I wish you all the best, and look forward to our next conversation.

Are they going to disfellowship me for voicing concern while not committing any temple-recommend sins?

Yes, this is happening. It’s more common in Utah County than outside, I think. But it’s definitely a concern for people with concerns. Concerns all around, you see?

That wouldn’t work, I imagine. He would have concerns about the morality of punishing children (note: I do not support punishing children but I don’t believe the policy does so), the way in which the policy was introduced, the effect this has on those who are afraid to bring it up and the effect it might have on missionary and retention work. I would probably begin to go beyond doctrine and justify the policy from my own wisdom, and if I were a good bishop I would notice that, stop doing it, and commiserate. If I shared his concerns, I might set up a meeting with my stake president to see if he had any insights. No I wouldn’t, I’d send an email, I hate meetings. Anyway, if MTodd were the only member that brought it up to me, I would probably just pray. If many members had concerns that they brought to me, well, mass excommunication. Kidding. I would smile and nod, try to explain a little better every time, bring it up in 5th Sunday and maybe in ward council (haven’t been for a while), and bring it up with my stake president, ask him if he could make a statement.

If I were in MTodd’s place, if I had serious concerns… no, I do have serious concerns. The new generation of Church films really sucks, even by our standards. We’ve replaced old temple movies with mediocre actors and bad special effects with new temple movies with great special effects and really, really bad actors. Plus the weepy Eve thing; I’m not sure if Eve being absolutely well-informed about the whole dilemma is meant to come as a revelation, but I don’t like it. She doesn’t come across as beguiled. The new Life of Christ movies also have pretty poor acting, but they lather on the sentimentality. These are the movies we show people. Testaments and Prophet of the Restoration are great, they’ve got some bad actors but the Joseph Smith Sr. guy is perfect. Nobody shows investigators Legacy because it’s boring because nobody in it can act. I’d rather show off the much lower budget 90s films like Armor of God and The Mediator.

Now, if I thought this was a more serious issue, which I probably would if I thought about acting more often, I would bring it to my bishop. He wouldn’t be able to solve it, but I’d ask him to bring it up, as a favor, with his stake president, and maybe ask about how church movies are made, and if local units might find COB support if they wanted to make some of their own. I’d share my concern with other members and ask them to bring it up with the bishop and the stake president whenever they could. Meanwhile I’d be keeping my eyes open for resources to film good church movies with.

If our bishop were a tyrant, condemning faithful members for voicing any opposition, well… I’d get mad. I’d go over his head. If the stake president were likewise a tyrant, and all of their counselors, well, they’re corrupt. What’s the worst that can happen? Are they going to disfellowship me for voicing concern while not committing any temple-recommend sins?

And maybe I’m wrong.. Maybe the new church films are meant to train new actors, or to provide spiritual experiences to film crews, or to not have decent acting distract from the message or something. Maybe there’s a reason I don’t yet understand why church films are so bad. So I’m going to simmer down, resist not evil, and do my best with what I can.

(please argue from the form of my example and not the scale, thank you, I know people are hurt more by not being baptized than by having to watch bad movies [and they really are bad])

Just like my son can post on social media how unfair his curfew is, I can do the same taking to Twitter to express my disgust at the policy. My son can go on a strike and not do his chores; I can boycott Deseret Books (totally doing this one) and perhaps stop paying tithing (still considering this one). My son can move out; I can leave the church.

And I’m fine with all of this. What bothers me is being dismissed as faithless or somehow less because I don’t agree with the policy.

I said that a good bishop will send it up. You said that means if I were a bishop, I would condemn. How does that follow? How does that have any kind of relationship to the words that I typed?

How are children not already accountable for the sins of nonmember parents who reject the Gospel, if the policy makes them accountable for member parents who have knowingly and willfully entered condemned practice? Are you going to give your opinion on baseball baptisms? Or are you just going to keep offering MTodd your delusion of what I said?

If your bishop is someone like that, and I suggest that most are because they are only selected as bishops after they’ve been observed making the same kinds of loudly self-righteous judgments that Mars has been making in this discussion, then that person will not receive your concern with charity or understanding or a even a willingness to concede the validity of concerns but rather will condemn you. The fact that you have the concerns is wrong.

In any event, your bishop does not have any answers to such concerns such as how General Authorities could possibly have done something like the POX or the other things that have happened in the first quarter of this century so far. So why ask him about it? I suggest instead simply working on forgiving church leaders for these actions, as this original post outlines. That is the *only* thing you have control over. As Mars will surely confirm, General Authorities truly do not care what you think about these things — their attitude is you simply have to obey without causing any trouble — and they certainly would not appreciate your insights or considerations about the ethical implications of these actions.

And the idea that the policy changes fundamental doctrine is absurd. If you’re angry about this, you should be incensed about the treatment of missionaries in the Joseph Smith Swim Club or baseball baptism incidents. So many 8-year-olds that would never have been baptized got the Holy Ghost! Wasn’t that a good thing?

If people like Mars have persuaded you that it is wrong to discuss your concerns about the POX or other management decisions General Authorities are making on Mormon blogs, then my recommendation would be a letter to a General Authority. Of course, the General Authority’s staff will simply bounce it to your Stake President without even reading it, in all likelihood. But you might get lucky and the General Authority might by fiat randomly select your letter to peruse out of the batch.

You might consider making your letter anonymous. Unfortunately that is where our culture is now — if you have concerns of this nature you can expect ecclesiastical retribution (e.g. if the General Authority bounces this letter back to your stake president who then formulates the opinion that you’re a “troublemaker” because you care about your gay friends and family and believe in equality in civil society). It’s where we are now.

The Gospel is true. But we are in a very difficult period in which church culture has deteriorated to such an extent that discussing with local leadership concerns that reveal that you question or disagree with an opinion of a General Authority very likely will alienate you from the community at best and cause you to be considered a pariah or even disciplined for it, at worst.

This depends, of course, on your local leadership. In most case, I think, this will be the outcome. But in a select few cases, your bishop might be someone who understands that ward members might have very real ethical concerns with the POX and the implicit changes of bedrock doctrine that are a part of it (i.e. surrounding the innocence of children for the sins of their parents and the scriptural mandate that 8 years old is the age of accountability/baptism and that anyone over the age of 8 needs the guidance of the Holy Ghost to live a life of Christian discipleship).