- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Saw the following short piece in the SLC Tribune:
Quote:She had been baptized into the Anglican Communion as part of her “continued Christian discipleship.” She had publicly criticized Latter-day Saint leaders, including President Russell M. Nelson, preferring Jesus to a “white man in Salt Lake City.” And she had been summoned to a bishop’s disciplinary council to face possible excommunication for alleged apostasy and “conduct unbecoming” a member.
But Gina Colvin wasn’t excommunicated, disfellowshipped or put on church probation.
Instead, her local lay leaders opted to take “no action” against the feminist scholar and writer from Christchurch, New Zealand.
“I was blessed,” Colvin said, “that everyone present was committed to creating a gentle and kind experience in which we all, in good faith, sought to deeply understand and give Christlike attention to each other’s wounds and concerns.”
Can anyone give some additional context? The council was because she was baptized into another church? I assume that there will be no expose of the council proceedings – even though I would really like one as part of a roadmap to turn a possibly adversarial situation into an opportunity “to deeply understand and give Christlike attention to each other’s wounds and concerns.”I have not talked with Gina, but I assume she wasn’t combative at the council and stressed that she hasn’t tried to convince others to leave the Church. She isn’t leading a movement in any way. She even might have mentioned her online work in a support group that tries to help people in a similar way to what we do. To make a direct comparison to Bill Reel, I am positive Gina didn’t go into the council committed to recording it and “showing them they don’t know shiz”.
I am happy for her. I know she didn’t want to be excommunicated.
What confuses me here is that normally a priesthood leader would have met with her, maybe a few times, to scope out the situation. If what she is doing is not difficult for the church, to the point she was “acquitted” I am surprised it got all the way to a council. Normally, the SP pr BP would vet the situation. Sounds like the priesthood leader was more of a hard liner than the high council…or Bishopric as a whole, whereever she was tried. Roy wrote:
She had publicly criticized Latter-day Saint leaders, including President Russell M. Nelson, preferring Jesus to a “white man in Salt Lake City.”
I take it that Ms Colvin is herself white? Why does she have to be racist about this?
SamBee wrote:
Roy wrote:
She had publicly criticized Latter-day Saint leaders, including President Russell M. Nelson, preferring Jesus to a “white man in Salt Lake City.”
I take it that Ms Colvin is herself white? Why does she have to be racist about this?
People’s definition of “white” differ greatly. At one point if you were a Mormon (or Italian, or Irish, …) in the US, you were not “white” even if you just migrated from Scandinavia. I think Gina considers herself (mainly?) Maori.
Mormon Stories has a podcast that was just released that is a discussion with her husband and I think she comes on at the end and talks about her
She looks pretty white to me. Either way a form of racism. Sexism too. I don’t know what it is about the new left that seems to think mentioning birth traits is somehow progressive. I can understand the argument about the lack of diversity in the twelve, and there should be women and non-whites in there but discounting a person’s opinion by race and gender is itself racist and sexist in most cases.
SamBee wrote:
Roy wrote:
She had publicly criticized Latter-day Saint leaders, including President Russell M. Nelson, preferring Jesus to a “white man in Salt Lake City.”
I take it that Ms Colvin is herself white? Why does she have to be racist about this?
Maybe because Jesus wasn’t white. “White Jesus”, at least for me, is a sure symbol of the difference between the Jesus most widely worshipped today, and the Jesus who actually walked this earth. She’s drawing a distinction between the two, which I think was her point.
You’re right, race shouldn’t matter. But the truth is we’ve drastically changed Jesus’ ethnicity (among other, far more important things) to fit our current worldview. Although, I don’t get how sexism has anything to do with it.
Depends on your definition of white. I don’t buy into the “one drop” theory – a lot of Levantines look Mediterranean which for a large part is white. I’m sure Jesus would be fairly interchangeable many native Greeks, Italians, Spanish etc. Maybe not blonde and blue eyed (although blonde people are known from that region), but certainly more like Omar Sharif or Andy Garcia than say Samuel L. Jackson or Mike Tyson. By the way, I saw a really good exhibition some years ago with nativized pictures of Jesus. The Mongolians had an Oriental type Jesus, the southern Africans a black one, and there was even a Native South American Jesus. Mind you the Ethiopians have been making Jesus look like one of themselves for centuries. I can see the case the other day. I think the problem is when one of these nativized versions is foisted on a group of a very different appearance as happened with Euro Jesus.
Jesus is unlikely to have had very light skin or very dark skin, or to have been very tall or very small, or to have epicanthic folds over his eyes.
[Admin Note]: Interesting conversation, but it detracts from the focus of the post. If anyone wants to continue the discussion of Jesus and race, feel free to start a new discussion about it in a new post. I think this serves as a clear reminder that the Church is moving away from the past practice of excommunication over simple doctrinal disagreement, even expressed openly. Even with leadership roulette perhaps playing a role, it still is notable. That is a good thing.
I believe a major key factor was her lack of publicity. She chose to be a blogger, but didn’t make news headlines. Everyone else has made news headlines. Likely, it’s one of the benefits of living outside the United States. Her country doesn’t care. Her cause isn’t news worthy. Where as, Utah papers and news grab anything for a story. I believe a major common factor in the most public excommunications we have seen, is the bad press light that the issues create.
I still believe if Ordain Woman had begun with a letter writing campaign, and had worked on one one dialogue’s instead of a second march on Temple Square, Kate Kelly would have either not been exed, or it would have taken much longer.
Sam’s excommunication is proof of this. He did his work behind the scenes and sure enough, it moved the dial. True not nearly what he wanted, but of all the “agitators” his efforts were succeeding. Once he climbed over the bar of private efforts and took to publicly fasting and bringing in the press, the die was cast.
Gina’s not done that. As long as she keeps to those parameters, the church leadership seems to let it go.
I don’t currently have regular access to Handbook 1, but there used to be a line in there that simply being a member of another church was not grounds for excommunication. Otherwise I agree with what others have said. I have read the occasional blog post by Colvin and they don;t seem to be at the level of declaring the church wrong about almost everything with the leadership being at fault. I was not surprised when Dehlin, Kelly, Young and Reel (or lesser known Rock Waterman) were called to DCs. I was surprised at Colvin, supposing there must have been more than meets the eye. Apparently there was not. In glancing at handbook 1 it appears that they’ve changed some of the language around when a council is mandatory and when one may be required. Likely to address the criticism that the old policies generated. Hey, more positive change. Anyway, quotes from the handbook: Quote:A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.
…
Quote:ApostasyAs used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
…
Quote:Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership in the other church is not ended after counseling and encouragement.
I believe number 5 is in play here. I think Gina formally joined another church through baptism. If you go with the strictest of strict interpretation of number 5 you have to account for the word “and.” One leader could interpret that by reaching the conclusion that formally joining another church isn’t enough, one has to formally join another church,
andadvocate it’s teachings. I also want to point out that the handbook only addresses instances when a council is mandatory but it does not say anything about mandatory outcomes for those councils. Perhaps someone could be in a same-gender marriage, be called into council, but the BP/SP decides to take no action. The mandatory council requirement has been satisfied and no action is taken.
Since disciplinary councils are a local matter it sounds like the tent in one ward in NZ may have gotten a little larger.
Gina and her Husband did a very good interview on Mormon Stories on the topic just the other day. nibbler wrote:I believe number 5 is in play here. I think Gina formally joined another church through baptism. If you go with the strictest of strict interpretation of number 5 you have to account for the word “and.” One leader could interpret that by reaching the conclusion that formally joining another church isn’t enough, one has to formally join another church,
andadvocate it’s teachings. John Dehlin read the charges in the letter she was given and discussed this with her. They actually said that the baptism alone likely wouldn’t have resulted in a DC.
Gina explained it pretty well – outside of the LDS faith, baptism isn’t typically considered formally joining a church. I’ve watched videos of friends baptizing their kids at home in their bathtub, with no church authorities anywhere around. It’s seen as a baptism into what Gina referred to as “The body of Christ.” From the way she explained, I took it just to mean that you’re trying to be more Christlike. Gina doesn’t consider herself as formally joined the Anglican church even after the baptism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.