More fallout from gay marriage spat - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Solon · 02-23-2008, 10:53 PM

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

TripletDaddy · 02-23-2008, 11:19 PM

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."

PaloAltoCougar · 02-23-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

8ballrollin · 02-23-2008, 11:37 PM

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

Jeff Lebowski · 02-23-2008, 11:45 PM

What a sad story.

BYU71 · 02-24-2008, 12:03 AM

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.

TripletDaddy · 02-24-2008, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

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."

Archaea · 02-24-2008, 12:34 AM

It's odd if it's occurring that way.

However, these guys could do it differently by just stating, "hey, we oppose the FMA or whatever it's called."

The mistake, politically, these folk make, is to go public against the Church. In many other circumstances folks can do that and get away with it, but not in this context.

Nonetheless, I imagine this too shall pass and change.

MikeWaters · 02-24-2008, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's odd if it's occurring that way.

However, these guys could do it differently by just stating, "hey, we oppose the FMA or whatever it's called."

The mistake, politically, these folk make, is to go public against the Church. In many other circumstances folks can do that and get away with it, but not in this context.

Nonetheless, I imagine this too shall pass and change.

and so the tent gets smaller....

MikeWaters · 02-24-2008, 12:40 AM

I guess what it boils down to, is that I believe in a personal relationship with God. And I don't think ANY mortal man has the power to step between a person and God.

I don't care what the religion is, I don't care about what priesthood, what authority, or anything. The personal relationship between a person and God is inviolate, and only dependent on God and that person.

I recognize that social organizations do have and should have the power to regulate their membership. That's fine. And we are always taking in data that either pushes into stronger or weaker membership in that social organization.

We need to decide who we want to be. Figure out how big this tent is. And also we need to think about why some stakes have larger tents and other stakes have smaller tents.

Maybe SEIQ is right. Maybe the very soul of the LDS church is up for grabs right now, and the mullahs are in furious attacking retreat.

It's sad.

02-23-2008, 10:53 PM	#1
Solon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Happy Valley, PA Posts: 1,866	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 __________________ I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957)

02-23-2008, 11:19 PM	#2
TripletDaddy Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 9,483	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." __________________ Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte

02-23-2008, 11:37 PM	#4
8ballrollin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: WA Posts: 1,287	They look like troublemakers to me: Peter has a beard. __________________ "Five to one... One in five No one here gets out alive"

02-23-2008, 11:45 PM	#5
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	What a sad story. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

02-24-2008, 12:34 AM	#8
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	It's odd if it's occurring that way. However, these guys could do it differently by just stating, "hey, we oppose the FMA or whatever it's called." The mistake, politically, these folk make, is to go public against the Church. In many other circumstances folks can do that and get away with it, but not in this context. Nonetheless, I imagine this too shall pass and change. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

02-24-2008, 12:03 AM	#6
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	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.

02-24-2008, 12:40 AM	#10
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I guess what it boils down to, is that I believe in a personal relationship with God. And I don't think ANY mortal man has the power to step between a person and God. I don't care what the religion is, I don't care about what priesthood, what authority, or anything. The personal relationship between a person and God is inviolate, and only dependent on God and that person. I recognize that social organizations do have and should have the power to regulate their membership. That's fine. And we are always taking in data that either pushes into stronger or weaker membership in that social organization. We need to decide who we want to be. Figure out how big this tent is. And also we need to think about why some stakes have larger tents and other stakes have smaller tents. Maybe SEIQ is right. Maybe the very soul of the LDS church is up for grabs right now, and the mullahs are in furious attacking retreat. It's sad.