So who is next?

[fusnik11]

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story...f-e2e60ae2bca4

[Indy Coug]

You?

[MikeWaters]

I wonder if the church is actually combing through websites, doing whois searches for domain owners, trying to take these people down.

Yikes. McCarthyism.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story...f-e2e60ae2bca4

Doesn't the Church realize that excommunicating a guy like this only gives him more attention and more credibility?

Besides the fact that it seems mean-spirited, excommunicating a guy like this just seems like it adversely affects the Church's image when it's reported in the press. It turns him into a martyr and makes the Church look like a cult -- just like with the missionary calendar guy.

The Church should stand above the fray.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Doesn't the Church realize that excommunicating a guy like this only gives him more attention and more credibility?

Besides the fact that it seems mean-spirited, excommunicating a guy like this just seems like it adversely affects the Church's image when it's reported in the press. It turns him into a martyr and makes the Church look like a cult -- just like with the missionary calendar guy.

The Church should stand above the fray.

I don't know that "looks like" are the appropriate words. The church "is" more controlling of its membership than any major/minor USA religion that I am aware of.

[MikeWaters]

Boy, we know the church hates long hair, facial hair, bandanas, and brightly colored shirts.

This guy is screwed.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Boy, we know the church hates long hair, facial hair, bandanas, and brightly colored shirts.

This guy is screwed.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The church "is" more controlling of its membership than any major/minor USA religion that I am aware of.

That's probably true, but I think that discipline is applied very inconsistently in the Church. A lot of things depend on local leadership. To me this is essentially a political issue and so I'm disappointed the Church would discipline members for a disagreement on a political issue rather than a core doctrine of the Church.

When I lived in St. Louis and there was legislation regarding expansion of riverboat gambling, the Church asked us to donate money and campaign against the legislation. One of the more prominent, active members stood up in Priesthood meeting and said he didn't like being told how to vote and he wasn't going to participate. I don't think it ever occurred to anybody that he should be disciplined for this. Maybe if we had different local leadership things would have been different, though.

I may be wrong, but I think the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency support an individual member's right to disagree on Proposition 8 or other similar issues. However, there are probably a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents who feel differently.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

That's probably true, but I think that discipline is applied very inconsistently in the Church. A lot of things depend on local leadership. To me this is essentially a political issue and so I'm disappointed the Church would discipline members for a disagreement on a political issue rather than a core doctrine of the Church.

When I lived in St. Louis and there was legislation regarding expansion of riverboat gambling, the Church asked us to donate money and campaign against the legislation. One of the more prominent, active members stood up in Priesthood meeting and said he didn't like being told how to vote and he wasn't going to participate. I don't think it ever occurred to anybody that he should be disciplined for this. Maybe if we had different local leadership things would have been different, though.

I may be wrong, but I think the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency support an individual member's right to disagree on Proposition 8 or other similar issues. However, there are probably a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents who feel differently.

Some would argue that the distinction is this: you can think it is wrong, but don't say anything. If you do say something, don't reference the church leaders. But if you say something and reference the church leaders publicly, they will come and lay waste to your fields, destroy you and your eternal posterity, then will come with everything they have.

Of course, I don't really think the excommunication matters in terms of this guy's eternal welfare. Maybe I am a Stage IV.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Some would argue that the distinction is this: you can think it is wrong, but don't say anything. If you do say something, don't reference the church leaders. But if you say something and reference the church leaders publicly, they will come and lay waste to your fields, destroy you and your eternal posterity, then will come with everything they have.

Of course, I don't really think the excommunication matters in terms of this guy's eternal welfare. Maybe I am a Stage IV.

Come join me in Stage V, whippersnapper so we can jump to Stage VI.