Did This SP Go Too Far?
 

This newspaper article is getting alot of play today across the country. I just wonder if it would have been better for the SP not to make a public announcement:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/98035

I found this interesting

He said he intends to continue to accompany his wife, Nancy, to ward services.
“It is tough to go, tough to attend, but I enjoy the fellowship,” he said.

He said he has no desire to join another church, adding that the Mormon faith has many merits, such as its strong family values and its internationally recognized welfare system to help those in need.

That's interesting, growing up in rural Utah I actually heard public announcements about members of my stake who were ex'd for polygamy. But to do it on account of the sharing of ideas, wow, I've never heard that. If you have the truth, why be afraid of ideas? What does the truth have to fear from inquiry? Are members not to be trusted to discern what is true and what is false in what this guy says? These, of course, are rhetorical questions.

Another guy who freaked out when he found out that the church has been white-washing its history.

That's why when discuss these controversial things on CG, we are actually doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.

No kidding.

I wonder what could be gained from the public announcement?

I don't have a problem with the public announcement. I think in D&C things are instructed to be much more public than they are typically done now.

For example, a person is supposed to confess their sins in front of the whole church. But we don't do that.

This is a lot like the case in Eagle Mountain we talked about before. My parents bishop announced to everyone in the ward to stay away from his family and beware his teachings.

I'm not familiar with the circumstances of this specific case, but when a person who has apostasized has served in leadership positions, the church has an interest in curtailing his influence. Innocent members, especially those less mature in gospel understanding or testimony, may be unduly influenced by someone whom they regard as authoritative. This is especially true (and probably directly correlative) to how vocal and public the person is about his apostasy. Publicly announcing discipline effectively dispels any aura of authority an apostate might artificially carry.

As noted in the article, such an announcement is rare, but apparently deemed necessary in this case. I understand the reasons why the church would feel a need to do so.

Wow, surely I don't know the details, but....I mean, was this guy and his family a danger to society, or was he a good guy who was vocal about alternative beliefs? I could understand taking away the home teachers, callings, and making sure that his message was not perpetuated in the church. But isn't it severely unchristian to use your standing in an LDS congregation to get people to ostracize him on a social level? Again, if he was a physical danger to society or a bad person, I guess I could see it...

The SP reminds me of some people I know and my youth. Beware of the boogie man because he could influence you to lose your testimony. These types don't think you should question publicly anything the brethern might say for fear someone could lose their testimony over it.

Geez, if their testimonies are that fragile, how they going to make it when the real trials come.