Questions on FairMormon's approach

[Jeanne]

51 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

I am a newbie.  I was invited to sign up and so I did.  I found some friends there that saw me through a bad time in 2008.  I spend most of my time right here.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

CountryBoy: I suspected you would say that, Johnnie.  It is not true.  But I suspected you would say that.

Laughing at Consig's complaining about this board was not throwing Molotov Cocktails.  It was finding humor.  

But.....anyone who knows that board knows

I actually think you find a kind of a masochistic pleasure in poking your verbal fingers in the eyes of the "other" board.  You were never looking for bridge building or to seek understanding or find commonalities...you just took pleasure painting everyone as an Anti-Mormon...I'm sure it helps when you pigeonhole everyone into your tiny little boxes because doing so fits nicely into the small world you've created for yourself.  Fair Enough, enjoy the world you've built...I hope it serves your needs 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[UtahTexan]

25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I actually think you find a kind of a masochistic pleasure in poking your verbal fingers in the eyes of the "other" board.  You were never looking for bridge building or to seek understanding or find commonalities...you just took pleasure painting everyone as an Anti-Mormon...I'm sure it helps when you pigeonhole everyone into your tiny little boxes because doing so fits nicely into the small world you've created for yourself.  Fair Enough, enjoy the world you've built...I hope it serves your needs 

Again, not surprised at your comments.  Based on the attacks over there, it suits you to act innocent.  I do not pigeonhole anyone.  But, when people always bash the Church and those who are believers as you do over there....and when they bash this board and the believers here in their posts over there...I will consider them anti...:)

Edited August 22, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

CountryBoy:Again, not surprised at your comments.  Based on the attacks over there, it suits you to act innocent.  I do not pigeonhole anyone.  But, when people always bash the Church and those who are believers as you do over there....and when they bash this board and the believers here in their posts over there...I will consider them anti...:)

Thanks for proving my point.  I'm done, we've derailed this thread enough.  I won't make any further comments

[UtahTexan]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thanks for proving my point.  I'm done, we've derailed this thread enough.  I won't make any further comments

Smart

And yes....your point that I am a Faithful Mormon defending the Church was proven

If there ever was a topic get back to it or the thread will be closed.

[Bernard Gui]

9 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. 

Very charitable and wise words. But not being able to get on board is quite different from trying to derail the train. Having had personal experience with a few ex-Mormon critics such as Sonja Johnson and Ed Decker, I believe there comes a time when the connection must be severed, if not for the good of the critic, then for the good of the Body of Christ. For example, open opposition to doctrines and leaders, defiance of counsel, defiling the temple, threats against members, and public demonstrations against the Church require a distancing, probably in the form of excommunication. Of course we all have varying degrees of commitment, faith, and knowledge. The Book of Mormon and the history of the modern Church give clear warnings of the chaos inner dissension can bring. The problem is knowing when those limits have been reached. Do you think there are such limits? How would the current Maxwell Institute answer the questions Bill Reel asked FAIR in the OP?

Edited August 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

The point at which all the Church wants is blind followers who pledge allegiance to a specified creed.  I'm confident that the LDS Church doesn't match that description.

That's a rather extreme red herring for the Church to fry. Surely there are less severe conditions where offenses against the Church, it's doctrine, or leaders merit a separation. At what point does respectful nudging become troublesome?

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Very charitable and wise words. But not being able to get on board is quite different from trying to derail the train. Having had personal experience with a few ex-Mormon critics such as Sonja Johnson and Ed Decker, I believe there comes a time when the connection must be severed, if not for the good of the critic, then for the good of the Body of Christ. For example, open opposition to doctrines and leaders, defiance of counsel, defiling the temple, threats against members, and public demonstrations against the Church require a distancing, probably in the form of excommunication. Of course we all have varying degrees of commitment, faith, and knowledge. The Book of Mormon and the history of the modern Church give clear warnings of the chaos inner dissension can bring. The problem is knowing when those limits have been reached. Do you think there are such limits?

If not, then why were we instructed to "wipe the dust from our feet"?

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, churchistrue said:

These are usually pretty high profile.  We haven't been hearing about them much lately.  Only extreme cases where someone is openly opposing the brethren.

 

The problem as I see it is that low profile escalates to high profile rather quickly when the low profilers feel they aren't getting what they want.

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

If not, then why were we instructed to "wipe the dust from our feet"?

If I'm catching the drift of things, I would say there are growing feelings that that was for another day and another place, and the instructions today should be more like "wash their feet." But maybe I don't understand what's going on. That is entirely possible.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If I'm catching the drift of things, I would say there are growing feelings that that was for another day and another place, and the instructions today should be

more like "wash their feet." But maybe I don't understand what's going on. That is entirely possible.

Matthew 10

12And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 

[BHodges]

4 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I suppose there is never a certainty.  But, the Lord does give us the power of discernment.  There is precedent to "wiping the dust off your shoes"......

Again, these are largely questions for duly ordained judges in Israel rather than message board denizens like you or I.

What's sad is we have a person in this very thread talking about trying out a different church because she feels uninvited. The irony is, this is happening in a thread where people are talking about what we should do about church members who cause others to lose their faith. The arguments to the effect of "agree with everything or leave" belong to the category of faith-threatening things church members do. By your logic, we should be questioning whether your views are a threat to other people's faith, and then should be determining whether that's actionable or not. I disagree with that logic of course, but the irony needs to be pointed out. 

 

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, BHodges said:

Again, these are largely questions for duly ordained judges in Israel rather than message board denizens like you or I.

What's sad is we have a person in this very thread talking about trying out a different church because she feels uninvited. The irony is, this is happening in a thread where people are talking about what we should do about church members who cause others to lose their faith. The arguments to the effect of "agree with everything or leave" belong to the category of faith-threatening things church members do. By your logic, we should be questioning whether your views are a threat to other people's faith, and then should be determining whether that's actionable or not. I disagree with that logic of course, but the irony needs to be pointed out. 

 

Actually, the instruction was to those the Lord sent out as missionaries.  And we are all sent out as missionaries.

right?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's a rather extreme red herring for the Church to fry. Surely there are less severe conditions where offenses against the Church, it's doctrine, or leaders merit a separation. At what point does respectful nudging become troublesome?

It is extreme but not a red herring.  That was my sincere answer to the question. 

[BHodges]

“… While one  portion  of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ [Matthew 5:45.] He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, ‘according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,’ or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, ‘not according to what they have not, but according to what they have’; those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.”

-Joseph Smith

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, BHodges said:

Of course there are different degrees of dysfunction. When I complained to my dad about the temperature of the house and sometimes meddled with the thermostat (and he could tell in a single instant that I had!) I'm glad he didn't toss me out onto the street, though. I also wasn't constantly warned that a wrong move would remove me from the family's good graces. Not that there weren't problems in my family growing up, but that we tried to deal with them as best we could, with love, and that's a good way to think about church membership, too. We call each other brothers and sisters, after all. 

Unfortunately, there are times when the offending family must be asked to leave for the sake of the rest of the family. The same is true in the Church. The same thing happened to 1/3 of Father's children. While we should be loving, forgiving, and accepting, sometimes the only solution is sorrowful separation. Perhaps we come to earth to experience a little of that sorrow as we learn to be like Father.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I believe you are correct, based on what I have been told now.  I was told that had I requested NOW, there would not have been a court.

If a member requested to have his name removed, he was asked to write a letter of resignation and give it to the bishop or his representative. Then a letter was delivered by 2 Melchizedec Priesthood holders inviting him to a court. If he declined to come, the court was held and the letter used as evidence that he wanted to leave. Excommunication was the result. The excommunication was announced to the ward Melchizedec priesthood in the Sunday meeting. Many bishops I knew, including myself, sat on the requests for months or even years. As  departees became more aggressive, though, we were asked by leaders to expedite them and honor their agency. Some threatened lawsuits and scoffed at the idea of a court. Anti websites even posted form resignation letters which included the legal threats. The process is much less involved now. While letters are still exchanged (sometimes the member refuses to write), there no longer is a court but what is called an administrative action that cancels the membership. Since that time, I am more inclined to think we should grant the request quickly and recognize the person's agency. It frees them from covenants they do not understand or have no intention of keeping. I have served in bishoprics and high councils in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, BHodges said:

“… While one  portion  of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ [Matthew 5:45.] He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, ‘according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,’ or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, ‘not according to what they have not, but according to what they have’; those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.”

-Joseph Smith

D&C 134

" 10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." - approved by Joseph Smith and included in canonized scripture.

Perhaps you missed my earlier question... How would the Maxwell Institute respond to the questions Bill Reel asked FAIR members in the OP?

Edited August 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

It is extreme but not a red herring.  That was my sincere answer to the question. 

I cannot imagine a time when the Church would take such an extreme position.

[Bernard Gui]

Questions for BHodges and Maxwell Institute...

1.) Can an organization be both validating to real hurt the Church may be causing through unhealthy behaviors and policies while still standing with the Church?

2.) What room is there for individuals to dissent and publicly speak out against unhealthy behaviors perceived that still allows one to be fully seen as in and faithful?  In other words as soft and subtle as they try to be, does such talks put Mason and Hardy in a position to lose trust with the Church locally or generally?

3.) If Maxwell Institute members care to jump in and address this directly, Is MI's approach welcoming and supportive of a out front of the Church perspective?  And Could we ever expect MI to ever officially validate that any of said out front ideas are good and positive?  Again I am not speaking about allowing or permitting such talks at their conference, but rather whether there would ever be room in MI officially to endorse and/or validate and/or agree and/or empathize and/or promote such pushes for improvement?   Would MI ever take such a public stance itself on such specific issues?   

Edited August 23, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

http://packham.n4m.org/leaving.htm

Sample letter of resignation from the Church including threat of legal action. IMHO, a member seeking re-entry to the Church after leaving in this manner should have a few extra hoops to jump through, (charitable hoops, mind you), but that's just me.

Quote

Bishop [Name]
[Bishop's home address]

CERTIFIED MAIL; RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Re: Resignation from church membership of
[Full name, date of birth, present address]

Dear Bishop:

     With this letter to you I officially notify you of my resignation from membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, effective immediately. With my resignation I voluntarily sever all my relationship to the church.

     I therefore request you to make the necessary changes in the church membership records to indicate that I am no longer a member. I am familiar with the procedures as outlined in the Church Handbook of Instructions, and I request that you fill out and forward the necessary administrative forms as soon as possible.

     I assure you that I do not take this step lightly. I have devoted a good deal of thought, prayer and study, over a considerable period of time, to this matter, and I am firm and unalterable in my decision to end my membership.

     I am aware that according to church doctrine this cancels all blessings, baptisms, ordinations, promises, covenants, and my hope of exaltation in the Mormon celestial kingdom, and I have made my decision with that consideration well in mind. 

     I request that no one representing the church contact me for any reason other than to confirm that my request is being processed. In particular I will refuse to speak with anyone from the church who attempts to argue with me about the wisdom of my decision.

     It is my understanding that you are required to indicate on your form my "reason for leaving." Please state the reason as "At member's request" or "Doctrinal reasons," since that is, in fact, the reason. I insist that you should not put there any reason which may be derogatory to me. I wish to assure you that I am not leaving the church because of some personal slight or insult, or because I have "sinned" or am unable to "keep the commandments." I have simply come to the very sad realization that the church is not what it claims to be, that its doctrine is false, and that the LDS church is not where I wish to be.

     I request that my name removal request be forwarded without delay to the stake president in accordance with the Church Handbook of Instructions. I will check with you in one week if you have not already notified me by then that it has been forwarded to the stake president.

     Please inform the stake president that I waive the thirty-day waiting period during which the stake president may hold the request in order to give me the opportunity to rescind. Rather, I request him to process it without delay. Please ask the stake president to notify me when he has forwarded my request to church headquarters. If I do not hear from him, I will contact him to make sure that my request is being honored without delay.

     I will consider any unnecessary delay to be a violation of my rights of free association and freedom of religion as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

     I consider this matter to be confidential, and I insist that no church representative discuss my resignation with any persons other than those church officers who are processing my name removal or those who must be informed to carry out their church duties; that if any church official speaks of this matter outside of official channels, I will consider it a violation of confidence, a violation of church regulations, and seek legal redress.

     Thank you for your courtesy in honoring my request without delay.

Yours truly,

[Signature]

©  1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007 Richard Packham    Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included

 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I cannot imagine a time when the Church would take such an extreme position.

Agreed.  You'll note that I acknowledged that in my answer. 

[BHodges]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Unfortunately, there are times when the offending family must be asked to leave for the sake of the rest of the family. The same is true in the Church. The same thing happened to 1/3 of Father's children. While we should be loving, forgiving, and accepting, sometimes the only solution is sorrowful separation. Perhaps we come to earth to experience a little of that sorrow as we learn to be like Father.

If this occurs it should be a last resort. Here we have people who seem eager to see it happen. And that's certainly wrong. 

[BHodges]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

D&C 134

" 10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." - approved by Joseph Smith and included in canonized scripture.

Perhaps you missed my earlier question... How would the Maxwell Institute respond to the questions Bill Reel asked FAIR members in the OP?

 

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Questions for BHodges and Maxwell Institute...

1.) Can an organization be both validating to real hurt the Church may be causing through unhealthy behaviors and policies while still standing with the Church?

2.) What room is there for individuals to dissent and publicly speak out against unhealthy behaviors perceived that still allows one to be fully seen as in and faithful?  In other words as soft and subtle as they try to be, does such talks put Mason and Hardy in a position to lose trust with the Church locally or generally?

3.) If Maxwell Institute members care to jump in and address this directly, Is MI's approach welcoming and supportive of a out front of the Church perspective?  And Could we ever expect MI to ever officially validate that any of said out front ideas are good and positive?  Again I am not speaking about allowing or permitting such talks at their conference, but rather whether there would ever be room in MI officially to endorse and/or validate and/or agree and/or empathize and/or promote such pushes for improvement?   Would MI ever take such a public stance itself on such specific issues?   

I'm not posting here on behalf of the Institute. But I'd say the Institute isn't in the business of "getting out in front of the church" at all. It operates carefully under the oversight of BYU administration and the university Board of Trustees. There are no stated positions on where particular boundaries are drawn for church members. The Institute doesn't speak for the church. I recommend people become familiar with the work we publish to get a better sense of particular perspectives. There are many culture wars in the church right now. The Institute isn't trying to police them as far as I've seen.

Edited August 23, 2016 by BHodges
fixed weird font formatting

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I am a newbie.  I was invited to sign up and so I did.  I found some friends there that saw me through a bad time in 2008.  I spend most of my time right here.

You're fine.  There's nothing to feel bad about posting there.  I'm glad you found some old friends there.  That's awesome.