Seventy: No purge underway, OK to disagree

I have heard the same from my SP. And my SP is similar to yours in he is more concerned for the one, and he is a good man, so I believe him as well.

You are right, I don’t believe it.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I knew you wouldn’t, and it’s OK to disagree. I will say that I also believe individual GAs are just like the rest of, prone to faults. While I believe the Seventy who was speaking does believe what he taught, I am also open to the idea that some GAs might be tempted to try to influence the outcome of a DC – but I don’t believe most would. I believe them when they say they is no concerted effort from the top to purge. I might point out here that John Dehlin did meet with his SP and has had no DC, and that we never saw anything official from Rock Waterman (who is an apostate anyway IMO) and he has not said anything about having had a DC – and I’m sure he would if he’d had one. I think Waterman was trying to jump on the bandwagon of attention, and the other two were coincidental.

Evidence of a purge I do not see, and the Spirit of Truth I have felt.

… He said there was no direction from the top relating to Kate Kelly or anyone else,… The GAs will never tell the SP what to do, however, and will not attempt to influence the outcome of the council – it is a local matter. … I believe him and I believe the GAs when they say things like the above.

This is what I don’t believe.

Even my TBM family think this is disingenuous rhetoric.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I’m one of those weirdos that leans toward thinking that the decision to excommunicate KK should be directed from the top. The ramifications of the decision reach far beyond the stake level.

I think “attempts to gain a following” is fairly obvious but where I truly get lost in all of this is “attempts to convert others to his or her way of thinking.” That’s kind of a grey area for me. A local leader could interpret vocalizing disagreement in SS as an attempt to convert others to their way of thinking. People on both sides of an issue might interpret the act of making a comment in class as an attempt to convert others to his or her way of thinking. The anti could view the faithful’s comment as an attempt to convert others. The faithful could view the anti’s comment as an attempt to convert others. It’s very nebulous.

I might like to see it go further in being a bit more clear but the very fact that it’s being said at all is a step in the right direction. Having a seventy say “there is no purge underway” might allow cooler heads to prevail where there was any doubt. Change takes time and this is a good first step.

I was summarizing the comments, Nibbler. Perhaps a better way to have put it was attempting to convert others to your way of thinking AND trying to gain a following. The gist of the comments by the SP was that it is absolutely OK to have a differing opinion and it’s even OK to share and discuss that opinion. In the discussion portion of the meeting relating to these comments, an example of a brother who spoke in SM was given – the guy supports OW and tearfully testified in the meeting that he did and that he felt sorry for Kate Kelly. No one there said a word about discipline for him – he did nothing more than share his opinion.

FWIW, for my part in the discussion I encouraged everyone to become familiar with the essays and followed up by sending links to each of them. I was once again surprised at how few priesthood leaders were familiar with them – the SP was, though, and encouraged the same.

And I don’t disagree with you that perhaps the central leadership should perhaps take a bigger role n the more high profile cases. On the other hand, were it me coming before a DC, I’d really like it if it were my local leaders who I know and who know me and my family. While I do believe Kate Kelly should have been excommunicated (she met the criteria), I also believe a lesser discipline may have also sufficed – and I believe her lack of attendance influenced that.

Dark Jedi, perhaps the church is not “purging” in the excommunication since, but I know personally two women that have have had their temple recommends revoked due to private face book posts or liking the OW page. One does not even have a profile up but she has been released from her callings and will not be able to attend her daughter’s wedding in September. So I’m sorry but this just feels like more lip service from the top along with a heavy dose of plausible deniability! “We won’t intervine with local leaders desicions.” Well isn’t that great?!?! Love the double speak!

There may be a few visionaries at the top levels of leadership in the church but it still takes time to filter its way down to the lower levels. A seventy may say this today but it still takes time before local BPs or SPs can set aside their own personal beliefs to adopt a new policy. A big tent church may be completely foreign to some leaders so it takes time for them to catch the vision.

Smacked wrists can help push new policy forward at a quicker pace. I guess a part of the issue is that top leaders don’t have much exposure to local leaders yanking TRs because someone liked the wrong thing on FB. No visibility, no chance to smack that wrist.

I do agree with you Nibbler – I also think they do very little slapping of wrists anyway.

I do agree with you Nibbler – I also think they do very little slapping of wrists anyway.

Yeah, that’s for the best. It is a volunteer organization after all.

The one thing I will say is that the culture could do a better job of allowing people to ask questions. The only people I see asking the tough questions in church meetings these days are the investigators, the rest of us know better than to ask the tough questions… even though we’ve all got them.

It happened just this past Sunday, an investigator asked a question that challenged the doctrine being taught in the class. They asked in a very humble/innocent manner, they even cited some verses in the NT, it wasn’t confrontational. I was a bit saddened by the reaction. The answers stuck to relating LDS specific teachings without providing any scriptural foundation for claims being made. Unfortunately the investigator may have learned that the classroom isn’t a safe place to ask a sincere question. Perhaps they also learned that it’s not safe to ask questions to members in general.

After class I thanked them for their question and told them how helpful I thought their comments were… and it’s true. They brought up a good point.