Ammon Bundy, socialists in the church?

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

because I am hardly an expert on Brigham Young and the Utah War is long over and I have a passing interest of this Bundy guy. I think "Serious transgression" warrants his denia of Church privileges. Do you think his nonsense should be duplicated by every member of the Church? answer that

A few things:

Your self-described “passing interest” in Bundy also doesn’t sound like expertise, yet you pass retributive judgment on him.

Your maneuver to deflect my questioning your logic by asking me a question is rational if you’re not confident in your position, but don’t want to admit it.

But, sure. I’ll answer: Do I think Bundy’s behavior should be duplicated by every member of the church?  No.

I like that our church has all kinds. Diversity is good - even those on the fringes of normal.  Also - what I want is not really on topic here. The question is whether or not Bundy’s actions warrant excommunication as you originally claimed. I don’t see anything in the handbook that condemns him by the church. 

Condemned by the state?  You bet. The facts of the case to me indicate that he has committed crimes.

[Duncan]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

A few things:

Your self-described “passing interest” in Bundy also doesn’t sound like expertise, yet you pass retributive judgment on him.

Your maneuver to deflect my questioning your logic by asking me a question is rational if you’re not confident in your position, but don’t want to admit it.

But, sure. I’ll answer: Do I think Bundy’s behavior should be duplicated by every member of the church?  No.

I like that our church has all kinds. Diversity is good - even those on the fringes of normal.  Also - what I want is not really on topic here. The question is whether or not Bundy’s actions warrant excommunication as you originally claimed. I don’t see anything in the handbook that condemns him by the church. 

Condemned by the state?  You bet. The facts of the case to me indicate that he has committed crimes.

Yep, and you're an expert on him? yet say nothing about discipline? that's fine?

You asked me a question I answered it, if that is "maneuvering" I can't help you. I said he should be exed, you asked why and then brought the irrelevant bit about the Utah War and Brigham Young and I said he committed crimes, serious ones. I told you that I am no expert on Brigham Young and care for nothing about the Utah War, I have less interest in that than I do in Bundy and his antics.

WHY is he a member in good standing? Why can members commit crimes and get away with it? If he isn't exed, that's appalling.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Yep, and you're an expert on him? yet say nothing about discipline? that's fine?

You asked me a question I answered it, if that is "maneuvering" I can't help you. I said he should be exed, you asked why and then brought the irrelevant bit about the Utah War and Brigham Young and I said he committed crimes, serious ones. I told you that I am no expert on Brigham Young and care for nothing about the Utah War, I have less interest in that than I do in Bundy and his antics.

WHY is he a member in good standing? Why can members commit crimes and get away with it? If he isn't exed, that's appalling.  

I don't think conviction for a felony is automatic grounds for excommunication or even church discipline. We had a couple of nutjobs in our ward in Orem who were convicted of stashing automatic weapons around temple square. They weren't disciplined. In fact, they sued to be allowed to wear their garments in federal prison.

[Duncan]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I don't think conviction for a felony is automatic grounds for excommunication or even church discipline. We had a couple of nutjobs in our ward in Orem who were convicted of stashing automatic weapons around temple square. They weren't disciplined. In fact, they sued to be allowed to wear their garments in federal prison.

This is utter madness to me

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Duncan said:

This is utter madness to me

I wish they had exed those guys, or I wouldn't have had to deal with the pressure from above to assign them as home teachers. 

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Not that I found. As I said, look in the handbook, and let me know which of the reasons for a disciplinary council he has broken.

The handbook does not define all circumstances in which a disciplinary council may be held.  Mosiah 4:29 seems to apply "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

When speaking about serious transgressions the handbook lists some, but also says the list "includes (but is not limited to)..."  Priesthood leaders need to follow the Spirit in many cases to determine the best means for a repentant sinner to return to the covenant path.  I think we should all reserve judgement in cases in which we have very little actual knowledge and no stewardship.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wish they had exed those guys, or I wouldn't have had to deal with the pressure from above to assign them as home teachers. 

exactley, like do we want these guys going around telling others how to be good Mormons, to say nothing about how to be a good member of society? I wouldn't want that

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Yep, and you're an expert on him? yet say nothing about discipline? that's fine?

Yes - I’m not an expert, and thus do not want to pass judgement and excommunicate him (thereby taking away his family from him eternally). 

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

WHY is he a member in good standing? Why can members commit crimes and get away with it? If he isn't exed, that's appalling.  

So any member who commits crimes should be excommunicated?  A few follow up questions to your logic:

All crimes, or just serious crimes?  Can you give me a list of serious crimes versus non-serious crimes?  Should the church itself regulate crime, and have a more formal and expansive law enforcement and judicial arm?  Or does the church follow the lead of the state, and excommunicate those who have been convicted by the state?  As a side note, if this is the case, Bundy is innocent, and should not be excommunicated because he was not convicted.

Since you find the church leadership’s current position on excommunicating people like Bundy Appalling, what will you do?

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

exactley, like do we want these guys going around telling others how to be good Mormons, to say nothing about how to be a good member of society? I wouldn't want that

So at the core of your logic is that only “good Mormons” should be allowed in the church?  I guess I’d always thought our church was here to help people get better, rather than a group of people who are already pretty good.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Yes - I’m not an expert, and thus do not want to pass judgement and excommunicate him (thereby taking away his family from him eternally). 

So any member who commits crimes should be excommunicated?  A few follow up questions to your logic:

All crimes, or just serious crimes?  Can you give me a list of serious crimes versus non-serious crimes?  Should the church itself regulate crime, and have a more formal and expansive law enforcement and judicial arm?  Or does the church follow the lead of the state, and excommunicate those who have been convicted by the state?  As a side note, if this is the case, Bundy is innocent, and should not be excommunicated because he was not convicted.

Since you find the church leadership’s current position on excommunicating people like Bundy Appalling, what will you do?

you take these things and extrapolate greatly. I am not talking about ALL crimes but as the Church says "Serious" ones. If you get a traffic ticket that's bad but not as bad as abuse or selling drugs or something. Society regulates crime and then the Church takes a cue from that. That's the issue in these Child abuse situations and Bishop's worthiness interviews. Nothing, what can you do about the Utah Ward and Brigham Young? Nothing

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

exactley, like do we want these guys going around telling others how to be good Mormons, to say nothing about how to be a good member of society? I wouldn't want that

It seems it's up to local leaders what to do in these situations. I'm not sure a blanket policy would be best. As I said, I wish they had excommunicated those guys, just because not doing so led to escalation of the problems and culminated in a physical altercation during the second hour of church meetings and the building filling up with Orem's finest. A week later, a counselor in the bishopric and I were tasked with delivering a letter to them saying they weren't welcome on church property, and that resulted in their threatening to kill us.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So at the core of your logic is that only “good Mormons” should be allowed in the church?  I guess I’d always thought our church was here to help people get better, rather than a group of people who are already pretty good.

good, better, best. I would imagine though that people called to leadership callings should have at least a testimony, basic knowledge of the principles of the Gospel and striving to live in harmony with others

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The handbook does not define all circumstances in which a disciplinary council may be held.  Mosiah 4:29 seems to apply "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."

When speaking about serious transgressions the handbook lists some, but also says the list "includes (but is not limited to)..."  Priesthood leaders need to follow the Spirit in many cases to determine the best means for a repentant sinner to return to the covenant path.  I think we should all reserve judgement in cases in which we have very little actual knowledge and no stewardship.

I love this. We can let local leaders who know the situation follow the spirit. 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems it's up to local leaders what to do in these situations. I'm not sure a blanket policy would be best. As I said, I wish they had excommunicated those guys, just because not doing so led to escalation of the problems and culminated in a physical altercation during the second hour of church meetings and the building filling up with Orem's finest. A week later, a counselor in the bishopric and I were tasked with delivering a letter to them saying they weren't welcome on church property, and that resulted in their threatening to kill us.

and if someone threatened to kill me and it seemed credible, my next visit would be to the copshop!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Duncan said:

and if someone threatened to kill me and it seemed credible, my next visit would be to the copshop!

If I hadn't been moving out of the ward 4 days later, I probably would have done so. As I have said, that was a really strange ward in a lot of ways. 

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

good, better, best. I would imagine though that people called to leadership callings should have at least a testimony, basic knowledge of the principles of the Gospel and striving to live in harmony with others

Not sure what LDS leadership callings has to do with you being appalled that Bundy and others who commit crimes aren’t excommunicated...?

Are you saying that you’re convinced Bundy does not have a testimony?  Does not have a basic knowledge of gospel principles?  We can discuss how he seems to be having a hard time living in harmony with others - I think we might agree.

What church-wide policy would you implement to make sure only “good, better, or best” people join our church and stay members?  What about those who aren’t at least good - they are beyond the help of saving ordinances? What should become of them?

Yes - I extrapolate because ideas should be taken to their conclusion. Ideas should be thought out and complete.  So far, your idea does not seem to be complete.

It seems that you just want good people to be in church, and bad people to not be in the church. But even then, your delineation between “good” and “bad” doesn’t have an enforceable or actionable element to it.

I really want to understand your idea. Maybe it’s awesome, and in line with how Jesus Christ wants His children to treat each other. But - I’m not seeing it. Help me. 

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am not talking about ALL crimes but as the Church says "Serious" ones.

You were talking about all crimes. See your post from earlier:

37 minutes ago, Duncan said:

WHY is he a member in good standing? Why can members commit crimes and get away with it? If he isn't exed, that's appalling.  

Your argument seems to be more emotional than rational.  Help me see the reason & rationality of thought. Being concise with your words (in this case delineating between “crimes” and “serious crimes”) is helpful.

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You were talking about all crimes. See your post from earlier:

Your argument seems to be more emotional than rational.  Help me see the reason & rationality of thought. Being concise with your words (in this case delineating between “crimes” and “serious crimes”) is helpful.

Go through our exchange and explain to me how i'm emotional and less rational. It's befuddling to me. I already delineated between crime and serious crime, go back and re read that part.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 7/19/2018 at 11:28 PM, hope_for_things said:

https://www.hjnews.com/news/local/ammon-bundy-claims-lds-church-infiltrated-by-socialists/article_0606cac8-f943-5ff6-a8a6-2827a871d87f.html

I wonder how many conservative members agree with some of what Ammon Bundy says?  Here is just a segment, but the whole article is worth reading.  I suspect these kind of views are quite popular in the church and I’m curious what others on this board think.  

On the other side, he claims that environmentalists, globalists and socialists believe that man has evolved into an intellectually advanced species, and therefore all other species are at a disadvantage. He said the environmentalists believe it’s man’s duty to balance the species and to eliminate much of the human population. He said environmentalism is a religion.

“It is a completely different theology than a Christian theology,” Bundy said.

He said this same group of environmentalists, educated in "government" schools, have infiltrated the lower and middle levels of the LDS Church.

“I know that our church on the lower levels, the mid levels, has been infiltrated by these same people, but not the higher levels,” Bundy said. “I truly believe that those higher levels are honest, good, righteous men who follow the Lord’s guidance and inspiration, and I believe that they will guide us … through these rough times.”

I'd bet some hard earned dollars this guy didn't hold a regular job more than reasonable part of his life.. A big time loser trying to get even by lashing out government or church......

[SouthernMo]

42 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Go through our exchange and explain to me how i'm emotional and less rational. It's befuddling to me. I already delineated between crime and serious crime, go back and re read that part.

Your quote: “The first presidency had to respond to it”

This is demanding of what others should do. It is controlling and not rational, rather emotional.  It also shows you don’t know how disciplinary councils work (not instigated by church leaders in SLC), and your arguments or position are based on the way things should be in your mind, not the way things really are.  It’s emotional, not rational.

 

Your quote: “No thanks, get them all out”

Who is ‘them all?’  I don’t see that you’ve thought this through at all. It’s an emotional reaction to your dislike that Ammon Bundy is a member of the LDS church.

 

Your quote: “who knows or cares, he is accountable for his own actions just as we all are. Neither you nor me nor anyone else knows all the details about or have ever met Brigham Young, so let God figure it out”

You display a willingness to condemn one man for something you know little about (Bundy), but are angry with is juxtaposed against your unwillingness to condemn another man and event you know little about (Young). I may be wrong here, but I’d guess that your emotional “gut” tells you to defend the man who was sustained as a prophet of the LDS church, rather than to rationally compare the acts of each man.

 

Your quote: “Do you think his nonsense should be duplicated by every member of the Church?”

This statement again indicates your focus on what the handbook or church policy ‘should be’ rather than what it in reality is.  Focusing our efforts on what I want something to be rather than what it is is emotional, and irrational.

 

Your quote: “Why can members commit crimes and get away with it?” is later addended to mean “serious crimes.”

This indicates that your initial statement is not well thought out (too broad). It indicates an emotional reaction to your dislike of those who make serious mistakes as being part of your idealized, more holy congregation.  You’re trying to control who is and isn’t a member of the church (and in a half- baked idea), and that control is an emotional, irrational position. You can’t control who is and isn’t a member.

 

Your quote: “This is utter madness to me”

This descriptor of madness is not specific at all. Who is mad, and how did you diagnose them?  It appears you are using hyperbole, rather than facts or reason. Hyperbole is a way to use exaggerated language to make an emotional appeal.

 

Your quote: “do we want these guys going around telling others how to be good Mormons, to say nothing about how to be a good member of society? I wouldn't want that”

This one is full of holes, and clearly emotional. If I asked you if you were an exemplary Mormon, would you want to be the one who exemplifies all Mormons?  No, neither would I!  We’re all hypocrites down here on earth, yet your statement excludes anyone who isn’t a good Mormon (as if there is a definition we can all agree on to what that means) from trying to help others. That’s the goal of being a home teacher (now minister).  It’s an emotional reaction that seems to indicates that you think you’re better than Bundy, and that you control the standards of who gets to do what in the church, and who should be a member of the church. Very irrational!

 

I’ll keep going to show you more if you’d like. But, I’m going to eat dinner now.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I'd bet some hard earned dollars this guy didn't hold a regular job more than reasonable part of his life.. A big time loser trying to get even by lashing out government or church......

That seems a little unfair to say.  I think some of his religious views are extreme, but that doesn't necessarily make him a loser or incapable of holding a job.  

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I love this. We can let local leaders who know the situation follow the spirit. 

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Are you in favor of leaders following the Spirit or not?  If not would you expect the church to come out with a list of every possible sin and list which do and which don't require a disciplinary council?  I don't think I'm understanding you.

Edited July 23, 2018 by ksfisher

[SouthernMo]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Are you in favor of leaders following the Spirit or not?  If not would you expect the church to come out with a list of every possible sin and list which do and which don't require a disciplinary council?  I don't think I'm understanding you.

Yes - I am very much in favor of individual leaders following the spirit. It seems to be what Christ taught/scripture.

I’m opposed to blanket statements of most kinds.  There is always nuance and exception based on circumstances.

In this case of Ammon Bundy, I’m opposed to @Duncan‘s idea that he should be excommunicated. His argument does not seem to be based on any blanket statement in the LDS handbook of instructions, nor in any nuanced spirit of discernment around this particular situation.

[halconero]

I’ve found many Americans, certainly not all, to have a skewed view on political leanings. Anything left of Republican is liberal-leftist-socialist, for some. This includes Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but whose platform is aligned more closely with Social Democracy. He calls Scandinavia a collection of socialist countries, when in reality they have highly free markets combined with strong redistributive elements (no, that’s not socialism).

Combine that with increasingly weird tendencies to align whole worldviews with the left-right political spectrum and you get a very weird view on politics as a whole.

I hold many views which previously would have defined me as a conservative: free commerce, free movement, pro-NATO, putting a price on carbon (pro market demand side reform) rather than interventionist regulation (command economy supply side regimes), earned income tax credits, etc. These views make me a globalist, an environmentalist, and okay with some level of government social policy. Therefore according to many in the U.S. they make me a socialist.

If that’s what Ammon Bundy calls a socialist, then sure, there’s socialists in the Church.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

I’ve found many Americans, certainly not all, to have a skewed view on political leanings. Anything left of Republican is liberal-leftist-socialist, for some. This includes Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but whose platform is aligned more closely with Social Democracy. He calls Scandinavia a collection of socialist countries, when in reality they have highly free markets combined with strong redistributive elements (no, that’s not socialism).

Combine that with increasingly weird tendencies to align whole worldviews with the left-right political spectrum and you get a very weird view on politics as a whole.

I hold many views which previously would have defined me as a conservative: free commerce, free movement, pro-NATO, putting a price on carbon (pro market demand side reform) rather than interventionist regulation (command economy supply side regimes), earned income tax credits, etc. These views make me a globalist, an environmentalist, and okay with some level of government social policy. Therefore according to many in the U.S. they make me a socialist.

If that’s what Ammon Bundy calls a socialist, then sure, there’s socialists in the Church.

I don't think that a lot of Americans even know the difference between Communism and socialism.  We learn all of this in school of course, but it doesn't seem like many cared enough to pay attention.