Why didn't they just make him wear a scarlet A?

[_Dr. Shades]

But the Church, following New Testament principles, is empowered and entitled to decide upon whether its members adhere to or violate norms necessary to retain membership.

You, who are out of the Church, may mock and ridicule that right, but certainly it is an inherent right respected and acknowledged by theologians and governments around the world. When a religion violates the law, then there may be something outsiders can criticize.

I work for one of the largest Hindu organizations in California. I see how they worship, and how they exclude worshippers who trouble management of their temples. Surely you wouldn't feel very comfortable mocking and deriding the worship and polity of Hindu practice; why Mormons?

I only mock and deride inconsistent application of practice, not the actual practice itself.

As far as why Lambourne and why not somebody else (me, Bushman or anybody else), you simply lack standing to raise that question.

I can raise any question I want.

Do you challenge the right of the Pope to appoint or elect a particular cardinal, or demote or change one's assignment? Why transfer this cardinal from the Vatican, and not that one? Why defrock this priest and not that one? Membership in the Church is an acknowledgment that you accept the right of leaders above you to make certain decisions about who is adhering to norms of conduct and whom is not.

Your examples were ones of qualification for position, not norms of conduct.

But to address your norms of conduct, I would encourage you to read, and preferably respond to, the following post made by beastie:

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.

[_rcrocket]

But Church Courts are so subjective.

Indeed they are. As they should be.

For quite a while, Congress imposed upon the Courts the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to impose a degree of objectivity and consistency upon the sentencing of convicts. The Supreme Court struck them down and re-entrusted the trial courts with subjectivity in sentencing.

For the very same reasons, the Spirit works in individual penitents and bishops in the way the Spirit dictates, not the way it would seem to be politically correct. It is highly subjective.

I can raise any question I want.

As can anybody sue for anything they want. Whether the suit is credible, or based upon adequate grounds, is another question. You simply have no stake, no standing, to challenge a Mormon stake president's decision on whether to retain or cut off a member any more than you have the right to complain about the way the Masons keep and expel members, or the local Baptists hire and fire pastors. It is silliness to hear these challenges from you.

But to address your norms of conduct, I would encourage you to read, and preferably respond to, the following post made by beastie:

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.

Oh, what a witty ripost to my post. Why not, indeed? Why don't you, or Trixie, do that? I am in favor of it! Do it.

rcrocket

[_karl61]

But Church Courts are so subjective.

Indeed they are. As they should be.

For quite a while, Congress imposed upon the Courts the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to impose a degree of objectivity and consistency upon the sentencing of convicts. The Supreme Court struck them down and re-entrusted the trial courts with subjectivity in sentencing.

For the very same reasons, the Spirit works in individual penitents and bishops in the way the Spirit dictates, not the way it would seem to be politically correct. It is highly subjective.

THESTYLEGUY: I believe that it's the spirit of the Bishop or Stake President not the other way around. You as Bishop either excommunicate single pregnant girls/women or you don't, where another Bishop in another ward may only disfellowship single pregnant girls. There are some Stakes that excommunicate more than other Stakes and some Bishops excommunicate more than other Bishops. I think that if you were an insider at Church Headquarters you could see that. I know that in the 70's in our Stake they were approaching inactive members and asking if you want to be part of the Church or not and were excommunicating the people sitting on the fence. as Deacons and Teachers we were asked to leave all the time at the beginning of Priesthood meeting for a few minutes. Mark E. Peterson came down and told the High Counsel to have a little more patience and love for people. Today I don't think they excommunicate people because they are inactive.

[_beastie]

I said, on page 1

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.

Bob's response:

Oh, what a witty ripost to my post. Why not, indeed? Why don't you, or Trixie, do that? I am in favor of it! Do it.

I'm going to lay aside, for a moment, Bob's long history of focusing on superficial, irrelevant matters and ignoring the real issues, and give him a chance to respond meaningful by taking out the sarcasm in my point.

My point is, Bob, that MADdites insist that the church does not hide any of its history. It is simply the laziness of individual members that has left them ignorant of these facts until they suddenly are confronted with them.

If the church does not hide its history, then the church would not be excommunicating this man for publishing the same facts that the church isn't trying to hide.

[_rcrocket]

But Church Courts are so subjective.

Indeed they are. As they should be.

For quite a while, Congress imposed upon the Courts the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to impose a degree of objectivity and consistency upon the sentencing of convicts. The Supreme Court struck them down and re-entrusted the trial courts with subjectivity in sentencing.

For the very same reasons, the Spirit works in individual penitents and bishops in the way the Spirit dictates, not the way it would seem to be politically correct. It is highly subjective.

THESTYLEGUY: I believe that it's the spirit of the Bishop or Stake President not the other way around. You as Bishop either excommunicate single pregnant college students or you don't, where another Bishop in another ward may only disfellowship pregant girls. There are some Stakes that excommunicate more than other Stakes and some Bishops excommunicate more than other Bishops. I think that if you were an insider at Church Headquarters you could see that. I know that in the 70's in our Stake they were approaching inactive members and asking if you want to be part of the Church or not and were excommunicating the people sitting on the fence. as Deacons and Teachers we were asked to leave all the time at the beginning of Priesthood meeting for a few minutes. Mark E. Peterson came down and told the High Counsel to have a little more patience and love for people. Today I don't think they excommunicate people because they are inactive.

"You as Bishop": Why don't you give me your name and profession, and church standing [you are a member, right, in good standing?], so that I can berate you (I wouldn't actually) with those items as you do to me?

I guess you can rely upon your anecdotes all you want. However, as a matter of Church polity and procedure, the Bishops are required to rely upon the Spirit and the authority granted them by the Q12. See I Thess. 1:5 [gospel comes with not only the word, but with power and the Spirit]. Nowhere in the scriptures or authority granted priesthood leaders have I ever seen an exhortation to be guided by precedent, like some lawyer or some judge of the secular law.

rrocket

[_rcrocket]

I said, on page 1

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.

Bob's response:

Oh, what a witty ripost to my post. Why not, indeed? Why don't you, or Trixie, do that? I am in favor of it! Do it.

I'm going to lay aside, for a moment, Bob's long history of focusing on superficial, irrelevant matters and ignoring the real issues, and give him a chance to respond meaningful by taking out the sarcasm in my point.

My point is, Bob, that MADdites insist that the church does not hide any of its history. It is simply the laziness of individual members that has left them ignorant of these facts until they suddenly are confronted with them.

If the church does not hide its history, then the church would not be excommunicating this man for publishing the same facts that the church isn't trying to hide.

Well, why don' t you do what you insist MAD folks do? Why don't you write the Mesa stake president and bring these oh-so-important facts to his attention. However, he would likely roundfile any anonymous letters, as do I.

And you just ignore my point. Why shouldn't the Church have the right to define terms of membership? Shouldn't the Church, if it wished, require its members as a condition of membership stand on street corners for 20 hours a week in a sandwich board? Who are you to criticize that?


rcrocket

[_beastie]

Well, why don' t you do what you insist MAD folks do? Why don't you write the Mesa stake president and bring these oh-so-important facts to his attention. However, he would likely roundfile any anonymous letters, as do I.

And you just ignore my point. Why shouldn't the Church have the right to define terms of membership? Shouldn't the Church, if it wished, require its members as a condition of membership stand on street corners for 20 hours a week in a sandwich board? Who are you to criticize that?

Let me try one more time, just in case you're not being deliberately obtuse.

My point has nothing to do with the right of the LDS church to define its own membership requirements.

My point is that this action demonstrates the fallacious argument of the MAD pretense that the church doesn't hide any of its history, and members who don't know this stuff are just plain lazy.

Obviously, the leaders of this stake disagree with that premise, and wish for certain facts to remain hidden from their members. Otherwise, he would not be excommunicated simply for sharing those facts.

[_rcrocket]

Well, why don' t you do what you insist MAD folks do? Why don't you write the Mesa stake president and bring these oh-so-important facts to his attention. However, he would likely roundfile any anonymous letters, as do I.

And you just ignore my point. Why shouldn't the Church have the right to define terms of membership? Shouldn't the Church, if it wished, require its members as a condition of membership stand on street corners for 20 hours a week in a sandwich board? Who are you to criticize that?

Let me try one more time, just in case you're not being deliberately obtuse.

My point has nothing to do with the right of the LDS church to define its own membership requirements.

My point is that this action demonstrates the fallacious argument of the MAD pretense that the church doesn't hide any of its history, and members who don't know this stuff are just plain lazy.

Obviously, the leaders of this stake disagree with that premise, and wish for certain facts to remain hidden from their members. Otherwise, he would not be excommunicated simply for sharing those facts.

One thing I hope you'll notice is that I don't hurl an insult at you with every post nor do I chestbeat about claims of victory.

I don't care anything about MAD pretense. I don't defend MAD, support it, agree with it and rarely ever read it. It is inane and antithetical to the mission of the Church for providing a platform for the inane. Those who host and moderate that board will probably burn in hell and should have their memberships suspended.

I didn't respond to your original post, or think I had to do so. Shades dragged you in, and my only response is -- it you think the facts are so important, then bring them to the stake president's attention.

And, if you say, the Church wishes to hide facts from its members, who are you to criticize that? You say you have resigned from the Church. You lack any standing to criticize church discliplinary procedure, as well as you lack standing to condemn the Elks for wearing funny hats as a condition for membership.

rcrocket

[_guy sajer]

[ You say you have resigned from the Church. You lack any standing to criticize church discliplinary procedure, as well as you lack standing to condemn the Elks for wearing funny hats as a condition for membership.

Why?

So, if I switch parties from Republican to Democrat, I lack standing to criticize Republicans?

So, if I quit the KKK, I lack standing to criticize it?

Etc.

No offense, Robert, but this is really an inane argument.

[_rcrocket]

[ You say you have resigned from the Church. You lack any standing to criticize church discliplinary procedure, as well as you lack standing to condemn the Elks for wearing funny hats as a condition for membership.

Why?

So, if I switch parties from Republican to Democrat, I lack standing to criticize Republicans?

So, if I quit the KKK, I lack standing to criticize it?

Etc.

No offense, Robert, but this is really an inane argument.

Political parties are not a good example because there are elements of government compulsion. One must be a member of a political party to engage in certain required gov't functions, like voting in primaries.

Suppose you are a member of the Elks Club. You leave the Elks Club and become a Moose. The Elks change their conditions of membership and require its members to wear a five-spiked antler instead of a four-spiked antler.

You, as a Moose, can complain about the condition of membership but your complaint is without standing because you eschew membership. Focus, please.