Why didn't they just make him wear a scarlet A?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Wait a minute... I thought the church didn't hide things like Joseph Smith' polyandry! I thought only lazy members didn't already know about it!!
Someone from MAD needs to call these local leaders and tell them the new party line.
Someone from MAD needs to call these local leaders and tell them the new party line.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm
The Nehor wrote:Dr. Shades wrote:In the "Comments" section, Mr. Lamborn himself made the following comment:These latest comments are spot-on. If the LDS church is serious about mainstreaming, these 'Gestapo' tactics really need to be eliminated. It is a weak organization that needs to be 'protected' from facts and alternate opinions.
As with most news stories, what wasn't told is actually more interesting. When I first confronted my bishop about my findings and questions, he immediately went into 'damage control' mode. I mentioned in confidentiality that I had been discussing the issues with my brothers. The following week, my bishop had contacted the bishops of ALL my brothers, and they each received a visit from the 'Men In Black'. I honestly felt I was in 1939 Nazi Germany. Real life is stranger than fiction!
Lyndon Lamborn
Who are these "Men in Black" that visited his brothers? Their bishops or home teachers, I assume? If it was anyone other than them, what did they say, I wonder?
I covered one of the brothers. We came bearing green jello and funeral potatos laced with depressants. Luckily in this case the Danites did not see serious dissension and no terminations were made. Their phones are bugged of course though.
I don't see anything sinister here. His brothers were all visited. That's because they care about them. If I found out my brother was exposed to a lot of anti-Mormon material from any source I'd want to talk it out with him. 'Damage Control Mode' doesn't sound so bad when you consider the man in question was actively seeking to damage people's testimonies. I think his metaphor is a little overblown. In 1939 Nazi Germany you had a tendency to get shot not visited by people wearing suits with a lesson out of a religious magazine.
Except he wasn't exposed to anything "anti-Mormon", he was being exposed to the truth. Just how do you damage someone's testimony with the truth?
Nehor do me, yourself, everyone else here a favor. Take your triple combination book of "scriptures" and go to the back. Then look up truth in the index. Then read every "scripture" you find under that listing. Then come back and report what "scriptures" this man violated by being exposed to the truth about Joseph's polygamy and by telling others about it.
Thanx in advance.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11832
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am
beastie wrote:Wait a minute... I thought the church didn't hide things like Joseph Smith' polyandry! I thought only lazy members didn't already know about it!!
Someone from MAD needs to call these local leaders and tell them the new party line.
If all he said was that Joseph Smith had multiple wives there wouldn't be a problem.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11832
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am
Pokatator wrote:Except he wasn't exposed to anything "anti-Mormon", he was being exposed to the truth. Just how do you damage someone's testimony with the truth?
Nehor do me, yourself, everyone else here a favor. Take your triple combination book of "scriptures" and go to the back. Then look up truth in the index. Then read every "scripture" you find under that listing. Then come back and report what "scriptures" this man violated by being exposed to the truth about Joseph's polygamy and by telling others about it.
Thanx in advance.
Truth without context is dangerous. I'm a serial killer. If I don't add that I routinely kill ants and that is how I earned the title I'm being deceitful
I don't think he was only saying that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. That is known to anyone with even a passing knowledge of polygamy (i.e. the majority of active Church Members with any interest in Church History).
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:I've only heard of it being announced before when an individual is actively preaching against the Church. You don't get the luxury of quietly leaving the Church under those circumstances.
Why do we want false teachers shunned? Check out the Bible or Book of Mormon some time Merc. If he went quietly away he wouldn't be 'shunned'. Glad to hear that my Church must be taken down by 'any means necessary'. I now know to duck if I see you wandering down my street with a shotgun.
I am completely and utterly shocked that this is being announced.
My understanding is that this is against Church policy. What goes on in a disciplinary council is suppose to stay there.
How is this going to help the situation? The only thing I see it doing is making things harder on the man's family than they already are.
Did you read the article, Nehor?
The man is not holding public gatherings. He was simply documenting things and answering questions the way he felt was honestly.
Frankly, if I were him, I would go ahead and publish a book at this point and make some money off the situation.
What does he have to lose now?
The Church has already disgraced his family publicly.
Frankly, I'm sickened by this.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
The Nehor wrote:beastie wrote:Wait a minute... I thought the church didn't hide things like Joseph Smith' polyandry! I thought only lazy members didn't already know about it!!
Someone from MAD needs to call these local leaders and tell them the new party line.
If all he said was that Joseph Smith had multiple wives there wouldn't be a problem.
So what are you implying? That he's not allowed to say that some of Smith's wives were married to other men? Or perhaps he's not allowed to say that some of his wives were mere teenagers?
Either way, it's all 100% true. So why is saying any of it a problem? Especially in light of what Beastie wrote?
(by the way, Beastie, your answer was brilliant.)
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
liz3564 wrote:The Nehor wrote:I've only heard of it being announced before when an individual is actively preaching against the Church. You don't get the luxury of quietly leaving the Church under those circumstances.
Why do we want false teachers shunned? Check out the Bible or Book of Mormon some time Merc. If he went quietly away he wouldn't be 'shunned'. Glad to hear that my Church must be taken down by 'any means necessary'. I now know to duck if I see you wandering down my street with a shotgun.
I am completely and utterly shocked that this is being announced.
My understanding is that this is against Church policy. What goes on in a disciplinary council is suppose to stay there.
How is this going to help the situation? The only thing I see it doing is making things harder on the man's family than they already are.
Did you read the article, Nehor?
The man is not holding public gatherings. He was simply documenting things and answering questions the way he felt was honestly.
Frankly, if I were him, I would go ahead and publish a book at this point and make some money off the situation.
What does he have to lose now?
The Church has already disgraced his family publicly.
Frankly, I'm sickened by this.
I am in agreement with Liz. This doesn't make sense. We've had 2 excommunications in the last 35 years in my ward: 1 for adultery and 1 for homosexuality. Neither were announced from the pulpit. Neither had a letter read in other wards. Perhaps because the excommunications weren't for apostacy? Is this standard practice? that excommunications for apostacy are handled differently (ie: publically) while other reasons are handled privately? Is this a change? What does the CHI say?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm
liz3564 wrote:I am completely and utterly shocked that this is being announced.
My understanding is that this is against Church policy. What goes on in a disciplinary council is suppose to stay there.
Here is the official policy (at least as of the 1998 Handbook):
If a case concerns (1) the preaching of false doctrine, (2) a transgressor whose predatory tendencies seriously threaten other persons, or (3) other flagrant transgressions (such as ridicule of Church leaders, plural marriage, or cultist teachings to attract a following), then, with the approval of the stake president, the bishop announces the decision in meetings of the elders quorum, high priests group, and Relief Society in his ward. In such cases the stake president also may need to authorize a broader announcement, such as in a stake priesthood meeting or to the Melchizedek Priesthood brethren and Relief Society sisters of other wards in the stake. (Emphasis added)
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm
The guy who is experiencing problems is exactly where he wants to be. He is loving the attention and is suffering no painful effects. His duty at this moment and before was to attack the LDS church. He seems to be a publicity hound. Soon he will probably be in a Tanner video basking in the limelight.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
why me wrote:The guy who is experiencing problems is exactly where he wants to be. He is loving the attention and is suffering no painful effects. His duty at this moment and before was to attack the LDS church. He seems to be a publicity hound. Soon he will probably be in a Tanner video basking in the limelight.
why me, you clearly have never been in this man's situation. Again, this is another example of assuming the worst about your "enemies."