Questions on FairMormon's approach

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I never invited anyone to leave.  I do not want anyone to leave.  My point...which you conveniently missed, is that to be LDS , one must be LDS.....if you cannot accept all the doctrine and teachings required, then, you are not LDS, except in name.  And, if all you want to do id gripe and complain, then maybe it is best to find a denomination that suits YOUR beliefs.

 

I'm thinking of doing just that. I recently found out my insurance guy went through exactly what I've been through. My husband mentioned that to him and he's told me about a Bible church down the road. Thinking of trying it since he said there are several former LDS there. My insurance man said he had his crisis at the end of an LDS mission.

It was so hard to attend church yesterday but I don't know if another faith paradigm would do me good or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But at what point should the Church and the critic part company?

 

3 hours ago, BHodges said:

Never. Even in the case of an excommunication, a person would be invited to participate in as many church functions as their current standing allows. I imagine in extreme cases (direct threats to physical safety, etc.) someone might be ordered to stay a certain number of yards from church gatherings, but I don't personally know of any actual examples of that. If we mean what we say with regard to excommunication, that it is one way of helping a person start over (this is where the ridiculed "court of love" idea comes from), then even in those cases they would be invited to participate as much as possible with an eye toward rejoining and increased participation.

If, as a Latter-day Saint, there is something in particular you just can't get on board with (the idea of polygamy, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the current opportunities for women or whatever else), I hope you'll nevertheless find enough good here, that you'll find Christ here in a way that encourages you to stay with us, to bring your perspectives, your gifts, your service, and your willingness to be served. Who knows but that in time, either your perspective or the church's perspective on any particular issue might change. None of us sees things perfectly, and our Articles of Faith make it clear there are "many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" that have yet to be revealed. That's the beauty and challenge of an ongoing restoration. 

This matter is not always as simple as it might seem.

Checking the "Gospel Topics" essay at lds.org for the entry "Church Disciplinary Councils," I see the following:

Quote

The purposes of disciplinary councils are to save the souls of transgressors, protect the innocent, and safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

The possibility of sexual predators has already been raised. There are conceivably other ways  an individual might pose a potential threat to "the innocent" and to "the purity, integrity and good name of the Church." Such ways might include the propensity to lead faithful members astray through the persistent teaching of false doctrine, or, by continued association with the Church and its programs, bringing the Church into disrepute. Thus a priesthood leader, acting in the authority of his calling and blessed with the discernment or other gifts of the Spirit might for good reason choose to distance the Church from an individual beyond the formality of excommunication.

I think this might be what Bernard was getting at. At what point does the behavior of an individual warrant such action? (Of course, Bernard is capable of clarifying his question on his own account; this is merely my suggestion.)

[Buckeye]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

This matter is not always as simple as it might seem.

Checking the "Gospel Topics" essay at lds.org for the entry "Church Disciplinary Councils," I see the following:

The possibility of sexual predators has already been raised. There are conceivably other ways  an individual might pose a potential threat to "the innocent" and to "the purity, integrity and good name of the Church." Such ways might include the propensity to lead faithful members astray through the persistent teaching of false doctrine, or, by continued association with the Church and its programs, bringing the Church into disrepute. Thus a priesthood leader, acting in the authority of his calling and blessed with the discernment or other gifts of the Spirit might for good reason choose to distance the Church from an individual beyond the formality of excommunication.

I think this might be what Bernard was getting at. At what point does the behavior of an individual warrant such action? (Of course, Bernard is capable of clarifying his question on his own account; this is merely my suggestion.)

 

The section you're referencing is in regards to church discipline, the most extreme form of which is excommunication. But even then, the church does not tell the person to never come to church. Are you aware of such situations? I personally am aware of a situation where a former member convicted of child molestation wanted to attend church services. The young man molested was his assigned HT companion. Obviously, it would be problematic if this man attended the ward where the events happened. The man was excommunicated. But rather than exclude him from all church functions, the SP searched for other units in the region that would be willing to accept his presence. Of course, such a unit and its officers would be made fully aware of the history so as to safeguard innocents.

Apart from personal safety issues (such as the molestation example) can you think of any specific example where someone would excluded from attending church events? Rather than hold out hypothetical possibilities, it would be more helpful to discuss specific examples where you would think such a drastic action could be warranted. Safety concerns are the only ones I can think of. Safeguarding the church's image does not. Each year there are dozens of cases where a church member brings disrespect onto the church in ways that don't lead to safety concern; consider, e.g., someone convicted of embezzlement. The church may discipline or even excommunicate such members, but in none of them is the person prevented from attending. Even for notable instances where someone is excommunicated for apostasy (September six, Dehlin, Kate Kelly) the former members are allowed (neigh, invited) to continue attending church functions. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Buckeye

[BHodges]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The possibility of sexual predators has already been raised. There are conceivably other ways  an individual might pose a potential threat to "the innocent" and to "the purity, integrity and good name of the Church." Such ways might include the propensity to lead faithful members astray through the persistent teaching of false doctrine, or, by continued association with the Church and its programs, bringing the Church into disrepute. Thus a priesthood leader, acting in the authority of his calling and blessed with the discernment or other gifts of the Spirit might for good reason choose to distance the Church from an individual beyond the formality of excommunication.

I think this might be what Bernard was getting at. At what point does the behavior of an individual warrant such action? (Of course, Bernard is capable of clarifying his question on his own account; this is merely my suggestion.)

In addition to sexual abuse, another potential threat comes in the form of affinity fraud, financial schemes, etc. Such things pertain directly to the physical and financial well-being of church members and it makes sense why we'd want to be careful as a community to help prevent such abuses even to the point of barring certain people from membership. Thankfully I think such instances seem pretty rare.

When it comes to safeguarding the more spiritual side of things, and especially where beliefs are concerned, we've seen examples of people being excommunicated for things like apparently, repeatedly, openly advocating against church leaders, and sometimes soliciting funds for such things. But these cases are also few and far between. And even in specific cases of excommunications, I haven't seen church leaders saying "you're not welcome here," although excommunication often sends that implicit signal whether intended or not. 

When it comes to drawing lines, like you said, it's complicated. As regular average members of the church like you and me (and presumably countryboy) I think our time is better spent talking about ways to help fellow church members remain a part of our community. And if we had more specific stewardships where we would have to worry more about drawing specific lines, we would probably be better off not doing it on message boards but instead with real people in real settings where we preside. 

[BHodges]

Tacenda, I'm sad to hear it. what kind of difficulties are you having in your ward? 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm thinking of doing just that. I recently found out my insurance guy went through exactly what I've been through. My husband mentioned that to him and he's told me about a Bible church down the road. Thinking of trying it since he said there are several former LDS there. My insurance man said he had his crisis at the end of an LDS mission.

It was so hard to attend church yesterday but I don't know if another faith paradigm would do me good or not.

Out here in the Valley, Tacenda..I feel your pain.  Best to you.

[UtahTexan]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

One of the core LDS teachings is that we don't label people "negative folk" and tell them that they are "not LDS" when they disagree with us. 

We have Free Agency.  When I see negativity, I call it.

[UtahTexan]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

"Line upon line. Precept upon precept." 

I agree:  when one is learning...but when one is rejecting.......?

[UtahTexan]

5 hours ago, BHodges said:

I don't believe being LDS and somehow agreeing in every way with various elements of LDS belief (which, in spite of anyone's confident assertions otherwise, is truly more of a moving target) is the same thing. For one thing it's not possible. The church doesn't have a systematic theology (certainly not comparable to what the Catholic church has), no set catechism, which isn't to say that beliefs don't matter, but that being a church member is about more than checking items off on a list of propositional truths you assent to.

What's more, there's an even more fundamental identity beneath church membership that we should be thinking about. Everyone is a child of God, part of the eternal family, and the idea is to forge stronger links in that family. I'm saying we don't do a very good job of that when we say "hey, you don't like it? Then get out." Imagine if we treated our children this way! This isn't how an ideal family should seek to operate.  

If my son or daughter was always bashing everything to do with the family and daily causing stress and dissension, I would absolutely ask him or her to leave, assuming he or she was old to leave.

[UtahTexan]

Just an aside.......when I was having issues...and when I finally asked my name to be removed, the LDS Church refused...they, instead, excommunicated me.  I had done nothing wrong except be unhappy and request.  There was no one coming to try to fix things or help with my issues...just a letter that I was being ex'd.

 

Is this what y'all are talking about who are saying I am wrong?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

We have Free Agency.  When I see negativity, I call it.

You also have free agency to make positive impacts in the lives of others.  You say you are happy now that you are back into the church.  But..in your case (and I may be wrong) you portray yourself as bitter.  Think of the people you could be friends with if you just let people be who they are. I say this because back in my LDS days, I alienated a lot of good people because I looked down on them and I was so wrong to do that.

 

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Don't know how this quote got here but I will use it..have a great day!!

 

[stemelbow]

One thing I've noticed about Church in recent years is the reflexive defensiveness at Church.  So, say when a member brings up questions and concerns that are popular in our day, as for instance, the policy change from last year, the typical response in Church is upsetness, and defensiveness at the prospect of disagreement and concern.  Often I get, at Church, terrible attitudes directed at me for asking a question, or whatever, mostly because my own history with my ward but also because some members are quick to treat me like their nephew who they have a problem with, or something.  I say this because, it's been years ago, but I had a boss who was very upset with me when on a business trip, in the midst of personal down time he asked me what issues I had with the Church.  he had known I was struggling for a while because of little hints that came out as he and I discussed.  As I started he revealed to me that he had a sister-in-law who frequently assailed him with negative information and thoughts about the Church.  He indicated he saw me the same when he learned I had issues with the Church.  It was his reaction.  When he learned I love the Church and these issues remain, that I've thought long and hard about them, that I continue to make things work, he realized his negativity was misplaced, which was a great relief to me because he was my boss and for a while I couldn't figure out what the problem was he had with me.  It's almost natural for us to lump people together though and put on people preconceived notions. 

As of yesterday it was said when such things are brought up it is coming from those who practice priestcraft and are to be condemned in the Church.  But such a position is not easy to deal with when people feel genuinely grounded in the Church and yet equally grounded in their position on certain issues, for various reasons.  I think it obvious that such appeals to "the devil's making them think wrong" or "they are liberal and therefore bad" or "you simply can't disagree with the Church because doing so is tantamount of fighting against God is his prophets" is at least akin to asking people to not come.  Seriously if the Church wants to be a place where there is no room for such disagreement, then so be it.  I'll certainly feel disinvited. 

But in the end, to me it's mixed on this.  As I said before, it's not like there's not support for those who want us out, at least from the leader's words.  There are things said that at least hint at such support.  But, that's often also mixed with a message that we need to be loving, tolerant and inclusive. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

Just an aside.......when I was having issues...and when I finally asked my name to be removed, the LDS Church refused...they, instead, excommunicated me.  I had done nothing wrong except be unhappy and request.  There was no one coming to try to fix things or help with my issues...just a letter that I was being ex'd.

 

Is this what y'all are talking about who are saying I am wrong?

From a church policy perspective, asking to have one's name removed is equivalent to an excommunication.  The end result is the same.

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You also have free agency to make positive impacts in the lives of others.  You say you are happy now that you are back into the church.  But..in your case (and I may be wrong) you portray yourself as bitter.  Think of the people you could be friends with if you just let people be who they are. I say this because back in my LDS days, I alienated a lot of good people because I looked down on them and I was so wrong to do that.

 

 

Bitter?  lol...people see what they want to see.  I am not the least bitter...but I know you need to see bitterness.  You and the rest of your friends on the other board who constantly bash this board.

I guess I just tire of the negativity.  

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

From a church policy perspective, asking to have one's name removed is equivalent to an excommunication.  The end result is the same.

Perhaps....but I have been told differently.  I have been told I should have never been ex'd.  I was also told by members that I could NEVER go to Heaven because I had committed the one unforgivable sin.  

Is this what you are talking about?

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Bitter?  lol...people see what they want to see.  I am not the least bitter...but I know you need to see bitterness.  You and the rest of your friends on the other board who constantly bash this board.

I guess I just tire of the negativity.  

Jeanne's on the other board?  MormonDiscussions? 

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Bitter?  lol...people see what they want to see.  I am not the least bitter...but I know you need to see bitterness.  You and the rest of your friends on the other board who constantly bash this board.

I guess I just tire of the negativity.  

So..you are calling me out..and again, I have been nothing but nice to you.  I don't get it..you just seem angry then ..but your not.  Okay.  I am going to give myself "E" for effort anyway.  Good luck to you CountryBoy...and I mean it.  BTW:  I really don't bash anyone and you know it.  I am able to get along with people of all levels of faith.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[Buckeye]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From a church policy perspective, asking to have one's name removed is equivalent to an excommunication.  The end result is the same.

Actually, no. There is one big difference. An excommunicated member can be reinstated by meeting with whoever took that action (bishop or SP) and complying with their instructions. Reinstatement from a resignation requires FP approval. I bring this up sometimes when a bishop or clerk asks "why don't we just invite these less active members to resign and then rejoin if they ever feel the urge?" That's an understandable sentiment; it's a pain to keep trying to HT/VT them. But if person later changes her mind and wants to be a member, resignation is about the worst thing they could have done. Outside of child abuse, most things that would get you excommunicated can be worked through with a bishop/SP faster than waiting on the FP for approval to re-baptize.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Buckeye

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

So..you are calling me out..and again, I have been nothing but nice to you.  I don't get it..you just seem angry then ..but your not.  Okay.  I am going to give myself "E" for effort anyway.  Good luck to you CountryBoy...and I mean it.

Calling you out?  All I did was respond to YOU calling ME bitter.  I try to be nice to you, too....then you become passive-aggressive calling me bitter.  I am never angry.  YOu need to see that to justify how you and friends on the other board treat me and call people on this board names.

Be nice to me, and I will be nice to you.  

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Jeanne's on the other board?  MormonDiscussions? 

yep.   and they are not very nice about users here.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Calling you out?  All I did was respond to YOU calling ME bitter.  I try to be nice to you, too....then you become passive-aggressive calling me bitter.  I am never angry.  YOu need to see that to justify how you and friends on the other board treat me and call people on this board names.

Be nice to me, and I will be nice to you.  

You are on the board over there all the time.  I am rarely there.  You have upset and hurt so many people.  I give up.  I have been nice to you and tried to extend a hand of friendship because you are having a hard time getting a long.  Best to you..but I won't respond anymore.

[UtahTexan]

Just now, Jeanne said:

You are on the board over there all the time.  I am rarely there.  You have upset and hurt so many people.  I give up.  I have been nice to you and tried to extend a hand of friendship because you are having a hard time getting a long.  Best to you..but I won't respond anymore.

Yep.....I am ....and I get attacked horribly defending the Church and the users here.  I have upset people?  lol....I do not believe that.  And I am not having a hard time getting along.....with Mormons.  The antis do not like me much.

But...again, you will see what you want to see.  

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Perhaps....but I have been told differently.  I have been told I should have never been ex'd.  I was also told by members that I could NEVER go to Heaven because I had committed the one unforgivable sin.  

Is this what you are talking about?

No.  I doubt that you are guilty of the "one unforgivable sin".  And you would NEVER find me suggesting that of anyone.

I'm just telling you that asking for your name to be removed and being excommunicated has the same end result in terms of church policy.  So if you asked for your name to be removed, it is not incorrect for the return letter to state that you have been excommunicated.  It is just confirming that what you requested had been completed.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

yep.   and they are not very nice about users here.

I used to frequent there.  I'm surprised Jeanne posts there.  Wouldn't have known who she was. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Yep.....I am ....and I get attacked horribly defending the Church and the users here.  I have upset people?  lol....I do not believe that.  And I am not having a hard time getting along.....with Mormons.  The antis do not like me much.

But...again, you will see what you want to see.  

I'll be honest, though, being somewhat familiar with posting there, at least from a good 4 or 5 years ago, I can't imagine you making many friends there.