Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
DarkJedi
Posts: 6593
Joined: 24 Aug 2013, 20:53

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by DarkJedi » 24 Jul 2014, 04:35

DevilsAdvocate wrote:I believe that a 70 would say that because that's what the Church wants people to think to protect their image and maybe it is technically true sort of the way they claim they didn't spend tithing money on the mall and GA's salaries (but where did the original money for the businesses and other investments come from if not donations from well intentioned members?). What I don't believe is that Kate Kelly's local leaders suddenly just up and decided that she needed to be disciplined when she didn't even live in that stake anymore completely on their own and without any direction from top leaders. I think some of the purge talk came from John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, and others claiming they were threatened with Church discipline around the same time. I'm not afraid of any widespread purge but I definitely wouldn't want to use my own name on these boards the way Ray and others have.
We've had our Kate Kelly threads, DA, so I don't really want to let this one devolve into another one because its topic is about a general purge, not Kate Kelly. I must correct some errors in your statements, though. Kate Kelly's discipline was not sudden, she was on probation which was the result of previous warnings she didn't heed. The disciplinary council was the result of not keeping the provisions of the probation. This was a process that had taken at least several months (the public doesn't know exactly how long). At the time all of this started she did live in the ward/stake, and did so in fact until just prior to the council. It is church policy, and makes total sense, that such a council be held where she lived when the events leading to the council occurred and in reality most of her work appears to have been done there. It would actually be unfair to her and the church to have had it in her new ward where they didn't know all the circumstances, they didn't know her, and she didn't know them. She was further offered the opportunity to take part via video or voice link and declined.

I agree that the purge talk probably started as the result of John Dehlin and Rock Waterman saying they had been threatened at the same time (neither have been disciplined yet that we are aware of) and a bit of a media feeding frenzy.

I have considered using my name here, I'm not totally uncomfortable with it anymore. This is another example of the ship of the church turning - divergence of opinion and questions are OK in respectful moderation.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.

Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."

My Introduction

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16517
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by Curt Sunshine » 24 Jul 2014, 08:04

[Admin Note]: As DJ said, there are other threads to discuss Sister Kelly and OW and opinions about the details of that case, specifically. As one element of a greater purge or not, it is relevant and can be discussed in this thread (as has been done properly in various comments already) - but there is no need in this thread to go back into details of her situation, rehash what has been discussed extensively in other threads and shift this thread to another discussion of her case. If anyone wants to do that, there are multiple threads that focus directly on that topic.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

intothelight
Posts: 48
Joined: 26 Oct 2013, 23:56

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by intothelight » 29 Jul 2014, 23:58

You're also not going to be arrested for wearing a seahawks hat on opening day at bronco stadium in Denver, - but if you're expecting it to be anything better than extremely uncomfortable, you're in for a really big surprise. The GAs can say whatever they want to say - but not even a directive from them is going to command away the fact that the member who disagrees with an accepted church doctrine publicly, almost 100% of the time will not stay a member for long - usually by choice, occasionally by disciplinary council. They don't have to purge - it happens automatically. Anyone's guess as to what they'd do if this natural purge didn't take place on a large-scale basis.

Not saying this is wrong or bad. The church is under no obligation to change for the better (or worse), in response to complaints by anyone. It's just unfortunate that many really good, but imperfect people almost destroy themselves in trying separate Christ from imperfect people thrown together into an imperfect church. What I find is lacking in many members of the church is perspective. Things like putting missionary nametags on 3 year olds certainly doesn't encourage or produce well-adjusted people. But neither does almost anything we do repeatedly in our loves - religious or not. And according to textbooks, there is no need to balance out something good and right in a person with bad - but I hope someone at a high level in the church thinks about what happens emotionally to many a good person when for whatever reason they don't meet the ideal that while not publicly advocated, exists as plainly as the nose on your face. As CS Lewis said, you can't "not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice" - but if you are wielding the sword of truth as you happen to see it, you shouldn't lose sight of the occasional collateral damage.

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16517
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by Curt Sunshine » 30 Jul 2014, 08:40

I agree with the general points of your comment, intothelight, but I need to say one thing:
the member who disagrees with an accepted church doctrine publicly, almost 100% of the time will not stay a member for long - usually by choice, occasionally by disciplinary council.


That depends totally on what you mean by "publicly" and how the disagreement is worded - and the nature of the doctrine.

There are many people who write publicly throughout the Bloggernacle, for example, using their real names, about things with which they disagree (even to saying they believe a practice or doctrine is wrong and should be changed) and remain very active in the Church. There are many people who talk in church meetings about some things with which they disagree and remain active in the Church. Seriously, I think most members who are struggling with a faith crisis / transition would be surprised at how much public disagreement occurs throughout the Church.

Often, especially concerning disciplinary action, it's not exactly what is said that causes the separation; it's how it is said and the degree of insistence that others agree that is the core issue. It also depends too heavily on the local leadership and if they have a doctrinal stick up their hindquarters - but I've heard quite a few statements of disagreement throughout my life even in wards with hardline Bishops. The people simply have spoken calmly and softly - and not been seen as "challenging" the Church or "demanding" change (or trying to "convert" others to their viewpoint).
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by Shawn » 30 Jul 2014, 12:55

Kate Kelly epitomizes the mormon apostate.

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16517
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by Curt Sunshine » 30 Jul 2014, 13:35

[Admin Note]: Again, this is not about Kate and OW. People here view that situation in lots of different ways, and there are other threads for that. I don't want to have to close this thread, but let's keep this focused on the issue of the post - especially since its author requested that explicitly.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3500
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by hawkgrrrl » 30 Jul 2014, 14:25

Shawn:
Kate Kelly epitomizes the mormon apostate.
Meaning what exactly? The actual definition of apostasy is: "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief." Kate did not do this at all. I think what she epitomizes is that Mormons don't know the actual definition of apostasy. She also wasn't officially ex'd for apostasy. The LDS church defines apostasy as: "when individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel.” In practice, though, it usually means anything leaders view as disloyal, which is so loosely defined as to be meaningless.

When Chad Hardy (Mormon missionary shirtless calendar guy) was ex'd he was asked if he would comply with the request to stop making his calendars if TSM asked him to, and he said no and gave his reasons (primarily that he was in a business partnership with another person and he was the steadying influence in that partnership where the church was concerned). So his "disloyalty" as evidenced by his answer was why he was ex'd. Early church members who were ex'd for apostasy were likewise presented with a "loyalty test" to see if they would do what leaders told them even if it went against their conscience, and when they refused to comply, they were ex'd.

We call things apostasy that aren't. Chad Hardy wasn't a believer anymore. Kate Kelly bore her testimony the fast & testimony meeting before she was ex'd. How is that the epitome of apostasy? She was (and I believe still is) a believer. She just also believes in her cause and that according to personal revelation, this was important to raise in the way she did.

Back to the post, though, I do believe Clayton and Ballard hoped to instigate actions. Are they just on a personal crusade or are their actions at the behest of the Q15? I believe the apostles frequently act on their own accord, and then they don't contradict one another, so it seems as though they are unified. Some local leaders are eager to demonstrate their fealty, and those are the ones who believe they are doing as instructed when in reality, it's a combination of 1) their own willingness to do whatever they think will please higher ups, 2) their own interpretations of what leaders say, and 3) their values alignment with a given leader. If a local leader is not a yes man, interprets higher ups differently, or doesn't agree with the leader's view on these matters, he will not take actions. And that's how you create leader roulette.

intothelight
Posts: 48
Joined: 26 Oct 2013, 23:56

Re: Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

Post by intothelight » 30 Jul 2014, 23:55

Ray DeGraw wrote:I agree with the general points of your comment, intothelight, but I need to say one thing:
the member who disagrees with an accepted church doctrine publicly, almost 100% of the time will not stay a member for long - usually by choice, occasionally by disciplinary council.


That depends totally on what you mean by "publicly" and how the disagreement is worded - and the nature of the doctrine.

There are many people who write publicly throughout the Bloggernacle, for example, using their real names, about things with which they disagree (even to saying they believe a practice or doctrine is wrong and should be changed) and remain very active in the Church. There are many people who talk in church meetings about some things with which they disagree and remain active in the Church. Seriously, I think most members who are struggling with a faith crisis / transition would be surprised at how much public disagreement occurs throughout the Church.

Often, especially concerning disciplinary action, it's not exactly what is said that causes the separation; it's how it is said and the degree of insistence that others agree that is the core issue. It also depends too heavily on the local leadership and if they have a doctrinal stick up their hindquarters - but I've heard quite a few statements of disagreement throughout my life even in wards with hardline Bishops. The people simply have spoken calmly and softly - and not been seen as "challenging" the Church or "demanding" change (or trying to "convert" others to their viewpoint).
I am glad you've had a better experience than have I. All I know is what happened to me and most of the other people I know when they've given even the slightest hint to other hard-core members that they disagree with the doctrine. I am admittedly thin-skinned, so I do agree you are right that others would push through. I have a lot of respect for those who can. But it is interesting to note that virtually 100% of the members here choose aliases and not their real names to register - and wouldn't think of posting their real names if asked (and I am certainly among them :) ).

But I definitely stand corrected. There are numerous people who as you say publicly disagree and still stay in the church.

I can't expect the church to throw it's playbook in the furnace to avoid offending me - even if that's what my actions portray too often - it's just tragic that there are people damaged as a result. And the ones that don't have a place to blow off steam like you've provided for us to do are the ones really being hurt the most. So again, thank-you.


Post Reply