Comments on: A sad Sunday

By: Brad L

Brad L — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:40:35 +0000

It seems that the criticisms are of the basic teaching that homosexual relationships are a sin, just as much as ordinary heterosexual adultery.

Actually, according to the new policy, people in a same-gender marriage are in a state of apostasy, and those who are sexually promiscuous with lots of people of the same gender are in a less sinful state than those living a committed life in a marriage with someone of the same gender.

If you reject that teaching [that homosexual relationships are a sin], you have bigger problems with the Church than this policy to leave the children of gay couples alone until they are adults. You are rejecting the New Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

If person x accepts sexual relations between two people of the same gender in a marriage, then he/she rejects only what Paul has to say in a couple of epistles in which he condemns homosexual relationships. By that same token, the LDS church rejects Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 for women to remain silent at church. Plus, Paul's writings carry much less weight than Jesus' words in the NT, and Jesus says nothing regarding homosexuality. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are silent on the matter of homosexuality. How is person x rejecting these?

By: Brad L

Brad L — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:22:47 +0000

nl, I’m not saying that no one should be excommunicated. I’m saying that the fact that local leaders can and do excommunicate members for apostasy does not contradict Pres. Uchtdorf saying that there is room for everyone in the church. For those who are excommunicated can, if they so desire, continue to attend church and repent and be rebaptized.

By: Walter van Beek

Walter van Beek — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:52:01 +0000

I was absent from the blog for some time, going through the exciting and time consuming process of saying farewell to my university, at Tilburg, Netherlands. Some of the commentators attended my valedictory, and we had a great time. For that reason, the past weekend for me personally was a rather happy one.
I am not going into a debate with all of you, as the discussion is clear enough as it is. Thanks for the many expressions of joint grief. The debate is moving into a conservative – liberal divide, which is understandable when one questions the appropriateness of an administrative measure. We have the same divide in the European Mormon Church (as I like to call it)
The discussion on Uechtdorf’s speech – which I think has rightly become a classic already, I greatly admire it – is interesting. He defines the church as an inclusive one, while still holding on to its principles and precepts. How difficult that balance is to establish and to maintain, is well exemplified by the discussions.
Atonement, redemption, revelation, repentance and covenant are the main theological pillars of the restoration, and they are the pillars in my life as well. I do not believe in infallibilty, but I do believe in the distinction between a revelation and an administrative ruling. Also elder Christofferson never called this a revelation, this is a policy and thus changeable.
Someone who insists on that distinction, such as me, is not someone with a weaker testimony, not at all. I have a track record of half a century in church service, but more important, for me this distinction is a necessary shield for my fundamental testimony of the restoration. The policy in question – not a revelation! – seems to me an overreaction, an awkward and not well-considered piece of policy, that aims at dealing with a complicated series of related problems: homosexuality, polygamy, marriage, sin, the question what is a family and what is parenting. These are tricky issues, which in fact ask for a more inclusive and much more balanced approach than the present ruling provides. For instance, in the handbook the ruling puts homosexual marriages in with polygamy, which means that is falls under ‘apostacy’, instead of ‘sin’. That is curious, in fact hardly appropriate. The more I hear and read, the more the ruling bears the hallmarks of haste.
I am confident it will be sorted out, but please let us be as inclusive in our church as we can.

By: nl

nl — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:46:43 +0000

Brad L., you’re proving his point. Excommunication does not mean that someday they might not be rebaptized; there is room in the church for them, but sometimes they need to be excommunicated. President Uchtdorf wasn’t ending the policy of excommunication with that talk.

By: Raymond Swenson

Raymond Swenson — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:40:21 +0000

The policy says the Church is not going to intrude itself between a child and her gay parent(s). If the Church took the opposite stand, announcing that it would aggressively try to woo children away from their gay parents, it would certainly be criticized. It seems that the criticisms are of the basic teaching that homosexual relationships are a sin, just as much as ordinary heterosexual adultery. If you reject that teaching, you have bigger problems with the Church than this policy to leave the children of gay couples alone until they are adults. You are rejecting the New Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

By: Brad L

Brad L — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:14:42 +0000

No it wasn’t worth your time, Ojiisan. My advice is if you choose to respond expressing disagreement, please, please, think things through a little bit. I’m really forcing to eat your words here.

1. You don’t understand what an appeal to authority is. What is the issue? I repeat, and at length, that the main claim is that calling for people who voice doubts to leave conflicts with what President Uchtdorf said in an October 2013 Conference talk and that it is ironic that some people who condemn others in the church for doubting the leaders to the point of asking them to leave the church seem to ignore the leaders’ words about there being room in the church for doubters (let’s call this y claim). An appeal to authority would be person x says that y claim is the case, and that since person x knows a lot more about this issue than I do, or because person x is always right, then that is the case. That’s an appeal to authority, and that is not what I did.

2a. Lavina Fielding Anderson, a well-known scholar who was excommunicated for apostasy in 1993 (who is one of the September Six) continues to attend (or at least continued for a while to attend) church, and she is welcome to do so.

2b. Avraham Gileadi (also one of the September Six) was excommunicated, but then repented and returned to full activity.

2c. Ally Isom, the Senior Manager of Public Affairs in the LDS church said in a 2014 interview with Doug Fabrizio in relation to the possible excommunications of John Dehlin and Kate Kelly (27:24-27:35):

“These people in any of these processes, the disciplinary process, they have choices. It is their choice to remain within the congregation. It is their choice to remain in the body of Christ.

Show me one case in which excommunication meant that a person could no longer attend church or repent and be rebaptized.

3. You prove my original point. It is ironic that you told me that wouldn’t accept what I had to say because you didn’t think that I was “smarter or brighter or more spiritually in tune than the church leaders,” suggesting that you regard them to be authorities whose words are worth listening to and obeying, and yet you openly disagree with Pres. Uchtdorf when he said that there is room in the church for people regardless of the strength of their testimonies.

By: Ojiisan

Ojiisan — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:32:51 +0000

Brad L: Probably not worth my time but I’ll give it one more shot .

1. Difficult concept to grasp I understand but if you quote him in support of your position you are appealing to his authority.

2. “Excommunication doesn’t bar someone from attending church …”

Do you really think that in his statement “… there is room for you in this church” he meant physically sitting in the pews as an excommunicated member? I mean seriously!!!

3. “How can you disagree with something that you regard to be factual?”

Just because it is a statement of fact doesn’t mean the fact is correct.

By: Brad L

Brad L — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:41:31 +0000

Uchtdorf is purporting to make a statement of fact rather than a statement of his view or opinion

Sorry, I couldn’t resist this one. Sometimes it’s just too fun to own trolls. So Uchtdorf’s statement that there is room in the church for everyone no matter the strength of their testimony is a statement of fact, now is it? And yet you disagree with what you regard to be a statement of fact saying, “And just for the record, I do think it is possible for a member’s testimony to dissipate to the point where there is not room for her/him in the church.” How can you disagree with something that you regard to be factual?

By: Brad L

Brad L — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 04:27:52 +0000

Ojiisan, I never appealed to Pres. Uchtdorf’s authority. I said that the view that those who have doubts should leave conflicts with what Pres. Uchtdorf said, which is that there is room for those no matter the strength of their testimony. Do those views conflict? Of course they do. My point wasn’t that everything that Pres. Uchtdorf said is correct I didn’t even say that I regard Pres. Uchtdorf as an authority. But I think I’m right in assuming that you, ji, Rob Osborn, and hula do regard him to be an authority. So if you think that people who openly doubt the LDS church’s policies and doctrines should leave and you think that Pres. Uchtdorf’s words over the pulpit at conference are authoritative, then you have to give up one view or the other. I should also say that much as much as I am absolutely positive that Pres. Uchtdorf believes there to be room in the church for those who doubt, I am just as absolutely positive that Pres. Uchtdorf believes that God will never allow the church to drift from its appointed course.

At any rate, you clearly disagree with Pres. Uchtdorf when he said that there is room for people who doubt citing excommunication as evidence. Excommunication doesn’t bar someone from attending church or being restored as a member in good standing. I should be asking you, do you think that you are smarter, brighter, or more spiritually in tune than the church leaders?

By: Djofraleigh Anderson

Djofraleigh Anderson — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 06:26:11 +0000

Paris & church doctrine are the two sad events? What about Africa, the deaths in Mali, and what about Lebanon and the deaths there? Tying a church doctrine to mass murders in Paris comes across as using the tragedy in Paris to talk about LDS church policy. At least Hitler was not included.

By: mirrorrorrim

mirrorrorrim — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:03:05 +0000

#35, Ojisan, said: “Amusing. When a church leader says something we agree with, we trumpet it as support for our position but when he says something we disagree with he ‘could be wrong’ and so we are justified in disagreeing with, or ignoring, him. I ‘could be wrong’ but that does appear to be kind of self-serving.”

I found this to be a really interesting comment. I think it accurately expresses the entire the history of Christianity, and of all religions. Our church is no different.

Remember when the prophet tried to get rid of Missionary Farewells and to get members to stop using the term “Mormon”? Remember how he was mostly ignored? Every member picks and chooses from the scriptures, the words of the prophets and apostles, and even the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, choosing to follow only what she or he wants to.

We have thousands of pages of scripture, and every six months we have almost twelve hours of General Conference messages. By necessity, every person has to choose which parts to value and which to deemphasize, Plus, everyone has to discover how all of that relates to the personal inspiration he or she is receiving.

A lot of people I know love Brother Jeffrey Holland’s talks. Part of that is surely his dynamic speaking style, but an important part is surely that he delivers messages they agree with, or that resonate with them. Others love Brother Dieter Uchtdorf for the same reasons.

A couple years ago, President Thomas Monson gave a talk about not judging anyone. He has also given talks about standing up for what you believe in. Some people focus on the former, others on the latter. Some ignore both. I have found very few who embrace and live both. That’s just human nature: it’s how we all are. It’s really hard to keep even one part of the gospel, much less all of it together. We’re all at different places, and have different pieces of the same puzzle.

I think that’s why discussion blogs like this are so great: they allow all of us to share our pieces with one another.

By: Ojiisan

Ojiisan — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 22:22:03 +0000

Sorry Brad L, I didn’t realize that posting a comment also gave one the right to dictate the nature of responses to the comment. I shall endeavor to remember that in the future.

However, my response was germane to your comment in at least two ways. I shall try to be clearer if not as succinct this time. Your statement that Uchtdorf could be wrong in one part of his talk effectively impeaches your earlier appeals to his authority through references to other parts of the same talk. If he could be wrong in the one part then it is equally as probable that he could be wrong in the other parts of his talk since there is no real distinction between them other than the fact that you agree with one statement and disagree with other statement. And, if he could be wrong in any part of his talk then citing portions of his talk does not strengthen your position at all. In fact, in any reasonable debate doing so while admitting he could be wrong would seriously impinge your credibility.

Also, it is not as simple as asking whether I or anyone else accepts the fallibility of the church leaders. At the very least any analysis by a member of the fallibility of a church leader requires a parallel analysis of one’s own fallibility. Typically the issue of a church leader’s fallibility arises when a church leader makes a statement or takes a position that a church member does not agree with. (At least I have never seen any one argue that the leader is wrong when the member agrees with the leader.) The ensuing reasoning by the member is that the church leader is wrong but she/he can live with the fact that the leader is wrong because the member accepts that he is not infallible. However, the conclusion that the church leader is wrong every time his view is inconsistent with the view of the member requires the member to believe that she/he is infallible at least as it pertains to disagreements with church leaders. Hence, the need to assess one’s own fallibility since it is more than a little difficult for me to believe that, particularly as it relates to issues pertaining to the church generally, that a member is always right and the church leader always wrong when there is a divergence of views. Your comment would be appear to be a classic example of this mindset. You quote Uchtdorf when his views support yours but the moment they do not you trot out the not infallible line even within the same talk.

And, although unrelated to my earlier comment I will point out that your comparison of Uchtdorf’s statement about a place in the church with Obama’s statement that he supports gay marriage is flawed. Obama is making a statement about his own view or opinion ie his support of gay marriage, Uchtdorf is purporting to make a statement of fact rather than a statement of his view or opinion. If Uchtdorf had said he supports there being a place for all in the church then you couldn’t say that wasn’t so in the same way that you can’t argue with Obama’s statement about his support for gay marriage. However Uchtdorf did not make a statement about his view of support, he made a statement of fact. An analogous statement by Obama would be that gay marriage should be available to all and that is a statement that one could disagree with in the same way one could disagree with Uchtdorf’s statement about room in the church. And just for the record, I do think it is possible for a member’s testimony to dissipate to the point where there is not room for her/him in the church. If that were not so we wouldn’t have excommunication procedures.

Finally, your suspicion at least as it relates to this poster is incorrect. I just don’t think you are smarter or brighter or more spiritually in tune than the church leaders.

By: Hans

Hans — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:01:07 +0000

I personally did not read Walter’s story as a form of dissent. I know Walter well, and yesterday, at Walter’s exiting speech as Professor at the University of Tilburg, I met some of the Utrecht members. Them, too, I know. They love the gospel. They love the Church. They love the Brethren, and try to support them. Some of them are directly touched by this policy, just as they had been touched by the limitations of the priesthood and temple blessings to them decades ago. As I talked with them I could feel the pain, the grief in their hearts, as they explained how they attempt to cope with the differences between their conscience and this new policy. One expressed it to me by saying: “I am not that far yet, I need to spiritually mature to deal with this one. Give me time, please give me time”. I could only hug the man, and tell him to take his time. Another one, from another Stake, a former Church leader with much loyalty under his belt, telephoned me last week, and begged me to give him reason to remain actively in the Church. We all need to live with our conscience (the Light of Christ) and our faith in the Savior. May our church experiences help us like the Spirit does.

By: Brad L

Brad L — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 05:26:02 +0000

Also, I find it ridiculous that I have to belabor a very clear point so much. My suspicion is that many of the commenters on this post essentially believe that the prophets are infallible and that their words are the same as God’s words, that to disagree with the prophets on any issue is to disagree with God, that when the prophet speaks the thinking is done, and that if you voice any opinion that is at variance with what the prophets say that you are a dissenter and cannot possibly be considered a member in good standing and must be called to repentance. I partly feel like I’m wasting my time with intellectually dishonest trolls who can’t face simple facts.

By: Brad L

Brad L — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 05:17:06 +0000

Ojiisan, if you must engage me in discussion (which it appears you are), please have the courtesy to address my main points and not respond with tangents and non-sequiturs. The main point is that you can disagree with the leaders and be considered a member in good standing and that in fact telling people to leave because they disagree with the church leaders runs counter to what the church leaders are saying and what their policy is. Who gets to define who is a member in good standing? Is it some other random ward member? Is it your parents, your spouse, or your kids? No. It is the church leaders. So when one of the highest ranking church leaders says that there is room for people in the church no matter the strength of their testimony, then that should trump any random commenter on a blog suggesting that there isn’t room for someone with a weak testimony (supposedly someone who doubts or disagrees with the leaders on some issues) at church. Are you going to disagree with Pres. Uchtdorf that he could be wrong that there isn’t actually room for that person in the LDS church? That is not something you can actually logically disagree with him on. It would be like saying that you disagree with President Obama that he supports gay marriage. Who determines whether or not Obama supports gay marriage? President Obama. It is logically impossible to say that Obama could be wrong that Obama supports gay marriage when Obama has in fact announced that he supports gay marriage. Now if Obama said, “Ojiisan supports gay marriage.” Then there is the possibility that Obama could be wrong. For Obama doesn’t get to determine whether or not Ojiisan supports gay marriage. Only Ojiisan determines that.

Who gets to decide whether or not Jesus Christ is the head of the LDS church? The church leaders? No, Jesus Christ. Who determines whether or not the church leaders have gone astray from God’s will? The church leaders? No, God does. So there is the possibility that Pres. Uchtdorf is wrong in saying that the leaders are doing everything according to God’s will. It could very well be that they aren’t. God determines that. They don’t.