Mixed messages and the future of the church

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Just goes to show, you can believe anything you want, as long as you don't talk about it publicly.

Doesn’t that make sense though?  If you admit disbelief in a temple recommend, it makes sense to pull the recommendation.  Also unless the person wants to resign, given the Church’s attitude to repentance and the belief that staying involved will likely help views towards the gospel, it also makes sense as long as there is no sin needing addressing to not go the route of excommunication simply for belief. 
 

However, when one goes public with one’s beliefs, one can then begin to obviously affect others’ beliefs about the Gospel and the Church and therefore it may be wise to excommunicate to avoid the appearance that behaviour leading others into disbelief intentionally is not acceptable as it is believed to be harmful. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Doesn’t that make sense though?  If you admit disbelief in a temple recommend, it makes sense to pull the recommendation.  Also unless the person wants to resign, given the Church’s attitude to repentance and the belief that staying involved will likely help views towards the gospel, it also makes sense as long as there is no sin needing addressing to not go the route of excommunication simply for belief. 
 

However, when one goes public with one’s beliefs, one can then begin to obviously affect others’ beliefs about the Gospel and the Church and therefore it may be wise to excommunicate to avoid the appearance that behaviour leading others into disbelief intentionally is not acceptable as it is believed to be harmful. 

I made another comment on this later.  It's not lengthy, but further clarifies my point.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Far and away more likely to get you excommunicated than anything else.

I know of very few excommunications for apostasy. Otoh, I know quite a few for adultery. I find it highly unlikely criticism of the church runs the highest. John Dehlin took over ten years of criticism before get excommunicated. Even Kate Kelly was at least a year after her first protest on temple square. 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know of very few excommunications for apostasy. Otoh, I know quite a few for adultery. I find it highly unlikely criticism of the church runs the highest. John Dehlin took over ten years of criticism before get excommunicated. Even Kate Kelly was at least a year after her first protest on temple square. 

Well, I'll admit to a certain amount of hyperbole.  That being said, it's pretty well documented that there is quite a bit of variation in the speed at which one gets brought in for discipline depending on local leadership.  Moreover, it's my impression (purely anecdotal) that there is a great deal more leniency for "serious sin" (e.g. adultery) than there is for apostasy.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

(I)t's my impression (purely anecdotal) that there is a great deal more leniency for "serious sin" (e.g. adultery) than there is for apostasy. 

Maybe because there's no "Mormon Cheaters Podcast" for them to go and vent to the world about how justified they were in cheating on their spouse. 

 

[ttribe]

Just now, Amulek said:

Maybe because there's no "Mormon Cheaters Podcast" for them to go and vent to the world about how justified they were in cheating on their spouse. 

 

Yeah.  That's it.  Give me a little credit for being a bit more knowledgeable than that.

Edited June 18, 2021 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yeah.  That's it.  Give me a little credit for being a bit more knowledgeable than that.

It does give you an idea of the contempt some people have for vocal critics. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by jkwilliams

[why me]

6 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Or maybe you’ve just been reading a lot of right-wing tabloids. 

I read all kinds of tabloids and news. I also listen to the news. But I dpn't accept all information that I receive. It is not what said in public that is important. It is what is not said. And that happens a lot. I have to dig for the answer to my question quite often. And maybe I am a very left leaning individual who is just concerned that the west is heading into a dictatorship of thought.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9672569/Virginia-mom-survived-Maoist-Chinas-purge-slams-Critical-Race-Theory.html

Now of course one could claim that this is a right wing tabloid  but then again this did happen...but maybe the left leaning media ignored it. So what to do? And then when one uses such a source, the woke army hammers the poster. I think that this is what church young students face on campus and in schools. It can wear a person down. And who wants to be cancelled before they begin life?

Edited June 18, 2021 by why me

[why me]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

Moreover, it's my impression (purely anecdotal) that there is a great deal more leniency for "serious sin" (e.g. adultery) than there is for apostasy.  Your mileage may vary, of course.

This may be true. I think that there is more leniency for the simple reason that it is a tough world out there for people with a moral compass. Too many places to get lost in the maze especially when it comes to sexual sin. Much better to be lenient. But apostasy is a different matter. No organization can survive when people are challanging the way things are on a constant basis. We see this with the time of Paul who attempted to keep the members together because of division.

[secondclasscitizen]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

However, when one goes public with one’s beliefs, one can then begin to obviously affect others’ beliefs about the Gospel and the Church and therefore it may be wise to excommunicate to avoid the appearance that behaviour leading others into disbelief intentionally is not acceptable as it is believed to be harmful. 

What  if the information being shared is true? Why get exed for sharing the truth? Seems like learning the truth leads people out of the church in many instances now that we have the gospel topics essays which exposed quite a bit of whitewashing and outright lies. If we had a one year gospel doctrine schedule that went over the essays there would be lots of people leaving the church or at the minimum causing a faith crisis in the membership. This is why the release of the essays was done without announcement and most Mormons don’t know they exist except for maybe the lazy learners. 

say I teach gospel doctrine and instead of talking about eternal marriage I decide to teach the gospel topics essays on polygamy? We talk about Joseph smith marrying ~20 ish women behind Emma’s back. We talk about marrying 14 yd old girl when he is 37. We talk about the destruction of the nauvoo expositor and examine what was written. We see how the destruction was necessary to keep Joseph smiths lies concealed. We compare official church press releases from the 1st pres stating withholding priesthood from the blacks as doctrine with the essay saying it never was doctrine? These are all things which are true yet the church does not teach it. Am I an apostate for switching gears and teaching the truth? Should I be exed?

 If the truth leads people away from the gospel maybe the people telling (or who knowingly facilitated the lying) the lies should be excommunicated.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, why me said:

I know a great deal. And been around the block a few times. But it has been in the news about eliminating the word mother and father and changing words.

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/mom-dad-or-parent-lawmakers-rule-on-gendered-words-/5894076.html

https://wabcradio.com/2021/01/02/house-democrats-rules-for-the-117th-congress-remove-gendered-terms-like-mother-father-to-honor-all-gender-and-non-gendered-people/

https://nypost.com/2021/01/04/sorry-pelosi-eliminating-official-use-of-mother-isnt-inclusive-its-waging-war-on-women/

 

 

This crap has already been discredited. It changed one group of rules in one specific guildeline. It did not ban any words or tell anyone they could not say them or use them.

You are lying. Stop lying.

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It does give you an idea of the contempt some people have for vocal critics. 

Contempt? Hardly.

Sorry, I must have not gotten the board update which changed the 'no politics' banner into an announcement limiting pithy comments to critics. 

 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, why me said:

This may be true. I think that there is more leniency for the simple reason that it is a tough world out there for people with a moral compass. Too many places to get lost in the maze especially when it comes to sexual sin. Much better to be lenient. But apostasy is a different matter. No organization can survive when people are challanging the way things are on a constant basis. We see this with the time of Paul who attempted to keep the members together because of division.

We see it in just about any organization. The secular equivalent to apostasy is... apostasy: https://www.dailywritingtips.com/atheists-agnostics-and-apostates/

"A related term is apostate, which denotes someone who renounces a belief; the term can also refer to defection from or abandonment of a political or social group; the origin of the term is the Greek word aphistasthai, which means “revolt.” (The condition of being an apostate is called apostasy.)"

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/apostasy

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Clearly he is not a believer. There are some non-believers though that still want to keep their church membership for both family and personal reasons. For those people, it is clear that they do need to keep their opinions to themselves (or at least out of the public eye). 

Yes. 

If they value their church membership then they need to not publicly advocate against it.  It seems like such a basic and obvious thing that it's hard to take their 'sadness'--at realizing their membership is in jeopardy after speaking out against the church--very seriously.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

I find it interesting that the highest sin in the Church is not violating some doctrine, nor is it believing in some heretical doctrines; it's criticizing the Church.  Far and away more likely to get you excommunicated than anything else.

Really?  

Is it the sin that is more likely to get you excommunicated or is it a refusal to repent?  Because I don't know of any serious sin that won't get you excommunicated if you refuse to repent and stop doing it once it becomes known.   

Do you?

What you are actually finding interesting is not a difference in the way the church is reacting to violating doctrine, believing heretical doctrines, and criticising the church.  It's the difference in how the people who do those things respond when they are held accountable for them.

How someone responds when they are asked to stop doing what they were doing and repent is what is "far and away more likely to get you excommunicated than anything else", not the thing they were doing.

 

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Really?  

Is it the sin that is more likely to get you excommunicated or is it a refusal to repent?  Because I don't know of any serious sin that won't get you excommunicated if you refuse to repent and stop doing it once it becomes known.   

Do you?

What you are actually finding interesting is not a difference in the way the church is reacting to violating doctrine, believing heretical doctrines, and criticising the church.  It's the difference in how the people who do those things respond when they are held accountable for them.

How someone responds when they are asked to stop doing what they were doing and repent is what is "far and away more likely to get you excommunicated than anything else", not the thing they were doing.

 

Okay, okay, okay...but, seriously, you don't find it a little odd that making a public criticism is what gets you called into your Stake President's office with such regularity?
 

Living in an area with a significant LDS population, and working in the litigation arena, I see numerous examples of prominent and influential members who engage in rampant fraud, political corruption, and adultery and rarely (if ever) do they face church discipline.  But, some guy writes an op-ed pointing out what he perceives to be an inconsistency in the words of church leadership and he gets called in by his Stake President THE VERY NEXT DAY?  Come on, you have to be able to acknowledge that the church is pretty thin-skinned when it comes to criticism.

Edited June 18, 2021 by ttribe

[bluebell]

Just now, ttribe said:

Okay, okay, okay...but, seriously, you don't find it a little odd that making a public criticism is what gets you called into your Stake President's office with such regularity?
 

Living in an area with a significant LDS population, and working in the litigation arena, I see numerous examples of prominent and influential members who engage in rampant fraud, political corruption, and adultery and rarely (if ever) do they face church discipline.  But, some guy writes an op-ed pointing out what he perceives to be an inconsistency in the words of church leadership and he gets called in by his Stake President THE VERY NEXT DAY?  Come on, you have to be able to acknowledge that the church is pretty think-skinned when it comes to criticism.

Are they publishing that fraud, political corruption, and adultery in blogs and in newspapers and on the radio, arguing that doing the things they are advocating for the morally correct position and the church and it's leaders needs to repent, like every person I've ever heard of who has been called in to speak to their stake president over public criticism?

Because until they are, I'm not sure how we can reasonably compare the rates of the two.   

If someone is determined to make themselves into low hanging fruit, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them (or anyone else) to complain that they get picked most often.  

 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are they publishing that fraud, political corruption, and adultery in blogs and in newspapers and on the radio, arguing that doing the things they are advocating for the morally correct position and the church and it's leaders needs to repent, like every person I've ever heard of who has been called in to speak to their stake president over public criticism?

Because until they are, I'm not sure how we can reasonably compare the rates of the two.   

If someone is determined to make themselves into low hanging fruit, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them (or anyone else) to complain that they get picked most often.  

 

[sigh]  Never mind.  As one of the more reasonable defenders on here, I'd hoped you might be willing to dialogue a little more, but you seem pretty committed to the notion that criticism is never justified.

[why me]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This crap has already been discredited. It changed one group of rules in one specific guildeline. It did not ban any words or tell anyone they could not say them or use them.

You are lying. Stop lying.

The conversation is still continuing. It will be all but a matter of time. It starts with one group of rules and expands to other areas. That could happen.

https://www.irishpost.com/news/transgender-charity-tries-to-ban-word-mother-and-replace-it-with-parent-who-has-given-birth-213762

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-56372118

Any comments? What action would be taken against a LDS student who would come out against this? The seeds are being planted. But will they blossom? Maybe so.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2021 by why me

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

[sigh]  Never mind.  As one of the more reasonable defenders on here, I'd hoped you might be willing to dialogue a little more, but you seem pretty committed to the notion that criticism is never justified.

Where did I say the bolded part?

I do try to be reasonable because I try to be fair.  Comparing actions that almost always occur in private, that are hidden and protected by the person committing them because they do not want anyone to know about them, with actions that are literally published in newspapers, and saying that the rate the church responds to the public ones shows that they care more about them than the private ones, isn't fair.

And that's what you said, right?  That's the topic of our (yours and mine's) current discussion. 

We aren't even talking about whether or not criticism is ever justified.  That's a separate discussion that I haven't even addressed.

 

 

[ttribe]

Just now, bluebell said:

Where did I say the bolded part?

I do try to be reasonable because I try to be fair.  Comparing actions that almost always occur in private, that are hidden and protected by the person committing them because they do not want anyone to know about them, with actions that are literally published in newspapers, and saying that the rate the church responds to the public ones shows that they care more about them than the private ones, isn't fair.

And that's what you said, right?  That's the topic of our (yours and mine's) current discussion. 

We aren't even talking about whether or not criticism is ever justified.  That's a separate discussion that I haven't even addressed.

 

 

I thought it would be relatively plain that since I'm talking about issues I've seen through litigation that the information was also widely known (usually the case by the time something hits litigation).

I'll just bow out though.  My recent participation has reminded me that there really is no middle ground; no meeting of the minds.

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, ttribe said:

[sigh]  Never mind.  As one of the more reasonable defenders on here, I'd hoped you might be willing to dialogue a little more, but you seem pretty committed to the notion that criticism is never justified.

I do not find this to be a reasonable statement.

Edited June 18, 2021 by CV75

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

What  if the information being shared is true? Why get exed for sharing the truth?

Since Pres. Oaks spoke about not having a testimony of the reasons for the priesthood and temple ban but determining to be loyal to the brethren, I wonder if the tension you are expressing here is the tension between truth and loyalty. Pres. Oaks did not go into any detail of what staying loyal meant to him, but I can easily that there are ways of discussing these controversial truths that seems to be more about sowing disloyalty than understanding truth.

Sometimes it seems to me that the harder question is how to learn about and discuss these truths in a manner that encourages loyalty.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

Okay, okay, okay...but, seriously, you don't find it a little odd that making a public criticism is what gets you called into your Stake President's office with such regularity?
 

I have polled a number of friends who have callings that make them aware of the excommunications in their ward or stake...they also live all over the world and one has 40 years of experience as he lives in an area of low density...while they are aware of a number of excommunications for adultery, only one had experience with an apostasy case. (This ratio may change as more respond, but I doubt it).

Few go online and announce they are getting called in for chastity issues, I am guessing, while apostasy...more or less a badge of honor for many, it seems to me.

Added:  Anecdotal of course and doesn’t prove anything, but does point imo to the need for solid data that the incidence of discipline and excommunication for public criticism of the Church is more common than for other perceived sins of someone is making that claim. I can see in a limited area a hyper vigilant stake leader calling attention to public criticism, but my own experience and others who have shared theirs suggests such a circumstance is highly uncommon in the Church. No doubt it can seem more common if one is not prone to listen to gossip about members with chastity issues or one is out of the official loop for such councils and usually is made aware by people talking about their own discipline experiences. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Since Pres. Oaks spoke about not having a testimony of the reasons for the priesthood and temple ban but determining to be loyal to the brethren, I wonder if the tension you are expressing here is the tension between truth and loyalty. Pres. Oaks did not go into any detail of what staying loyal meant to him, but I can easily that there are ways of discussing these controversial truths that seems to be more about sowing disloyalty than understanding truth.

Sometimes it seems to me that the harder question is how to learn about and discuss these truths in a manner that encourages loyalty.

In addition, do not think he is advocating loyalty for loyalty's sake but to honor 3 Nephi 11: 28 - 30 which can come across to others as loyalty to the brethren (see 12:1, "give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you"). It is interesting to me that the brethren are chosen from "among" us and so are not so different from us as to warrant an "us" and 'them" attitude (i.e. what would we do -- and more importantly, receive -- if we were in their shoes?).