Mass resignation event tomorrow (6/30/12)

[RobinFinderson]

"Finally ExMormon"
"Research the church"
"Transcend Mormonism"
Chanting "freedom"
Signing a "Declaration of Independence from Mormonism"
"It’s just all man-made. It’s very disappointing."
"going on a 'treasure hunt' to learn more about Mormon founder Joseph Smith"
"With what I learned, it [the church] wasn’t true"
"What would Jesus build?"
"We just see the church as a dysfunctional, manipulative organization."

Taken in its entirety and the effort to seek publicity, this all sounds more like just another broadside against The Church and less about merely wanting "to say we’re here" and to organize an "event to help those who struggle to celebrate their decision" and "support each other."

I remember, as young kid, riding in the back of my neighbor's Volkswagon Rabbit, and telling the brother and sister that, "Your church isn't true." They were Lutherans, and I knew nothing about their church except that it wasn't "God's one true church on the face of the Earth," and I was going to explain that to them. The mother quickly cut me off, explaining that this was a rude thing to say. THAT really hurt my feelings, because it is something I had been saying every week for as long as I was able to talk. The Mormon church, taken in its entirety and the effort to seek publicity, all sounds like a broadside against all other religions.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I passionately condemn apostates who claim to know better than Mormons why Mormons believe. Even though some Mormons do believe out of fear, repression and mind control, it is not fair to claim any individual Mormon does so. Even though the Mormon scriptures (DC 19:7) expressly say that God uses scare tactics to scare his children into compliance with his commandments, apostates should not notice this and claim it is the only or maybe even primary way the Church works.

You sound like my MIL

[DU Ute]

I'm guessing a few of the "I know better than you!" apostates were "I know better than you!" members.

[Non Sequitur]

The problem with making a big formal announcement of your departure is that if you ever decide to come back, you kind of look of an idiot. If it were me, I'd probably change my name, come back and hope nobody noticed. But I'd still kind of feel like an idiot.

[YOhio]

I'm guessing a few of the "I know better than you!" apostates were "I know better than you!" members.

I think you're right.

I remember, as young kid, riding in the back of my neighbor's Volkswagon Rabbit, and telling the brother and sister that, "Your church isn't true."

[wuapinmon]

Makes you wonder why anyone would voluntarily participate in a disciplinary council. On a stake level, it particularly seems like overkill. Why does it take 16 men to participate in a member's personal issues of faith? Ridiculous!

BECAUSE THE MELCHEZIDEK PRIESTHOOD HOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY OTH......awww hell, I don't know Why, I just know why.

[The Rambam]

Makes you wonder why anyone would voluntarily participate in a disciplinary council. On a stake level, it particularly seems like overkill. Why does it take 16 men to participate in a member's personal issues of faith? Ridiculous!

Because if one man is allowed to apostatize in peace and comfort, others might be inclined to do the same. It must be painful, public and humiliating. The Church must be protected. If your slightly eccentric ward-mate is excommunicated because he starts telling people Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, you are less likely to pick up Compton or Quinn or the others that talk about Joseph's weaknesses and failings.

Edit: to be clear, I don't think the Church excommunicates for apostasy very often anymore. I think they learned from the backlash of the September 6 (at least some of them did).

[ERCougar]

Because if one man is allowed to apostatize in peace and comfort, others might be inclined to do the same. It must be painful, public and humiliating. The Church must be protected. If your slightly eccentric ward-mate is excommunicated because he starts telling people Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, you are less likely to pick up Compton or Quinn or the others that talk about Joseph's weaknesses and failings.

Edit: to be clear, I don't think the Church excommunicates for apostasy very often anymore. I think they learned from the backlash of the September 6 (at least some of them did).

I think apostasy is the ONLY reason a court should ever be called. And sparingly.

[Indy Coug]

I think apostasy is the ONLY reason a court should ever be called. And sparingly.

Certainly there have to be others. Sexual abuse of a child would be another obvious situation, IMO.

[Moliere]

Because if one man is allowed to apostatize in peace and comfort, others might be inclined to do the same. It must be painful, public and humiliating. The Church must be protected. If your slightly eccentric ward-mate is excommunicated because he starts telling people Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, you are less likely to pick up Compton or Quinn or the others that talk about Joseph's weaknesses and failings.

Edit: to be clear, I don't think the Church excommunicates for apostasy very often anymore. I think they learned from the backlash of the September 6 (at least some of them did).

BY taught (maybe "hinted" is a better word) that JS was a fallen prophet for the last 3 or so weeks of his life.

BTW Rambam, I love your posts. I rarely agree with you and they are full of conclusions that require a really long leap (read: conspiracy theories) but I enjoy them all the same.

[Pheidippides]

BY taught (maybe "hinted" is a better word) that JS was a fallen prophet for the last 3 or so weeks of his life.

BTW Rambam, I love your posts. I rarely agree with you and they are full of conclusions that require a really long leap (read: conspiracy theories) but I enjoy them all the same.

He had to in order to make the message consistent. OTOH, JS himself hinted that he was a fallen prophet, albeit for the exact opposite reasons BY did. That era is so interesting to me, and nothing is especially clear.

[ERCougar]

Certainly there have to be others. Sexual abuse of a child would be another obvious situation, IMO.

I don't think that's obvious.
Excommunication means to cut off "communication", ie cut off any ties between the church of God and that individual. For a church representing God to do that would require that the individual threaten the integrity of the doctrine of the church. Sin, no matter how heinous, doesn't threaten that. Even apostasy would have to be pretty severe and public to do that.

[Indy Coug]

I don't think that's obvious.
Excommunication means to cut off "communication", ie cut off any ties between the church of God and that individual. For a church representing God to do that would require that the individual threaten the integrity of the doctrine of the church. Sin, no matter how heinous, doesn't threaten that. Even apostasy would have to be pretty severe and public to do that.

Regardless of literal translations, excommunication is much more than that.

[ERCougar]

Regardless of literal translations, excommunication is much more than that.

Don't get into this if you don't want to because this is well-traveled ground, but I'm curious--what is its purpose then?

If a church claims to be the Church of God and an individual's earthly access to God, I think it should be very careful about cutting off that access, no? If God hasn't cut off that access--and by doctrine, we claim these cases are extremely rare (and don't include child abuse)--then I would think that the Church shouldn't. If anything, the Church should err on the side of not cutting someone off.

[Indy Coug]

Don't get into this if you don't want to because this is well-traveled ground, but I'm curious--what is its purpose then?

If a church claims to be the Church of God and an individual's earthly access to God, I think it should be very careful about cutting off that access, no? If God hasn't cut off that access--and by doctrine, we claim these cases are extremely rare (and don't include child abuse)--then I would think that the Church shouldn't. If anything, the Church should err on the side of not cutting someone off.

How about cutting off someone from acting in the name of the God, and by extension the church, as a priesthood holder?