Yikes! Church member denied temple recommend for opposing church stance to SSM

[Robin]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I have seen that kind of logic take place as well. Indeed, I think it has to take place to prevent the system from collapsing due to inaction at the lower levels. There must be a degree of confidence in the lower leadership.

That said, your story and the story cited in this thread are apples and oranges (assuming the story in the thread is true). In your story, the issue involved a fairly minor matter on which trusting leadership was an easy thing to do. In an ecclesiastical punishment case, I think the point of getting things right is more critical than trusting leadership. As a result, a higher degree of scrutiny is called for.

Was this really a case of 'ecclesiastical punishment?' I thought the guy was just denied a temple rec.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

Was this really a case of 'ecclesiastical punishment?' I thought the guy was just denied a temple rec.

Being kept out of the temple sounds like punishment to me.

[Detroitdad]

I have more faith in the church than my attendance would imply. I would shocked and appalled if they sanctioned Harry Reid for doing his job, and for using his political conscience. For a public relations savvy institution that likes to fly beneath the radar I cannot imagine it would seek to provoke a fight and the attendant negative national media attention that would accompany such a move.
Besides, it is the wrong thing to do, and I hope that there is more to the story on this blog than is at first indicated.

[JohnnyLingo]

Found another blog of a member who had his temple recommend denied because of his disagreement with the Church's policy regarding SSM.

http://www.unofficialmanifesto.com/a...ing-to-church/

I was unable to get my temple recommend renewed due to my opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment. The bishop informed me that I am “at the doorway of apostasy, with my hand on the doorknob” because of my position. He further informed me that I could not possibly be sustaining the First Presidency if I disagreed with any action that they took or any statement that they made. All of this despite the following:
1) His agreement that one can sustain a local leader while not agreeing with their decisions.
2) His position that my beliefs and efforts to reconcile the prophet’s role with my position are sincere.
3) His acknowledgment that there is no direct action that can be taken to change my thoughts.
4) His unwillingness to provide me with any concrete action that I can take to change my position.
5) A whole lot of other things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Found another blog of a member who had his temple recommend denied because of his disagreement with the Church's policy regarding SSM.

http://www.unofficialmanifesto.com/a...ing-to-church/

Check the URL, Lingo. Same guy, same blog, different post.