Light is Good.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

Honesty is not the same as absolute transparency.  I am honest with my friends and other people I have relationships with, but I am not entirely transparent.  I don't ask for a criminal records from them, and I don't ask for financial statements if I lend them money, etc.  These things do concern me, but I trust my friends.  I view the church as my friend and trust them.  Does this put me at risk of being a victim?  Maybe a little, but I feel very confident in the assurances I have received. 

More later...

[Mystery Meat]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

This is lunacy.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Good point.

It's interesting to look at the allegations against Dehlin and OSF:

• patriarchy
• sexism
• not being transparent with finances
• seeking to enter a polygamous relationship

Sounds like another organization I know of.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours 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...

I was answering a question on the relationship of transparency, discipline, and excommunication with hypotheticals, and have no desire to start a church.  I can, as we all can, imagine what kind of organisation would be consistent with Christ's teachings.  I think it can be a beneficial exercise.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

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.

I would recommend that you imagine ways God's church--wherever it you think it is-- could more closely resemble Christ's teachings.  It was a beneficial exercise for me as a believing Mormon trying to be more Christlike, is still beneficial now, and might benefit you as a believing Mormon.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Honesty is not the same as absolute transparency.  I am honest with my friends and other people I have relationships with, but I am not entirely transparent.  I don't ask for a criminal records from them, and I don't ask for financial statements if I lend them money, etc.  These things do concern me, but I trust my friends.  I view the church as my friend and trust them.  Does this put me at risk of being a victim?  Maybe a little, but I feel very confident in the assurances I have received. 

More later...

For non-church examples/analogies, perhaps you might think of a situation where you both have an equal ongoing investment in something you organise, that is more germain to the topic.

By the way, even people holding the priesthood are flawed human beings.  Who would be more likely to affirm that God will never let a leader lead the peopl astray? The leader, or God?  How has it worked before?

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good point.

It's interesting to look at the allegations against Dehlin and OSF:

• patriarchy
• sexism
• not being transparent with finances
• seeking to enter a polygamous relationship

Sounds like another organization I know of.

But Joseph goes beyond it. He uses what people believe is divine power and authority to induce women to marry him. He dictates revelation establishing rules for polygamy and breaks them.  Joseph's indiscretions are made into doctrine in Mormonism and now, generations later, we're still covering for him because he never repented these abuses. This, in my opinion, is why the Mormon Church has such a difficult time with transparency; there is so much mess to clean up constantly that originated in the church's founding and never stops.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This is why I encourage people like Calm and Juliann and anyone else to examine an organisation based on the standards of its founder.

Whatever makes you think we have not?

"we depend upon the assumption that a person can act with God's authority, and that person will never be permitted to mislead"

And for those of us who don't have the second assumption?

Edited May 25, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

For non-church examples/analogies, perhaps you might think of a situation where you both have an equal ongoing investment in something you organise, that is more germain to the topic.

And this is the flaw.

We do not have an equal investment in the Church.  The Church is not ours nor is it fully accountable to us.  It certainly has some accountability to its members and that does include transparency on some issues.
And while it may have had an earthly "organization" element by mortal men in 1830, the Church is not organized by us but by Christ.  It's his Church.

How tithing funds are spent for example are no business of the members.  Despite what is said tithing is not a charitable donation that we should be sure is going to the right recipients.
Tithing is a donation requirement the Lord makes of us.  How tithing is used is a requirement that the Lord makes of his Church leadership.  We need to do as we are required and not worry that they are doing as they are required.
If tithing is being misspent there is nothing in scripture that allows us to cease paying it.

Either the Church is run by God's direction or run by members.  We can't have it both ways.  If it's to be run by God's direction (overall, obviously not in every minute detail) then expectations of "having a say" need to be left behind.

 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

Your loss of testimony in Joseph is clear.
Can you not understand that we may know all the same things about Joseph you do and NOT consider them to be valid concerns?
I see no "documented claims" against Joseph that trouble me or cause me to question the organization in the slightest.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Would it be more classy if I tipped my hat? 

Opinions are meaningless to me.  I am more interested in the reasons behind opinions.  So yes, getting to the reason behind opinions truly is more effective, meaningful communication.

If Meadowchik doesn't believe in church disciple...that is her opinion, and it is of no value to me - especially from an unsolicited and critical non-member.  If she can give me a good reason to not believe in church discipline however, then she has my ear. 

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And this is the flaw.

We do not have an equal investment in the Church.  The Church is not ours nor is it fully accountable to us.  It certainly has some accountability to its members and that does include transparency on some issues.
And while it may have had an earthly "organization" element by mortal men in 1830, the Church is not organized by us but by Christ.  It's his Church.

How tithing funds are spent for example are no business of the members.  Despite what is said tithing is not a charitable donation that we should be sure is going to the right recipients.
Tithing is a donation requirement the Lord makes of us.  How tithing is used is a requirement that the Lord makes of his Church leadership.  We need to do as we are required and not worry that they are doing as they are required.
If tithing is being misspent there is nothing in scripture that allows us to cease paying it.

Either the Church is run by God's direction or run by members.  We can't have it both ways.  If it's to be run by God's direction (overall, obviously not in every minute detail) then expectations of "having a say" need to be left behind.

 

The church is an organisation run by men who claim they are acting with God's authority.  You are working under the latter as a premise when you argue against transparency. 

 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Your loss of testimony in Joseph is clear.
Can you not understand that we may know all the same things about Joseph you do and NOT consider them to be valid concerns?
I see no "documented claims" against Joseph that trouble me or cause me to question the organization in the slightest.

I do have a testimony of Joseph Smith, specifically, that he could not have been a prophet and God's authority on earth. People who deliberately tell lies and deceive "as a prophet of the Lord" and know those lies hurt others in important ways and then never repent cannot simultaneously be God's authority.

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Would it be more classy if I tipped my hat? 

Opinions are meaningless to me.  I am more interested in the reasons behind opinions.  So yes, getting to the reason behind opinions truly is more effective, meaningful communication.

If Meadowchik doesn't believe in church disciple...that is her opinion, and it is of no value to me - especially from an unsolicited and critical non-member.  If she can give me a good reason to not believe in church discipline however, then she has my ear. 

The opinion I gave, which you were referring to was solicited.

 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How tithing funds are spent for example are no business of the members.  Despite what is said tithing is not a charitable donation that we should be sure is going to the right recipients.

Of course it's our business. It's our church (note the "Latter-day Saints" in the name of the church). 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whatever makes you think we have not?

"we depend upon the assumption that a person can act with God's authority, and that person will never be permitted to mislead"

And for those of us who don't have the second assumption?

In Meadowchick's defense this has happened before... God has reestablished his authority several times, and yet people began to mislead. Let's see there was Adam. Then God reestablished his covenant with Noah. Then Abraham received yet another covenant, which the people strayed from, so the law of Moses was instituted to try to keep them on the straight and narrow. Then the highest authority ever on earth, Jesus Christ, reestablished the priesthood, and once again men went astray and began to mislead. The assumption that men will not mislead is a very dangerous assumption, and the Lord told Joseph Smith he could fall. It is prideful, dangerous notion, which I do not accept. Therefore, we have the companionship of the Holy Spirit to guide us in what to follow, and what is right. Even within the Church there are men who have misled. Some who have stolen funds, etc. It is a statement I feel is given to comfort the flock, but there is no scriptural support for it. I believe the Church should be ever vigilant, and should not accept something just because so and so said so. Leaders are imperfect, and make mistakes. Most of these mistakes are not dangerous to one's salvation, but you never know when something bad may rear its head. 

[RevTestament]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I would recommend that you imagine ways God's church--wherever it you think it is-- could more closely resemble Christ's teachings.  It was a beneficial exercise for me as a believing Mormon trying to be more Christlike, is still beneficial now, and might benefit you as a believing Mormon.

I am not saying the Church cannot be better. I surely believe it can. We are far from the ideal of the United Order the Lord tried to implement for instance. But you have seemed to abandon it rather than working to change it from within. I acknowledge faults in the Church, and in Joseph Smith, but those things don't make the restored gospel untrue. I do appreciate your efforts to be more Christlike, but one can't impose Christ on others. Leading is best done from within rather than criticizing from without.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Of course it's our business. It's our church (note the "Latter-day Saints" in the name of the church).

No, it's the Church of Jesus Christ (possession) of Latter-Day Saints (consisting of).

Unless you believe it's the Church of Jesus Christ (consisting of) of Latter-Day Saints (possession).

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I do have a testimony of Joseph Smith, specifically, that he could not have been a prophet and God's authority on earth. People who deliberately tell lies and deceive "as a prophet of the Lord" and know those lies hurt others in important ways and then never repent cannot simultaneously be God's authority.

That is what you believe.
Other's believe differently even knowing the same information you do.

Clearly there is more to this than the facts and events or we would all see Joseph as you do.

[Meadowchik]

Just now, RevTestament said:

I am not saying the Church cannot be better. I surely believe it can. We are far from the ideal of the United Order the Lord tried to implement for instance. But you have seemed to abandon it rather than working to change it from within. I acknowledge faults in the Church, and in Joseph Smith, but those things don't make the restored gospel untrue. I do appreciate your efforts to be more Christlike, but one can't impose Christ on others. Leading is best done from within rather than criticizing from without.

Yet I did stay and I did hope to change from within, I have dealt with an awareness of multiple issues since my childhood. My impetus to leave was the knowledge the the root is poisoned.  Sure, the goodness of God can flow in the church just like it flows among others on the planet, but sometimes one has to stop and start over with something new.  I no longer believe in men having God's authority on earth and I have a whole new respect for churches who function rather democratically, without any one person being higher in divine power. 

If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then the church is not a restoration of Christ's church. This is not about mere faults, but about exploitation of claims of divine authority, ongoing deception, and nonrepentence.

Thank you for your appreciation.  I still do believe that following Christ's teachings does matter and does make a difference, wherever we are.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That is what you believe.
Other's believe differently even knowing the same information you do.

Clearly there is more to this than the facts and events or we would all see Joseph as you do.

My point was that, beyond merely a loss in testimony of Joseph as prophet, I learned he could not have been a prophet.

Sure, people might draw different conclusions, everyone has different context to the knowledge they accumulate and people process information differently.

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Methinks your church won't last very long without the Lord to direct and redirect it

You should become a Catholic... our Church has lasted a long time with the Lord directing it....

"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

Edited May 25, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's the Church of Jesus Christ (possession) of Latter-Day Saints (consisting of).

Unless you believe it's the Church of Jesus Christ (consisting of) of Latter-Day Saints (possession).

Without the members, there is no church. The church IS the members. Jesus is ideally the head of the church. 

 

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

For non-church examples/analogies, perhaps you might think of a situation where you both have an equal ongoing investment in something you organise, that is more germain to the topic.

By the way, even people holding the priesthood are flawed human beings.  Who would be more likely to affirm that God will never let a leader lead the peopl astray? The leader, or God?  How has it worked before?

You were conflating honesty with transparency...I was more addressing that discrepancy in your argument.  Also, the examples I gave were germane.  If I lend money to a friend, I am both fiscally and emotionally invested with that person.  I don't require absolute transparency if I trust the person. 

I didn't organize the church.  I have no authority to direct the church.  I am not entitled to all information and transpirings among the general authorities.  I have no business knowing private information discussed in church disciplinary settings.   You said in a previous post:

Quote

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.

This information does not "belong" to me, and I don't need to be as informed as possible. I have sufficient for my needs for a trusting relationship. 

[RevTestament]

36 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You should become a Catholic... our Church has lasted a long time with the Lord directing it....

"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

Hehe. Oh MiserereNobis. Hell shall not prevail against what? The kingdom of God, which will be built on the rock of Christ and stones such as Peter. I agree. We have to build that kingdom, which Peter set an example for - even as did his Master and Savior. Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. This promise has nothing to do with an earthly church, which is why there are a good number of prophecies foretelling a falling away first. The gates of hell did actually prevail against the Church, which got replaced with a state church with governmentally mandated creeds which were used to cow everybody into submission.

I know too much history to become a Catholic; however, I often find Catholics more amenable than a good number of Protestants tho