Will John Dehlin be the next example?

[_Jason Bourne]

Perhaps he may be exercising the leniency he feels he has by being the brother of the CIO of LDS Inc?

You sure they are brothers?

I like John Dehlin. I will have to listen to the interview.

[_Nightingale]

... her reaction to the sexually intrusive questions they asked her during her (If I recall correctly) disfellowshipment. What positions was she in? What was she thinking about right before sex? WTH????

Yes, I have read this on many occasions too. Also, it happened to a convert friend of mine. She did have an affair that became public so not surprisingly, she was invited to a court of love. There were four men with her, alone in a small room (3 local leaders, one clerk). I attended with her for moral support but was not allowed into the proceedings.

She came out halfway through, after they had questioned her for over an hour and while they were (supposedly) deliberating over how to respond (ex, big-d, etc). She was white and shaking with big, round eyes, murmuring to me that she was so embarrassed/humiliated at their questions. The questions included ones similar to what beastie mentioned plus others, equally intrusive (how many times, where, how did she feel, what they talked about before, during, after, etc).

I think in that situation many people feel compelled to respond rather than refusing and/or telling the interviewers to lay off. In my friend's case, she thought by being docile and cooperative maybe she wouldn't get ex'd.

Sorry for getting off track. Just wanted to chime in and respond to beastie's "WTH".

[_harmony]

... her reaction to the sexually intrusive questions they asked her during her (If I recall correctly) disfellowshipment. What positions was she in? What was she thinking about right before sex? WTH????

Yes, I have read this on many occasions too. Also, it happened to a convert friend of mine. She did have an affair that became public so not surprisingly, she was invited to a court of love. There were four men with her, alone in a small room (3 local leaders, one clerk). I attended with her for moral support but was not allowed into the proceedings.

She came out halfway through, after they had questioned her for over an hour and while they were (supposedly) deliberating over how to respond (ex, big-d, etc). She was white and shaking with big, round eyes, murmuring to me that she was so embarrassed/humiliated at their questions. The questions included ones similar to what beastie mentioned plus others, equally intrusive (how many times, where, how did she feel, what they talked about before, during, after, etc).

I think in that situation many people feel compelled to respond rather than refusing and/or telling the interviewers to lay off. In my friend's case, she thought by being docile and cooperative maybe she wouldn't get ex'd.

Sorry for getting off track. Just wanted to chime in and respond to beastie's "WTH".

People only have the power we give them (at least in the religious sense).

[_Nightingale]

People only have the power we give them (at least in the religious sense).

Yes, indeed. It just takes some people a while to figure that out, depending on their personality and background, their reason for being/staying in the Mormon Church and many other factors.

That's why I added the line there that my friend was hoping not to get ex'd so she submitted. Even as a non-participant in the proceedings and an active, cooperative member myself, I wanted to enter the "court" room and object to the proceedings but she didn't want me to.

I know that the way things are run is very much determined by the local leaders in their own sphere. This accounts partly for why people's experiences within Mormonism can vary so widely. It seems that many members do take a lot of things literally, foremost among them to be obedient, submit to leaders, follow the program, etc. For some, it's only from the outside, in retrospect, that they see circumstances more clearly and think of what they might have done differently.

In terms of the obedience factor, which is the reason I think so many people submit (they feel they must strictly and literally obey) it reminds me of being a small child with a somewhat autocratic father (old-school British background) who we did obey without question. There was a strict line we could not cross - or that was the abiding message we got. Everything was black and white. Crossing the line seemed to court disaster so we never tried it. It never occurred to me to ask what the result would be. It just felt like it wouldn't be anything good. I saw this a lot in the wards I attended, in retrospect. At the time, being accustomed to the apparent need for obedience, it didn't really phase me until the day of my friend's "court". Then it was quite apparently an abusive process and even I, obedient by nature, had the impulse to speak to the men about what they were doing. (I respected her wishes, though, and held off).

By saying that the one in submission should not submit, when that is the expected course, one is, of course, not highlighting the point (in this case) that the ward leaders were crossing a line, any way you look at it, for whatever reason. Maybe they honestly think that is what is expected of them in their positions or maybe they take an opportunity to exercise their prurience. Who knows.

[_GoodK]

Seems like the church is pretty arbitrary when it comes to ex-communicating "apostates."

Is publicly renouncing the church not enough?

Would I even know if they wanted to ex me?

Would I get "served"?

[_harmony]

Seems like the church is pretty arbitrary when it comes to ex-communicating "apostates."

Is publicly renouncing the church not enough?

Would I even know if they wanted to ex me?

Would I get "served"?

Evidently you haven't pissed enough high ranking people off, and you haven't done anything bad enough that's important enough to bring you to the attention of those high ranking people.

Seems like it's much easier to just remove your name.

[_bcspace]

Perhaps we could call a konklave and hex him with a grease spot prophecy like we did to Congress over a century ago....

And we all know how well that worked. . .

Yes. Very well as I recall.

[_Jason Bourne]

Woe nellie!!

What the heck happened to the board!!

Well a post I made is gone.

Anyways I listened to half the interview and I see nothing that would get Dehlin in trouble. He is just talking to someone about what happened to them. Least in the first half. Is he advocating anything here?

[_bcspace]

Well a post I made is gone.

There's a thread about it on Off-Topic. Any post made during the change over will not be brought over to the new system. I was lucky to stumble across the thread and therefore, waited to post.