quote:That is fine and all, but that can be learned without going to Church. If you don't have faith, then what possible reason is there for the existence of a religion?
I could've sworn it had something to do with improving humanity in general and redeeming humanity in this particular case of their sins.
Anyway, isn't there some...guy, somewhere, whose ideology would be pretty opposed to your strong eagerness to pull the excommunication/shunning switch?
quote:How much more called out could she be?
Well she hasn't been thoroughly and publicly chastised and repudiated as a warning to the doubters within the group yet, has she?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may be naive but I was under the impression that to "call out" someone was to issue a challenge to someone with the condition that if they don't accept the challenge that they will lose something valuable to them.
But in this case, she's already not going to church, so she can't lose that, she probably won't do events in public that are Mormon-related so she can't lose that, so what could the challenge be?
Without this, it seems that there's no ability to really do a proper calling out. Instead, thoroughly and publicly chastising someone seems more akin to "bitching about" rather than "calling out."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't have faith, then what possible reason is there for the existence of a religion?
Cynical answer: If the church wasn't there, a lot of people would have nothing to define themselves against. If the church suddenly stopped pulling and changed all its doctrine and practices to be in accordance to what these people are calling for, they'd all fall over. I wonder how they would handle suddenly being the orthodox ones.
Less cynical answer: Even a rebellious teenager takes secret comfort that there's a warm, loving, constant home to come home to when he's ready. The church is there as much to be a constant standard as it is to fulfill the religious needs of individuals at different points on their "spiritual journey." People are defining themselves against the teachings of the church even when they are advocating a redefinition of it to fit whatever their own beliefs have evolved into. That's the value of religion here, IMO: it still provides the structure in which they define themselves, and it keeps the boundaries pretty clearly marked.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church does not ONLY exist to teach people to love one another-- Occasional is right, that can be done through secular means.
We know the Mormon Church exists for four purposes: 1) To perfect the saints 2) To redeem the dead 3) To proclaim the gospel 4) To assist the poor
I'm not sure how you're using faith, Occasional; can you explain? Your question doesn't quite make sense to me.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Advice for robots, if they were serious about wanting to be religious and holding the views they do, then there is a Mormon-centric church out there for them. They don't even have to invent one. Its called The Community of Christ and I am sure they would be welcomed with open arms. I really wish that they would be more dedicated to missionary work in the Utah based Mormon community. A lot of people are ripe for hearing their message. I would rather those like the quoted woman repent and come back in faith, but it seems hardly likely.
It is funny that the Utah-based Mormon Church is scorned for "changing past beliefs" and yet the Community of Christ has changed much more serious positions and no one bats an eye. Downgrading the divine nature of the Book of Mormon? Women Priesthood holders? Belief in the traditional Trinity? Acceptance of Gay Marriage (I am not sure of that one, but if not I don't see them rejecting the change)? Building an offense-less and non-ceremonial Temple? Seems they are getting "convenient political revelations" as the accusation goes.
Why don't more liberal Mormons flock to them is what I don't understand? They could make it theirs and rejoice in their own way.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not sure how you're using faith, Occasional; can you explain?"
The belief in foundational and basic tenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In other words, a belief that the Church is set up with divine Priesthood authority to teach the Salvation of Mankind with faith in Jesus Christ. I will propose that the 13 Articles of Faith are the guiding principal elements with baptismal questions the baseline one must affirm in the positive to remain a member of the LDS Church in at least theory.
Faith in religion is a set of beliefs that an individual or organization has about Existence, God, and Salvation that sets them apart from others. A Muslim is not a Catholic or a Jew. If for example a Muslim was to preach and teach Catholicism, would they really be a Muslim? At best by name only. Most people, and most importantly those within that person's faith, would reject them as part of the Muslim community of faith. Lets say they are Catholic and yet deny the Trinity?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Mormons who define themselves as being on the fringe like being on the fringe. They don't want a church that has diluted its beliefs to be more popular. They like being able to call the LDS church stodgy and inflexible.
At any rate, I'm with Scott on this: I don't see why these people should be pushed away. Even the processes of disfellowshipping or excommunication are not, if handled correctly, a pushing away of the person from the church, but an opportunity for them to work things out in their lives and return when they are ready.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Church does not ONLY exist to teach people to love one another-- Occasional is right, that can be done through secular means.
We know the Mormon Church exists for four purposes: 1) To perfect the saints 2) To redeem the dead 3) To proclaim the gospel 4) To assist the poor
All of those missions fall within the purview of loving another, through the mechanism of service.
Those acts of love cannot be done if the church does not exist. -------
Occ:
quote:That is fine and all, but that can be learned without going to Church. If you don't have faith, then what possible reason is there for the existence of a religion?
People who have lost their faith do not surrender all the blessings God promises those who serve him. An agnostic who comforts those who stand in need of comfort, or gives his substance to the poor, is still doing a virtuous thing, and it will be counted to their benefit. Many Mormons have truly lost their faith, and yet they continue to come to church because they need that pattern. They may just sit quietly, or they may actively serve in any number of callings, but keep their concerns quiet. Who is to say that the right person, or lesson won't be given and that they won't reconnect with their estranged faith?
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I think the Mormons who define themselves as being on the fringe like being on the fringe. They don't want a church that has diluted its beliefs to be more popular. They like being able to call the LDS church stodgy and inflexible.
At any rate, I'm with Scott on this: I don't see why these people should be pushed away. Even the processes of disfellowshipping or excommunication are not, if handled correctly, a pushing away of the person from the church, but an opportunity for them to work things out in their lives and return when they are ready.
Or instead of psychoanalyzing, you could actually talk to them. People don't want the church to embrace the ways of the world. A lot of them want the church to act in a more ethical, more loving way, to treat everyone like children of God with no second class citizens. If you read like fmh, there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Well she hasn't been thoroughly and publicly chastised and repudiated as a warning to the doubters within the group yet, has she?
FYI, this is not generally how excommunication is handled within the LDS church. As a rule, the proceedings and results of church disciplinary hearings are not made public, unless the individual disciplined chooses to make them public. It's very possible for someone who has been excommunicated who chooses to continue to attend meetings to be nearly indistinguishable to the members of the local church group from a member in good standing.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I think the Mormons who define themselves as being on the fringe like being on the fringe. They don't want a church that has diluted its beliefs to be more popular. They like being able to call the LDS church stodgy and inflexible.
At any rate, I'm with Scott on this: I don't see why these people should be pushed away. Even the processes of disfellowshipping or excommunication are not, if handled correctly, a pushing away of the person from the church, but an opportunity for them to work things out in their lives and return when they are ready.
Or instead of psychoanalyzing, you could actually talk to them. People don't want the church to embrace the ways of the world. A lot of them want the church to act in a more ethical, more loving way, to treat everyone like children of God with no second class citizens. If you read like fmh, there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize.
I was responding in the context of Occasional's comments. I know it's not so cut and dry. Church members are all over the spectrum on what they get from and what they expect of the church. I have read and enjoyed fmh entries. I've associated with people with many different takes on the church.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize."
That is because Mormons like me recognize the Fringies are unrepentant sinners of spirit if not action. You cry repentance and they cry oppression. If they would admit to their weaknesses and not stick to their own version of self-righteousness like, "A lot of them want the church to act in a more ethical, more loving way, to treat everyone like children of God with no second class citizens," then there might something to talk about. To state the quote and then claim they don't want the Church to embrace the ways of the world is hypocrisy. The ways they want to achieve those are the ways of the world!
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's unnecessarily harsh, harmfully judgmental, and simply untrue, Occ.
I apologize for my earlier comments in response to this discussion. I want no part in that kind of sentiment.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional: I do agree that for some sinners, the response is "The church needs to change not me". And in those instances, that is a disease of the mind that should be cured not cultivated. Heck there's a good number of those people in the Book of Mormon.
But we don't live in a world where the leaders of the church only make correct decisions at all times. I don't expect a formal apology when they don't, but I don't begrudge people the right to express their dissent, so long as it's done respectfully, and so long as God has not weighed in on the matter.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you read like fmh, there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize.
What's fmh and TB?
quote:That is because Mormons like me recognize the Fringies are unrepentant sinners of spirit if not action.
We're ALL spiritually dying without the grace of Christ. I'm not sure that it matters what we're dying from; in most cases, I think Christ only cares that we let Him heal us.
This is not to say that we shouldn't preach repentance; true repentance is the only method by which Christ can heal us. So it's counter His grace to let sin go unrecognized and unhealed. Sure-- we call everyone to repent and be forgiven.
At the same time, I hope we recognize how desperate our own situation is. Metaphorically speaking, we are terminally ill cancer patients serving bread and water to the desperately starved. Christ is our treatment; and their sustenance.
In light of that, Occasional, the language you've chosen to use is reprehensible.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry- fmh is feminist mormon housewives. It is one of the internet communities that attracts a lot of fringe people.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure how the apostles/first presidency have denied or minimized the pain of those on the fringe. Who makes up the fringe?
It's certain that we don't know all things-- but as Jeffrey R. Holland said in 2007, we know "God loveth His children." And as Boyd K. Packer said to those suffering from same-gender attraction, "We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Packer has also in his time as a member of the 12 advocated violence against gays- long time ago, but still one of his talks that he has never apologized for that.
If you look at recent talks where they mention things like leaving because of petty offenses, it is like, really, how many people are leaving because of minor things and if they left the church over it, it isn't minor to them. Also, there have been no churchwide responses to some issues which should have been responded to- such as requiring more training to bishops in terms of proper response to abuse, especially sexual. Woman should not in this day and age talk to their bishop about being date raped and told that since they didn't fight or kissed the guy, they are equally culpable and need to repent. Maybe my sample is skewed but there are a lot of bishops out there responding that way.
I can think of other examples, but I don't want to make this a listing of every wrong the church has done or anything like that.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm done here. when a person speaks against an Apostle of the Lord for something that by all accounts depends on interpretation rather than fact, I am dealing with a full blown Apostate. I can see that repentance is a concept that is no longer accepted or desired. By the way, if you get raped go to the police and not the Bishop. Solved it for you.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're pretty crazy and full of it, Occasional, considering that what you just said effectively translates to you saying that a mormon openly disagreeing with you is no longer a Real Mormon.
I guess this is what drives your completely nuts social view - you desperately desire a balkanization of the united states so that the Real Mormons like you can set up a theocracy and punish all those Hateful Apostate Non-Mormons who shamelessly defy your own imaginings.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'll whistle that. I hope you are done here, whether it's because you leave the infidels, heathens, and Apostates alone on your own or not.
There's all sorts of places on the Net for spiteful Christianity. Maybe you should go find one of 'em.
-----
Re: excommunication, quite right-I should've been more clear. I was talking about the sort of thing I believe Occasional would like to see happen, re: community reaction.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... you desperately desire a balkanization of the united states so that the Real Mormons like you can set up a theocracy ...
Ah, Europeans and Canadians annexing Americans fantasy. Good times.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Packer has also in his time as a member of the 12 advocated violence against gays- long time ago, but still one of his talks that he has never apologized for that.
I wiki'd this, and the wiki said the talk was given in the October conference of 1976. I checked the conference talks from October '76; Packer didn't speak at all (or at least it isn't listed on the Church's website). I also checked the April session of the same year, and no dice-- Packer gave the well-known talk about spiritual crocodiles, but no violence is mentioned.
Here's what the wiki had to say:
quote:Quinn has pointed to Apostle Boyd K. Packer's LDS General Conference address from October 1976 as evidence of problematic attitudes in the LDS Church towards homosexuals. In the speech, Packer encourages teenage boys to avoid immoral activities, which he says includes viewing pornography, masturbating, participating in homosexual behavior, and participating in heterosexual behavior outside of marriage.[47] Packer encourages young Latter-day Saints to "vigorously resist" any males "who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts." Packer cites the example of a male missionary he had known who punched his missionary companion for making romantic advances. Packer says he told the missionary, "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."[47] After telling the story, Packer comments, "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself."[47] Packer offers a similar warning against heterosexual advances, but without the threat of violence in return: "Never let anyone handle you or touch those very personal parts of your body which are an essential link in the ongoing of creation"[58]
The footnote for 47 mentions that there is a transcript of the talk, both reprints without permission.
The context isn't quite what you proposed, scholarette. I'm not sure it's permissable; and Dalin H. Oak's talk, and Pres. Hinckley's talks more recently make it clear that any mistreatment of homosexuals is not tolerated by the Lord. But there's a difference between advocating violence against gays, and telling boys it's not a sin to slug another guy who's trying to get in your pants.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrote up a response but the thing is, I don't want to be criticizing the church. I want there to be some understanding of why people are hurt by the Church or choose to be inactive/less active/jack mormons/ etc. I do feel like often the response is seeing the people as caricatures of faithlessness instead or real people with real complaints.
Regarding Packer quote, that was kinda snarky on my part and was based on my memory from long ago. I remember my seminary teacher reading it to us and a lesson on homosexuality being evil and also some AIDS as punishment from God tossed in and being really annoyed at that teacher. Most of the lesson I dismissed as crazy teacher, but the Packer story I couldn't really dismiss and it kinda stuck in my head, but not full details.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
With what I said earlier, I was definitely caricaturizing a probably vanishingly small set of people. Not very sensitive of me in any context. I've seen many people leave the church or go inactive for a variety of different reasons, some based on their own actions and some based on the actions of others. Some have pushed the church sa far away from themselves as possible and some have attempted to keep parts of it in their lives. Some church leaders have been especially sensitive and good at helping people work through their issues without being judgmental; others aren't good at working with people and harm more than they help, even if they have good intentions. Some people have been more patient with their leaders' shortcomings and some have been less patient. There's no way to blanket large groups of people with one judgment from a church perspective; it shouldn't be done. Everyone has their own unique circumstances and deserves consideration and respect for their feelings. It's not fair to slap the label of "jack mormon" on someone and it's not fair to slap on the label of "orthodox mormon" (or something less than complimentary referring to the same person) because everyone has their own challenges and we don't really know what they're feeling inside.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr- I think that what you said was basically what I was trying for.
on the sexual assault stuff- I am not that old and I grew up with it being taught over the pulpit by like bishop, ward leaders that you fought to the death rather than submit to sex-if you weren't in the hospital, you didn't do enough to prevent. So, in a lot of ways it is not a big surprise that some bishops don't always seem some things as rape. The story in particular I am thinking of was not me so I can't give more details but basically girl and guy on date, make out, things go a little further than kissing, girl says no, boy keeps going, girl freezes, doesn't know what to do, terrified does nothing. Afterwards, goes to bishop and has to go through repentance process. A few years later she realizes that she said no and instead of repenting, she should have been at the ER getting a rape kit done. But the story of how good people lose their virginity told even now (and is often true) is kissing alone and one thing leads to another and they have sex. The two stories can be very close when told to an outsider but really should be handled very differently.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: girl and guy on date, make out, things go a little further than kissing, girl says no, boy keeps going, girl freezes, doesn't know what to do, terrified does nothing. Afterwards, goes to bishop and has to go through repentance process. A few years later she realizes that she said no and instead of repenting, she should have been at the ER getting a rape kit done.
The realization that she said no "a few years later" is problematic for me. I don't think bishops should be expected to recognize facts about an individual's actions that the individual herself/himself doesn't even realize.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
She knew she said no at the time, but she didn't realize this meant it was rape. She had assumed that violence was required for it to be rape. In her story to bishop, she included the saying no and freezing but since she didn't fight him off, it was treated as consensual.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've thought about it, but its not as easy as it sounds. Right now, however, my problem is with the membership and not the leadership. It is kind of hard to "join a secluded cult commune" when you don't believe they hold the Authority of the Priesthood of God; no matter how they act or what they teach. Who holds the Keys of the Kingdom is a very specific and basic doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its not like others where a simple "calling" is considered the equivalent of making your own congregation. More than likely I would just go inactive like so many others.
And I commented because you said something about me, and not on the subject itself.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I've thought about it, but its not as easy as it sounds. Right now, however, my problem is with the membership and not the leadership.
It sounds like you actually have a problem with the leadership: (emphasis mine)
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered."
There isn't enough of this going on in the LDS Church. Too much pandering to PR and trying to not look disagreeable. Sin and unbelief are rampant and no one is doing anything about it because a few newspapers and loud voices are screaming and gnashing teeth against the real and very specific teachings of Mormonism and Commandments of the Lord! The only real consolation I have is that a lot of them ex-communicate themselves (go inactive).
Doesn't that sound a bit like steadying the arc? The leadership is responsible for excommunications, not the membership. If you trust the Prophet/Apostles/Leadership, then let them be to handle it the correct way. Because whatever they do is correct. No questioning. They do, after all, have THE Authority and THE Inspiration.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mitt is so Mormon his Israel policy will be centered on Jackson County, Missouri.
quote:Mitt is so Mormon, he will ask members of Congress to go home and pray about his economic plan.
quote:Mitt is so Mormon he’d ask the Elders Quorum to move him into the White House.
quote:Mitt is so Mormon that if he got elected all of the White House Pyrex 9×13 pans would have a piece of masking tape on them with his name written in Sharpie.
posted
Scott, the old men don't move people in. That's what the young whippersnappers are for. My dad was high priest pres for a while and he used to complain so much when they asked high priests to do things like that- elders slacking on their duties.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Scott, the old men don't move people in. That's what the young whippersnappers are for. My dad was high priest pres for a while and he used to complain so much when they asked high priests to do things like that- elders slacking on their duties.
In my ward growing up we had the Melchizedek priesthood pass the sacrament on fast Sundays as a sort of reminder that all duties of the priesthood are important, and one should be ready to do any of them at any time. A new stake president moved in, a disgruntled high priest complained, boom, tradition gone.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in my parent's ward, the high priests are really old so watching these little old guys shuffle around with canes and walkers and then asking them to volunteer to move someone is just cruel. My dad's issue was more the able bodied one than a too important thing.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
That's hilarious. And proof that I've been hanging out with all of y'all a long time -- I got (or mostly got) almost all of those.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mitt's a High Priest, so he'd better ask his High Priest's group to help him move in...
As a (fairly young and relatively spry) HP, every time I volunteer to help with a move, my wife gives me a horrified look and gasps, "but honey, your back."
There are good reasons to leave it to the Elders.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having just been released as Elders Quorum President, let me just say that the help of the high priests group on a move was always much appreciated. We have plenty of spry young high priests in our ward, some younger than me. While it fell to me 99% of the time to organize a move, it was nice when the high priests group leader kicked in as well and got a few bodies there as well as trucks and trailers. Elders have the stronger backs on average, but high priests tend to have more resources at their disposal.
In a ward with any apartments in it, you tend to have more move-ins and move-outs, plus more families with little to no resources or family support, and thus the EQ is called on quite often to help. I bristle a bit when it's implied that the EQ is slacking when they ask for help from time to time. There were months when I had the guys out there every Saturday moving someone, sometimes doing two moves at a time. That's time away from all of our families and it's draining.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
