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)
Thanks for the clarification on this, Rollo.
My next question is....What is considered "flagrant"? I can understand if this man was trying to start his own Church, or taking things publicly to the air-waves, etc., but as far as I know, even authors of supposed "anti-Mormon" literature have not gone through this sort of public ridicule.
This is honestly the first I have heard of this kind of thing happening.
Does anyone know if Margaret Toscano's name was read publicly in a Church meeting when she was excommunicated?
Nehor, This is where I'll have to strongly disagree with your funniness. The entire family gets labelled because Mormons are superstitious about getting infected with this fatal disease of the elect called apostacy.
I taught gospel doctrine for the last several years of activity, I've taught every young man in the ward from 16 to 21 and they know my heart. We were friends and shared a great deal of experiences together. I spent several years in the EQ presidency. I was outspoken in my convictions to living within the bounds the (Mormon) Lord had set. I and my family blended in and were well respected for our peaceable walk.
We're now a special needs case. The EQP hometeaches my family with his son. I have told only the SP, bishop, EQP and his two counselors. However, in over 2 years, not one of my friends (including my next door neighbors and the several I've done work for have even approached me to ask me what is wrong and how my family is doing. My impression is that most are aware that there is something terribly wrong with brother Inc. and his family. They remind me of those colder human beings that prefer to drive through the broken glass of a serious accident rather than do what little they can as a first responder. Having been in this position several times throughout my life, I understand the feelings of helplessness knowing that some of the victims cannot be saved, yet I stop and offer compassion and treat them with dignity and respect as they pass from this life. I thought Mormons were taught like me to live this philosophy.
When I first approached the SP about 2 years ago, he emphatically told me there was nothing wrong with searching history and gaining a greater understanding of our church. At the time he knew nothing troubling at all except a little about 3 First Visions. The next stake conference the theme revolved around the dangers of looking any further than the scriptures, lesson manuals, the (Mormon) Lord's annointed and personal revelation (from the Mormon God). It was a sickening feeling. Previous to my conversations with him, he was unaware of what each of us on this forum know (TBM or not). And being a steward/shepherd of many, he called for circling the wagons. If we were playing cowboys and indians, I would be the indian and my family half breeds.
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."
First he has a smile on his face. Second, he was talking to other members about his reasons. When this is the case, it is already public knowledge and the stake needs to act quickly. I don't think that it is a big deal. When he discussed his research with other members and his he gave up on his right to secrecy. And so, I just can't understand the big deal. He made his position known.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
why me wrote:First he has a smile on his face. Second, he was talking to other members about his reasons. When this is the case, it is already public knowledge and the stake needs to act quickly. I don't think that it is a big deal. When he discussed his research with other members and his excommunication, he gave up on his right to secrecy. And so, I just can't understand the big deal. He made his position known.
Well, that's not what I was commenting on. You believe he's some sort of self-centered publicity hound. Whatever.
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)
So the SP likely thought his actions were such that he merited a broad announcement. However, do such announcements usually cover the family with an equally tarnished blanket condemnation?
why me wrote:First he has a smile on his face. Second, he was talking to other members about his reasons. When this is the case, it is already public knowledge and the stake needs to act quickly. I don't think that it is a big deal. When he discussed his research with other members and his excommunication, he gave up on his right to secrecy. And so, I just can't understand the big deal. He made his position known.
Well, that's not what I was commenting on. You believe he's some sort of self-centered publicity hound. Whatever.
I may have that feeling. But perhaps I was wrong. The point is: he was leading people astray with his research. Thus, the church had to react by making it public. He now makes it public also. In the end it can only be a good thing for the LDS church. Soon with all the publicity being received no one in Arizona can claim 'stupidity' in th future.
why me wrote:I may have that feeling. But perhaps I was wrong. The point is: he was leading people astray with his research. Thus, the church had to react by making it public. He now makes it public also. In the end it can only be a good thing for the LDS church. Soon with all the publicity being received no one in Arizona can claim 'stupidity' in th future.
He's leading people astray with his research. What does that mean? Is he lying? Is he being dishonest?
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."
First he has a smile on his face. Second, he was talking to other members about his reasons. When this is the case, it is already public knowledge and the stake needs to act quickly. I don't think that it is a big deal. When he discussed his research with other members and his excommunication, he gave up on his right to secrecy. And so, I just can't understand the big deal. He made his position known.
We'll have to see what he does with his newly found fame within the Mormon community. Many prefer to just cower and fade into obscurity regardless of the embarrassment. Others seek vindication of a smeared name for the sake of their family and even themselves. Some come out swinging.
Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact (in accepted legal terms) that Joseph Smith was a liar and adulterer and could not possibly qualify for baptism in his own church today - let alone, pass a temple recommend interview to attend ceremonies he initiated.
Besides, who says he would even recognize or even endorse the church as it exists today? Or Brigham Young and all the original apostles for that matter???
why me wrote:First he has a smile on his face. Second, he was talking to other members about his reasons. When this is the case, it is already public knowledge and the stake needs to act quickly. I don't think that it is a big deal. When he discussed his research with other members and his excommunication, he gave up on his right to secrecy. And so, I just can't understand the big deal. He made his position known.
Well, that's not what I was commenting on. You believe he's some sort of self-centered publicity hound. Whatever.
I may have that feeling. But perhaps I was wrong. The point is: he was leading people astray with his research. Thus, the church had to react by making it public. He now makes it public also. In the end it can only be a good thing for the LDS church. Soon with all the publicity being received no one in Arizona can claim 'stupidity' in th future.
Wait a minute. What exactly was he saying that was incorrect? How exactly did his research lead people astray?