- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Although we don’t have much to go on, I’m going to analyze this as if what the young man said was true. I think there is a good chance the young man experienced the break in confidentiality, broadcasted his problem in writing, embarrasssed the HC and the SP, and that the SP and HC didn’t take it very well. I think the SP’s preoccupation with the implications for himself, as well as the HC’s self-protective denial is a result of the public shaming that the young adult resorted to when he couldn’t get an answer from the SP.
In a way, I’m glad the young adult put the SP and HC’s feet to the fire, although I would’ve preferred he did it a better way. Perhaps they will think twice, and when they have the urge to break confidences, they will reflect on what happened to Brother XXXXs the High Councilor as a possible eventuality — even though I don’t agree with the way the young adult engineered a public shaming.
They do need to take this stuff seriously. If we’re going to claim we have inspired leaders everywhere and that disciplinary councils are councils of love, then the kind of confidentiality problems we saw from the HC are completely out of line as others have said.
I think the SP partly brought this on himself by not acting on the Young Man’s concerns about confidentiality more quickly; perhaps he wasn’t aware that the young adult’s phone calls were about something as important as a confidentiality breach and deserves a pass; but if he knew…well,,, inaction never turns out well on important issues.
Even if the SP was away on vacation, waiting for the HC to return from his own vacation, then communication to the YM that there were delays might have helped allay his concerns. Also, an apolgy to the young adult for what happened might have been a good idea. The SP;’s comment that he wasn’t pleased with the handling of the breach considering the YM was on discipline was also a huge error — implying that interpersonal conflict with people in authority of the Church can come back and bite you, even when that behavior is in response to a glarying mistake on the part of the leadership. He might have well said “Don’t challenge the leadership on matters of confidentiality when we hold your membership status in hand”
The HC, well, I think we see that when a person’s reputation is on the line, there are tendencies to act out of self-interest and in ways that are typical of any temporal organization. If you want a heartfelt apology, the concerns need to be raised in private. As they say in the military “praise in public, censure in private”.
Overall, poorly handled by both the SP and the young adult. I wouldn’t surprise me if the SP isn’t going to lift a finger to help the YM and his wife go to another Ward given the problem with the HC. “I want to pray about it” is a put-off in my view of the world. It wouldn’t surprise me if the young adult’s ire is only fueled if there is more inaction. Last I checked, he was wondering how to raise his problem with an area authority. Everyone was discouraging from doing that, however.
I think Ray cynched it when he said “it will take an awfully humble Stake President” to respond gently to the young man. It’s the kind of humility I think the membership might expect from such a person in that position, however.
And, the profound thing that Roy said — it’s hard when we tend to elevate our leaders the way we do with being God’s annointed, inspired, great men, etcetera, and then they behave by this. In some cases, we set them up to fail because in the end, they are only human like us, don’t always have inspiration, and act in temporal ways in spite of their place as leaders in God’s Kingdom.
Not sure how to deal with that, really. The talks, the testimonies, the teachings all elevate our leaders, as do the covenants in the temple. So long as the general membership is trained to expect that uber-greatness from their leaders, who in the end are only human, stories like these must be told. Men on pedestals are not stable. And Church pictures are not always accurate.
Yup. 
SilentDawning wrote:The SP;’s comment that he wasn’t pleased with the handling of the breach considering the YM was on discipline was also a huge error — implying that interpersonal conflict with people in authority of the Church can come back and bite you, even when that behavior is in response to a glaring mistake on the part of the leadership. He might have well said “Don’t challenge the leadership on matters of confidentiality when we hold your membership status in hand”
I’m going to disagree with you here SD. Though I don’t have much experience with church courts, it is my impression that in these scenarios a great emphasis can be placed upon the sense of humility, penitence, and remorse. I believe that some bishops may make a repenting individual jump through additional hoops than strictly necessary just to demonstrate that the individual is following the process with the requisite “spirit.” For example, I may wear a blue shirt to church, show up late to sacrament meeting, or decline callings that I don’t care for and I will still be OK- but if I did these same things while going through the repentance process of a church court my actions may be taken as defiance – or not taking it seriously enough.
SilentDawning wrote:And, the profound thing that Roy said — it’s hard when we tend to elevate our leaders the way we do with being God’s anointed, inspired, great men, etcetera, and then they behave by this. In some cases, we set them up to fail because in the end, they are only human like us, don’t always have inspiration, and act in temporal ways in spite of their place as leaders in God’s Kingdom.
Not sure how to deal with that, really. The talks, the testimonies, the teachings all elevate our leaders, as do the covenants in the temple. So long as the general membership is trained to expect that uber-greatness from their leaders, who in the end are only human, stories like these must be told. Men on pedestals are not stable. And Church pictures are not always accurate.
Yeah, I suppose I am quick to give a pass to church leaders if they mess up – However it would be difficult for me to follow their counsel in ways that have been expected of members in the past. “Go and settle this desolate area!”, “You personally are expected to come up with X for the church building fund due to your affluence.”, or even “God has inspired us that you are to serve in the capacity of [insert onerous calling here].” I suppose the real trick is accepting their humanity while still following them as though their counsel and directives were somehow immune to being influenced by that same humanity.
Any ideas Ray?
Roy wrote:SilentDawning wrote:I’m going to disagree with you here SD. Though I don’t have much experience with church courts, it is my impression that in these scenarios a great emphasis can be placed upon the sense of humility, penitence, and remorse. I believe that some bishops may make a repenting individual jump through additional hoops than strictly necessary just to demonstrate that the individual is following the process with the requisite “spirit.” For example, I may wear a blue shirt to church, show up late to sacrament meeting, or decline callings that I don’t care for and I will still be OK- but if I did these same things while going through the repentance process of a church court my actions may be taken as defiance – or not taking it seriously enough.
See, where I disagree is that the young man had already submitted to the process. I have participated on several of these at the Stake level and at the Ward level, and the people are often REALLY embarrassed. It’s very stressful and tense for everyone. I feel completely drained after they are over and the other person is often drained and sometimes crying. They take a spiritual penalty of losing membership or accepting restrictions, and it’s very hard on the person who has to confess his SEXUAL behavior in front of a group of people with staunch religious values, many of whom are strangers. THAT takes humility.
Assuming he was keeping his comitments to repent, then i see this confidentiality issue as separate issue. One that really tests the leaders to see they don’t use their power to punish the guy for embarrassing them when they had ignored him for so long. I would think that punishing the guy for being vocal about how they handled this would NOT lead to unrighteous dominion by letting personal feelings about being called out on a clear error influence whether the guy got his blessings back.
Again, it seems that “obedience to the establishment” is an underlying theme here, rather than the change in this man’s character toward sexual sin. They shouldn’t be confusing the two.
By the way, I would hope also that wearing a blue shirt wouldn’t keep someone from full fellowship. That is a cultural norm that has been blown way out of proportion in my view, in terms of perceived importance.
This is another case of the organization’s interests taking precedence over the needs of the individual. Not only is he originally ignored and somewhat abused in having his sexual mistakes broadcast to others, he has to take that victimization and swallow it while the heavies simmer in indifference to his situation, and egocentric concern about their own reputations.
Yea– that’s getting to the heart of it for me. It seems there is a huge double standard. When things are going well, it’s all due to inspiration, but when things go wrong, they are just human and get a pass. It seems almost like power (claims to divine connection, which implies almost total obedience is necessary) without any accountability. The onus is on the individual in both cases to just take it. Which can be hard for some given the large sacrifices required. I have to confess, I think in our organization “the tie goes to the runner”. And the runner is the formal organization far more often than I think is healthy.
Quote:I suppose the real trick is accepting their humanity while still following them as though their counsel and directives were somehow immune to being influenced by that same humanity.
I disagree with this wording – fundamentally. I think the key is to support and sustain leaders (with the fairly rare exception of when there is “serious” abuse happening) while understanding fully that their counsel and directives often are flawed by their humanity – and sustaining and supporting them even when what they say or do is not what we would say or do (again, with the same disclaimer as above).
As I’ve said multiple times here, I love my Stake President. He’s a good man, doing the best he can to serve the Lord and the people of our stake. I don’t see eye-to-eye with him on a number of things, but he’s doing the best he can to do the best he can – and that’s pretty much all I can ask.
I sustain and support him specifically because of his humanity– and if he asked me to do something that I simply couldn’t do in good conscience, I would tell him so. (I have expressed concern over some suggestions in various callings over the years, and I have offered only qualified support in some cases – basically saying, “I don’t agree with what you are proposing, but I will support you if you move forward.” That’s the best I can do – again, with the previous disclaimer.) If you want an actual example, read this post from a while ago:
“Supporting Leaders While Disagreeing with What They Teach”( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=923&hilit=sustaining I read it — I would add that there are limits on the level of support I will give when I think the leaders ask things that are beyond my capacity to give. Or if I feel I can’t expose myself to the risks and challenges that following their wishes presents (as in taking callings that will put undue stress on my and my family). Or if I feel what they are asking is simply wrong. I do think your example is far tamer than the one I presented at the outset, though. In your example, he shared some questionable advice (although I actually agree with the dating non-member thing) which could and should be dealt with in families with fatherly and motherly influence afterwards. In the other example I started this post with, they breached confidentiality, and then failed to deal with the problem, one person possibly even resorting to lying — much more gravity to that situation. And they threw their weight/authority around threatening (or at least, suggesting this) the man’s reinstatement of blessings because he was being firm about seeing the situation resolved.
AS I reflect on things, I’m reminded on some things Roy said previously that I reflect on when my own inner peace is disturbed by the harsh actions of some of my priesthood leaders in the past. Which attitude conditions are the only real progress I’ve made in my own animosity toward the double standards I think exist between leaders and followers in our Church:
1. Reflect on the good things other members have done
2. Recognize the Church is the lumpy brown vessel where the living waters dwell.
3. Recognize that God tries to shine down inspiration on our leaders but only a portion seems to get through.
And my rejoiner — recognize that ultimately I’m in control of what I dedicate to the Church. Ultimately, it’s my choice. And I can do it without callings, with callings etcetera. Even if I was an excommunicated member, the amount of service I give in unofficial capacities etcetera, is ultimately my choice.
One thing is for sure, however, I will likely not be swayed by arguments/reasons that provide our leaders with a license to kill so to speak — power to do whatever they please, even if wrong, without some kind of accountability, looking at the situation with charity and fairness.
I agree, SD. I don’t equate sustaining and supporting (or even “following”) with any kind of total acceptance and lock-step obedience. I believe in the “they govern themselves” principle.
SilentDawning wrote:See, where I disagree is that the young man had already submitted to the process.
By submitting to the process, do you mean that he had already received his blessings back? If he had, then I do not foresee them “reopening the case,” even though some may feel like he was not truly penitent and was just going through the motions now that he is so slow to extend forgiveness himself and has instead chosen to become an “accuser of the brethren.” If he had “submitted to the process” meaning that he was still jumping through repentance hoops then I would think his newfound “stiff neckedness” could very well impede the process. I take for my proof text the statement from M of F that “a former burglar that engages is sex play is not repentant” i.e. that when someone is repentant that repentance touches all aspects of their lives and not just particular aspects. Remember the seminary video segment “Godly sorrow” where the Bishop said that true repentance was much more than the cessation of sin and goes into an explanation of Godly sorrow? Perhaps any of the above could have been what the SP was referring to in saying he was displeased with the handling of the breach especially considering the ongoing repentance issue – but as I said before, I have ZERO first hand experience with church courts so I will acquiesce to SD and Ray’s greater experience on this subject matter. (I personally do not have any feelings on what “should” happen in this case, I am just postulating possible defensible positions using what I understand to be traditional LDS concepts wherein the fallout from this latest issue could delay the full restoration of blessings.)
Quote:“I suppose the real trick is accepting their humanity while still following them as though their counsel and directives were somehow immune to being influenced by that same humanity.”
Old-Timer wrote:I disagree with this wording – fundamentally. I think the key is to support and sustain leaders (with the fairly rare exception of when there is “serious” abuse happening) while understanding fully that their counsel and directives often are flawed by their humanity – and sustaining and supporting them even when what they say or do is not what we would say or do (again, with the same disclaimer as above).
As I’ve said multiple times here, I love my Stake President. He’s a good man, doing the best he can to serve the Lord and the people of our stake. I don’t see eye-to-eye with him on a number of things, but he’s doing the best he can to do the best he can – and that’s pretty much all I can ask. I sustain and support him specifically because of his humanity – and if he asked me to do something that I simply couldn’t do in good conscience, I would tell him so. (I have expressed concern over some suggestions in various callings over the years, and I have offered only qualified support in some cases – basically saying, “I don’t agree with what you are proposing, but I will support you if you move forward.” That’s the best I can do – again, with the previous disclaimer.)
I completely agree with you, and I have no problem sustaining and supporting our leaders either collectively or individually in the manner you have set forth. My challenges would lie in the area of obedience in matters that went contrary to my family’s welfare. I currently see this as mostly an academic issue. I don’t expect to be asked to settle the antebellum desert that would one day become Las Vegas (Mormon fort later abandoned) or to repel my household belongings down “Hole in the Rock.” I don’t expect to be asked to take on an additional wife (with or without my current wife’s knowledge), to settle in a malaria ridden swamp, or to cross the plains on foot, by wagon, or handcart. I do not expect to be asked to take up arms to defend the oppressed saints in another locale. I do not expect to be sent on a far away mission leaving my young family in the care of the church or asked to contribute a 4 or 5 digit sum towards the construction of my local ward meeting house. I do not expect to be called to move to Missouri. In my present situation, I do not even expect to be called to a demanding church calling. So yes, my quandary would be pretty academic.I do imagine there are several schools of thought that would allow such obedience in hard situations (one that I’ve contemplated being that even if certain leadership pronouncements are misguided or otherwise undesirably influenced by our leadership’s humanity, God may “honor” or ratify your obedience to such well meaning pronouncements and answer it with blessing upon your head) but this will likely remain one of my weak points.
I would very much dislike being in a position to judge the sincere repentance of another individual, almost as much as I would dislike having my own church membership reviewed on condition of my own sincere repentance. I plan to stay as far away from either situation as I can.
Quote:By submitting to the process, do you mean that he had already received his blessings back? If he had, then I do not foresee them “reopening the case,” even though some may feel like he was not truly penitent and was just going through the motions now that he is so slow to extend forgiveness himself and has instead chosen to become an “accuser of the brethren.” If he had “submitted to the process” meaning that he was still jumping through repentance hoops then I would think his newfound “stiff neckedness” could very well impede the process.
See, in this case, I don’t see him as being sticknecked — there is nothing in our Church membership that says that we have to endure indifference from leaders on matters of confidentiality. I like your burglar analogy, and if he was engaging in pornography or even questionable emotional affairs with former girfriends, then I think the analogy holds. All the guy was doing was trying to get some closure on this big breach of trust and confidentiality.
Now, he did handle it wrong — but he also sounds very young and often people without life experiences react that way when things go wrong — as a SP, I’d be inclined to take that into account.
What I take exception to is the SP potentially harming this man’s return to full fellowship out of a personal vendetta or discomfort over the fact he called the SP and HC on what is cleary bad, inappropriate leadership behavior.
I also acknowledge I’m a bit sensitive to unrighteous leadership now, having been subjected to it in ways that caused me a significant amount of suffering, years of my time, and just plain old emotional hardship. Even putting that aside, the injustice of what he endured, only to be threatened by the establishment that is clearly out of line does not sit well with me one bit.
Claims to a divine commission, special communion with God in an inspired organization lead to greater responsiblity to behave in ways that are consistent with the character of God. And in this case, these leaders were a dismal failure. And it seems that instead of accepting the responsiblity that comes with such position power, they see it as license to throw their weight around on personal issues. Totally inappropriate in my view. Completely unacceptable. Shame on them.
SilentDawning wrote:Claims to a divine commission, special communion with God in an inspired organization lead to greater responsibility to behave in ways that are consistent with the character of God. And in this case, these leaders were a dismal failure. And it seems that instead of accepting the responsibility that comes with such position power, they see it as license to throw their weight around on personal issues. Totally inappropriate in my view. Completely unacceptable. Shame on them.
You mentioned the possibility of this young man contacting a GA with his concerns. I would guess that if he were to do so he would experience further stonewalling and closing of ranks. What then should be the young man’s next course of action?
Semi-tangent. I have been contemplating a bit of an opposition in all things dichotomy. On one hand, I recognize and support the right of the church to define what the membership standards are and to expel individuals who do not meet those standards. I also support the churches right to sometimes expel individuals for political rather than moral reasons. This seems to be a sacrifice of the few for the greater good issue. I believe John D. Lee, Helmut Hubener, and Maxine Hanks (from the September 6 – she compiled and edited the book, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism) fit into this latter category.
But on the other hand, what a sacrifice for the individual:
Quote:I can only imagine how that might feel….to have all your ordinances gone, your sealings gone, your connection to the priesthood and God’s church gone, to be shunned by former friends and even some family.
I liken it to the American justice system. The American people need the reassurance that justice will prevail and that bad deeds will be punished. We have a system in place that does its best to approximate justice. When we hear politicians say that justice will be served they are meaning procedural justice. This means that due process was followed and all the requisite appeals were received etc. This does not mean that all those that are punished are guilty nor that all those that are not punished are innocent, only that the procedures were applied correctly and consistently..
So, I think of persons who have been innocently convicted as persons that are sacrificed for the needs of the many, sacrificed so that the many can sleep soundly at night under the banner of “life, liberty, and justice for all.”
Likewise sometimes the church needs to save face, to look out for the greater good, or to clearly define its stance. Sometimes the church may draw the line in the sand by expelling those that are publicly speculating beyond said line. Those that are caught on the outside are then sacrificed as examples for the many. I recognize and support the church’s right to do this. But I am also awed at the personal cost that some individuals are pressed into paying as a consequence.
End of tangent.
Roy wrote:You mentioned the possibility of this young man contacting a GA with his concerns. I would guess that if he were to do so he would experience further stonewalling and closing of ranks. What then should be the young man’s next course of action?
The SP did say that he spoke to the HC about confidentiality. So, there was some action there. Lacking is their apology, and also irritating is the annoyance of the HC’s apparent unrepentant lie about his involvement in the breach. What to do about it? I would let it go at this point — at least try to work on letting it go. I would attend the other Ward as I saw fit, and let my Bishop know since I believe the SP will do nothing about it. I would probably consider moving to a new Stake after my lease was up to get a fresh start before my probationary period was over. If I had to delay my probation, I would do so.
I would meet with the new SP and let him know about my probation. I would probably mention the breach of confidentiality and indicate that I felt I handled it badly, and needed a fresh start. I would show some remorse for the public shaming. The other SP will probably end up talking to the original SP so I guess I’d have to come clean on it.
I would not go over the head of the SP. Enough has been invested in it so far.
I would probably analyze what happened and learn from it — realizing that flying off the handle with people publicly like this young man did doesn’t usually get the results you are seeking. It would be a huge life lesson — I’ve had a few of my own over the years, I think we all have.
Quote:Semi-tangent. I have been contemplating a bit of an opposition in all things dichotomy. On one hand, I recognize and support the right of the church to define what the membership standards are and to expel individuals who do not meet those standards. I also support the churches right to sometimes expel individuals for political rather than moral reasons. This seems to be a sacrifice of the few for the greater good issue. I believe John D. Lee, Helmut Hubener, and Maxine Hanks (from the September 6 – she compiled and edited the book, Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism) fit into this latter category.
In the case of Helmut Hubener , they reversed the excommunication later, which I thought was a satisfactory resolution to the whole thing. It met the interests of BOTH the organization, and the individual in the end. I heard John D. Lee’s excommunication was also reversed, although I don’t have details about how this might have been brilliant.
As far as the rest of the tangent goes, I suppose there are times when we have to sacrifice individuals for the greater good. Laban and Nephi’s murder of that man show that at times, God can be a strong utilitarian (a la John Mills). However, I saw no greater good achieved by the SP’s haughty attitude, and the HC’s apparent lie. In this case, the young man was sacrificed for the sake of a dubious goal — personal pride and preservation of status and reputation. There is no place for saving face in the Church given its claims.
By the way, sentiment on many parts of the bloggernacle is that the excommunication of the September 6 didn’t do much for the Church really. Most people knew nothing about the writings of the people excommunicated; their loss of membership only propelled their ideas into the limelight, and may well have contributed to the idea of our Church as being perhaps overly authoritative and heavy-handed.
SilentDawning wrote:The SP did say that he spoke to the HC about confidentiality. So, there was some action there. Lacking is their apology, and also irritating is the annoyance of the HC’s apparent unrepentant lie about his involvement in the breach. What to do about it? I would let it go at this point — at least try to work on letting it go. I would attend the other Ward as I saw fit, and let my Bishop know since I believe the SP will do nothing about it. I would probably consider moving to a new Stake after my lease was up to get a fresh start before my probationary period was over. If I had to delay my probation, I would do so.
I would meet with the new SP and let him know about my probation. I would probably mention the breach of confidentiality and indicate that I felt I handled it badly, and needed a fresh start. I would show some remorse for the public shaming. The other SP will probably end up talking to the original SP so I guess I’d have to come clean on it.
I would not go over the head of the SP. Enough has been invested in it so far.
I would probably analyze what happened and learn from it — realizing that flying off the handle with people publicly like this young man did doesn’t usually get the results you are seeking. It would be a huge life lesson — I’ve had a few of my own over the years, I think we all have.
I completely agree with your recommendations, well said!
SilentDawning wrote:In the case of Helmut Hubener , they reversed the excommunication later, which I thought was a satisfactory resolution to the whole thing. It met the interests of BOTH the organization, and the individual in the end. I heard John D. Lee’s excommunication was also reversed, although I don’t have details about how this might have been brilliant.
I believe you are right on both counts. If I remember correctly, the work of Juanita Brooks (the author of The Mountain Meadows Massacre and John D. Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat) was influential in getting Bro. Lee’s church membership restored.
But I have trouble seeing how post-humus membership restoration meets the needs of the individual. Unless the restoration of blessings is equivalent to turning a spiritual key that might release the spirit from purgatory/spirit prison, what is the benefit? The individual still had to have that moment prior to death thinking that they were about to meet their maker devoid of the protections of covenants, sealings, and priesthood that they had been taught were necessary to stand in the presence of the Almighty.
To draw further upon the comparison of a wrongfully accused person dying in prison after serving a life sentence, how would a post-humus exoneration based upon newly discovered DNA evidence serve the needs of that individual? In Bro. Lee’s case his membership was restored after 89 years. That may be a relatively short time to wait in spirit prison (there may be antediluvians that are still waiting), but for his family to live with that stigma for 89 years is an awfully long time. His membership was only restored after Sis. Brooks’ work drew attention to it. The organizational church discouraged Sis. Brooks from digging even going so far as to blacklist her from contributing to church publications (though no official discipline was taken).
In my view the organizational church only restored these memberships when they had more to loose from maintaining the course than they did from a reversal. As I said before, I do not begrudge the church its prerogatives in these cases. These issues are found in all organizations, from the USA down to your local homeowners association, with the stakes being of greater or lesser consequence (unless you consider the possibility of being denied from the Celestial Kingdom as the ultimate consequence). The church does need to operate and thrive in the temporal realm and sometimes temporal and spiritual goals do not align perfectly.
P.S. These ideas are some that have been kicking around in my head for a while now and may still be in formation. I appreciate that you are willing to let me bounce them off of you.
Quote:But I have trouble seeing how post-humus membership restoration meets the needs of the individual. Unless the restoration of blessings is equivalent to turning a spiritual key that might release the spirit from purgatory/spirit prison, what is the benefit? The individual still had to have that moment prior to death thinking that they were about to meet their maker devoid of the protections of covenants, sealings, and priesthood that they had been taught were necessary to stand in the presence of the Almighty.
I think this was a case of organizational and individual needs in conflict — a perfect situation to analyze such conflict. In this case, there was no easy way to resolve the tension. If they let Hubener keep his membership, the entire German Mormon population might have been subject to Nazi retaliation. If they excommunicate, then Hubener suffers for several decades, but in the end, gets a restoration of blessings. I beleive in the Just World hypothesis, and suspect that he may also receive some other blessing as compensation — as people wrongly convicted are often given a large sum of money so they can buy a house and start off the rest of their free life with a nest-egg that parly compensates for their lost period in prison. But I speculate. I do like the words of Spencer W Kimbal quoting Talmage:
Quote:“Every trial in this life has a compensating blessing in the next, provided the trial is met with patience”.]
Quote:To draw further upon the comparison of a wrongfully accused person dying in prison after serving a life sentence, how would a post-humus exoneration based upon newly discovered DNA evidence serve the needs of that individual? In Bro. Lee’s case his membership was restored after 89 years. That may be a relatively short time to wait in spirit prison (there may be antediluvians that are still waiting), but for his family to live with that stigma for 89 years is an awfully long time. His membership was only restored after Sis. Brooks’ work drew attention to it. The organizational church discouraged Sis. Brooks from digging even going so far as to blacklist her from contributing to church publications (though no official discipline was taken).
My belief in the just world hypothesis covers this….although the attempt by the Church to discourage her research bothers me.
Quote:In my view the organizational church only restored these memberships when they had more to lose from maintaining the course than they did from a reversal. As I said before, I do not begrudge the church its prerogatives in these cases. These issues are found in all organizations, from the USA down to your local homeowners association, with the stakes being of greater or lesser consequence (unless you consider the possibility of being denied from the Celestial Kingdom as the ultimate consequence). The church does need to operate and thrive in the temporal realm and sometimes temporal and spiritual goals do not align perfectly.
In my view, then tend to err on the side of their own naked self-interest far more than I would like to see in an organization with such grandiose claims to a divine commission. And I guesss I do begrudge them these liberties they take. Sadly, my latest one is they would rather stretch people to the point of breaking so they can save a few dollars on facilities costs rather than invest in buildings that are capable of housing large wards where people are not so stretched, programs are good, and results can actually be achieved.
Quote:P.S. These ideas are some that have been kicking around in my head for a while now and may still be in formation. I appreciate that you are willing to let me bounce them off of you.
No problem, if nothing, I love to entertain new ideas, particularly philosophical ones.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.