Arguing The Church Is At Fault For The Sins Of Its Members

[Thinking]

Shunning may have had its origins from verse 1 of section 101 of the 1835 D&C.

We believe  that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from  marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to  do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of  our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Emphasis mine.

[KevinG]

You asked me for my suggestions about the law of chastity and homosexuality. I wouldn't have said anything about it if you hadn't asked.

You said specifically:

 

 

Forgive me.  You are correct, I later used that as an example in the context of Stemmelbow saying that our teachings on Homosexuality cause harm.

 

However it was asked and answered.  I agreed with you on shame based teaching being harmful.

 

I also pointed out that shame based teaching is another example of how we are blaming the church (institution/gospel) for a failure to practice church teachings (mercy, love, charity)...

 

I thought that was asked/answered and even somewhat agreed to when you brought it up again.  I should have avoided placing blame on you for diverting into the homosexuality discussion.

 

Now that we have retraced the origins of the homosexuality topic.  Can we discuss the actual topic?

[KevinG]

Shunning may have had its origins from verse 1 of section 101 of the 1835 D&C.

Emphasis mine.

 

What do we do with those who are weak in the faith.  Expel them from our reach, or go and find the lost sheep?

 

You are digging very hard to find an example of LDS doctrine's and practices leading to shunning.

 

But thank you.  Shunning is another great example of a practice that is opposed by our doctrines, practices, and teachings, yet the church is accused of doing.  For certain there are families, former spouses, ward members, etc. who avoid those who left the church.  That is a sin.  That is discouraged by church doctrine and teaching.  That is also a favorite accusation of critics who would love to portray the church as an insular cult based on the bad behavior of a few dysfunctional families and individuals.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[stemelbow]

It matters because obedience to one of the laws of the Gospel may be much less harmful than throwing said law out, both temporally and eternally.

It sure may be, but it also may not be.

 

I keep hearing you say the church could be to blame for suicides, but you have yet to demonstrate that point with anything coming close to facts or research.

I've already addressed this, Kevin. I have said it's impossible to prove fault for the Church in the case of suicide. Suicide has many contributing factors. But it's unreasonable to say the Church's teachings do not contribute in some way when it is assumed part of the reason for suicide for gay LDS is that they can't reconcile the Church's teachings with their personal sexual and needy feelings. We do know gay LDS have committed suicide and some of those were loved and supported by family and friends. Did the Church's teachings contribute? Most likely. They probably contributed to such a person's feelings of loneliness, and helplessness. You may say, nay, I suppose. But it seems obvious, so obvious it need not statistical support.

 

I've already shared the fact that when shown love, even gay children of Saints have no greater tendency towards suicide than the general population.

Of course there are other contributing factors. This would not suggest that LDS teaching could not possibly have contributed.

 

If social acceptance of gays were to reduce suicide rates we would have seen those rates come down drastically in the general population as society accepts and celebrates sexual diversity.

Are you suggesting we have not socially accepted gays? Are you suggesting we're on the other side of the fence when it comes to social acceptance of gays?

 

But the facts are stubborn things and much more complex than social disapproval causes suicide.  (Please read the whole article and don't cherry pick one point) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Indeed, complexity is interesting. It's interesting that the Church, in your view, can't be held responsible for it's teachings and language, when over time that teaching and language has grown softer. Perhaps in response to LDS people and families who've been negatively effected by the old language and teaching? No doubt. Will the language and teaching evolve? Sure will. We can likely count on it. Do I need studies and research to prove that point? I don't see how. it's obvious. Right in front of your nose. Change suggest there was a problem that needed fixing.

 

(WHICH IS STILL DIFFERENT FROM THE TOPIC WHICH IS ABOUT BLAMING GOSPEL LAWS FOR THE HARM CAUSED BY NOT FOLLOWING GOSPEL LAWS!)

Nobody is arguing that the Church should be blamed for those members who do bad things by not following the gospel.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Over-focusing on physical affection as a source of happiness and satisfaction in relationships is unhealthy even for heterosexuals, and the cause of much unhappiness when it comes to love and chastity.

 

Please note for the record:  I did not cite anything about homosexuality in my opening statement on not blaming the church for the sins of its members.

 

But please do continue to make this yet another gay thread.  It's what I live for.

Did you not ask for examples?

You're a moving target.

[KevinG]

Nobody is arguing that the Church should be blamed for those members who do bad things by not following the gospel.

 

Yes they are.  You must have missed the accusations of being a cult who shuns those who do not believe as we do.  Or the accusations that the patriarchal structure of the priesthood is the cause of girls feeling like second class citizens, and the cause of familial abuse.  Or the accusations of the church driving families apart.  Or your very own accusation that the way the church is teaching must contribute to gay suicide.

 

Those are exactly blaming the church for bad things that happen when people don't follow the Gospel.

[KevinG]

Did you not ask for examples?

You're a moving target.

 

I asked for examples, not to make the whole darn thread about homosexuality, especially when already asked and answered.

[Thinking]

You are digging very hard to find an example of LDS doctrine's and practices leading to shunning.

 

I didn't really have to dig that much. I have a copy of the 1835 D&C and have read section 101 a few times.

 

Ok, let's talk about a practice that is very common (also related to marriage). Many young women make it known that they will only marry a returned missionary in the temple. Is this official Church policy? No, but the Church doesn't discourage it. In fact it recently encouraged it with this anecdote.

Richard studied mechanical engineering in college. He met and fell in love with Jeanene Watkins. She said she would only marry a returned missionary. He had not thought much about serving a mission before, but he prayed and decided to go. He served in Uruguay and married Jeanene in the Manti Utah Temple two weeks after he returned. They had seven children. Remembering Elder Richard G. Scott

[SmileyMcGee]

continue to make this yet another gay thread.

I didn't know a thread could have a sexual orientation...and that someone could choose it

[jkwilliams]

I didn't know a thread could have a sexual orientation...and that someone could choose it

I thought this thread was just bi-curious.

[KevinG]

It sure may be, but it also may not be.

 

So why throw out 2000 years of law and principle to experiment unless we have very good evidence that a law is causing harm (rather than the misuse or misapplication of that law)?

 

I've already addressed this, Kevin. I have said it's impossible to prove fault for the Church in the case of suicide. Suicide has many contributing factors. But it's unreasonable to say the Church's teachings do not contribute in some way when it is assumed part of the reason for suicide for gay LDS is that they can't reconcile the Church's teachings with their personal sexual and needy feelings. We do know gay LDS have committed suicide and some of those were loved and supported by family and friends. Did the Church's teachings contribute? Most likely. They probably contributed to such a person's feelings of loneliness, and helplessness. You may say, nay, I suppose. But it seems obvious, so obvious it need not statistical support.

 

Is obeying the law of chastity or breaking the laws of charity, love, and mercy the root cause.  I argue that the latter is the problem, not that we teach heterosexual marriage is the kind ordained of God.

 

Of course there are other contributing factors. This would not suggest that LDS teaching could not possibly have contributed.

 

See above.  If we're teaching hate and intolerance than we have something we need to fix.  But far too many critics presume hate and intolerance when none is intended or shown.

 

Are you suggesting we have not socially accepted gays? Are you suggesting we're on the other side of the fence when it comes to social acceptance of gays?

 

No I am suggesting society at large has accepted gays, and that suicide rates have not come down appreciably despite that broader acceptance.  Evidence shows that loving LDS parents of gay children result in the same levels of suicide as gay children in the general population.  Gays, even from loving and accepting households have a higher incidence of suicide.  Societal acceptance is not a panacea, and changing what marriage means will not either.

Indeed, complexity is interesting. It's interesting that the Church, in your view, can't be held responsible for it's teachings and language, when over time that teaching and language has grown softer. Perhaps in response to LDS people and families who've been negatively effected by the old language and teaching? No doubt. Will the language and teaching evolve? Sure will. We can likely count on it. Do I need studies and research to prove that point? I don't see how. it's obvious. Right in front of your nose. Change suggest there was a problem that needed fixing.

 

I never said the church cannot be held responsible for its teachings.  I said we should not be blamed for causing the very things we teach against.

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I didn't really have to dig that much. I have a copy of the 1835 D&C and have read section 101 a few times.

 

Ok, let's talk about a practice that is very common (also related to marriage). Many young women make it known that they will only marry a returned missionary in the temple. Is this official Church policy? No, but the Church doesn't discourage it. In fact it recently encouraged it with this anecdote.

 

Do you suppose Elder Scott was saying "don't marry men who didn't go on a mission", or rather "missionary sacrifice and worthiness in preparing for Temple marriage is a blessing"?

 

I was a new member who hadn't served a mission and I was exposed to plenty of the bigots who ran their hand across my knee to determine my worthiness for marriage.  That isn't a church teaching either.

 

My wife however is grateful because she got me, and the bigots didn't.

 

I could be wrong but show me where it says in the church counsel to marry an unrighteous person simply because they have outwardly participated in an ordinance or program?

[KevinG]

I didn't know a thread could have a sexual orientation...and that someone could choose it

 

 

I thought this thread was just bi-curious.

 

In addition to my mea culpa for accusing JK of turning the topic to homosexuality, I award you both points for a great pun.

 

Can we please discuss the OP now?

 

Is there a case where an LDS doctrine or practice (reasonably not perfectly) followed has caused harm?  

 

If so how would you adjust, repeal, modify that law to remove the harm while insuring there are no more harmful unintended consequences?

[jkwilliams]

Do you suppose Elder Scott was saying "don't marry men who didn't go on a mission", or rather "missionary sacrifice and worthiness in preparing for Temple marriage is a blessing"?

 

I was a new member who hadn't served a mission and I was exposed to plenty of the bigots who ran their hand across my knee to determine my worthiness for marriage.  That isn't a church teaching either.

That's called a "garment feel-up," if you want to get technical. It has happened to me almost every time I attend a church meeting with my wife. She didn't believe me when I told her about it until she watched 2 people do it within a few minutes of each other.

 

My wife however is grateful because she got me, and the bigots didn't.

 

I could be wrong but show me where it says in the church counsel to marry an unrighteous person simply because they have outwardly participated in an ordinance or program?

I think the problem here is that we are attempting to separate church practice/culture from "official" doctrines. I'm not sure that's possible. Basically, for every issue that has been brought up in this thread, the answer is "that's not doctrine, just people misunderstanding doctrine and wrongly applying it." If that's so, then the church has absolutely no relation to the culture it has spawned, and the church in effect becomes infallible because it is only the mistakes of humans that cause the problems.

[stemelbow]

Yes they are.  You must have missed the accusations of being a cult who shuns those who do not believe as we do.  Or the accusations that the patriarchal structure of the priesthood is the cause of girls feeling like second class citizens, and the cause of familial abuse.  Or the accusations of the church driving families apart.  Or your very own accusation that the way the church is teaching must contribute to gay suicide.

 

Those are exactly blaming the church for bad things that happen when people don't follow the Gospel.

I'm not trying to suggest the teaching must contribute. I'm saying it's possible and for those who committed suicide because they were unable to reconcile their feelings and the Church's teachings, it likely did contribute to harm. I realize you disagree on the basis that we can't compromise the law of chastity. But that is irrelevant. The question is is it possible the Church's teachings can contribute to harming another. At least that's the question I've been exploring.

[KevinG]

That's called a "garment feel-up," if you want to get technical. It has happened to me almost every time I attend a church meeting with my wife. She didn't believe me when I told her about it until she watched 2 people do it within a few minutes of each other. 

 

I think the problem here is that we are attempting to separate church practice/culture from "official" doctrines. I'm not sure that's possible. Basically, for every issue that has been brought up in this thread, the answer is "that's not doctrine, just people misunderstanding doctrine and wrongly applying it." If that's so, then the church has absolutely no relation to the culture it has spawned, and the church in effect becomes infallible because it is only the mistakes of humans that cause the problems.

 

I was too naive to notice the garment feel up, but my wife pointed it out to me when she was still my friend.  I about fell off my chair from laughing when she did.

 

I'm not trying to separate the culture from the church as much as I would love people to be more precise when they criticize.  Lashing out at the church for the sins of its members doesn't solve any problems.  In fact it compounds them when we blame a gospel principle, or misapply it, instead of correcting the culture and the individuals who disobey the law.

 

If we want to start a thread on how the church culture needs fixed we could fill volumes.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I'm not trying to suggest the teaching must contribute. I'm saying it's possible and for those who committed suicide because they were unable to reconcile their feelings and the Church's teachings, it likely did contribute to harm. I realize you disagree on the basis that we can't compromise the law of chastity. But that is irrelevant. The question is is it possible the Church's teachings can contribute to harming another. At least that's the question I've been exploring.

 

Then let's correct those teachings, or the flaws in how we teach, rather than argue against the teachings themselves.

 

It is a much more constructive approach, and might help heal the rift between the religious and those who are offended.  Right now I see reactionary language that make both sides feel that war is being waged (on traditional values and modern diversity respectively).

[sethpayne]

 

 

Is there a case where an LDS doctrine or practice (reasonably not perfectly) followed has caused harm?  

 

 

I think this is an impossible question to answer.   So many variables you would have to consider like:

 

* who taught the doctrine?

* how was the doctrine presented?

* under what circumstances was the doctrine taught?

 

So all you will end up with here are anecdotes.  But if I were to make a guess I would say that yes, some doctrines as presented to specific people at specific times under unique circumstances has been harmful.  I mean, just take a look at a now-closed thread where there was serious discussion about if abuse victims were perhaps partially to blame.  I think telling someone who has experienced this kind of trauma may be very harmful.

 

Of course we'll probably agree that this teaching is in reality a distortion of doctrine based on a misunderstanding etc... But you will always get some sort of rejoinder that well, we heard so-and-so teach in GC that it is better to come home from your mission in a coffin than having committed certain sins.  

 

So again, I think the question is simply unanswerable beyond the experiences of individuals.

Edited October 27, 2015 by sethpayne

[jkwilliams]

I was too naive to notice the garment feel up, but my wife pointed it out to me when she was still my friend.  I about fell off my chair from laughing when she did.

 

I'm not trying to separate the culture from the church as much as I would love people to be more precise when they criticize.  Lashing out at the church for the sins of its members doesn't solve any problems.  In fact it compounds them when we blame a gospel principle, or misapply it, instead of correcting the culture and the individuals who disobey the law.

 

If we want to start a thread on how the church culture needs fixed we could fill volumes.

Generally speaking, I don't lash out at the church or its members. I love Mormons, and I will gladly affirm that they are, as a whole, some of the finest people I know. Are there things the church teaches that I don't like? Yep. But I do think the church does a tremendous amount of good in the world, but that is not to say it doesn't do some harm. I think for some people the harm it does them personally far outweighs the good, but I think most people in the church do just fine. I disagree with Kate Kelly that only narrow-minded followers "thrive" in the church, but I don't think it's good for everyone. Fortunately, it's not my decision who is LDS or not.

[stemelbow]

So why throw out 2000 years of law and principle to experiment unless we have very good evidence that a law is causing harm (rather than the misuse or misapplication of that law)?

The question of what constitutes "very good evidence" is subjective, I suppose. Perhaps even one suicide caused by a gay LDS who couldn't reconcile his feelings with his beliefs is enough to some (I know it is for me). but for you it is not enough. And I get why.

 

Is obeying the law of chastity or breaking the laws of charity, love, and mercy the root cause.  I argue that the latter is the problem, not that we teach heterosexual marriage is the kind ordained of God.

I'm not talking "root cause". I'm talking any contributing factor here.

 

See above.  If we're teaching hate and intolerance than we have something we need to fix.  But far too many critics presume hate and intolerance when none is intended or shown.

I agree that some critics have presumed hate and intolerance when none is intended or shown. But that doesn't mean LDS teaching has never contributed to an LDS gay person's suicide. The teachings may have.

 

No I am suggesting society at large has accepted gays, and that suicide rates have not come down appreciably despite that broader acceptance.  Evidence shows that loving LDS parents of gay children result in the same levels of suicide as gay children in the general population.  Gays, even from loving and accepting households have a higher incidence of suicide.  Societal acceptance is not a panacea, and changing what marriage means will not either.

I'm really not sure where or why marriage got introduced here. My position has nothing to do with anyone's acceptance or rejection of gay marriage, really.

I never said the church cannot be held responsible for its teachings.  I said we should not be blamed for causing the very things we teach against.

I'm not saying otherwise. But I am saying it's possible the Church could shoulder some blame for certain problems. Gay LDS committing suicide may have contribution from the Church's teaching, attitude, culture, and language.

[stemelbow]

Then let's correct those teachings, or the flaws in how we teach, rather than argue against the teachings themselves.

 

It is a much more constructive approach, and might help heal the rift between the religious and those who are offended.  Right now I see reactionary language that make both sides feel that war is being waged (on traditional values and modern diversity respectively).

Not sure what you mean. To correct those teachings we must first pose a good argument against those teachings.

I honestly don't feel war in the discussion in this thread.

[KevinG]

I think this is an impossible question to answer.   So many variables you would have to consider like:

 

* who taught the doctrine?

* how was the doctrine presented?

* under what circumstances was the doctrine taught?

 

So all you will end up with here are anecdotes.  But if I were to make a guess I would say that yes, some doctrines as presented to specific people at specific times under unique circumstances has been harmful.  I mean, just take a look at a now-closed thread where there was serious discussion about if abuse victims were perhaps partially to blame.  I think telling someone who has experienced this kind of trauma may be very harmful.

 

Of course we'll probably agree that this teaching is in reality a distortion of doctrine based on a misunderstanding etc... But you will always get some sort of rejoinder that well, we heard so-and-so teach in GC that it is better to come home from your mission in a coffin than having committed certain sins.  

 

So again, I think the question is simply unanswerable beyond the experiences of individuals.

 

Sticking to actual teachings of the institutional church and not cultural screw ups or outright sinning...  And for simplicity sake sticking to current teachings and practices...

 

What harm would anyone blame on the church, and why?  What would be the fix.

 

As much as you say that is unanswerable, there are plenty of examples of people blaming the church for their personal and collective misery.  I'd say they are fooling themselves or that they really believe the contemporary church causes harm.

[KevinG]

Not sure what you mean. To correct those teachings we must first pose a good argument against those teachings.

I honestly don't feel war in the discussion in this thread.

 

I am honestly asking if anyone has a good argument against any gospel teaching that does not rely on "not following gospel teachings" as evidence.

 

I wasn't limiting the discussion of church blaming to what was said in this thread.  There is a culture war going on, and has been since Satan asked Adam and Eve why they bothered obeying Heavenly Father.

Edited October 27, 2015 by KevinG

[CV75]

I'm sure Satan is thrilled to have Saints break their own laws so the charge of hypocrisy can be raised to the rafters...  but it is a very poor critique of a program to cite failure to obey the law, as a justification against that law.

He's also thrilled to have people magnify the fallible, the fallen, the biased, the carnal, sensual and devilish etc. to undermine Gospel law.

[Tsuzuki]

The Book of Mormon already sets a precedent for blaming a church for the sins of its members. I see no reason why the modern incarnation should be exempt.