Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities

[GingerRed]

I don't know if someone has already come up with this idea.....but what about this...

Could it be possible to modify the Church's 12 step program to address this issue? It would be a personal and indivdual assessment.

I wish I could teach a class , similar to a Gospel Essentials class , and work with members with doubts to see if I could help, using prayer, discussion, role playing, scripture reading, mind excersises , and offer solutions and options to help them deal with these feelings? Now I know some of you are thinking what could a nobody, little peon like me do or say to help....I dunno! I went through doubt too, and maybe what got me thru it and over it , can help! Wish I could try....wish I could show them what being a son/ daughter of Heavenly Father can really feel like.

Red

[Jeanne]

What evidence do you have that she would have been ostracized rather than her sisters in relief society lovingly helping her see things the right way?

Another way..not the right way..a different voice or opinion doesn't mean their wrong!!

[ERayR]

I don't know if someone has already come up with this idea.....but what about this...

Could it be possible to modify the Church's 12 step program to address this issue? It would be a personal and indivdual assessment.

I wish I could teach a class , similar to a Gospel Essentials class , and work with members with doubts to see if I could help, using prayer, discussion, role playing, scripture reading, mind excersises , and offer solutions and options to help them deal with these feelings? Now I know some of you are thinking what could a nobody, little peon like me do or say to help....I dunno! I went through doubt too, and maybe what got me thru it and over it , can help! Wish I could try....wish I could show them what being a son/ daughter of Heavenly Father can really feel like.

Red

 

I have sometimes wished for the same thing but have come to realize that probably the most I can do is bear my testimony in word and deed.  Whether they choose to believe or not is a choice each must make.

[ERayR]

Another way..not the right way..a different voice or opinion doesn't mean their wrong!!

 

Sometimes it does!!

[Tacenda]

I don't know if someone has already come up with this idea.....but what about this...

Could it be possible to modify the Church's 12 step program to address this issue? It would be a personal and indivdual assessment.

I wish I could teach a class , similar to a Gospel Essentials class , and work with members with doubts to see if I could help, using prayer, discussion, role playing, scripture reading, mind excersises , and offer solutions and options to help them deal with these feelings? Now I know some of you are thinking what could a nobody, little peon like me do or say to help....I dunno! I went through doubt too, and maybe what got me thru it and over it , can help! Wish I could try....wish I could show them what being a son/ daughter of Heavenly Father can really feel like.

Red

I would be in like flint! And think if the church doesn't do something along these lines, there are plenty of ex LDS in meet-up groups etc., that would welcome and have empathy, for suffering doubters/disbelievers. Edited May 24, 2015 by Tacenda

[hope_for_things]

I don't know if someone has already come up with this idea.....but what about this...

Could it be possible to modify the Church's 12 step program to address this issue? It would be a personal and indivdual assessment.

I wish I could teach a class , similar to a Gospel Essentials class , and work with members with doubts to see if I could help, using prayer, discussion, role playing, scripture reading, mind excersises , and offer solutions and options to help them deal with these feelings? Now I know some of you are thinking what could a nobody, little peon like me do or say to help....I dunno! I went through doubt too, and maybe what got me thru it and over it , can help! Wish I could try....wish I could show them what being a son/ daughter of Heavenly Father can really feel like.

Red

Local support by way of a class would be helpful I believe, and something is needed on a local level. Posting comments on the internet only did so much for me, until I was able to talk to someone that I knew and trusted, I still felt so alone. I also know of a few people in y ward who are people I can talk with who won't judge and who have knowledge about the complex history.

From my experience, too many Bishops would be fearful of a class like this actually hurting testimonies, and honestly it would hurt testimonies, at least the simple ones built on fragile myths that have been perpetuated over time. the best advice I received in this process was to study deeply and take things slowly.

[Avatar4321]

I can't speak for every ward, but I know my quorum would work together to resolves doubts and have no problem discussing things.

our problem consists of getting people to the quorum to discuss things.

[Yirgacheffe]

Ego has become a major issue in these times of social media. The church has never minded individual doubt, prayer and reflection. Or even sharing such doubt in a positive way. But no church would tolerate attacks on its doctrine through social blogs etc without calling the members in for a chat.

 

 

Really the LDS church monitors blogs and social media and calls members in to talk about what they've posted?  Can you point to some instances in other churches, do you know of a Methodist or Lutheran who has been investigated or disciplined for blogs or social media activity?

[Yirgacheffe]

Avatar,

 

So, in your experience, people in church meetings are welcoming of comments that express doubts or disagreement with church policies, and welcoming of people who make them?

 

My observation would be quite different. I think that we, as an LDS culture, are much less tolerant than the church as an institution is. People who raise questions or critiques are most often dismissed as being on the high road to apostasy, and it's often seen as best to avoid them, so they won't be a bad influence on you.

 

Don

In light of the outcomes of the people named how is the institution more tolerant, after all it was the institution that delivered the outcomes.

[The Nehor]

I begin to despair that we will never go back to burning witches and heretics. We have no appreciation of the classic modes of dealing with dissent anymore.

[DonBradley]

In light of the outcomes of the people named how is the institution more tolerant, after all it was the institution that delivered the outcomes.

 

Myriad Latter-day Saints make online comments, blog posts, and the so on disagreeing with, partly disbelieving in, or critiquing the church. In the court of LDS public opinion, people who do such things are constantly "excommunicated"--that is, labeled apostate. Yet the institutional church has disciplined as apostate only a tiny handful. And you can't see how the institution tolerates such dissent better than LDS culture does?

 

Don

Edited May 24, 2015 by DonBradley

[Avatar4321]

I believe what Jeanne was asking was what Kate Kelly should have done, not what she should not have done.

Btw I think the answer is obvious. She should have humbly kept her covenants. Particularly following D&C 121

[Yirgacheffe]

Myriad Latter-day Saints make online comments, blog posts, and the so on disagreeing with, partly disbelieving in, or critiquing the church. In the court of LDS public opinion, people who do such things are constantly "excommunicated"--that is, labeled apostate. Yet the institutional church has disciplined as apostate only a tiny handful. And you can't see how the institution tolerates such dissent better than LDS culture does?

 

Don

 

And you're asking me how the excommunication of two doesn't disprove the thesis

How would the institutional church know about the online comments and blog posts, many of which are anonymous, I don't see that they get a pass for any other reason than that they are unknown.  It looks like if it becomes known to the institutional church then action is taken.  And since there is no separate clergy within the LDS church and it is run by members how do you make a distinction between the members and the institutional church? 

Edited May 24, 2015 by Yirgacheffe

[Avatar4321]

I begin to despair that we will never go back to burning witches and heretics. We have no appreciation of the classic modes of dealing with dissent anymore.

We can light you on fire if you'd like. I doubt it would be difficult. Probably not very nice though:)

[The Nehor]

We can light you on fire if you'd like. I doubt it would be difficult. Probably not very nice though:)

 

I don't know. I imagine the three young men with Daniel that got thrown into the furnace may have found it refreshing.

[DonBradley]

How would the institutional church know about the online comments and blog posts, many of which are anonymous, I don't see that they get a pass for any other reason than that they are unknown.  It looks like if it becomes known to the institutional church then action is taken.  And since there is no separate clergy within the LDS church and it is run by members how do you make a distinction between the members and the institutional church? 

 

Your level of (un)familiarity with the realities of the topic suggest you are observing all this from some cultural distance, perhaps?

 

The names of all Ordain Women leaders are openly known. Only one of them has been excommunicated. Quite a few others have profiles up supporting Ordain Women, and have not been disciplined. And many bloggers critical of the church use their real names and have for a long time. I personally used my real name in critical comments over several years on forums like this, which are very much public before I left the church (later to return) and never got in the least ecclesiastical trouble.

 

By and large, the church doesn't try to collect data on members who criticize it, though such data is readily available. The names of prominent leaders of groups like OW are known. And yet only a tiny handful of internal critics are ever disciplined. 

 

And Kate Kelly and, especially, John Dehlin were allowed to continue their activities for some time before being disciplined--in Dehlin's case for a period of several years. So your idea that the church kicks out people who express disagreement or disbelief as soon as it becomes aware of them is simply, flatly, and demonstrably false.

 

Don

Edited May 24, 2015 by DonBradley

[Yirgacheffe]

Your level of (un)familiarity with the realities of the topic suggest you are observing all this from some cultural distance, perhaps?

 

The names of all Ordain Women leaders are openly known. Only one of them has been excommunicated. Quite a few others have profiles up supporting Ordain Women, and have not been disciplined. And many bloggers critical of the church use their real names and have for a long time. I personally used my real name in critical comments over several years on forums like this, which are very much public before I left the church (later to return) and never got in the least ecclesiastical trouble.

 

By and large, the church doesn't try to collect data on members who criticize it, though such data is readily available. The names of prominent leaders of groups like OW are known. And yet only a tiny handful of internal critics are ever disciplined. 

 

And Kate Kelly and, especially, John Dehlin were allowed to continue their activities for some time before being disciplined--in Dehlin's case for a period of several years. So your idea that the church kicks out people who express disagreement or disbelief as soon as it becomes aware of them is simply, flatly, and demonstrably false.

 

Don

 

So your assertion that once the church knows about its  

 

The church knows, or would know if it cared to, 

From what you say here I would say that then that the run of the mill membership is no more "punishing" of unorthodox opinions than the institutional church.  Both agree that you can dissent, you just can't make a public spectacle of it.

[DonBradley]

I'd suggest digging a little deeper to understand the situation.

[juliann]

How would the institutional church know about the online comments and blog posts, many of which are anonymous, I don't see that they get a pass for any other reason than that they are unknown.  It looks like if it becomes known to the institutional church then action is taken.  And since there is no separate clergy within the LDS church and it is run by members how do you make a distinction between the members and the institutional church? 

 

I think the recent flap over what Lindsay Sterling wore on the Red Carpet is a good example of how to distinguish between members and "institution." The Brethren do not post judgmental comments about young women in the spotlight. Members did.

 

From what I have read, bishops usually find out about things written online because other ward members tell them. That can get out of hand real quick.

[CV75]

Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital.

 

Thoughts...?

 

Don

Regarding being right, it seems consistent with 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 [such as] …excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.”

 

Alma 5:57-59 (Mosiah 26:21-36 also) speaks to being wise: “For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.”

 

ETA: Regarding tolerance when it comes to who should stay and who should go, I think Moroni 6 offers a good measuring stick. Some key elements I could pick out:

• witnessed unto the church that they truly repented
• they took upon them the name of Christ
• numbered among the people of the church of Christ
• names were taken
• remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful
• meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.
• meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus.
• strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them
• whoso was found to commit iniquity …if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.
• as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven.
• after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost

 

I also think both the strong and weak have a responsibility to tolerate each other, as Paul taught in Romans 14.

Edited May 24, 2015 by CV75

[smac97]

Hello All,

 

Regarding my previous comment quoted by Don ("When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community"), It may be helpful to clarify my perspective on group/community cohesion, including the following experiences I have had over the span of many years which have affected how I feel about being part of a community. In writing these experiences I will try to highlight those parts which may be analogized to Latter-day Saints creating and maintaining cohesion as a community of faith.

Experience No. 1 - The "Marching Band" Community:

I attended high school in American Fork, Utah, which some of you may know as having a pretty good marching band. I played trombone, bariton and tuba. We were pretty good. It took a lot of work to put together a field show. Many, many hours of practice on the field and in the bandroom. And it took a lot of trust in Mr. Miller, the band director, and a willingness to adhere to the program he put together each year. And by "trust" I mean adherence to his instructions. Students who were not willing to put the time in to memorize the music and the various field formations, who were not willing to attend practice sessions during the summer and after school, who weren't willing to listen to their section leaders, or the drum majors, or Mr. Miller, did not remain in the group.

That's not to say that they weren't wanted. They certainly were. Mr. Miller was a very kind and patient man. He had reservoirs of patience with students (and their parents) and stick-to-it-iveness that I can only admire and envy. But at the end of the day the Marching Band had a purpose: marching in parades and performing field shows (in competitions and during half-time at football games). 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.

Experience No. 2 - The "Army" Community:

During my senior year in high school I joined the Utah Army National Guard. I went to basic training, then to a language school in Monterey, CA, where I studied Russian for 12 months, then I received advanced training in interrogation techniques in Ft. Huachuca, AZ. As you may know, members of the U.S. military, to some extent, have their First Amendments right to Free Speech limited by operation of law. Members of the military are therefore held to a different standard about what they can say about military/political issues as compared to their fellow Americans who are not in the military. Circumscribed speech is part of the gig when you join the military. So if an American wants to publicly and seriously malign the military and its activities, he can do so - just not as while serving in the military.

 

Frankly, I have a hard time finding fault with this situation, even though I am a big fan of the First Amendment.  The military is uniquesly situated, such that it must have "order in the ranks" if it is to perform its function adequately.  Having members of the rank and file publicly second guessing or smearing their leaders, or otherwise acting as armchair quarterbacks, just wouldn't work.  

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.

Experience No. 4 - The "Litigator" Community:

I am a lawyer in Utah. We are bound by a specific set of rules called the "Rules of Professional Conduct." Violating these rules (such as by, say, misappropriating client funds) can get a laywer in deep trouble. In addition to these Rules, the Utah Supreme Court has promulgaged Rule 14-301, called "Standards of Professionalism and Civility" (here's a link to them: http://tinyurl.com/mbl32yz). The standards set forth in this rule, like the restrictions on speech for members of the military as described above, are binding on lawyers but not on the populace at large. They impose a heightened level of decorum and discourse on members of the bar. By "heightened" I mean members of the bar are constrained from saying and doing things, even when the general populace is free from such constraints.

 

For example, in the Preamble of this rule the Supreme Court discourages "conduct that may be characterized as uncivil, abrasive, abusive, hostile, or obstructive." Pro se litigants (people who represent themselves in legal proceedings rather than hire a lawyer) are regularly allowed to be a bit more "uncivil, abrasive," etc. than lawyers. That's not to say that the courts find these behavior appropriate. Rather, judges recognize that the public may not be familiar with the court system, and may not be accustomed or willing to help with maintaining the civility and decorum of that system. Lawyers, however, are officers of the court, and are therefore obligated to help uphold civility, decorum, etc. Hence lawyers' behaviors are constrained in more stringent ways than are the behaviors of the general public.

A comment later on in the Rule states that "Lawyers should maintain the dignity and decorum of judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as the esteem of the legal profession," and that "respect for the court includes lawyers’ dress and conduct." In other words, lawyers are required to behave and speak and dress differently than the general public. So while John Q. Public might get away with wearing grubby clothes to court, or being a bit disrespectful to a judge, etc., attorneys trying such things would get corrected pretty darn fast. The Rule also provides that "lawyers should refrain from expressing scorn, superiority, or disrespect." Again, this is a constraint that is applied to lawyers more stringently than on non-lawyers.

As a licensed attorney I have voluntarily accepted to adhere to the standards of conduct mandated by the Utah Supreme Court. These standards are different from (that is, more stringent) than those imposed by society at large, by the U.S. Constitution, and so on. These standards play a significant role in the "community" of lawyers and judges getting along with each other and making the judicial process function as it is supposed to. If the general public were to observe lawyers ignoring these standards and mouthing off to each other and to judges, then they would likely emulate such behaviors. If the officers of the court charged with upholding that system are acting like idiots, then respect for the system is damaged or destroyed, and the system can’t fulfill its intended function in our society.

 

-------

 

I hope the foregoing experiences clarify my sentiments a bit.  I believe the LDS Church is what it claims to be.  I will therefore treat it much the way I try treat my wife, who is  is a magnificent, albeit flawed, person. She deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not undermine her or my relationship with her by publicizing the particulars of her occasional missteps to strangers (or, worse, to those who might seek to exploit such information to tear her down).

 

Similarly, the LDS Church also deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not seek to undermine it or my relationship with it by publicizing the particulars of its occasional missteps to strangers or enemies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2015 by smac97

[Yirgacheffe]

I think the recent flap over what Lindsay Sterling wore on the Red Carpet is a good example of how to distinguish between members and "institution." The Brethren do not post judgmental comments about young women in the spotlight. Members did.

 

From what I have read, bishops usually find out about things written online because other ward members tell them. That can get out of hand real quick.

I'm not sure that Miss Sterling is a good example, it seems that how one dresses is somewhat dependent on the context, Marie Osmond wore clothing that I wouldn't dream of wearing when dancing with the stars.  Arguing about when certain clothing is appropriate is not the same as throwing someone out because they publicly disagree with something the church teaches or for advocating for change.  I don't see any reason why the church can't just state their position, the reasoning behind it and then ignore the dissenters? 

[Bernard Gui]

Hello All,

Regarding my previous comment quoted by Don ("When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community"), It may be helpful to clarify my perspective on group/community cohesion, including the following experiences I have had over the span of many years which have affected how I feel about being part of a community. In writing these experiences I will try to highlight those parts which may be analogized to Latter-day Saints creating and maintaining cohesion as a community of faith.

Similarly, the LDS Church also deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not seek to undermine it or my relationship with it by publicizing the particulars of its occasional missteps to strangers or enemies.

Thanks,

-Smac

An excellent exposition! Thank you. May I Add one of my own?

The Gun Club Analogy

I join the local gun club. To become a member, I must attend safety training, agree to the club rules, and pay an entrance fee. To maintain my membership, I agree to pay my yearly dues, help maintain the range, and observe all rules and safety procedures. One rule is that no one under the age of 9 can be on the property. I may think that is not a reasonable rule because I am an adult and can safely supervise my 6-year-old grandson. Another rule is that you cannot fire at a rate more than one round per second. I may think this is unreasonable because semi-automatic weapons are built for more rapid fire. Another rule is that handguns may only be used on the handgun range. I may think that a target is a target, and I shouldn't have to walk the hundred yards to the handgun range when the rifle range is next to the parking lot. I address these concerns in a club meeting and with other members, but they are unwilling to change the rules I don't like. Then I may decide to give the range a bad review on its own website and other sites, criticize the club officers, threaten to withhold my dues, and march with confrontational placards at the entrance gate. Should I be offended and surprised when the club terminates my membership?

Edited May 25, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Rivers]

The problem with having a big tent is that the tent will be so big that there is no longer a tent.  So I can sympathize with other Christians who aren't willing to accept Mormons into their big tent of Christianity.

[Tacenda]

Smac97 and Bernard, please say you don't live in Davis County, or in my ward. Your analogies seem unChristlike and Pharisaical. And feed into the ex LDS mantra or critic mantra, that the church is a club.

 

ETA:  I ran out of my allotment of posts Smac97.  Sorry I used a harsh word such a Pharisaical, and thanks for the correct spelling.  I guess in my mind I thought Pharisaical meant following the letter of the law not so much the spiritual law like Christ and his dwelling with the sinners.  And I guess I just hated that Bernard compared in his analogy something akin to paying dues and I attributed it to your post also.  But that doesn't mean I'm happy with what you said.  I need to clarify, it was that it would be hard to be in a ward with someone that wasn't happy with my level of devotion or activity.  We can't judge until we've walked in someone's shoes.  But I judged you too apparently, so we're even.   

Edited May 25, 2015 by Tacenda