More fallout from gay marriage spat

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I wonder what Joseph Smith would say to the idea that merely expressing personal opposition to an official act of the church is worthy of excommunication? The idea that there is no back and forth, no common consent.

Unless I misread the article, it wasn't the personal opposition to an official act that would have triggered a disciplinary council (none was actually held). It was the publishing of the communications between himself and church leaders that would have triggered the disciplinary council. The personal opposition only got him suspended from the MoTab Orchestra.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by woot

I agree with you, but must point out that there is nothing politically correct about "african american" vs "black." The former excludes black folks living outside america, as well as white americans from Africa, unless we consider that every american is an african american, some just further removed from their continent of origin than others.

I once heard a native american guy declare that the preferred term to describe his people is "American Indian." Similar to african american, it just doesn't make any sense and I will therefore not use it.

For once we agree.

I once used the term African American to describe someone with black skin. I was immediately informed that they were Fijian. There are people with black skin in America that come from the pacific islands, from the Indian subcontinent, and from western rural China. Trying to come up with some term that is all-inclusive and completely non-offensive just isn't possible. I'll just stick with the word "black" if I ever happen to be referring to someone's skin color.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Archaea

a poster offered this perspective on the case, not without merit.

Crap. Should have read the whole thread before I posted.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Why if someone has a belief and stands by his or her belief is that person selling thier birthright.

That line of thinking reminds me of the Baptists I allowed into my house who over and over again felt the need to convince me I was going to hell.

If you truly believe in the faith you espouse, I would think your thoughts would be of sorrow for what this person will be missing out on, not some kind of brithright and pottage analogy.

If this fellow truly believes in the doctrines of the church I feel sorry he has to dissassociate himself from the church over an organizational issue. He is a casuality of the need to keep order. That is too bad for him. I don't condemn the church for trying to keep order, but do feel sorry for the guy that his belief compels him not to comply.

The pottage analogy was meant as a response to Taq Man's devaluing of a testimony. I don't believe that "standing by your belief" in the abstract constitutes selling out. The problem here was this guy's need to take it public.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm getting in late here, but I don't think this had to shake out the way it did. I'm going to focus only on this couple. People diverge with the church in their views on any number of topics. I think that most of the people on the board, including those who get the tag of mullah, have pretty openly diverged on some topics.

I value my membership in the church. So while I'm willing to banter on a message board about these things, I'm not willing to take the risk of writing a letter to the editor. I don't think this is cowardice, but is rather a recognition of how much one potentially has to lose. I find it to be much more a matter of conscience to be a member of the church and keep all of the attendant benefits it provides me and family than I ever would to feel like I need to publicly take a position against the church.

If you really want to change the church, if you really want to influence anyone in the church, why choose to be a former member of the church? All that gets you is high fives from others who got out. You don't influence the organization or its members from that vantage point.

I'm not running these people down for their decision to get out, if that is what works for them. I'm just saying that we all know where the church stands on these things and how it reacts to them. If you test the church in the way this guy says he did, you are taking a big risk. For me, there would be no point to that.

This is essentially what I meant when I said, "There are lots of ways to stand up for what you believe in. Better to choose one that doesn't cost you your testimony."

Originally Posted by Archaea

Here's a different question. Let's say a member agrees with Nielsen's stand but not his mode of expressing his disagreement, does that member have any moral obligation in your opinion to voice his support for Nielsen even though he disagreed with the mode of disagreement?

Does the member who agrees with Nielsen but simply doesn't wish to get involved, because although the member agrees in principle, he simply doesn't believe it's that important to go public?

Some people are private people, is that immoral in your opinion?

No, I don't think so.

But one thing the much maligned Bruce McConkie doesn't get much credit for around here is his reaction to the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. He said, in essence, "I was wrong. Forget about what I said and follow the prophet."

It's too bad folks like the guy in this article can't have that much integrity, instead choosing to kick against the pricks, as it were.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I don't think so.

But one thing the much maligned Bruce McConkie doesn't get much credit for around here is his reaction to the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. He said, in essence, "I was wrong. Forget about what I said and follow the prophet."

Bravo to BRM. He admitted that all of that racist folklore he had been promoting as doctrine was false. Not sure what other option he had at that point in time, but kudos to him anyway.

Originally Posted by Tex

It's too bad folks like the guy in this article can't have that much integrity, instead choosing to kick against the pricks, as it were.

Here is where you lose me. What exactly did these folks do that exhibited a lack of integrity? I can question their judgment and their sense of priority perhaps, but what evidence do you have to call their integrity into question?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Bravo to BRM. He admitted that all of that racist folklore he had been promoting as doctrine was false. Not sure what other option he had at that point in time, but kudos to him anyway.

He could've written an open letter about how much he disagreed with the decision, acted surprised when the First Presidency reacted strongly, and today we'd be reading, "Bruce McConkie didn't set out to be a Mormon activist, but that damn LDS Church ..."

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Here is where you lose me. What exactly did these folks do that exhibited a lack of integrity? I can question their judgment and their sense of priority perhaps, but what evidence do you have to call their integrity into question?

Perhaps the word integrity is wrong. Though I don't get the sense in the article that they are being completely forthright, I suppose that could just be Stack's poor journalism. You're right, it's more their judgment I'm questioning.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think three things about this story and this thread:

1) The salvational church gets the benefit of the doubt--they didn't excommunicate the guy and there is always hope that the high counsel and stake presidency wouldn't have gone there.

2) The bureaucratic church gets an F--the secretary to the First Presidency calls the choir and orchestra heads and gets the guy canned because he wrote a letter to the SLTrib? Are you kidding me? With all that is going on in the world and in the Church and this is what the secretary to the First Presidency thinks he should be doing? Either he acted alone and is overstepping his bounds, or a member/the members of the First Presidency really do care that much about how the third viola in the orchestra pit feels about the political question of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. Very disappointing either way.

3) My biggest take away here is Mike's comment that members who stick their heads up are penalized for having rendered service in the church. If the guy hadn't been in the orchestra, he would still be in the Church (most likely)--even with the letter and even with the same views. It was his getting canned from the orchestra that pushed him over the edge (probably). He drives from Levan to SLC every week to serve the Church with his talent and this is his reward. So I am now thinking that if I am ever to stick my head up and take a stand opposite to the current thinking of the old flawed white guys who are the Lord's special witnesses my punishment will likely be in proportion to the service I have given--the more service, the greater the lashing out. This is very disheartening to realize.

1. Agreed.

2. Speculation on your part. Sure, church officials declined to comment, but we still only have one side of the story - that of Danzig.

3. Again, speculation. How do you know the situation would have been different had he not been in the orchestra? It could just as well be that he has a history of this kind of behavior but doesn't want that to be known so he looks like the victim here.

Bottom line is that he chose to leave the LDS church. That was his, not the church's decision.

[MikeWaters]

One interesting aspect about this is that the guy's father was screwed by political fighting by church employees. At least according to the son.

In brief, the father worked in the church mountain vault, was accused of stealing something, eventually over a series of months, was found to be innocent of the charges, but in the meantime his church membership had been on the line, his reputation ruined, and then eventually even after being cleared by the highest levels of the church, was fired from his job.

Looks like the son wasn't about to roll over like his father did. Something of a Greek tragedy feel to it.

http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equ...e-more-on.html

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think three things about this story and this thread:

1) The salvational church gets the benefit of the doubt--they didn't excommunicate the guy and there is always hope that the high counsel and stake presidency wouldn't have gone there.

2) The bureaucratic church gets an F--the secretary to the First Presidency calls the choir and orchestra heads and gets the guy canned because he wrote a letter to the SLTrib? Are you kidding me? With all that is going on in the world and in the Church and this is what the secretary to the First Presidency thinks he should be doing? Either he acted alone and is overstepping his bounds, or a member/the members of the First Presidency really do care that much about how the third viola in the orchestra pit feels about the political question of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. Very disappointing either way.

3) My biggest take away here is Mike's comment that members who stick their heads up are penalized for having rendered service in the church. If the guy hadn't been in the orchestra, he would still be in the Church (most likely)--even with the letter and even with the same views. It was his getting canned from the orchestra that pushed him over the edge (probably). He drives from Levan to SLC every week to serve the Church with his talent and this is his reward. So I am now thinking that if I am ever to stick my head up and take a stand opposite to the current thinking of the old flawed white guys who are the Lord's special witnesses my punishment will likely be in proportion to the service I have given--the more service, the greater the lashing out. This is very disheartening to realize.

I think if you work for or are affliated with any of the church organizations, you are held to a higher standard than the regular members. It is the image thing. You can't have a member who has attached, member of choir, member of orchestra, works at church office building, professor at BYU, janitor at BYU, etc. who has any taint associated with them. Thus the guy who got fired for helping the poor rather than attending church. That one sounded a little funny to me. I mean who uses the , I help the poor rather than attend church excuse.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I think if you work for or are affliated with any of the church organizations, you are held to a higher standard than the regular members. It is the image thing. You can't have a member who has attached, member of choir, member of orchestra, works at church office building, professor at BYU, janitor at BYU, etc. who has any taint associated with them. Thus the guy who got fired for helping the poor rather than attending church. That one sounded a little funny to me. I mean who uses the , I help the poor rather than attend church excuse.

Don't all men have a taint associated with them????? Also known as a grundle, chode, or tweenis.