Popular Post RevTestament Posted February 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 14, 2016 31 minutes ago, omni said: My contention is with wanting to silence those who longer believe. The Church has made its bed and now it must lie in it. Jeremy has been expressing his non-belief for 3 years now, and the church has put up with it or failed to act anyway. The world has led Jeremy away from his covenants with Christ and now he is subject to its lies and the lies Satan tells men. The Church doesn't make that bed. Satan does, and the Church shouldn't lie in it with Jeremy. Jeremy is not any different here than the other apostates who tried to sell books saying the Church is not true or is not Christ's Church. He is just going about it a slightly different way - same MO tho. Whether the Church is slightly responsible for Jeremy's doubts because of whitewashing or something else is a different question, and here I would say probably no, but even if so, we are the most responsible for ourselves. If one believes the church has faults, which I do, that doesn't equate to making it OK to actively destroy the church for money. If one is honoring their covenants they would try to bring leaders around to a different POV or way of doing things etc. If something is true, eventually God will cause it to be recognized, and will affirm that truth. I believe Jeremy is someone who never received a testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM. I read it and my prayers were answered, and I have honored that answer. He has gone down a different path. He has sought to understand the BoM by the ideas of men, and has succumbed to just about every idea critics have ever come up with. There are always 2 sides to every coin - just as there were in Jesus' day, when the truth was crucified. Jeremy is crucifying the truth on the cross of money. No Omni, that is very much his bed indeed. 5
omni Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Who has actually been silenced who no longer believes by the Church? All the ones that have protested the Church was trying to silence them that i remember are still speaking out just like they were before. While there may be some family dynamics that play into excommunication as a negative for the relationship, even then it is not the Church that is silencing someone, but the partner or other family member (and perhaps this is a good thing if family is important to the person because just as much harm can come from feeling pressured to leave one's faith as it might to be pressured to stay). The commonsense rule of "you can't speak against an organization without getting kicked out" only has a 'silencing' impact on those who want to stay members. And if someone wants to stay a member so they can speak out as a member to make one's protests flashier, then that imo is extremely hypocritical. There is a responsibility of the member to the organization as much as the organization has a responsibility to the member. If the organization undermines the individual, then it is obvious the organization has failed at its end. If the member undermines the organization, then the member has failed the organization in the same way. In the first case, the individual should take a hike and stop contributing their resources to the organization. In the second case, the organization should remove the individual so as to minimize the harm they are causing. My contention isn't so much with excommunications (although I do believe they can have a silencing effect) it is the general attitude that I have seen within the Church that you don't vocalize criticism of the Church or its leaders irregardless of your membership status. We've created the world's greatest missionary force, many of whom have essentially been trained from birth to share their beliefs. It shouldn't come as any surprise that some of them will wish to continue to share their equally sincere beliefs even if they no longer align with the Church's.
carbon dioxide Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: I believe Jeremy is someone who never received a testimony of the truthfulness of the BoM. I read it and my prayers were answered, and I have honored that answer. He has gone down a different path. He has sought to understand the BoM by the ideas of men, and has succumbed to just about every idea critics have ever come up with. There are always 2 sides to every coin - just as there were in Jesus' day, when the truth was crucified. Jeremy is crucifying the truth on the cross of money. No Omni, that is very much his bed indeed. Hard to say. In the Book of Mormon in the tree of life dream, some follow the iron rod right up to the tree of life and partake of the fruit. That would mean they had some level of testimony to get to that point. Then they see those mocking from the building and they fall away. Some into strange paths are are never heard from again and others join those in the building and mock those at the tree of life.
volgadon Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Monster said: I must have read a different article. More than once it attacked the character of of Jeremy. Not that I am defending Jeremy, I think is quite clear his intent is to point out problems in the church. But the piece was clearly an attack on him not on the substance of the CES letter. Thus the article is clearly ad hominem. Ad hominem would be to dismiss the letter because of Runnells' character. It does not. What it does is dispute a claim made by Runnells and his supporters, a claim which rests on his character. 3
bluebell Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 5 hours ago, omni said: I don't agree with how Jeremy has handled the news of the disciplinary court, particularly the vigil and press release, but I will absolutely support his (and any other's) right to not remain silent simply because he no longer believes in the truth claims of the Church. I don't think anyone demands he be silent. They just want him to be an excommunicated member when he talks. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, omni said: ................................... .....................................I like Dehlin and feel he provides an important alternative voice in Mormonism, ............. ...................................................... Is this because "there must needs be opposition in all things"? Edited February 14, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Janice Allred, AOpposition in All Things: The Book of Mormon View,@ paper given Sept 21, 2012, at the annual meeting of the SMPT, USU, Logan, Utah. Abstract: The Book of Mormon is an apocalyptic text, drawing a sharp distinction between good and evil. The concept of opposition in all things, introduced by Lehi early in the text, is often interpreted to mean that the opposition of good and evil is a necessary opposition. This paper argues that it is not. It offers an interpretation of the concept of opposition in all things and uses this paradigm to interpret the three oppositional pairs that ground all the teachings of the Book of Mormon: the way of life and the way of death, the church of Christ and the church of the devil, and Christ and Satan. 1
Tacenda Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 7 hours ago, Calm said: You might feel differently if you were listening to the heartbreak of the stories of families whose happiness has been destroyed by a member accepting Runnells' stuff as Truth without questioning it. When someone is using their membership to rob people of their savings (I have a temple recommend, you can safely invest your money with me), do you think the Church should let them alone and allow them to continue to make the claims that destroy people's lives? After all, the Church has taught people to be prudent with their money. Isn't that enough care t give them? I don't believe the fault lies entirely on Jeremy, the church might need to take some blame. They might want to put out an essay apologizing for putting so many members in circumstances that cause disruption and heartache. Why is it all the doubter's fault? They didn't write the church lesson manuals, they didn't save face of the Smith's and their reputations. The disillusioned members are the ones having their faith ripped out from under them over learning these things. To the point they don't even know if God exists. More ex-LDS it seems, have lost their testimonies not only that the church is true, but that God exists. Doesn't that make anyone in the presidency feel the least concerned? That the church didn't provide a solid belief system to enable members to have a personal relationship with the Lord and not so concentrated on a religion. So that when that religion no longer feels right, they at least have the relationship with God. Members aren't dumb...if they became disaffected over the information Jeremy has concerns over, it's just because they were unaware in the first place. Even if one or two items caused them disbelief, those items are probably factual. The church isn't for everyone, if members on this board know these facts and still believe, then the members that learn things from the letter, might have had issues before reading the CES letter...I don't know, or to some of you...they didn't study long enough. 1
Popular Post volgadon Posted February 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 14, 2016 6 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I don't believe the fault lies entirely on Jeremy, the church might need to take some blame. They might want to put out an essay apologizing for putting so many members in circumstances that cause disruption and heartache. Why is it all the doubter's fault? They didn't write the church lesson manuals, they didn't save face of the Smith's and their reputations. The disillusioned members are the ones having their faith ripped out from under them over learning these things. To the point they don't even know if God exists. More ex-LDS it seems, have lost their testimonies not only that the church is true, but that God exists. Doesn't that make anyone in the presidency feel the least concerned? That the church didn't provide a solid belief system to enable members to have a personal relationship with the Lord and not so concentrated on a religion. So that when that religion no longer feels right, they at least have the relationship with God. Members aren't dumb...if they became disaffected over the information Jeremy has concerns over, it's just because they were unaware in the first place. Even if one or two items caused them disbelief, those items are probably factual. The church isn't for everyone, if members on this board know these facts and still believe, then the members that learn things from the letter, might have had issues before reading the CES letter...I don't know, or to some of you...they didn't study long enough. Jeremy's behaviour in this instant is entirely his own responsibility.It is not about having doubts, it is about being disingenuous to an extreme, if not downright dishonest. 5
Calm Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) The problem, Tac, is here Runnells is accusing the Church of hiding the truth about itself thus rendering it a fraud while, guess what, he is hiding facts about himself. Edited February 14, 2016 by Calm 4
ksfisher Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Janice Allred, AOpposition in All Things: The Book of Mormon View,@ paper given Sept 21, 2012, at the annual meeting of the SMPT, USU, Logan, Utah. Abstract: The Book of Mormon is an apocalyptic text, drawing a sharp distinction between good and evil. The concept of opposition in all things, introduced by Lehi early in the text, is often interpreted to mean that the opposition of good and evil is a necessary opposition. This paper argues that it is not. It offers an interpretation of the concept of opposition in all things and uses this paradigm to interpret the three oppositional pairs that ground all the teachings of the Book of Mormon: the way of life and the way of death, the church of Christ and the church of the devil, and Christ and Satan. Is this available online? Searched but wasn't able to locate it.
Popular Post Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, Calm said: If he thinks others will have a better life outside the faith...moving on and out of its influence, why isn't he doing the same thing? I'll admit my own guilt in doing the same in the past. I've tried rather hard the last several months to be less critical as a former member and accept that status with humility and respect the faith journey of others. I'd rather be a listener of grievance than an advisor on how to retaliate in some form. Edited February 14, 2016 by Valentinus 6
Damien the Leper Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 6 hours ago, Calm said: Who has actually been silenced who no longer believes by the Church? All the ones that have protested the Church was trying to silence them that i remember are still speaking out just like they were before. While there may be some family dynamics that play into excommunication as a negative for the relationship, even then it is not the Church that is silencing someone, but the partner or other family member (and perhaps this is a good thing if family is important to the person because just as much harm can come from feeling pressured to leave one's faith as it might to be pressured to stay). The commonsense rule of "you can't speak against an organization without getting kicked out" only has a 'silencing' impact on those who want to stay members. And if someone wants to stay a member so they can speak out as a member to make one's protests flashier, then that imo is extremely hypocritical. There is a responsibility of the member to the organization as much as the organization has a responsibility to the member. If the organization undermines the individual, then it is obvious the organization has failed at its end. If the member undermines the organization, then the member has failed the organization in the same way. In the first case, the individual should take a hike and stop contributing their resources to the organization. In the second case, the organization should remove the individual so as to minimize the harm they are causing. Paul and Margaret Toscano were both excommunicated and not silenced. The effects of their own grandstanding still cause ripples to this day though the church itself is no longer the focus.
Tacenda Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) I guess I need to read up more, where has Jeremy lied or hid something Cal and Volgadon? Edited February 14, 2016 by Tacenda
Glenn101 Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Janice Allred, AOpposition in All Things: The Book of Mormon View,@ paper given Sept 21, 2012, at the annual meeting of the SMPT, USU, Logan, Utah. Abstract: The Book of Mormon is an apocalyptic text, drawing a sharp distinction between good and evil. The concept of opposition in all things, introduced by Lehi early in the text, is often interpreted to mean that the opposition of good and evil is a necessary opposition. This paper argues that it is not. It offers an interpretation of the concept of opposition in all things and uses this paradigm to interpret the three oppositional pairs that ground all the teachings of the Book of Mormon: the way of life and the way of death, the church of Christ and the church of the devil, and Christ and Satan. Robert, Do you subscribe to Janice's theory? Maybe that would be an idea for another topic. The abstract does not give one enough details to make an informed agree or do not agree. Thanks, Glenn
Robert F. Smith Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 3 hours ago, ksfisher said: Is this available online? Searched but wasn't able to locate it. Probably not, but if you want to inquire, go to the organization she has been associated with and follow the directions -- http://mormon-alliance.org/contact/contact.htm .
why me Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: I don't believe the fault lies entirely on Jeremy, the church might need to take some blame. They might want to put out an essay apologizing for putting so many members in circumstances that cause disruption and heartache. Why is it all the doubter's fault? They didn't write the church lesson manuals, they didn't save face of the Smith's and their reputations. The disillusioned members are the ones having their faith ripped out from under them over learning these things. To the point they don't even know if God exists. More ex-LDS it seems, have lost their testimonies not only that the church is true, but that God exists. Doesn't that make anyone in the presidency feel the least concerned? That the church didn't provide a solid belief system to enable members to have a personal relationship with the Lord and not so concentrated on a religion. So that when that religion no longer feels right, they at least have the relationship with God. Members aren't dumb...if they became disaffected over the information Jeremy has concerns over, it's just because they were unaware in the first place. Even if one or two items caused them disbelief, those items are probably factual. The church isn't for everyone, if members on this board know these facts and still believe, then the members that learn things from the letter, might have had issues before reading the CES letter...I don't know, or to some of you...they didn't study long enough. I think that you are blaming the lds church just a little too much. But I do realize the need to find scapegoats these days and in also claiming to be a victim. I think that the point is that people don't seem to read books. If people would read books more and do some research, they will see that books have been published in the past that outline many 'troubling' facts about lds history. I think that the problem is that nowadays it seems that people need to be spoon fed it all. I have said it over and over again, no church teaches all of its history. In fact, many don't teach history at all. They stick to faith and their members relationship to god? Has the vatican published a catholic history book yet? Have any protestant church published a comprehensive history of protestantism? I don't think so. Also, when devote members leave any faith, they will experience problems in regrouping their faith. And many active members of the lds church would be considered devote to that faith. How many times a day are mormons required to pray to their heavenly faither? Many. And the lds church also encourages its members to have a personal relationship with their heavenly father. You seem to ignore this in your post. With faith comes doubt. It doesn't take much to doubt god. Darwin did much to have christians doubt their faith and many fell away because of it. Hitchens did much to cast doubt in people as did Dawkins with their popular atheist books. Who is responsible for such loss of doubt among religious believers if relgious people read such books and fall away and become atheists? Lets not blame the church for the doubts of its members. We just may be living in doubting times... 3
why me Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: I guess I need to read up more, where has Jeremy lied or hid something Cal and Volgadon? I guess that the thing that gets me is how quick some members are quick to judge the church, ie, the stake president, bishop etc. Jeremy knew what he was doing. He knew that eventually he would be called in if it pushed the iron ball further up the hill. Likewise other members who went public, attempting to gain fame via the internet through their hypercriticisms of the lds church. And now that the ball was pushed too far, he is getting called in and he is perhaps crying foul. I suppose that we all want sympathy and 15 minutes of fame. However, we also need to know that 99.9 percent of bishop's court go unnoticed. People are exed, disfellowshipped, and put on probation all the time. But they are not popular bloggers etc. If I were hypercritical of the church, inside the church, and yet, was an unknown, I would also be called in for a talk and perhaps a church excommunication process would begin. But who would know? And who would care? My point: so far we have had quite a few public cases of members being exed. But who can claim that they did not deserve it? If a member dances with the wolves, one cannot react if the sheep fight back to protect the flock. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Robert, Do you subscribe to Janice's theory? Maybe that would be an idea for another topic. The abstract does not give one enough details to make an informed agree or do not agree. Thanks, Glenn Unfortunately, I was not able to attend her presentation that day, but since I consider the opposition of good and evil to be necessary, we probably do not agree. However, I don't know why she says that. In my opinion, the Doctrine of the Two Ways is integral to Judaism and Christianity -- Cf. Deuteronomy 11:26, 30:15-20, Psalm 1, Proverbs 4:18-19, 12:28, 15:24, 28:6,18, Jeremiah 21:8, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 15:17, 33:14; 1QS 3:16 - 4:26 (Community Rule); Testament of Abraham 11 - 12 rescension A, and 8 - 9 rescension B; Testament of Asher 6; Matthew 5:14-18, 7:12-14, 19:16-26, 22:34-40, Luke 13:24, John 10:9-10, 14:6, Romans 12:16-21, 13:8-12; Didache 1 (Doctrina Apostolorum), Barnabas 18 - 20; II Nephi 2:5-29, 4:4. It was also a central feature of ancient Egyptian religion -- L. Lesko, The Ancient Egyptian Book of Two Ways (Berkeley: UC Press, 1972).
Scott Lloyd Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 6 hours ago, bluebell said: I don't think anyone demands he be silent. They just want him to be an excommunicated member when he talks. Very well said. As I read in official and quasi-official Church sources about the purposes of Church discipline I note that three are consistently given. The first is to bring about repentance and save the soul of the offender. But there are two others: to protect people from predators and to preserve the integrity of the Church. I think the latter two are especially relevant here. One should not be permitted to trade on his membership in the Church in order to destroy the faith of others. Freedom to speak does not entail license to do it in a way that makes it appear one has the approval or even the acquiescence of the Church.
ksfisher Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Probably not, but if you want to inquire, go to the organization she has been associated with and follow the directions -- http://mormon-alliance.org/contact/contact.htm . I'll check with Lavina, I live down the street from her. 1
omni Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 10 hours ago, bluebell said: I don't think anyone demands he be silent. They just want him to be an excommunicated member when he talks. I will once again kindly refer you to the post I originally quoted.
omni Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Is this because "there must needs be opposition in all things"? I generally prefer to view a world filled with shades of gray. While there are definite black and whites (good and evil), I don't feel the Church and Dehlin fall into those categories. 2
bluebell Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, omni said: I will once again kindly refer you to the post I originally quoted. I was responding to this- "I will absolutely support his (and any other's) right to not remain silent simply because he no longer believes in the truth claims of the Church." (And I see that you replied-"once again." Did we already talk about this, because if so i don't remember it? Sincere question because sometime i lose track on long threads).
omni Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 30 minutes ago, bluebell said: (And I see that you replied-"once again." Did we already talk about this, because if so i don't remember it? Sincere question because sometime i lose track on long threads). No, sorry for the confusion. I was originally responding to a specific post wishing "people would just leave the Church alone." Apparently, five or six posters confused my response to this specific post as support for Jeremy's press release or as criticism for his possible excommunication - neither of which are true. When I replied, "once again" I was referring to my three or four other posts offering clarification. Which goes to your point about how easy it is to lose track of what's going on in these threads.
Recommended Posts