And now, Gina Colvin faces a Disciplinary Council.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I hope she finds happiness and peace. 

I know this is tough to understand but the LDS Church really is not the only path to happiness in this life...or the next, if there is a next.

Actually following Jesus Christ is the only way to everlasting joy

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm willing to listen.  What sort of boundaries do you think are appropriate?  Any?  If so, what are they?

Sam Young has publicly accused the leaders of the Church of cowardice, and of facilitating child sexual abuse.  Kate Kelly organized a protest march on Temple Square during General Conference (which was also a criminal trespass).  Gina Colvin just recently publicly accused the Church of sex trafficking.  Bill Reel has said . . . well, all sorts of stuff (the accusations against Elder Holland being obviously fairly problematic).

How far is too far?  What metric would you use to measure "toleran{ce} of dissent?"  I'm genuinely curious.

I appreciate that.  John Dehlin and Kate Kelly and Sam Young and Bill Reel have done a lot to interfere with, and even totally undermine, the relationship between the Church and many of its members.

Do you feel at liberty to pop off at your co-workers or employer?  Can you say anything you want?  Publicly?  No matter how denigrating and insulting it is?  Can you trade on your status as an employee to bolster your street cred as you rail against your employer?  And do you expect your employer to just sit down and shut up while one of its employees activey works against it?

Can you think of any organization for which such a set of expectations would be reasonable?

It does.  We all have filters.  But those filters are not antithetical to being "authentic" (though I'm not sure what "authentic" means).

Thanks,

-Smac

Well these are all great comments and questions.  It would be wonderful to talk about it over lunch sometime.  😀

So regarding what you ask about Sam Young, Gina, John Dehlin, Kate Kelly... well my take has always been they know the Church and organization they belong to and what the boundaries are.  So none of them should have been surprised and/or indignant about the results.  I think they knew what would happen and were happy to exploit it for personal gain or notoriety.  

 

Whether such boundaries and repercussions for stepping over those boundaries are a good thing are open for discussion.  But they are what they are. I know them and for me personally that is why I navigate the way I do.

 

As for what I can say at work or in some other organization I am part of, well I can say honestly I feel more free to vocalize concerns and opposition to directions say my company ( of which I am an owner and on the executive board of) than I do in the Church. Also, if I have any employee who is out of line, sure I can pop off though I try to do it in a way to teach them rather than humiliate them.  I am not sure the comparison works. 

On other issues, i agree.  We all need to measure our words and what we say given the forum we are part of.  So no, I don't think anyone can say or should say whatever they want no matter how insulting or denigrating it can be. I believe in civility.  Thus at Church, when there is something said that bothers me I understand the setting I am in and that it is not my place to be the heretic.

 

For me authentic means given where my personal beliefs are, and what most the members of my ward an stake think I would believe, I do not feel authentic.  I am not the total full in True Believer that I used to be, yet most the members of my ward and stake think I am because I am not publicly vocal about my Mormon Unorthodox y.  Thus I do not feel authentic.  Hope this clarifies things,

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Actually following Jesus Christ is the only way to everlasting joy

Actually that is a premise that is not provable to anyone other than yourself. And there are a lot of people that would define following Jesus Christ very differently than you and many who would say the Jesus you follow is false and will lead you to hell.

Such a dilemma!

[Teancum]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, I was not happy in our relationship either. I am glad you had the courage to end it when I could not. I wish you all the best.

😁🤣😂😎

[pogi]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

She is an intelligent person.  She must have known the possible/likely result of that decision.

I respect it, though, and wish her the best.

I've never met her.  She's not a fan of the Church, and hasn't been in for a while, I think.  Just a few weeks ago she publicly accused the Church of "[having] a history of sex trafficking young women."  So . . . yeah.  She's like that.

Thanks,

-Smac

In that article she claims that her Stake President at 11 years old was imprisoned for pedophilia, at 13 her Stake President had multiple affairs, after that another Stake President committed adultery.  As a young adult her bishop had multiple affairs, another bishop abandoned his young family for another woman, another Stake President who was her former bishop had extra-marital sex life "of very public proportions", and finally her former husband/bishop committed adultery but was more interested in the teen daughter of the woman.

How realistic is this?  That just seems like BS to me. I am not saying it is not possible, but I find it highly unlikely.  How many people in the church have had 1-2 let alone 7 leaders commit adultery/pedophilia?  I have heard rumors of a bishop hear or there, but I have never seen anything close to that with any leader I have ever had.  Are my leaders just better at not getting caught or something, or is she just very, very, very unlucky, or is she telling stories...?

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

In that article she claims that her Stake President at 11 years old was imprisoned for pedophilia, at 13 her Stake President had multiple affairs, after that another Stake President committed adultery.  As a young adult her bishop had multiple affairs, another bishop abandoned his young family for another woman, another Stake President who was her former bishop had extra-marital sex life "of very public proportions", and finally her former husband/bishop committed adultery but was more interested in the teen daughter of the woman.

How realistic is this?  That just seems like BS to me. I am not saying it is not possible, but I find it highly unlikely.  How many people in the church have had 1-2 let alone 7 leaders commit adultery/pedophilia?  I have heard rumors of a bishop hear or there, but I have never seen anything close to that with any leader I have ever had.  Are my leaders just better at not getting caught or something, or is she just very, very, very unlucky, or is she telling stories...?

It depends on who you know. 

My personality and my career have made me a safe place for people to share their stories.  I hear a lot of stuff. 

I imagine that Sister Prim and Brother Pious don’t have many folks opening up to them so they don’t believe it happens at all, whereas someone like me has heard enough stories to know that humans are human. 

Right now i have one ex bishop who is living with his GF and one ex stake president whom I believe has some sex addiction stuff because enough folks have confided to me their stories of him and he recently left his wife.  

Nothing suprises me, so I just try to love folk where they are and not expect much. 

[smac97]

On 11/28/2018 at 5:09 PM, pogi said:

In that article she claims that her Stake President at 11 years old was imprisoned for pedophilia, at 13 her Stake President had multiple affairs, after that another Stake President committed adultery.  As a young adult her bishop had multiple affairs, another bishop abandoned his young family for another woman, another Stake President who was her former bishop had extra-marital sex life "of very public proportions", and finally her former husband/bishop committed adultery but was more interested in the teen daughter of the woman.

How realistic is this?  That just seems like BS to me.

Yes, I too felt some measure of skepticism.  Unless New Zealand is a hotbed of perversity, the sheer number of despots who are masquerading as faithful and observant members of the Church and are operating within her personal sphere of experience is, statistically speaking, a bit hard to fathom.

Quote

I am not saying it is not possible, but I find it highly unlikely.  How many people in the church have had 1-2 let alone 7 leaders commit adultery/pedophilia?  I have heard rumors of a bishop hear or there, but I have never seen anything close to that with any leader I have ever had.  Are my leaders just better at not getting caught or something, or is she just very, very, very unlucky, or is she telling stories...?

Well, that's the thing.  You just have to take her word for it.  Uncritically.  Unthinkingly.  Reflexively.  

The same goes for Sam Young's collective stories.  

The irony of Gina Colvin and Sam Young expecting such things from their readership is . . . strong.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 30, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As for what I can say at work or in some other organization I am part of, well I can say honestly I feel more free to vocalize concerns and opposition to directions say my company ( of which I am an owner and on the executive board of) than I do in the Church. Also, if I have any employee who is out of line, sure I can pop off though I try to do it in a way to teach them rather than humiliate them.  I am not sure the comparison works. 

I think it would if you consider the perspective of the employee.  And even with you being the owner, it should work.  Can you honestly say that if you had an employee that publicly accused you of serious misconduct, on questionable/ambiguous grounds, would you just lump it?  And then if he did the same thing the next week?  And the next?  And the next?  Would you just be unceasingly indifferent to your employee's continuing efforts to attached your character and tear down and destroy your reputation?

And what if the employee was actively seeking out your customers and presenting them with disparaging and insulting stories about your business and its operations?  Again, would you just remain silent week after week, month after month, while your employee actively seeks to tear down what you are trying to maintain and improve?

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

On other issues, i agree.  We all need to measure our words and what we say given the forum we are part of.  So no, I don't think anyone can say or should say whatever they want no matter how insulting or denigrating it can be. I believe in civility. 

Bill Reel publicly accusing Elder Holland was not civil.  

Sam Young poublicly accusing the Brethren of cowardice, and of being indifferent to (or worse, actively facilitating) the sexual abuse of children was not civil.

Kate Kelly doxxing her bishop was not civil.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thus at Church, when there is something said that bothers me I understand the setting I am in and that it is not my place to be the heretic.

That is appreciated.  You can and should be able to air concerns, but the time and place and manner of such things is very important.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

For me authentic means given where my personal beliefs are, and what most the members of my ward an stake think I would believe, I do not feel authentic.  I am not the total full in True Believer that I used to be, yet most the members of my ward and stake think I am because I am not publicly vocal about my Mormon Unorthodoxy.  Thus I do not feel authentic.  Hope this clarifies things,

It does a bit.  I don't understand how your personal feeling of authenticity is contingent upon what others think of you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

I agree with those who say that Gina shouldn't be surprised about excommunication when she has joined another church. Has she expressed any surprise at this?

[smac97]

Just now, Exiled said:

I agree with those who say that Gina shouldn't be surprised about excommunication when she has joined another church. Has she expressed any surprise at this?

We'll see, I suppose.  We've all become accustomed to the Captain Renault routine when self-appointed agitators (John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Jeremy Runnells, Denver Snuffer, Sam Young, Bill Reel, etc.) somehow are shocked - shocked! - that their actively speaking and working against the Church just might be incompatible with continued membership in and fellowship with the Church.

So are we going to get Kabuki Theater-style melodrama from Gina Colvin?  On balance, I'd say "probably."  The first piece of evidence is . . . that we know about it.  Publicizing private disciplinary proceeds has become the standard launching pad for the pearl-clutching histrionics.  Frankly, I'm surprised these keep getting attention in the news media (though Bill Reel's council has been noticeably less media-drenched than the ones who have gone before).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It depends on who you know. 

My personality and my career have made me a safe place for people to share their stories.  I hear a lot of stuff. 

I imagine that Sister Prim and Brother Pious don’t have many folks opening up to them so they don’t believe it happens at all, whereas someone like me has heard enough stories to know that humans are human. 

Right now i have one ex bishop who is living with his GF and one ex stake president whom I believe has some sex addiction stuff because enough folks have confided to me their stories of him and he recently left his wife.  

Nothing suprises me, so I just try to love folk where they are and not expect much. 

You don't have to have people open up to you to know when bishops or ex bishops are excommunicated for adultery in my experience (two bishops, one in Kansas, one in Canada).  That is pretty obvious when someone is serving in a very visible calling and then gets released and excommunicated, especially if they end up in jail or divorced.

Hearing stories of other people and their leaders are a bit different than having the experience oneself as well.

I haven't lived in New Zealand, so maybe there is something there in the culture that leads to a higher rate of chastity issues so she has had the chance to have such a high rate of personal experiences with leaders having extreme issues, but at the moment it seems rather improbable.  In fact, with my two bishops there appeared to be extra care taken to call men who had demonstrated great stability and commitment to their family to replace them, so it is weird to me that her area had one leader after another...but perhaps she moved around a lot.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 (though Bill Reel's council has been noticeably less media-drenched than the ones who have gone before).
 

This might have something to do with the so-called "mormon moment" lessening.  Romney isn't running and there isn't the quite the media push that there once was.  The I'm a Mormon campaign is over too.  Accordingly, the national media could be focused elsewhere.  Maybe if Colvin can tie herself with Trump somehow, the media will pay attention. 😄

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

The truth claims of the LDS Church or more likely than not, not true.

That is a point we will disagree on for the foreseeable future.

Glenn

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

This might have something to do with the so-called "mormon moment" lessening.  Romney isn't running and there isn't the quite the media push that there once was.  The I'm a Mormon campaign is over too.  Accordingly, the national media could be focused elsewhere.  Maybe if Colvin can tie herself with Trump somehow, the media will pay attention. 😄

I now have an image of Trump impotently screaming at the church on Twitter about how we better not excommunicate her or there will be consequences.

How can we make this happen?

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

I agree with those who say that Gina shouldn't be surprised about excommunication when she has joined another church. Has she expressed any surprise at this?

Nope, no surprise. Just 'furious and vehement opposition':

Quote

I figured out years ago that Church Discipline would be a likely outcome. Don't be surprised or outraged for me. I knew what I was doing and I know how this goes for whistleblowers and heretics. But, I still furiously and vehemently oppose Church Discipline administered by untrained clergy, used for purposes of control of ordinary members. If the only response to critique and challenge is to excommunicate then I reckon that's a piss poor practical theology.

She also re-posted earlier today a bit of satire entitled 'LDS Church to excommunicate Jesus Christ', which may imply somewhat how she sees herself in all this? Almost certainly how she sees the Church.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[flameburns623]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Please find another model besides Fowler though at least .  Maybe Perry?  ( I don't particularly like the use of such models as people don't treat development as fluid as it is in most, imo, people can be in very different stages at the same time when it comes to different issues for example, but Perry is better).

Fowler is the default guy used by most of the podcasters who use these models.  Conveniently,  his Stages are numbered, which makes them easier to remember. 

Unfortunately,  his Stages are NUMBERED, so even though Fowler has gone on record as saying that he didn't mean to imply that any of the adult Stages are better than the others, it's hard not to gain the impression that Stage Four or Stage Five individuals are somehow more mature than Stage Three persons. Especially since Stages 0 thru 2 ARE Stages of progression.  

If it were more well known,  Thomas Wirthlin McConkie's model would be preferable for me. Though it takes more effort to remember the different paradigms, roles, or however he designated the phases.

His model also works better when I realize how certain kinds of life events can affect people. I've had a friend experience a stroke which has reduced a lot of his cognitive function to that of a fairly young child. I've seen other people experience Parkinson's or mental illness,  which also affected their spirituality.  

All this aside,  though: you're right that Fowler is not Moses. But, I'm also not an academic nor working in some sort of paraprofessional field where precision is vital. I'm a regular guy, and while I would rather pound nails with a hammer,  if I am in a hurry, a heavy wrench or a rock will usually do. 

[flameburns623]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Flame, I do a lot of studying Catholicism and talking with Catholics and I have never heard anyone use the terms, "stage Four or stage Five". I haven't any clue what those terms even mean and I am pretty certain Catholics do not use these terms widely. 

The Church of Jesus Christ does not attempt to identify which members attend which church when not or no longer attending their ward. However, if a member does join another church or faith it is grounds for excommunication. I don't know when that policy was instituted, but I assume it has been that way for decades if not over a hundred years ago.

The definitions of a Catholic and LDS remain the same. Even when an individual begins to teach something contrary to the doctrines of the Church (either one), the Church remains the same and eventually the wayward will be corrected. 

A faith crisis in Catholicism is likely to be characterized as a "dark night of the soul" experience.  Although Roman Catholic priests are among the most well-trained clergy around, and they're likely to have been exposed to Fowler's Stages of Faith Development model and those similar to it. 

I don't know if they speak of such things as "pastoral apologetics", as LDS "New'pologists" are inclined to do. I know that I went to a Catholic priest at the very early part of my own faith crises,  around 2013: he immediately recognized what I was experiencing,  but I think that he sort of jumped out ahead of where I actually was, and disturbed me quite a bit. 2013 was the last time I was in an RCC, partly for that reason.  

But: even if you don't hear much about these things, I think the issues are not unknown.  

[Alan]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Such Christ like love you show.

But then most True Believing LDS can's show true love for the "apostate."  It is to threatening.

It's "too".

[Alan]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And there it is. Pathetic response, Alan.

I've listened to Gina for a number of years. She's thoughtful even though critical. She credits the church with much good in her life while also raising issues she struggles with. How dare she.

I find the "good riddance" types in the church to be very depressing and lacking in compassion and Christ-like love.

"Good riddance" represents the worst within the church.

She's an apostate who bleats on about herself and joined another church.

We don't need members like that. We need people who will build Zion not tear it down.

So yes, good riddance.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Alan
clarification

[ALarson]

 

5 hours ago, Alan said:

She's an apostate who bleats on about herself and joined another church.

We don't need members like that. We need people who will build Zion not tear it down.

So yes, good riddance.

I agree with others.  What a pathetic and unchristlike post, Alan.

 

[Tacenda]

https://www.athoughtfulfaith.org/270-serving-up-children-to-paedophiles-the-lds-church-and-the-west-virginia-michael-jensen-sex-abuse-case-tom-and-juliette/

Maybe it was this podcast that tipped the scales. But after listening to it and realizing how the church operates she's right to shout it out it to the rooftops and these church leaders need to quit this horrible behaviour of protecting the abuser and not the abused. It's all in this podcast.

[alter idem]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

I hope she finds happiness and peace. 

I know this is tough to understand but the LDS Church really is not the only path to happiness in this life...or the next, if there is a next.

And since she got baptized into the Anglican church, I guess she's decided that church will make her happy--I wish her the best as she's free to make this decision. However, doing so means she's rejected her CofJCofLDS baptism, which would not automatically trigger a disciplinary counsel.   What brought the disciplinary counsel was her public criticisms and joining another church--which IS grounds for excommunication.

One of the charges given to church leaders is to protect and defend the faith and excommunication is one of the options used for this purpose.

What is hard to comprehend is why anyone would argue against the church's right to uphold/carry out it's own policies and practices.

 

[churchistrue]

I'm not sure about the rules of responding to comment in locked thread. I'm responding to a comment in the Bill Reel thread here.

@HappyJackWagon said:

I was simply pointing out to Randall that Bill had the same intentions and expectations when he started his podcast. In some ways, so did Dehlin and Colvin. But perhaps he's better than they and won't follow their same path. Time will tell.

My response: I didn't want to let this go without clarifying, that I don't think I'm "better" than Reel, Dehlin, or Colvin. I may have similar perspective as they had in the beginning of their online careers, but I've had pretty static views on this for about 10 years. I think they were in a state of evolving much more than I am now. And I'm starting from a more loyal position. Even in the beginning when they were further on the faithful side of things, they used language like "we must change", etc. 

 

[alter idem]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Actually that is a premise that is not provable to anyone other than yourself. And there are a lot of people that would define following Jesus Christ very differently than you and many who would say the Jesus you follow is false and will lead you to hell.

Such a dilemma!

It's a premise that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe and pattern their lives after.  When we take on the Name of Christ through baptism in his church, we are publicly displaying to the world that we believe his teachings which are found in his church and if followed; this is the path to everlasting joy.  Some come to decide that they no longer believe this and they are free to disagree and choose their own paths, as Gina Colvin did.  What others believe of us doesn't really matter.  If they think we lying to ourselves or we're foolish or deluded, it doesn't change our commitment and faith in what we know spiritually in our hearts and minds.  This is the blessing of having a testimony.

 

IMO, given the seriousness of the Covenants she made and the symbol of what baptism meant, Gina should have resigned her membership, it should not have had to come to a disciplinary counsel.  This is a common problem in our day, creating 'victims'.  Gina Colvin is not a victim, but some want to paint her as one and the church as the perpetrator of her victimhood.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Just curious, as one who seems to attract the inside scoop, have you ever in all of your years heard of anyone having 7...yes 7...leaders (4 of which were Stake Presidents) involved in adultery/pedophilia?  I don't doubt that it happens here or there, but 7 times?   Nothing smells fishy to you?

By the way, she was 11 and 13 years old.  I don't think people would have been seeking her out as a safe place to share secret information about leaders. 

I have moved around quite a bit during my life. During those 60+ years, I have personally known 1 stake president who was excommunicated and 0 bishops. I tend to think each of us is pretty normal as humans and very, very few of us are extraordinary - as such, this individual's story reeks of falsehood and desperation to prove an agenda rather than tell a real story of her life and her experiences. It is a shame that she cannot be made to prove it - names, places, etc.