Fiona givens leaves maxwell institute

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

Is the handbook of the church binding on its members? 

Yes.

Quote

Where is the common consent?

Where it always is.

When were you asked for a sustaining vote to accept the handbooks as binding?

I'm asked for a sustaining vote every six months.

It is unreasoned and unreasonable to bring every jot and tittle, every matter of Church governance, to the entire body of the Church for a sustaining vote.  It's unworkable.  

Consider your status as a citizen of the United States (I assume you are an American).  Did you vote on, say, the Rules of Civil Procedure that govern the administration of trial courts in your state, and the Rules of Evidence that govern the admissibility of evidence in state court proceedings?  I am assuming not, since such rules are typically created by the highest appellate court in the state.  So since you did not vote for those procedural/evidentiary rules, are you at liberty to disregard them?  To say they don't apply to you?  To refuse to follow them?  To refuse to follow instructions from a judge who is charged with managing court proceedings in accordance with those rules?  Can you credibly say "I don't have to follow those rules because they were not put on a ballot and I did not vote for them?"

Your commentary here reminds me of the Sovereign Citizen-type folks who claim fealty only to the U.S. Constitution (and even that is often up in the air).  They sometimes show up in court and make unreasoned and unreasonable arguments challenging the jurisdiction of a state court judge.  For example:

The lady in the above video refuses to stand at the podium.  Repeatedly.  The judge wants her to stand at the podium so the camera can pick up her remarks. 

At about 2:42 one of the individuals starts really acting up, shouting "Show me the law!  Show me the law!"  She starts shouting the judge and the sheriff's deputy, saying "Under the Constitution you have no right, no right to do this."  At about 3:42 she disobeys a specific order from the court - again - to stand at the podium.  She eventually relents.  The judge then starts reading the charges. 

At 4:20 she claims she doesn't understand the charges, and the judge says "Well, there's not a whole lot more I can do to to try to explain to you."  She responds "Okay, let's start here.  Can you prove jurisdiction?  Because I come in under the Common Law.  Prove your jurisdiction over me.  Court cannot proceed until you have proof of jurisdiction.  Show me your jurisdiction.  Show me your law."  The judge responds "All right.  All of our laws are codified in the Kentucky Revised Statutes."  She cuts him off with "Show me jurisdiction.  Show me the law."  The judge then literally shows her a book (presumably the Kentucky Revised Statutes), saying "Here you go."  She responds "Okay.  That doesn't prove you have jurisdiction."  And the judge responds with "There is a simple way for me to prove jurisdiction to you.  And that would be for me to ask the deputy to take you into custody.  I have absolute confidence that I have jurisdiction."  The argument continues, with the lady denying that she has any charges against her the judge literally showing the charges to her. 

At about 5:37, the judge then says "I'm going to prove jurisdiction to you  right now.  I'm going to ask the deputy to go ahead and take you into custody."  "Under what charges?", she asks.  He responds "You are disrupting my court."  At that point she is taken under arrest, during which the podium gets knocked over, and she apparently resists.  She is the led away, during which she continues to shout about the "Common Law" and the "Constitution."

This sort of unseemly behavior doesn't work.  In any community, there needs to be order and rules.  And not every rule can or ought to be the matter of popular vote.

So it is, I submit, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Brethren are trying hard to create a clear set of sound and reasonable procedural rules for administering the affairs of the Church at the local level.  Those rules have some flexibility built into them, but in the main they provide a good framework for local leaders to run the Church's meetings, programs, etc.  

We sustain the general authorities of the Church every six months.  That sustaining vote has real meaning.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't call it a bubble, it is just a different community.  There are issues that get confronted in Utah in my experience where they are ignored elsewhere because one doesn't go home and see one's fellow members driving/walking up to the houses across the street or next door.

Typically we have 3-4 members in any given neighborhood, 1-2 are active.

[Chum]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Well since they are prophets of God, God's hand is involved in the writing of the handbook.

This might be a case where our perspectives are reflective opposites.  Where some search for perfection as evidence of God, I look for imperfections as those spaces where God manifests Himself.  I tend to feel more love and acceptance in the latter.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

When I vote to sustain the church leaders that means I sustain all they do, including writing policy in the Handbook.
Therefore I am sustaining the acceptance of the handbook as binding.

So can they add binding scripture to the Canon without a sustaining vote?

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Chum said:

Typically we have 3-4 members in any given neighborhood, 1-2 are active.

I have lived in places where my family was the only members in the neighbourhood and it took an hour to get to the stake center, one where it took an hour to get to our little branch by the Metro or hours by bus, one where the car took us anywhere in the ward within 20 minutes, another where my kids could walk a few blocks to get music lessons from ward members, and now the nonmembers are the minority.  I have enjoyed each type of community, but it has been extremely helpful for what my family needs to deal with right now to live in Utah (doctors have been the best at listening and trying to work with me, family is everywhere as somehow most of mine ended up here and my husband grew up in Orem as well as being able to call for help from hometeachers and others and have them show up on the doorstep practically by the time I hung up has been a great blessing...though my daughter chafes from being in an overall conservative community).

Edited May 10, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

I look for imperfections as those spaces where God manifests Himself.

Wonderfully expressed.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Teancum said:

So can they add binding scripture to the Canon without a sustaining vote?

This is what I mean when I say Mormons don't believe church leaders are infallible but act as if they do. 

[Teancum]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not "the same as."  Better.  In terms of exchanging viewpoints in the Marketplace of Ideas, participating on this board for many years has done far more than, say, me attending church services here and there during vacations.  We have all sorts of people on this board, with all sorts of ideas and perspectives on the Church and its practices, doctrines and history.  And I interact with and respond to those diverse ideas and perspectives on a regular basis, and have done so fairly consistenty since 2004 on this board, and on other message boards going back to 1995 (anyone remember Zion's Lighthouse?).

In addition, I read.  A lot.  Both correlated and non-correlated materials.  Both faithful and critical materials.  Both mainstream and kinda-out-there materials.  

You're trying really hard to characterize me as some sort of ignernt, head-in-the-sand, Wasatch Front yokel, as someone who is so ignorant he needs to be specifically advised of stuff like "{t}here is actually a big church membership out there that don't view things from the constrictive Wasatch Front mentality" (quite a stereotype there), as someone who is oblivious to opinions and perspectives "out{side} of Provo."  I don't think that characterization works.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Fair enough. I retract my comment. 😁

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm asked for a sustaining vote every six months.

It is unreasoned and unreasonable to bring every jot and tittle, every matter of Church governance, to the entire body of the Church for a sustaining vote.  It's unworkable.  

Consider your status as a citizen of the United States (I assume you are an American).  Did you vote on, say, the Rules of Civil Procedure that govern the administration of trial courts in your state, and the Rules of Evidence that govern the admissibility of evidence in state court proceedings?  I am assuming not, since such rules are typically created by the highest appellate court in the state.  So since you did not vote for those procedural/evidentiary rules, are you at liberty to disregard them?  To say they don't apply to you?  To refuse to follow them?  To refuse to follow instructions from a judge who is charged with managing court proceedings in accordance with those rules?  Can you credibly say "I don't have to follow those rules because they were not put on a ballot and I did not vote for them?"

Your commentary here reminds me of the Sovereign Citizen-type folks who claim fealty only to the U.S. Constitution (and even that is often up in the air).  They sometimes show up in court and make unreasoned and unreasonable arguments challenging the jurisdiction of a state court judge.  For example:

The lady in the above video refuses to stand at the podium.  Repeatedly.  The judge wants her to stand at the podium so the camera can pick up her remarks. 

At about 2:42 one of the individuals starts really acting up, shouting "Show me the law!  Show me the law!"  She starts shouting the judge and the sheriff's deputy, saying "Under the Constitution you have no right, no right to do this."  At about 3:42 she disobeys a specific order from the court - again - to stand at the podium.  She eventually relents.  The judge then starts reading the charges. 

At 4:20 she claims she doesn't understand the charges, and the judge says "Well, there's not a whole lot more I can do to to try to explain to you."  She responds "Okay, let's start here.  Can you prove jurisdiction?  Because I come in under the Common Law.  Prove your jurisdiction over me.  Court cannot proceed until you have proof of jurisdiction.  Show me your jurisdiction.  Show me your law."  The judge responds "All right.  All of our laws are codified in the Kentucky Revised Statutes."  She cuts him off with "Show me jurisdiction.  Show me the law."  The judge then literally shows her a book (presumably the Kentucky Revised Statutes), saying "Here you go."  She responds "Okay.  That doesn't prove you have jurisdiction."  And the judge responds with "There is a simple way for me to prove jurisdiction to you.  And that would be for me to ask the deputy to take you into custody.  I have absolute confidence that I have jurisdiction."  The argument continues, with the lady denying that she has any charges against her the judge literally showing the charges to her. 

At about 5:37, the judge then says "I'm going to prove jurisdiction to you  right now.  I'm going to ask the deputy to go ahead and take you into custody."  "Under what charges?", she asks.  He responds "You are disrupting my court."  At that point she is taken under arrest, during which the podium gets knocked over, and she apparently resists.  She is the led away, during which she continues to shout about the "Common Law" and the "Constitution."

This sort of unseemly behavior doesn't work.  In any community, there needs to be order and rules.  And not every rule can or ought to be the matter of popular vote.

So it is, I submit, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Brethren are trying hard to create a clear set of sound and reasonable procedural rules for administering the affairs of the Church at the local level.  Those rules have some flexibility built into them, but in the main they provide a good framework for local leaders to run the Church's meetings, programs, etc.  

We sustain the general authorities of the Church every six months.  That sustaining vote has real meaning.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know anywhere inthe Constitution that has the same mandate for common consent that the LDS Church canon contains. But it really does not matter since it does not seem they we the church does this in modern times meets the intent anyway.

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have lived in places where my family was the only members in the neighbourhood and it took an hour to get to the stake center, one where it took an hour to get to our little branch by the Metro or hours by bus, one where the car took us anywhere in the ward within 20 minutes, another where my kids could walk a few blocks to get music lessons from ward members, and now the nonmembers are the minority.

When I first arrived (1993) our ward was an entire half of the county. Corner to corner was easily an hour (no public transit).  The stake center was at the distant point of the next county.  Our boundary has since shrunk and grown over and over.  We were (blessedly, finally) moved into a closer stake 8 years ago.

Our ward has always been evenly spread out; we're like magnets that don't get too far apart or too close together.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

When I vote to sustain the church leaders that means I sustain all they do, including writing policy in the Handbook.
Therefore I am sustaining the acceptance of the handbook as binding.

So can they add binding scripture to the Canon without a sustaining vote?

Are the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and Utah Rules of Evidence considered part of the Utah Constitution?  As amendments to it?  Nope.  But are they binding on litigants in state courts in Utah, despite never having been directly voted on by the electorate?  Yep.

Nobody is saying the Handbook is "binding scripture."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This is what I mean when I say Mormons don't believe church leaders are infallible but act as if they do. 

Pretty much.

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Are the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and Utah Rules of Evidence considered part of the Utah Constitution?  As amendments to it?  Nope.  But are they binding on litigants in state courts in Utah, despite never having been directly voted on by the electorate?  Yep.

Nobody is saying the Handbook is "binding scripture."

Thanks,

-Smac

Your comparisons do not apply. And the handbook is binding and members act and are treated as if it is binding.  And you can get the boot for not complying with it in some cases.

[mgy401]

Back-and-forth about the regulation of the Church aside:  one other thought that just occurred to me is that Spencer Fluhman, for all his virtues, is not exactly what one would call a wartime consigliere.  If the Church were planning to purge MI of heterodox members—I am doubtful they’d pick Fluhman to do it; and even more doubtful Fluhman would go along with something like that.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't know anywhere inthe Constitution that has the same mandate for common consent that the LDS Church canon contains.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a big part of things.  See here.

I look at "common consent" in the same way I look at phrases like "due process" and "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom of assembly," "free exercise of religion," "right to bear arms," "right to petition," and other phrases that arise from the Constitution.  That is, the seminal points and ideas are there, but the meanings and specific parameters of these things are obviously and immediately apparent and self-evident.  They must be analyzed and construed, and those analyses and constructions are refined over time.  

This is why a Second Amendment enthusiast cannot simply say "I have the 'right to bear arms,' ergo I can build a nuke in my backyard shed."  While the right exists, it is not self-actuating and unlimited.

Something similar happens, I think, with "common consent."  The Church is spread all around the world.  We have something like 17 million members.  Common consent is utilized, but not for every jot and tittle.  Hence the members of the Church vote to sustain the General Authorities, and the General Authorities thereafter have authority to function in their jurisdictional and administrative capacities.  To require them to bring each and every administrative and regulatory matter to the millions of members for a "common consent" sustaining vote is not reasonable nor needed.

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But it really does not matter since it does not seem they we the church does this in modern times meets the intent anyway.

I disagree.  I think the Church observes the "common consent" requirements pretty well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Are the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and Utah Rules of Evidence considered part of the Utah Constitution?  As amendments to it?  Nope.  But are they binding on litigants in state courts in Utah, despite never having been directly voted on by the electorate?  Yep.

Nobody is saying the Handbook is "binding scripture."

Your comparisons do not apply.

But they illuminate the point I am trying to make, and can therefore be helpful in their sphere.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And the handbook is binding and members act and are treated as if it is binding. 

Binding, yes.  But not binding scripture.  Surely you see the difference?

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And you can get the boot for not complying with it in some cases.

Are you sure?  Can you provide some examples of people who have lost their membership for failing to follow the Handbook?  I'm sorta skeptical of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Fourteenth Amendment is a big part of things

Sidebar that the 14A extends the restrictions on Fed power to state govs as well.  eg: States can not abridge the freedom of speech or the press.

I automatically wondered if there were 14A parallels between Church HQ/stakes or stakes/wards but realized it's a moot question. Reach and restriction has always been unified. The levels of structure are mostly about the sane administration of a massive body.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The article has been updated with the following.

"On Sunday, in the wake of this story’s original publication, Givens wrote on Facebook that “after almost two years of employment, I voluntarily made the decision to leave the Maxwell Institute to focus on my own study, writing and other personal endeavors. I maintain the highest regard and warmest relations with the Maxwell Institute and its wonderful faculty.""

Which includes her husband Terryl, who is part of the Maxwell Institute.

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, Chum said:

Sidebar that the 14A extends the restrictions on Fed power to state govs as well.  eg: States can not abridge the freedom of speech or the press.

I automatically wondered if there were 14A parallels between Church HQ/stakes or stakes/wards but realized it's a moot question. Reach and restriction has always been unified. The levels of structure are mostly about the sane administration of a massive body.

Unfortunately, social media platforms have not been brought under the aegis of 1A.  We should consider all those platforms as part of the public street or commons, just as we do for radio and television (because they use the public airwaves).  As it stands now, those social media platforms can censor whatever they please.

[Maureen]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I hope this isn't the way the church is headed as far as letting Fiona go for speaking of Heavenly Mother. If that is indeed the case. It's already bad enough that Mother in heaven is non existent or non spoken of. On Mother's Day we could use this analogy I read someone post on another format. 

"So in honor of heavenly mother, I am going to ignore my mom all day today. I won't call her, I won't think about her, I won't talk about her or make a public social media post about her, I'll ignore her if she calls. Because I love her and respect her THAT much! Instead I will call my dad and thank him for everything."

This! As a non-LDS person, this is how I see members are taught to treat their mother in heaven. Once you have attained your physical body, Father in heaven wants you to have no contact with your mother anymore. All attention is for him only.

M.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unfortunately, social media platforms have not been brought under the aegis of 1A. 

I don't know what this means. The 1A only restricts governments. It can not restrict something that is not a government.

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We should consider all those platforms as part of the public street or commons, just as we do for radio and television (because they use the public airwaves). 

Public airwaves applies to a scarce resource (freq) that is solely meted out by the government. None of that applies to an internet presence.

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As it stands now, those social media platforms can censor whatever they please.

If you run a blog and I post a comment you find incendiary or harmful, you are free to perform moderation and flag or delete my comment. If I do it repeatedly, you are free to delete my user account. A government may not abridge your right to do that without violating the 1A.

Similarly, the 1A says Gov can not stop me from launching my own blog that I can pack with as many incendiary comments as I like. It also says that Gov can not stop my web host from hosting or not hosting that blog.

In short, 1A says that Gov may not interfere with saying what we like. It can not force others to say what we like, however.

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

This quote is from the article.  Is it correct that Ms. Givens is turning down speaking requests?  If so, perhaps she is being pressured to do so?  Or perhaps she was pressured to leave and lost her desire to speak, at least for a little while?

I do not think it impossible that she got some push back from some of her comments. Some Latter-day Saints get very protective of their "orthodoxy", often misguided as that protective sentiment is. She has spoken out against that (just read, "All Things New" and you can all but feel the frustration). That does not mean that she was pressured to leave. It is possible that she found such push back distracting and not conducive to the Spirit and so she chose to take a break to focus on the things she said she'd focus on. But, that's all quite speculative. And even if such speculations were true (a claim I do not make), her public statement would still be entirely true.

I don't agree with everything she posits (e.g. I think the Heavenly Mother as pillar of light is a stretch). But I respect her discipleship and her scholarship. And if I, as removed as I am from any personal connection to her can feel so, I am quite confident that those, at the Maxwell Institute, who actually know her, both respect and love her and likely disappointed at her separation, even if they understand and respect the decision.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Nofear
hat = that

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

I automatically wondered if there were 14A parallels between Church HQ/stakes or stakes/wards but realized it's a moot question. Reach and restriction has always been unified. The levels of structure are mostly about the sane administration of a massive body.

The sections of the Handbook that pertain to discipline are probably the best analog for comparing Fourteenth Amendment "Due Process" concepts to matters of Church governance.  

For example, Natasha Helfer-Parker is probably going to make some "due process"-esque arguments in appealing her loss of membership.  She will complain about lack of notice or unfair or insufficient notice, of her not being allowed to appear, her witnesses not being able to appear, and so on.  Most or all of her grievances will be about the equivalent of "procedural due process," which is governed by the Handbook.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So can they add binding scripture to the Canon without a sustaining vote?

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

This is what I mean when I say Mormons don't believe church leaders are infallible but act as if they do. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/canon?lang=eng

If you read the link above, you will see that "canon" by nature is not infallible, and "True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture."

Also see items 4 and 5 here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-1?lang=eng

"The process [canonization] is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price."

Edited May 10, 2021 by CV75

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

This is what I mean when I say Mormons don't believe church leaders are infallible but act as if they do. 

Exactly. By George I think he's got it.  As long as they don't do or say anything that jeopardizes my eternal life, I will follow them. 
And as far as I know that hasn't happened yet. I am willing to take my chances with them. There has been nothing better so far.