No it is a dilemma for the Church.
Droopy wrote:No, only the apostate from the Church has a dilemma to contend with, not the Church.
I understand your point. You want it to simply be the problem of the evil awful apostate who will suffer because of their falling away. On that note you may or may not be right.
Never the less in a large complex organization like the Church it will have to deal with these issues. It will impact growth, viability, retention of members, tithing income, how the Church is perceived by the greater public. You really think the Church will just take a dogs bark carevan moves on approach? Hardly. The Church has HUGE PR machine. Why is that if they don't care and it will be simply let the apostate suffer?
What is the Church to do with such persons?
Nothing, unless they step over a certain line into an excommunicable transgression, and even then, those things go on a case by case basis.
In the past I believe what Brooks and Dehlin and even other Bloggers are doing would have been excommunicable offenses. Why not today?
The wheat and the tares will grow together until the very end. No matter how many times this is stated, you still seem to fixate upon the "What is the Church going to do with them" meme. Some virgins will have their lamps trimmed and full at the wedding feast, and many others will not.
I understand this as well but see above.
The Church is true.
I know you believe this solidly.
How it "looks" to Babylon is irrelevant. It is not going to change, modify, alter or remake itself for you, Joanna Brooks, Michael Quinn, or anybody else.
Too late. It has and does. See Mormonism 101 for a recent small example. Either the Church is changing or its PR arm is disingenuous.
How so? How is it a dilemma for those YOU term as not valiant?
If the Church is true, and they choose not to participate in it and accept its doctrines and ordinances, then they will have restored to them in the resurrection what they were willing to receive in this life, as great or as small and diminished as that may be.
If the Church is true you are correct about this.
Do you have a calling in the Church?
Yes, I'm the branch missionary.
Great. Glad to hear it.
Do you home teach those who are less active?
Yes. They just reorganized the home teaching routes and I have four new inactive families
.
Wonderful.
Do you talk to them this way?
No, and I have never been talked to the way I'm talked to here by any inactive families I've ever home taught.
So you don't call them apostates, tell them if they don't shape up that they will have less restored to them in the resurrection, etc...et all. You know the stuff you say to us NOMers. Lost the light you have had and all. I am happy to hear it. I guess if you need to get it out of your system here carry on. I try to discuss things with you without all that but when you toss such comments out at me it is difficult not to give it back. I do try. I guess I am just a... what was it you called me.... a pansy. On this thread I responded initially to you with nothing personal nor any attack. You immediate response had at least three vindictive personal comments towards me. So I responded back. I am willing to try to avoid such if you are.
Not sure you are here now. It seems you have left the board again for about the 10th time.
I have never really met any anti-Mormon apostates, as exist here in the Internet world in concentrated form, in that capacity, save a couple of times, many years ago, and those meetings were brief, and it was made clear that no contact with the Church was desired. That was the end of that.
Does the state of the apostate justify invectiveness and vile? When I read Ballard’s remarks I think not.
From M. Russell Ballard's 'Doctrine of Inclusion'.
"I have never taught—nor have I ever heard taught—a doctrine of exclusion. I have never heard the members of this Church urged to be anything but loving, kind, tolerant, and benevolent to our friends and neighbors of other faiths. The Lord expects a great deal from us. Parents, please teach your children and practice yourselves the principle of inclusion of others and not exclusion because of religious, political, or cultural differences."
https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... usion?lang
Don't dodge the question. It applies to how you approach Dehlin and Brooks. It applied to those you love to hate here.
I see no relevance whatsoever here within the context of the Good Samaritan and to being tolerant and friendly toward people of other faiths and who do not belong to the Church to my long articulated criticism of those who are attempting to introduce and import incompatible and inconsistent doctrines, teachings, ideological beliefs, and philosophies from the world into the Church, and to dilute its revealed doctrines and shepard a convergence between the Church and the surrounding secular culture.
I agree with everything Elder Ballard has said. But there's a bit more to it than that. You're not going to be able to silence the apologetics movement by taking the words of the Brethren out of context and deploying them as a moral club, leaving people like John Dehlin on their soap box unchallenged and unopposed in the marketplace of ideas.
Been there, seen that.
I will pass on most the thoughts I have about your comments above other than to say I think you miss the point of the talk by miles. I will also note that I personally am not interested in silencing the apologetics movement. You saw no glee from me regarding the recent Maxwell Institute and Dan Peterson. I quite like Dan Peterson.
You really think the lessons have become so painfully boring and simple because of the problems of the public schools? You think the LDS Church correlation committee is approving the pabulum that passes off as priesthood manuals because it thinks people are
In your churlish, arrogant presumption of authority to sit in judgement of the Lord's anointed servants, you may prate and prattle all you wish about things such as this, and clearly, you have not serious thought it through at all. Fortunately, these things are not up to you, or other "wolves" in sheep's clothing like you, pretending to be concerned for the welfare of the Church when in reality, you are seeking to transform it to more closely resemble your own golden calf-like likeness.
Sigh... see what I mean Droopy? Wolves in sheep’s clothing like me? really? Just because I think the lessons are boring? So you have to get personal again. But oh yes I have thought it through quit thoroughly. I have discussed it with my local leaders. They agree in may instances. We have discussed in in detail in high council meetings when we discuss retention, inactivity, retaining youth, etc. You see Droopy despite your view of me is some sort of slathering wolf seeking to destroy the Church from within you are misguided and incorrect. I want to see the Church succeed. I will be honest though. I think your approach will not help the Chuch succeed at all. At least based on how you are here. Could be wrong though.
So the rest of the blah, blah, blah, and more self righteous blah, blah, blah, was snipped, and here it will end.
Yes, I understand that you have conceded my points that when you stoop to spewing vile it is because you cannot refute, such as your last volley above.