Something I don't get about apostates

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

My question is, why does she care? If you feel that the Book of Mormon is not true or its history is a fraud, or that Joseph Smith was a fraud or a fallen prophet, or that the current leadership has lost God's favor, or that the doctrine is not true and does not make sense ...

... why do you care about the ordinances? I can understand missing the fellowship or the fraternity, but the ordinances? Why do you long for the ceremonies, the efficacy and value of which you by definition reject?

It is a fascinating paradox that intellectual apostates don't really want to leave the church, they just want to change it.

I hesitate to speak for Margaret, but I once asked her essentially the same question. She told me that (at least at the time this conversation took place) she believed the essence of the LDS version of the gospel was "true" or at least very true. It was the difference between her interpretation of doctrinal issues and the leadership's interpretation that led to the conflict. I'm not defending her (it's not really my business), but pointing out that, in her mind, it was her church too, but the leaders didn't want her in.

I think you've hit on something. Many of these so-called "intellectuals" are experiencing immense cognitive dissonance between what LDS say they believe (or used to believe) and what they actually do. I think the 'reform' idea is valid one. I know I would like to see certain things in LDS practice and doctrine change.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Where did you get that number?

In a training session with Elder Scott. My stake president and bishop have confirmed it to me on multiple occasions. Our stake is actually very slow to excommunicate because of that fact.

We even had a bishopric member, my friend, who had an affair but was not ex'ed until he moved in with his girl friend for a year. He was d'ed then only after unrepentant attitude ex'ed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I think you've hit on something. Many of these so-called "intellectuals" are experiencing immense cognitive dissonance between what LDS say they believe (or used to believe) and what they actually do. I think the 'reform' idea is valid one. I know I would like to see certain things in LDS practice and doctrine change.

I don't share a desire to reform. I wish we just didn't take ourselves so seriously, worked to help each other without getting so worked up and recognized every single member makes mistakes and that none of our pronouncements are perfect but just our best efforts at the time of declaration.

We need more kindness, more understanding, and less hostility by all involved. We are probably not benefitted by "dogma" which really seems to have been a creature of the fourth century. Why would we want to become like unto the Fourth Century Church?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

I hesitate to speak for Margaret, but I once asked her essentially the same question. She told me that (at least at the time this conversation took place) she believed the essence of the LDS version of the gospel was "true" or at least very true. It was the difference between her interpretation of doctrinal issues and the leadership's interpretation that led to the conflict. I'm not defending her (it's not really my business), but pointing out that, in her mind, it was her church too, but the leaders didn't want her in.

I think you've hit on something. Many of these so-called "intellectuals" are experiencing immense cognitive dissonance between what LDS say they believe (or used to believe) and what they actually do. I think the 'reform' idea is valid one. I know I would like to see certain things in LDS practice and doctrine change.

A integral part of the Gospel is the concept of 'order in all things' and 'stewardship'.

Wishing for change in the church isn't necessarily in and of itself wrong, but publicly disagreement with the leadership is a violation these two tenets.

Furthmore, it's my opinion that public disagreement with the church is a screaming sign that a person doesn't possess a belief that the church is led by continuing revelation and that God will eventually right any wrongs within His church and in His own due time.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Finished watching "The Mormons" last night (more on that some other time) and was struck afresh by strange comments from apostates.

Take Margaret Toscano, self-proclaimed intellectual and apparent feminist. We first heard her voice in the documentary introduce her self as one (my words), "stripped of my wedding vows ... my sealing to my husband and my children has been cancelled." Later, she describes the disciplinary council where she was excommunicated as "violent," so much that she's confused when some of the high councilmen involved desire to shake her hand and express love for her after its completion. (One of the few moments I actually laughed out loud during the presentation.)

My question is, why does she care? If you feel that the Book of Mormon is not true or its history is a fraud, or that Joseph Smith was a fraud or a fallen prophet, or that the current leadership has lost God's favor, or that the doctrine is not true and does not make sense ...

... why do you care about the ordinances? I can understand missing the fellowship or the fraternity, but the ordinances? Why do you long for the ceremonies, the efficacy and value of which you by definition reject?

It is a fascinating paradox that intellectual apostates don't really want to leave the church, they just want to change it.

I agree with this. I don't understand the people whom you describe. If I got a summons I would not show up.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't share a desire to reform. I wish we just didn't take ourselves so seriously, worked to help each other without getting so worked up and recognized every single member makes mistakes and that none of our pronouncements are perfect but just our best efforts at the time of declaration.

We need more kindness, more understanding, and less hostility by all involved. We are probably not benefitted by "dogma" which really seems to have been a creature of the fourth century. Why would we want to become like unto the Fourth Century Church?

I guess reform is a broad word. That which you describe is reform to me. Like you, I would like to see more tolerance for differing points of view, and less hostile criticism from all parties. Dogma is fine, but dogmatic is a dirty word.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What about Neil Labute's disfellowship? He was disfellowshipped for writing the play "Bash".

I think the key aspect to being excommunicated is that you have to do something public that someone high up in the church doesn't like.

If I write a play, where say, one Mormon mission kills his companion.....I won't be exed. Because the play will suck and will never see the light of day.

But if it did see the light of day.....all bets are off.

So if Jefe let me post what I post here, I'd be toast. Posting on piddly CG I'm safe. Is that right?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't share a desire to reform. I wish we just didn't take ourselves so seriously, worked to help each other without getting so worked up and recognized every single member makes mistakes and that none of our pronouncements are perfect but just our best efforts at the time of declaration.

We need more kindness, more understanding, and less hostility by all involved. We are probably not benefitted by "dogma" which really seems to have been a creature of the fourth century. Why would we want to become like unto the Fourth Century Church?

I can't speak for individual cases ... certainly people are human, and there's bound to have been poorly handled disciplinary councils.

However, I can say with confidence that training aside (and maybe we need more), the principles on which they are based--why they exist and how they should be carried out--are very clear. There should be no doubt in the mind of the presiding officer and those included in the council that it is meant to be a step toward the ultimate repentance of the person involved.

Also, regardless of the human frailties of lay leadership, we cannot absolve people of their responsibility for their own salvation. Even a poorly handled council, while no doubt making it much more difficult for the person to be welcomed back, is not ultimately to blame for a person's loss of blessings. You and you alone are responsible for your adherence to gospel doctrine.

Elder Bednar's talk on being offended more or less emphasized this point.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Furthmore, it's my opinion that public disagreement with the church is a screaming sign that a person doesn't possess a belief that the church is led by continuing revelation and that God will eventually right any wrongs within His church and in His own due time.

In reality, it turns on the nature of the discussion. Academics and politicos become accustomed to the style of debate from their arenas. That simply doesn't fly in the Church culture. While academics should be well enough versed to understand the distinction, they often are proud enough to ignore them.

Sometimes, they are their own worst enemies. OTOH, leaders should be discerning as the faithful who simply disagree and discuss their issues with those who are disinterested and seek contention.

And I can agree God inspires his leaders without agreeing with your definition of "continuing revelation". I don't agree that the pipeline is like a high grade uplink to a satellite feed. More like a telegraph, difficult to use but there when necessary.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I guess reform is a broad word. That which you describe is reform to me. Like you, I would like to see more tolerance for differing points of view, and less hostile criticism from all parties. Dogma is fine, but dogmatic is a dirty word.

Agreed.