Remnant/Snuffer leading entire stakes towards apostasy?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Huh? Can't there be right or wrong answers? What's the point of leadership if they can't point towards the right? 

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me, Clark.  I'm not sure, nor have I ever been, that the leadership is the source of right answers in all cases.  No more so than the average member, anyway.  We're all seeing through a glass darkly. 

[cdowis]

On 8/15/2017 at 10:06 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way. I enjoyed your story, especially the part about the ninja apostle who came in and took care of business in a single weekend, telling the people what had to change immediately and saying those who wouldn't abide it would be removed from membership. 

Were there leadership changes as well? I should hope so. 

We need more of that in some quarters. 

Actually, we need more faith promoting stories like that one.  

Edited August 21, 2017 by cdowis

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me, Clark.  I'm not sure, nor have I ever been, that the leadership is the source of right answers in all cases.  No more so than the average member, anyway.  We're all seeing through a glass darkly. 

So are you advocating an anything goes structure? More or less like what Evangelicals do? Because that is pretty antithetical to how Mormons conceive of authority and responsibility. Effectively every ward is it's own sect. If one ward wanted to be like the RLDS/Church of Christ that'd be fine. And if an other ward wanted to be like the FLDS that too would be fine.

I'm assuming that's not what you mean. But if not, then what is the limiting factor?

Edited August 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So are you advocating an anything goes structure? More or less like what Evangelicals do? Because that is pretty antithetical to how Mormons conceive of authority and responsibility. Effectively every ward is it's own sect. If one ward wanted to be like the RLDS/Church of Christ that'd be fine. And if an other ward wanted to be like the FLDS that too would be fine.

I'm assuming that's not what you mean. But if not, then what is the limiting factor?

I tend to look at church governmental structure as more of an issue of stewardship than authority. Some stewardships will necessarily grand someone authority to work on behalf of the church, making decisions etc, but that doesn't mean they should be held up as having answers directly from God.

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I tend to look at church governmental structure as more of an issue of stewardship than authority. Some stewardships will necessarily grand someone authority to work on behalf of the church, making decisions etc, but that doesn't mean they should be held up as having answers directly from God.

I confess I don't see a big difference between stewardship and authority. To have authority is not necessarily to have knowledge.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see a big difference between stewardship and authority. To have authority is not necessarily to have knowledge.

Agreed. But do the 14 Fundamentals of Following the prophet agree with you?

 

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So are you advocating an anything goes structure? More or less like what Evangelicals do?

I don't know where you're getting this from what I've said.  So, not sure how what I'm saying is being taken. 

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Because that is pretty antithetical to how Mormons conceive of authority and responsibility. Effectively every ward is it's own sect. If one ward wanted to be like the RLDS/Church of Christ that'd be fine. And if an other ward wanted to be like the FLDS that too would be fine.

I'm not saying that.  I did suggest that many a views are not acceptable or tolerated in Church.  That hardly means differing views will overthrow the Church, unless of course those views carry weight beyond what the Church's position is. 

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm assuming that's not what you mean. But if not, then what is the limiting factor?

I'd argue the Church's structure, if you will, could potentially use some adjustment.  It has adjusted over the years for various reasons.  But that hardly matters in light of what I was intending from my response to Hamba.  I would really enjoy Church more if differing views were welcome. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'd argue the Church's structure, if you will, could potentially use some adjustment.  It has adjusted over the years for various reasons.  But that hardly matters in light of what I was intending from my response to Hamba.  I would really enjoy Church more if differing views were welcome. 

I guess what I'm asking is what range of differing views are acceptable. From my perspective there's a fair variety of views already, but you apparently see what's acceptable as too constraining. Certainly many do -- I'm not criticizing you in that just trying to understand where the limits are. I ask as it seemed like you took the reported "feminist restructure" in that one Stake as appropriate. (Not knowing what really went on there I'm loath to say too much. It might range from joint RS/PH meetings through bigger breaks with practice)

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Agreed. But do the 14 Fundamentals of Following the prophet agree with you?

Yes. Pres. Benson's point was that the prophet could come to have such knowledge not that they always do.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I guess what I'm asking is what range of differing views are acceptable. From my perspective there's a fair variety of views already, but you apparently see what's acceptable as too constraining. Certainly many do -- I'm not criticizing you in that just trying to understand where the limits are. I ask as it seemed like you took the reported "feminist restructure" in that one Stake as appropriate. (Not knowing what really went on there I'm loath to say too much. It might range from joint RS/PH meetings through bigger breaks with practice)

I have no idea why anyone should be limited.  Any one person should be acceptable no matter their views.  Important in this is views that are dangerous ought to lose out with reason.  If danger is in the air, then perhaps we have reached limits.  of course rather dangerous views were assented to and accepted as revelation for most of the Church's history.  So...I'm not sure how to draw limits in such an org. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I have no idea why anyone should be limited.  Any one person should be acceptable no matter their views.  Important in this is views that are dangerous ought to lose out with reason.  If danger is in the air, then perhaps we have reached limits.  of course rather dangerous views were assented to and accepted as revelation for most of the Church's history.  So...I'm not sure how to draw limits in such an org. 

But that's kind of a non-answer. Like I said there are people at church who might push in an FLDS direction and others who'd prefer the more liberal theology of the RLDS/Church of Christ. One person might say not having women have the priesthood is dangerous and others say it is. There has to be some way to adjudicate otherwise you get exactly what I initially said: something like Evangelicalism where every congregation is its own sect.

As soon as you say it's not an anything goes situation, then there have to be limits and more importantly ways of enforcing those limits. I'm not sure you end up with anything different from what we have. At best you might have more democratic voting and initiatives. But does anyone honestly think feminist initiatives would win a democratic vote in the Church? So if that ought be acceptable, we have to make sense of how.

Without putting words in your mouth, as I honestly have no idea how you think about this, it seems to me a common view is to demand openness when really what is wanted is an orthodoxy that matches how they think. I'll fully admit I don't particularly have strong opinions on church structure. I know I'm unique enough in my interests so as to not be representative of most members. So I'd certainly not want structures designed to please me. I find church somewhat boring, but I suspect were church to be what I find interesting almost everyone else would find it boring or worse. I'm completely fine with most decisions although I might point out downsides to decisions like the 18 year missionary change.

I'd love a more decentralized church but I think there's abundant evidence that the more the church does that the more things get out of control and things end up going askew. My guess is that what we'll start having is less decentralization than more centralized diversity. i.e. different structures for Asia than the US.

Edited August 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But that's kind of a non-answer.

How is that?  You asked what limits and I said none.

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Like I said there are people at church who might push in an FLDS direction and others who'd prefer the more liberal theology of the RLDS/Church of Christ. One person might say not having women have the priesthood is dangerous and others say it is. There has to be some way to adjudicate otherwise you get exactly what I initially said: something like Evangelicalism where every congregation is its own sect.

Well human individuals get to decide.  That's what life should be about--not this "oh no,...we fear someone thinks too much like a feminist or progressive in this ward, thus we better send for someone in SL to come and threaten 'em." It's much nicer to let people speak and let the chips fall where they may.  I suppose that means we might see a few people here or there heading off to be polygamists, or voting as democrats, or accepting the notion that LGBTQ and women should have rights and protection..or whatever.  Heck maybe even some in a ward might try and do something like let a woman participate in a baby blessing, or whatever.  Sounds terrible, I guess to some.  Sounds like people are free to do what they feel is right and in Mormonism all too often, that shouldn't happen.  They should just accept that leaders are right, I guess.  That I don't really buy.  There's no need to adjudicate on each issue, particularly when there's disagreement, as long as there's room to allow people to give their best when describing their views.  The Church just isn't there, as far as I see. 

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As soon as you say it's not an anything goes situation, then there have to be limits and more importantly ways of enforcing those limits. I'm not sure you end up with anything different from what we have. At best you might have more democratic voting and initiatives. But does anyone honestly think feminist initiatives would win a democratic vote in the Church? So if that ought be acceptable, we have to make sense of how.

Yes, let us have room to make sense of anything.  We don't have that.  We have authority and threats all too often, as I've seen. 

[HiJolly]

I had the opinion when i listened to Lindsey Park's interview (Doug Fabrizio) that she was referring, when she spoke of Stake Presidents and Bishops, to the (heavily redacted) document released by MormonLeaks. I've read through this whole conversation looking to see if anyone mentioned it, and to my surprise, none have. 

Well. it was released on the 31 of March, 2017. Maybe that will help. 

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well human individuals get to decide.  That's what life should be about--not this "oh no,...we fear someone thinks too much like a feminist or progressive in this ward, thus we better send for someone in SL to come and threaten 'em."  

I think authority dropping the hammer is extremely infrequent. Much more commonplace in the Church is the herd policing itself, often informally. The gadflies wrestle with pushback and cogdis from the normative congregation, and they aren't comfortable speaking out because of the atmosphere (which is overall a net positive, in my book, but can also lead to stagnation or superficiality).

Heck maybe even some in a ward might try and do something like let a woman participate in a baby blessing, or whatever.  Sounds terrible, I guess to some.

Sidenote: I have shared before how I had two children being blessed in my former ward. The ancient Tongan grandfather started blessing his grandson with identical wording from the initiatory. I was wrestling with at what point to stop the ordinance, but I let it go and he stopped about halfway through and gave a beautiful blessing. I was touched that it meant enough to him to want to bless him with those blessings (even though unorthodox). Then, when he blessed his granddaughter (already five or so years old), I had her sit on her grandmother's lap (an ancient black lady, a non-member). During the blessing, I opened my eyes and saw that she had put her hand on top of the pile of men's hands on the girl's head. I didn't slap her had away or stop the ordinance or anything, and it was touching to me how, in her innocent perspective, she was just putting her hand on the pile of hands. Two unorthodox and unexpected baby blessing twists, one after the other! Had I known she would put her hand on the pile, I would have not had her sit on her lap.

Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago . . . Different ward, but the family has moved into our ward. We had baptized her nine year-old (the same girl who was blessed as a five year-old) as a convert baptism, and the mother asked me to bless her eighteen month-old. This time, as she was carried up to us, I took the child and held her in my arms as we blessed her (putting one hand on her head). 

But, to purposely "let a woman participate in a baby blessing" by joining the circle, or knowingly let her put her hands on with the men, would be wrong. A) it would ruffle too many feathers, and B), I don't think God would be pleased by it. 

On the other hand, I read all three volumes of "Doctrines of Salvation" a few months ago, and Joseph Fielding Smith (as conservative as it comes) said multiple times that a mother can lay her hands on in the ordinance, simply as mother --- not signifying or using priesthood authority. It's interesting, but I don't think it's appropriate to test the waters for resistance or acceptance with ordinances, especially public ones before a congregation or in a service.

Yes, let us have room to make sense of anything.  We don't have that.  We have authority and threats all too often, as I've seen.

Again, I have experienced very, very little "authority and threats." To say nothing of "all too often." The general orientation of things being held in check by the herd, yes. 

[e-eye]

On 8/17/2017 at 4:10 PM, clarkgoble said:

Oh Geeze. I missed that. That's kind of funny. I'd never heard of that John Pontius guy either who was mentioned in the comments. Is he still LDS or is he part of the Snuffer group too?

As mentioned he did pass away.  From what I had heard Pontius was faithful to the church til the end - he was not a snuffer follower.  He was the type of guy that pulled truth from wherever he thought he found it but stayed faithful to the church and followed the prophets. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

How is that?  You asked what limits and I said none.

Well I guess I was a bit confused as you then seemed to deny an anything goes structure. So color me still confused. I'm guessing you have limits - say white supremacists or polygamists but maybe you don't. I suspect there's a bit of confusion over what people say in say class versus doing things like LGBT marriage in the church, allowing women to get confirmed to a priesthood office, polygamist marriages etc. Is  your openness just to belief/saying or do you think the Bishop ought be able to do whatever he wants in his ward without fear of repercussions?

While I disagree, I'm not trying to be critical here. I'm just very curious as to what you see the church ought be like.

 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think authority dropping the hammer is extremely infrequent. Much more commonplace in the Church is the herd policing itself, often informally. The gadflies wrestle with pushback and cogdis from the normative congregation, and they aren't comfortable speaking out because of the atmosphere (which is overall a net positive, in my book, but can also lead to stagnation or superficiality).

Yes I agree. This can get tricky when people have erroneous ideas about doctrine too. Lots of assumptions of the order of things that don't actually line up with official policy. But I bet in most wards social pressure from other people is a much bigger issue than the Bishop or SP cracking down on belief. My experience in every ward I've been in is that just rarely happens. 

The problem of silence is a big one too. I admit that in Sunday School I rarely say much. Priesthood is always different because it's so laid back but also just because it's often very practical topics. I rarely like Sunday School. I almost always like Priesthood even when the lesson is taught poorly.

To your other point, I think there's lots of stuff there's no doctrinal issue with. Often it's a de facto policy that grew up without really being consciously put in place. I don't think it's wise to change such things without asking. For instance ushering is not a priesthood ordinance and doesn't require the priesthood. I think it'd be a great idea if the brethren had young women assisting in that rather than just Teachers and Priests. But I'd think it inappropriate to make that change myself (were I Bishop). There's tons of things like that.

Edited August 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I guess I was a bit confused as you then seemed to deny an anything goes structure. So color me still confused. I'm guessing you have limits - say white supremacists or polygamists but maybe you don't. I suspect there's a bit of confusion over what people say in say class versus doing things like LGBT marriage in the church, allowing women to get confirmed to a priesthood office, polygamist marriages etc. Is  your openness just to belief/saying or do you think the Bishop ought be able to do whatever he wants in his ward without fear of repercussions?

While I disagree, I'm not trying to be critical here. I'm just very curious as to what you see the church ought be like.

 

Yes I agree. This can get tricky when people have erroneous ideas about doctrine too. Lots of assumptions of the order of things that don't actually line up with official policy. But I bet in most wards social pressure from other people is a much bigger issue than the Bishop or SP cracking down on belief. My experience in every ward I've been in is that just rarely happens. 

The problem of silence is a big one too. I admit that in Sunday School I rarely say much. Priesthood is always different because it's so laid back but also just because it's often very practical topics. I rarely like Sunday School. I almost always like Priesthood even when the lesson is taught poorly.

To your other point, I think there's lots of stuff there's no doctrinal issue with. Often it's a de facto policy that grew up without really being consciously put in place. I don't think it's wise to change such things without asking. For instance ushering is not a priesthood ordinance and doesn't require the priesthood. I think it'd be a great idea if the brethren had young women assisting in that rather than just Teachers and Priests. But I'd think it inappropriate to make that change myself (were I Bishop). There's tons of things like that.

Isn't ushering in line with the Aaronic Priesthood duty as listed in scripture to "watch over the Church"? It makes sense to me that ushering long ago would have been instituted as an application of that priesthood function, though I can't document my assumption. It just occurred to me, in fact. 

Edited to add: I wonder if it might stem from a need earlier in Church history to keep hostile intruders out of the meering. You know, Aaronic Priesthood bearers weren't always boys. Early on in the Church, they were grown men. We have assumed, because the "Whittling and Whistling Brigade" in Nauvoo were deacons that they were boys. Not so. In those days, deacons were grown men presumably capable of intimidating blackguards who entered the city with intent to commit nefarious acts. 

I would be interested to read a research paper regarding the origen of the practice of having Aaronic Priesthood youth usher in sacrament meetings. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Isn't ushering in line with the Aaronic Priesthood duty as listed in scripture to "watch over the Church"? It makes sense to me that ushering long ago would have been instituted as an application of that priesthood function, though I can't document my assumption. It just occurred to me, in fact. 

Edited to add: I wonder if it might stem from a need earlier in Church history to keep hostile intruders out of the meering. You know, Aaronic Priesthood bearers weren't always boys. Early on in the Church, they were grown men. We have assumed, because the "Whittling and Whistling Brigade" in Nauvoo were deacons that they were boys. Not so. In those days, deacons were grown men presumably capable of intimidating blackguards who entered the city with intent to commit nefarious acts. 

I would be interested to read a research paper regarding the origen of the practice of having Aaronic Priesthood youth usher in sacrament meetings. 

I think the distinction I was getting at was between a duty in a broad sense and those requiring the priesthood to do. "Watch over the Church" is pretty vague and I'm not sure really is the same as ushering but likely relates to duties when the Aaronic Priesthood weren't primarily young teens. Note that section 20 says "teach, expound, extort, baptize and watch over the church." We of course let women give talks, teach lessons and so forth. Only baptism isn't something they can't do. So I'd imagine watch over the church fits into that as well.  The section specifying teachers honestly makes it sound a lot like the name. "watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them; and see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking; and see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty." (20:53-55) It appears the office of Teacher was originally oriented around teaching and the name is not an accident. You'll notice that much of the duty is now as a practical matter done by all members and more importantly rarely done by teacher age kids. It's possible that the office is influenced from the Book of Mormon use of teacher that seems more formally tied to priesthood. (Mosiah 23:17;25:19;26:7; Alma 4:7;15:13).

The idea that this was to help guard makes a lot of sense, although D&C 20 doesn't really get into that. Later of course the Masonic office of tyler took that up (often taking the masonic dress of being like the angel guarding paradise). That then became de-masonized to the point it's now the guy checking you as you enter the temple or go up the elevator for an endowment.

There is an article on the history of the Aaronic Priesthood in the JMH that is interesting. (Page 80) It wasn't until 1908 that our contemporary structure largely as a youth organization appears. Up to that point you were ordained as a deacon at 12 but adults did most of the rest. During Joseph's lifetime teacher appears to have meant more or less what we do by home teaching. (It's interesting that you usually only go home teaching when a teacher, not a deacon, probably a hold over of that practice) The article gives an example from William Cahoon's youth that fits D&C 20 pretty closely. By the mid-1870's deacons begin ushering and in that case it's more formal ushering people to their seats. The 1877 reformation of the Aaronic priesthood after Brigham's death starts formalizing things more. Again it's primarily what we'd call home teaching. That's also when it becomes tied to wards rather than stakes. It's at the end of the 19th century that you start having stepwise advancement although it wasn't universal. (Apparently James Talmage never was a Priest) Deacons did custodial work. Surprisingly it wasn't until then that deacons started passing the sacrament. Interestingly the reasoning for deacons being allowed to pass the sacrament (since it wasn't administering it) would let women do it as well. The explanation of Deacons and Teachers in 1902 was that they were "acting teachers under the direction of the Bishopric...for visiting and teaching purposes They are appointed as aids to the Bishop..." So they effectively were the religious equivalent of gophers in the film industry from what I can tell. All of the actual duties evolve and many of them largely get taken over by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

What I suspect will happen, although it might take a few decades, is that the Brethren will realize that many of these duties are fairly recent and don't technically require priesthood outside of baptizing and administering the sacrament. So they'll restructure young women and give more duties to the young women. It's not something I think any Bishop or Stake President could start on their own, but there's no doctrinal reason to limit it to the Aaronic Priesthood.

Edited August 22, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

I think authority dropping the hammer is extremely infrequent.

Of course it's extremely infrequent when you're one who stays in line. 

15 hours ago, rongo said:

Much more commonplace in the Church is the herd policing itself, often informally. The gadflies wrestle with pushback and cogdis from the normative congregation, and they aren't comfortable speaking out because of the atmosphere (which is overall a net positive, in my book, but can also lead to stagnation or superficiality).

Well sure, but where do the people get their notion of those who question, doubt, or come from a different perspective aren't faithful, headed to apostasy, or of the devil?  It's promoted from the top, for the most part, to help police.  That's why they have the SCMC committee. 

15 hours ago, rongo said:

 

 

Sidenote: I have shared before how I had two children being blessed in my former ward. The ancient Tongan grandfather started blessing his grandson with identical wording from the initiatory. I was wrestling with at what point to stop the ordinance, but I let it go and he stopped about halfway through and gave a beautiful blessing. I was touched that it meant enough to him to want to bless him with those blessings (even though unorthodox). Then, when he blessed his granddaughter (already five or so years old), I had her sit on her grandmother's lap (an ancient black lady, a non-member). During the blessing, I opened my eyes and saw that she had put her hand on top of the pile of men's hands on the girl's head. I didn't slap her had away or stop the ordinance or anything, and it was touching to me how, in her innocent perspective, she was just putting her hand on the pile of hands. Two unorthodox and unexpected baby blessing twists, one after the other! Had I known she would put her hand on the pile, I would have not had her sit on her lap.

Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago . . . Different ward, but the family has moved into our ward. We had baptized her nine year-old (the same girl who was blessed as a five year-old) as a convert baptism, and the mother asked me to bless her eighteen month-old. This time, as she was carried up to us, I took the child and held her in my arms as we blessed her (putting one hand on her head). 

But, to purposely "let a woman participate in a baby blessing" by joining the circle, or knowingly let her put her hands on with the men, would be wrong. A) it would ruffle too many feathers, and B), I don't think God would be pleased by it. 

On the other hand, I read all three volumes of "Doctrines of Salvation" a few months ago, and Joseph Fielding Smith (as conservative as it comes) said multiple times that a mother can lay her hands on in the ordinance, simply as mother --- not signifying or using priesthood authority. It's interesting, but I don't think it's appropriate to test the waters for resistance or acceptance with ordinances, especially public ones before a congregation or in a service.

Great.

15 hours ago, rongo said:

 

 

Again, I have experienced very, very little "authority and threats." To say nothing of "all too often." The general orientation of things being held in check by the herd, yes. 

Of course.  This was all brought on by a discussion between Hamba and I.  We're talking about an unspecified case wherein a ward was condemned to some degree, in order to get them in line and stop sharing their ideas with one another. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course.  This was all brought on by a discussion between Hamba and I.  We're talking about an unspecified case wherein a ward was condemned to some degree, in order to get them in line and stop sharing their ideas with one another. 

As it was described, it went a lot further than merely concern over members "sharing their ideas with one another." It was described as many members actively flouting Church policy and practices in physical, outward ordinances --- essentially going rogue in ways that are sure to bring correction from above to a degree where mere exchange of ideas wouldn't.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I guess I was a bit confused as you then seemed to deny an anything goes structure.

I didn't really introduce this notion of structure.  I'm saying there should be room within any church building for people to share the welfare of their souls.  But as it is, we're very limited to only being able to share, for various reasons I grant.  I for the most part don't agree with the reasons. 

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So color me still confused. I'm guessing you have limits - say white supremacists or polygamists but maybe you don't.

If someone is a white supremacist, what better place to share his thoughts than in a loving environment in Church wherein his ideas can be reasonably addressed.  Hopefully in time he realizes the foolishness of his ideas.  Same for polygamists.  Instead of the Church rejecting people who come from polygamy it should embrace people.  Interestingly our SP has been on some kick saying "the Church is a big tent, welcoming everyone."  Of course he rejects plenty, so his words come off as meaningless.  But I found it interesting that he started incorporating that idea. 

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect there's a bit of confusion over what people say in say class versus doing things like LGBT marriage in the church, allowing women to get confirmed to a priesthood office, polygamist marriages etc. Is  your openness just to belief/saying or do you think the Bishop ought be able to do whatever he wants in his ward without fear of repercussions?

I'm not commenting on that seeing as where this discussion has gone to this point.  I don't think it'll get us anywhere. 

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While I disagree, I'm not trying to be critical here. I'm just very curious as to what you see the church ought be like.

I've shared here plenty of times. 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

As it was described, it went a lot further than merely concern over members "sharing their ideas with one another." It was described as many members actively flouting Church policy and practices in physical, outward ordinances --- essentially going rogue in ways that are sure to bring correction from above to a degree where mere exchange of ideas wouldn't.

How do you think they arrived at such a place?  Perhaps because they never were aloud to discuss it, previously (as in previously in other wards)?  They seemed to simply think the Church was going to allow them to do what they thought was good.  When the Church sent someone to condemn them, they seemed, according to Hamba, to get in line.  Although I think he was skeptical of their resolve.  It seems to me people were acting in innocence.  If they weren't, and were actively flouting, as you say, then perhaps they wouldn't have been so quick to get in line.  Whatever the case, Hamba seemed to make a big fuss about two things--feminist ideas and progressive ideas.  He suggested it wasn't the couple of instances he mentioned where policy was not followed (a woman participated in a blessing just as you allowed) but that the ideas shared in meetings and through a newsletter was the real problem.  Thus, sharing ideas is the culprit and should be avoided, according to the Church's reasoning it seems.  For them, as they shared, it seems, at least according to Hamba, they weren't able to make the Church's policies and practices, that they according to you were flouting, work within reason.  If any, say, idea leaders, were still not on board but quietly assented to stay in place, you'd think disagreements would rise within the ward, in time (the type of follow the brethren versus let's reason together). 

[Duncan]

that leaks page released some documents earlier today about this Denver fella, maybe something it says is relevant. Mostly letters from SP, although I didn't see any discussion about half or whole stakes but it appears to be a problem

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

that leaks page released some documents earlier today about this Denver fella, maybe something it says is relevant. Mostly letters from SP, although I didn't see any discussion about half or whole stakes but it appears to be a problem

It mainly seemed like advice handling a couple of potential excommunications largely just describing their actions. It's interesting to me how quick and willing to snuff out so much of Joseph's teachings they are.

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If someone is a white supremacist, what better place to share his thoughts than in a loving environment in Church wherein his ideas can be reasonably addressed.  Hopefully in time he realizes the foolishness of his ideas.  Same for polygamists.  Instead of the Church rejecting people who come from polygamy it should embrace people.  Interestingly our SP has been on some kick saying "the Church is a big tent, welcoming everyone."  Of course he rejects plenty, so his words come off as meaningless.  But I found it interesting that he started incorporating that idea. 

Yeah, it's a tricky balancing act IMO. I want everyone to come, but at the same time I'm less sanguine than you that talking about this stuff during Church would be helpful. My experience is more often people dig in their heels and you just have people arguing. Further those around the issue are apt to become offended. The reason I brought up white supremacy is because of how already racist comments by a few number of members can seriously hurt people and drive them away from the Church.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It mainly seemed like advice handling a couple of potential excommunications largely just describing their actions. It's interesting to me how quick and willing to snuff out so much of Joseph's teachings they are.

 

Yeah, it's a tricky balancing act IMO. I want everyone to come, but at the same time I'm less sanguine than you that talking about this stuff during Church would be helpful. My experience is more often people dig in their heels and you just have people arguing. Further those around the issue are apt to become offended. The reason I brought up white supremacy is because of how already racist comments by a few number of members can seriously hurt people and drive them away from the Church.

Well no kidding.  White supremacy attitudes at the top did nothing but hurt us in the long run, and hurt the members which we still feel the effect of today.