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

[ttribe]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not a legalistic reading.  It's a practical and realistic one.  And I think this passage *D&C 134:10) and others create a "very real impact" that is being obscured by folks like you.  

The leaders of the Church have very limited "authority" of the members of the Church, as evidenced by, well, people who regularly speak out against the Church with no repercussions beyond possible constraints on the individual's participation or membership in the Church.

The members of the Church are not cloistered.  We don't live in secluded compounds or communes.  We are spread throughout the world.  We live as regular citizens in regular cities and towns.  And the members of the Church are strong encouraged to not be dependent on the Church for food, clothing, shelter, employment, etc., except in temporary, as-needed circumstances.  The Church strongly encourages provident living.  Self-reliance.  Education.  Employment.  Hard work.  Living within one's means.  Buidling up food storage and emergency funds.  

Simply put, the Church wants its members to be strong and self-sufficient, while also working to serve our fellow man, and also support and build up the Kingdom of God.  The scriptural term is "agents unto themselves" per D&C 58:

Your comment about "edicts ... passed down from the President of the Church" as evidence of authoritarianism doesn't work, as evidenced by . . . the everyday behavior we see on this board and others like it, on Reddit, on YouTube, on social media, and so on.  I think your position is derivative.  Efforts to paint the Church as malevolent and authoritarian come across as hollow, sometimes even funny, given how little actual authority the Church has over its members, how easy it is for members of the Church to stop participating or withdrawing their membership, how unfettered cranks and critics are to go out and publicly rail against and disparage the Church and its leaders, doctrines, etc.

What authority does the Church have over Denver Snuffer?  None.  It withdrew his membership, but he is otherwise alive and kicking.  He's still a lawyer.  He still has his home and other assets.  He has his liberty.  He can say and do whatever he wants.  

What authority does the Church have over John Dehlin?  None.  He's at liberty to "coach" whomever he likes, do his podcasts, and demonstrate his superior moral fiber.

What authority does the Church have over Kate Kelly?  None.  She's at liberty toi do whatever she likes.  Same with Bill Reel, Sam Young, Jeremy Runnells, Natasha Helfer, and so on.

This made me actually chuckle.

A religious group scheduling worship services?  Oh, the horror!  Oh, the humanity! 

You are only proving my point about D&C 134:10.

Give me a break.  The Church is moving heaven and earth to encourage people to join it, to become a part of a community of faith.  That community coheres around faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to His teachings.  Hence we have church meetings and Sabbath observance, temple worship, missionary work, service projects, and so on.  We also have behavioral standards, such as obedience to the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity. 

You are carping about the Church seeking to create a community, while still staying within the self-imposed constraints reflected in, inter alia, D&C 134:10 and D&C 58.  It doesn't work.  Your complaint comes across as contrived and tendentious.

Nonsense.  

Are you at liberty to publicly disparage and speak against, say, your employer?  To turn other employees and the general public against your employer?  And all the while still drawing a paycheck?

Are you at liberty to publicly insult and denigrate your wife?  To encourage others to think ill of her?  To publicize her faults to strangers so as to subject her to ridicule and scorn?  And then saying "Hey honey, wanna go see a movie tonight?"

Are you at liberty to join a voluntary association of like-minded individuals, only to thereafter refuse to observe any of its conditions of membership, and to actively work against its foundational precepts, and then be shocked - shocked! - that the association finds such disruptive and distructive behavior incompatible with continued membership?

Shall I go on?

Yes.  

Self-control mechanisms, yes.

Let's take a look at 2 Nephi 2 (emphases added) :

The Brethren are doing what Leh did.  Exhorting us to "act for {our}selves," telling us that we are "free to choose."  

Here we are, acting for ourselves, making choices every day.  And when those choices contravene the commandments, we repent and move forward.  If an individual continues in disobedience to the commandments, he is "free to choose" that, and per D&C 134:10 the Church has no power in his life, except that it can constrain or terminate the individual's membership.  

The Church asks its voluntarily associated members to constrain their behavior to the commandments set by God.  How is this surprising or problematic?

The Church believes it has mandates from God regarding sharing the gospel, redeeming the dead, perfecting the Saints and helping the poor.  How is "maintain{ing} the momentum of the organization" with these objectives surprising or problematic?

I am flummoxed at your attitude, which comes across as quite facile.  Have you ever worked in a group setting?  Ever been in a band?  A choir?  A sports team?  A political group?  A business?  

Every group has "predefined boundaries."

Every organization wants to "maintain the momentum" of its objectives.

Every organization has leaders.

Every organization requires some measure of compliance with internal rules, policies, guidelines, etc.

"Control mechanisms" are in place in every group.  Some groups, like governments or gangs, use coercion, violence, threats of violence, etc. to maintain cohesion and order.  On the other hand, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not.  It is constrained from doing so by its own doctrines.  Membership in the Church is voluntary.  There is no coercion.  There is no threat of deprivation of life, liberty or property.  There is no threat of physical punishment, no violence or threat of violence.  The only authority the Church has over its members is the authority the individual chooses to cede to it.  And if the member has a change of heart, he can alter the deal and walk away, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and there ain't jack squat that the Church can do about it.  All we can and ought to do is continue to love the individual, pray for him, and encourage him to return.

This is "authoritarian?"  No.  No it's not.  

You are diluting the concept of "authoritarianism" to the point of absurdity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Why are you responding to my post a second time?  Give it a rest. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Why are you responding to my post a second time?  Give it a rest. 

I hadn't realized I had responded a second time to the same post.  Oh well.  Defending the faith is always worthwhile.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I hadn't realized I had responded a second time to the same post.  Oh well.  Defending the faith is always worthwhile.

Thanks,

-Smac

I will sometimes give more than one response to a post, ordinarily when an afterthought occurs to me and I want to highlight it in a post of its own rather than bury it in a post I’ve already made and that a reader is not likely to return to. I see nothing wrong with that. 

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hadn't realized I had responded a second time to the same post.  Oh well.  Defending the faith is always worthwhile.

Thanks,

-Smac

You make it sound as if Tim is attacking your faith. Maybe a tad over dramatic. 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

You make it sound as if Tim is attacking your faith. Maybe a tad over dramatic. 

Yes but when one is convinced his/her view represents "the gospel", drama is justified!

 

Duh.

[ttribe]

On 5/22/2021 at 2:25 PM, jkwilliams said:

You make it sound as if Tim is attacking your faith. Maybe a tad over dramatic. 

Especially since I made an effort to be clear that I was simply evaluating a management structure, not engaging in a qualitative judgment activity.  But, even the smallest slight (be it real or perceived), must be defended to the death.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Especially since I made an effort to be clear that I was simply evaluating a management structure, not engaging in a qualitative judgment activity.  But, even the smallest slight (be it real or perceived), must be defended to the death.

Critiquing a management style is, after all, awfully close to burning at the stake.

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Critiquing a management style is, after all, awfully close to burning at the stake.

Indeed, it's a wonder I haven't been labeled a 'Korihor' by now...oh, wait, I have.  I await my fate of being trampled to death.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Indeed, it's a wonder I haven't been labeled a 'Korihor' by now...oh, wait, I have.  I await my fate of being trampled to death.

But have you been accused of calumny? 

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

But have you been accused of calumny? 

As of yet, I can only aspire to your level of apostasy.  I am but an apprentice to your level of mastery.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

As of yet, I can only aspire to your level of apostasy.  I am but an apprentice to your level of mastery.

Well, you can't compare to me, as I've been called the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is. 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, you can't compare to me, as I've been called the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is. 

You are without peer.

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Indeed, it's a wonder I haven't been labeled a 'Korihor' by now...oh, wait, I have.  I await my fate of being trampled to death.

I have been "Korihor-ed"! Whatever you win, can we split it?

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I am but an apprentice to your level of mastery.

Always two there are; no more, no less. A master and an apprentice.

 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Always two there are; no more, no less. A master and an apprentice.

 

 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

In the immortal words of Tracy Jordan, "The manatee has become the Mento."

[Kenngo1969]

@jkwilliams

Smac97 and everyone else, please forgive this slight threadjack.  I thought I had your email address, John.  I don't know why it's not coming up.  I guess you have an address that's unconventional in some way.   I wanted to buy your book from Deseret Book, but couldn't (for some dumb reason that I'll never understand) find it there.  So I had to resort to buying it from The Evil Empire (aka Amazon).  I got a preview with my purchase of the print edition, and I really enjoyed the first three chapters or so, but now it's a cliffhanger!

It'll be a few days before the book gets here, but you promised me an autograph, and I'm holding you to it.  Please feel free to reach out to me at Ken(dot)Gourdin(at)gmail.com to let me know how I can facilitate fulfillment of my request.  (I'm kind of excited: it's been awhile since I've gotten an autograph from someone famous! )

Warm regards,

-Ken

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/22/2021 at 3:25 PM, jkwilliams said:

You make it sound as if Tim is attacking your faith. Maybe a tad over dramatic. 

Like your accusing the Church of Jesus Christ of “coercing” it’s members?  
 

Born and raised in the Church, active in it all my life, I’ve yet to encounter a single instance of coercion, not even from fellow members acting on their own part who, like me, are imperfect. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Like your accusing the Church of Jesus Christ of “coercing” it’s members?  
 

Born and raised in the Church, active in it all my life, I’ve yet to encounter a single instance of coercion, not even from fellow members acting on their own part who, like me, are imperfect. 

As I said, you're grossly exaggerating what I said. But I do enjoy seeing you in high dudgeon mode.

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

As I said, you're grossly exaggerating what I said. But I do enjoy seeing you in high dudgeon mode.

Near as I can tell, it's perpetual.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Near as I can tell, it's perpetual.

I certainly try to maintain constant calumny.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I certainly try to maintain constant calumny.

And I my Korihor impersonation.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

And I my Korihor impersonation.

Do I hear the approach of trampling feet?

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

 

Don't do it.

I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND!!!

 

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Do I hear the approach of trampling feet?

I always try to stay at least one step ahead of them...