Water Dog wrote:She was warned, and warned, and warned again. This letter is hardly anything new. Quit spinning the facts. She was told exactly what she had to do to avoid excommunication....
And guess what?
I agree with you this far. Only, she wasn't told that continuing what she was doing constituted apostasy and that her apostasy would eventually lead to excommunication within six months. Telling your child to look left-right-left before crossing the street is what the child needs to know to avoid being hit by a car. But, the child may, despite how obvious it seems to you, not understand that if she doesn't look both ways she risks being hit by a car, and may not implement the rule just on your say-so. Now that the FP has read Rock Waterman's posts on the problems with members not having access to the forbidden knowledge contained in the CHI, the Brethren have chosen to reveal some portions of it to the whole church. In the future, you might be able to say, "surely this person had to know what was coming" and there will be a slightly greater chance of being right, but unfortunately, not even making the rule public knowledge is good enough. Sit down, Water Dog, because this one takes some unpacking. Hamblin and DCP have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to "apostasy". You'll need to learn about this one, from me.
Hamblin and others play this as if it were uncomplicated and procedural. They don't understand the intentional ambiguity that exists in the Brethren's hushed-toned counsel: their "we invite you" games. Think about the Bishop who backed down from his fight with the Church over building the new MTC after Clayton and Nelson "invited him" to "support the brethren" with a signed letter by Nelson. This bishop had access to the CHI and he knew how things worked. Was the letter he was forced to read to his congregation threatening excommunication if he didn't obey? Perhaps an early release? What would have been the material consequence of continuing his fight, do you know, Water Dog? Because I don't think the Bishop knew and I don't think even Nelson and Clayton knew. Why didn't they know? Because unlike the apologists who are in this to see critics intentionally cross the line, get cut, and then they can say "we told you so!" the Church has a bottom line that is complicated to maintain and is willing to bend their rules and be agreeable if the tradeoff is expected to be positive toward the net-present value of all future tithing flows. Bishops want to be great leaders, and loved by all in their ward boundaries. Very few want to pick fights. And they want a pat on the head from their leaders for sending a big bag of money to the COB every month.
No one has a vested interest in a war, and if a leader is clear about consequences early on, and says, "sister, if you continue down this path, we will be forced eventually to excommunicate you" then the Church will look heavy-handed. In fact,
leaders may not even know themselves what the consequences are because they can't put a dollar-figure on the tradeoffs between the possible outcomes. "Bishop, if you continue to fight us on the new MTC zoning, you will be stripped of your calling and eventually face excommunication." Whoah! Imagine going to the press with that! Better to not make threats, and better to let the consequences of some actions remain ambiguous. Threatening a ward full of TBM BYU employees? Try forecasting that dollar figure! Was the letter Clayton gave to the Bishop a material threat? Sure, in post-hoc report filing after action has been taken, as Reverend Kishkuman brilliantly observed. But was it a threat at the time given? It wasn't either/or. It's a poker game. The brethren threw chips on the table, they didn't reveal their hand. The bishop calculated the risks and folded. And that's how the brethren want these things to go down. Likewise, though the stakes for the Church were lower in the KK case at least in the beginning, the Bishop had no vested interest in clarifying the rules of apostasy. He pulls the "we brethren advise you" early on, in December, hoping she'll calculate the risks and fold. And in poker, the next move isn't known until the next turn comes round the table.
I know I've gone on but there is more to say. Think about my analogy of a child crossing the street. And now think about the Church's definition of apostasy as clarified by Hamblin and others.
Our son Ricky is disobedient for not looking left-right-left when crossing the street after repeatedly being warned to look left-right-left. However, we aren't going to pull him in and counsel him about this, we're going to let him just go ahead and run across the street any time he wants. We will only bring him for a sit-down if he tries to convince others to cross the street without looking both ways.The doctrines of the Church are far more serious than crossing the street. Aren't you the one who says that death is like losing a Pac-Man because he just pops out of the box on the other side of the veil? But being wrong about a saving principle of the gospel? Eternal damnation and hell fire are on the table now. Why would anyone let their child go ahead and believe whatever false doctrines she wishes so long as it's just her going to hell and no one else? Only if you don't really believe in the commandments themselves, but what commandment-believing means to your earthly bottom line in various scenarios.
Imagine what the GA who reads this post is going to think, Water Dog. After he and the boys finally convinced the newsroom and perhaps one of the twelve that Waterman and others on the internet had a point, that this whole apostasy thing needs to be clarified, and now he's got to report that making the rule public isn't going to help? I don't envy him. Those of us who took an economics class at the Lord's University know something about what students of the market call "policy ineffectiveness." If correct, policy-makers are not allowed easy wins. Increase taxes, money goes offshore, right? Put the CHI online now? Great. Except, now bishops will speak more cryptically.
Before the First Presidency public clarification on what apostasy means:Bishop: "Susan, I've called you in about your blog requesting the priesthood for women. I have some -- concerns -- about this."
Susan: "Oh really Bishop? like what?"
Bishop: "Susan, the Lord reveals matters of Church doctrine through his prophets in his own due time. Now, You're a bright young lady, and I respect your opinions. But it's not for you -- or for me, or anyone else -- to, er, make demands of the brethren, especially in such a public way. I must, regrettably, ask that you seriously consider taking these requests down from your blog."
Susan: "You know Bishop, I'm shocked. I didn't think you'd have any consideration for my opinions at all and I'm so relieved that you took the time to read the blog. I'm not sure I can take it down, however."
Bishop: "Ok, well, just think about it. Pray about it. Hey -- maybe we can talk about how things are going in a few months?"
Susan: "Sure bishop!"
After the clarification:Bishop: "Susan, I've called you in about your blog requesting the priesthood for women. I have some -- concerns -- about this. It's about your blog."
Susan: "Oh really Bishop? I guess that means you're going to excommunicate me? The First Presidency has clarified that if you tell me a few times in meetings like this to take down my blog and I don't do it, then I'll be excommunicated. Did you bring me in here to threaten me with excommunication?"
Bishop: "No No No! Let's not jump to..."
Susan: "Bill Hamblin says on his blog that if I try to convince others publically with my blog then I'll be excommunicated, is that right?"
Bishop: "No, wait just a second and please, please don't put words in my mouth. I value your opinion, good sister. Please, look, these instructions from the Church you've read are guidelines only and very general and, I'm the leader of this ward and you have to trust me. Don't go there. We're just, two adults, equal adults, sitting down and having conversation. And that's all."
No loose change on the floor boys, good luck.