Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[MartyFunkhouser]

I haven't seen the graphic, but (and this is difficult) funk does have a point. Here's what funk actually wrote leading up to his comparisons between Bishop's alleged actions and the recent excommunicants:



That doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

It's not really a question of what is the more grievous sin - it's about the message the church is sending. The church excommunicated Kelly, Snuffer, et. al. at least in part to send a message to the membership that those individuals were dealing in false doctrine and should not be trusted. If they're going to send a message about not trusting someone, I'd definitely want added to the list someone who abuses his position of priesthood influence to seduce and/or abuse women.

This is the point that I have been making the whole time that Jay keeps twisting into ranking of sins.

[Pelado]

Wow, how could rape have statute of limitations of four years. Darn.

The world was a different place back then. For example, back then, Russia was considered our primary geopolitical foe.

[DrumNFeather]

This is the point that I have been making the whole time that Jay keeps twisting into ranking of sins.

We're with you. Nobody wants to be compared to that ass-hat Dehlin.

[falafel]

I haven't seen the graphic, but (and this is difficult) funk does have a point. Here's what funk actually wrote leading up to his comparisons between Bishop's alleged actions and the recent excommunicants:



That doesn't sound so unreasonable to me.

It's not really a question of what is the more grievous sin - it's about the message the church is sending. The church excommunicated Kelly, Snuffer, et. al. at least in part to send a message to the membership that those individuals were dealing in false doctrine and should not be trusted. If they're going to send a message about not trusting someone, I'd definitely want added to the list someone who abuses his position of priesthood influence to seduce and/or abuse women.

I understand that point about sending messages, but the two categories we are talking about are very different. Dehlin and Kelly were actively trying to lead church members in a direction that was contrary to church leadership and doctrine. Bishop is predator who happened to use his position of power in the church to gratify himself sexually and abuse young women. I don't think there's any message that excommunication could send that isn't already being trumpeted by major news sources here. Remove him from all callings, absolutely; stop selling his dumb books at Desert Book, yes please. Those things, IMO, send the same message.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We're with you. Nobody wants to be compared to that ass-hat Dehlin.

Yeah, I like to pull funk's chain as much as anyone, but Dehlin? Wow, that's a low blow.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's not like my most burning issue, but no I don't think excommunication should be a response to sin. Not allowing callings, definitely. Banning someone from attending or stepping on Church property, I could see that. Excommunication just seems like something that should go away to me.

Wait a minute. So you are OK with the outcomes/impacts of excommunication, but you just don't want to call it that? Am I missing something?

[Pelado]

I understand that point about sending messages, but the two categories we are talking about are very different. Dehlin and Kelly were actively trying to lead church members in a direction that was contrary to church leadership and doctrine. Bishop is predator who happened to use his position of power in the church to gratify himself sexually and abuse young women. I don't think there's any message that excommunication could send that isn't already being trumpeted by major news sources here. Remove him from all callings, absolutely; stop selling his dumb books at Desert Book, yes please. Those things, IMO, send the same message.

I understand the differentiation.

You see no differentiation between the message sent through excommunication and the message sent from removing his calling and dropping his books from Deseret Book?

I know of several faithful members who would not have any problem with the consequences of losing their calling and having all their books pulled from DB.

[jay santos]

Wait a minute. So you are OK with the outcomes/impacts of excommunication, but you just don't want to call it that? Am I missing something?

I'd have to think about it. But I guess, sort of. There is a hierarchy involved in callings. A dude that's half in half out, they're not going to call him to be a bishop, but they'll let him teach primary or be a second counselor. A known pedophile will be banned from any calling involving youth, but might not be exed. Like that. You could also be banned legally from the premise of a building without being exed, I believe. Like if you bring a gun to church and threaten someone. You'd be banned from church but not exed. I believe. Not sure. Excommunication is messing with a person's relationship with God, imho. I don't think we can speak for God who should be given up on completely.

[Sullyute]

I really hope that Santos is trolling Funk on the Dehlin association, because it is making me bust a gut reading Marty’s overreactions to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'd have to think about it. But I guess, sort of. There is a hierarchy involved in callings. A dude that's half in half out, they're not going to call him to be a bishop, but they'll let him teach primary or be a second counselor. A known pedophile will be banned from any calling involving youth, but might not be exed. Like that. You could also be banned legally from the premise of a building without being exed, I believe. Like if you bring a gun to church and threaten someone. You'd be banned from church but not exed. I believe. Not sure. Excommunication is messing with a person's relationship with God, imho. I don't think we can speak for God who should be given up on completely.

Interesting.

I would counter that the camel is 100% in the tent in terms of speaking for God and making claims about access to salvation. At all kinds of levels.

And unless I am missing something, excommunication is never permanent, right? So I think "speak for God who should be given up on completely" is not accurate at all.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I understand that point about sending messages, but the two categories we are talking about are very different. Dehlin and Kelly were actively trying to lead church members in a direction that was contrary to church leadership and doctrine. Bishop is predator who happened to use his position of power in the church to gratify himself sexually and abuse young women. I don't think there's any message that excommunication could send that isn't already being trumpeted by major news sources here. Remove him from all callings, absolutely; stop selling his dumb books at Desert Book, yes please. Those things, IMO, send the same message.

Sure Kelly, Dehlin, etc. engaged in high profile actions that were actively trying to lead church members in a direction contrary to church leadership and doctrine. Bishop didn't try to lead the church members as a whole against leadership and doctrine. Bishop did though with the individuals he interacted with attempt to lead them in a direction contrary to church leadership and doctrine. His actions with each woman that he groomed and abused is just as much going to lead those people into "Apostacy" as Dehlin and Kelly.

So is the counting and ranking now, the number of people lead into Apostacy? You don't think the church itself can send a message that, we support both macro and micro attempts to lead people into Apostacy. You don't think the church can send a message under its "zero tolerance for abuse policy" that people that use the church to abuse people will have no place in it?

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'd have to think about it. But I guess, sort of. There is a hierarchy involved in callings. A dude that's half in half out, they're not going to call him to be a bishop, but they'll let him teach primary or be a second counselor. A known pedophile will be banned from any calling involving youth, but might not be exed. Like that. You could also be banned legally from the premise of a building without being exed, I believe. Like if you bring a gun to church and threaten someone. You'd be banned from church but not exed. I believe. Not sure. Excommunication is messing with a person's relationship with God, imho. I don't think we can speak for God who should be given up on completely.

Then you have to be against excommunication in each and every instance and cannot make the exception for Apostacy or those trying to lead members into Apostacy.

[jay santos]

Interesting.

I would counter that the camel is 100% in the tent in terms of speaking for God and making claims about access to salvation. At all kinds of levels.

And unless I am missing something, excommunication is never permanent, right? So I think "speak for God who should be given up on completely" is not accurate at all.

Anyway, it's a tangential point. In this case, the Church should crack down on Bishop using the punishment they reserve for the worst of sinners. They should apologize for him and make public statement condemning his actions. I wonder if the Church will reissue their statement. Because it seemed like it was based on the possibility Bishop could be fully innocent of all the accusations. When his admission to asking her to lift her shirt in the BYU police report is a sign it isn't. Even if it's just that, as a person of high church authority, they should come down hard on him.

[jay santos]

Then you have to be against excommunication in each and every instance and cannot make the exception for Apostacy or those trying to lead members into Apostacy.

Maybe. I'm on the fence on apostasy. Like I said, it's tangibly different acknowledging sin and promising to repent (even if they can't/don't) vs not acknowledging and not promising.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Anyway, it's a tangential point. In this case, the Church should crack down on Bishop using the punishment they reserve for the worst of sinners. They should apologize for him and make public statement condemning his actions. I wonder if the Church will reissue their statement. Because it seemed like it was based on the possibility Bishop could be fully innocent of all the accusations. When his admission to asking her to lift her shirt in the BYU police report is a sign it isn't. Even if it's just that, as a person of high church authority, they should come down hard on him.

Agreed. That alone is reprehensible given the circumstances.

I am going to double down on my prediction that there will be more victims coming forward. Would be shocked if it ends here.