And now, Gina Colvin faces a Disciplinary Council.

[Avatar4321]

 Never heard of her. I hope she will do what she needs to do to remain a member of the church

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you had read her master's thesis, you would have seen that she lived in another world than the rest of us.  A world of mysticism and poetry.

My master's thesis was on Timothy Leary. I argued that despite his actions and reputation of being on the fringe, he was actually firmly within American religious tradition, using Edwards, Emerson, and James to triangulate his position, so to speak, and point out the interesting confluence of mysticism and pragmatism.

I'm sure my committee thought I was nuts, but they passed me, ha. I jokingly told my major professor that as part of the defense we all needed to take acid to see what Leary was actually getting at. I remember he didn't laugh  

[Alan]

Good riddance.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Yeah, it is difficult,  once passing through a Faith Crisis, and emerging on the other side at least aspiring to Stage Five,  not to feel patronizing about Stage Three believers. (Judgementalism is particularly a Stage Three pecadillo; condescension is a temptation for those in Stage Five). For example,  you sound very silly ( AND  judgemental) to me when you bring up the term "heresy": the word ceases to mean much to me these days. 

Biting my tongue to not go on a rant about Fowler who I have deep issues with. But I'd say in practice there's no difference between most self-designated stage 5 or stage 6 people and those they call stage 3. All that differs is what they choose to believe and be judgmental about. There's really not much difference between being condescending and judgmental IMO. 

50 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

My master's thesis was on Timothy Leary. I argued that despite his actions and reputation of being on the fringe, he was actually firmly within American religious tradition, using Edwards, Emerson, and James to triangulate his position, so to speak, and point out the interesting confluence of mysticism and pragmatism.

I'm sure my committee thought I was nuts, but they passed me, ha. I jokingly told my major professor that as part of the defense we all needed to take acid to see what Leary was actually getting at. I remember he didn't laugh  

I think this is right, although I'm not as familiar with Edwards. Although I'd also say that I find this to be a problem in the type of pragmatism James ended up espousing.

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Biting my tongue to not go on a rant about Fowler who I have deep issues with. But I'd say in practice there's no difference between most self-designated stage 5 or stage 6 people and those they call stage 3. All that differs is what they choose to believe and be judgmental about. There's really not much difference between being condescending and judgmental IMO. 

I have a sneaking suspicion that the primary appeal of all these spiritual progression and faith models is that those who create and accept them always place themselves smugly at the top. They seem more like self-gratification then a guide.

[MiserereNobis]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the primary appeal of all these spiritual progression and faith models is that those who create and accept them always place themselves smugly at the top. They seem more like self-gratification then a guide.

Exactly.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the primary appeal of all these spiritual progression and faith models is that those who create and accept them always place themselves smugly at the top. They seem more like self-gratification then a guide.

That would work if I said I was at Stage Six and was comparing myself to Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi,  and the Dalai Lama. 

What I said was that I aspire myself to be a Stage Five.  "Where" I am exactly,  I am agnostic about, though I am relatively certain that I am not in Stage Three any longer.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

That would work if I said I was at Stage Six and was comparing myself to Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi,  and the Dalai Lama. 

What I said was that I aspire myself to be a Stage Five.  "Where" I am exactly,  I am agnostic about, though I am relatively certain that I am not in Stage Three any longer.  

I am arrogant enough to think I am a Stage Six if it includes those three yahoos.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

My master's thesis was on Timothy Leary. I argued that despite his actions and reputation of being on the fringe, he was actually firmly within American religious tradition, using Edwards, Emerson, and James to triangulate his position, so to speak, and point out the interesting confluence of mysticism and pragmatism.

I'm sure my committee thought I was nuts, but they passed me, ha. I jokingly told my major professor that as part of the defense we all needed to take acid to see what Leary was actually getting at. I remember he didn't laugh  

Yes.  Many people are unaware that Dr Leary was a respected Harvard professor (as was his assistant Dr Richard Alpert - later Baba Ram Dass), and that their initial work with LSD was completely legal and an integral part of a successful effort to find more effective ways to help prisoners in the Massachusetts State Prison system.  They were actually able to reduce recidivism.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Biting my tongue to not go on a rant about Fowler who I have deep issues with. But I'd say in practice there's no difference between most self-designated stage 5 or stage 6 people and those they call stage 3. All that differs is what they choose to believe and be judgmental about. There's really not much difference between being condescending and judgmental IMO. 

If you go for your rant, I won't have to.  

And spot on for the rest (and I recognize I may be being both condescending and judgmental here).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

That would work if I said I was at Stage Six and was comparing myself to Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi,  and the Dalai Lama. 

What I said was that I aspire myself to be a Stage Five.  "Where" I am exactly,  I am agnostic about, though I am relatively certain that I am not in Stage Three any longer.  

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).

Edited November 28, 2018 by Calm

[Teancum]

18 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

 

 

I like Gina and based on what  I have heard and read by her, but this should be no surprise to her and she openly acknowledges becoming a member of another church where she feels at home.  In her case I don't think she has much to make a public issue about.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I like Gina and based on what  I have heard and read by her, but this should be no surprise to her and she openly acknowledges becoming a member of another church where she feels at home.  In her case I don't think she has much to make a public issue about.

But then, neither did Kate Kelly, or John Dehlin, or Jeremy Runnells, or Sam Young, or Bill Reel.  And they they all have worked hard to convert the disciplinary proceedings against them into "a public issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

 Never heard of her. I hope she will do what she needs to do to remain a member of the church

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.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Alan said:

Good riddance.

Such Christ like love you show.

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

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, Alan said:

Good riddance.

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.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the primary appeal of all these spiritual progression and faith models is that those who create and accept them always place themselves smugly at the top. They seem more like self-gratification then a guide.

How ironic this post is coming from one of the most smug posters on this board.

[Glenn101]

5 minutes 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.

The second part is true only if the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not true.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How ironic this post is coming from one of the most smug posters on this board.

I know, right? But it does make me uniquely qualified to detect it wouldn’t you think?  

Edited November 28, 2018 by The Nehor

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But then, neither did Kate Kelly, or John Dehlin, or Jeremy Runnells, or Sam Young, or Bill Reel.  And they they all have worked hard to convert the disciplinary proceedings against them into "a public issue."

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I think there are differences but I am torn. I think that anyone who is LDS and goes down the path these folks did should not be surprised. On the other hand I wish for a church that I still participate in that could be more tolerant of dissent.

I sympathize a lot with the view of those you list because I agree with many of their positions. But I have chosen to continue to participate and be quiet mostly but for a few close family members and friends. I have not desired to make my questions a stumbling block for others.  But at times I wonder how authentic I am being.  There are times when I am sitting in the pews that I feel like my head is about to pop off based on what I hear and observe.  But I say nothing. For my personal well being I am not sure how good that is.  Should I be more vocal like those you list?  Sometimes I think yes.  But mostly I just feel I should leave it as a personal thing and make my own way quietly.

 

Does that make sense?

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The second part is true only if the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not true.

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

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Which would make me uniquely qualified to detect it wouldn’t you think?  

Well Nehor really I think mostly, based on your posting here, you are a real horses behind. So no you are not uniquely qualified to detect much of anything.

But you may be a nice guy in real life.  I find that is often the case.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Well Nehor really I think mostly, based on your posting here, you are a real ***. So no you are not uniquely qualified to detect much of anything.

But you may be a nice guy in real life.  I find that is often the case.

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.

[Storm Rider]

17 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Was this woman a baptised Catholic who converted to the LDS Church later?

Btw: there are Stage Four and Stage Five Roman Catholics, who have created spaces for themselves which Stage Three Catholics barely ever hear about: except when leading conservative Catholic mouthpieces complain of abuses. Such spaces are often unconcerned about the sort of restrictions that traditionally limit the sacraments: they take more of a view that Christ ESPECIALLY  calls sinners to his table. 

In Germany,  one of the most progressive of Catholic nations, Protestants are rarely questioned if they elect to receive communion.  Over the past year,  it has become quasi-official that the Protestant spouses of Catholics can receive communion. 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/german-bishop-pastoral-caretakers-do-not-have-the-right-to-allow-or-deny-ac

This is a technical violation of RCC Canon Law, but the German Conference of Catholic Bishops have waived that, with virtually no pushback from the Vatican. Catholicism in Germanic or French speaking nations,  generally,  have been rather experimental and free-wheeling since Vatican II. Neither Pope John Paul II nor Benedict XVI  could fully curb their excesses. 

In the United States,  especially in urban areas,  one will usually find at least one parish which is where the progressives who want to do Church are "herded". Here in Saint Louis,  that parish is virtually run by LGBTQ  members, activist nuns and religious,  etcetera. There is also the Catholic church adjacent to the major Catholic university here, which is very very tolerant despite being under the very nose of a fairly conservative Archbishop.

And, across the river in Belleville, the even more-conservative bishop in Belleville has been losing a longstanding battle with some of the most progressive diocesan priests in the Midwest.  

But: Catholic media here are geared toward Stage Three, regimented,  obedient-to-Tradition type Catholics,  and most Catholics here would feel as you do, MiserereNobis. 

Sorry for the derail. It does underscore that other faith traditions, even inherently rather conservative ones, have found ways to make space for those with questions or different ways of "doing" that faith. But: not without tension and a level of internal wrangling which might well tear the LDS Church apart.

I would note that I joined a traditionalist Anglican parish in 2002 and was confirmed there in 2004, while still a member of the LDS Church. I hadn't been in touch with my ward for years at that time, so no one questioned me nor was I presented a summons to a Disciplinary Council.  

So, it feels a bit as if the parameters of what is acceptable in Mormonism are narrowing. Or not: Gina Colvin apparently told her LD bishop that she would happily accept a Ward calling,  so long as it did not interfere with her Anglican Church ministry.  

Sort of "in-your-face", 'twould seem to me. 

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. 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well I think there are differences but I am torn. I think that anyone who is LDS and goes down the path these folks did should not be surprised. On the other hand I wish for a church that I still participate in that could be more tolerant of dissent.

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.

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I sympathize a lot with the view of those you list because I agree with many of their positions. But I have chosen to continue to participate and be quiet mostly but for a few close family members and friends. I have not desired to make my questions a stumbling block for others. 

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.

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But at times I wonder how authentic I am being.  There are times when I am sitting in the pews that I feel like my head is about to pop off based on what I hear and observe.  But I say nothing. For my personal well being I am not sure how good that is. 

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?

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Should I be more vocal like those you list?  Sometimes I think yes.  But mostly I just feel I should leave it as a personal thing and make my own way quietly.

Does that make sense?

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