Did This SP Go Too Far?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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.

You don't think the church has an interest in making sure it clearly delineates who speaks for it, and who doesn't?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

You don't think the church has an interest in making sure it clearly delineates who speaks for it, and who doesn't?

The guy would not hold any positions in the church. Surely the members could tell if he was saying something contrary to what other leaders were teaching.

For heck sakes, I don't know for sure if you are a leader or not and I can listen to your stuff and not damage my testimony.

Now if a guy is going around proclaiming to being a leader and spouting off falsehoods, then I would surely want to get it out he does not speak for the church.

Since it isn't church policy to out excommunicated members, I think you can be assured this is the SP's idea of what needs to be done and wouldn't be something done by all SP's.

He is the SP and has the right to do what he did. If I were in his Stake I would still raise my right hand and sustain him. Fortunately saying I sustain him doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

[Archaea]

Very odd situation which might have been avoided through historical innoculation.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Very odd situation which might have been avoided through historical innoculation.

Innoculation? Joseph Smith and polygamy is hardly top secret material. I'm calling BS on this guy's claim he didn't know about this until a few years ago, ESPECIALLY since he claimed he went on a mission.

Actually, his little rant about losing his faith in the church due to his historical research sounds very familiar after hanging out in this Den of Innoculation.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

You don't think the church has an interest in making sure it clearly delineates who speaks for it, and who doesn't?

I think it does have that interest. And yet, many apostates are excommunicated every year and this is not done so far as I know. I guess I wonder why the church's legitimate interests are protected in this fashion here but not in all cases.

One effect will be to humiliate the mans family. I actually have much more sympathy for them than him. He is apparently public about the fact that he doesn't believe in the church any longer so I can't fathom why he would care whether it was announced in sacrament meeting or on a full page ad in the newspaper, unless it is out of concern for his family.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Innoculation? Joseph Smith and polygamy is hardly top secret material. I'm calling BS on this guy's claim he didn't know about this until a few years ago, ESPECIALLY since he claimed he went on a mission.

Actually, his little rant about losing his faith in the church due to his historical research sounds very familiar after hanging out in this Den of Innoculation.

His story may not wash and the claim of a SP making a public proclamation is also strange. This is the first of which I am aware.

It certainly is strange and not everything adds up.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Innoculation? Joseph Smith and polygamy is hardly top secret material. I'm calling BS on this guy's claim he didn't know about this until a few years ago, ESPECIALLY since he claimed he went on a mission.

Actually, his little rant about losing his faith in the church due to his historical research sounds very familiar after hanging out in this Den of Innoculation.

I too find this guys story a little odd. His two daughters had gone inactive. All of his brothers are being bugged by this new found knowledge.

However, I find you a little out of it too. I don't know when this guy went on a mission, but I didn't find out about Joseph Smiths multiple wives until long after my mission. Back in the 60's we didn't care about those things.

I can also guarantee you many false things were taught as doctrine with the intended desire to keep the truth away from people who might have weak testimonies.

It can be a little sobering to grow up believing one thing and finding out you were being misled. Misled by people you were told would never misleed you.

I am not speaking of the brethern here, but leaders in wards and Stakes. Fortunately I learned that for myself and when I found out the brethern also mispoke, it wasn't a big deal.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Innoculation? Joseph Smith and polygamy is hardly top secret material. I'm calling BS on this guy's claim he didn't know about this until a few years ago, ESPECIALLY since he claimed he went on a mission.

Actually, his little rant about losing his faith in the church due to his historical research sounds very familiar after hanging out in this Den of Innoculation.

I agree that this is a silly thing to lose ones faith over. However, the fact of the matter is that huge numbers of people are unfamiliar with it. Some of them are bothered by it when they find out.

As has been said before, the foundational claims of the church (and any religion) are fantastic and require faith to be believed. The point being that incorporating the truth into the narrative could be subtly accomplished and it would require no more faith to believe the full story that the partial story.

I don't see it as a big deal, I'm just not sure why we hold back on these things. In my business when someone is hiding something I usually assume that it must be bad for them else why hide it. I just don't see how this is bad for the church and while I wouldn't say it is "hiding it" it is at least obscuring it through omission. I certainly don't presume to counsel the brethren, i just don't see what the big deal about being open on this issue is.

[MikeWaters]

Krakauer's book hit Finderson like a ton of bricks as well. So I don't think it is terribly uncommon for members to be shocked.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think it does have that interest. And yet, many apostates are excommunicated every year and this is not done so far as I know. I guess I wonder why the church's legitimate interests are protected in this fashion here but not in all cases.

It seems like this man fits several parameters to combine for a perfect storm:

1. He held public leadership positions
2. He is vocal about his views
3. He has openly apostasized
4. He intends on remaining "active" (such as it is)

That seems like recipe for confusion among those less spiritually mature than BYU71.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

One effect will be to humiliate the mans family. I actually have much more sympathy for them than him. He is apparently public about the fact that he doesn't believe in the church any longer so I can't fathom why he would care whether it was announced in sacrament meeting or on a full page ad in the newspaper, unless it is out of concern for his family.

That may be an effect, but I don't think it can be fairly reasoned that it is a supporting cause. And I don't doubt he's concerned about the effect on his family, but he should've considered that when he went public. It's his own behavior that has brought this down ... as you have already noted, not every apostate gets it read from the pulpit.