Light is Good.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that adultery, child/spousal abuse, etc. should not be subject to church discipline unless it can be done in a public fashion?

You believe that the only good reason for state secrets to be withheld is because not every US citizen is a covenant Christian?

I am suggesting that excommunication is about the relationship between the church body and an individual member. Spiritual counsel can be private.

For your query about state secrets, I am pointing out that your attempt to create a foil/strawman with the state does not work with that line of argument. 

Did you understand how I framed illumination in an organisation?  Go back and reread by own reply to this thread if you'd like a reminder.

There are fundamental differences between the transparency question when moving from a church to the state.  The state handles personal information securing the legal identities of individuals. The state also handles information that may be used to prevent terrorism or capture criminals.

On the other hand, when the state handles judicial matters between the individual and the law, doings are generally a matter of public record. So criminal cases could be likened to excommunication,  where both are public, and sensitive identity markers (and time sensitive security information on a temporary basis) can be likened to personal spiritual counsel between a member and bishop.

[sheilauk]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

. I'm just too shot to talk on that string. Because it entails more reading and research than I can currently afford physically to do. 

 

With luv,

BD

I hope you feel better soon. 

With luv,

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am suggesting that excommunication is about the relationship between the church body and an individual member. 

So your answer is 'yes', you do believe that disciplinary counsels addressing cases of adultery and child/spousal abuse should be public.  No regard for the privacy of the victims or the humiliation and shame of it all for the sinner?  

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Did you understand how I framed illumination in an organisation?  Go back and reread by own reply to this thread if you'd like a reminder.

 Here is how you framed it:

Quote

Are you for or against light shining on every part of an organisation's doings?

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

For your query about state secrets, I am pointing out that your attempt to create a foil/strawman with the state does not work with that line of argument. 

No strawman, you seem to be redacting quite a bit from the OP.  Now you seem to be saying that not EVERY organisation should be subject to light shinning on EVERY part of their doings.  You seem to be more protective of the privacy of those organisations doings which you happen to be a part of and want to protect.  Even within the church you recognize that there are church doings which should remain private, including "spiritual counsel" and confession.  So, even you recognize that your stance of absolute transparency is unsustainable by even your own standards. 

P.S. Judges have the right to make trials non-public for several reasons, including to protect the privacy of victims (which are very common in church discipline cases). The church takes it a step further to protect the privacy of the sinner too - for obvious reasons that you seem to be insensitive to. 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

So your answer is 'yes', you do believe that disciplinary counsels addressing cases of adultery and child/spousal abuse should be public.  No regard for the privacy of the victims or the humiliation and shame of it all for the sinner?  

 Here is how you framed it:

No strawman, you seem to be redacting quite a bit from the OP.  Now you seem to be saying that not EVERY organisation should be subject to light shinning on EVERY part of their doings.  You seem to be more protective of the privacy of those organisations doings which you happen to be a part of and want to protect.  Even within the church you recognize that there are church doings which should remain private, including "spiritual counsel" and confession.  So, even you recognize that your stance of absolute transparency is unsustainable by even your own standards. 

P.S. Judges have the right to make trials non-public for several reasons, including to protect the privacy of victims (which are very common in church discipline cases). The church takes it a step further to protect the privacy of the sinner too - for obvious reasons that you seem to be insensitive to. 

Nope, I don't believe in such disciplinary councils at all, so no need to make something public if it doesn't exist. Imo the dissonance there is caused by incorrect practice.

I am not redacting. My OP post introduced the thread topic, it did not state my own position, which, as I did point out, was in the replies. 

Again, read my reply if you want to argue my position.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Meadowchik

[strappinglad]

Point of curiosity, meadowchik, if there are no DCs would just a note from the Bishop stating one is no longer on the membership rolls be good enough? Does an organization not have the right to decide who joins and who can be disallowed? Should there be a process or just an arbitrary decision?

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Point of curiosity, meadowchik, if there are no DCs would just a note from the Bishop stating one is no longer on the membership rolls be good enough? Does an organization not have the right to decide who joins and who can be disallowed? Should there be a process or just an arbitrary decision?

The absence of such disciplinary councils does not mean no disciplinary councils...nor does it mean no excommunication.  I'm just starting to think about this specifically, so please bear with me if I stumble along.

The big picture to me here is that a church remains a hospital for the sick, and a joining place for disciples, and a testimony meeting for witnesses, be they in need of spiritual counsel, be they out in the world or in jail for criminal behavior, be they in need of bearing or hearing testimony.

Resigning or excommunication are about that relationship ending.

I don't think I'm ready to set parameters for excommunication, what I am ready to say that it and resignation are matters involving the member and the whole church body.

I can see a clergy member reporting child abuse, or urging a member to confess to law enforcement for criminal activity,  or urging a spouse to repair their marriage. I can see a church disciplining or perhaps excommunicating a member for using the church community/relationships to exploit and harm. That's precisely when the church body needs to know.

 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope, I don't believe in such disciplinary councils at all, so no need to make something public if it doesn't exist. Imo the dissonance there is caused by incorrect practice.

Well, you don't believe in the church either, so your opinion as to how the church does its business doesn't carry much weight within the ranks.  Thanks for sharing, but all I can say is, I strongly disagree. 

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am not redacting. My OP post introduced the thread topic, it did not state my own position, which, as I did point out, was in the replies. 

Again, read my reply if you want to argue my position.

I assumed that your answer to the OP was in the tile of the thread - "Light is good".  

I don't understand your position then.  Are you suggesting that you would answer in the negative to the OP?  Are you saying that light is not always good.  

I don't understand why you think that privacy/secrecy is more dangerous inside Mormonism then within your own government.  Your argument is that extreme authority is justification for extreme scrutiny and transparency.  You should be more concerned about the transparency of your own government, which directly affects you as an authority, then you are about Mormonism which has no authority over you. 

[ksfisher]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The absence of such disciplinary councils does not mean no disciplinary councils...nor does it mean no excommunication.  I'm just starting to think about this specifically, so please bear with me if I stumble along.

The big picture to me here is that a church remains a hospital for the sick, and a joining place for disciples, and a testimony meeting for witnesses, be they in need of spiritual counsel, be they out in the world or in jail for criminal behavior, be they in need of bearing or hearing testimony.

Resigning or excommunication are about that relationship ending.

I don't think I'm ready to set parameters for excommunication, what I am ready to say that it and resignation are matters involving the member and the whole church body.

I can see a clergy member reporting child abuse, or urging a member to confess to law enforcement for criminal activity,  or urging a spouse to repair their marriage. I can see a church disciplining or perhaps excommunicating a member for using the church community/relationships to exploit and harm. That's precisely when the church body needs to know.

 

The church is also the means by which we make covenants with God and his son Jesus Christ.  The priesthood has the responsibility of administering these covenants.  When a member of the church has committed a serious sin that results in the breaking of these eternal covenants excommunication can be a necessary step in helping the repentant sinner back into a covenant relationship with God.  

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well, you don't believe in the church either, so your opinion as to how the church does its business doesn't carry much weight within the ranks.  Thanks for sharing, but all I can say is, I strongly disagree. 

I assumed that your answer to the OP was in the tile of the thread - "Light is good".  

I don't understand your position then.  Are you suggesting that you would answer in the negative to the OP?  Are you saying that light is not always good.  

I don't understand why you think that privacy/secrecy is more dangerous inside Mormonism then within your own government.  Your argument is that extreme authority is justification for extreme scrutiny and transparency.  You should be more concerned about the transparency of your own government, which directly affects you as an authority, then you are about Mormonism which has no authority over you. 

Is that your final answer, that I'm not a believing Mormon so case closed? If so, that should make the rest of your conversations here much simpler.

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

I don't understand your position then.  Are you suggesting that you would answer in the negative to the OP?  Are you saying that light is not always good.  

My position is pro-disclosure in matters common to any given parties. I elaborated on what commonality means in my reply to strappingglad, a few posts above.

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The church is also the means by which we make covenants with God and his son Jesus Christ.  The priesthood has the responsibility of administering these covenants.  When a member of the church has committed a serious sin that results in the breaking of these eternal covenants excommunication can be a necessary step in helping the repentant sinner back into a covenant relationship with God.  

The church claims to speak for God and to hold priesthood keys and to help people repent with excommunication. 

But I would argue that, even though the church has no real divine authority, it would still be a healthier place for people with transparency between concerned parties. If transparency between concerned parties in the church seems impossible or impractical, it is imo not a problem of transparency, but a sign of the church overstepping it's bounds and its use of false authority.

In this I am arguing for the principle of truthfulness and honesty. I believe what Christ said about truth and freedom.

[strappinglad]

If I am picking up what you are laying down, your point is that there should be full disclosure of things that the entire membership has a vested interest in and limited or no disclosure of things that involve only individuals and private concerns such as sins, with the caveat that certain sins ( child abuse etc. ) may warrant a more broad exposure. Yes?

Releasing all financial records of the Church would be an example of the common concern, and withholding records of a bishop's interview would be an individual concern. Are there any other common concerns that you would want exposed?

[Mystery Meat]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

How about this:  Is it at all concerning that we've got pages and pages of LDS posters here repeating and rehashing hearsay and allegations about a man, rewriting and reinforcing them until they take on a life of their own, all without any real evidence?

It's a concern for me. 

Namaste. 

Rockpond, 

As an active LDS person, I will say that it is concerning to me. It is concerning to me for exactly the same reasons that it is concerning when ex-mos, anti-mos, doubting mos, and transitioning mos lay terrible charges at the feet of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and very nearly every other Church leader, based almost exclusively on hearsay.

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Is that your final answer, that I'm not a believing Mormon so case closed? If so, that should make the rest of your conversations here much simpler.

Yeah, I don't really care what your opinion is.  I am willing to discuss reasons for your opinion, however.  So far, the only reasons you have given is that "light is good" and "the truth shall set you free".  Your best argument, so far, is that extreme authority is justification for extreme scrutiny and transparency. What I can't understand is why you are critically evaluating the Mormon church which you are not involved with, and which has no authority over you, while giving a pass to the governmental authority which directly affects you and the lives of all citizens.  In other words, if your reasons are valid, then they should apply to the government too. 

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yeah, I don't really care what your opinion is.  I am willing to discuss reasons for your opinion, however.  So far, the only reasons you have given is that "light is good" and "the truth shall set you free".  Your best argument, so far, is that extreme authority is justification for extreme scrutiny and transparency. What I can't understand is why you are critically evaluating the Mormon church which you are not involved with, and which has no authority over you, while giving a pass to the governmental authority which directly affects you and the lives of all citizens.  In other words, if your reasons are valid, then they should apply to the government too. 

 

The argument is that honesty between two concerned parties is moral, that truth about their common organisation together is better than hiding from each other about things that concern them both.  It's pretty straightforward. 

This can apply to any type of relationship.  The question is, what information belongs to them both?  If it belongs to them both and is hidden, then they don't have all the information and thus cannot be as informed as possible.

You can extend the bolded question to church and to government and, because the nature of the two entities are different, so is the application.  I have already discussed specific differences.

Do you believe in being honest?  Do you believe people are better off making informed decisions about things that concern them?  Do you believe that, if you have a contract with another party, dealings concerning that contract are your business and their business?

Tell me why, as a member of the LDS church, you are not blindly following the leadership. You don't know the content of their councils, you don't know the financial dealings, you don't participate in real consent to policy or doctrine. How is that not blind?  Even if you pray about it and feel good about it, how is that not blind faith?

 

[SamIam]

On 5/22/2017 at 3:50 PM, Meadowchik said:

Not even for the membership?

Edit: Not even for members worthy of entering into sacred covenants?

I provide my answer in the form of a story:

 

Quote

…The next day, Sunday, meeting assembled in the Temple on a loose floor which had been arranged for carpenters' benches etc., the house was partly filled, the people being seated on work benches and other things. President Joseph Smith, [Jr.,] during the meeting, arose to speak upon an order he had given to Oliver Cowdery to seek out a book for a Church Record; for such must be kept; this had been complied with, a good book had been selected and it pleased President Smith.

 

The book was not paid for, but was to be returned to Painesville if it did not suit; and the Prophet said he would be glad to have the Saints donate the amount, about $12.50, and make the purchase, and keep the book; it being of good paper and thoroughly well bound. A man arose near the middle of the house and said he wanted the leaves counted to see if it would not be better to buy the paper by the ream, the difference being that we might put it in a newspaper, or something of the kind. Brother Joseph spoke out and said the devil could not raise his head there, but he would know him. I note this to show the little means with which the Church was obliged to commence the history of a people destined to become great. Truman O. Angell, 1810-1887 Autobiography (1810-1856) in "His Journal," Our Pioneer Heritage 10 (1967):195-213.

 

 Perhaps the correlation may not appear obvious, however, I think it is spot on.  The pattern, and you will see it in PEC meetings, Ward Councils, High Council meetings etc is where the presiding person has spoken on something and then someone introduces an additional thought that on its surface may appear prudent, reasonable, and thought worthy that in subtle ways calls into question the direction of the presiding individual.  What Joseph so brilliantly points out is occurring is that Satan is using members as tools to introduce doubt, or to bring into question presiding authorities.  This question is no different and finds the source of it's "prudence", "reasonableness", and "thought worthiness" in the form of Satan induced doubt and questioning. We should be obedient and with sincerity pay our tithes and offerings with no strings attached.  Let the Lord decide if there is mismanagement and be wise enough to distance oneself from this line of rationale in a hurry. Let the devil "raise his head" elsewhere.

Edited May 25, 2017 by SamIam

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Rockpond, 

As an active LDS person, I will say that it is concerning to me. It is concerning to me for exactly the same reasons that it is concerning when ex-mos, anti-mos, doubting mos, and transitioning mos lay terrible charges at the feet of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and very nearly every other Church leader, based almost exclusively on hearsay.

And when they do that, they should be called out for it.   We shouldn't be replicating the behavior. 

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, strappinglad said:

If I am picking up what you are laying down, your point is that there should be full disclosure of things that the entire membership has a vested interest in and limited or no disclosure of things that involve only individuals and private concerns such as sins, with the caveat that certain sins ( child abuse etc. ) may warrant a more broad exposure. Yes?

Releasing all financial records of the Church would be an example of the common concern, and withholding records of a bishop's interview would be an individual concern. Are there any other common concerns that you would want exposed?

Thanks, that sounds pretty close to what I mean.

I think the membership should be privy to councils on doctrine and policy. The law of common consent should involve actual consent and choice. Imagine if church membership could learn from the apostles how to council in righteousness by seeing how they council in righteousness, and how and why policies come about and doctrines revealed. 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, SamIam said:

I provide my answer in the form of a story:

 

 

 Perhaps the correlation may not appear obvious, however, I think it is spot on.  The pattern, and you will see it in PEC meetings, Ward Councils, High Council meetings etc is where the presiding person has spoken on something and then someone introduces an additional thought that on its surface may appear prudent, reasonable, and thought worthy that in subtle ways calls into question the direction of the presiding individual.  What Joseph so brilliantly points out is occurring is that Satan is using members as tools to introduce doubt, or to bring into question presiding authorities.  This question is no different and finds the source of it's "prudence", "reasonableness", and "thought worthiness" in the form of Satan induced doubt and questioning. We should be obedient and with sincerity pay our tithes and offerings with no strings attached.  Let the Lord decide if there is mismanagement and be wise enough to distance oneself from this line of rationale in a hurry. Let the devil "raise his head" elsewhere.

So, to rephrase, you may pray about it and feel good about it or like it, but regardless of how you feel or think, the only acceptable path is to follow the prophet and other leaders. Your only out is for God to remove them, otherwise, you are accountable to whether you obey. 

And if indeed a leader seems to be straying, your job is to follow and obey until God removes them, right? 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Rockpond, 

As an active LDS person, I will say that it is concerning to me. It is concerning to me for exactly the same reasons that it is concerning when ex-mos, anti-mos, doubting mos, and transitioning mos lay terrible charges at the feet of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and very nearly every other Church leader, based almost exclusively on hearsay.

The irony in the comparison is that even if these hearsays against John are all true, the documented claims against Joseph are still worse. This is why I encourage people like Calm and Juliann and anyone else to examine an organisation based on the standards of its founder.

The reality of a person using power and influence to exploit others and deceive is damning indeed. Once seen, the nature of good and evil, even God perhaps, might be better understood.

This is one reason honest and open dealings are so important. People are never perfect, and if we depend upon the assumption that a person can act with God's authority, and that person will never be permitted to mislead, then we will tend to deify that person's sins, and that helps noone.

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The absence of such disciplinary councils does not mean no disciplinary councils...nor does it mean no excommunication.  I'm just starting to think about this specifically, so please bear with me if I stumble along.

The big picture to me here is that a church remains a hospital for the sick, and a joining place for disciples, and a testimony meeting for witnesses, be they in need of spiritual counsel, be they out in the world or in jail for criminal behavior, be they in need of bearing or hearing testimony.

Resigning or excommunication are about that relationship ending.

I don't think I'm ready to set parameters for excommunication, what I am ready to say that it and resignation are matters involving the member and the whole church body.

Forgive me if I stay with the Church the Lord set up, despite its imperfect members, rather than the Church of Meadowchick. Methinks your church won't last very long without the Lord to direct and redirect it. It's no personal reflection on your efforts tho...

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Forgive me if I stay with the Church the Lord set up, despite its imperfect members, rather than the Church of Meadowchick. Methinks your church won't last very long without the Lord to direct and redirect it. It's no personal reflection on your efforts tho...

Well whether it lasts or not is not really a qualifier of truth or goodness or whether God directs it.  As we know a Church God directed didn't last very long, while a ton of other Churches that God apparently did not direct lasted. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Yeah, I don't really care what your opinion is.  I am willing to discuss reasons for your opinion, however.  So far, the only reasons you have given is that "light is good" and "the truth shall set you free".  Your best argument, so far, is that extreme authority is justification for extreme scrutiny and transparency. What I can't understand is why you are critically evaluating the Mormon church which you are not involved with, and which has no authority over you, while giving a pass to the governmental authority which directly affects you and the lives of all citizens.  In other words, if your reasons are valid, then they should apply to the government too. 

 

Classy. This kind of sentiment is a building block of effective, meaningful communication  

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well whether it lasts or not is not really a qualifier of truth or goodness or whether God directs it.  As we know a Church God directed didn't last very long, while a ton of other Churches that God apparently did not direct lasted. 

Just as God allowed the fall, He allowed the Church to fall. It was prophesied. 

But I agree that man's churches have been around a long time. Men have a way of going astray. By Meadowchick's own admission she is kind of stumbling through. Just a new unguided church... out of many.

Edited May 25, 2017 by RevTestament

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Forgive me if I stay with the Church the Lord set up, despite its imperfect members, rather than the Church of Meadowchick. Methinks your church won't last very long without the Lord to direct and redirect it. It's no personal reflection on your efforts tho...

Geesh...feeling a little aggressive there, Rev?