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

[ttribe]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  You were commenting on organizations exerting increasing control over their members.  My point is that their is a right and need for all organizations, whether they are a church or a community organization or a government to expect it's members to abide by rules.

And my point is that your general statement isn't always benign.  It can be and has been abused.

Quote

I'm not sure why you're asking this.

It's the context of the entire discussion that you seemed to have jumped into without reading more of the exchanges.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

One, I'm asking (nicely) one time for you to stop telling me what my motives are.  I am the sole expert on what is going on inside my brain.

First, I'm not reading your mind.  I'm reading your words.

Second, I read your words and then asked a question.  Two, actually:

Quote

A voluntary member of a religioius group chooses to disregard the behavioral standards expected of its members.  That member's behavior results in some sort of tension in or damage to family relationships.

Ergo . . . what?  Are you channeling Korihor here?  It sure sounds like it.

Moreover, how is it that the individual going against the previously agreed-upon standards of behavior bears no culpability for the ensuring damage to the family relationship?

You are not obligated to answer, of course.  But what you are saying seems to be an onramp onto the Korihor Highway.

Third, I summarized what I understood your position to be: 

Quote

We have mandates to repent and forgive regulate our personal conduct, our interactions with others, our efforts to make amends, our turning away from wrongful conduct, and so on.  These are good things.

We have mandates to serve each other, preach the gospel, provide for the poor and the sick, perform family history and temple work.  These are all beautiful and ennobling.

And yet here you are, trying to paint the Church as a villain.  As some sort of evil, conniving regime lusting after power, looking for ways to manipulate its members toward nefarious ends.

What you are peddling here is contrived nonsense and falsehoods.

Am I misunderstanding you?  Are you trying to paint the Church as good and benevolent?

If so, you are not doing a very good job of it. 

Publicly accusing the Church of "authoritarianism" comes across as you wanting to make the Church look bad.

Characterizing the commandments and prophetic counsel as "edicts . . . passed down" and "dictating" and being from "a male gatekeeper" (an allusion to misogyny / chauvinism, I think), and "control mechanisms" imposed on "a compliant portion of the membership."

Again, the Church is a voluntary religious association.  Bilaterally voluntary.

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Two, the substance of your argument is one that you could argue in a legal setting, but does so at the expense of your belief that the Church does have actual authority over an individual with respect to their standing before God.

I'm setting aside the issue of whether or not the Church has "actual authority" bestowed on it from God.

I'm speaking in response to characterizations of the Church as "authoritarian" in the same way that oppressive civil governmental regimes are characterized as "authoritarian."  I think such a characterization is highly misleading, absurd, unfair and overwrought.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

No.

Well, that's the end of the conversation. 

You apparently overlooked my modification to my post:

Quote

No. 

Again, membership in the Church is bilaterally voluntary.  You get to choose whether to join it, or not.  Whether to follow its behavioral standards, or not.  In contrast, the "Government" exercises jurisdiction over you regardless of your particular consent.

The Church has no authority or ability to punish or control, no ability to deprive its members of life, liberty, or property, and in fact expressly disclaims any such authority in its scripture (D&C 134:10).  In contrast, the "Government" has the authority to do all of these things.

The Church has no means to enforce compliance with the law through force or the threat of force.  In contrast, the "Government" has the Police Power.  It has armed law enforcement.  It can detain.  It can arrest.  It can use violence or the threat of violence to compel compliance.

So no, the discussion doesn't get turned on its head.  The Church's relationship with its members is vastly different from the "Government's" relationship with the citizenry.

Hope that helps.

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If you cannot, or will not, engage in an intellectually honest evaluation of the potentially negative implications of those statements, there is nothing left to discuss.

I have my faults.  Not being willing to have an "intellectually honest evaluation" of things related to the Church is not one of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I'm not reading your mind.  I'm reading your words.

Second, I read your words and then asked a question.  Two, actually:

You are not obligated to answer, of course.  But what you are saying seems to be an onramp onto the Korihor Highway.

Third, I summarized what I understood your position to be: 

Am I misunderstanding you?  Are you trying to paint the Church as good and benevolent?

If so, you are not doing a very good job of it. 

Publicly accusing the Church of "authoritarianism" comes across as you wanting to make the Church look bad.

Characterizing the commandments and prophetic counsel as "edicts . . . passed down" and "dictating" and being from "a male gatekeeper" (an allusion to misogyny / chauvinism, I think), and "control mechanisms" imposed on "a compliant portion of the membership."

Again, the Church is a voluntary religious association.  Bilaterally voluntary.

I'm setting aside the issue of whether or not the Church has "actual authority" bestowed on it from God.

I'm speaking in response to characterizations of the Church as "authoritarian" in the same way that oppressive civil governmental regimes are characterized as "authoritarian."  I think such a characterization is highly misleading, absurd, unfair and overwrought.

Thanks,

-Smac

Before, I give you another minute of my time, let me ask you this - by comparing me to Korihor (which is a first, by the way), do you also realize you are implying that I will meet the same end?  Namely, blind, deaf, unable to speak and trampled by a crowd into a bloody lump of meat?  You see, Hank Smith did this VERY SAME THING this last weekend and it didn't go well for him.

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And my point is that your general statement isn't always benign.  It can be and has been abused.

You're right.  But that doesn't mean that organizational control will be abused or that it is necessarily a bad thing.

 

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's the context of the entire discussion that you seemed to have jumped into without reading more of the exchanges.

I'll get out of your part of it then.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Before, I give you another minute of my time, let me ask you this - by comparing me to Korihor (which is a first, by the way), do you also realize you are implying that I will meet the same end? 

No.  Only that you seem to be espousing something similar to what he said.  I even quoted the relevant portion:

Quote

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

See, you are disparaging the Church for it teaching that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them.

You are characterizing the Church as "authoritarian" for teaching that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them.

You are comparing the Church to despotic civil governments who oppress their citizenry because the Church teaches that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them.

As you are apparently opposed to this concept (that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them), I was wondering, and therefore asked, if you subscribe to the alternative espoused by Korihor, namely, that "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Namely, blind, deaf, unable to speak and trampled by a crowd into a bloody lump of meat? 

Get a grip.  I neither said nor implied any such thing.  

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You see, Hank Smith did this VERY SAME THING this last weekend and it didn't go well for him.

Ah.  A veiled threat.  Are you going to doxx me, then?

This is you modeling how to "engage in an intellectually honest evaluation," is it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, ttribe said:

MADD doesn't purport to be acting for God.  Tell me, why does God care whether I have a low opinion of ANY church leader?

Well, there's Mormon 9:31 - "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."

And Matthew 10:40-41 - "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.  He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward."

And Luke 22:32 - "[A]nd when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

And 3 Nephi 12:1 - "And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water."

And D&C 1:38 - "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

And D&C 21:5 - "For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."

And D&C 112:20 - "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."

I think we ought to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt.  Where one of them fails to live up to the ideas of the Restored Gospel, we ought to be forgiving and patient.  If the matter is serious, we can report the matter to those in authority.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there's Mormon 9:31 - "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."

And Matthew 10:40-41 - "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.  He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward."

And Luke 22:32 - "[A]nd when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

And 3 Nephi 12:1 - "And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water."

And D&C 1:38 - "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

And D&C 21:5 - "For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."

And D&C 112:20 - "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."

I think we ought to give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt.  Where one of them fails to live up to the ideas of the Restored Gospel, we ought to be forgiving and patient.  If the matter is serious, we can report the matter to those in authority.  

Thanks,

-Smac

What if you give a church leader the benefit of the doubt, and they show themselves to be less-than admirable? Many years ago, my father refused to sustain a certain president of the church as a prophet. He had some dealings with the man and was, to say the least, mightily unimpressed. He said he just could not in good conscience raise his hand to sustain the man. Likewise, back in the 80s a sitting general authority defrauded my uncle out of a large amount of money. You seem to be suggesting that the only "righteous" thing to do is to set aside your conscience, suck it up, and embrace people simply for the calling they have, to call them good no matter what their character. If that's the case, we're not talking about authority or authoritarianism but a personality cult. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  Only that you seem to be espousing something similar to what he said.  I even quoted the relevant portion:

See, you are disparaging the Church for it teaching that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them.

You are characterizing the Church as "authoritarian" for teaching that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them.

You are comparing the Church to despotic civil governments who oppress their citizenry because the Church teaches that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them.

As you are apparently opposed to this concept (that God has given us commandments and wants us to obey them), I was wondering, and therefore asked, if you subscribe to the alternative espoused by Korihor, namely, that "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

Get a grip.  I neither said nor implied any such thing.  

Ah.  A veiled threat.  Are you going to doxx me, then?

This is you modeling how to "engage in an intellectually honest evaluation," is it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Good grief, it wasn't a threat, it was pointing you to someone who did the exact same thing you did.  Perhaps you might see how ugly your comment was in that context. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by ttribe

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Good grief, it wasn't a threat, it was pointing you to someone who did the exact same thing you did. 

Nothing like.

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps you might see how ugly your comment was in that context. 

Okay. I retract the inquiry and apologize.  I'll start over.

A voluntary member of a religious group chooses to disregard the behavioral standards expected of its members.  That member's behavior results in some sort of tension in or damage to family relationships.

Ergo . . . what?  What are you advocating?  That the Church's shouldn't teach obedience to the commandments?  That the Church should cease any any all expectations of its members to conform to any moral/behavioral standard?  That the members of the Church should be free to do anything they want, with no constraints whatsoever?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What if you give a church leader the benefit of the doubt, and they show themselves to be less-than admirable?

I don't know what "less than admirable" means.

If there is serious misconduct, I would notify the Church.  

If I could not, in good conscience, give a sustaining vote, I would not.  

If I felt I needed to vote in opposition to that person, I would.

My thinking on this topic has been heavily influenced by then-Elder Oaks' 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism."  It lays out a framework for addressing disagreements in the Church, which framework I have adopted for myself and my perspective.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Many years ago, my father refused to sustain a certain president of the church as a prophet. He had some dealings with the man and was, to say the least, mightily unimpressed. He said he just could not in good conscience raise his hand to sustain the man. 

That's within the purview of the individual member.  Certainly.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Likewise, back in the 80s a sitting general authority defrauded my uncle out of a large amount of money.

I would have pursued civil remedies.  I would thereafter have reported the matter to the Church.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You seem to be suggesting that the only "righteous" thing to do is to seta aside your conscience, suck it up, and embrace people simply for the calling they have, to call them good no matter what their character.

No.  I am not saying that.  At all.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If that's the case, we're not talking about authority or authoritarianism but a personality cult. 

"If that's the case" being the operative wording.

That's very much not the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

Hmmmm, appealing to a legalistic reading of scripture avoids the very real impact of living within a culture which subscribes to the notion that "Follow the Prophet" means one should subordinate his/her judgment to the edicts which are passed down from the President of the Church through their various channels.  It avoids the very real imposition of dictating where, when and with whom one worships dressed up as orderly administration.  It avoids the very real restrictions placed on access to ordinances tied to personal obedience to direction on the minute details of one's day-to-day activities which must be disclosed through a male gatekeeper.  It avoids the very real likelihood that expressing an opinion which is in conflict with the spoken word of local and/or general leadership could land one in a disciplinary council, potentially resulting in additional restrictions on one's ability to access ordinances and to worship.  It avoids the very real result of not "Follow[ing] the Prophet" leading to damage to family relationships.  Shall I go on?

You may respond with all manner of examples of the necessity for all of these things, individually or collectively, from scripture, metaphor, personal examples, special pleadings, and even the promise of hoped for blessings and after-life results, but when it all gets boiled down to it, these are control mechanisms.  They keep the people within predefined boundaries and maintain the momentum of the organization in a direction desired by both leadership and a compliant portion of the membership.  Whether those control mechanisms are imposed by a benevolent divine being who seeks our welfare, or are actually the result of the musings of man is, ultimately, a matter of faith.  But, I don't think it is reasonable to deny that they are a part of a largely top-down structure which includes elements of authoritarianism, even if it purports to be a benevolent one.

One of the best posts I've ever read on this board.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "less than admirable" means.

If there is serious misconduct, I would notify the Church.  

If I could not, in good conscience, give a sustaining vote, I would not.  

If I felt I needed to vote in opposition to that person, I would.

My thinking on this topic has been heavily influenced by then-Elder Oaks' 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism."  It lays out a framework for addressing disagreements in the Church, which framework I have adopted for myself and my perspective.

That's within the purview of the individual member.  Certainly.

I would have pursued civil remedies.  I would thereafter have reported the matter to the Church.

No.  I am not saying that.  At all.

"If that's the case" being the operative wording.

That's very much not the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

FWIW, my uncle did report it to the church (and to the law). I suspect that it being Provo explains why there was no legal investigation. As for the church, he was told not to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, so, he sucked it up and let it go. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

FWIW, my uncle did report it to the church (and to the law). I suspect that it being Provo explains why there was no legal investigation.

I think criminal prosecutions are overestimated by the general public.  Prosecutors turn down cases all the time, for various reasons (some of which can indeed be illegitimate).

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As for the church, he was told not to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, so, he sucked it up and let it go. 

That was unfortunate and wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

On 4/17/2021 at 3:51 AM, ttribe said:

I'm not sure what you consider to be a 'fortune,' but that's not it. That's nice money, but not a fortune. 

It's not chump change either. It is quite a good paycheck in fact to keep the wheel turning.

[why me]

I have no idea what she did wrong. Was it something about masturbation and her advice about it? I wouldn't consider that to be a major sin. I would just ignore it and call it a professional thing to say about it. What professional can take a church stance on it? And survive.

[ttribe]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nothing like.

Okay. I retract the inquiry and apologize.  I'll start over.

A voluntary member of a religious group chooses to disregard the behavioral standards expected of its members.  That member's behavior results in some sort of tension in or damage to family relationships.

Ergo . . . what?  What are you advocating?  That the Church's shouldn't teach obedience to the commandments?  That the Church should cease any any all expectations of its members to conform to any moral/behavioral standard?  That the members of the Church should be free to do anything they want, with no constraints whatsoever?

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to have read a great deal more into my posts than was ever actually there.  Below is every post in which I have referenced "authoritarian" or "authoritarianism" in the last week.  You'll note, not once have I made a comparison to a totalitarian regime.  Not once have I stated that the Church shouldn't teach commandments, morality, or have constraints on its members.  Not a single time.  What I have said, from the beginning, is that the Church does have elements of authoritarianism within its structure and administration and that to deny the presence of those elements is unreasonable.  You and others have reacted with denial after denial that there are ANY authoritarian qualities to the Church.  I disagree with you on that and I stated why.  Authoritarianism, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad; it is simply a method of administering a church/organization/group/government/business.  If you even go back to my list from my longest post (below), you'll see that I simply identify examples of the Church's use of elements of an authoritarian system.  Again, it is a matter of degrees and I don't believe the Church is 100% authoritarian in how it operates.  You'll also note that I actually advocated for nothing.

The one area where a bit of criticism may have leaked out is on my comment on the impact on family relationships.  Here's where I'll elaborate a bit - The Church, through its many teachings, places a strong emphasis on obedience to the words and directions of the President of the Church (e.g. "Follow the Prophet").  It may very well be the case that the teachings and directions offered by the President of the Church are directly inspired by God somewhere on a scale between 1%-100% of the time.  The long tradition of heeding current Prophets when in contradiction with past Prophets indicates it is something less than 100%, but that is beside the point.  It may also be the case that there is no God, and thus no inspiration to be given to any prophet.  Regardless, the delivery is through a fallible human; someone who could be wrong.  This creates a tension.  Namely, we as human followers are unlikely to agree with each other or the Prophet 100% of the time.  So, in an environment such as the Church where there is a strong emphasis on obedience to the Prophet, there follows a natural line dividing the "obedient" and the "others."  Many imperfect people who are among the "obedient" use the strong emphasis on obedience environment to shun, disinherit, dissociate from, mock, or otherwise look down upon the "others."  Whether such behaviors are actually consistent with all Church teachings is irrelevant; they exist and I am suggesting that an environment with a strong emphasis on obedience to a single head of the organization, embodied by the President of the Church, fosters those behaviors absent an explicit statement from that head to cease those behaviors.

Before you deny how widespread or impactful those behaviors are, I will simply tell you that I have experienced them firsthand.  Not because I sinned.  Not because I rebelled.  Not because I spoke out in opposition.  But, because it became known that I could no longer say I believed.  Once that became known, and I stopped attending church, my world changed.  For example, I have had the experience of walking into the grocery story across the street from my house and seeing people I've known for 15 years and see them actively avoid me.  Like see me, and turn around and walk the other way.  More than once.  I have people who I considered long-time friends who will no longer speak to me.  It's a very isolating experience and its a direct result of a system that rewards the obedient and the loyal and denigrates the "others."  A few months ago, a friend of mine took his life as a direct result of shunning activities from his family related to his loss of belief.  So, if I were to advocate for anything it's that I wish there was more compassion for those who find themselves in the "others" category.

So, yes Spencer, you did impute motives to me that weren't there.  You made accusations of bad faith, and of bearing false witness and you did so based on what you read into my statements, not what I actually said.  You came in guns blazing without taking time to understand, and I'm frankly tired of it.

 

On 4/16/2021 at 2:22 PM, ttribe said:

I am in agreement with your assessment.  There is a reasonably detectable level of authoritarianism in the administration of the church.  Punishment (via excommunication) of public criticism of church leaders is as close to prima facie evidence of that as possible, in my opinion.

 

21 hours ago, ttribe said:

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. 

 

21 hours ago, ttribe said:

[sigh] I am again reiterating - it is a matter of degrees.  The degree to which you think it is a good (or even necessary) thing or a bad thing is a matter of judgment.  I'm simply pointing out that the Church is not authoritarianism-free.

 

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

Hmmmm, appealing to a legalistic reading of scripture avoids the very real impact of living within a culture which subscribes to the notion that "Follow the Prophet" means one should subordinate his/her judgment to the edicts which are passed down from the President of the Church through their various channels.  It avoids the very real imposition of dictating where, when and with whom one worships dressed up as orderly administration.  It avoids the very real restrictions placed on access to ordinances tied to personal obedience to direction on the minute details of one's day-to-day activities which must be disclosed through a male gatekeeper.  It avoids the very real likelihood that expressing an opinion which is in conflict with the spoken word of local and/or general leadership could land one in a disciplinary council, potentially resulting in additional restrictions on one's ability to access ordinances and to worship.  It avoids the very real result of not "Follow[ing] the Prophet" leading to damage to family relationships.  Shall I go on?

You may respond with all manner of examples of the necessity for all of these things, individually or collectively, from scripture, metaphor, personal examples, special pleadings, and even the promise of hoped for blessings and after-life results, but when it all gets boiled down to it, these are control mechanisms.  They keep the people within predefined boundaries and maintain the momentum of the organization in a direction desired by both leadership and a compliant portion of the membership.  Whether those control mechanisms are imposed by a benevolent divine being who seeks our welfare, or are actually the result of the musings of man is, ultimately, a matter of faith.  But, I don't think it is reasonable to deny that they are a part of a largely top-down structure which includes elements of authoritarianism, even if it purports to be a benevolent one.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by ttribe

[CV75]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I have no idea what she did wrong. Was it something about masturbation and her advice about it? I wouldn't consider that to be a major sin. I would just ignore it and call it a professional thing to say about it. What professional can take a church stance on it? And survive.

I think there is a line where “I am giving you sound, competent, professional, clinical therapy to be best of my ability and ethics.” runs into, “The clinically sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you runs counter to your Church’s teachings” runs into, “The clinically, sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you refutes your Church’s teachings” runs into, “Ethically, the clinically sound, competent professional therapy requires me to dissuade you from your Church’s teachings” runs into, “As an ethical, clinically, sound, competent professional – whether "and/or as a member" or not -- I publicly refute and denounce the Church’s teachings.” A competent and ethical therapist will understand that there are many ways to express and convey these messages, both directly and indirectly, and for maximal clarity of intent.

Edited April 28, 2021 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think there is a line where “I am giving you sound, competent, professional, clinical therapy to be best of my ability and ethics.” runs into, “The clinically sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you runs counter to your Church’s teachings” runs into, “The clinically, sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you refutes your Church’s teachings” runs into, “Ethically, the clinically sound, competent professional therapy requires me to dissuade you from your Church’s teachings” runs into, “As an ethical, clinically, sound, competent professional – whether "and/or as a member" or not -- I publicly refute and denounce the Church’s teachings.” A competent and ethical therapist will understand that there are many ways to express and convey these messages, both directly and indirectly, and for maximal clarity of intent.

I rarely agree with why me, but I’ve been at a loss to understand this excommunication. You’d have to squint pretty hard to see her as refuting and denouncing church doctrine. If anything, this just reinforces some people’s perception (correct or not) that the church overreacts to any hint of dissent, no matter how minor. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think there is a line where “I am giving you sound, competent, professional, clinical therapy to be best of my ability and ethics.” runs into, “The clinically sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you runs counter to your Church’s teachings” runs into, “The clinically, sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you refutes your Church’s teachings” runs into, “Ethically, the clinically sound, competent professional therapy requires me to dissuade you from your Church’s teachings” runs into, “As an ethical, clinically, sound, competent professional – whether "and/or as a member" or not -- I publicly refute and denounce the Church’s teachings.” A competent and ethical therapist will understand that there are many ways to express and convey these messages, both directly and indirectly, and for maximal clarity of intent.

I think there is also this in her advocacy “I am an ethical, clinically, sound, competent professional, therefore church leadership should change their teachings and policies to match my standards”.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I'm not reading your mind.  I'm reading your words.

Second, I read your words and then asked a question.  Two, actually:

You are not obligated to answer, of course.  But what you are saying seems to be an onramp onto the Korihor Highway.

Third, I summarized what I understood your position to be: 

Am I misunderstanding you?  Are you trying to paint the Church as good and benevolent?

If so, you are not doing a very good job of it. 

Publicly accusing the Church of "authoritarianism" comes across as you wanting to make the Church look bad.

Characterizing the commandments and prophetic counsel as "edicts . . . passed down" and "dictating" and being from "a male gatekeeper" (an allusion to misogyny / chauvinism, I think), and "control mechanisms" imposed on "a compliant portion of the membership."

Again, the Church is a voluntary religious association.  Bilaterally voluntary.

I'm setting aside the issue of whether or not the Church has "actual authority" bestowed on it from God.

I'm speaking in response to characterizations of the Church as "authoritarian" in the same way that oppressive civil governmental regimes are characterized as "authoritarian."  I think such a characterization is highly misleading, absurd, unfair and overwrought.

Thanks,

-Smac

Give it up.  The Church is authoritarian.   But it isn't compulsive authoritarianism.  We can choose to follow, or not.  The Pope is authoritarian.  Joe Biden's membership in the Catholic Church is in jeopardy, as at least one diocese denies him communion.  Other religions are authoritarian.   The prophet is male.  He dictates edicts.  It is what it is.    

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Give it up.  The Church is authoritarian.   But it isn't compulsive authoritarianism.  We can choose to follow, or not.  The Pope is authoritarian.  Joe Biden's membership in the Catholic Church is in jeopardy, as at least one diocese denies him communion.  Other religions are authoritarian.   The prophet is male.  He dictates edicts.  It is what it is.    

Where, exactly, do you think those "edicts" come from?  In my opinion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might be authoritarian, if the fundamental "edicts" by which it is governed came from President Russell M. Nelson, or from some other man, or from some other earthly source, but they do not.

[JustAnAustralian]

  

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think there is a line where “I am giving you sound, competent, professional, clinical therapy to be best of my ability and ethics.” runs into, “The clinically sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you runs counter to your Church’s teachings” runs into, “The clinically, sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you refutes your Church’s teachings” runs into, “Ethically, the clinically sound, competent professional therapy requires me to dissuade you from your Church’s teachings” runs into, “As an ethical, clinically, sound, competent professional – whether "and/or as a member" or not -- I publicly refute and denounce the Church’s teachings.” A competent and ethical therapist will understand that there are many ways to express and convey these messages, both directly and indirectly, and for maximal clarity of intent.

That's a lot of degrees of separation.

If you try and go straight from "In my office at work I use best recognised best practices" to "I run a blog and podcast using the word Mormon on which I am happy to call church leaders patriarchal pricks and tell people that what the church teaches is destructive" then it's a lot harder to justify.

When you look at other professions they have disclaimers on articles etc that they are involved with. "I am not your lawyer. this is not legal advice", "I am not your accountant. this is not financial advice", "I am not your doctor. this is not medical advice".

If her blog posting is not part of her professional actions, then it's just her making personal public statements about the church and its leaders.

If her blog posting is part of her professional actions, then she needs to be very very careful about what she posts, lest she be sued and/or deregistered if something she posts breaches any kind of professional regulations. Does calling members of your target audience patriarchal pricks do this?

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

You’d have to squint pretty hard to see her as refuting and denouncing church doctrine.

She might not have openly refuted it, but she's definitely made it clear there are some things she thinks the church shouldn't teach. In 2019 she took President Nelson to task for saying that not all families will be able to enjoy the afterlife together.

Edited April 29, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[CV75]

13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I rarely agree with why me, but I’ve been at a loss to understand this excommunication. You’d have to squint pretty hard to see her as refuting and denouncing church doctrine. If anything, this just reinforces some people’s perception (correct or not) that the church overreacts to any hint of dissent, no matter how minor. 

Who knows the nitty gritty details*? People can squint differently but the arrangement for Church how membership / excommunication decisions are processed; it sets squarely with those with presiding responsibility. People can use this to reinforce their perceptions about anything the Church does if they use it that way.

* ETA: I didn't study her specific case that closely, but @Calm and @JustAnAustralian seem to have, and made some rather good points.

Edited April 29, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there is also this in her advocacy “I am an ethical, clinically, sound, competent professional, therefore church leadership should change their teachings and policies to match my standards”.

Thank you, I didn't study her specific case that closely.

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

  

That's a lot of degrees of separation.

If you try and go straight from "In my office at work I use best recognised best practices" to "I run a blog and podcast using the word Mormon on which I am happy to call church leaders patriarchal pricks and tell people that what the church teaches is destructive" then it's a lot harder to justify.

When you look at other professions they have disclaimers on articles etc that they are involved with. "I am not your lawyer. this is not legal advice", "I am not your accountant. this is not financial advice", "I am not your doctor. this is not medical advice".

If her blog posting is not part of her professional actions, then it's just her making personal public statements about the church and its leaders.

If her blog posting is part of her professional actions, then she needs to be very very careful about what she posts, lest she be sued and/or deregistered if something she posts breaches any kind of professional regulations. Does calling members of your target audience patriarchal pricks do this?

She might not have openly refuted it, but she's definitely made it clear there are some things she thinks the church shouldn't teach. In 2019 she took President Nelson to task for saying that not all families will be able to enjoy the afterlife together.

Good point (I didn't study her specific case that closely).

Edited April 29, 2021 by CV75