Establishing Boundaries within the LDS Church

[smac97]

19 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If someone won't go by the Church's rules, maybe it is better to not be a member.

I think there needs to be a lot of room here.  We are all imperfect.  Someone who is earnestly seeking to improve himself, who is 

 

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I’ll share a story from early in the previous decade in one of the University of Washington affiliated YSA wards I was a part of--

A fellow starting visiting our ward.  He had a pretty unpleasant demeanor.  He didn’t smell too good. 

Grouchiness and personal hygiene are rather superficial flaws, but in the long run they can become nontrivial issues.  We are human, we have flaws.  Those flaws may include being grouchy and smelly, or in failing to demonstrate constant Christlike love and patience for someone who is grouchy and smelly.

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

He’d occasionally bump into people and make no apology.  And he was too old to be there (you typically got the boot on your 31st birthday—perhaps an example of “active” encouragement I mentioned in my OP).  But our bishop befriended him, gave him some modest financial support. 

Sounds good.  Bishops have lots of discretion in these matters.

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Worth noting our bishop wasn’t the typical LDS bishop (aren’t at least half of them dentists/orthodontists?).  He was an adult convert who otherwise had no connection to Utah.  He also ran a large, leading-edge technical research team for the UW that drew talent from all over the world.

What is a "typical LDS bishop"?  Do you mean a "typical LDS bishop in Utah"?

Lots of bishops in various parts of the world are converts.  

I have known bishops that have run the gamut of professional occupations.  While my father-in-law was a bishop he worked various jobs, trying to make ends meet.  My ward's last four bishops have been 1) a mental health therapist, 2) a baker (he made all the donuts for BYU every day), 3) an accountant, and 4) a lawyer.  

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

At the time a lot of us wished this fellow would just find another place to hang out on Sundays and few (if any) made an effort to help him fit in (an example of “passive” encouragement I mentioned in my OP).  He made things really uncomfortable.  He’d repay the bishop’s generosity by sitting on the institute steps facing 15th Ave NE after church, and enjoy a cigarette.  How self-righteous many of us felt, and what a fool our bishop was being for subsidizing tobacco consumption (with our hard-earned money!).

So this neglect of this brother was wrong, then.

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Now, does it change the story if I mention he was also blind and walked with a cane?  Well, it didn’t much for us at the time.

After a while he did move on.  I’d see him in the U-District neighborhood on occasion.  Then after a couple more years I didn’t see him anymore.  Active & passive—yeah, I think we had all the elements.  And whatever else may be said, the boundary was preserved.

This story isn't about boundary preservation.  The Church does not teach or encourage this sort of thing.  

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

What do folks think?  An unlikely story?  Or one that hits close to home?

I live in Mormon Central: Provo, Utah.  I live in a neighborhood which is almost entirely older homes (60+ years old) and rentals, many of them in not-very-good condition.  We have plenty of "real world" problems.  Financial/Employment problems.  Mental Health problems.  Marital problems.  Law of Chastity problems.  Word of Wisdom problems.  Our ward councils, held twice a month, involve regular discussions of various ways we can assist various families and individuals.  There are some people who have, either expressly or through other clear means, let us know that they want to be left entirely alone.  They want to be outside "the boundary."  We respect those decisions.

So I guess circumstances vary.  In the main, I think our ward does a pretty good job of being inclusive, of working to help others, and of not withholding fellowship from people who are mentally ill, or poor, or stinky, or grouchy.  YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure excommunication is ever an "automatic" thing, but I am open to clarification from others on that point.

Excommunication is mandatory for murder (see Handbook 1 6.7.3).

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Excommunication is mandatory for murder (see Handbook 1 6.7.3).

I am not sure that is correct.  Convening a disciplinary council is mandatory for murder (among a few other things), but the result of that council is not, I think, a mandatory excommunication.

Am I wrong on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure that is correct.  Convening a disciplinary council is mandatory for murder (among a few other things), but the result of that council is not, I think, a mandatory excommunication.

Am I wrong on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Wouldn't the disciplinary council be convened to determine if murder had in fact been committed, with excommunication being the automatic penalty if the verdict (for want of a better term) is murder?

You would know better than I, as I have never been in a bishopric, stake presidency or high council. 

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure that is correct.  Convening a disciplinary council is mandatory for murder (among a few other things), but the result of that council is not, I think, a mandatory excommunication.

Am I wrong on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is the direct quote from the handbook.

"As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication."

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wouldn't the disciplinary council be convened to determine if murder had in fact been committed, with excommunication being the automatic penalty if the verdict (for want of a better term) is murder?

You would know better than I, as I have never been in a bishopric, stake presidency or high council. 

Upon further review, you are correct.  Section 6.10.5 of the CHI states:

Quote

    
Possible Decisions

A disciplinary council can reach any of the following decisions:
1. No action. A disciplinary council can reach this decision even if a transgression has been committed. As part of this decision, the member may be given cautionary counsel, or he may be referred to his bishop for an interview that might lead to informal discipline.
2. Formal probation (see 6.9.1).
3. Disfellowshipment (see 6.9.2).
4. Excommunication (see 6.9.3).

Section 6.9.3 states (emphasis added):

Quote

Excommunication

A person who is excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church. Excommunication is the most severe Church disciplinary action. As directed by the Spirit, it may be necessary for:

1. Members who have committed serious transgressions, especially violations of temple covenants (see “Violation of Covenants” in 6.10.6).
2. Members who have been disfellowshipped and have not repented and for whom excommunication seems to offer the best hope for reformation.
3. Members whose conduct makes them a serious threat to others and whose Church membership facilitates their access to victims.
4. Church leaders or prominent members whose transgressions significantly impair the good name or moral influence of the Church in the community that is aware of the transgression.

Excommunication is mandatory for murder (as defined in 6.7.3) and is almost always required for incest.

Section 6.7.3 states (emphasis added):

Quote

Murder

As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication. It does not include police or military action in the line of duty. Abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose. If death was caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if mitigating circumstances prevail (such as deficient mental capacity), the taking of a human life might not be defined as murder. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. The stake president may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Here is the direct quote from the handbook.

"As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication."

Thank you for that.

-Smac

[Five Solas]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

...

This story isn't about boundary preservation.  The Church does not teach or encourage this sort of thing. 

...

Is boundary setting in the LDS tradition something that only happens from the top down, smac97?  Do you imagine the leadership delivers its edicts & admonitions--and the members demonstrate their worthiness via their obedience? 

Or could boundary setting also happen from the grass roots--from the bottom up?

From your reply, it seems you would only recognize the former (top down) and you disregard the latter (bottom up).  Hence you deny my story has anything to do with boundary preservation. 

But I suspect many here will recognize my story does indeed have to do with establishing boundaries--and how the rank & file decide to act is every inch as consequential (and arguably more so) that whatever the leaders might say and publish.

--Erik

______________________________________________________

and that's the end and that's the start of it
that's the whole and that's the part of it
that's the high and that's the heart of it
that's the long and that's the short of it
that's the best and that's the test in it
that's the doubt, the doubt, the trust in it
that's the sight and that's the sound of it
that's the gift and that's the trick in it

--Placebo "Twenty Years"

 

[Duncan]

30 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Is boundary setting in the LDS tradition something that only happens from the top down, smac97?  Do you imagine the leadership delivers its edicts & admonitions--and the members demonstrate their worthiness via their obedience? 

Or could boundary setting also happen from the grass roots--from the bottom up?

From your reply, it seems you would only recognize the former (top down) and you disregard the latter (bottom up).  Hence you deny my story has anything to do with boundary preservation. 

But I suspect many here will recognize my story does indeed have to do with establishing boundaries--and how the rank & file decide to act is every inch as consequential (and arguably more so) that whatever the leaders might say and publish.

--Erik

______________________________________________________

and that's the end and that's the start of it
that's the whole and that's the part of it
that's the high and that's the heart of it
that's the long and that's the short of it
that's the best and that's the test in it
that's the doubt, the doubt, the trust in it
that's the sight and that's the sound of it
that's the gift and that's the trick in it

--Placebo "Twenty Years"

 

There is a High Councilor in our stake that speaks in our ward maybe twice a year and for at least 4 years now, if not more, he plagiarizes his talks. He cuts and pastes talks from BYU or general conference and he gives that. Well, he spoke a few weeks ago. After church I emailed with where he got his talk from and I told him, maybe rather then  reading what others have have said you could come up with your own thoughts and opinions and I sent him some links on how to give a talk in Church. He responded by thanking me for the feedback and comments. I doubt highly he'll change but he knows that I know what he's up to and dishonesty isn't appreciated, especially when you get asked if you're honest with your fellowmen. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

There is a High Councilor in our stake that speaks in our ward maybe twice a year and for at least 4 years now, if not more, he plagiarizes his talks. He cuts and pastes talks from BYU or general conference and he gives that. Well, he spoke a few weeks ago. After church I emailed with where he got his talk from and I told him, maybe rather then  reading what others have have said you could come up with your own thoughts and opinions and I sent him some links on how to give a talk in Church. He responded by thanking me for the feedback and comments. I doubt highly he'll change but he knows that I know what he's up to and dishonesty isn't appreciated, especially when you get asked if you're honest with your fellowmen. 

Trying to find the right emoticon which stands for a little shocked that you did this, but quite proud that you did! 

I can't wait to hear how his next talk turns out. I think you made him think! I hope he comes clean and becomes a speaker that people look forward to listening to. I always perk up when a talk is something personal and not just words from someone else. But also enjoy true stories too. 

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Trying to find the right emoticon which stands for a little shocked that you did this, but quite proud that you did! 

I can't wait to hear how his next talk turns out. I think you made him think! I hope he comes clean and becomes a speaker that people look forward to listening to. I always perk up when a talk is something personal and not just words from someone else. But also enjoy true stories too. 

Thank you!!!! I figure I didn't sustain Cheryl Esplin, Pres. James E. Faust or Joseph B. Wirthlin to the High Council, I sustained him-oh, I'll let you know! hahaha! 

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Is boundary setting in the LDS tradition something that only happens from the top down, smac97? 

No.

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Do you imagine the leadership delivers its edicts & admonitions--and the members demonstrate their worthiness via their obedience? 

The leaders of the Church seek to teach correct principles, and the body of the Saints - with varying degrees of success  seeks to live in accordance with those principles.

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Or could boundary setting also happen from the grass roots--from the bottom up?

I don't think so.  The type of "boundary setting" you are talking about constitutes a failure of some Latter-day Saints to fully live according to the doctrines of their faith.  It's not an organized effort.  It's not a "grass roots" effort to do anything in particular.

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

From your reply, it seems you would only recognize the former (top down)

You are characterizing the neglect/mistreatment of some Latter-day Saints by other Latter-day Saints as some sort of movement.  It's not.  It's just a failure to live up to the precepts of the Restored Gospel.

My neighborhood actually has a pretty good track record of seeking out and helping people who are disadvantaged in some way, who are very poor, or mentally ill, or socially inept, or have substance abuse problems, and so on.

Do we have room to improve?  Certainly.  But that has to happen at the local/individual level.  

Some Mormons have not treated other Mormons with the kindness contemplated in the Restored Gospel.  I see that.  I acknowledge that it happens.  I think we can improve.

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

and you disregard the latter (bottom up). 

I don't disregard the reality of Latter-day Saints not fully living in accordance with the Restored Gospel.  I do reject, however, the apparent suggestion that this somehow constitutes some sort of "grassroots" or "bottom up" movement.

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Hence you deny my story has anything to do with boundary preservation. 

Your story has to do with Latter-day Saints not treating each other with requisite kindness.  Your story has to do with the failure of some Latter-day Saints to live up to their ideals.  That's about it.

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

But I suspect many here will recognize my story does indeed have to do with establishing boundaries--and how the rank & file decide to act is every inch as consequential (and arguably more so) that whatever the leaders might say and publish.

--Erik

"Boundary preservation" in the way you describe it is not appropriate.  It is not taught, expressly or impliedly, in the LDS Church.  It is, rather, something we should work to overcome.

This thread seems to be more about navelgazing and/or faultfinding than about anything substantive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Five Solas]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.

The leaders of the Church seek to teach correct principles, and the body of the Saints - with varying degrees of success  seeks to live in accordance with those principles.

I don't think so.  The type of "boundary setting" you are talking about constitutes a failure of some Latter-day Saints to fully live according to the doctrines of their faith.  It's not an organized effort.  It's not a "grass roots" effort to do anything in particular.

You are characterizing the neglect/mistreatment of some Latter-day Saints by other Latter-day Saints as some sort of movement.  It's not.  It's just a failure to live up to the precepts of the Restored Gospel.

My neighborhood actually has a pretty good track record of seeking out and helping people who are disadvantaged in some way, who are very poor, or mentally ill, or socially inept, or have substance abuse problems, and so on.

Do we have room to improve?  Certainly.  But that has to happen at the local/individual level.  

Some Mormons have not treated other Mormons with the kindness contemplated in the Restored Gospel.  I see that.  I acknowledge that it happens.  I think we can improve.

I don't disregard the reality of Latter-day Saints not fully living in accordance with the Restored Gospel.  I do reject, however, the apparent suggestion that this somehow constitutes some sort of "grassroots" or "bottom up" movement.

Your story has to do with Latter-day Saints not treating each other with requisite kindness.  Your story has to do with the failure of some Latter-day Saints to live up to their ideals.  That's about it.

"Boundary preservation" in the way you describe it is not appropriate.  It is not taught, expressly or impliedly, in the LDS Church.  It is, rather, something we should work to overcome.

This thread seems to be more about navelgazing and/or faultfinding than about anything substantive.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'd like you to at least acknowledge the grass roots/bottom up view of boundary establishment/maintenance has merit, Smac.  Maybe I just need your validation, I dunno. 

;0)

Let me pose a hypothetical to you:  Supposing college students want community, including church community, with other college students and perhaps young single professionals as well.  That's not such a leap, is it? 

Now supposing college students curious about the LDS Church were to cross the street (15th Ave NE in this case) and see a bunch of clean, friendly, well-dressed college students and young professionals.  Would that make stepping through the Institute building door to make further inquiry harder or easier?  Easier now, right?

Now supposing instead they encounter the fellow I just described.  Harder now, right? 

Obviously I have some empathy toward that bishop, looking back in hindsight.  You can tell that from the way I told the story.  But could it be I'm just seeing at the world through my apostate soda straw?  What if I took a utilitarian view (seeking to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number)?  Then the young adults who at least passively encouraged him to find community elsewhere--they had it right, didn't they?  (And through that lens, expulsion from the YSA program at age 31 is smart.) 

Perhaps all this has actually lead to more LDS conversions--because the membership enforces boundaries, not just the leadership.  And the right sort of conversions too--many of these young folks from UW's programs will be tomorrow's leaders.  

Now you could point out the obvious & reply to me, "Well, when you were there, Erik, there were four University wards (U-1 through U-4), and today there are only two remaining, so I guess your navel-gazing hypothesis kinda blows."  To which I could only reply, "Well, perhaps otherwise there might be just one."

In a purely hypothetical conversation, of course.

:0)

--Erik

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'd like you to at least acknowledge the grass roots/bottom up view of boundary establishment/maintenance has merit, Smac.  Maybe I just need your validation, I dunno. 

I'm not sure what you mean.

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Let me pose a hypothetical to you:  Supposing college students want community, including church community, with other college students and perhaps young single professionals as well.  That's not such a leap, is it? 

"Students want community"?  What does that mean?  (I'm not playing dumb.  I really do not understand what you mean here.)

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Now supposing college students curious about the LDS Church were to cross the street (15th Ave NE in this case) and see a bunch of clean, friendly, well-dressed college students and young professionals.  Would that make stepping through the Institute building door to make further inquiry harder or easier?  Easier now, right?

Right.

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Now supposing instead they encounter the fellow I just described.  Harder now, right? 

I suppose.  But that does not justify mistreatment or neglect of the fellow.

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Obviously I have some empathy toward that bishop, looking back in hindsight.  You can tell that from the way I told the story.  But could it be I'm just seeing at the world through my apostate soda straw? 

Again, I don't know what you mean here.

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

What if I took a utilitarian view (seeking to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number)?  Then the young adults who at least passively encouraged him to find community elsewhere--they had it right, didn't they?  

I don't think so.  Our job is to demonstrate Christlike love and compassion.  I think we can do that and also seek to leave a good impression with those investigating our faith.

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

(And through that lens, expulsion from the YSA program at age 31 is smart.) 

I think the age limit has to do with the overall purpose of the YSA wards (emphasis on the "Y").

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Perhaps all this has actually lead to more LDS conversions--because the membership enforces boundaries, not just the leadership. 

By snubbing people who are disabled?  Smelly?  Mentally ill?

I don't think that's the way to go.

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

And the right sort of conversions too--many of these young folks from UW's programs will be tomorrow's leaders.  

I don't know what you mean here.

19 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Now you could point out the obvious & reply to me, "Well, when you were there, Erik, there were four University wards (U-1 through U-4), and today there are only two remaining, so I guess your navel-gazing hypothesis kinda blows."  To which I could only reply, "Well, perhaps otherwise there might be just one."

In a purely hypothetical conversation, of course.

:0)

--Erik

Still don't know what you are getting at.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/12/2017 at 6:57 AM, smac97 said:

No.

The leaders of the Church seek to teach correct principles, and the body of the Saints - with varying degrees of success  seeks to live in accordance with those principles.

I don't think so.  The type of "boundary setting" you are talking about constitutes a failure of some Latter-day Saints to fully live according to the doctrines of their faith.  It's not an organized effort.  It's not a "grass roots" effort to do anything in particular.

You are characterizing the neglect/mistreatment of some Latter-day Saints by other Latter-day Saints as some sort of movement.  It's not.  It's just a failure to live up to the precepts of the Restored Gospel.

My neighborhood actually has a pretty good track record of seeking out and helping people who are disadvantaged in some way, who are very poor, or mentally ill, or socially inept, or have substance abuse problems, and so on.

Do we have room to improve?  Certainly.  But that has to happen at the local/individual level.  

Some Mormons have not treated other Mormons with the kindness contemplated in the Restored Gospel.  I see that.  I acknowledge that it happens.  I think we can improve.

I don't disregard the reality of Latter-day Saints not fully living in accordance with the Restored Gospel.  I do reject, however, the apparent suggestion that this somehow constitutes some sort of "grassroots" or "bottom up" movement.

Your story has to do with Latter-day Saints not treating each other with requisite kindness.  Your story has to do with the failure of some Latter-day Saints to live up to their ideals.  That's about it.

"Boundary preservation" in the way you describe it is not appropriate.  It is not taught, expressly or impliedly, in the LDS Church.  It is, rather, something we should work to overcome.

This thread seems to be more about navelgazing and/or faultfinding than about anything substantive.

Thanks,

-Smac

In high priests group meeting a couple of weeks ago, the instructor posed the question, "How would you define kindness?"

My contribution to the discussion was to define the term in this way: "Kindness is the expression of charity, which is defined in the scriptures as 'the pure love of Christ.''"

Easier said than done, sometimes, and I know we all fall short. But it is required of all the saints.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

On September 9, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Five Solas said:

Not everyone fits.  That much should be incontestable by now.  And any club can set rules for admission and continuing membership.  That also isn’t up for debate.

The reasons and the tools for maintaining boundaries within the LDS Church and perhaps more broadly in Mormonism—that’s what I’d like this thread to be about.  When should you resign, for reasons of conscience, ethics or other considerations?  And when should someone have their membership revoked or otherwise be disenfranchised?  And when should a member, passively or actively, encourage another member to find a different community with which to associate?

--Erik

PS.  There was a thread about boundaries a while back.  I shared some thoughts, based on my own experience.  Someone even gave me a rep point!  But then my little post got deleted, because someone else got offended (doubtless someone much worthier than I).  Or maybe it was because I quoted from a Willie Nelson song (“I Never Cared for You”, going back to 1964)—and quoting Willie always carries risk in these quarters.  But hopefully we’ll make some headway on the topic of boundaries this time.  It's an interesting topic, at least to me. 
:0)

One should resign whenever he wants. The handbook describes conditions for excommunication. A member can encourage someone to change community whenever he wants. Discerning the Lord's will? That is completely the province of those making these choices, and those who discuss what they should do are busy-bodies!

[Vance]

On 9/11/2017 at 10:42 PM, Duncan said:

There is a High Councilor in our stake that speaks in our ward maybe twice a year and for at least 4 years now, if not more, he plagiarizes his talks. He cuts and pastes talks from BYU or general conference and he gives that. Well, he spoke a few weeks ago. After church I emailed with where he got his talk from and I told him, maybe rather then  reading what others have have said you could come up with your own thoughts and opinions and I sent him some links on how to give a talk in Church. He responded by thanking me for the feedback and comments. I doubt highly he'll change but he knows that I know what he's up to and dishonesty isn't appreciated, especially when you get asked if you're honest with your fellowmen. 

You might be nit picking!!

 

Quote

 

In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles and prophets.

True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard his voice and know his word.

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie,  April 1985

[Duncan]

56 minutes ago, Vance said:

You might be nit picking!!

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie,  April 1985

Plagiarism is dishonest!!!!!!!!!!!! and Elder McConkie is from Michigan and well, we all know how they are

[Kenngo1969]

I like Smac97's reply.  He sums up the matter nicely.  (The Board is doing hinky things.  This is a test! )

[Five Solas]

On 9/12/2017 at 7:53 AM, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

"Students want community"?  What does that mean?  (I'm not playing dumb.  I really do not understand what you mean here.)

Right.

I suppose.  But that does not justify mistreatment or neglect of the fellow.

Again, I don't know what you mean here.

I don't think so.  Our job is to demonstrate Christlike love and compassion.  I think we can do that and also seek to leave a good impression with those investigating our faith.

I think the age limit has to do with the overall purpose of the YSA wards (emphasis on the "Y").

By snubbing people who are disabled?  Smelly?  Mentally ill?

I don't think that's the way to go.

I don't know what you mean here.

Still don't know what you are getting at.

Thanks,

-Smac

That was a lot of confusion, Smac.  Perhaps if you didn't break my paragraphs into stand alone-sentences and you considered what I wrote a bit more holistically, it would help.  Regarding what is community and why students might have a desire for it, consider the third level in Maslow's Hierarchy.  But if we can't at least loosely agree on that, then yeah, the rest of it probably is a bit silly.

I am interested if anyone else out there sees examples of members establishing and maintaining boundaries, apart from official statements from church leaders.  Smac, I get that you think such activity is merely members behaving badly (at least in the example I gave).  But whether you discriminate based on age (those over 30 in my example), appearance, combinations thereof or anything else--it still comes down to establishing and maintaining boundaries.  Or at least it does to me, and I think it would to most people.  And as I endeavored to show, there could be organizational benefit from such boundaries. 

Not sure if this little synopsis is helpful, but there you have it.

:0)

--Erik

_____________________________________________________________________

Well, the only person talkin' 'bout love-thy-brother is the preacher
And it seems, nobody is interested in learnin' but the teacher
Segregation, determination, demonstration, integration, aggravation,
Humiliation, obligation to our nation
Ball of Confusion, that's what the world is today...

--The Temptations, 1970

[stemelbow]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:42 PM, Five Solas said:

Not everyone fits.  That much should be incontestable by now.  And any club can set rules for admission and continuing membership.  That also isn’t up for debate.

The reasons and the tools for maintaining boundaries within the LDS Church and perhaps more broadly in Mormonism—that’s what I’d like this thread to be about.  When should you resign, for reasons of conscience, ethics or other considerations?  And when should someone have their membership revoked or otherwise be disenfranchised?  And when should a member, passively or actively, encourage another member to find a different community with which to associate?

--Erik

PS.  There was a thread about boundaries a while back.  I shared some thoughts, based on my own experience.  Someone even gave me a rep point!  But then my little post got deleted, because someone else got offended (doubtless someone much worthier than I).  Or maybe it was because I quoted from a Willie Nelson song (“I Never Cared for You”, going back to 1964)—and quoting Willie always carries risk in these quarters.  But hopefully we’ll make some headway on the topic of boundaries this time.  It's an interesting topic, at least to me. 
:0)

The rep point was probably from me.  I'm so free with handing them out sometimes, so don't get too excited(-;

I'm a Mormon who really struggles with unwritten and written rules of Mormonism and boundary maintenance as it pertains here.  I don't really know how labels are to work.  I can't stand the "hitherto shalt thou come, and no further" stuff that is inherent in today's Mormonism.  I mean I get how the rules have developed for the most part.  I get that some make really good sense.  That some, as Joseph said about creeds, have elements of truth, or some truth, to them.  But what we have is a very exclusive club.  I remember Elder Holland, I believe it was, who suggested if someone is new or struggling in Church they should sit back and stay quiet until they are up to speed, feeding off the more mature members or whatever.  That could take years for most of us.  And it really only promotes and describes for that matter, the exclusiveness of what Church has become.  Church should be a place where everyone is welcome, each person is free to share the welfare of their souls.  Instead, often, what we get is a lot of people striving to figure out how best to repeat the pablum fed to them.  People trying to mast the memorized script that is pounded into them, year after year.  In a way, it's a very sad place this Church.  And we have a ton of room to improve. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

That was a lot of confusion, Smac.  Perhaps if you didn't break my paragraphs into stand alone-sentences and you considered what I wrote a bit more holistically, it would help.  Regarding what is community and why students might have a desire for it, consider the third level in Maslow's Hierarchy.  But if we can't at least loosely agree on that, then yeah, the rest of it probably is a bit silly.

I read your remarks as a whole, and responded using a "fisking"-type method.

I am a reasonably intelligent person.  I read for a living.  A lot.  Whatever it is you are getting at remains vague and difficult to understand.  An oblique and unexplained reference to Maslow's Hierarchy doesn't really help me understand.  But oh well.

Quote

I am interested if anyone else out there sees examples of members establishing and maintaining boundaries, apart from official statements from church leaders. 

To clarify, it sounds like you are asking for "examples of members establishing and maintaining inappropriate boundaries which are not healthy or congruent with the teachings of the Restored Gospel."  Is that what you are seeking?

If so, the answer is "yes, those boundaries are bad and need to be modified or dismantled."  

Quote

Smac, I get that you think such activity is merely members behaving badly (at least in the example I gave).  But whether you discriminate based on age (those over 30 in my example), appearance, combinations thereof or anything else--it still comes down to establishing and maintaining boundaries. 

I disagree.  I think it "comes down to" scrutinizing such "boundaries" and evaluating their merits.  If they are worthwhile and necessary and congruent with the principles of the Restored Gospel, then we keep them.  If not, we revise or remove them.

Quote

Or at least it does to me, and I think it would to most people.  And as I endeavored to show, there could be organizational benefit from such boundaries. 

There is a theoretical "benefit" to setting up a boundaries that exclude people from the Church who are poor, or struggle with addictive behaviors or mental health problems.  But that is not what we are supposed to do.

"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."  (Mark 2:17)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm a Mormon who really struggles with unwritten and written rules of Mormonism and boundary maintenance as it pertains here.

I also struggle with "unwritten" rules (and with some of the "written" ones).

I'm not sure what you mean by "boundary maintenance," though.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't stand the "hitherto shalt thou come, and no further" stuff that is inherent in today's Mormonism. 

I don't know what this means.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I mean I get how the rules have developed for the most part.  I get that some make really good sense.  That some, as Joseph said about creeds, have elements of truth, or some truth, to them.  But what we have is a very exclusive club. 

How so?  We have 70,000+ missionaries in every country that will allow us in.  We spend untold amounts of time, money and effort in sharing what we believe and inviting anyone and everyone who is willing to accept the Restored Gospel to join our church.  Who, then, is being "excluded" from our "very exclusive club?"

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I remember Elder Holland, I believe it was, who suggested if someone is new or struggling in Church they should sit back and stay quiet until they are up to speed, feeding off the more mature members or whatever. 

CFR, if you please.  I suspect "sit back and stay quiet" is not an altogether accurate characterization of Elder Holland's remarks.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That could take years for most of us. 

For some, yes.  But much progress can be made through the methods prescribed by the Church (prayer, study, fasting . . . the standards).

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And it really only promotes and describes for that matter, the exclusiveness of what Church has become. 

I really don't understand what "exclusiveness" you are talking about.

Not long ago my parents returned from serving a mission in Samoa (where people have a per capita income of $5,175) and, after an illness, the remainder in Fabens, Texas (a census-designated place with a median household income of $18,486, male/female median income of $17,432 / $16,354, and with 41.2% of families and 43.3% of the population below the poverty line).  They gave up two years of their retirement to, at their own expense, travel to Samoa (and Fabens), where they lived among very poor people and taught English classes, exercise programs, employment skills classes, and also shared the Gospel.  They worked with anyone seeking help (and often with people they sought out and to whom they offered help).  Next month they will be leaving on a second two-year mission, where they will be living in Zimbabwe (which has a per capita GDP of $600, the third lowest in the world), and helping with literacy, employment, etc.  My wife's parents are leaving in a few weeks to start a mission in San Antonio.

These are not unique or out-of-the-ordinary experiences.  The LDS Church sends its missionaries all over the world, including some of the most impoverished on earth.  There is no minimum income requirement for joining the Church.  So who, exactly, is suffering from "the exclusiveness" you find problematic?

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church should be a place where everyone is welcome, each person is free to share the welfare of their souls.  

With some very few exceptions, everyone is welcome.  The welcome mat is rolled out for anyone who wants to join our community of faith.

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Instead, often, what we get is a lot of people striving to figure out how best to repeat the pablum fed to them. 

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Overbroad denigrations of the Church are not helpful or constructive.  

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

People trying to mast the memorized script that is pounded into them, year after year.  In a way, it's a very sad place this Church.  And we have a ton of room to improve. 

What?

I'd like to have a meaningful, constructive discussion here, but you aren't offering anything of substance.  Just broad smears and faultfinding.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also struggle with "unwritten" rules (and with some of the "written" ones).

I'm not sure what you mean by "boundary maintenance," though.

The Church creates boundaries and often finds way to maintain, correct, or reestablish those boundaries. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means.

Don't worry about it then.  It's a quote from Joseph Smith. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How so?  We have 70,000+ missionaries in every country that will allow us in.  We spend untold amounts of time, money and effort in sharing what we believe and inviting anyone and everyone who is willing to accept the Restored Gospel to join our church.  Who, then, is being "excluded" from our "very exclusive club?"

I can only go on observation.  It is rare when new people come, but when they do I see them initially welcomed.  if they don't fit in then they are not very welcome as they try to get integrated. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, if you please.  I suspect "sit back and stay quiet" is not an altogether accurate characterization of Elder Holland's remarks.

Well of course you don't want to see it as sit back and stay quiet.

Quote

Now, this is not to say that everyone in this divine chorus can simply start shouting his or her own personal oratorio! Diversity is not cacophony, and choirs do require discipline—for our purpose today, Elder Hales, I would say discipleship—but once we have accepted divinely revealed lyrics and harmonious orchestration composed before the world was, then our Heavenly Father delights to have us sing in our own voice, not someone else’s.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/songs-sung-and-unsung?lang=eng

It seems to me he is saying that not every voice is welcome in the choir (church).  That if one is not up to speed or is incapable of getting in tune on the choir's song, he ought to sit back and remain quiet until he is able to master the lyrics. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For some, yes.  But much progress can be made through the methods prescribed by the Church (prayer, study, fasting . . . the standards).

I really don't understand what "exclusiveness" you are talking about.

Not long ago my parents returned from serving a mission in Samoa (where people have a per capita income of $5,175) and, after an illness, the remainder in Fabens, Texas (a census-designated place with a median household income of $18,486, male/female median income of $17,432 / $16,354, and with 41.2% of families and 43.3% of the population below the poverty line).  They gave up two years of their retirement to, at their own expense, travel to Samoa (and Fabens), where they lived among very poor people and taught English classes, exercise programs, employment skills classes, and also shared the Gospel.  They worked with anyone seeking help (and often with people they sought out and to whom they offered help).  Next month they will be leaving on a second two-year mission, where they will be living in Zimbabwe (which has a per capita GDP of $600, the third lowest in the world), and helping with literacy, employment, etc.  My wife's parents are leaving in a few weeks to start a mission in San Antonio.

Thanks to your parents.  Not sure what you are suggesting by this.  I agree. the Church really does try to get the message out there in many ways.  That many senior missionaries are nobly dedicated. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These are not unique or out-of-the-ordinary experiences.  The LDS Church sends its missionaries all over the world, including some of the most impoverished on earth.  There is no minimum income requirement for joining the Church.  So who, exactly, is suffering from "the exclusiveness" you find problematic?

It might be good to ask those who don't feel welcome, Smac. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With some very few exceptions, everyone is welcome.  The welcome mat is rolled out for anyone who wants to join our community of faith.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Overbroad denigrations of the Church are not helpful or constructive.  

What?

I'd like to have a meaningful, constructive discussion here, but you aren't offering anything of substance.  Just broad smears and faultfinding.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you don't like what I say, I'm ok with that.  I dont' know what issue you have exactly--that I have an opinion, or that the words I use you dislike. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church creates boundaries and often finds way to maintain, correct, or reestablish those boundaries. 

But I thought this thread was about boundaries being established by members, independent of the Church.  

So what "boundaries" is the Church creating that are, in your view, problematic?

Quote

Quote

I can't stand the "hitherto shalt thou come, and no further" stuff that is inherent in today's Mormonism. 

Don't worry about it then.  It's a quote from Joseph Smith. 

Actually, it's a quote from Job 38:11.  Joseph Smith, quoting that verse, said:

Quote

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ [Job 38:11]; which I cannot subscribe to.”

Is this what you are referencing?  If so, what do you mean?  What "creeds" is the Church setting up?  What "boundaries?"

Quote

Quote

How so?  We have 70,000+ missionaries in every country that will allow us in.  We spend untold amounts of time, money and effort in sharing what we believe and inviting anyone and everyone who is willing to accept the Restored Gospel to join our church.  Who, then, is being "excluded" from our "very exclusive club?"

I can only go on observation.  It is rare when new people come, but when they do I see them initially welcomed.  if they don't fit in then they are not very welcome as they try to get integrated. 

How is that a "boundary" that is being established by "The Church"?

The Church is, in fact, teaching us to not do any of that.  We even have a term for it: "fellowshipping."  Ward missionaries have an ongoing mandate regarding it.  As do home teachers and visiting teachers.

The Church does not want such boundaries to exist, but here you are accusing "The Church" of creating them.  I really don't understand your position.

Quote

Quote

CFR, if you please.  I suspect "sit back and stay quiet" is not an altogether accurate characterization of Elder Holland's remarks.

Well of course you don't want to see it as sit back and stay quiet.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/songs-sung-and-unsung?lang=eng

Right.  Here's what Elder Holland has to say (which you are characterizing as an instruction from him for members to "sit back and stay quiet") (emphases added):

Quote

Among the realities we face as children of God living in a fallen world is that some days are difficult, days when our faith and our fortitude are tested. These challenges may come from a lack in us, a lack in others, or just a lack in life, but whatever the reasons, we find they can rob us of songs we so much want to sing and darken the promise of “springtime in [the] soul” that Eliza Hewitt celebrates in one of her verses.

So what do we do in such times? For one thing, we embrace the Apostle Paul’s counsel and “hope for that [which] we see not … [and] with patience wait for it.” In those moments when the melody of joy falters below our power of expression, we may have to stand silent for a time and simply listen to others, drawing strength from the splendor of the music around us. Many of us who are “musically challenged” have had our confidence bolstered and our singing markedly improved by positioning ourselves next to someone with a stronger, more certain voice. Surely it follows that in singing the anthems of eternity, we should stand as close as humanly possible to the Savior and Redeemer of the world—who has absolutely perfect pitch. We then take courage from His ability to hear our silence and take hope from His melodious messianic intercession in our behalf. Truly it is “when the Lord is near” that “the dove of peace sings in my heart [and] the flow’rs of grace appear.”

On those days when we feel a little out of tune, a little less than what we think we see or hear in others, I would ask us, especially the youth of the Church, to remember it is by divine design that not all the voices in God’s choir are the same. It takes variety—sopranos and altos, baritones and basses—to make rich music. To borrow a line quoted in the cheery correspondence of two remarkable Latter-day Saint women, “All God’s critters got a place in the choir.” When we disparage our uniqueness or try to conform to fictitious stereotypes—stereotypes driven by an insatiable consumer culture and idealized beyond any possible realization by social media—we lose the richness of tone and timbre that God intended when He created a world of diversity.

Now, this is not to say that everyone in this divine chorus can simply start shouting his or her own personal oratorio! Diversity is not cacophony, and choirs do require discipline—for our purpose today, Elder Hales, I would say discipleship—but once we have accepted divinely revealed lyrics and harmonious orchestration composed before the world was, then our Heavenly Father delights to have us sing in our own voice, not someone else’s. Believe in yourself, and believe in Him. Don’t demean your worth or denigrate your contribution. Above all, don’t abandon your role in the chorus. Why? Because you are unique; you are irreplaceable. The loss of even one voice diminishes every other singer in this great mortal choir of ours, including the loss of those who feel they are on the margins of society or the margins of the Church.

But even as I encourage all of you to have faith regarding songs that may be difficult to sing, I readily acknowledge that for different reasons I struggle with other kinds of songs that should be—but are not yet—sung.

When I see the staggering economic inequality in the world, I feel guilty singing with Mrs. Hewitt of “blessings which [God] gives me now [and] joys ‘laid up’ above.” That chorus cannot be fully, faithfully sung until we have honorably cared for the poor. Economic deprivation is a curse that keeps on cursing, year after year and generation after generation. It damages bodies, maims spirits, harms families, and destroys dreams. If we could do more to alleviate poverty, as Jesus repeatedly commands us to do, maybe some of the less fortunate in the world could hum a few notes of “There Is Sunshine in My Soul Today,” perhaps for the first time in their lives.

I also find it hard to sing sunny, bouncy lyrics when so many around us suffer from mental and emotional illness or other debilitating health limitations. Unfortunately, these burdens sometimes persist despite the valiant efforts of many kinds of caregivers, including family members. I pray we will not let these children of God suffer in silence and that we will be endowed with His capacity to hear the songs they cannot now sing.

And someday I hope a great global chorus will harmonize across all racial and ethnic lines, declaring that guns, slurs, and vitriol are not the way to deal with human conflict. The declarations of heaven cry out to us that the only way complex societal issues can ever be satisfactorily resolved is by loving God and keeping His commandments, thus opening the door to the one lasting, salvific way to love each other as neighbors. The prophet Ether taught that we should “hope for a better world.” Reading that thought a thousand years later, war- and violence-weary Moroni declared that the “more excellent way” to that world will always be the gospel of Jesus Christ.

...

Brothers and sisters, we live in a mortal world with many songs we cannot or do not yet sing. But I plead with each one of us to stay permanently and faithfully in the choir, where we will be able to savor forever that most precious anthem of all—“the song of redeeming love.” Fortunately, the seats for this particular number are limitless. There is room for those who speak different languages, celebrate diverse cultures, and live in a host of locations. There is room for the single, for the married, for large families, and for the childless. There is room for those who once had questions regarding their faith and room for those who still do. There is room for those with differing sexual attractions. In short, there is a place for everyone who loves God and honors His commandments as the inviolable measuring rod for personal behavior, for if love of God is the melody of our shared song, surely our common quest to obey Him is the indispensable harmony in it. With divine imperatives of love and faith, repentance and compassion, honesty and forgiveness, there is room in this choir for all who wish to be there. “Come as you are,” a loving Father says to each of us, but He adds, “Don’t plan to stay as you are.” We smile and remember that God is determined to make of us more than we thought we could be.

This counsel, according to you, can be fairly summarized as "sit back and stay quiet."

I think . . . not.

Quote

It seems to me he is saying that not every voice is welcome in the choir (church). 

How do you square that assessment with this portion of his remarks?

Quote

To borrow a line quoted in the cheery correspondence of two remarkable Latter-day Saint women, “All God’s critters got a place in the choir.” When we disparage our uniqueness or try to conform to fictitious stereotypes—stereotypes driven by an insatiable consumer culture and idealized beyond any possible realization by social media—we lose the richness of tone and timbre that God intended when He created a world of diversity.

...

Brothers and sisters, we live in a mortal world with many songs we cannot or do not yet sing. But I plead with each one of us to stay permanently and faithfully in the choir, where we will be able to savor forever that most precious anthem of all—“the song of redeeming love.” Fortunately, the seats for this particular number are limitless. There is room for those who speak different languages, celebrate diverse cultures, and live in a host of locations. There is room for the single, for the married, for large families, and for the childless. There is room for those who once had questions regarding their faith and room for those who still do. There is room for those with differing sexual attractions. In short, there is a place for everyone who loves God and honors His commandments as the inviolable measuring rod for personal behavior, for if love of God is the melody of our shared song, surely our common quest to obey Him is the indispensable harmony in it.

I really do not understand what you are saying here.

Quote

That if one is not up to speed or is incapable of getting in tune on the choir's song, he ought to sit back and remain quiet until he is able to master the lyrics. 

He addresses that as well:

Quote

On those days when we feel a little out of tune, a little less than what we think we see or hear in others, I would ask us, especially the youth of the Church, to remember it is by divine design that not all the voices in God’s choir are the same. It takes variety—sopranos and altos, baritones and basses—to make rich music. 

...

Now, this is not to say that everyone in this divine chorus can simply start shouting his or her own personal oratorio! Diversity is not cacophony, and choirs do require discipline—for our purpose today, Elder Hales, I would say discipleship—but once we have accepted divinely revealed lyrics and harmonious orchestration composed before the world was, then our Heavenly Father delights to have us sing in our own voice, not someone else’s. Believe in yourself, and believe in Him. Don’t demean your worth or denigrate your contribution. Above all, don’t abandon your role in the chorus. Why? Because you are unique; you are irreplaceable. The loss of even one voice diminishes every other singer in this great mortal choir of ours, including the loss of those who feel they are on the margins of society or the margins of the Church.

In Elder Holland's counsel, the metaphor is not to stop singing ("sit back and remain quiet"), but to practice and achieve the individualized "discipline" required for being part of a "choir."  That sounds . . . very wise.

I think it would be helpful to read Elder Holland's remarks through a lens that gives him a fair shake, rather than through a lens of bitterness, anger and faultfinding.

Quote

Thanks to your parents.  Not sure what you are suggesting by this.  I agree. the Church really does try to get the message out there in many ways.  That many senior missionaries are nobly dedicated. 

And yet your publicly accusing the Church of "exclusiveness."  

Again, I really don't understand what "exclusiveness" you are talking about.

Quote

Quote

These are not unique or out-of-the-ordinary experiences.  The LDS Church sends its missionaries all over the world, including some of the most impoverished on earth.  There is no minimum income requirement for joining the Church.  So who, exactly, is suffering from "the exclusiveness" you find problematic?

It might be good to ask those who don't feel welcome, Smac. 

Why are you being coy?  You are raising issues and throwing out accusations.  I am asking for clarification, and you keep deflecting and remaining vague and evasive.

You said:

• "I can't stand the "hitherto shalt thou come, and no further" stuff that is inherent in today's Mormonism."
• "But what we {in the Church} have is a very exclusive club."
• "And it really only promotes and describes for that matter, the exclusiveness of what Church has become."
• "The Church creates boundaries and often finds way to maintain, correct, or reestablish those boundaries."

What are you talking about here?

Quote

Quote

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Overbroad denigrations of the Church are not helpful or constructive.  

...

I'd like to have a meaningful, constructive discussion here, but you aren't offering anything of substance.  Just broad smears and faultfinding.

If you don't like what I say, I'm ok with that. 

So you are refusing to explain your position?  You are coming here, denigrating and criticising our faith, then refusing to explain or clarify your grievances.

I guess you are merely a provocateur, then.  A faultfinder interested only in insults rather than constructive discussion of serious issues.

Quote

I dont' know what issue you have exactly--that I have an opinion, or that the words I use you dislike. 

I guess I dislike endless whinging for the sake of whinging.  If the LDS Church needs to change and improve, I'd like to have a discussion about that.  But instead I'm getting a string of evasions, non-sequiturs, mischaracterizations, and unsubstantiated and vague and unending complaints.

Constructive discussion has to involve more than these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2017 by smac97