The Brethren and Church Discipline

[_RockSlider]

Seems to me that Droopy is simply following this recent council

Scripturally, it appears to be our right and responsibility.

[_Kishkumen]

Seems to me that Droopy is simply following this recent council

Scripturally, it appears to be our right and responsibility.

That was a great summary of the sons of Mosiah story, minus the prayer and divine intervention that actually converted them.

That's where I part ways with these Danite apologists. They think accusing and humiliating people is the path to repentance. I think the Book of Mormon had a better formula.

[_lulu]

The Droopian challenge in the age of the internet.

[_RayAgostini]

Being deliberately obtuse is not an effective strategy.

It is very clear to me what you are all about: Your own intolerance of the beliefs and teachings of the Church and those believers who have alternative points of view to your "enlightened view" not based on LDS scripture or support for the General Authorities of the Church. From that view, you call Greg Smith's Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer a "hit piece".


These are fair criticisms from the point of view of a believer:

All teachers certainly have the responsibility to be clear. Compton ignores, however, that a hostile reading can often manufacture grounds for offense. Anyone with any experience knows that people often hear what they want to hear—and nowhere is this more true than when being told that their behavior must change. In the case of Packer-2010A, even when a clarification was made, the "students" still didn't accept this as a clarification of initial intent at all, but as evidence that President Packer was out of step with his colleagues and acting the "hardline" role. M4M still isn't happy with the talk, in either version. If listeners did misunderstand, one might expect a group with M4M's stated objectives to help calm fears by analyzing President Packer's past remarks. But it didn't.

It is understandable—and even praiseworthy—that a group that purports to speak for believing members of the church, and wishes to persuade other members, would establish such a rule. But as I read what Compton and her fellow contributors wrote, I found it increasingly hard to regard this "rule" as anything more than a fig leaf to draw in the unwary, or as a sop to any conscience that might be unnerved by an attack on the church or its leaders. M4M "tolerates" such statements as Compton's insistence that "the Church definitely has a long, LONG way to go." 33 This strikes me as criticism. It certainly isn't praise, nor is her claim that the church is "trying to impose LDS moral standards on the rest of the community." 34 These are not isolated slips; the church's error, evil, or corruption is a recurrent theme that goes unmoderated or uncontested by Compton, who is praised for "standing up against the Church of LDS' lies about our GLBT friends, fellow citizens and fellow believers." 35 "Laura is my prophet today," writes another.36 But as for the church:

• "The LDS Church will never give homosexuals an equal status." 37

• "Homosexuality is not a crime, and God doesn't condemn it." 38

• "Most [gays] will decide it [the church and its teachings] is all b.s. and will finally come to their senses and leave before that point." 39

• "There are many accepting, welcoming and affirming churches. Walk away from the bigotry [in the LDS faith] and into the arms of kindness. As Laura points out, there is no need to remain where one is degraded." 40 [This was the last post on the thread; Compton did nothing to correct or moderate this interpretation.]

• "The church shouldn't have gotten involved in [Prop 8]." 41

• "The church is not inspired. The Book of Mormon is not true. (I left the church a year ago because I found the Book of Mormon to be completely false.) And now I see this ridiculous gay/lesbian issue being raised—it is exactly what I would expect from a false church. It's a repeat from the church's anti-black garbage. When will people learn the truth?" 42

Readers are assured by Compton, furthermore, that at M4M "we avoid personal attacks." 43 Avoiding personal attacks and not tolerating attacks on church leaders apparently do not encompass such remarks as the following (all made on threads in which Compton—who apparently has full moderating powers—participated):

• Packer's statement is "laughable and pure hypocrisy"; "That statement by Elder Oaks is extremely disingenuous. . . . Probably not a good example of honesty." 44

• Packer "not so very long ago, advocated for beating up gay people"; "If President Packer is a prophet, I'm the Queen of Sheba, a prima donna at the Metropolitan Opera and an astronaut." 45

• Packer's talk puts "fear in people's hearts . . . [and] achieves nothing but rigid, paralyzed spirits. Whatever light that is intermingled is quic[k]ly snuffed out with the dark thoughts being promoted." 46

• Packer "reinforced prejudice and discrimination of LGBT people. I find that to be morally wrong and unworthy of anyone claiming to be a true follower of Christ[']s teachings and philosophy." 47

• "Christ can't talk to President Packer or anyone else if they won't open their hearts to the possibility that their own deeply held opinions are not correct." 48

• "I am not really interested in reading another shame-based talk by Elder Packer. . . . It is unfortunate that when Elder Packer is given this topic to talk about his words are so rife with negativity and shame." 49

• Those who support the church's stance are told, "Words like yours (and Elder Packer's) are why five young people killed themselves last week." 50

• "I visciously [sic] hope that the next young man who cannot be stopped from killing himself does it on Boyd K. Packer's front steps." 51

• "The leadership seems more vested in their and the Church's image than the countless young members who wanted nothing more than to feel loved, accepted and whole and relief and found death their only option." 52

• "You can bet that Boyd Packer's speech will bring about many additional suicides of young Mormons. If God judged us not on our good works but instead on how much sorrow we've brought into the world, I have no doubt that Boyd K. Packer and a few others of the Twelve would be cast into the deepest darkest depths of Outer Darkness." 53

Most telling, however, is the manner in which the priesthood ban and teachings on homosexual acts integrate with Latter-day Saint theology. The priesthood ban was always something of an anomaly. My own review of the matter leads me to agree with Elders Jeffrey R. Holland and Dallin H. Oaks: the rationales and justifications offered for the ban were often "inadequate and/or wrong," 69 for some sought to "put reasons to [the ban that] turned out to be spectacularly wrong." 70 Still, I cannot help but see these explanations as a backhanded compliment to Latter-day Saint theology and those who offered them. The tendency to push explanations for the ban back to premortal acts (e.g., "less valiant in the pre-existence") illustrates that those who offered such explanations realized there was at least the appearance of injustice. For the Saints, actions matter far more than words. Everyone can repent, no one is predestined to damnation or salvation, and "men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Articles of Faith 1:2). It therefore made little sense to deny a blessing to someone because of an ancestor's act. Thus, aside from confessing that they did not know why the ban was in place (a less-than-appealing apologetic!), 71 one of the few consistent positions available to leaders and members appealed to choices made before birth.72

Compton has told the media, "It's not easy when you find yourself on the opposite side of the fence from the men you believe are prophets, seers and revelators. But I don't have to agree with somebody 100 percent in order to sustain them, to recognize their wisdom, to acknowledge them as leaders and assume their good intentions."82 It is difficult to see much recognition of wisdom or any assumption that President Packer meant well in M4M's posts. (Those who mean well are not usually damned with a millstone around their necks, for example.) There is also little attempt to acknowledge, much less promote, the leadership of the apostles on sexual matters. Materials hostile to the church's teachings on sexual morality are recommended, while church materials are not even mentioned. I wonder how sustained President Packer would feel were he to read what M4M produces under Compton's supervision.

For this, you sarcastically call Greg Smith a "culture warrior" (obviously not your culture, since your culture is secular)

Is your argument with scholars, or the Church?:

As someone who has come to grudgingly accept that the Church will make use of corporate methods as a matter of necessity in a global organization, let me say this: when the customer complains about your sales pitch, maybe you should listen.

Seems like the latter to me, and it's not always couched in criticism of "apologists". Every now and then you show your real intentions, that you disagree not only with LDS "apolgists" but the "line" they take in defending the Church, and the line which the Church itself takes.

Greg Smith seems to me to be deliberately striving to make it look like Laura Compton is "one of those progressives" whose ethic is wildly out of kilter, straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. In MDB speak, this is the work of Droopy, if Droopy really knew what the word subtle meant.

Maybe it's been a very long time since you read the Bible and LDS scripture? Would you give leeway to the point of view of a believer? No. Because you are intolerant of them and their beliefs and feel they have no right to pass judgement on other views, yet you liberally pass judgement on theirs.

She is, quite simply, implicitly called a tool of Satan and a wolf in sheep's clothing without the author having been direct about saying so.

Your words, not Greg Smith's, but I'm quite sure you know you're "right".

Indeed, I think the best witness to the reality of what is going on here is not I, but rather Will Schryver, who is licking his sadistic chops in anticipation of the next take-downs, in which Greg Smith will "expose" (rather, depict) John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks in the very same way. And we know from plentiful, unpleasant experience, that this is exactly what Will Schryver aims at: painting his opponents as wolves in sheep's clothing and tools of the devil. What more needs to be said?

Presaging what a "Dehlin hit piece" "might look like", without having read it, based on this review is bad form. Bad form for a reviewer, and it would be bad form for an academic.

But by all means, carry on with the red herring that once "apologists" are divested of "Church sanction" - this is going to make all the difference in the world.

[_Drifting]

Kish, Ray,

Have you tried the Church's relationship counselling service?

[_RayAgostini]

Kish, Ray,

Have you tried the Church's relationship counselling service?

Actually, quite a few here could use that.

[_bcspace]

I mean, I don't recall the last time I saw an apostle call out someone like Paul Toscano by name, accuse him of apostasy, and then tell the other members to watch out for that wolf in sheep's clothing or some such.

On the other hand, I don't see them complaining much about such identification.

When was the last time you saw a five-star general charging the enemy at the point of the bayonet?

Precisely.

[Guest]

-

[_Kishkumen]

It is very clear to me what you are all about: Your own intolerance of the beliefs and teachings of the Church and those believers who have alternative points of view to your "enlightened view" not based on LDS scripture or support for the General Authorities of the Church.

Wow! That's news to me, Ray. It would also be news to my active, faithful LDS friends, of whom you are most definitely not one. In fact, you are not even LDS. You are an ex-Mormon who champions the cause of polemicists who attacked their fellow religionists from BYU campus. Hey, that's fine, Ray. If that is who you are and who you want to be, then you are welcome to it. My reading of Greg Smith's hit piece was entirely fair.

The first mistake Greg Smith and you make is in treating a discussion board, which includes the comments of numerous people, like a book or journal article authored by Compton alone. What Smith's piece amounts to is a disingenuous take-down of Laura Compton herself. It is a shameful piece that should have never been published from BYU campus.

For this, you sarcastically call Greg Smith a "culture warrior" (obviously not your culture, since your culture is secular)

There is nothing sarcastic about the epithet. I meant it in all seriousness. Greg Smith plays the part of a conservative culture warrior in his takedown of Laura Compton via the comments on a discussion board. You are joining him inasmuch as you seem to be insisting that his view is normative, and that there are no other views in the Church. That is simply untrue, and it has nothing to do with your false claim that I am a secularist, another bogus and prejudicial slur that emanates from your narrow, biased perspective.

Is your argument with scholars, or the Church?:

As someone who has come to grudgingly accept that the Church will make use of corporate methods as a matter of necessity in a global organization, let me say this: when the customer complains about your sales pitch, maybe you should listen.

Seems like the latter to me, and it's not always couched in criticism of "apologists". Every now and then you show your real intentions, that you disagree not only with LDS "apolgists" but the "line" they take in defending the Church, and the line which the Church itself takes.

I think the simple fact of the matter is that you don't know me, and you don't know where I am coming from. Instead you will happily create a straw man mock up of me in order to attack me on behalf of your apologist friends. Even apologists would grant that the demands of a global church have affected things like its Sunday School curriculum. My acceptance of that is, if anything, a testament to my ability to be practical and reasonable, not another club for you to use in your anti-Kishkumen polemic, as anyone who reflects on it for half a moment will realize.

Greg Smith seems to me to be deliberately striving to make it look like Laura Compton is "one of those progressives" whose ethic is wildly out of kilter, straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. In MDB speak, this is the work of Droopy, if Droopy really knew what the word subtle meant.

Maybe it's been a very long time since you read the Bible and LDS scripture? Would you give leeway to the point of view of a believer? No. Because you are intolerant of them and their beliefs and feel they have no right to pass judgement on other views, yet you liberally pass judgement on theirs.

This is a non-sequitur. You are just venting here. I see no relationship between what you have written and what you are quoting.

She is, quite simply, implicitly called a tool of Satan and a wolf in sheep's clothing without the author having been direct about saying so.

Your words, not Greg Smith's, but I'm quite sure you know you're "right".

It is a fair reading of his words. You are welcome to argue against it, but I see you are content to be snide instead of engage my actual reading.

Presaging what a "Dehlin hit piece" "might look like", without having read it, based on this review is bad form. Bad form for a reviewer, and it would be bad form for an academic.

But by all means, carry on with the red herring that once "apologists" are divested of "Church sanction" - this is going to make all the difference in the world.

Yeah, except, Ray, this is not an academic forum, and I am not publishing a scholarly review. As my thread explicitly stated, I was trying to get a sense of what such a piece might look like based on what Greg Smith had previously written about another member of the Church using online source materials. I in no way misrepresented what I was doing. If someone back in the day were to try to get a sense of what Poe's next detective short story might look like, he or she would look at the last such piece Poe authored. Sure, it is not the same thing as having the actual story, but it will certainly give you an idea of what one might look like.

Thanks for a pointless waste of my time.

[_Drifting]

Didn't DCP say that he has worked as an "agent" of that committee before?

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Worked for and now scrutinised by...

Those who live by the sword etc.