Go, and Sin No More

The scribes and Pharisees brought the adulterous woman before Jesus, not because they cared about the law, but because they wished to trap him into consenting to stoning her.

But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Loving and Inclusive (Patents Pending)

I am laughing about the more-than-usual degree of posturing hand-wringing currently going on amongst "liberal Mormons" who now seem to be faced with the decision of whether or not to jump ship and join the other apostates as formal "ex-mo", who leave the Church, but can't leave the Church alone.  This question has been cause célèbre in the so-called "Bloggernacle" for quite some time.  John Dehlin was apparently their heroic advocate since around 2010, until he was recently excommunicated. I wasn't giving the incident a lot of notice, but since it was aired in public to all the news media, it would have been hard to miss.  The "Bloggernacle" also doted on Kate Kelly and several others who continue a pitched public and legal battle against the Church, but no longer as members.  Dehlin proudly claims credit for disclosing the intended updates to Handbook 1, purportedly passed under the table by some confederate mole inside the Church Office Building. (The do-gooders who wear their bleeding hearts on their sleeve generally seem to easily overlook this kind of duplicity.)  They insist that the Church should be more loving and inclusive.  (By some ironic twist of random fate, I seem to be excommunicated from commenting in such "loving and inclusive" forums.  Saves me a lot of time.)

There is no question that my take on this popular phenomenon is twisted and wrong. I should be properly sympathetic and tearful, and put my arms around the simpering and snivelling displayed by many who take offense about those nasty mean Church rules.  As far as I can tell, most of these are useful idiots being manipulated to serve the agenda of those whose interest is to tear down the Church.  I have been informed by any number of people that I am all at once "pathetic" and "compassionless", or that I am just too critical and intolerant of the views of others.  I'm sure they all have good cause for their disparaging, though I seldom see anything specifically iterated beyond reference to my general creepiness.  I guess that will serve as sufficient basis for the "loving and inclusive" to transform rather quickly into spiteful and exclusive.

One particularly entertaining and trite example...

One of the many swimmers in the "sea of sameness" of "Bloggernacle" bloggers, for some unfathomable reason, at one time "befriended" me on Facebook.  After a recent disagreeable exchange of comments on her blog, she now asserts that she later "unfriended" me because I tend to be rude and disagreeable.  I vaguely recall that the actual occasion of "unfriendliness" had something more to do with her condescending rejection of my absurd assertion that an LDS Chapel is an acceptable venue for a wedding reception post-Temple sealing.  Apparently not so for any of her precious daughters, who needed a more appropriate and less tawdry social setting.  Anyway, now she testifies assiduously (in her most loving and inclusive manner) what an evil and unpleasant person I am.  Ejected from the choice inner circle of this blogger, among so many others, I am almost beside myself in despair.  Feeling particularly despondent and unloved.  But alas, I was born this way.  It would be foolish and vain for me to try to deny my propensities.

BTW, no word yet on the proposed firing of the Church legal department.

I am happy to concur with the few outspoken Church leaders who have commented on similar occasions.  One of my favorties...

The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.
What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on.  (The Caravan Moves On)

What can I say?  I'm obviously just a really bad person.  But of course, I have no choice in the matter - I was born this way!

Another note appropriate for mentioning to all those "faithful Mormons" who insist on sniping about Church policy.  Sustaining the Brethren.  I don't expect any of these dissidents to share such ideas, or to bother with even a cursory review of the Interpreter article, but it is some small comfort to me to learn that I am not the only Church member who feels this way.

I am not offering to condemn any of these dissident voices so critical of the Church.  I am fully satisfied to let God be the judge between us.  Ultimately, I have little doubt that your own words will bring condemnation.

PS:  I can see from Google Tracking that at least someone from the "Mormon Murmurer" has been checking my blog posts.  Not sure whether that means they are planning to sue me, or if they are actually reading.  

PS: Is the Church Legal Department fired yet?

The hand-wringing exercises continue.  Here's a more current and up-to-date example.  Women in the "Bloggernacle" seem to believe they are particularly gifted with special insight.  Thus they tend to be collectively holding a vast pool of wisdom that if possible, surpasses any occasional commandment from Heaven.

Another example of the agonized frenzy "liberal Mormons" have worked themselves into.  This particular forum is generally pretty bland, but occasionally the owner betrays her true sentiments.  Now the blog owner complains about suggestions purportedly being offered by intolerant and unloving, "Why don't you just get out?", referring to those who are threatening to abandon their faith in favor of worldly philosophy.  This is a particularly specious complaint in light of the media attention being so craved by those who ARE "getting out" with accompaniment of brass bands and drunken self-congratulatory celebrations.  And particularly ironic to me personally, since this is another forum characterized by "progressive" and "inclusive" ideas that ceased to love me when I presumed to upset their delicate sensibilities, and summarily excommunicated me long ago.

Also most ironic to observe that if you're agonizing about whether to abandon your faith - you obviously already have.

Conclusive evidence that indicates that the "Why don't you just get out?" approach is hardly unique to the Mormon community.  

Yet another post from the "Bloggernacle" from a "faithful Mormon" who now  feels compelled to publicly air his own testimony that HE now knows the Church is going astray from the true and righteous leadership of popular social trends.  Turns out that the Church has always been wrong, about this and a whole lot of things, but is sadly still in denial.  He presumes to speak for us, "...Our vision of social issues reflects the conservatism and provincialism of our Great Basin leaders." I note the use of inclusive pronouns.  Presumably either the royal "we", or he believes he can speak in behalf of the general audience.

He comments further,  "I have long felt that were I not born into the faith that I simply cannot imagine joining it as a convert."  And my persuasion has long been that with no exception, EVERYONE who joins the Church should consider themselves to be a "convert".  Nobody can rightfully claim to be "born into the faith".  I believe this false assertion represents a common misunderstanding slur intended to denigrate less enlightened disciples who fall into this categorization simply by virtue of having been "born into the faith".

For any who are seriously of the mistaken impression that such diatribes are anything particularly new, please check out Boyd Petersens's ten-year-old review of Martha Beck and her melodramatic fiction "Leaving the Saints".   Interesting parallels.

This has the flavor of a bad SciFi flick.  Freely adapted from "Total Recall"...

The walls of reality will come crashing down.  One minute, you'll be the savior of the rebel cause, and the next thing you know you'll find yourself marching lock-step with the John Dehlin and Kate Kelly fan club.   You'll also have fantasies about your heroic battles against the perfidy of the "Mormon Patriarchy", as you ordered.  But in the end back on Earth, you'll be lobotomized. So get a grip on yourself and put down that pen.

Church Handbook 1: Revisons and Reactions

I am not one to say "I told you so", but I honestly believe these prancing parading advocates encouraging our loving embrace of openly homosexual behavior are the ones who have precipitated the recent Church action of revisions to Handbook 1 regarding same-sex behavior.

As it turns out, this group of marchers and those they presume to support WERE actually engaging in a sort of "bridge-building".  Just not the bridges they were anticipating.  They at least partially have themselves to blame for the changes in Church policy.  Life is full of such surprises.

I can also say that this clarification of Church policy regarding same-sex relationships and Church membership is an answer to my own fervent personal prayers.

It helps resolve my concern that the Law of Chastity was being revised for the benefit of a certain interest.  My understanding was always that everyone is required to live by the same set of rules, and no personal circumstance exists that would allow exceptions.

Though I am certain that there have been people praying for other solutions to this problem.  I know that there have been.  Their prayers have been answered too - just not the way they were expecting.

I understand that some are angry, hurt, disappointed and offended by the Church position.  But from my point of view, this was a change waiting to happen.  I can see that some advocates can make a case for their position with regard to certain aspects of these issues, but the arguments seem of little merit because their whole rationale begins with a false premise.  It is vain to protest that a rope is sound except for a fatal weakness at the top of the line.

As has been the case with so many other such actions from the Church, this implementation of new administrative policy was a response to current events.  And inspired Church leadership acting under Divine direction.

The developing situation had obviously left local leaders, the bishops and stake presidents, with an unfair burden on their judgement.  I can imagine being personally conflicted and torn by the many impassioned pleas for justice.  Especially in the face of such a shift in the legal scene.

Now that burden has been shifted.  I have little doubt that local leaders have made their own decisions about how to act in cases affected by this concern.  Perhaps some of them will be all the more troubled by this course of action.  But it was really the only way to resolve the conflict.

I am personally impressed that the policy change reflects the collective wisdom and experience of those who guide the Church with their prophetic calling.

And I am mightily relieved that I don't have to make such impactful decisions regarding people's lives.  In retrospect, I see that the drive to give legal status to same-sex marriage was the impetus for this seeming new policy.  In reality, there is nothing particularly new about it.  The policy simply extends administrative rules and oversight to Church doctrine that has long been in place. What is actually "new" is any hope or expectation that immoral behavior will be tolerated or accepted by the Church.  Indeed, the scope of acceptance and practice throughout the world shows a surprising degree of diversity, from countries that legally embraced same-sex relationships decades ago, to those who still cling to some vestiges of traditional morality.

Plenty of pubic sorrowing, agonized hand-wringing stories and demonstrations are now being staged.  As if advocates and those fully engaged in this behavior are shocked and surprised that anyone would ever think to disapprove of their choice to act in open defiance of eternal commandments, so presumptuously to spoil their blissfully happy homosexual relationships.  If you were among those so posturing, I'm honestly sorry to disappoint you, but rather pleased that you're not quite so in charge of things as you might have been led to believe.

All popular opinion to the contrary, it turns out that there really can be no such thing as "Mormons for Gay Marriage".  It is a total contradiction in terms.

My focus is not distracted.  As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.  Not that I am claiming to be perfect in any particular aspect.  But striving nonetheless.

Intimidated by Intimidation

Decrying intimidation and bullying has become de rigueur a popular cause.  It seems to involve the perception that I am being forced to capitulate against my will because the antagonist wields greater power or influence.  The popular sentiment is that it is unethical or immoral for those who enjoy this impression of greater power to actually use it for influence or persuasion.

The general problem with accusations of intimidation is that they are often used as tools by the supposedly aggrieved parties to brandish their own axe.  All too often the claimant is using the accusation to intimidate, in the hope that their complaint will be taken up by others.  It is especially common to air such complaints in the sympathetic popular media.  This is the classic "pot calling the kettle black" scenario.

 

The disingenuous "big bad guy is intimidating me!" accusation is most in evidence today amongst popular groups trying to adopt the posture of innocent victims of power.

There are obviously individuals who really do suffer from injustice, intimidation, and bullying.  Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf addressed this problem in his April 2012 General Conference talk, "The Merciful Obtain Mercy".

I imagine that every person on earth has been affected in some way by the destructive spirit of contention, resentment, and revenge. Perhaps there are even times when we recognize this spirit in ourselves. When we feel hurt, angry, or envious, it is quite easy to judge other people, often assigning dark motives to their actions in order to justify our own feelings of resentment.

Of course, we know this is wrong. The doctrine is clear. We all depend on the Savior; none of us can be saved without Him. Christ’s Atonement is infinite and eternal. Forgiveness for our sins comes with conditions. We must repent, and we must be willing to forgive others. Jesus taught: “Forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not … [stands] condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin” and “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”

Of course, these words seem perfectly reasonable—when applied to someone else. We can so clearly and easily see the harmful results that come when others judge and hold grudges. And we certainly don’t like it when people judge us.

But when it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and only appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.

From this perspective, I see my own problems revealed.  I am not perfect, but I am working on it.  Advocating for reaching a perfect state always magnified my own hypocrisy.  I am willing to expose my own imperfections, in the honest hope that we might all improve ourselves.