And now, Gina Colvin faces a Disciplinary Council.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well... at least the discussion is civil.

Yeah sorry, I have been slacking off.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well... at least the discussion is civil.

Agreed.  That's worth noting.  

I hope you have an enjoyable weekend!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I will refrain from going into a long lecture about Zion: Zion as  a location, Zion as a people, Zion as a stake, Zion as a state of mind, Zion as a kingdom, Zion as a church, Zion as a family etc. I'm sure you'd likely disagree with my review anyway so I'll just comment about needs.

First, you treat this as if Gina exists to meet the group needs of "we", which I assume you mean to be the church as you view it. If Gina doesn't fit the way you believe she should then she is not meeting your need as a member of the organization. I find if insulting and also selfish to treat another person as if her purpose is to meet your needs as if she exists to serve/bless/uplift the church instead of the church existing to serve/bless/uplift her. I think you've got this backwards. The church exists to bring people closer to God, not to meet it's own institutional needs.

Second, you act as if she has such a low value that she can easily be discarded, as if she's a cog in a machine that isn't functioning as well as you think she should, therefore it's ok to toss her aside. Not just ok, but you've devalued her enough that you find it necessary and even good to not just eject her from the organization but also rescind salvific ordinances. And you say "good riddance".

Third, my understanding is the Gina still attends LDS church with her family and serves (or would like to serve) in a calling. If that's correct it sounds to me like she is wanting to associate with the people of Zion, a stake of Zion in building the church for good. True, she would also like to build up another church as well. Personally, I don't see that as a negative thing. I see Gina as seeking to do good and be a good influence wherever she is and I see her trying to stay engaged in the church even through her struggles with it as an organization. But you say "good riddance".

Instead of looking at how these people (Reel, Dehlin, Kelly, Colvin etc) have failed in meeting the needs of the church  I think it's worth considering how the church has failed them in providing for or supporting their spiritual needs. But regardless of whether you or I believe a person has value to the church it seems that the most critical assessment is whether or not the worth of their soul is valued by God. "Good riddance" doesn't indicate that you value them at all. You may want to rethink that a bit.

Thank you for this.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Formally joining another church and advocating it's teachings falls under the heading of apostasy, which would trigger a disciplinary council according to Handbook 1, 6.7.3.

Is there anything specific in the handbook that says it qualifies as apostasy or are we just assuming it does? I ask because the last word I heard on this subject, and admittedly it is quite dated, was this from Elder Russell Ballard in 1991.

Quote

Disciplinary councils are not held for such things as failure to pay tithing, to obey the Word of Wisdom, to attend church, or to receive home teachers. They are not held because of business failure or nonpayment of debts. They are not designed to settle disputes among members. Nor are they held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

Edited December 1, 2018 by CA Steve

[Calm]

Leaked info:

https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/288692551?extension=pdf&ft=1543631011&lt=1543634621&source=embed&uahk=Fh5re_fPiSZyIKvTPXUQThc5z_c

Info at the very bottom

Edited December 1, 2018 by Calm

[Glenn101]

   I have been sort of hesitant to engage in this discussion. I definitely do not want to chime on on whether or not Dr. Colvin should have expected this or whether she "deserved" it or even the merits of the disciplinary council. But I would rather put a human side on this. I have been reading her blogs for some time and commenting from time to time. I have found her to be mostly polite and agreeable, even when we disagree, which is often. Gina has been fighting a losing battle within herself for years as she voiced disagreement with church policies local to her New Zealand heritage and others on a more church wide scale. She has/had deep roots in the LDS community and has thought of leaving it for some time, but evidently has never been able to perform the act officially herself, although for all intents and purposes she had effectively left quite some time ago. With the risk of practicing psychology without a license, I believe that she has been trying to force the church to cut a cord she could not quite bring herself to do. I have not met her as a person, but she seems to be a really great lady and has strong feelings about social justice. I only hope that she can find peace in her life after the cord is cut. I am saddened by this, because I really am convinced of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I just do not know what else to say.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

56 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

   I have been sort of hesitant to engage in this discussion. I definitely do not want to chime on on whether or not Dr. Colvin should have expected this or whether she "deserved" it or even the merits of the disciplinary council. But I would rather put a human side on this. I have been reading her blogs for some time and commenting from time to time. I have found her to be mostly polite and agreeable, even when we disagree, which is often. Gina has been fighting a losing battle within herself for years as she voiced disagreement with church policies local to her New Zealand heritage and others on a more church wide scale. She has/had deep roots in the LDS community and has thought of leaving it for some time, but evidently has never been able to perform the act officially herself, although for all intents and purposes she had effectively left quite some time ago. With the risk of practicing psychology without a license, I believe that she has been trying to force the church to cut a cord she could not quite bring herself to do. I have not met her as a person, but she seems to be a really great lady and has strong feelings about social justice. I only hope that she can find peace in her life after the cord is cut. I am saddened by this, because I really am convinced of the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I just do not know what else to say.

Glenn

I sense that she is a good person as well. And I think a lot of members are finding it difficult to see her and others ex'd in the last few years for standing up for things. And not even committing grevious sins and such. Ran across this link on the other board. https://kutv.com/news/local/survey-commitment-of-of-lds-church-members-chilled-by-high-profile-excommunications

Edited December 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Leaked info:

https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/288692551?extension=pdf&ft=1543631011&lt=1543634621&source=embed&uahk=Fh5re_fPiSZyIKvTPXUQThc5z_c

Info at the very bottom

I’m getting a link not valid message.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Is there anything specific in the handbook that says it qualifies as apostasy or are we just assuming it does? I ask because the last word I heard on this subject, and admittedly it is quite dated, was this from Elder Russell Ballard in 1991.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings?lang=eng

I’ve paraphrased the handbook for you.  Formally joining another church and advocating it’s teaching falls under the heading of apostasy. Apostasy is one of the cases where a disciplinary council is mandatory.

President Ballard’s 1990 statement would not seem to be current.

Edited December 1, 2018 by ksfisher

[Calm]

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I’m getting a link not valid message.

Interesting...I assume it was removed because of copyright issues and yet an identical one still exists on Scribd from Dehlin.  Maybe he complained?

Edited December 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I’m getting a link not valid message.

The language is specifically quoted in the Jana Reiss article***.  I would suggest anyone wanting to view it in context can search on it.  However, no additional info is given for that specific cause besides formally join and advocate teachings.  There are several leaks online, so not lacking in opportunity.

"This is an issue to LDS leaders, however, because the current LDS Handbook of Instructions defines “apostasy” as including members who “formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”"

You can also follow the hyperlink in her article to read the leaked doc.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Calm

[CA Steve]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

The language is specifically quoted in the Jana Reiss article***.  I would suggest anyone wanting to view it in context can search on it.  However, no additional info is given for that specific cause besides formally join and advocate teachings.  There are several leaks online, so not lacking in opportunity.

"This is an issue to LDS leaders, however, because the current LDS Handbook of Instructions defines “apostasy” as including members who “formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”"

You can also follow the hyperlink in her article to read the leaked doc.

The link worked for me. Thanks Calm. It appears Elder Ballard's quote is out of date or maybe he was just referring to people who joined other churches but did not advocate its teachings.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The link worked for me. Thanks Calm. It appears Elder Ballard's quote is out of date or maybe he was just referring to people who joined other churches but did not advocate its teachings.

I believe it has been updated recently (maybe ten years ago, I remember some discussion, but have little sense of time) to clarify.  I can imagine some attending churches with family, even to the point of not attending our church.  But if they do it not out of belief, but family love and harmony, that is not apostasy and they shouldn't have to fear discipline.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Calm

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The link worked for me. Thanks Calm. It appears Elder Ballard's quote is out of date or maybe he was just referring to people who joined other churches but did not advocate its teachings.

I think you're right.  It's more than just joining another church.  Colvin has not only done that, but written about it.  At some point that would seem to cross a line.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The language is specifically quoted in the Jana Reiss article***.  I would suggest anyone wanting to view it in context can search on it.  However, no additional info is given for that specific cause besides formally join and advocate teachings.  There are several leaks online, so not lacking in opportunity.

"This is an issue to LDS leaders, however, because the current LDS Handbook of Instructions defines “apostasy” as including members who “formally join another church and advocate its teachings.”"

You can also follow the hyperlink in her article to read the leaked doc.

I still can't see it.  Could you summarize or paste the highlights?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think you're right.  It's more than just joining another church.  Colvin has not only done that, but written about it.  At some point that would seem to cross a line.

I remember a woman describing life in India for female members and how they only was to be able to attend is if they manage to marry a member (the bishop gets to play matchmaker a lot apparently).  If the husband of a member couple changes beliefs and starts attending another church, the wife may have no choice (I would hope this is counseled to not be the case when couples convert to our faith).  The wife should not be penalized.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I still can't see it.  Could you summarize or paste the highlights?

The "formally join another church and advocate its teachings" are the highlights...the whole thing in fact.  Google that phrase if you want more info on excommunication rules in general.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 11/30/2018 at 10:19 AM, ALarson said:

Alan, this one is a no brainer. 

Read Smac's post for what a Christlike attitude/behavior/action is for this situation and then see if you're following His example:

So yes, what you posted was unchristlike. 

And, if you are still serving as a Bishop, I hope you wouldn't treat one of your flock who goes inactive or joins another church with this attitude:

"good riddance!"  "one less distraction."

There's a considerable difference between a sheep who gets lost (inactive members) and one who lies about the flock in public and is effectively recruiting wolves to savage the flock.  Which is what this person is doing.

Acts 20:29 - "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock."

But even a grievous wolf can repent and again become as a sheep.  I hope this sister will do so, but for now, I must echo @Alan in saying, in effect, "good riddance".  If she is going to attack and lie about the church, she should be required to do so from the outside.

[Jeanne]

Why don't we leave Gina alone on her journey...just let her be.  She is not hurting anyone of you.  If you are seeking just desserts for her it will well come and she probably isn't surprised.  But it is real to her..a person we do not really know..let it be.  You are in God's way for what is truth, right and justicei if that is even necessary.   Men is suits and ties don't always understand.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Jeanne

[provoman]

wrong thread

Edited December 2, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

  She is not hurting anyone of you.

This isn't necessarily true though.  She is trying to have an impact on members of the Church and if a loved one accepts her POV as valid in ways that significantly conflict with our own, this could harm our personal relationships and in our view, if it leads them to leave the Church, hurt our loved ones as well.

Many FairMormon members joined the group because this is what happened to them, an activist disbeliever convinced someone they deeply cared about to reject the Church.  It is understandable to me that they then become active themselves in becoming aware of what is going on and then trying to do something about it to help protect others from having to experience the same thing.

 

[JulieM]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There's a considerable difference between a sheep who gets lost (inactive members) and one who lies about the flock in public and is effectively recruiting wolves to savage the flock.  Which is what this person is doing.

 I must echo  If she is going to attack and lie about the church, she should be required to do so from the outside.

CFR

Please give links and exact quotes containing these “lies” you’re accusing her of telling.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Why don't we leave Gina alone on her journey...just let her be.  She is not hurting anyone of you.  If you are seeking just desserts for her it will well come and she probably isn't surprised.  But it is real to her..a person we do not really know..let it be.  You are in God's way for what is truth, right and justicei if that is even necessary.   Men is suits and ties don't always understand.

If they wore jeans and a t-shirt on the other hand they would always understand.  

The problem with all this reportage of disciplinary councils is that they are supposed to be about taking care of the person with as little fuss as possible. Most ward and stake level councils are quiet and only a few know about them. If Gina wanted to be left alone she would be. She does not. She wants to be public figure which is fine. She wants to publicize her exit which is fine. I do not think she needs people to be offended on her behalf for public discussion of her situation when she is publicizing her situation for discussion.

One of the purposes of church discipline is to deal with the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Forcing them to take off the costume does not make them a wolf if they were not one before but it does help to expose the wolves when that is the case.

Edited December 2, 2018 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

CFR

Please give links and exact quotes containing these “lies” you’re accusing her of telling.

I think that has been adequately covered here already.  

But, since I'm sure that's not enough for you, try this: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2018/09/when-church-leaders-are-more-important-than-church-children/

Quotes:

• "...the LDS Church has a history of sex trafficking young women while still requiring adulation for the perpetrators of what today would be considered a sex crime."
• "Children and youth leaders are not required to be signatories to a code of ethics.  Children and youth leaders are not trained in the area of the prevention of clergy or lay leader sexual abuse.  There are no guidelines that must be followed in order to protect children in Mormon church contexts from sexual abuse."

I'm sure you can find more.  Although I am sure that you believe she is telling the truth about these things (especially how virtually every leader she seems to have interacted with was either a sex offender, adulterer, or pedophile).  Which means it's my opinion vs yours.  I believe she is lying.  If you don't, fine.

She also reports she has "countless friends who were sexually assaulted in Mormon contexts where instead of their protection and healing every mechanism was used to preserve community cohesion and the reputation and repentance of the perpetrator."  Countless.  Why does she use that word?  Because there are so many she cant count them all?  That's a lot of friends who have been sexually abused.  Or does "countless" mean that she hasn't counted them, but there's a lot?  What is it?  And are they all friends?  Or just acquaintances?  Or stories she's read on the internet?

Does this meet your requirement for a CFR?

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Stargazer

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think that has been adequately covered here already.  

No it has not.  You made a very specific accusation and you've been issued a CFR.  I'm watching to see how you answer this as well.

You stated:

On 12/1/2018 at 11:18 AM, Stargazer said:

There's a considerable difference between a sheep who gets lost (inactive members) and one who lies about the flock in public and is effectively recruiting wolves to savage the flock

And:

On 12/1/2018 at 11:18 AM, Stargazer said:

If she is going to attack and lie about the church

So, provide the actual quotes where she's lied (and also link to where she stated these lies) or withdraw that accusation.

Edited December 2, 2018 by ALarson