just find this a little tenuous. As it is, the majority in the Church may, in God's mind, be considered those who are fall into the categories that these scriptures condemn. So we're left with a great deal of grey area, it seems to me.

Yes, I suppose we can acknowledge that. But if a person "believes differently" and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, then the Church must proceed according to the divine mandate given to it by God.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not opposed to that reasoning. But I would question whether disregarding apostasy weakens the community. It may strengthen it. It may, cause us to expand in ways we simply can't imagine. Being so concerned about apostasy might be a problem, may be holding us back.

[smac97]

hmmm...So in your view apostasy is disregarded if no disciplinary action is taken?

I'm not sure how else to characterize it. If a person "believes differently," and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, and if those in authority disregard the scriptural mandates (quoted previously) and the Church's specific instruction in the CHI for mandatory disciplinary hearings where apostasy is alleged and fail to convene a disciplinary council, then "disregarding apostasy" would seem to be an apt description of such circumstances.

 

Wow...we'd really have to nail down what is apostasy then, it seems.

The CHI mandates a disciplinary council where apostasy is alleged.

And yes, the definition of apostasy is fairly important.

 

I would suggest that if, say, the Church did not discipline an unrepentant adulterer, there are perhaps other ways to address it. Therefore there'd be no disregarding the action, if such were the case.

What "other ways" do you have in mind? And what is the scriptural/doctrinal basis for your supposition? And how do you reconcile your position with D&C 42:24 ("Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out")?

 

There are some unresolved "ifs" there, I think. Aside from that, this is clearly comparing apples and oranges, in my mind. I know some might compare unrepentant adultery to unrepentant believing differently from the Church's position on any position.

You are referring to the definition of "apostasy." I was referring to your statement about you not being sure "what is meant by disregarding apostasy."

In any event, "apostasy" is defined in the CHI. Sound judgment and discretion is required in applying these definitions to a person's actions/statements, but that's what fasting and prayer are for.

 

The Church mostly does this, though.

I disagree.

 

Most active LDS who, say, support SSM, aren't disciplined.

I think that's largely because the Brethren have indicated that supporting SSM is generally not grounds for a charge of apostasy (see Elder Christofferson's comments here).

 

Most active LDS who, say, think polygamy was not commanded of God, aren't disciplined.

Yep. But that means that your understanding of what constitutes "apostasy" is incorrect, not that the Church is "disregarding" apostasy.

 

Thus, one would have to really nail down what it means to be in apostasy to make this all clear.

Hence the definition(s) of "apostasy" in the CHI.

 

That's fine, of course. I just find this a little tenuous. As it is, the majority in the Church may, in God's mind, be considered those who are fall into the categories that these scriptures condemn. So we're left with a great deal of grey area, it seems to me.

Are you familiar with the definition of "apostasy" as set forth in the CHI?

 

I'm not opposed to that reasoning. But I would question whether disregarding apostasy weakens the community. It may strengthen it. It may, cause us to expand in ways we simply can't imagine. Being so concerned about apostasy might be a problem, may be holding us back.

Your reasoning is not self-evident. I mean really not self-evident.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 28, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I make no apology for hoping that the Church becomes more unified. I think God wants us to become more unified:

• That they may be one, as we are: John 17:11.
• All continued with one accord in prayer: Acts 1:14.
• We, being many, are one body in Christ: Rom. 12:5.
• Be perfectly joined together: 1 Cor. 1:10.
• Be perfect … of one mind: 2 Cor. 13:11.
• Ye are all one in Christ: Gal. 3:28.
• Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: Eph. 4:3.
• Being of one accord, of one mind: Philip. 2:2.
• Be … united in all things: 2 Ne. 1:21.
• United unto the church of Christ: 3 Ne. 28:23.
• Your duty to unite with the true church: D&C 23:7.
• One in me as I am one in the Father: D&C 35:2.
• If ye are not one ye are not mine: D&C 38:27.
• Be one, even as I have commanded you: D&C 51:9.
• The Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind: Moses 7:18

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

(1 Cor. 12:4-27)

 

Unity in purpose, effort, righteousness, faith.  I think these are attributes which we should be actively seeking to achieve, not apologizing for.

 

I really don't get this. You are characterizing unity as an innately bad thing. In contrast, the scriptures above (and many others) treat it as a central facet of the ideal "Zion" community we are supposed to be seeking. What gives?

 

The analogy, as applied to the Church, would speak well of striving for obedience to God's commandments, as communicated to us through prophets and apostles. And again, obeying the commandments of God is a central facet of the ideal "Zion" community we are supposed to be seeking, and yet you are badmouthing it. Why?

 

Um, have you ever listened to a marching band? Or any band? They are playing "the same tune," but they do so by playing unique and separate parts played on unique and separate instruments. And have you ever watched a field show? Each member of the band is given a unique role to play, a unique part of an overall pattern. In fact, the more I think of the analogy, the more apt it becomes. And yet here you are, sneering at the notion of a community of faith coming together to act in cooperation and unity to achieve a larger objective. I really don't understand you.

 

Did you even read my analogy? I really don't think you did.

 

Nope. Love of music and a desire to put on a good show are what members of a marching band hold as "the highest virtues." Discipline and unity (I'll decline to go along with your snide use of the term "conformity") are parts of the means to that end.

Speaking of the Church, loving God and desiring to further His "work and (His) glory" are "the highest virtues." Discipline and unity are parts of the means to that end.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

To Smac's excellent treatise here, I would add what I noted the other day when exploring recent general conference talks. It was Elder D. Todd Christofferson's talk in which, with scriptural support, he defined Zion as comprising unity, godliness and charity.

 

If we are seeking to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion (which should be the goal of every Latter-day Saint), unity is an essential component in that goal.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure how else to characterize it. If a person "believes differently," and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, and if those in authority disregard the scriptural mandates (quoted previously) and the Church's specific instruction in the CHI for mandatory disciplinary hearings where apostasy is alleged and fail to convene a disciplinary council, then "disregarding apostasy" would seem to be an apt description of such circumstances.

Sounds like beating people into submission to me.

I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent–if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression… This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. … We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.”

— Hugh B. Brown

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

We want people to feel like, at least according to what your saying, that it is sinful to believe differently--one must repent if they believe differently. I agree with Hugh B. Brown and Joseph on this. People aren't necessarily sinful because they err in doctrine. They need not repent. Seeing as the frailty of our understanding capacity on this earth is limited, I don't think God holds it against us to explore ideas and challenge established status quos.

Sorry this whole, "how dare they think differently than me..." attitude is not helping, in my view.

 

The CHI mandates a disciplinary council where apostasy is alleged.

And yes, the definition of apostasy is fairly important.

By all means bring any quotes you find pertinent to the discussion here. CHI does not equal unassailable established truth.

 

What "other ways" do you have in mind? And what is the scriptural/doctrinal basis for your supposition? And how do you reconcile your position with D&C 42:24 ("Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out")?

It doesn't matter to me what other ways are possible. it is simply true there are other possibilities. It also does not matter if their is scriptural basis for my thinking, at least not how I see it. Scripture too can err. But, as it is, in the end, I am not advocating that unrepentant adulterers not be disciplined. I'm merely explaining it's possible for the sin to be addressed without discipline. And I maintain that believing differently is not in any way comparable to the sin of unrepentant adultery.

 

You are referring to the definition of "apostasy." I was referring to your statement about you not being sure "what is meant by disregarding apostasy."

In any event, "apostasy" is defined in the CHI. Sound judgment and discretion is required in applying these definitions to a person's actions/statements, but that's what fasting and prayer are for.

I'm willing to explore your ideas, but you need to quote what you have in mind in order for us to discuss. What is your thinking on this?

 

I disagree.

 

I think that's largely because the Brethren have indicated that supporting SSM is generally not grounds for a charge of apostasy (see Elder Christofferson's comments here).

Excellent example then. People need not be trammeled by policy. So why can one support SSM and not be trammeled, but on other matters, yet to be defined, they may be trammeled?  

Yep. But that means that your understanding of what constitutes "apostasy" is incorrect, not that the Church is "disregarding" apostasy.

NOt necessarily. Let's align. What is apostasy in your view?

 

Hence the definition(s) of "apostasy" in the CHI.

 

Are you familiar with the definition of "apostasy" as set forth in the CHI?

 

Your reasoning is not self-evident. I mean really not self-evident.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Maybe those pre apostates should just hang out on a board like this, they could get all their frustrations out, as long as they're nice, and never have to go public!  I sure love this place.