Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I was referring to the fortune Dehlin has amassed online for his anti-Mormon podcast.  Boundary maintenance is a scholarly term used by Shipps to refer to the rules of various organizations to maintain their integrity.  This applies to the Roman Catholics as much as to Presbyterians and Mormons.

Fortune?  Bwaaahahahah!

IIRC, someone said John Dehlin makes $200k/yr.  That would put him in the 96th income percentile in the United States (see here).

He appears to be married with four children (see here).  According to this calculator, an income of $200k (assuming his wife does not work) would put him in the 98.7 percentile, which is "more than 19.2 times the global median."

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If they were truly a reflection of Lucifer’s teaching I am stunned that somehow I made into mortality.

I doubt that is an accurate portrayal of the adversary’s stance.

What do you think his stance is?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Fortune?  Bwaaahahahah!

 

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

$200k a year is hardly a fortune.

@SeekingUnderstandingpointed out the following about OSF already in this thread:

The Open Stories foundation reported Dehlin's 2017 salary and bonus was $82,500 and $27,000 respectively.^[11]

In 2018 the Open Stories Foundation reported total compensation to Dehlin of over $226,000.^[12]

In 2019 the Open Stories Foundation reported total compensation to Dehlin of over $236,000.^[13]

^{That may of course seem paltry to the billionaire class, but it seems to me that Dr Dehlin is doing just fine and that he could certainly afford to pay a small transportation bill (which he could write off as a business expense anyhow).  Many of us on this board have never seen that kind of money, so the rich folk can feel themselves superior in every way -- up to and including laughing at the poor.} 

[Bob Crockett]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have interacted with Helfer quite a bit and I believe your characterization is overstated as far as attacking the church.  The LDS Church can define sin any way it wants to. That does not make it so. And its definitions does not trump the scientific best practices of a professional.

I really cannot understand why you are so offended by her exit disciplinary council.  I mean, the church used to excommunicate people for dancing. During the Nauvoo period.  I've used the word "autonomy" before, but what it means is that when it comes to conditions of membership, a church has the right to complete freedom in defining such.  I had an ancestor excommunicated for striking his plural wife.  Conditions for exit can be completely arbitrary.  I guess you can complain about it, but I'd spend my time complaining about misuse of church funds, patriarchal abuse, interviewing children, and the like before I'd weigh in against the church's autonomy. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

@SeekingUnderstandingpointed out the following about OSF already in this thread:

The Open Stories foundation reported Dehlin's 2017 salary and bonus was $82,500 and $27,000 respectively.^[11]

In 2018 the Open Stories Foundation reported total compensation to Dehlin of over $226,000.^[12]

In 2019 the Open Stories Foundation reported total compensation to Dehlin of over $236,000.^[13]

^{That may of course seem paltry to the billionaire class, but it seems to me that Dr Dehlin is doing just fine and that he could certainly afford to pay a small transportation bill (which he could write off as a business expense anyhow).  Many of us on this board have never seen that kind of money, so the rich folk can feel themselves superior in every way -- up to and including laughing at the poor.} 

All if this could be equally applied to the brethren (who make six figures) as well as the church itself which is worth well over 9 figures. It’s ridiculous to say Delhin should foot the travel bill here. 

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 12:04 PM, ttribe said:

Turned into a bit of a circus. 

Indeed it did. 

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I really cannot understand why you are so offended by her exit disciplinary council.  I mean, the church used to excommunicate people for dancing. During the Nauvoo period.  I've used the word "autonomy" before, but what it means is that when it comes to conditions of membership, a church has the right to complete freedom in defining such.  I had an ancestor excommunicated for striking his plural wife.  Conditions for exit can be completely arbitrary.  I guess you can complain about it, but I'd spend my time complaining about misuse of church funds, patriarchal abuse, interviewing children, and the like before I'd weigh in against the church's autonomy. 

The Church can do whatever it wants.  I am just here to discuss and share my opinion.  Am I offended?  Not really. It is another thing that convinces me that my current decision to not fellowship with the Church is a good one for me.  Also it convinces me that withdrawing my not insubstantial financial and time support is a good one as well.  Though I do still give fast offerings. That is a really good deal.  I am not surprised that Helfer was hauled in and her membership threatened and likely ended.  It is what the Church does what some member says things to publicly that it does not like.  I am happy to complain about all the other things you list as well.

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

IIRC, someone said John Dehlin makes $200k/yr.  That would put him in the 96th income percentile in the United States (see here).

He appears to be married with four children (see here).  According to this calculator, an income of $200k (assuming his wife does not work) would put him in the 98.7 percentile, which is "more than 19.2 times the global median."

Thanks,

-Smac

Still not a fortune.

[Teancum]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Except my position is more congruent with the evidence at hand.  And have not merely declared my position, I have explained the reasoning and analysis pertaining to it.

And yet here you are, calling a quiet and somber meeting "heavy handed."  Calling constraints on or termination of voluntarily membership in a religion "heavy handed."

Again, there is no violence or force, or the threat of violence or force, in the Church's disciplinary proceedings.  There is no threat to the individual's liberty, health, property, or life.  There is no threat of any physical punishment.  There is, instead, a solemn and somber meeting held in a church building, the proceedings of which are kept confidential.  That you have participated in disciplinary councils and are still characterizing them as "heavy handed" does not bolster your position. 

I have been in civil court proceedings hundreds of times.  Some few of these have been criminal proceedings, but otherwise they have been civil.  In these proceedings there is a judge sitting on an elevated stand (the "bench") and behind him is the Great Seal of Utah (or of the United States for federal courts), together with the flag.  There is also an armed deputy, and a court clerk.  There are also cameras all around, recording the proceedings in detail.  The judge is in charge of the proceedings.  There is simply no question about that.  He or she is wearing a black robe, sitting on the bench, and is publicly recognized as a judge authorized to interpret and apply the law, and to render binding decisions that conform with the governing laws and rules of procedure.  The judge has the ability to force a party to do, or not do, something.  He can deprive a person of his property.  He can impose a money judgment against the individual.  He can incarcerate the individual (in criminal matters).  

A civil judge can do far more than a bishop or a stake president, and yet it would be unreasonable to characterize the U.S. legal system as "heavy handed."  There are ample safeguards in place to protect the rights of the individual from abuse or misconduct by the judge or the legal process.  Such proceedings are governed by "law," and not by man.  

So if a civil court system, having substantially more actual authority over the life, liberty and property of the individual, cannot be said to be "heavy handed," how much less reasonable is it to apply that characterization to a bishop or stake president who can, at most, put constraints on an individual's church membership, and in extreme cirumstances terminate that individual's church membership. 

I get that.  Honestly, I do.  You'll note that I do not dispute your characterization of the Church as being a "high demand religion."  It is.  No question there.  I think we differ in that I think the "high demand" is worthwhile because of what the Church claims to be and what I believe it to be.  At present, you don't.  I don't know why, and I won't ask you to explain.  But I hope you have a change of heart.  

Thanks,

-Smac

TO be honest Smac I cannot keep up  with  you. 😁  You write prolifically and I assume very fast. But as for as the church goes if someone believes it, and apparently Helfer does to some extent and it has value to here, the Church can deprive you of salvation, exaltation and eternal life. It can bar you from your family forever. It can impact your stranding with your family and your community.  For Helfer it can impact her income stream with the stigma of being excommunicated due to the fact her client base likely has may LDS in its base that are to one degree or another connected to the Church.  As for why I don't believe the Church is what is claims, well I don't believe or trust the founding truth claims or that it's founder was what he claimed to be.  I am also skeptical of the Judeo Christian God primarily due to the problem of evil and suffering. I also see little evidence that there is a God like being that Judeo Christian teachings illustrate.

[ttribe]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

IIRC, someone said John Dehlin makes $200k/yr.  That would put him in the 96th income percentile in the United States (see here).

He appears to be married with four children (see here).  According to this calculator, an income of $200k (assuming his wife does not work) would put him in the 98.7 percentile, which is "more than 19.2 times the global median."

Thanks,

-Smac

Income and fortunes are very different things.  Moreover, I would think you as a litigator would recognize that one does not always lead to the other.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I think you used the sexual abuse "what if" question purposefully.  You know she is a sex therapist, accused of apostasy, not sexual abuse.  You don't know the entire story yet throw that out there recklessly.  Also, your resort to calling me a liar is a clear tell.

Sorry that you don't believe in telling it like it is, Harry.  When someone lies, it gives me no joy to call it what it is.  You could have asked what I meant, instead of assuming the worst.  The context of excommunication trials might have told you something, since so many of them have been for sexual abuse (not just in the Roman Catholic Church, but also in the LDS Church), and I have spent years indexing them.  I only brought that up in the context of venue and witnesses, which should have been self-explanatory to a member of the bar.  I did not know that Natasha was a sex therapist, did not suspect her of sex abuse, and did not know what sort of apostasy she was accused of.  In fact, it seems obvious to me that most in this thread don't actually know what the details of her supposed apostasy are, unless they are privy to her conversations with her bishop and stake president.  I haven't read any of her writings or heard her speeches.  Yet you felt free to say "I think you used the sexual abuse "what if" question purposefully."  On what basis?  You are like a detective who decides a person is guilty and then tries to find evidence to charge him, or like a judge who determines guilt based on his intuition instead of hard evidence.  And yes, I am speaking of a judge who has no jury because it is a bench trial.  In the meantime, I dearly hope that you will give up lying about people through mind-reading.  Instead try reading in context.  Not everything is about scoring points in moot court.  Sometimes they are only informative discussions.  They can be pleasant.

[Teancum]

On 4/19/2021 at 12:21 PM, helix said:

Exactly what she and John Dehlin wanted.

I don't think so. And I am more acquainted with both of them than you are I am sure.  You sound pretty spiteful.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

IIRC, someone said John Dehlin makes $200k/yr.  That would put him in the 96th income percentile in the United States (see here).

He appears to be married with four children (see here).  According to this calculator, an income of $200k (assuming his wife does not work) would put him in the 98.7 percentile, which is "more than 19.2 times the global median."

Income and fortunes are very different things. 

Yes, but clearly they are interrelated.

"Fortune" is an imprecise term.  I had a great-uncle who died with some millions in the bank.  Relative to me, he was worth a "fortune."  But compared to Bezos or Zuckerberg or Gates or Musk, my great-uncle's bank balance was pretty weak tea.

If John Dehlin makes $200,000 per year, that's pretty darn good.  And that probably doesn't involve his clinical work (if he does any) or his wife's income (if she works).  He's near the top in terms of income for the United States, which in turn is near the top in terms of income for the entire world.

So can it be said that $200,000 annually to critique and criticize an unpopular religion is a "fortune?"  I think so.  YMMV.

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Moreover, I would think you as a litigator would recognize that one does not always lead to the other.

If he is profligate in his spending, you'd have a point.  As it is, $200K per year for podcasting can reasonably be characterized as a "fortune."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

All if this could be equally applied to the brethren (who make six figures) as well as the church itself which is worth well over 9 figures. It’s ridiculous to say Delhin should foot the travel bill here. 

I did not say he should, only that he could -- and even write if off as a business expense for OSF.  Someone raised the matter of the expense of Natasha traveling back to Kansas, which should have been a non-issue.  That has nothing to do with the very small stipend which the Brethren receive (other clerics of their rank make far more), and some of them are very wealthy indeed with large pensions from previous jobs.  I am sure that Pres Nelson and Oaks have very large pensions from their universities and other jobs they have held.

And, yes, the LDS Church manages its money particularly well, in every way satisfying the Parable of the Talents.  And that is certainly needed in light of the huge expense of rebuilding all the LDS chapels which have been burned down in the last year or so.  @smac97 listed a bunch of those for us in another thread (I have always maintained that the true Gospel will always attract church burnings).

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't think so. And I am more acquainted with both of them than you are I am sure.  You sound pretty spiteful.

Sounds very realistic to me.  This is made to order for OSF, and I predict that the donations will increase.  Which is just fine with me.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but clearly they are interrelated.

"Fortune" is an imprecise term.  I had a great-uncle who died with some millions in the bank.  Relative to me, he was worth a "fortune."  But compared to Bezos or Zuckerberg or Gates or Musk, my great-uncle's bank balance was pretty weak tea.

If John Dehlin makes $200,000 per year, that's pretty darn good.  And that probably doesn't involve his clinical work (if he does any) or his wife's income (if she works).  He's near the top in terms of income for the United States, which in turn is near the top in terms of income for the entire world.

So can it be said that $200,000 annually to critique and criticize an unpopular religion is a "fortune?"  I think so.  YMMV.

If he is profligate in his spending, you'd have a point.  As it is, $200K per year for podcasting can reasonably be characterized as a "fortune."

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, my mileage definitely varies.  Having prepared many damages calculations, I wouldn't consider $200k/yr a "fortune" in any reasonable use of the term.  That being said, I really don't care about Dehlin; I just thought Robert's hyperbole was a bit much.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For those familiar with the process are the meeting minutes from councils made available to all parties?

No.

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds very realistic to me.  This is made to order for OSF, and I predict that the donations will increase.  Which is just fine with me.

Of course it does.  It confirms your bias.

[Bob Crockett]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The Church can do whatever it wants.  I am just here to discuss and share my opinion.  Am I offended?  Not really. It is another thing that convinces me that my current decision to not fellowship with the Church is a good one for me.  Also it convinces me that withdrawing my not insubstantial financial and time support is a good one as well.  Though I do still give fast offerings. That is a really good deal.  I am not surprised that Helfer was hauled in and her membership threatened and likely ended.  It is what the Church does what some member says things to publicly that it does not like.  I am happy to complain about all the other things you list as well.

I guess I wonder why you, who is out of fellowship, complain about the process for a member's exit when such isn't doctrinal or scriptural and the church can do what it wants.  I certainly can see your argument about salvation for gays; abortion rights; gold plates; angels; the Book of Abraham; holding onto money and not spending it; and other purportedly offensive teachings of the church.  But mere procedures for an exit?  The Church could say:  All disciplinary councils are held in Salt Lake City.  Nobody can attend.  Nobody can submit evidence.  We'll go on what the bishop says.  That cetainly would be legit, at least scripturally.    This isn't a hill worth dying on, but I guess I am jaded by how the law treats the right of religion to do whatever it wants when it comes to admitting and expelling members.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I would assume while you may not like Dehlin or what he does, what he does is actually work.  The fact that it hurts your feelings does not change that.  Also who are you to criticize his donators and fan based funding.  Donators may actually believe in what he does.

You need to get off your high horse, buddy, and stop substituting emotion for rational analysis.  I am fine with Dr Dehlin making lots of dough for his hard anti-Mormon "work," and I am fully in favor of it being a matter of public record, just as I am for it being a matter of public record for all churches and clerics.  I don't understand why you get so upset when his source of income is pointed out.

Actually, Dehlin is quite lazy and conducts very sloppy interviews.  He told everyone that he deliberately failed to read up on issues so that his interviews would be fresh and spontaneous, exactly the opposite of the scholarly approach.  The best interviewers out there have always carefully prepared.  Such well-prepared people include Terry Gross and Dough Fabrizio.  Compared with Dr Dehlin, the result is like night and day.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

TO be honest Smac I cannot keep up  with  you. 😁  You write prolifically and I assume very fast. But as for as the church goes if someone believes it, and apparently Helfer does to some extent

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I don't know either way.  John Dehlin fought his excommunication, even though he didn't believe in the Church at the time.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and it has value to here,

Then she shouldn't be doing what she is doing.  Publicizing her membership council was not a smart move.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

the Church can deprive you of salvation, exaltation and eternal life.

That's not quite correct, or at least it's incomplete or misleading a bit.  See here:

Quote

The Holy Spirit of Promise is the power by which ordinances and other righteous acts performed on this earth, such as baptism and eternal marriage, are ratified, validated, and sealed in heaven as well as on earth. Paul taught the Ephesians that after acting on their faith in Christ they "were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise," which was the surety of their "inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession" (Eph. 1:12-14). The sealing of earthly covenants and performances is conditional and depends upon the recipient's personal commitment and worthiness. If a person who has received the Holy Spirit of Promise subsequently becomes unrighteous, the seal is broken until full repentance and forgiveness occur (DS 1:55; 2:94-99).

I guess this may come down to an issue of semantics.  A couple is "sealed" together for time and eternity, but the efficacy of that sealing is conditioned on the ratification of it by The Holy Spirit of Promise (which, in turn, is conditioned on "the recipient's personal commitment and worthiness").  The same can be said for every other saving ordinance, or the undoing or suspension of such an ordinance.  

The administration of the sealing ordinance does not, in an of itself, guarantee exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.  Consider D&C 132:19 (emphases added):

Quote

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

So the requirements for "the blessings of a 'celestial' marriage" appear to include 1) the receipt of the sealing ordinance from those in authority, 2) the sealing of that ordinance by the Holy Spirit of Promise, and 3) the abiding in the covenant by the participants.

Consider the following:

• Elder Richard G. Scott: "Realize that a sealing ordinance is not enduring until after it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Both individuals must be worthy and want the sealing to be eternal." ("Temple Worship: the Source of Strength in Times of Need," Ensign, May 2009.)
• President James E. Faust: "I wish to say a word about the Holy Spirit of Promise, which is the sealing and ratifying power of the Holy Ghost. To have a covenant or ordinance sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise is a compact through which the inherent blessings will be obtained, provided those seeking the blessing are true and faithful (see D&C 76:50-54).  For example, when the covenant of marriage for time and eternity, the culminating gospel ordinance, is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, it can literally open the windows of heaven for great blessings to flow to a married couple who seek for those blessings. Such marriages become rich, whole, and sacred. Though each party to the marriage can maintain his or her separate identity, yet together in their covenants they can be like two vines wound inseparably around each other. Each thinks of his or her companion before thinking of self.  One of the great blessings available through the Holy Spirit of Promise is that all of our covenants, vows, oaths, and performances, which we receive through the ordinances and blessings of the gospel, are not only confirmed but may be sealed by that Holy Spirit of Promise. However, that sealing may be broken by unrighteousness. It is also important to remember that if a person undertakes to receive the sealing blessing by deceit, 'then the blessing is not sealed, notwithstanding the integrity and authority of the person officiating' (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56, 2:98-99).  To have a covenant or ordinance sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise means that the compact is binding on earth and in heaven." ["The Gift of the Holy Ghost--A Sure Compass," Ensign, Apr. 1996, pp. 5-6]
• Elder Melvin J. Ballard: "We may deceive men but we cannot deceive the Holy Ghost, and our blessings will not be eternal until they are also sealed by the holy spirit of promise, the Holy Ghost, one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, and of full force." (Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin J. Ballard, Deseret Book Co., 1949, p. 237.)

Several more references are available here, here, here, and here.

To be sure, the Church has the power to bind and the power to loose.  But the power to bind only has effect if it is then ratified by the Holy Spirit.  Likewise, the power to loose only has effect if it is ratified by the Holy Spirit.  

There is a 0% chance of the Church unduly or improperly depriving you or me or Helfer-parker or anyone else of their salvation, exaltation and eternal life.  None.  The Church has, at times, erred in disciplinary matters (Helmut Huebner, and Avraham Gileadi being two examples).  In such instances, the Lord will, in His infinite mercy, correct the injustice and restore that which was erroneously - and ineffectually - taken away by the Church.  

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It can bar you from your family forever.

No, it can't.  Only the individual can do that.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It can impact your stranding with your family and your community. 

Well, sure.  That's life.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

For Helfer it can impact her income stream with the stigma of being excommunicated due to the fact her client base likely has may LDS in its base that are to one degree or another connected to the Church. 

So the Church is precluded from imposing discipline on Helfer-Parker because it might "impact her income stream?"

Are you sure about that?

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As for why I don't believe the Church is what is claims, well I don't believe or trust the founding truth claims or that it's founder was what he claimed to be. 

That's where things often end up.  For myself, I have a strong belief in the "founding truth claims," and in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.  That is what he "claimed to be."  He never claimed to be perfect, and in fact expressly disclaimed the notion.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The Prophet’s journal for November 6, 1835, records: “I was this morning introduced to a man from the east. After hearing my name, he remarked that I was nothing but a man, indicating by this expression, that he had supposed that a person to whom the Lord should see fit to reveal His will, must be something more than a man. He seemed to have forgotten the saying that fell from the lips of St. James, that {Elijah} was a man subject to like passions as we are, yet he had such power with God, that He, in answer to his prayers, shut the heavens that they gave no rain for the space of three years and six months; and again, in answer to his prayer, the heavens gave forth rain, and the earth gave forth fruit {see James 5:17–18}. Indeed, such is the darkness and ignorance of this generation, that they look upon it as incredible that a man should have any {dealings} with his Maker.”

“When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught?”

“Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing: the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if He were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His enemies said all manner of evil against Him—they all watched for iniquity in Him.”

Joseph Smith’s journal for October 29, 1842, records: “I … went over to the store [in Nauvoo, Illinois], where a number of brethren and sisters were assembled, who had arrived this morning from the neighborhood of New York. … I told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities.”

Man, that is some compelling stuff for me.  See also Mormon 9:31:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

I can acknowledge Joseph Smith as a prophet and also be aware of his errors and failings.  I can do that because of the Book of Mormon.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am also skeptical of the Judeo Christian God primarily due to the problem of evil and suffering.

I can see how that can be an impediment to belief.  For me, the Church's doctrines about the Plan of Salvation, particularly as pertaining to "eternal progression" and the exercise of individual agency, are sufficient to account for "the problem of evil and suffering."  Add to that the obligation we have to avoid inflicting such things on others, and to alleviate such things to the best of our abilities, and we end up with a pretty good moral code.  

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yeah, my mileage definitely varies.  Having prepared many damages calculations, I wouldn't consider $200k/yr a "fortune" in any reasonable use of the term.  That being said, I really don't care about Dehlin; I just thought Robert's hyperbole was a bit much.

Of course you did.  For us poor folk, a "fortune" is relative.  You are fortunate to have a very different POV.  I will never know how that feels.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

(if she works

Just an FYI...his wife was doing podcasts with him in the past. My memory says there has been discussion about how much she would have been paid as a host (they shared at one time how they calculated income of hosts), but I can’t remember details nor have I been following to see if her podcasts are still being done. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...............................

That's not quite correct, or at least it's incomplete or misleading a bit.  See here:

I guess this may come down to an issue of semantics.  A couple is "sealed" together for time and eternity, but the efficacy of that sealing is conditioned on the ratification of it by The Holy Spirit of Promise (which, in turn, is conditioned on "the recipient's personal commitment and worthiness").  The same can be said for every other saving ordinance, or the undoing or suspension of such an ordinance.  

The administration of the sealing ordinance does not, in an of itself, guarantee exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.  Consider D&C 132:19 (emphases added):

So the requirements for "the blessings of a 'celestial' marriage" appear to include 1) the receipt of the sealing ordinance from those in authority, 2) the sealing of that ordinance by the Holy Spirit of Promise, and 3) the abiding in the covenant by the participants.

......................................

To be sure, the Church has the power to bind and the power to loose.  But the power to bind only has effect if it is then ratified by the Holy Spirit.  Likewise, the power to loose only has effect if it is ratified by the Holy Spirit.  

There is a 0% chance of the Church unduly or improperly depriving you or me or Helfer-parker or anyone else of their salvation, exaltation and eternal life.  None.  The Church has, at times, erred in disciplinary matters (Helmut Huebner, and Avraham Gileadi being two examples).  In such instances, the Lord will, in His infinite mercy, correct the injustice and restore that which was erroneously - and ineffectually - taken away by the Church.  

No, it can't.  Only the individual can do that.

..........................................

Yep.  It ain't over till its over.  Well said, Spencer.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Of course it does.  It confirms your bias.

So honesty and fairness is now "confirmation bias"?