Is There Really More Than One Way to Mormon?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

faith being the key word. Anti faith is a whole different matter

Whatever faith I have..whatever I hold onto..means just as much to God as your faith.  How could it not?

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Whatever faith I have..whatever I hold onto..means just as much to God as your faith.  How could it not?

who said otherwise?

 

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

who said otherwise?

 

Perhaps I misunderstood you...that anti-faith being a whole different matter. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you were to join the Elks, or the Moose, or the Kiwanis, or your local health club, and then you were to very publicly, far, and wide, air the grievances you have with the organization, if the organization's leadership were to caution you about the likelihood you would remain in good standing if you choose to continue your public crusade, I don't think it would be unreasonable for the organization's powers-that-be to warn you that action may be taken against your membership.  Yet, somehow, many believe things are supposed to be different if we're talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Frankly, that perceived double-standard is mystifying to me.  

Yes, legally speaking groups can kick out members for their own reasons and the church can too. It just seems that criticism should be tolerated more than it is in church. One should be allowed to question the leaders and doctrine, but that isn't what the leaders want.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, drums12 said:

So you say.  But other than your bald assertion and the speculation rampant in the bloggernacle and Mormon Stories/Mormon Expressions circles, what first hand knowledge do you have?  I don't doubt that general authorities have been involved in some disciplinary councils when they perhaps shouldn't have been, but the ex-Mormon crowd uncritically imbibes whatever fits their worldview, much as they claim believing Mormons do.

Well, doesn't it make sense that a top down controlled, correlated church would want to have a say in the big decisions? John Dehlin and Kate Kelly had a lot of notariety and one would think an organization like the church would want to have a coordinated response, would not want to wait while the locals deliberated a decision that made and would make national news.

Also, the timing of certain visits, SP's released in Dehlin's and Kelly's cases makes it look like there was participation from g.a.'s.  Steve Benson, who grew up in my stake and I knew him and knew his brother better told of the sept 6 courts and how Packer took part behind the scenes, make it look like there was participation from higher ups as well.

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/26/2017 at 11:26 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

With all due respect, I hope you are in the minority.

What is it you are trying to fix?

[Kenngo1969]

22 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yes, legally speaking groups can kick out members for their own reasons and the church can too. It just seems that criticism should be tolerated more than it is in church. One should be allowed to question the leaders and doctrine, but that isn't what the leaders want.

It depends on how one does it.  Many people want to use a class or a testimony meeting as a forum for propounding ideas with which, it should come as no surprise, the institutional Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not agree and/or which it otherwise finds problematic.  No one is prohibited from taking one's questions (or even one's doubts) to one's Bishop or to another trusted member and asking privately for guidance.  (And, despite your earlier assertions to the contrary, no one is prevented from doing that on this Board, either, although tone matters: The more reasonable and less "in-your-face" one's approach, the more likely one is to find the answers one is seeking ... or at least, to be treated with respect) It's only when one attempts to use channels which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reserved for official instruction that one runs into problems seeking answers to his questions or his doubts.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yes, legally speaking groups can kick out members for their own reasons and the church can too. It just seems that criticism should be tolerated more than it is in church. One should be allowed to question the leaders and doctrine, but that isn't what the leaders want.

How many actual excommunications take place, do you think?  

In comparison to how many members openly question leaders and doctrine?

  Personally, I have known of very few excommunications and those were for adultery (admitted, so not guessing).  What is the number of excommunications for apostasy outside the well publicized handful?  How long did Dehlin publicly criticize before getting kicked out?  Over a decade.  Kelly was only a year, but then she took her voice to protest on Temple Square.  If she had avoided actual confrontation, it likely would have been much longer.  Snuffer had been moving in that direction for many years a little at a time. Grant Palmer even kept his CES job.  In a church of millions of people, I am not that impressed with how the leadership aren't tolerating criticism.

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

How many actual excommunications take place, do you think?  

In comparison to how many members openly question leaders and doctrine?

Just anecdotally, I've been in my ward for 14+ years, and I'm aware of two excommunications. Neither of them had anything remotely to do with apostasy in belief. We've certainly had a few apostates, as I've mentioned before, but they've all taken themselves out of the Church on their own, and a number of them have taken years to get there (despite the trajectory being obvious to pretty much everyone but the people themselves).

[gopher]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

How many actual excommunications take place, do you think?  

In comparison to how many members openly question leaders and doctrine?

  Personally, I have known of very few excommunications and those were for adultery (admitted, so not guessing).  What is the number of excommunications for apostasy outside the well publicized handful?  How long did Dehlin publicly criticize before getting kicked out?  Over a decade.  Kelly was only a year, but then she took her voice to protest on Temple Square.  If she had avoided actual confrontation, it likely would have been much longer.  Snuffer had been moving in that direction for many years a little at a time. Grant Palmer even kept his CES job.  In a church of millions of people, I am not that impressed with how the leadership aren't tolerating criticism.

I've always gotten the impression that those ex'ed for apostasy were always given multiple warnings before any action was taken.  It seem less likely that a member who commits adultery will be told "nothing will happen if you promise not to do it again".   It's hard to believe that getting ex'ed for apostasy comes as a surprise to those involved.  While serving in the stake, the only excommunications I saw were for adultery (often referred to as "the usual" )

[Rain]

 

On 9/27/2017 at 7:11 AM, stemelbow said:

I don't know.  I've been trying to make the more than one way to Mormon work for years.  In circles like Sunstone it works because the assumption is there is room to view Mormonism differently.  But it's clear many active Mormons won't hear of it.

It's fair for me, I think, to acknowledge to those who don't want Mormonism to be a big tent, that their reasoning or position works too.  I can see why some want to eschew many things as not Mormon.  They seem to fear the inevitable of such acceptance.  More will be accepted.  I mean I want the more to be accepted.  I want walls and barriers broken down.  But I get that its easier to keep it neat and clean.  To put labels on people and keep the ugly out.  There's a quaintness to it.  But I won't stop pushing against that because I think people are too worth it, otherwise. 

You asked for help with this so I am pointing it out. If you would like me to stop I will. It is not the word "cute", but it has the same connotation. 

 

19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

'course not.  Having been put on limited a couple of times (currently I am serving another term) for not breaking any rule at all.  It happens.  The cost of posting here, I suppose. 

I think people are worth it too. That's why I have more patience with those questioning, those who have left the church etc. I don't have an itchy reporting finger, but I am more likely to report an active, believing member than a questioning member because I expect better of the believing, because questioning members are important and I don't want them turned off by a believing member, and because I want to give questioning members second chances. 

I do not report anyone without referencing rules, though it can sometimes be a pain  to go find the rule and copy and paste it. (It would be nice if there were check boxes in the reasons for reporting area). Not saying I gave the reports that put you on limited (no idea there)  - just saying that I assume others reference the rules as well. 

If you think you were put on limited and broke no rules then it might be helpful to go through the rules and see if you can find one you missed. If you still find no rules that would put you on limited it might be wise to try and see if how you are saying things make others perceive that you are not following the rules.  When I was accidentally/board glitch banned once, this is what I did and it was helpful.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

You asked for help with this so I am pointing it out. If you would like me to stop I will. It is not the word "cute", but it has the same connotation. 

huh?  oh...I think I was confused when people were saying I used the word (cute) all the time.  I don't know how else to describe what I just did, beside the word quaint.  I don't think I've used the word (cute) all the time, so I asked for help in showing me that it was used all the time by me.  I use various words, sure.  no need to point it out if it can be agreed I don't use it all the time. 

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I think people are worth it too. That's why I have more patience with those questioning, those who have left the church etc. I don't have an itchy reporting finger, but I am more likely to report an active, believing member than a questioning member because I expect better of the believing, because questioning members are important and I don't want them turned off by a believing member, and because I want to give questioning members second chances. 

I do not report anyone without referencing rules, though it can sometimes be a pain  to go find the rule and copy and paste it. (It would be nice if there were check boxes in the reasons for reporting area). Not saying I gave the reports that put you on limited (no idea there)  - just saying that I assume others reference the rules as well. 

If you think you were put on limited and broke no rules then it might be helpful to go through the rules and see if you can find one you missed. If you still find no rules that would put you on limited it might be wise to try and see if how you are saying things make others perceive that you are not following the rules.  When I was accidentally/board glitch banned once, this is what I did and it was helpful.

K.  Good.  I reviewed the rules.  I have many times. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It depends on how one does it.  Many people want to use a class or a testimony meeting as a forum for propounding ideas with which, it should come as no surprise, the institutional Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not agree and/or which it otherwise finds problematic.  No one is prohibited from taking one's questions (or even one's doubts) to one's Bishop or to another trusted member and asking privately for guidance.  (And, despite your earlier assertions to the contrary, no one is prevented from doing that on this Board, either, although tone matters: The more reasonable and less "in-your-face" one's approach, the more likely one is to find the answers one is seeking ... or at least, to be treated with respect) It's only when one attempts to use channels which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has reserved for official instruction that one runs into problems seeking answers to his questions or his doubts.

I personally think that one should not wait for church to bring up controversy in order to be disagreeable, but polite discussion should be tolerated.  As for this board, there is a preference for belief.  If I said some of the things said to me and other non-believers, I would be banned for abusive behavior.  However, such is how it is and I accept the different standard.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

How many actual excommunications take place, do you think?  

In comparison to how many members openly question leaders and doctrine?

  Personally, I have known of very few excommunications and those were for adultery (admitted, so not guessing).  What is the number of excommunications for apostasy outside the well publicized handful?  How long did Dehlin publicly criticize before getting kicked out?  Over a decade.  Kelly was only a year, but then she took her voice to protest on Temple Square.  If she had avoided actual confrontation, it likely would have been much longer.  Snuffer had been moving in that direction for many years a little at a time. Grant Palmer even kept his CES job.  In a church of millions of people, I am not that impressed with how the leadership aren't tolerating criticism.

The strategy is to cut off the head of the trouble-making leader and hopefully the others will fall in line.  Yes, there is a delay in punishment as the costs and benefits of action are weighed.  There is some validation and gain in popularity that happens when a dissident is punished and that can undermine the purpose of punishment.  Groups sometimes rally when a leader falls.

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yes, legally speaking groups can kick out members for their own reasons and the church can too. It just seems that criticism should be tolerated more than it is in church. One should be allowed to question the leaders and doctrine, but that isn't what the leaders want.

I have lots of questions; Always have; Probably will till the day I die.  If having questions got me kicked out of the Church I would have been gone a long time ago. Leading others into Apostasy while Publicly disparaging the Truth Claims of the Church is one sure way to get one ex'ed.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

I do not report anyone without referencing rules, though it can sometimes be a pain  to go find the rule and copy and paste it. (It would be nice if there were check boxes in the reasons for reporting area). Not saying I gave the reports that put you on limited (no idea there)  - just saying that I assume others reference the rules as well. 

I only report stuff that I believe is rule breaking.  I don't copy paste the rule, but summarize it in a few key words...

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I personally think that one should not wait for church to bring up controversy in order to be disagreeable, but polite discussion should be tolerated.  As for this board, there is a preference for belief.  If I said some of the things said to me and other non-believers, I would be banned for abusive behavior.  However, such is how it is and I accept the different standard.

Have you reported these comments?

A lot of people are tolerant of remarks they see as rulebreaking and thus don't report them, which puts imo an unfair burden on moderators requiring them to read every post if they are going to even attempt to be close to fair.  While the moderating mission statement states it is not in balance, I don't think they would allow for abuse from anyone if they were made aware of it.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The strategy is to cut off the head of the trouble-making leader and hopefully the others will fall in line.  

And you know this how?

There are a lot of members who question independent of belonging to a group.  Why would they care?

 

Quote

It just seems that criticism should be tolerated more than it is in church. One should be allowed to question the leaders and doctrine, but that isn't what the leaders want

I just don't see how excommunicating a few people here and there in a church of millions can come even close to not allowing questioning of leaders and doctrine.  At worst, it translates to not tolerating extreme criticism and being okay, though not pleased, with the lesser stuff.

I am not saying there is joy or indifference in the halls of SLC when they hear of criticism.  I just don't see overall a huge amount of investment by most leaders in the sense of trying to shut it down, lock it out.  I think they are too realistic about humanity.

There is a strong cultural bar against criticism during church meetings....outside of such though....look at what happens here and all across the internet.  

Edited September 29, 2017 by Calm

[Avatar4321]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Just anecdotally, I've been in my ward for 14+ years, and I'm aware of two excommunications. Neither of them had anything remotely to do with apostasy in belief. We've certainly had a few apostates, as I've mentioned before, but they've all taken themselves out of the Church on their own, and a number of them have taken years to get there (despite the trajectory being obvious to pretty much everyone but the people themselves).

what I've seen is similar.

it seems funny to me that we are criticized for both kicking people out for spurious reasons and also not leaving people alone. Neither is true in my experience.

 

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have lots of questions; Always have; Probably will till the day I die.  If having questions got me kicked out of the Church I would have been gone a long time ago. Leading others into Apostasy while Publicly disparaging the Truth Claims of the Church is one sure way to get one ex'ed.

i agree. I have lots of questions. I hope some are answered this weekend

 

[Avatar4321]

19 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Perhaps I misunderstood you...that anti-faith being a whole different matter. 

dont worry about it. Im not good at explaining myself sometimes.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yes, legally speaking groups can kick out members for their own reasons and the church can too. It just seems that criticism should be tolerated more than it is in church. One should be allowed to question the leaders and doctrine, but that isn't what the leaders want.

As a non-leader it is not what I want either.

[mrmarklin]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 11:16 AM, drums12 said:

I have struggled mightily with plural marriage, and the way it was introduced/practiced.  I have in no way made peace with it, and I have literally cried to God trying to understand it, and I have been within a hair's width of leaving the Church in part because of it.  That said, I don't think that, even should I leave the Church, I would ever make it a point to mock, insult, and seek to destroy the faith of others.

It strikes me that AFAIK there are no Anti-Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist etc. etc. organizations that hold conferences..  Seemingly only anti Mormons. 

 

Why is this so?  Anti Mormons leave the Church, but can't leave it alone. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

It strikes me that AFAIK there are no Anti-Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist etc. etc. organizations that hold conferences..  Seemingly only anti Mormons. 

 

Why is this so?  Anti Mormons leave the Church, but can't leave it alone. 

While not a conference, "Recovering Catholics" sounds familiar:

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/ByIssue/Article/TabId/735/ArtMID/13636/ArticleID/6622/Disillusioned-Catholics.aspx

[mfbukowski]

fergitaboutit

Edited September 30, 2017 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

On 9/28/2017 at 11:37 PM, Calm said:

How many actual excommunications take place, do you think?  

In comparison to how many members openly question leaders and doctrine?

  Personally, I have known of very few excommunications and those were for adultery (admitted, so not guessing).  What is the number of excommunications for apostasy outside the well publicized handful?  How long did Dehlin publicly criticize before getting kicked out?  Over a decade.  Kelly was only a year, but then she took her voice to protest on Temple Square.  If she had avoided actual confrontation, it likely would have been much longer.  Snuffer had been moving in that direction for many years a little at a time. Grant Palmer even kept his CES job.  In a church of millions of people, I am not that impressed with how the leadership aren't tolerating criticism.

A few thoughts:

1. Calm's assessment is and well-stated.  Excommunications, as a whole, are very rare.  The Church really does use them as a "last resort" sort of thing.

2. Grant Palmer, even given all he had done, was disfellowshipped, not excommunicated.

3. John Dehlin was not excommunicated for his various published-to-the-world views on "social" issues like same-sex marriage and ordination of women (even though these views were inconsistent with the teachings of the Church).  Instead, he was excommunicated based on the following:

Quote

{T}he local leader’s letter delivered to Mr. Dehlin on February 9 {} spelled out the reasons for the local council’s unanimous decision, as follows:

• Disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
• Statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction. 
• Statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God.

In his letter the local leader stated, “I want you to know, Brother Dehlin, that this action was not taken against you because you have doubts or because you were asking questions about Church doctrine. I also want you to know that I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause.  Our Heavenly Father has given us moral agency to decide how we will live our lives, and cherished free speech rights in this country allow you to openly state your opinions.  But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error.”  

4. I have been involved in several dozen disciplinary councils over the past decade or so (at the stake and ward levels).  I have first-hand experience with the general guidelines of the Church regarding excommunication, and also with the sentiments of the leaders in our stake who are charged with administering discipline.  Excommunication is, without a doubt, seen as a last resort type of thing, to be avoided if at all possible.  And, to date, it has been avoided.  In every instance where discipline has been meted out, it has been difellowshipment or less.  Not a single excommunication.

5. Formal discipline in the Church about doctrinal disputes seems to be very rare.  So not only is excommunication very rare, excommunication for "apostasy" is even more so.

6. Regarding apostasy, it appears that some folks really take umbrage at the notion of the Church administering discipline for such things.  I have three thoughts about that:

A. Discipline as to "apostasy" is constrained by a number of factors.  Mere "belief" in something which is contrary to the teachings of the Church is not sufficient.  From the CHI-1 (sec. 6.7.3):

Quote

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

B. The Church is not allowed to ignore apostasy.  It actually has a divine mandate to affirmatively address such things:

Quote

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

C. If you are interested in an illustration as to why following the Lord's mandate on this issue is important, I submit Exhibit A:

Quote

Lesbian Bishop Calls Jesus a Bigot
 By John Ellis | September 26, 2017

United Methodist Church bishop Dr. Karen Oliveto is not only a lesbian, she also believes (and publicly teaches) that Jesus was a bigot filled with prejudices. She does say that Jesus grew and changed, and that's her point. Bishop Oliveto admonishes, "If Jesus can change, if he can give up his bigotries and prejudices, if he can realize that he had made his life too small, and if, in this realization, he grew closer to others and closer to God, than so can we."

...

In 2005, Karen Oliveto, a non-celibate lesbian, officiated several same-sex marriages that were held in the United Methodist church she pastored.

Oliveto's teachings cover the range of normal progressive "Christian" beliefs — the denial of the exclusivity of the Christian faith and the denial of the authority of the Bible, to name two. However, it's her direct attack on certain Bible passages and Biblical figures that has caused some within the UMC to be concerned.

Writing for Juicy Ecumenism, John Lomperis warns about a sermon that Oliveto preached in 2005. "In her sermon during the closing worship, she criticized St. Paul for casting a demon out of the slave girl in Acts 16:16-18," he wrote. "Oliveto encouraged her audience to question the traditional interpretation that this exorcism was 'an act of liberation' for the girl. Negatively comparing Paul’s response to the slave girl to his subsequent saving of the jailer, Oliveto asserted that Paul was not motivated by compassion for the slave girl and noted that the text does not say that she found salvation."

...

Since then, Oliveto has been granted the title of bishop (the first lesbian bishop in the United Methodist Church's history) and has continued to preach against the Bible while making shocking statements.

...

This past August, Oliveto delivered a weekly message that has been posted on Facebook. Her text, Matthew 15:21-28, is the story of the gentile woman who came to Jesus for healing and then delivered the famous phrase, "“Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.”

Exegetically, and in short, the passage reveals that gentiles will be brought into God's family. It's a beautiful picture of how spiritual birth trumps physical birth in God's family. Oliveto has a completely different take on the passage, though. In her interpretation of the passage, Oliveto preached:

Quote

 

Jesus, Jesus, what is up with you? Where is the gentle Jesus, meek and mild, the one who said, “Let the children come to me”? What happened to Jesus, the one who said, “Consider the lilies”. Where did his compassion and love go?
But as I ponder the story, as I look at the verbal jousting between Jesus and this female who is considered less than human because of her gender and ethnicity, I can’t help but note how Jesus comes around.

Too many folks want to box Jesus in, carve him in stone, create an idol out of him. But this story cracks the pedestal we’ve put him on. The wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting one, prince of peace, was as human as you and me. 

...

 

That lengthy passage leads into Oliveto's comment about Jesus being a bigot with prejudices that he discarded as he learned from the woman.

Here's the actual quote from the FB post noted above:

Quote

As he encountered this one who was a stranger, he comes to a fuller sense of the people he is to be in relationship with. He is meant to be a boundary crosser, and in the crossing over, reveals bigotry and oppression for what they are: human constructs that keep all of us from being whole.

...

This is the heart of the story. This is what offers us hope. If Jesus can change, if he can give up his bigotries and prejudices, if he can realize that he had made his life too small, and if, in this realization, he grew closer to others and closer to God, than so can we.

Blessings,
Bishop Karen

So . . . yeah.  Dealing with apostasy is important.  Otherwise, you get stuff like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 30, 2017 by smac97