- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I almost posted a thought on the board, but didn’t want to open the can of worms there…so I’ll open it here. Basically when we ban someone, it is to protect the mission of the site and make it so we keep control of the website here…right? That is basically what excommunication is for the church.
People banned won’t like it, and have their sympathizers who will equally not like it. Excom is basically the same thing for the church, right?
Am I seeing it correctly?
I think it’s a pretty good parallel, especially for excommunications due to apostasy. FWIW, in my experience more excommunications are for adultery than apostasy. Jana Riess wrote a blog post with a similar thought. She was taking heat from a comment-er an was just going to disconnect him from face book or her blog, right before she pushed the button, she had the same thought – am I excommunicating this person, just cutting them off. I can’t remember the outcome, but it is a tricky dance. I don’t mind the church excommunicating people. I don’t always understand all the details and some of them seem unjust to me, but I let the ball be in their court.
What I do mind is the meetings, like Boise, where there is inflated pressure from the top. When leadership makes statements or dismisses others without compassion. Or answers questions with just stick by us. Even Jesus didn’t require blind obedience, nor did he chase after those who left. He never ran up and said, “Hey, I fed you twice at the meetings of the 4,000 and the 5,000 – now you turn away. I shake my sandal at you.”
The church has had the present internet monkey on it’s back for over a decade, there are ways to address, converse, discuss responses that would keep things balanced. I wish they would take advantage of that.
I see banning as a difference in that arena. We don’t write huge articles threatening or pressuring people to perform a certain way, we rarely ban and when we do, we don’t post it on the main board and make the individual the scapegoat or example. The last banning we did, we took considerable time on, much outreach and conversation happened. We even still have a plan in place should he want to return.
There are parallels but like with anything it’s not a 1:1. I suspect most people that land here would be of the attitude that an excommunication has no bearing on their eternal salvation. A ban is similar to excommunicating a believing member in that it’s unwanted separation from community that’s driven by an external authority.
Another difference, no one considers membership to a message board to carry any eternal weight, this time I’m not referring to the person that’s banned but to the people that are in the banned person’s day to day life. Suppose a spouse is a believing member, “honey I got banned from staylds” isn’t going to carry the same weight as “honey I got excommunicated.” In fact “honey I got banned from staylds” might be met with “good” as the response.
In theory, yes, they can function with one common purpose. However, in practice there are similarities and major differences. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of excommunication; my issue is in how arbitrarily and broadly it is used too often. I feel the same way about banning at some sites – but not others who are more consistent and narrow.
I have mixed feelings on this. Yes, banning is like excommunication (and modding is like disfellowshipping). We used to get into big debates on this at W&T when we first came over from MM. At MM, John D was more willing to ban than we were. And over at BCC, Steve Evans will ban faster than we do at W&T. Generally speaking, what it allows you to do is to keep the conversations cleaner and more “legitimate” in the eyes of the church, which is why it’s critical for bloggernacle groups. At W&T we don’t ban much, but as a result we get some crappy discussions at times, and we are probably viewed as less faithful than BCC when in reality, I think we’re about the same behind the scenes. Quote:John D was more willing to ban than we were.
Hmm, did karma catch him?
I agree with Ray…they are similar, and I can see how Ray has no problem with it. It serves a purpose…and sometimes it is about “how” it is done and in what circumstance, but not the concept in general, which seems to be a similar theme from everyone’s responses. It is one thing to see JohnD or Rock Waterman (??? is that the name?) or others we read about in the news and wonder why the church does this in some situations.
It is another thing to be in a position as the moderator and discuss banning and see some parallels.
I do agree with nibbler, I never intended to suggest it was the same thing…but I just saw parallels that make me think about the purpose of it.
nibbler wrote:Another difference, no one considers membership to a message board to carry any eternal weight, this time I’m not referring to the person that’s banned but to the people that are in the banned person’s day to day life. Suppose a spouse is a believing member, “honey I got banned from staylds” isn’t going to carry the same weight as “honey I got excommunicated.” In fact “honey I got banned from staylds” might be met with “good” as the response.
But…maybe there is more in common here than you are suggesting. Is it really about “eternal salvation” or is it about the personal need to express oneself and the principle of the matter to stand up for what one believes and not just blindly follow…not the religious aspect? Obviously the forums are more private and anonymous in nature, not the same as family that deals with it. So take that out of the equation.
But is the person being banned not thinking the same things as the excommunicated? Authority is unjustified, the individual’s integrity compels them to still do what they do despite warnings from moderators to stop, they can become personally offended they can’t still participate, accusing authority of being power hungry and silencing dissenting voices, declaring they have a right to share their beliefs how they wish.
Are those being excommunicated for apostasy really concerned about their eternal salvation first and foremost? I don’t think so.
Or are they keeping that in mind, but the issue is really about the difference in their opinions vs the institution and the principle of the matter? Those draw the parallels I’m talking about.
Because for me…yes…I don’t think excommunication from the church has complete bearing on salvation. How it is being handled, by both sides, does, for both sides.
If a crazy lunatic with a bomb enters the primary room…I have no problems taking legal action to put them in jail and excommunicate them to keep the congregation safe.
If a loud and obnoxious and persistent lunatic constantly interrupts lessons and SM with yelling and crazy inappropriate things, they need to be removed.
People don’t have a problem with that.
But when a kind and honest and intelligent person is challenging the authority…I feel different. As mom3 said…usually those details are not known. But they make me feel sometimes stage 3 church leaders are not open minded to dissenting views…and they hold the power to do something about it.
I am not sure what that accomplishes. And with those thoughts…it makes me consider how we approach moderating because there are conflicts to address.
I was referring more to the pressure that believing family can place on someone. It can get to you even if you are secure in your standing before god. —
That’s certainly an aspect of it. Excommunication is great to get rid of the crazy guy but it’s terrible when it gets rid of the person that we happened to agree with on a lot of points. Of course the problem being one man’s crazy is another man’s sane.
Look at race and the priesthood. Weren’t people being excommunicated for lobbying for blacks to receive the priesthood just weeks prior to the decision to end the practice? Maybe it’s not whether a point has merit; I think many of these cases weren’t related to a specific issue, the dissent itself
wasthe issue. Well, you have a point on blacks and the priesthood but we can’t have members coming out publicly against the policies of the church, time to make an example out of you. Or perhaps it’s to prove a point. We aren’t making this change because of what you said, and we’re ex-ing you just to prove it.
It becomes an issue of whether the discipline is the result of a bruised ego or the result of a genuine desire to protect the flock.
Since the Boise meeting was mentioned, may I ask you all: What did you think? I was disappointed and very underwhelmed by the content. But I only listened once, and maybe I would think differently a second time through. And if this is too much of a threadjack, no problem…
Ann wrote:Since the Boise meeting was mentioned, may I ask you all: What did you think? I was disappointed and very underwhelmed by the content. But I only listened once, and maybe I would think differently a second time through.
And if this is too much of a threadjack, no problem…
Honestly? First I’d have to establish the purpose of the meeting. I think the name “Boise Rescue” (drawing a comparison to the Swedish Rescue) made a lot of people think it was going to be about ministering to people with doubts and that difficult questions would be answered. The true purpose of the meeting appears to have been a modern day adaptation of Doctrine and Covenants 28 (or section 43). A quick reminder of who the leaders of the church are.
It’s easier to adjust expectations after I know the purpose of the meeting.
Ann wrote:Since the Boise meeting was mentioned, may I ask you all: What did you think? I was disappointed and very underwhelmed by the content. But I only listened once, and maybe I would think differently a second time through.
And if this is too much of a threadjack, no problem…
I haven’t listened to it, so I don’t know.I have only read post event pieces. I think it would crush me to listen. I keep expecting something different and I wish I could get over it. Underwhelmed or overwhelmed, we should do so much better than this. If it’s not a real fire, let it go. The excommunications happened, move on, show forth more love – I believe that’s a D&C principal as well. It kind of breaks my heart.
I put my thoughts on the other thread. I agree with Nibbler. There are people in that area that advocate stepping beyond the authority of the church leadership and into a direct personal relationship with JC that supercedes the church. Very fundamentalist in many ways going back to pre-polygamy days. I think there is a very serious problem in the Church in that area and the meeting was meant to address that problem. I have concerns about how some things were said, but I have no problem with trying to address people who are intent on stopping the Church from evolving and continuing to move forward in a progressive way. I didn’t say it quite this openly in the public thread, but I would classify Snuffer as being as false a prophet as I have seen in my life in the Church (a modern-day Korihor in some interesting ways), and I see Waterman as a modern-day Amlici. Seriously, some of the parallels are striking, and I would leave the Church if their overall philosophies were embraced by the FP and Q12. I also think it is getting over-applied WAY too much by people for whom it was not intended.
I think there is a lot of validity to some of the criticism and a whole lot of confirmation bias and fundamental attribution error going on with much of the commentary.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.