Comments about ‘LDS Church says disciplinary claim is 'patently false'’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Sept. 21 2012 8:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Some of Twede's false conclusions have been that the Word of Wisdom is generally good, but was only a man made idea and not revealed doctrine- that the church should stop spending money how the first presidency has been directing and do what members want with the money instead- that Joseph Smith having priesthood authority is not documented enough, even suggesting that the most valid documentation of this is a fabrication.

It is troubling that members have complained and apostatized in ancient times and in Joseph Smith's day over how the church spends money and continue to complain today. Our prophet directs the church in revelation and in operation. To give to doubting the authenticity and operations of the church is absolute foolishness. It is never the prophets who go astray but the people. We are guaranteed that our prophet will not lead us astray. We have no such guarantee regarding the masses.

All of Twede's claims are accomplished by ignoring personal revelation. He does state at first that his intention is to 'objectively' answer concerns of church critics, but all his conclusions only end in doubting, or 'being troubled' by the words of our prophets.

Sandee Spencer
Longwood, FL

I agree that church discipline is geared completely toward repentance and necessary in only the most severe cases. But in those cases part of excommunication is releasing the member from their baptismal covenants and membership in the church. (Note a small part of that is that they are not allowed to hold callings, speak or pray in meetings or pay tithing). I believe even this step is taken out of kindness to prevent the individual from incurring more judgment since their choices are not currently in keeping with those covenants.

I don't agree that church discipline courts are rarely spoken of in the open. They have come up several times in our regular Sunday School and Relief Society lesson.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

To know happens when someone is baptised into the LDS Church, read the Book of Mormon, starting in Mosiah 18:8.

No one who makes that kind of covenant, and is honest to that covenant, would try to persuade other people to break their covenant to follow Christ and to keep Christ's commandments.

When someone won't honor their covenants, they are released from that obligation by being excommunicated. Being excommunicated means that they will not be held accountable for not keeping a covenant that is too hard for them to keep. The covenant is dissolved, a covenant that they broke with their behavior.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

First of all, the people being baptized into the LDS Church do not make any covenants at baptism. The baptism ordinance does not require the candidate to make a sound, much less to swear any oaths or make any promises whatsoever.

Second, this person spoke correctly, saying he was being disciplined. I can find nowhere where he is saying he is being excommunicated. As such, the statement by the Church denying that this person is being called in for discipline is at best inaccurate, and at worst, misleading.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

" We are guaranteed that our prophet will not lead us astray"

By whom?

Oh, yeah...by those who claim to be "prophets".

A bit of a conflict of interest there. Is that reasonable?

Moreover, nowhere in official, canonized scripture (the Standard Works) does it guarantee Mormons will not be led astray by their leaders.

Phoenix, AZ

So now begins the new age of the Mormon inquisition, the world is flat.

Clearfield, Utah

Hawkeye 76, I would like to know what you consider "misrepresenting Obama's accomplishments or lack there of"? I have been following the election closely and have not heard anything that Romney has said that was not truthful. So if I am missing something, please enlighten me. As for this artical, the disiplinary council in the church is used only when a serious transgression has taken place. Teaching doctrine to try and lead people away from the church (or false doctrine) is considered to be a very serious transgression. If a member of the church is teaching false or missleading doctrine knowingly they can be excommuticated if that individual is not willing to stop teaching that type of doctrine or particular practice. But excommunication is used only as a last resort. The church trys to ensure that the teaching of Christ are taught through out the church and part of that is making sure members teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and not their own opions

Paul in MD
Montgomery Village, MD

@A Scientist - If the person being baptized weren't presenting himself/herself for the ordinance, I might agree that there is no covenant. But when I baptized my children as they each turned 8, I asked them if they wanted to do this and enter into this covenant. They each said yes. I made sure they understood what was happening, and they consented.

The bishop of each ward is responsible for doing the same thing with everyone who is baptized in his ward. No one walks into a chapel, is grabbed, tossed into a font and dunked without consent.

The person being baptized doesn't say anything during the ordinance, other than "amen" at the end of the prayer, but has said "yes" several times before stepping foot into the water. Seems to me that fills your definition of a covenant.

Cache county, USA

Can't we all just get along..

Flower Mound, TX

To "A Scientist" and others who think the Church is lying about "disciplinary claim is 'patently false'"

Read it more carefully. The Church never said there isn't a disciplinary hearing. They said it's not for expressing political views but said they aren't able to say what it is for due to confidentiality. Even if the article's title may be a little unclear, reading the article makes it very clear. I'm surprised people put so much weight into an articles title (that is made by the news organization and not the subject of the article) and fails to read the details in the actual article. I really hope "A Scientist" reads other material more closely or there won't be much credibility to the "science".

Castle Rock, CO

There is such an incredible double standard. Missionaries are continually going out and having to prove to Catholics, Baptists, etc., how their church is a fallen church (although they couch it in very wishy washy, nice terms). If someone has a 'stumbling block' in that they still think their church is true (like a Catholic) the missionaries bring up bad things about the faith to prove there was an apostasy (resolving concerns). They think of of this as spreading the truth on earth.

If someone has an issue with the Mormon faith, and airs that concern, they are considered an 'anti-mormon.' Quite the double standard. When a missionary leaves home to do it they dub him a hero, when someone else does it they say they're 'anti.' Mormons seemingly don't care much about action, only if you believe right (because they are doing the same thing, they just have different conclusions).

Any member of the church should be able to air any problems openly. No matter what they are saying.

"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." - J. Reuben Clark

A Scientist
Provo, UT

"The Church never said there isn't a disciplinary hearing. They said it's not for expressing political views but said they aren't able to say what it is for due to confidentiality."

How convenient. Abuses of power can always invoke "confidentiality" to avoid being held accountable, right?

In the absence of the "real" reason for the disciplinary action, then, we would be justified in inferring it to be for the reasons stated by the person being disciplined.

Honestly, we don't worry about how much credibility science has among religious believers...

Santa Monica, CA

This is a very incomplete and one sided view of this story. I would encourage the Des News to write a more objective article that respects the intelligence of it's readership. Your readers are (on the whole) smart, sensitive and able to hear the truth in it's entirety and to handle those truths accordingly.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

I cannot fathom why people belong to a religion they clearly do not believe in, then claim they are victims when they are unhappy attending. If you have one foot on each side of the fence, you have no credibility to complain about a picket up your posterior. Be an adult and get off the fence and stop whining (and annoying everyone else with your phony complaints of oppression, which are nothing more than the natural results of your own decisions)

If this man was an adult HE would be making the choice - not forcing others to make it for him (merely so he can claim passive/aggressive power derived from feigned martyrdom)

conservative scientist
Lindon, UT

If you look at the website that he is writing for, it is obviously anti-Mormon and the sole purpose is to lead people away from the Mormon church. If a contributor wants to purport to be an active member of the LDS church for the purpose of appearing more genuine and trustworthy, then it is certainly within the church's bounds to excommunicate such a person.

Would anyone owning a business keep an employee on board whose sole purpose was to steal company information and give them to a competing company. Would anyone keep a self-described foreign spy in a sensitive area of the military. Why would the LDS church embrace someone whose sole purpose in coming to church is to bring down the church and appear "credible" while he does so. The least that can happen is his credibility as a practicing Mormon can be taken away from him. This really may help him to be less of a hypocrite anyway and may add more credibility.

Casa Grande, AZ

Everyone except most mormons believe Mitt Romney has very poor ethics. What exactly would it take for Romney to be questioned by most in the Church? I can't get away with telling lies all over the country.

Hyde Park, UT

@Screwdriver: Do you speak for the "everyone" to which you refer?

You express your opinions as though they were facts.... Isn't that what you are accusing Romney of doing?

Phoenix, AZ

In all sencerity, I have visited the blog site Mormon Think and I have read interesting material, most of which is material that has been available for years from many different soources, but I have not found anything on the site that appears bladantly untrue or false toward the Mormon church. There is much information that appears unfavorable towards the church, but if true then like all things of truth they are part of the light of christ and good for the learning of man. The best thing the church can do is to acknowledge their problems, repent and change. The answer is not to keep members in the dark, that is the devil's territory.

Tyler Ray
Taylorsville, UT


It's not about the public eye, it's about this man breaking covenants he's made before God, then making a mockery of those covenants. "You cannot serve God and mammon." In the end this man will be left to face God and the Church of Jesus Christ is simply helping him recognize what he's doing and then he will have to choose which master he serves.

Dave D
Pocatello, ID

If we don't allow differing opinions and investigation in the Church, we risk becoming too narrow-minded to accept that God will "yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to [His kingdom]. On the other hand, those with dissenting views need to submit them with tact and humility.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments