No disciplinary action for disagreeing with the Church

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- 0 Flares ×

Thanks to a post by DTrain over at Unofficial Manifesto, I came across this quote from a statement on political neutrality on the Church’s website:

Issues on which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has felt compelled to take a firm stand include civil rights, MX missile testing in Utah, same-gender marriages, pornography, gambling and Utah alcohol laws.

The Church does not extend reprimands or ecclesiastical punishment to persons who choose not to support its views on these issues.

13 thoughts on “No disciplinary action for disagreeing with the Church

  1. Glad to see BKP is losing his grip with age. But I think I’ll hide behind a Nacle handle for awhile longer just to be safe.

  2. Kim, your title is somewhat misleading. The statement says “these issues”, i.e. political ones. Status of disagreement on other, more specifically religious issues is unspecified.

    I imagine if one advocated adultery he could find himself on the outside looking in, in a big hurry.

  3. It looks like the neutrality statement doesn’t apply to BYU professors.

    Jeffrey Nielsen, a practicing Latter-day Saint, learned of the school’s decision regarding him in a letter dated June 8 from BYU Department of Philosophy Chairman Daniel Graham.
    “In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church,” the letter reads. “Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and to do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over.”

  4. Mark,

    I entertained the idea of inserting my entire post in the title, but in the long run decided to go with a vaguer title with some content in the post.

  5. So sadly Orwellian. “The Church does not extend reprimands or ecclesiastical punishment to persons who choose not to support its views on these issues.” No, we’ll just fire your sorry ass if you happen to work for us!

    This reminds me of the appeal procedures for church discipline or termination of employment: Well, we said you can appeal, but we didn’t say when we’d hear your appeal or that we’d abide by any rulings that go against us.

    The Lord can’t be please with this continued duplicity.

    Don’t worry I don’t intend to leave or stop tithing just yet. But it’s difficult when our top leaders don’t seem to even try to be honest in their dealings with their fellow man, or impose that standard on the middle management of the church.

  6. Mary,
    First, I probably should have left that three letter word blank. It would have been just as colorful. To your question, I can only answer for myself. For me, colorful language is like seasoning; you sprinkle it for impact and to convey emotion. If it’s every third word, the effect is completely lost and the person just sounds like a moron. That’s my two cents.

  7. And on the surface, its not really a big deal.

    But, I’ve been in wards where for years, the Ward Mission Leader and the full time missionaries are truly “Reactivation Specialists”, even to the point where full time missionaries had home teaching routes with all of the less active members on their list!!!

    A good illustration where being a fraction of a degree off course can lead to a completely different direction.

    I just feel the longer we let that false doctrine propagate, the worse it will get. Funny how it all starts our so innocently.

  8. Okay, so Mr. Nielsen is not being re-hired.

    I just know that someone, somewhere is going to say,”See, the church didn’t fire him, they just didn’t offer to renew his employment.”

    There is no difference whatsoever.

    Mr. Nielsen contradicted the church party line, then Mr. Nielsen got canned. So much for free thought.

    Oh yeah, and ‘ass’.
    Just thought I’d throw that out there for Mary – gotta stay at least as edgey as Steve EM…

  9. lol

    like i said, just curious. i have brothers who liked to swear, just to get me agitated. but this was years ago. they are much more mature now, i assume.

  10. Is there any indication that the professor was opposing the Church on one of the political issues? Or was he preaching against the Church on some other important matter? If the latter, comment 3 doesn’t have much of a logical footing.

Leave a Reply