The June 1

[MartyFunkhouser]

This may be the first time in a while we almost completely agree, save a couple minor quibbles. But it's not something I think is good.

My thoughts exactly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is always the problem with a death penalty, though, isn't it, and the easiest argument to make against it.

Yes indeed.

[Joe Public]

I think the church would be better served if discipline went through a centralized ecclesiastical panel, if it has to exist at all. I just had lunch with my bishop and he doesn't care at all about what I do; another one would go nuts. It's random, and unclear standards give opportunity for abusive practices and uneven results.

For a long time now, the LDS church has pushed responsibilities down the management chain (so to speak) as it has grown. This is off the top of my head, but it seems like patriarchal blessings, ordination of bishops, full-time missionary ordinations (I think?), etc. were formerly performed by general authorities and now are performed at the local level. The times I have been in internal training meetings for bishoprics and stake presidencies, the GA(s) continually emphasized that the holders of the keys (bishop/stake president) were entitled to revelation on how to handle any such responsibilities, including disciplinary actions.

With that in mind, I'm not sure how many LDS general leaders will even share a perspective of the results being random. It's one thing for an outside observer to look at Mormonism and see that many local decisions by various local leaders will natually lead to varying results in this type of matter. It's another for those who believe God communicates to local LDS leaders through revelation, which I presume is an accurate description of at least the bulk of the LDS general authority population, to conclude the same. I imagine they will see the hand of God where others see randomness.

[All-American]

For a long time now, the LDS church has pushed responsibilities down the management chain (so to speak) as it has grown. This is off the top of my head, but it seems like patriarchal blessings, ordination of bishops, full-time missionary ordinations (I think?), etc. were formerly performed by general authorities and now are performed at the local level. The times I have been in internal training meetings for bishoprics and stake presidencies, the GA(s) continually emphasized that the holders of the keys (bishop/stake president) were entitled to revelation on how to handle any such responsibilities, including disciplinary actions.

With that in mind, I'm not sure how many LDS general leaders will even share a perspective of the results being random. It's one thing for an outside observer to look at Mormonism and see that many local decisions by various local leaders will natually lead to varying results in this type of matter. It's another for those who believe God communicates to local LDS leaders through revelation, which I presume is an accurate description of at least the bulk of the LDS general authority population, to conclude the same. I imagine they will see the hand of God where others see randomness.

I wonder what you think general authorities do all day. You really believe they have less of a sense than outside observers of how the church's disciplinary process works?

Much easier to believe, I would think, that they find leaving such matters in the hands of local authorities preferable, in spite of the flaws in that approach, to handling them all in a central office in salt lake.

[Joe Public]

I wonder what you think general authorities do all day. You really believe they have less of a sense than outside observers of how the church's disciplinary process works?

Much easier to believe, I would think, that they find leaving such matters in the hands of local authorities preferable, in spite of the flaws in that approach, to handling them all in a central office in salt lake.

That's not what I said. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Green Monstah]

I don't like the idea of a centralized disciplinary council. I think local leaders are in the best position to determine appropriate discipline and responses to acts deemed serious by the church. For the same reason, I strongly dislike the idea of pressure to discipline from salt lake. If a person's online actions rise to the level of apostasy, let the local easer sort it out.

[Pelado]

So lets talk apostasy.

It might surprise some people but I’ve actually been accused of apostasy on several occasions and I’m frequently asked to leave the church. Interestingly none of this has come from my ecclesiastical leaders of course, just from people whom I don’t know who use pseudonyms to protect the good name of the church.

But as silly and as mean as these sometimes poorly behaved people can be, I have had to wonder – are they right? Could I, like John and Kate be accused of apostasy?

My answer (predictably) is a resounding NO. Because like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, I am NOT apostate I am a heretic.

There is no formal designation ‘heretic’ in the LDS church and thus no particular response to it other than calling ‘heresy’ ‘apostasy’ and treating both as equivalent sins. But they’re not.

If the church wishes to be relevant, inclusive and inviting for the next generation of Mormon born and potential converts, it will have to change somewhat for those who have moved into these communities of heresy – so widely disparaged by the orthodox. This group will demand transformation, or they will leave. Of course the more extreme voices relish the opportunity to have the church all to their ultra-orthodox selves – ‘Good riddance’ they crow. But as is often the case in intra-group religious conflicts, the orthodox will be diminished by the absence of the heretics, and vice versa – we simply need each other. The orthodox work hard to give the church historical traction and continuity, the heretics ask the hard questions to make the church relevant and meaningful at the level of the soul. However, come what may the church is changing even as we speak, with every Facebook update, every blog post, every dinner time conversation, every tear, every cruel barb, every troll, every snide comment in church, every resignation letter, every kind word of support, every Bishop or Stake President who weeps with their agonised flock, and yes, every threat of excommunication. It will never be the same again.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimor...#ixzz35EopgTpN

[cowboy]

The church has lied before, therefore they are lying now. Brilliant display of logic.

How is this different from 'the church has been wrong before (ie priesthood, polygamy) therefore they are wrong now (gay marriage, OW)? This isn't meant as a challenge, I'm just asking if there is a difference because I see the logic as identical.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How is this different from 'the church has been wrong before (ie priesthood, polygamy) therefore they are wrong now (gay marriage, OW)? This isn't meant as a challenge, I'm just asking if there is a difference because I see the logic as identical.

I agree, that sounds like equally bad logic. Who said that?

[Pheidippides]

How is this different from 'the church has been wrong before (ie priesthood, polygamy) therefore they are wrong now (gay marriage, OW)? This isn't meant as a challenge, I'm just asking if there is a difference because I see the logic as identical.

This is why I think the OW movement is a bit odd. I understand the logic of "the church has been wrong before (priesthood), God wouldn't let prophets be wrong about something so big, therefore these guys don't talk to God/aren't prophets, therefore the church isn't true." I can follow that. But that's not what Kate is saying. I think she's effectively using the logic you use above, and I don't follow it. But not my cause, although I wish them well.

[cowboy]

I agree, that sounds like equally bad logic. Who said that?

A good friend who is on the high council came over the other night, and that was essentially his argument. He is a MoSto parrot, and his arguments may have well have come from a John Dehlin PowerPoint. He's a bright guy, and I really like him, but he thinks Joseph Smith was a horndog (though still believes he was a prophet) and that this is God's church, but the prophet is wrong about gay marriage and OW. I don't have a problem with his opinion, though mine is different, but his logic was 'they were wrong before so they're wrong now.' It was an interesting conversation, and I only had to threaten to ask him to leave once, when he started saying some pretty vile things about Joseph Smith. He backed off, and we are still close friends.

[Pheidippides]

A good friend who is on the high council came over the other night, and that was essentially his argument. He is a MoSto parrot, and his arguments may have well have come from a John Dehlin PowerPoint. He's a bright guy, and I really like him, but he thinks Joseph Smith was a horndog (though still believes he was a prophet) and that this is God's church, but the prophet is wrong about gay marriage and OW. I don't have a problem with his opinion, though mine is different, but his logic was 'they were wrong before so they're wrong now.' It was an interesting conversation, and I only had to threaten to ask him to leave once, when he started saying some pretty vile things about Joseph Smith. He backed off, and we are still close friends.

What, exactly, was he saying about Joseph Smith that was more vile than the horndog thing? I mean, that's not exactly an idea you drop in polite company, and certainly not in the home of somebody else unless you're on the same page. Geez.

[Non Sequitur]

How is this different from 'the church has been wrong before (ie priesthood, polygamy) therefore they are wrong now (gay marriage, OW)? This isn't meant as a challenge, I'm just asking if there is a difference because I see the logic as identical.

No one is saying that the Church is wrong now just because they were wrong in the past. The argument is closer to they have been wrong in the past so they're not necessarily right now. It's an important distinction. It's a distinction that opens the door for dialogue.

[SoCalCoug]

The church has lied before, therefore they are lying now. Brilliant display of logic.

Is that any less logical than, "They've lied before, but they're not lying this time?"

[TripletDaddy]

No one is saying that the Church is wrong now just because they were wrong in the past. The argument is closer to they have been wrong in the past so they're not necessarily right now. It's an important distinction. It's a distinction that opens the door for dialogue.

i agree. In fact, i think that if you were to really parse the meaning of what cowboys friend was saying, I wonder if this actually wasn't his point, as opposed to "wrong in the past means wrong today."

i would add add to that that "wrong in the past" also weakens the implied "brethren are always right" counter argument. Of course, Dieter already basically ended any serious claims to the brethren always being right when he acknowledged that they have made mistakes in the past.

given that the church leadership has acknowledged that the Bros make mistakes and have made them in the past, I guess I don't see any logical fallacy in at least questioning the veracity of any current mandate.