Member Excommunicated for Making a Single FB Post

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In which he declared his unbelief and stated he believed Joseph Smith was a fraud.  Someone in his stake turned him in and when his SP asked him to delete the FB post...he refused.

While I respect the church's right to set its boundaries and to be able to say who can and can't be a member of their organization...it seems to me that those boundaries are shrinking and becoming more compact and restrictive.  An individuals right to personal expression seems to be taking a back seat to the churches right to control its own message.

I'm curious how the illustrious members of this board view this development.  Is the churches skin too thin?  Do you support this action? Should personal expression be controlled to the point of losing ones membership.

I should state that this individual was in good standing in all other areas...with the exception of his "thoughts"

Two things, "speaking ill of the Lord's anointed" and call Joseph a fraud will certainly cause you to lose or not get a Temple recommend, getting ex'ed? Having been a part of many "Courts", every effort is made for reconciliation. The issue with FB, is having hundreds of friends in Wards or Stakes and proclaiming such a thing is to call Joseph, the BoM and most of our beliefs a fraud in an attempt to seek calling for others to join his cause. His excommunication (if it happened for just a single post) is suspect. He might as well have taken out a full page add in the SLT. Also I don't it mattered to him, as his actions would already define him as an apostate. I have seen people who would listen to nothing from the Bishop or Stake President...but just took the event as an opportunity to cuss everyone out. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

Its probably why there are large fractures and factions within the faith as well.

I've never fully understood why critics and enemies of the Church advocate and praise the notion that the followers of Christ should be fractured and factionalized.  Although often styled as being - as Teancum put it - "very tolerant of open dissent," what we are really looking at is advocacy for contention rather than camaraderie, fractured faith rather than a "unity of the faith," discord rather than "we, being many, are one body in Christ" and "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" and "one spirit, with one mind striving together" and "being of one accord, of one mind" and "be{ing} ... all of one mind."

Have the people who are advocating for such disunity even read the Bible?  I am hoping the answer is no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Haven't your heard. Some things that are true are not very useful. 

It's not about what is true (we know what is true), but what one person's opinion is on such issues that are against the church doctrines and leaders and the contention that can develop among members who start taking sides.

Yea you may have said that some things that are true are not useful with irony but that has been and still is the mantra from the top LDS leadership.

Next you KNOW WHAT IS TRUE?  Please do share?  How do you KNOW? It is through some metaphysical mystical experience or some other way.

To the rest of your post... it is really to bad that in LDS wards and stakes there is not a culture that allows for healthy debate and discourse on controversial things.  I think the LDS Church and how it is organized is simply immature on such things. Much like little children.  I am sure this idea will make some here angry and they will accuse me of thinking I am wiser than others. Not so.  I claim to know less than I did 10 years ago. But on the other hand I am not arrogant enough to think I have it all figured out.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yea I agree. It was.  Shame on me.

However feel free to dispute it. 

No thanks.  I'm not interested in disputing cheap shots.  Not worth the time.  Substantive critique and criticism?  I'm all over that.  But cheap shots?  Nah.

Quote

The things that cause doubts and lose of faith for LDS members today cannot be brushed under the rug or available only through much effort in visiting libraries at BYU or elsewhere that may discuss the difficult issues.  So yea it is hard to hide the truth. 

You apologize for a cheap shot, only to repeat it a few sentences later.  It seems like you aren't speaking in good faith.

Quote

Why all the current backlash on such things and such a focus and GC if it is not an issue.

I never said there are no issues worth discussing.  Certainly there are.  But such discussions should proceed with respect for divergent viewpoints, civility and decorum, and should focus on substantive issues.  Serial cheap shots make such discussion difficult or impossible.

Quote

You are fighting a losing battle.

Yet another facile cheap shot.  That's apparently all you've got.  I'll leave you to it then, and withdraw from further communications with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Most of us view the leadership and general membership of the church as good people honestly trying to live their lives. What is so hard to understand about someone wanting to remain part of that organization and culture even if they believe it started out wrong? I am one who thinks the recent changes to the handbook regarding SSM and their children is wrong and I do not believe it was a revelation from God. If I voiced that opinion on my FB page should I be excommunicated?

Steve, if I went on my Facebook page and discussed my feelings and concerns about something in a thoughtful manner I don't think there is a problem.  However, if I went on a public medium, any of them, and said the Prophet is wrong, he is no longer a prophet because of the new policy then I would have gone beyond the line.  I have moved from being concerned to being actively working against the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  

I don't think this is a fine line. To me it is pretty clear.  

Having doubts is one thing; discussing doubts is one thing; take a stand against the Church is something wholly different. 

[Teancum]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No thanks.  I'm not interested in disputing cheap shots.  Not worth the time.  Substantive critique and criticism?  I'm all over that.  But cheap shots?  Nah.

You apologize for a cheap shot, only to repeat it a few sentences later.  It seems like you aren't speaking in good faith.

I never said there are no issues worth discussing.  Certainly there are.  But such discussions should proceed with respect for divergent viewpoints, civility and decorum, and should focus on substantive issues.  Serial cheap shots make such discussion difficult or impossible.

Yet another facile cheap shot.  That's apparently all you've got.  I'll leave you to it then, and withdraw from further communications with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yea this is your MO.  Someone says something you don't like or can't answer and you "withdraw from further communications" with me or so very many others.

You seem so ever sensitive to those who are forceful challenging your world view and "testimony."  and Yes the quotes are intentional.  I understand. I have been on both sides. 

Have you?   Your approach relies heavily on your professional background as an attorney.  So let me ask you, as an attorney, how would you like to defend the LDS truth claims based simply on evidence?  What would you assess as you expected outcome of success. I am sure you evaluate such things in your own practice.

Would you want to defend the LDS truth claims based on evidence alone?  No reliance of faith or metaphysical experiences.   Simple evidence.

Don't respond if you don't want to.  I think I know what the honest answer would be.  My guess it you will run away an whine "cheap shot... I don't want to talk to you anymore.   As noted above you do this quite often. 

So don't talk to me. I could care less.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, ERMD said:

A single expression does not lead to excommunication.  Much to the contrary, it is the result of the findings of a disciplinary council followed by serious contemplation and fervent prayer.

It is not a juvenile as, "Oh, you said that, did you?  Then take THAT!"

But your wrong...it was just a single FB post...and his refusal to remove it that got him Ex

[CA Steve]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Steve, if I went on my Facebook page and discussed my feelings and concerns about something in a thoughtful manner I don't think there is a problem.  However, if I went on a public medium, any of them, and said the Prophet is wrong, he is no longer a prophet because of the new policy then I would have gone beyond the line.  I have moved from being concerned to being actively working against the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  

I don't think this is a fine line. To me it is pretty clear.  

Having doubts is one thing; discussing doubts is one thing; take a stand against the Church is something wholly different. 

Well for you, taking a stand against Joseph Smith may be equivalent to taking a stand against "the Church", I have no problem with that belief. But for others,speaking out against Joseph does not mean the rest of what they find valuable in the Church, like friends, family, heritage, & culture no longer exists. For you, and apparently this SP, the line is a post on a FB page, I suspect for many others that line is not so set in stone, nor should it be in my opinion.

Like SMAC said above, I think there is more to this story than what we are getting, but if the story is to be believed, I find excommunication for failing to remove a single FB post calling Joseph a fraud, an overreaction.  If I were leadership, perhaps an interview to talk about belief, releasing the person from any significant calling, maybe even asking for the person's temple recommend might be necessary, but beyond that it is probably not worth the trouble.

If the Church is threatened by a single FB post, it has much bigger issues than just that post.

 

I do think the Church needs to develop some guidelines for leadership on how to deal with social media issues. For example, in this case, the person getting excommunicated may have actually desired a court and an excommunication just so he could flaunt it like he is. Given that the negative publicity in a case like this is probably much worse for the Church than a single FB post left uncensored, in retrospect it might have been wiser to just ignore it on the part of the local leadership.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yea this is your MO.  Someone says something you don't like or can't answer and you "withdraw from further communications" with me or so very many others.

 

 

Actually he has responded substantively. You just don't like what he has to say, and you react with the facile cheap shot.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

But your wrong...it was just a single FB post...and his refusal to remove it that got him Ex

So how many Facebook posts that claim Joseph Smith is a fraud do you need to get excommunicated?  Ten, Twenty?  I'm not sure I see the difference between one and one hundered.

If the poster stands behind what he wrote what difference does it make how many times it was posted.

Edited April 1, 2016 by ksfisher

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because of sheer reach through the Internet, publicly defaming the Church typically has far more potential for harm today than it ever did a generation ago.

Those who engage in it should expect to have membership privileges withdrawn.

Sure.  Pretty soon all you will have is an echo chamber.

By the way your post above is a fine example of what I noted on another thread of YOUR persecution complex. It is really a passive aggressive approach that you use. I am sure you will disagree.  But your first sentence is prima evidence is such and how you approach such things.

As noted in the other thread, the readers can decide for themselves.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

Its probably why there are large fractures and factions within the faith as well.

Yes?  So?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've never fully understood why critics and enemies of the Church advocate and praise the notion that the followers of Christ should be fractured and factionalized.  Although often styled as being - as Teancum put it - "very tolerant of open dissent," what we are really looking at is advocacy for contention rather than camaraderie, fractured faith rather than a "unity of the faith," discord rather than "we, being many, are one body in Christ" and "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" and "one spirit, with one mind striving together" and "being of one accord, of one mind" and "be{ing} ... all of one mind."

Have the people who are advocating for such disunity even read the Bible?  I am hoping the answer is no.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have read the Bible many time.  So what?  The Bible most certainly does not support many of the claims of the LDS Church on its own.

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually he has responded substantively. You just don't like what he has to say, and you react with the facile cheap shot.

No not really. He just whined that he does not like what I said do he won't talk to me anymore.

And really Cheap shots are in the eye of the beholder. Given your work as a writer you excel at them.

Adios for now.  I have much better things to do than engage in meaningless debates today.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  Pretty soon all you will have is an echo chamber..

The Church of Jesus Christ is not a debating society. In fact Christ commanded the members of His church to be one and warned, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."

Quote

By the way your post above is a fine example of what I noted on another thread of YOUR persecution complex.

You mean the one where you accused me of crying "persecution" and then were unable to answer a CFR about where I had even used the word persecution in the thread?

 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Next you KNOW WHAT IS TRUE?  Please do share?  How do you KNOW? It is through some metaphysical mystical experience or some other way.

I am assuming that what we know from the scriptures and teachings and leadership from our prophets is what is true. And yes I do KNOW it from metaphysical mystical experience; it's called prayer and the Holy Ghost. This is a religion after all; not a science.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have evidence that church leadership was monitoring this persons online activities?  The church has 15 million members, who has the time or means to monitor them?  Who would want to? 

But, if ward member comes to a bishop and tells them that another ward member is making posts saying Joseph Smith was a fraud, you would expect a bishop to look into it. 

Good point...a FB friend/member of his stake saw his post and turned him in to his SP

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

In which he declared his unbelief and stated he believed Joseph Smith was a fraud.  Someone in his stake turned him in and when his SP asked him to delete the FB post...he refused.

While I respect the church's right to set its boundaries and to be able to say who can and can't be a member of their organization...it seems to me that those boundaries are shrinking and becoming more compact and restrictive.  An individuals right to personal expression seems to be taking a back seat to the churches right to control its own message.

I'm curious how the illustrious members of this board view this development.  Is the churches skin too thin?  Do you support this action? Should personal expression be controlled to the point of losing ones membership.

I should state that this individual was in good standing in all other areas...with the exception of his "thoughts"

First, people need to stop using Facebook.  Posts get people into trouble and I have heard some claims that people who use social media a lot tend to have more depression.

Second, if someone believes that Joseph Smith is a fraud, how can they be a member?  If a person can't be baptized to the Church if they believe JS is a fraud, why should they retain their membership by taking the same position?  I don't support the Church trying to be big brother on social media.  I don't support people feeling the need to turn people in but if a person puts something out there for the public to see, do they really expect privacy or be shocked if the church does find out?  Also suppose if the member declared that he cheated on his wife?  Should the Church do nothing about that?  Both apostasy and adultery can lead to the same punishment by the Church.

Edited April 1, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I agree with his excommunication.  Religious organizations, like churches, are characterized by a common faith.  When one no longer shares the common faith of the group, then one is no longer a member.  The formal excommunication was just a reflection of reality.

The church better get busy then, 2/3 of members need to be Exed by your standard

Edited April 2, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I agree with his excommunication.  Religious organizations, like churches, are characterized by a common faith.  When one no longer shares the common faith of the group, then one is no longer a member.  The formal excommunication was just a reflection of reality.

The church better get busy then, 2/3 of members need to be Exed by your standard

Edited April 1, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Storm Rider]

27 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Well for you, taking a stand against Joseph Smith may be equivalent to taking a stand against "the Church", I have no problem with that belief. But for others,speaking out against Joseph does not mean the rest of what they find valuable in the Church, like friends, family, heritage, & culture no longer exists. For you, and apparently this SP, the line is a post on a FB page, I suspect for many others that line is not so set in stone, nor should it be in my opinion.

Like SMAC said above, I think there is more to this story than what we are getting, but if the story is to be believed, I find excommunication for failing to remove a single FB post calling Joseph a fraud, an overreaction.  If I were leadership, perhaps an interview to talk about belief, releasing the person from any significant calling, maybe even asking for the person's temple recommend might be necessary, but beyond that it is probably not worth the trouble.

If the Church is threatened by a single FB post, it has much bigger issues than just that post.

I do think the Church needs to develop some guidelines for leadership on how to deal with social media issues. For example, in this case, the person getting excommunicated may have actually desired a court and an excommunication just so he could flaunt it like he is. Given that the negative publicity in a case like this is probably much worse for the Church than a single FB post left uncensored, in retrospect it might have been wiser to just ignore it on the part of the local leadership.

Steve, I agree that we don't have the full story here.  I would also agree that if it was just a single FB post, then it is an incredible overreach, an exaggerated response to a simple request.  

Given that we have so little of the story and there is obviously a great deal missing, I guess I am not bothered by it.  Why would anybody become exercised over such an incomplete story?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I guess my big concern here is that publically expressing disbelief in the church is now a crime punishable by Excommunication...I'm just kind of shocked that this is the hill the church has decided to die on

Are you imagining this is a new thing?

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I haven't read any of the posts. Here's my unadulterated, entirely honest response -

Setting aside whether it would be appropriate for the church to take this kind of action if indeed how you describe the event actually did happen, how do you know this was the only issue? How you describe it seems too dumbed down for me. What did the member say during the closed door sessions with his leadership? Did more info come out that indeed would justify such action? I suspect so. Though the Facebook post may have grabbed their attention, rest assured there is much more that we're not being told about this member's actions.

And if it is as stated then what?

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's my take: I'm skeptical that we are getting the whole story.  I have been involved in dozens of disciplinary actions.  They have uniformly been meetings grounded in and conducted with solemness, decorum, and concern for the welfare of the individual.  While there are instances where a single act can be grounds for excommunication (murder, perhaps adultery in some circumstances), I have a hard time imagining that a person would be excommunicated for a single statement of unbelief and public declaration that "Joseph Smith was a fraud."  This conduct perhaps sounds in a charge of apostasy, but I doubt a single online statement would be taken as grounds for excommunication.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know that said excommunicated read his FB post to court, listed books he's read (all available at Desbook) and mentioned the essays as reasons for his conclusion 

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I guess my big concern here is that publically expressing disbelief in the church is now a crime punishable by Excommunication...I'm just kind of shocked that this is the hill the church has decided to die on

Not all issues are equal.  If I do not believe that the Family Home Evening program is important and one does not need to do it, I would not be exed for that.  If I go against a central tenant of the Church, that might be.  Lets move the issue from Joseph Smith.  Suppose someone declared that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God and there was no atonement.  Would that declaration be enough to to be exed in your opinion?