This needs its own thread - Mormon Think -Daily Beast

[_Tim]

Twede sets the record straight on politics at SLTrib
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54944 ... y.html.csp

There’s a story circulating on the Internet and in the mainstream media that a Mormon blogger in Florida faces LDS Church discipline for writing critically about GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

That’s not really what’s happening, said the blogger, David Twede, at least not the political link.

[_mms]

“On Friday, he received an email from his stake president offering to meet personally before holding the council.”

[_TrashcanMan79]

David posted the following to RfM:

In my local rag was written:

" Michael Purdy [the Church Spokesman] added in an email: "It is patently false for someone to suggest they face Church discipline for having questions or for expressing a political view. The Church is an advocate of individual choice. It is a core tenet of our faith. Church discipline becomes necessary only in those rare occasions when an individual's actions cannot be ignored while they claim to be in good standing with the Church. Every organization, whether religious or secular, must be able to define where its boundaries begin and end." "


Wait... "The Church is an advocate of individual choice. It is a core tenet of our faith."

Huh???

Purdy also dances around the issue and generally says it is about "actions" when the leaders who interrogated me clearly were upset about my writings and "hiding" behind only my first name. By saying "actions" Purdy purposely implies to the Mormon membership that I have done something sinful and shameful.

He can't address my dissenting writings because he has no defense. He must imply an ad-hominem.

Lastly, he states the church "must be able to define where its boundaries begin and end."

Ok, so, define it. Clearly. Leaving it vague allows the church to bully people arbitrarily. MT sits in the borderlands that FAIR also floats in, but without fear of reprisal.


And Scott Gordon:

" Scott Gordon, president of FAIR, a nonprofit group that defends Mormonism, said he doubted that the church initiated action against Twede because of criticism of Romney. Gordon said the church has members on both sides of the political aisle.
" More likely, Gordon said, church leaders took exception to Twede's other writings, including an unflattering blog post detailing his attendance at a Sept. 9 church service at Hunter's Creek in south Orange County. Gordon said some MormonThink contributors "will do anything they can to embarrass the church. They want to justify their leaving." "

Gordon leaves "other writings" undefined. Mentioned, presumably by Gordon is my tongue-in-cheek story about going to church in colorful paisley where the ward members are mostly dressed in black-n-white plain or stripes. It is, of course, playful writing and no more unflattering than, say, a Robert Kirby piece about Mormon culture in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Unfortunately for FAIR, they cannot defend the content of MT articles on LDS history or doctrine, and it would seem he's lacking a sense of humor as well.

If this is all they have, and it is excommunicable to joke about a day at church, then Watch Out, Kirby!

Source:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-21/features/os-mormon-mitt-romney-excommunication-20120921_1_excommunication-mitt-romney-disciplinary-council

[_MsJack]

I am glad to hear that Twede did not encourage the media to push this disingenuous "church member disciplined for criticizing Romney" angle.

I agree that there isn't really a story without that angle---which means there isn't really a story. "Church member to be disciplined for actively dissuading people from believing in religion"? Not a story.

[_Kishkumen]

On Mormonthink, David makes the following comments about the political angle:

Note from Dave: I want to clarify some things in the SLtrib piece. It's true that my local leaders never said "Romney" in my interrogation. They indicated discomfort with my recent writings as a whole, which includes three blog entries and one MT article discussing Romney that were posted from Sept 11-15. While referring to my writings, the stake president did say about himself, "I'm not a political man..." It is unclear to me what he meant by this and why he interjected it.

Likewise, when it quotes me that I didn't intend for it to go this way, I meant: I don't feel happy that discussions of my pending discipline have taken on such a national political tone. I would prefer the topic remain on the Mormon Church's inability to defend its own position specifically & doctrinally on this matter.

I don't see this as absolving anyone of playing politics with this conveniently timed move to take action against the author of this website. I would hardly say that it is clear or certain that this is only about his criticism of the LDS Church and publication of temple content.

[_Kevin Graham]

I am glad to hear that Twede did not encourage the media to push this disingenuous "church member disciplined for criticizing Romney" angle.

I agree that there isn't really a story without that angle---which means there isn't really a story. "Church member to be disciplined for actively dissuading people from believing in religion"? Not a story.

I think it is much more than that. Twede's article on the LDS history of political involvement was a huge blow to the Church, especially given their recent attempts to appear politically neutral.

"Church member to be disciplined for revealing harmful truths that outline the Mormon Church's political agenda." Now that's a story given the fact that there is roughly a 50% chance the next President will be Mormon. The angle about Romney being subservient to the Prophet hasn't been addressed enough in my opinion. If Romney is half as loyal to the Church as he leads on, then he would effectively make Monson the most powerful man in the world. Romney is a man of faith and believe God talks directly to the Prophet. So what if Monson pulls Romney aside and explains that God wants him to bomb Iran? Highly unlikely I'm sure, but it is entirely possible and the American people deserve to know of these possibilities before voting, especially with respect to a religion where male members were once willing to hand over their wives because the prophet ordered that it be so. Brigham Young made it clear that obedience to the Church is first and foremost. The American people need to know where Romney's priorities are and we have no doubt he will put Church before government any day of the week. So why have someone like that leading the government?

[_Kishkumen]

I think it is much more than that. Twede's article on the LDS history of political involvement was a huge blow to the Church, especially given their recent attempts to appear politically neutral.

Yeah, I think it does challenge the image of political neutrality that the LDS Church likes to project.

That said, I think that the Church is trying to live up to that neutrality, at least as far as the collective behavior of the leadership goes. Where it touches on issues the Church views as moral, all bets are off, and they clearly advocate the position they feel is the moral one.

In this case, Scott Gordon took it upon himself to turn Twede in. Was he motivated by politics? He says no. I am not sure I trust him on that.

[_DrW]

A Dallin Oaks video was posted on the Daily Beast comment section in which Oaks states that LDS Church Members are not to criticize Church Leaders, even if that criticism is true.

Strangely (to me, anyway) this video has been blocked here in the Middle East.

I have seen this video in the US and it is pretty damning of LDS Church policy and teachings when it comes to voicing any kind of dissent.

Strange the a Muslim censor would find this video too offensive to be shown in a moderate Islamic country.

Either that or Elder Oaks has friends in high places in the Muslim world.

Subject video at this URL:


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcwghb_don-t-ever-criticize-us-even-if-th_news

[_lulu]

Mormonism wants to be thought of as a mainstream church.

What was the last time a mainstream church threatened a member with excommunication?

What were the grounds?

[_MCB]

There was a Catholic priest a few years ago who taught at a seminary, and was deep into Holocaust denial. Not exactly the same focus.