- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
One thing to be conscious about is a) being too public with doubt/sin and b) the position you hold at the time you do it c) how loudly you broadcast your doubt. Case in point — I knew a young adult in a developing area of the world (church-wise — one of the G5 nations, not an undeveloped nation) who was excommunicated for petting. It was explained that it was “because of his position”. He was on the High Council. You have to be really careful when you hold a high profile position in the church or the organization WILL assert itself even at the expense of what is right for the individual. As a general rule, I have found the LDS Organization comes first and the individual second. The organization’s loyalty to you as an individual is extremely conditional — conditional not only on the outward observance of commandments, but on your loyalty to the culture and its leaders and doctrine.
It’s also one reason I’ve heard SP’s refusing to call Young Single Adults/Single Adults to positions of responsibility because they are in a high risk period of their life when the hymn “Master Master the Hormones are Raging” is a descriptive phenomenon. It leaves the top leaders less wiggle room for leniency due to the position held by the sinner.
Also, the more people you tell, the higher the chances you will be perceived as apostate and actively trying to dissuade others from the LDS church.
I am gagging myself at church now. I want so badly to tell the leaders how incredibly disrespectful and uncaring they have been to dedicated volunteers in the past, but I know that if I do it, it will only hurt me in the long run. I want to tell the people who hurt me just how much they affected my mental and physical health, but no one will care. So, I remain quiet and let my boundaries do the speaking. The HC would have been better off keeping his doubts quiet so he could at least have a choice as to the level at which he serves in the church.
SD
Okay .. So you all were correct. There is more to the story. It blew up on the Internet .. So I no longer feel like I need to protect anyone’s identity. Below is a link to his story, FB post, and a recording of his DC. And family fourth-hand gossip stated he had been a bishop and on HC in the past. They got that wrong.
Per his own admission, he called JS a fraud on his FB post. The A70 and SP objected and told him to take it down. He refused, and was ex’ed. So the only quest one may have is this: “Is calling JS a fraud an excommunicable offense in the church?” Apparently yes to this SP. Leadership roulette may produce a different outcome in another place. He doesn’t seem to be surprised by the actions of the church. If, for example, I went on FB & told everyone that polygamy was a true teaching of the early church & should be practiced again, what would I expect from the church leadership?
I would be teaching that Wilford Woodruff was wrong & all subsequent leaderships of the church are wrong.
It would be interpreted as an attack on the church, its teachings & church leadership.
The other issue is, he was already excommunicated once and came back. Wouldn’t they expect him to be more humble, careful
or sensitive in the future? I have to admit, his situation is interesting.
I figured there was more to the story when I heard it — sounded a bit harsh for someone just expressing doubt. To call JS a fraud while holding a position like that isn’t going to attract roses and bunnies from the leadership. Nonetheless, it still seems a bit harsh, although the refusal to take down the post is something that would really rankle certain leaders, particularly in the authoritarian culture that exists in some stakes. Let’s not overlook that fact that it wasn’t just that he posted that JS was a fraud, but that he refused to take the post down. Questioning Joseph’s integrity, motives, etc., is one thing. What he did is beyond that and could well have been OK had he taken the post down (although likely still on a watch list). There is so much we will never know. When it comes to face book and our religion it is a gamble. People like Jana Reiss, Bill Reel, and others post religious frustrations all the time on face book and continue to be members in good standing. I know others who have not been so lucky. I think it is a combination of your local leaders/members take on things as well as the poster willingness to create a balanced presentation. Calling the original leader a fraud crosses the line for probably most leaders. For me I prefer to keep my religion, the good and the not off of face book. Face book is a mega phone. You are in charge of the button. FWIW, I have met Elder Hillier, the Area Authority spoken of in Bruce’s article. I believe Elder Hillier to be one of the good guys; a higher up who cares about the little guy and cares about the people who don’t fit in. He’s in the mold of everything we like about certain GAs, and unlike everything we dislike about certain others. I have specifically heard him discuss, very earnestly, the Church’s need to widen the tent to include people who don’t fit a certain pattern; that we sometimes turn people away without even realizing it, because we have a sense of what we think people should be like and that we need to be more inviting and more accepting of people in varying circumstances.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.