Room for All in this Church

[Anonymous]

at times like these, I am damn near done.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer, please explain further. It looks like there is more going on here.

[Anonymous]

In this case, cwald, I am not trying to protect – although I appreciate the way you worded that overall comment. What I have written really is how I see things.

I have said all along that I see John’s and Kate’s cases as MUCH more complex than many people, on both sides, describe them – especially with the letter from her Bishop implying strongly that some of her statements about her interaction with him and other leaders have not been fully honest. (I have NO way to judge the accuracy of that claim, but it absolutely adds a degree of complexity to the case that is important.) I also agree in principle with the main message of this post – but I do NOT agree completely, since I don’t believe there is room in ANY church or organization for “all”. I want excommunication to be truly a last resort, which is why I am disappointed in the decision regarding Kate, but I do want it to be an option – especially in cases like Snuffer and Waterman.

[Anonymous]

mike,

A lot of this is about boundary maintenance: the church needs to set a limit to what level of dialogue is acceptable. From yesterday’s statement by the FP and Q12, it is clear

First Presidency Statement June 28 2014 wrote:

n God’s plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God. We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth.

We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.

Here is what this is saying to me:

1. Blessings of the priesthood are “equally” available to men and women, but only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices. This is the answer to OrdainWomen’s question, although I hardly think they’ll be satisfied by it.

2. You can ask questions, but questioning is problematic. there is a difference.

3. Distancing yourself from Church doctrine or practice is problematic. This means expressing views on the internet that are not in harmony with the church teachings.

4. Advocacy is especially problematic. If your blog is popular, then this consists of ‘advocacy’.

5. New rule: Clear, open and public opposition to either the church or its leaders is apostasy (this adds ‘leaders’, which may be interpreted as ANY leader)

6. Old rule: persisting in teaching false doctrine after being “counseled” is apostasy. This means if you post on the internet your beliefs, and the Bishop or Stake president tells you to stop, and you don’t: you’re in apostasy.

7. Old rule: not stated: Apostasy is mandatory cause for a church court.

[Anonymous]

I think the focus on “teaching” false doctrine is a good one – meaning that merely expressing a different view (this is what I believe) is one thing, but “teaching” something (setting yourself up as the expert on a topic and trying to “educate” others to get them to agree with you and disagree with the church’s leadership) is another thing entirely.

Others might see this as a rosy view, but I see this statement as looser than the older definition – since it uses the words “repeatedly” and “persisting”, where, previously, a one-time issue could be labeled apostasy and lead to discipline. It still can, since not all local leaders will follow the spirit of this statement, but the statement at least says openly that questions and seeking to understand and public expression of different views are not apostasy.

[Author]

Posts