Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[Bob Crockett]

 

 

 

Several posters have proposed that CHI 1 should not be publicly discussed because its circulation is limited to bishoprics and stake presidents (and higher authorities, including 3 women).

 

Personally, I think the notion is silly. The original church handbooks were not only published, they were codified in scriptures - section 20 for example. If our God does not work in secret, why are we so afraid of what's in the handbooks?

 

 

Well, I think that that sort of conduct will make it difficult to ever obtain readmission to the Church, but as a practical matter, its gonna come out anyway.

[Buckeye]

 

Did you ever notice that one set of ordinances happens in the temple and others don't??

 

What kind of question is that?  No comparison.  It's the difference between public and private.  It's why we don't have internet cameras in our bedrooms.  Very basic stuff

 

I was challenging the principle you gave for excluding people from the temple - i.e., people cannot understand what they haven't personally experienced. That would seem to apply to baptism and the sacrament too.

 

 

CHI 1 is on a need-to-know basis.

 

It is quite boring.  If you don't need to know how to hold a disciplinary council or how many need to be there, or how to administer tithing, you don't need to know it.

 

It's neither "secret" or "sacred".  It's essentially like a manual for how to run a company, what forms to fill out and where to send them, how to account for things, how the computer system works etc.  Very boring stuff.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would care what is in there if you don't need it for your calling.

 

Generally speaking, if people are directly impacted by a policy in the handbook they are entitled to know what it is. Don't you think? Limiting information on the computer system may be fine (who really cares, right). But the new policy is something that matters greatly to affected members and non-members (consider Daniel2 for example). You seriously can't understand why such members would be interested in the information even though they are not in a leadership position that requires the handbook?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[why me]

Yet his craving for attention meant he mischaracterized the policy and thus created more pain. All unnecessarily.

There is a difference between genuine disagreement between two parties both acting in good faith, and actually seeking to sew contention.

Well that is right. But who will call him on it. Where are the critics calling him on it? I see him as rather bitter and when he got the information his bitterness came out in the interpretation. I also see him as an attention seeker.

[Teancum]

So many want to blame John Dehlin for the clear LDS leadership debacle on how they handled this wonderful policy roll out.

 

Lucky for him nobody can kick him out again.

[Analytics]

CHI 1 is on a need-to-know basis.

 

 

One would think that all members and perspective members need to know the rules they are subject to.  Unrighteous dominion is a thing, and it's only fair to allow members to know what the rules are so that they can know the specific consequences of their actions and can evaluate whether their leaders are treating them according to the rules or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems that anything that questions things LDS is anti Mormon for you. Yet you call LDS Critics provincial.

Any overt attack against the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders and faithful members strikes me as anti-Mormon. I'll cheerfully acknowledge that.

 

How that relates to being provincial is neither self-evident nor clear.

 

I say that critics are provincial because so often their gripes pertain to their own relatively narrow self-interests and frames-of-reference as opposed to the global Church and the interests of its members worldwide.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Tony Frank]

 

Press still considers this a "mass resignation" - a few hundred out of millions.  I suppose it's mass in that it was done as a group...

 

 

It was a Mormon "Mass." That's a Catholic joke, son. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I think a big factor was the blacks in Africa who found a Book of Mormon and were converted and patiently asked and waited for the right time.

And this is certainly a case-in-point on the matter of provincialism vs. the world view (see the immediate past post from Teancum).

 

Those who were criticizing the Church prior to 1978 on the priesthood/race issue were doing so from a frame-of-reference of politics and pressure groups within the United States. Church leaders, on the other hand, while undoubtedly mindful of the political situation, were viewing the matter from the perspective of global membership, need for local leadership and growth in areas of potential expansion for the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Those who say the 1978 policy change resulted purely from political pressure in the United States have a very myopic view. The political pressure was at its zenith in the late 1960s and had long since subsided by 1978.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

Sure after it changed in 1978. Had it not there is no question growth would have slowed.

Actually, the Church was growing well before the June, 1978 revelation.

As for what "would have" happened in some might-have-been world: it's all speculation. And there is certainly a question about whether your overconfident (and untestable) opinion is right.

 

And now once again growth has slowed especially in the industrialized world. Why is that?

Complacency.

[bluebell]

All this tells me is that Dehlin got enough criticism that he also had to do damage control.

That was my first thought as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure after it changed in 1978. Had it not there is no question growth would have slowed.

 

And now once again growth has slowed especially in the industrialized world. Why is that?

A general increase in anti-religion sentiment, secularism and rejection of traditional religious values among members of the rising generations. This is impacting all organized religion, and the Church of Jesus Christ is not immune to it, but it certainly can't be attributed to a fault of the Church -- unless holding fast to true and divinely mandated doctrines and principles amounts to a fault.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

It was a Mormon "Mass." That's a Catholic joke, son. 

 

A good joke, too, since "Mass" comes from the Latin word "missa" which meant "dismissal." (the last words in Mass are "ite, missa est" = go, it is dismissal).

 

I suppose a resignation is like a dismissal

[Teancum]

Straight up?

 

I got the pdf in my email and read it carefully.  "Clearly this needs clarification" I thought

 

"The anti's will make this into a feeding frenzy."

 

I went online and it had already begun.  I can't stand Dehlin, but he is just a parrot as far as I can tell. He does what everyone does- reads stuff, makes his interpretation with which I always disagree, and puts it on line.

 

He's the little parrot character Iago in the Aladdin movie.  No substance just chatter chatter chatter, always taking the negative line on everything.

 

I wouldn't "credit" that guy with anything of substance.  There was no "leak"- it was out there for anybody to read.  Around 25 in my stake got the pdf.

 

The church says there are 3,163 stakes in the world.

 

3,163 x 25 = 79,075 pdf's out there floating around in email boxes

 

I really think nobody needed Dehlin to "leak" the "confidential memorandum".   He is just Iago out there squawking and pointing and jumping up and down.

 

So you agree that the church leadership was asleep on this one. It would have been a debacle with or with out Dehiln.

[Teancum]

That picture can describe a lot of people the past 2 weeks - people on both sides of the divide.

 

 

Indeed

[Teancum]

One would think that all members and perspective members need to know the rules they are subject to.  Unrighteous dominion is a thing, and it's only fair to allow members to know what the rules are so that they can know the specific consequences of their actions and can evaluate whether their leaders are treating them according to the rules or not.

 

 

It is sacred not secret don't you know.....

[Teancum]

Any overt attack against the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders and faithful members strikes me as anti-Mormon. I'll cheerfully acknowledge that.

 

How that relates to being provincial is neither self-evident nor clear.

 

I say that critics are provincial because so often their gripes pertain to their own relatively narrow self-interests and frames-of-reference as opposed to the global Church and the interests of its members worldwide.

 

 

I think your views and the views of many here are very provincial based on you a priori assumptions that the Church is what is claims and that the LDS Leaders always speak for God. I don't mean to be rude but that is your world view and that of others and it certainly is very narrow and provincial.  That may not be bad but it is what it is.  For me it is something I once had so I understand it well but I cannot seem to have it now.

[Teancum]

Actually, the Church was growing well before the June, 1978 revelation.

As for what "would have" happened in some might-have-been world: it's all speculation. And there is certainly a question about whether your overconfident (and untestable) opinion is right.

 

Complacency.

 

Well of course my speculation could be wrong.  It really is not over confident. I an often wrong.  And unlike so many here I am willing to admit it.

 

And I think the slowing in growth is much more than complacency.  But I could be wrong and it could be tough for you to admit it. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

A general increase in anti-religion sentiment, secularism and rejection of traditional religious values among members of the rising generations. This is impacting all organized religion, and the Church of Jesus Christ is not immune to it, but it certainly can't be attributed to a fault of the Church -- unless holding fast to true and divinely mandated doctrines and principles amounts to a fault.

 

 

Those are a few of the factors. I think there are many others.

[Teancum]

It was a Mormon "Mass." That's a Catholic joke, son. 

 

HA!  Nice to see you do have a sense of humor. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I think your views and the views of many here are very provincial based on you a priori assumptions that the Church is what is claims and that the LDS Leaders always speak for God. I don't mean to be rude but that is your world view and that of others and it certainly is very narrow and provincial.  That may not be bad but it is what it is.  For me it is something I once had so I understand it well but I cannot seem to have it now.

I don't concede the point that being a faithful adherent to one's religious faith amounts to being provincial -- or that abandoning or distancing oneself from his religious faith or any portion thereof necessarily makes one cosmopolitan or sophisticated.

 

As an example, I give you Daniel C. Peterson, a faithful and earnest member of the Church of Jesus Christ who is an academic expert on Islam and who has written a well-received biography of the prophet Mohammad.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Those are a few of the factors. I think there are many others.

The point being that a slowing in growth of the Church of Jesus Christ is not necessarily attributable to its position on this or that issue. In fact, the Church is actually growing faster than denominations that have accommodated themselves to secular or "progressive" politics in effort to halt their own stagnation.

[Teancum]

I don't concede the point that being a faithful adherent to one's religious faith amounts to being provincial -- or that abandoning or distancing oneself from his religious faith or any portion thereof necessarily make one cosmopolitan or sophisticated.

 

As an example, I give you Daniel C. Peterson, a faithful and earnest member of the Church of Jesus Christ who is an academic expert on Islam and who has written a well-received biography of the prophet Mohammad.

 

 

I did not say all faithful members were provincial.  Nor did I say those who move away from their faith are more sophisticated.  I said many here are provincial.  On the other hand in a post by you somewhere on this thread or another you lumped LDS Critics in a bucket of being provincial.

 

I know Dan Peterson and know who he is.

[Bernard Gui]

We haven't seen even the beginning of the testing, trials and sore persecutions the Latter-day Saints will yet be called upon to endure for the Gospel's sake. The proverbial refiner's fire is only just now beginning to be stoked, and there will be many who will fall

From Bruce R McConkie's April 1980 General Conference address:

"The Saints are tried to the full to see if they will abide in the Lord’s covenant even unto death (see D&C 98:14)."

And again...

"Nor are the days of our greatest sorrows and our deepest sufferings all behind us. They too lie ahead. We shall yet FACE GREATER PERILS , we shall yet be TESTED WITH MORE SEVERE TRIALS, and we shall yet WEEP MORE TEARS OF SORROW THAN WE HAVE EVER KNOWN BEFORE."

Only those unfamiliar with the scriptures would be at all surprised that great tribulations and bitter persecutions await the Latter-day Saints before the Lord returns to rescue his people from the ungodly.

I think we will be surprised by the animosity this issue is going to cause. It would be a mistake to underestimate it, but on the other hand, we should not despair or run and hide.

[Teancum]

The point being that a slowing in growth of the Church of Jesus Christ is not necessarily attributable to its position on this or that issue. In fact, the Church is actually growing faster than denominations that have accommodated themselves to secular or "progressive" politics in effort to halt their own stagnation.

 

 

I would not be happy comparing myself to those who are losing ground.

[Bob Crockett]

So many want to blame John Dehlin for the clear LDS leadership debacle on how they handled this wonderful policy roll out.

 

Lucky for him nobody can kick him out again.

 

To some extent I have some admiration for him.  He wasn't a coward to hide behind anonymous posts; he had his name out in the forefront all the time.  He owned what he said.  But, in his case, it was a big nose he cut off to spite his face.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Bob Crockett