Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities

[smac97]

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.

Melodramatic twaddle. The LDS Church is quite restrained, decorous, patient and charitable when it comes to disciplinary action. To characterize it with such risible and offense language like "beating people into submission" is to eliminate the good faith that, until now, I thought had existed in this discussion. I therefore decline to engage in further interaction with you in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[DragonLancer]

. 

Edited May 29, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Mystery Meat]

The key point in this thread is the role that unity plays. If we are not one we are not His. I don't think, as Joseph Smith seemed to suggest, that means we all have to believe exactly the same way. But at the very LEAST, if you don't even believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is building Zion under divine guidance and authority, you probably don't belong in the fold. That is our common goal and purpose. 

 

In Zion, true Zion, all will be united. And, no, you can't say you want to make the Church better by expanding the tent (more inclusive for others who also don't believe, make the Church a more socially acceptable Church and/or eliminate outdated doctrines or beliefs for the sake of certain peoples or viewpoints) in an attempt to qualify as a Zion builder. I suppose that in such people's mind that is a type of building. But it is not Zion building. Zion building involves more, much more. It involves unity, obedience to God and his leaders. It involves a fundamental knowledge, faith, belief, desire to believe or even hope that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by Jesus Christ at its head, that he calls and speaks to men and women who lead and direct within their stewardship. It is faith (this is not a passive faith, but a strong unyielding trust) that God has called the people He called and that no unhallowed hand can stop this Church's divine mission, EVEN AND ESPECIALLY in moments when you feel like those with responsibility of leadership have it wrong and if they continue on a certain path it will hurt the Church as a whole (and even individuals). Thus, Zion building requires that we all "lift where we stand", whether that is as a primary teacher, ward greeter, scout master, Bishop, YW's President, Apostle or President of the Church. It means we do not seek other's stewardship. It means we trust the Lord enough to call the right people to lead His work. It means we do not get all anxious and bent out of shape when we are so sure about the destruction of the Church if it remains on a given course. The Lord's house, is a house of order. It is not a democracy. We are all important cogs in the Lord's plan for His Church. But we must understand our role and accept other's role as well. 

[stemelbow]

Melodramatic twaddle. The LDS Church is quite restrained, decorous, patient and charitable when it comes to disciplinary action. To characterize it with such risible and offense language like "beating people into submission" is to eliminate the good faith that, until now, I thought had existed in this discussion. I therefore decline to engage in further interaction with you in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Alright. Certainly didn't mean to offend. But the beating into submission was what came to mind as I read Joseph's statement about being trammeled. I played off that. I certainly agree the Church is largely "restrained, decorous, patient, and charitable" when it comes to apostasy. That I think there is room to be moreso gives me room to disagree, if I see fit. It seems to me the policy on disciplining for apostasy is set and it is rarely invoked. With that I applaud. But if rarely invoked for most, why waste time invoking it at all? At this time, it seems to me, it's hard to tell exactly when a line is crossed and a person who believes differently, is hauled in for discipline. It seems like there is an effort to say the line is crossed when people start sharing their feelings and beliefs. My take is squarely with the quote from Hugh B Brown, above. We should easily be able to take thoughtful criticism without it being a problem. In many measures I think we do. Why does it make sense that someone is sinning if they believe differently?

My mistake, I would have loved to discuss more on this. Sorry to have offended you.

[stemelbow]

The key point in this thread is the role that unity plays. If we are not one we are not His. I don't think, as Joseph Smith seemed to suggest, that means we all have to believe exactly the same way. But at the very LEAST, if you don't even believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is building Zion under divine guidance and authority, you probably don't belong in the fold. That is our common goal and purpose.

"Exactly the same way" seems like an impossible standard. What if one believes that God uses many resources to build Zion, the Church being just one of those? Meaning the Church is contributing the building of Zion? Or perhaps, what if someone doesn't like the language of building zion, per se, but working towards good for mankind?

 

In Zion, true Zion, all will be united. And, no, you can't say you want to make the Church better by expanding the tent (more inclusive for others who also don't believe, make the Church a more socially acceptable Church and/or eliminate outdated doctrines or beliefs for the sake of certain peoples or viewpoints) in an attempt to qualify as a Zion builder.

My question is, though, why not?

I suppose that in such people's mind that is a type of building. But it is not Zion building. Zion building involves more, much more. It involves unity, obedience to God and his leaders. It involves a fundamental knowledge, faith, belief, desire to believe or even hope that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by Jesus Christ at its head, that he calls and speaks to men and women who lead and direct within their stewardship. It is faith (this is not a passive faith, but a strong unyielding trust) that God has called the people He called and that no unhallowed hand can stop this Church's divine mission, EVEN AND ESPECIALLY in moments when you feel like those with responsibility of leadership have it wrong and if they continue on a certain path it will hurt the Church as a whole (and even individuals). Thus, Zion building requires that we all "lift where we stand", whether that is as a primary teacher, ward greeter, scout master, Bishop, YW's President, Apostle or President of the Church. It means we do not seek other's stewardship. It means we trust the Lord enough to call the right people to lead His work. It means we do not get all anxious and bent out of shape when we are so sure about the destruction of the Church if it remains on a given course. The Lord's house, is a house of order. It is not a democracy. We are all important cogs in the Lord's plan for His Church. But we must understand our role and accept other's role as well.

But it remains true, that the Church is not God. We can trust God all we want, but if the Church, led by fallible people, makes a mistake, then we aren't trusting God by going along with the mistake. That, there, leaves room for disagreement. We ought to be one, but what does that mean? That we need to agree on every point of thought and doctrine? As I see it, we're given snippets of info, as it relates to truth and eternity, if you will. We don't have the whole of the puzzle. So we try to create pieces to fit and fill in. These pieces, created by men, are products of the time, place, culture of the creators. Times change and the perspective that made these pieces change. We should have no problem over-writing the pieces. Maybe as we do so, we start to figure out how to get them right.

Does God only want us to get in line and follow? I don't know if that's what He wants. Sometimes He wants, it seems to me, to inspire even the least of us to help each other understand how the pieces we've made need fixing. And some of the least among us, aren't members in my view. I think He wants to use any and all.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

No analogy applies perfectly.

 

An analogy, by definition, is a comparison presented for illustrative purposes that applies in only limited respects to the thing to which it is compared.

 

Analogies are like the parables of Jesus in that regard. Consider the parable of the importunate widow and the unjust judge. At first glance, one might think Christ is comparing God the Father to an unjust judge. But that can't be right. So what's the explanation? Christ intended His parable to apply only in limited respects to the message he was trying to convey, which, as expressed in the words of the scripture, was "that men ought to pray and not faint." He was in effect saying that if an unjust judge would answer the continued appeals from the importunate widow, how much more apt is our Father, who loves us, to answer our persistent prayers!

 

With all that said, I say that Smac's marching band analogy is a good one and works for the purpose for which he intended it.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Mystery Meat]

"Exactly the same way" seems like an impossible standard. What if one believes that God uses many resources to build Zion, the Church being just one of those? Meaning the Church is contributing the building of Zion? Or perhaps, what if someone doesn't like the language of building zion, per se, but working towards good for mankind?

 

My question is, though, why not?

But it remains true, that the Church is not God. We can trust God all we want, but if the Church, led by fallible people, makes a mistake, then we aren't trusting God by going along with the mistake. That, there, leaves room for disagreement. We ought to be one, but what does that mean? That we need to agree on every point of thought and doctrine? As I see it, we're given snippets of info, as it relates to truth and eternity, if you will. We don't have the whole of the puzzle. So we try to create pieces to fit and fill in. These pieces, created by men, are products of the time, place, culture of the creators. Times change and the perspective that made these pieces change. We should have no problem over-writing the pieces. Maybe as we do so, we start to figure out how to get them right.

Does God only want us to get in line and follow? I don't know if that's what He wants. Sometimes He wants, it seems to me, to inspire even the least of us to help each other understand how the pieces we've made need fixing. And some of the least among us, aren't members in my view. I think He wants to use any and all.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

I am not sure, however, how you can think that the Lord thinks its okay for people to overstep their ecclesiastical stewardship, no matter their righteous intention, given scriptural precedent. 

 

Furthermore, no one has said the Church is God. That would be stupid. But part of trusting God is trusting HIM to not only call who He would have lead (even, GASP, Judas!) but that HE is capable of fixing any mistakes that NEED to be fixed through those He has called that have such authority. It is not going along with the mistake (moreover, I think the mistakes thrown at the feet of the brethren, 9/10, are perceived mistakes and are not actually so), its trusting the Lord to fix it (either Himself or through the PROPER order). For example, I am not a fan of BSA. I think it is a waste of a program. But I am not actively advocating for the Church's end to sponsorship. It's not my role. There are so many other things I would fix about the Church and its culture...but thankfully for members of the Church everywhere, I don't have the authority.

 

Also, I think it is highly unfair to sum up what I said as "get in line and follow." Implicit in that is a mindless body of members who have no capability to think for themselves. In fact, the more that I think about that, the more offensive what you said truly is. As Smac said above, it calls into question your ability to have a fair, open and reasoned conversation. The operative word is to sustain. We have leaders. God called them. He sustains them. We should too. If you can't see the difference between "get in line and follow" and sustaining you are in trouble. 

 

Again, the Lord is perfectly capable to keep His Church in order. If He felt like Waterman, Dehlin, lvjd66, stemelbow or anyone else could make the Church resemble how He wanted it to look, He would put you in the position to make it happen. Until He does, your job, and mine, is to sustain, i.e. to trust who the Lord has called, to trust the Lord and to trust the Lord to fix any mistake that NEEDS to be fixed through the proper channels (priesthood keys and stewardship, not anyone and everyone with a blog, podcast or Facebook page).

Edited May 29, 2015 by lvjd66

[ERayR]

We will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

I am not sure, however, how you can think that the Lord thinks its okay for people to overstep their ecclesiastical stewardship, no matter their righteous intention, given scriptural precedent. 

 

Furthermore, no one has said the Church is God. That would be stupid. But part of trusting God is trusting HIM to not only call who He would have lead (even, GASP, Judas!) but that HE is capable of fixing any mistakes that NEED to be fixed through those He has called that have such authority. It is not going along with the mistake (moreover, I think the mistakes thrown at the feet of the brethren, 9/10, are perceived mistakes and are not actually so), its trusting the Lord to fix it (either Himself or through the PROPER order). For example, I am not a fan of BSA. I think it is a waste of a program. But I am not actively advocating for the Church's end to sponsorship. It's not my role. There are so many other things I would fix about the Church and its culture...but thankfully for members of the Church everywhere, I don't have the authority.

 

Also, I think it is highly unfair to sum up what I said as "get in line and follow." Implicit in that is a mindless body of members who have no capability to think for themselves. In fact, the more that I think about that, the more offensive what you said truly is. As Smac said above, it calls into question your ability to have a fair, open and reasoned conversation. The operative word is to sustain. We have leaders. God called them. He sustains them. We should too. If you can't see the difference between "get in line and follow" and sustaining you are in trouble. 

 

Again, the Lord is perfectly capable to keep His Church in order. If He felt like Waterman, Dehlin, lvjd66, stemelbow or anyone else could make the Church resemble how He wanted it to look, He would put you in the position to make it happen. Until He does, your job, and mine, is to sustain, i.e. to trust who the Lord has called, to trust the Lord and to trust the Lord to fix any mistake that NEEDS to be fixed through the proper channels (priesthood keys and stewardship, not anyone and everyone with a blog, podcast or Facebook page).

 

This needs at least a dozen rep points.

[stemelbow]

We will just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

I am not sure, however, how you can think that the Lord thinks its okay for people to overstep their ecclesiastical stewardship, no matter their righteous intention, given scriptural precedent.

To many in Jesus' day, the Son of Man overstepped HIs ecclesiastical stewardship. It could be a matter of perspective. But I would say, to disagree on a teaching or idea, can't really be overstepping, can it? We've certainly had some mixed messages from leaders over the years. At some points we are told to test out what they say. We ought to, as Hugh B. Brown has said, "express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences". Other times we're told to get in line, the thinking has been done, and such.

 

Furthermore, no one has said the Church is God. That would be stupid. But part of trusting God is trusting HIM to not only call who He would have lead (even, GASP, Judas!) but that HE is capable of fixing any mistakes that NEED to be fixed through those He has called that have such authority.

Sounds precisely like the arguments made against LDS by traditional Christians when it comes to the Bible and apostasy. Why are we saying it is trusting God that no mistakes are made, or will be fixed, if God never tells us there will be no mistakes or any that happen to come up are quickly fixed? Does He say He won't use any ol' person to help others understand better?

It is not going along with the mistake (moreover, I think the mistakes thrown at the feet of the brethren, 9/10, are perceived mistakes and are not actually so), its trusting the Lord to fix it (either Himself or through the PROPER order). For example, I am not a fan of BSA. I think it is a waste of a program. But I am not actively advocating for the Church's end to sponsorship. It's not my role. There are so many other things I would fix about the Church and its culture...but thankfully for members of the Church everywhere, I don't have the authority.

Sure you don't. But to think "i'm not a fan of BSA. I think it is a waste of a program." is not overstepping your ecclesiastical authority. It's offering your opinion. Doing so is not taking control of the Church and making a change. Your example here, supports my point nicely, it seems to me.

 

Also, I think it is highly unfair to sum up what I said as "get in line and follow." Implicit in that is a mindless body of members who have no capability to think for themselves. In fact, the more that I think about that, the more offensive what you said truly is. As Smac said above, it calls into question your ability to have a fair, open and reasoned conversation. The operative word is to sustain. We have leaders. God called them. He sustains them. We should too. If you can't see the difference between "get in line and follow" and sustaining you are in trouble.

I didn't say you said "get in line and follow". I asked a question that, in my mind, was in context of the general conversation.

 

Again, the Lord is perfectly capable to keep His Church in order. If He felt like Waterman, Dehlin, lvjd66, stemelbow or anyone else could make the Church resemble how He wanted it to look, He would put you in the position to make it happen. Until He does, your job, and mine, is to sustain, i.e. to trust who the Lord has called, to trust the Lord and to trust the Lord to fix any mistake that NEEDS to be fixed through the proper channels (priesthood keys and stewardship, not anyone and everyone with a blog, podcast or Facebook page).

I disagree that you or I know the mind of God. He very well could use any of the above to help foster change. I have no plans to limit His options. Exploring ideas, disagreements, and the like is not claiming those in charge aren't trying to do good. It is only acknowledging we have room to talk and disagree.

[Mystery Meat]

This is an okay statement in my view:

 

I am not sure Prop 8 was a good strategy for the Church, but I trust God and His leaders to further the work.

 

This is not an okay statement:

 

The decision to support Prop 8 was terrible. This shows that the leaders of the Church were uninspired.

 

Okay:

 

I am uncomfortable with polygamy, but I trust Joseph Smith and the Lord to either correct it or help me understand.

 

Not Okay:

 

- Polygamy was wrong.

- God would never command Joseph Smith to live polygamy.

- Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet

- Joseph Smith was a pervert and sexual predator

 

Okay:

 

I really don't like BSA, but I trust the leaders of the Church to understand the mind of the Lord on the matter

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren need to get with the times and realize BSA is a terrible organization

 

Okay:

 

I really wish the Church would not speak about global warming, but I trust the Lord sustains who he calls so I will too

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren have no business offering their "opinion" about Global warming as if it were doctrine. They are ministers, not scientists

 

Okay: 

 

The way the Church treats people who have looked at or currently look at pornography is damaging to everyone, but I know the Lord is in charge and I have complete trust in Him and His chosen leaders to either fix it OR make up the difference with the Atonement

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren are perpetuating a culture of shame and guilt that only makes things worse. No wonder so many Mormons "think" they are addicted to pornography. 

[Scott Lloyd]

This is an okay statement in my view:

 

I am not sure Prop 8 was a good strategy for the Church, but I trust God and His leaders to further the work.

 

This is not an okay statement:

 

The decision to support Prop 8 was terrible. This shows that the leaders of the Church were uninspired.

 

Okay:

 

I am uncomfortable with polygamy, but I trust Joseph Smith and the Lord to either correct it or help me understand.

 

Not Okay:

 

- Polygamy was wrong.

- God would never command Joseph Smith to live polygamy.

- Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet

- Joseph Smith was a pervert and sexual predator

 

Okay:

 

I really don't like BSA, but I trust the leaders of the Church to understand the mind of the Lord on the matter

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren need to get with the times and realize BSA is a terrible organization

 

Okay:

 

I really wish the Church would not speak about global warming, but I trust the Lord sustains who he calls so I will too

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren have no business offering their "opinion" about Global warming as if it were doctrine. They are ministers, not scientists

 

Okay: 

 

The way the Church treats people who have looked at or currently look at pornography is damaging to everyone, but I know the Lord is in charge and I have complete trust in Him and His chosen leaders to either fix it OR make up the difference with the Atonement

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren are perpetuating a culture of shame and guilt that only makes things worse. No wonder so many Mormons "think" they are addicted to pornography. 

Well said.

 

But has the Church expressed itself on global warming, or are you merely giving that as a hypothetical?

[Mystery Meat]

Well said.

 

But has the Church expressed itself on global warming, or are you merely giving that as a hypothetical?

 

I think climate change has been mention in passing, but it was more of an example.

[stemelbow]

This is an okay statement in my view:

 

I am not sure Prop 8 was a good strategy for the Church, but I trust God and His leaders to further the work.

 

This is not an okay statement:

 

The decision to support Prop 8 was terrible. This shows that the leaders of the Church were uninspired.

 

Okay:

 

I am uncomfortable with polygamy, but I trust Joseph Smith and the Lord to either correct it or help me understand.

 

Not Okay:

 

- Polygamy was wrong.

- God would never command Joseph Smith to live polygamy.

- Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet

- Joseph Smith was a pervert and sexual predator

 

Okay:

 

I really don't like BSA, but I trust the leaders of the Church to understand the mind of the Lord on the matter

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren need to get with the times and realize BSA is a terrible organization

 

Okay:

 

I really wish the Church would not speak about global warming, but I trust the Lord sustains who he calls so I will too

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren have no business offering their "opinion" about Global warming as if it were doctrine. They are ministers, not scientists

 

Okay: 

 

The way the Church treats people who have looked at or currently look at pornography is damaging to everyone, but I know the Lord is in charge and I have complete trust in Him and His chosen leaders to either fix it OR make up the difference with the Atonement

 

Not Okay:

 

The brethren are perpetuating a culture of shame and guilt that only makes things worse. No wonder so many Mormons "think" they are addicted to pornography.

So when you say Okay vs Not Okay are you saying anyone who professes not okays should be subject to Church discipline?

Interesting perspective. I think it's fine for someone to say they don't like the BSA and that the Church is making a mistake to employ it's program. It seems like someone who thinks that ought to feel free to say as much and not feel like they should qualify their disagreement with a "but the leaders must be right because they know the will of the LORD".

To each his own, I guess.

[Mystery Meat]

So when you say Okay vs Not Okay are you saying anyone who professes not okays should be subject to Church discipline?

Interesting perspective. I think it's fine for someone to say they don't like the BSA and that the Church is making a mistake to employ it's program. It seems like someone who thinks that ought to feel free to say as much and not feel like they should qualify their disagreement with a "but the leaders must be right because they know the will of the LORD".

To each his own, I guess.

 

I think the need for discipline would depend on a lot of factors, the two most obvious of which would be the level of disrespect, hostility, etc. in the statement and the proximity of the principal to gospel fundamentals. Saying it is not okay does not mean they are all equal. But in my view, each of the not okay examples above would require sincere and serious repentance. 

[rodheadlee]

It seems to me that you can't change the definition of Zion to suit your needs.

  18 And the Lord called his people ^aZion, because they were of ^bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

[Mystery Meat]

I know the Lord is in charge and I have complete trust in Him and His chosen leaders to either fix it OR make up the difference with the Atonement

Not to toot my own horn, but I have been thinking about this. When I wrote it I don't think I understood what I was saying. But, I think it is terribly important to grasp if we are going to sustain our leaders in the way the Lord would have us do it.

Do our leaders make mistakes? Undoubtedly. But this is where the atonement comes in, and not just to help the leader be forgiven for their mistakes. The atonement fixes things. Not just things we have done, but things other people have done to us, especially when those things are done by a faithful servant with good intentions. That atoning power, I believe is more readily available as we sustain (trust, follow, support and respect).

Knowing this, I think steadying the ark is a direct reflection of our faith in Jesus Christ, His Atonement, and the saviors ability to make up the difference when there is a difference that needs to be made up (Hint: There is always a difference that needs to be made up).

To be clear, sustaining means trusting those are called to lead. It means respecting their stewardship, ESPECIALLY when we think we know better. It means that when it comes to the COJCOLDS, there is an order to things. Mortals so their best to build Zion, when we either think or think we know they are falling short, we trust the Lord and the Atonement to make up the difference.

What we don't do is sew doubt and speak evil of the Lord's anointed. That is not trusting the Lord or the Atonement.

[stemelbow]

Not to toot my own horn, but I have been thinking about this. When I wrote it I don't think I understood what I was saying. But, I think it is terribly important to grasp if we are going to sustain our leaders in the way the Lord would have us do it.

Do our leaders make mistakes? Undoubtedly. But this is where the atonement comes in, and not just to help the leader be forgiven for their mistakes. The atonement fixes things. Not just things we have done, but things other people have done to us, especially when those things are done by a faithful servant with good intentions. That atoning power, I believe is more readily available as we sustain (trust, follow, support and respect).

Knowing this, I think steadying the ark is a direct reflection of our faith in Jesus Christ, His Atonement, and the saviors ability to make up the difference when there is a difference that needs to be made up (Hint: There is always a difference that needs to be made up).

To be clear, sustaining means trusting those are called to lead. It means respecting their stewardship, ESPECIALLY when we think we know better. It means that when it comes to the COJCOLDS, there is an order to things. Mortals so their best to build Zion, when we either think or think we know they are falling short, we trust the Lord and the Atonement to make up the difference.

What we don't do is sew doubt and speak evil of the Lord's anointed. That is not trusting the Lord or the Atonement.

I hear all of this, and in the end, its clear we're just seeing things much different from each other. I don't think respectfully questioning, asking, challenging, openly discussing ideas is in any way disrespecting and not supporting the leaders. I think it's quite the opposite in fact. To do so, puts us in the place where we are able to be a part of it all, rather than just listeners.

[Mystery Meat]

I hear all of this, and in the end, its clear we're just seeing things much different from each other. I don't think respectfully questioning, asking, challenging, openly discussing ideas is in any way disrespecting and not supporting the leaders. I think it's quite the opposite in fact. To do so, puts us in the place where we are able to be a part of it all, rather than just listeners.

 

I guess I don't really disagree here. The question is when does it become disrespectful. Of all the notable excommunicated people we have discussed on this board, I would have to say that none in my mind qualify as respectful. I think many on this board who disagree also do not qualify. I also think when we seek to effect change within the Church at a level that is outside our stewardship, we have also practiced a sort of unrighteous dominion. I think we see a lot of modern, western philosophy about community involvement creeping in.

 

Once again, you are very much misinterpreting and grossly misunderstanding what me (and those who agree) are actually doing. You said that those who question, etc. are "able to part of it all, rather than just listeners." Really? Do you listen to how you sound when you type something like that? As if me or people like me are just passively sitting back twiddling our thumbs thinking that every point of doctrine and policy is good and therefore we must blindly follow? Because that is the impression that you give with your comments. I cannot tell you how many times at local or general church meetings I hear things that I question, dare I say doubt, or that make me uncomfortable. There is nothing passive about how we sustain our leaders. Nothing. But the Lord has revealed His pattern in scripture. There IS an order to things. Ark steadying, while encouraged and good in modern day politics and communities, is unacceptable in the Kingdom of God. It ALWAYS has been and it ALWAYS will be.

 

Asking questions, having concerns, and disagreeing based on the information available is okay. Using those questions, concerns and disagreements and even discussing them in an attempt to try and effect change in contravention of priesthood leaders is a sin of pride and as President McKay said in my signature quote, leads to a loss of the Spirit. 

 

P.S. Discussing concerns and questions or disagreements with Church policy/leaders is not inherently bad. In fact, if you read my examples of good/bad statements above, each of the good statements I wrote I actually agree with. It is the intent with which you are discussing them. To build faith and unity OR to try and shape and mold the Church after YOUR OWN image.

[stemelbow]

I guess I don't really disagree here. The question is when does it become disrespectful. Of all the notable excommunicated people we have discussed on this board, I would have to say that none in my mind qualify as respectful. I think many on this board who disagree also do not qualify. I also think when we seek to effect change within the Church at a level that is outside our stewardship, we have also practiced a sort of unrighteous dominion. I think we see a lot of modern, western philosophy about community involvement creeping in.

 

Once again, you are very much misinterpreting and grossly misunderstanding what me (and those who agree) are actually doing. You said that those who question, etc. are "able to part of it all, rather than just listeners." Really? Do you listen to how you sound when you type something like that? As if me or people like me are just passively sitting back twiddling our thumbs thinking that every point of doctrine and policy is good and therefore we must blindly follow? Because that is the impression that you give with your comments. I cannot tell you how many times at local or general church meetings I hear things that I question, dare I say doubt, or that make me uncomfortable. There is nothing passive about how we sustain our leaders. Nothing. But the Lord has revealed His pattern in scripture. There IS an order to things. Ark steadying, while encouraged and good in modern day politics and communities, is unacceptable in the Kingdom of God. It ALWAYS has been and it ALWAYS will be.

 

Asking questions, having concerns, and disagreeing based on the information available is okay. Using those questions, concerns and disagreements and even discussing them in an attempt to try and effect change in contravention of priesthood leaders is a sin of pride and as President McKay said in my signature quote, leads to a loss of the Spirit. 

 

P.S. Discussing concerns and questions or disagreements with Church policy/leaders is not inherently bad. In fact, if you read my examples of good/bad statements above, each of the good statements I wrote I actually agree with. It is the intent with which you are discussing them. To build faith and unity OR to try and shape and mold the Church after YOUR OWN image.

I realize we're not seeing eye to eye. Just like when you are reading things into what I'm saying, like getting from being listeners to something about passivity in our sustaining. Thus, I think we're disagreeing at different levels than what we're talking about.

I think respect in discourse is very important and any all disagreements and concerns should be stated respectfully. But it's not always going to be that way. Sometimes people wear their emotions on their sleeves. I think our (you and me) disagreement is pretty simple, though. The examples given--you see levels of disrespect I don't in them. In my mind, hearing from them, reading them, leaves plenty of room for me to disagree, comment, explain, and such. That suggests to me, though they may disagree with me, vehemently about something, there's plenty enough room for respect. People can be condescending, rude, dogmatic and I still feel enough respect to keep them. Even local leaders can be just as condescending, rude, and dogmatic, and they of course may be praised for such.

[Avatar4321]

I came across this scripture just now. Seems relevant to our discussion on apostasy and disagreement.

"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." (Romans 14:1)

[Mystery Meat]

I came across this scripture just now. Seems relevant to our discussion on apostasy and disagreement.

"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." (Romans 14:1)

 

Excellent quote. In the scriptures we are instructed to doubt not, but be believing. It would seem doubt (and questioning and cynicism) has become the new badge of intelligence for some within Mormondom.

[stemelbow]

Excellent quote. In the scriptures we are instructed to doubt not, but be believing. It would seem doubt (and questioning and cynicism) has become the new badge of intelligence for some within Mormondom.

That's not really what I'm saying, but I would suggest cynicism can be problematic. I think questioning and challenging can be achieved without cynicism, elitism, enmity, nor disputations.

[Mystery Meat]

That's not really what I'm saying, but I would suggest cynicism can be problematic. I think questioning and challenging can be achieved without cynicism, elitism, enmity, nor disputations.

 

Don't disagree. However, I do think doubt is extolled as a virtue more and more, whereas, in scripture it is viewed as a vice. I am not saying people who have doubts should feel like great sinners. But I don't think it should be embraced, praised and valued either. Belief and faith are better.

[stemelbow]

Don't disagree. However, I do think doubt is extolled as a virtue more and more, whereas, in scripture it is viewed as a vice. I am not saying people who have doubts should feel like great sinners. But I don't think it should be embraced, praised and valued either. Belief and faith are better.

The scriptures are pretty dogmatic when it comes to doubt. But I find many passages that praise the notion of individual exploration, questioning, learning from struggle and dissatisfaction. I don't think it's bad to embrace doubt, in that we ought to let things run the course with us. We shouldn't suppress our thoughts and feelings, so much as, let them grow. In my mind, doing so can bring us great benefit.

The problem isn't, as I see it, that we doubt. But that we let other things drive our doubt--things like resentment, pride, etc.

[Mystery Meat]

The scriptures are pretty dogmatic when it comes to doubt. But I find many passages that praise the notion of individual exploration, questioning, learning from struggle and dissatisfaction. I don't think it's bad to embrace doubt, in that we ought to let things run the course with us. We shouldn't suppress our thoughts and feelings, so much as, let them grow. In my mind, doing so can bring us great benefit.

The problem isn't, as I see it, that we doubt. But that we let other things drive our doubt--things like resentment, pride, etc.

 

Very well said.