More fallout from gay marriage spat
 

I know this is only one side of the story, but it still seems a little bit like a witch hunt. It's interesting how arbitrary the crackdowns seem to be.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8345693

There is a scene in the movie "Witness," where Kelly McGillis's character, Rachel, is having a heated discussion with her dad, Eli. Her father warns her that many in their congregation have been gossiping about her interactions with Harrison Ford's character....that she looks at him, laughs, smiles, whatever.

Eli warns her that the leadership council is thinking of shunning her. Eli expains that he would not be able to pray with her, eat at the same table, talk to her, or even so much as take something from her hand.

It is at this point of the movie where Rachel seems to realize that all of these consequences make no sense and are in place simply for the age old reason....."just because."

This article about disciplining LDS members in good standing because they are not opposed to gay marriage reminds me of the aforementioned scene from Witness. I am not sure what is accomplished by excommunicating members who write letters of concern to a newspaper. Why do we do this? Just because? If no unhallowed hand will stop the work from progressing, then who cares what is written?

For a Church that doesnt concern itself with the ways of the world, it seems to be a bit over-sensitive about a few local yokels writing letters. Such tactics certainly have a "chilling effect" on exploring one's own spirituality if some concerns or worries about the Gospel or Church governance are met with the threat of discipline.

In the spirit of honest and full disclosure, a few scenes after Rachel tells Eli to not worry about all the gossip, she lathers up and attacks Harrison Ford with her moistened sweater cannons, which, to my knowledge, is an anomoly in the world of traditional Amish courtship rituals. So I guess there is also something to be said about ecclesiastical "prevent defense."

An excellent post, with an absolutely boffo ending.

They look like troublemakers to me: Peter has a beard.

What a sad story.

Perhaps this is what Elder Oaks meant by you don't go against the leaders even if they are wrong.

From a purely organizational viewpoint this is what you have to do to keep the troops in line. What if members started actively opposing the churches recent stance on illegal immigrants. In the privacy of your own thoughts I don't think the church cares what you think. It is OK as long as what you do won't lead to harm of the structure or organization.

We are allowed to have our freedom on many many issues. However, if the church takes a stand, it isn't a democracy. You fall into line, at least publicly.

You have to decide what is most important. Full association or another path.

"...the standard of truth has been erected; No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done. One exception, of course, is if people write letters to the Salt Lake Tribune or protest on BYU campus--these things could really, REALLY hurt our work."

The original press release on the church's opposition to same-sex marriage (now off-line) included a paragraph stating that members who took the opposite stand politically would not be subjected to church discipline. Of course, the SLTrib article stated that this couple "resigned" their membership rather than face a church court, so we can only speculate as to what actually happened. In any case, it is good to know that Nielson wasn't disciplined.

It's events like this that tell me the clock is ticking for many Mormons--those who have personal beliefs and aren't afraid to share them.

I wonder what Joseph Smith would say to the idea that merely expressing personal opposition to an official act of the church is worthy of excommunication? The idea that there is no back and forth, no common consent.

It's funny--if we defend Nielsen in semi-anonymity on the internet, we are "safe", but if we write in and say the exact same thing in an op-ed, we risk eternal damnation. That's pretty freaking incredible.

That's why I don't really think God gives all that much weight to excommunication. Look at the David O. McKay bio and the attempt by an apostle to excommunicate Juanita Brooks. Do I believe, in one moment as President McKay considered the matter, that Sis. Brooks eternal welfare was on the line? No I don't, not for a second.

Excommunications of conscience such as this case brings to mind, make me sad. There is one person on CB who has said he is preparing a dossier to "expose" me to local church leaders. What happens when my day comes? Do I take the path of conscience, or do I kowtow to unrighteous dominion?

What if the church demands I shut down this website? The clock is ticking.

By the way, it's too f*&#$# bad the guy wasn't an athlete at BYU. His case might have turned out different.

Another lesson from this incident--for some of us it would be best to turn down callings to serve in the church. Because our service will be used as a weapon against us. No one will excommunicate the curmudgeon in the back row with 0% hometeaching and no tie. But by golly, if you are in MoTab, or have a stake calling, watch out.