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

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Am I the only one that is disturbed that the church has representatives, oft times members of a stake or ward or from the Strengthening the Church Members Committee,  monitoring social media post of its member's and then using those posts as a weapon to beat the member into conformity and submission or face a church court?

If you replace the struck-out section above with "so that they are aware of what they are saying, and how they are saying it," I have no problem with that. 

There are people who engage in apostate behavior (attacking the Church, assiduously trying to shake people's faith, etc.) online, but they want it to be secret. They want to keep their "good standing" in the Church so they can use that as leverage in their attacks. 

I have no problem whatsoever with faithful members (leaders or not) screenshotting, archiving, etc. such things so that these people can be confronted (and hopefully persuaded to cease and desist). 

[Amulek]

14 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Am I the only one that is disturbed [...]

Thou sayest...  

 

Quote

[T]he church has representatives, oft times members of a stake or ward or from the Strengthening the Church Members Committee,  monitoring social media post of its member's and then using those posts as a weapon to beat the member into conformity and submission or face a church court?

What I find truly fascinating is that there are those who think one ought to be able to attack the church publicly, repeatedly, with impunity. 

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other situation where such behavior would be tolerated without consequence.

Were you to publicly attack your employer over and over again, would you honestly expect to keep your job?

Or if you were to start criticizing your spouse online, do you think that would fly?

How many rants on social media about the other parents in your carpool do you think you will get away with and still retain your membership?

People are free to say whatever they want about the church to the rest of the world - they just aren't free to do so without consequence. 

 

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You've heard people say that they were asked to monitor other members' accounts?

(asking for the sake of clarity.)

I will choose my words carefully.  I have personal knowledge of several cases where both bishops and SP’s (multiple) have held church courts based on a members social media posts.  In each case the priesthood leader had copies of social media content.  I do not have knowledge as to whether the priesthood leader did the monitoring or assigned someone else to do the monitoring. These members then were told to alter their social media behavior or else.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I will choose my words carefully.  I have personal knowledge of several cases where both bishops and SP’s (multiple) have held church courts based on a members social media posts.  In each case the priesthood leader had copies of social media content.  I do not have knowledge as to whether the priesthood leader did the monitoring or assigned someone else to do the monitoring. These members then were told to alter their social media behavior or else.

 

Thanks for being clear.   It sounds like another equally valid possibility is that there was no monitoring going on, but that the posts were seen by other members (or the bishop or stake president personally) by way of them being friends with the person on social media.

I personally know of such cases having happened.  No specific monitoring was going on.  Someone posted something that spoke out against some church doctrine, and another member saw it and gave a copy of it to the bishop because they were concerned the person was stepping over a line.

I agree that it could be argued that it is no member's job to 'tell' on other members.  I do doubt that anyone is asked or assigned to monitor members' posts for the sole reason of making sure they are compliant.  

 

[Fair Dinkum]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for being clear.   It sounds like another equally valid possibility is that there was no monitoring going on, but that the posts were seen by other members (or the bishop or stake president personally) by way of them being friends with the person on social media.

I personally know of such cases having happened.  No specific monitoring was going on.  Someone posted something that spoke out against some church doctrine, and another member saw it and gave a copy of it to the bishop because they were concerned the person was stepping over a line.

I agree that it could be argued that it is no member's job to 'tell' on other members.  I do doubt that anyone is asked or assigned to monitor members' posts for the sole reason of making sure they are compliant.  

 

It just feels “cultish” to have thought police monitoring members posts.  I would much prefer someone Unfriend someone whom they find offensive than turn them in.  I’ve unfriended several such people who were over posting “light the world” material but I never turned them in 🥴

Edited April 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It just feels “cultish” to have thought police monitoring members posts.  I would much prefer someone Unfriend someone whom they find offensive than turn them in.  I’ve unfriended several such people who were over posting “light the world” material but I never turned them in 🥴

I think there can be circumstances where it would be appropriate, but for the most part I agree with you.

[Calm]

We are taught to care for each other, so to ignore someone’s problems with the Church seems to contradict that. The question, I guess, for me is whether one is bringing attention because one wants to help the person get into what one believes is a better place for them or if one is concerned they are hurting others (I have seen a lot of families hurt by Dehlin’s stuff, for example if the family member is being accurate) or because one is ticked off or otherwise disturbed and turns them in because of offense.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Calm

[Fair Dinkum]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

We are taught to care for each other, so to ignore someone’s problems with the Church seems to contradict that. The question, I guess, for me is whether one is bringing attention because one wants to help the person get into what one believes is a better place for them or because one is ticked off or otherwise disturbed and turns them in because of offense.

I agree that we need to share each other burdens, help, assist and minister to our fellow sisters and brothers.  But, at least for me, it crosses a line when we start turning our sisters and brothers in for their thoughts.  Now that said I will concede that there may be a red line that is crossed that would warrant some action.  I mean if someone is literally attacking the church posting blatant anti Mormon material ( you know of what I speak) and is otherwise engaged in apostasy, then yes the church needs to warn and act.

some of the cases I am aware of no such thing happened, in my judgement 

Every priesthood leader has a certain pain threshold some very tolerant others not so much. This may be the problem. What might trigger action in one stake wouldn’t even warrant a warning in another 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

We are taught to care for each other, so to ignore someone’s problems with the Church seems to contradict that. The question, I guess, for me is whether one is bringing attention because one wants to help the person get into what one believes is a better place for them or if one is concerned they are hurting others (I have seen a lot of families hurt by Dehlin’s stuff, for example if the family member is being accurate) or because one is ticked off or otherwise disturbed and turns them in because of offense.

There is a fine line between caring for one another and tattling.  In my experience, more often than not it is the latter and not the former.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

There is a fine line between caring for one another and tattling.

Most definitely.  We often give ourselves permission to do something selfish by dressing it up as caring for others or principles.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Every priesthood leader has a certain pain threshold some very tolerant others not so much. This may be the problem. What might trigger action in one stake wouldn’t eve4 warrant a warning in another 

Very true.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

There is a fine line between caring for one another and tattling.  In my experience, more often than not it is the latter and not the former.

In my experience, it wasn't a desire to get the person in trouble, but to stop them from leading others away from the church by posting what they were while being a member in good standing (and they had evidence to support that's what what happening). 

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do.  Only that it wasn't motivated by a desire to tattle.  They were trying to care for others, but not specifically the person doing the posting.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They were trying to care for others, but not specifically the person doing the posting.

This. If a member of the medical profession sees a fellow practitioner posting online that COVID vaccines contain tiny microchips to allow for government tracking, is it tattling or concern for others that leads her to make a report?

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In my experience, it wasn't a desire to get the person in trouble, but to stop them from leading others away from the church by posting what they were while being a member in good standing (and they had evidence to support that's what what happening). 

I'm not saying it was the right thing to do.  Only that it wasn't motivated by a desire to tattle.  They were trying to care for others, but not specifically the person doing the posting.

 

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This. If a member of the medical profession sees a fellow practitioner posting online that COVID vaccines contain tiny microchips to allow for government tracking, is it tattling or concern for others that leads her to make a report?

Mine was a general statement.  All manner of exceptions can be conceived.  I was simply responding to the equally general statement about caring for one another.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Mine was a general statement.  All manner of exceptions can be conceived.  I was simply responding to the equally general statement about caring for one another.

I do get that.  I think my point was, it doesn't have to be the exception.

I just think, that barring us actually knowing someone's motivation, it can be helpful to err on the side of charity and assume their reasons are sincerely meant and out of concern, even if the action might be wrong.  In my experience, it hurts less and causes less damage when we believe someone did the wrong thing, for the right reasons. 

So often motive impacts us more deeply than the action itself.  Someone stepping on your foot on purpose, and someone stepping on it on accident, might physically feel the exact same, but emotionally, it's a whole different ball game. 

If we don't know for sure either way, I find great benefit in assuming that the good motive is the general rule, and the bad motive is the exception.  It seems like a healthier way to approach life to me.

 

[Meadowchik]

Something which occurs to me regarding privacy and LDS excommunications is that there are at least two very different kinds: 

1) Discipline for public behavior that may harm the good name of the church, and

2) Discipline for completely private behavior only involving the person and maybe one or a few more people.

It seems to me that transparency would be important in the first case as part of repairing the public harm.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Meadowchik

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, ttribe said:

There is a fine line between caring for one another and tattling.  In my experience, more often than not it is the latter and not the former.

That's kind of a necessary ingredient in an authoritarian system: willing participation by the folks living under that system. The interesting thing is that many people don't just learn to function under the system, but they end up justifying it and even embracing it. There's an old U2 song about how in such a system "men can't walk or freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in." Can't happen without willing--even enthusiastic--participation. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Am I the only one that is disturbed that the church has representatives, oft times members of a stake or ward or from the Strengthening the Church Members Committee,  monitoring social media post of its member's

Not really.  If a member of the Church is saying things publicly, there is no problem with anyone listening to such public statements.  It would be unreasonable to not listen.  A dereliction of duty.

Quote

and then using those posts as a weapon to beat the member into conformity and submission or face a church court?

Contrived, unreasoned nonsense.  That's all this is.

Get real, FD.  If the Church was hacking into emails, tapping phone calls, surreptitiously recording conversations, and so on, then you would have a point.  But it isn't, so you don't.  

It is absurd for a member of the Church to speak publicly against the Church and then feign indignation (yes, I'm suggesting bad faith here) when their public statements form some basis for discipline.

By way of analogy: A couple gets married.  As the wife was independently wealthy, they both signs a prenuptial agreement that included provisions for severe limitations on spousal support if there is a divorce caused by infidelity.  After the marriage, the couple are happy together for several years, but then grow apart.  Then things get rancorous.  The husband moves out, and starts to party quite a bit.  And he gets into social media, such that he starts posting pictures and videos of his partying with various beautiful women in clubs and at resorts.  The wife, no longer able to put up with this behavior, files for divorce and seeks to enforce the prenup.  By way of evidence, she downloads and submits to the court her soon-to-be-ex-husband's social media posts that are clear evidence of his infidelity.

The husband throws a major tantrum.  How dare she use his social media posts as evidence!  How dare she seek to enforce the prenup he signed!  He even goes online to rant about it, saying stuff like "Am I the only one that is disturbed that the legal system allows my wife to use social media content in legal proceedings, and then use that content as a weapon to beat me into conformity and submission?"

Such a complaint would be summarily rejected, and rightly so.  There is nothing wrong with local leaders in the Church listening to public statements from members who are within their stewardship and jurisdiction.  It would be absurd and unreasonable of them to ignore such public statements (which is what you want, right?).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2021 by smac97

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That's kind of a necessary ingredient in an authoritarian system: willing participation by the folks living under that system. The interesting thing is that many people don't just learn to function under the system, but they end up justifying it and even embracing it. There's an old U2 song about how in such a system "men can't walk or freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in." Can't happen without willing--even enthusiastic--participation. 

You invoked U2 in your response to me; are you proposing marriage?  Because, if so, I would definitely say 'yes' at the moment.

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You invoked U2 in your response to me; are you proposing marriage?  Because, if so, I would definitely say 'yes' at the moment.

I figured you'd appreciate the reference.

[Fair Dinkum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  If a member of the Church is saying things publicly, there is no problem with anyone listening to such public statements.  It would be unreasonable to not listen.  A dereliction of duty.

Contrived, unreasoned nonsense.  That's all this is.

Get real, FD.  If the Church was hacking into emails, tapping phone calls, surreptitiously recording conversations, and so on, then you would have a point.  But it isn't, so you don't.  

It is absurd for a member of the Church to speak publicly against the Church and then feign indignation (yes, I'm suggesting bad faith here) when their public statements form some basis for discipline.

By way of analogy: A couple gets married.  As the wife was independently wealthy, they both signs a prenuptial agreement that included provisions for severe limitations on spousal support if there is a divorce caused by infidelity.  After the marriage, the couple are happy together for several years, but then grow apart.  Then things get rancorous.  The husband moves out, and starts to party quite a bit.  And he gets into social media, such that he starts posting pictures and videos of his partying with various beautiful women in clubs and at resorts.  The wife, no longer able to put up with this behavior, files for divorce and seeks to enforce the prenup.  By way of evidence, she downloads and submits to the court her soon-to-be-ex-husband's social media posts that are clear evidence of his infidelity.

The husband throws a major tantrum.  How dare she use his social media posts as evidence!  How dare she seek to enforce the prenup he signed!  He even goes online to rant about it, saying stuff like "Am I the only one that is disturbed that the legal system allows my wife to use social media content in legal proceedings, and then use that content as a weapon to beat me into conformity and submission?"

Such a complaint would be summarily rejected, and rightly so.  There is nothing wrong with local leaders in the Church listening to public statements from members who are within their stewardship and jurisdiction.  It would be absurd and unreasonable of them to ignore such public statements (which is what you want, right?).

Thanks,

-Smac

The punishment needs to fit the so called crime.  Your cute analogy is a false equivalence. First none of us is married to the church nor have any of us signed a contract. We were baptized yes but many of those who use social media to question the church feel lied to.  Contracts and yes even covenants should be based on truth, transparency and full disclosure.

PS: 1. what social media platform allows evidence of infidelity to be posted 2. What idiot would post evidence of his infidelity on social media 3. Are pictures of partying with beautiful women now considered infidelity?

Edited April 28, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The punishment needs to fit the so called crime.  

That is singularly wrong.  Discipline in the Church is not about "punishing" a "crime."

Also, D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The Church can't "punish" its members in any sense except to limit or withdraw membership.

Quote

Your cute analogy is a false equivalence. 

It's an analogy.  A comparison of two otherwise dissimilar things.

That said, the analogy works pretty well.

Quote

First none of us is married to the church

We are in a community relationship with the Church.  

Quote

nor have any of us signed a contract.

But we have made covenants.  

A contract need not be written and signed in order to be enforceable (except for contracts governed by the Statute of Frauds).

Quote

We were baptized yes

Wow.  Glossed right over that, didn't ya?

A husband and wive make covenants/promises to each other when they marry.

An individual makes covenants to God when he is baptized.  The Church is the nascent "Kingdom of God on the Earth."  The Church is the "agent," and the Lord is the "principal."

Quote

but many of those who use social media to question the church feel lied to.  

So what?  Let's remember that you were expressing indignation that the local leaders of the Church can and do read published-to-the-world statements by members of their ward/stake.

In your world, a bishop reading a FB post is - how'd you put it? - "disturb{ing}."

That is just silly.  There is nothing wrong with local leaders in the Church listening to public statements from members who are within their stewardship and jurisdiction.  It would be absurd and unreasonable of them to ignore such public statements (which is what you want, right?).

Quote

Contracts and yes even covenants should be based on truth, transparency and full disclosure.

Then how on earth can you be complaining about a bishop reading a Facebook post?  How can you call for "truth, transparency and full disclosure," and then label a bishop reading a published-to-the-world statement written by a member as "disturb{ing}?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 28, 2021 by smac97

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That's kind of a necessary ingredient in an authoritarian system: willing participation by the folks living under that system.

Under our Associations Act, every incorporated entity must have rules for membership, a process for handling complaints and disagreements, and a process for determining if membership should be revoked. This includes, for example, the history association I used to work under at the university (which actually did expel a member during my nearly five years).

I realise that some people get their kicks -- and in the case of Dehlin and his ilk, their very comfortable incomes -- from peddling this nonsense that the Church is some kind of 'authoritarian system' wherein people live in fear of walking and talking, as opposed to, say, academic associations, but this assertion is demonstrably disingenuous.

As early as the 14th century, the word community in English had come to mean 'a society or association of persons having common interests or occupations'. All voluntary associations depend for their very existence on defending their common interests from those whose goal is to destroy that societal glue, whether it's a history association, a political party, Greenpeace, the Rotary Club, the parents council at a school, or a faith community.

That certain people have figured out how to dramatise this simple, logical reality to their own gain (including, sometimes, financial) is what is genuinely disturbing.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Under our Associations Act, every incorporated entity must have rules for membership, a process for handling complaints and disagreements, and a process for determining if membership should be revoked. This includes, for example, the history association I used to work under at the university (which actually did expel a member during my nearly five years).

I realise that some people get their kicks -- and in the case of Dehlin and his ilk, their very comfortable incomes -- from peddling this nonsense that the Church is some kind of 'authoritarian system' wherein people live in fear of walking and talking, as opposed to, say, academic associations, but this assertion is demonstrably disingenuous. 

Authoritarianism isn't a 1 or 0; it's a matter of degrees.  The organization and culture of the church most certainly has authoritarian elements to it. Exhibit A would be the fact that the exommunicable offense of apostasy includes in its definition the public criticism of leadership. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Exhibit A would be the fact that the exommunicable offense of apostasy includes in its definition the public criticism of leadership. 

You just described literally every voluntary association. I belong to a political party. Members who publicly criticise the party's majority-supported leadership are removed from the party. It's that simple.

Some years ago, our senator lost at pre-selection. (In American terms, he lost to a primary challenger, though we don't have open primaries.) Embittered, he started to wage public war on the party. Result: he was booted out. Then last year, in contrition, he re-applied for membership, and we took him back. Sound familiar?

The alternative is a party that is ripped apart, loses relevance, and then dies. I get that some people would like to see that happen to the Church, but those people are nuts if they think the Church and its members must cooperate in that process.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan