LDS Church says disciplinary claim is 'patently false'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    And lastly, to be in full fellowship in the LDS Church, in other words, have a Temple recommend, one needs to answer several very pointed questions. One of them involves whether or not you are affiliated with any organization that in any way goes against the teachings of the Church. This guy seems to have been. Either he quits and repents, or he has disciplinary action. I hope the Church will always hold a tough standard for it's members. If peoples beliefs, politics or otherwise don't allow them to conform, then they should leave, not try to change Church doctrine.

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    Sept. 27, 2012 12:11 a.m.

    Article quote: "The Sentinel reported that Twede, who identifies himself as “agnostic, a doubter,......"

    Whoa! Hold it right there!

    This guy ADMITS he's an agnostic, "agnostic", meaning a person who is not sure if God is even real or not (not as hard core as an athiest who patently says "There is no God." but still someone who does not have much, if any, faith in God) and yet he (the offended member) is claiming that this is all political and nothing more than retributional?

    Give me a break!

    If being a self-admitted agnostic is not out of harmony with the teachings and beliefs of the LDS church then what is???

    How long, Lord, how long?.....

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Sept. 26, 2012 11:49 a.m.

    2 close to call basically states that President Young and many of the early Presidents (prophets) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints lead it astray because of their teachings of polgamy and the celestial kingdom. How so is my question? They were teachings of which only 5% of all membership actually entered into. Yes, there were some problems but for the most part no. That practice would still possibly be ineffect today if revelation had not been received removing the practice. However, we as a membership do not know that for sure. Although I'm sure some of our critics will state that Elder McConkie stated that someday it would be instituted again and definitely practiced during the second coming of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

    These men are mouthpieces of the Lord. They receive revelation and inspiration from our Heavenly Father and his son, Jesus Christ. That is pure doctrine of our religion. Revelation is received quite often depending on circumstances. Each temple as to where it is to be built and its structure is revelation. The Proclamation to the World, the Family can be said to be revelation. It is the will of the Father.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 11:47 a.m.

    Re: BobF2012 of Kitchener, ON
    Sorry, Mr. BobF, but you didn't answer even one of the issues raised by Jared H. And in the answers you did give, you quote biblical advice to individuals, which are fully endorsed by good conservatives. None of the biblical advice is directed toward the government, which has no money or resources of its own until after they plunder it from the individual.
    Your second concept, that government need not act morally because government issues are "Caesar's," and that things which are "God's" should be strictly separated from government just doesn't wash for those who believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people, because the people need to inject morality into "their" government.
    You reference Canada as a good example. Well, right now we are living in Ontario, Canada, and Canada is a perfect example of all that is wrong with socialism, with socialized medicine and health care, and all that is wrong with the welfare state. Also, Canadians have given up their right to bear arms, so they'll never have better than what they have. Sad!

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    Interesting how an article like this will generate such and enormous amount of comment!

  • BobF2012 kitchener, 00
    Sept. 26, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    Jared H asked : “how do you reach the conclusion that you are living your faith if you profess leftist political views?”
    Here are just a few examples:
    Luke 9:2: “heal the sick.” The GOP wants to deprive millions of people of health care. Mr. Romney candidate has vowed to do so on day one of his administration.
    Jacob 2: 19: “…feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive….” Romney has proposed cutting the Food Stamp and related programs, thus depriving hungry people, including innocent children, of food. He has said that Guantanamo, the U.S.’s Cuba-based torture chamber, should not be closed, but that its population should be doubled.

    Matthew 22: 21: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” In Canada, same-sex marriage is legal. No church is mandated to perform same-sex marriages. The things which are ‘Caesar’s’ (pertaining to government and not religious society), have their place; the things which are God’s (religious-oriented), have theirs. Religion does not mandate what government should do, or vice-versa.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 25, 2012 10:17 p.m.

    @ A voice of Reason "We are guaranteed that our prophet will not lead us astray"

    I think many Mormons believe that the FLDS have been led astray as they still practice polygamy. If that is the case it sounds to me like the early Mormon prophets like Brigham Young led those people astray by making statements that polygamy was necessary to practice in order to get into the celestial kingdom.

    I don't think that we should listen to any man blindly whether they are a considered a prophet or not. I think we need to make our own mind up. That is what the man in this article did. He made his mind up that the church is not true and he tells people why. I think it is unwise to simply follow a prophet or follow David's belief's for that matter without determining in their own mind what is right and wrong

  • Jared H Valrico, FL
    Sept. 25, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    OK, I've read enough of these to ask the all left-leaning Mormons, how do you reach the conclusion that you are living your faith if you profess leftist political views? Do you live your life through the filter of your faith or not? I apply the Scriptures, revelation, and my own testimony to every political question I have and find that I do not agree with anything left leaning. I find I am more "Right_leaning Libertarian" (with reservations) who votes Republican due to mathematical restrictions.

    Since truth isn't subjective, how do you reach such differing conclusions? I'm not accusing or judging. I'd just like to know. Please address specifically the following:

    Gay Marriage, Socialism (economic), Abortion, Big Government.

    regarding all other issues I can fathom a difference of opinion; these are a few I see as pretty stark and wonder where the paths diverge. Thanks in advance for your civil replies.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Sept. 25, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    What is an irony is that this gentleman will probably suffer some type of Church discipline for what is on his sight refering to the Church. That is the apostasy. Craig Clark and others who are wondering about dissent in the Church need to read the definition of apostasy and see where it stands with this individual. Also, Craig Clark if you are an endowed member, you are held to a higher standing than an individual that is not. Therefore, the disciplinary action is quite harsher for an endowed member than it would be for one who is not endowed. The reason is because then the temple covenants come into play.

    The problem is that this individual will after the discipline is handed down say he was disciplined for his actions based on his feelings for Mitt Romney. Both are inheritently false and the only premise for coming public is to try and sway the electorate against Mitt Romney and the Faith he holds. He will be disciplined for his actions as a member of the LDS Church not for his feelings right or wrong on Mitt Romney.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Sept. 25, 2012 11:26 a.m.

    No one questions the right of a church to determine membership status for its adherents but what kind of an argument is that in an enlightened age? Is there no allowance for dissent in the one church that is touted as America’s distinctive contribution to world Christianity? The irony is so thick I could cut it with a knife.

    I’m not familiar with Twede’s particular circumstances but apostasy is such an arbitrary and subjective determination to make. Let’s keep in mind that Galileo and Copernicus were both excommunicated from the Catholic Church for postulating the heretical proposition that the earth revolves around the sun.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 25, 2012 11:20 a.m.

    Rifleman, you state: The thing I don't understand is why a nonbeliever would care one way ..... or the other.

    There are good legitimate reasons for nonbelievers to care about what is transpiring with their neighborhoods, politics, education, religion and society, because all citizens are swimming in the same waters, i.e.,: when people no longer care things get real bad very fast. Good government and democracy only works when people care and get involved. What the LDS church HQ does in Utah has an impact and affects others in many states.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Sept. 25, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    What is patently false is that this person is being brought up to a Church disciplinary council because of statements about politics or Mitt Romney.

    It appears the main concern is that this person is using being an active member of the Church as a front to give more credence to his attacks on the Church. I can see how this is a very disturbing set of actions. It has nothing to do with his political stance. Articles across the country have attempted to claim the council in some way cares about what he has said about Romney which is rubbish.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Sept. 25, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    So what does Scott Gordon and "FAIR" have to do with this?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 25, 2012 9:29 a.m.


    "that's why I had my name removed from the LDS church lists rather than just staying inactive, because I didn't feel like it was proper to stay a member when I didn't believe in many of the main ideas that make up said baptismal covenant."

    That is behavior I can respect

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 25, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    All religions have their share of apostates who have forsaken the beliefs of their various churches. It is nothing new. They push to explore the limits that they can go and act surprised when they get excommunicated.

    The thing I don't understand is why a nonbeliever would care one way ..... or the other.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Sept. 25, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    It is always amusing to me that in such rare instances as this where LDS church discipline comes into the public eye a lot of people stand up and argue about it and try to sway the vote, as it were.

    Being a member of the LDS church is not a mandatory thing in this country or any other. So why is it that people are so concerned about who the LDS church wishes or does not wish to have on it's membership roles? Over twenty years ago a pseudo celebrity by the name of Sonya Johnson also brought here conflict with the church into the lime light. I suspect there was even more controversy over her issues than seem to be the case here. For a time it was front page news and now, I'll bet most don't even remember it or her. The LDS church has just continued on and I have no doubts that it will do so again and again.

  • Ilovethejjs medford, MA
    Sept. 25, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    David Twede wrote in detail about the temple ordinances in his article. That is why he's being disciplined. He omitted those from his blog after he found out he was to go before the disciplinary counsel.
    We are all in this together as members of the church.
    It's one thing to criticize Mitt Romney's positions on policy, but another to criticize him personally.
    My mother told me , "If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, then don't say anything at all."
    I grieves me that so many members are leaving the church because a Mormon is running for president.
    When articles like this come up, I remember the Saviors words in 3rd Nephi, "Let there be no disputations among you."
    The spirit of contention is of Satan and many members are indulging in this.
    Go ahead and criticize Romney, or whatever tenets of the Church you want. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

  • BobF2012 kitchener, 00
    Sept. 25, 2012 6:40 a.m.

    As an active member who has written many articles critical of Mitt Romney, and who very publicly supports the re-election of President Obama, I can say without reservation that the Church has no interest in how I vote. I write nothing critical of the Church; just of Mr. Romney.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Sept. 25, 2012 12:49 a.m.

    Those who have a tesimony of their faith, have a deep conviction in their beliefs, and will not be swayed.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 3:33 p.m.

    @A Scientist:
    "First of all, the people being baptized into the LDS Church do not make any covenants at baptism."

    Absolutely they do, that's why I had my name removed from the LDS church lists rather than just staying inactive, because I didn't feel like it was proper to stay a member when I didn't believe in many of the main ideas that make up said baptismal covenant.

  • non believer PARK CITY, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 12:50 p.m.

    reported to have been in apostasy, which the Sentinel describes as an offense in which a member attempts to lead people away from church teachings.

    Could pointing out facts be considered an attempt to lead people away?

    Sept. 24, 2012 12:38 p.m.

    @A Scientist:

    "First of all, the people being baptized into the LDS Church do not make any covenants at baptism."

    Read Mosiah 18:8 - 10 & 13. Sure sounds like a covenant to me. I certainly believe that I am under a covenant with the Lord because of my decision to be baptised. I even renew this every week when I take the sacrament.

    Not sure where you got the idea that baptism is not a covenant....

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 24, 2012 12:35 p.m.

    Re: A Scientist Provo, UT
    " "We are guaranteed that our prophet will not lead us astray" By whom?"

    His sheep know the Good Shepherd and recognize His voice. For those who are deaf and don't believe why waste the time arguing with them?

    Sept. 24, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    This is just a test to see if I could again post a comment on your site. Yesterday I tried to comment on this article three times and couldn't submit it.

  • Dave D Pocatello, ID
    Sept. 24, 2012 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Tyler Ray Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 11:03 a.m.


    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.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:49 a.m.

    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.

  • cval Hyde Park, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    @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?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    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.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    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)

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    Sept. 24, 2012 9:34 a.m.

    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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 24, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    "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...

  • BYUCOLORADO Castle Rock, CO
    Sept. 24, 2012 9:06 a.m.

    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

  • TexasMom Flower Mound, TX
    Sept. 24, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    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".

  • Tiger5 Cache county, USA
    Sept. 24, 2012 7:44 a.m.

    Can't we all just get along..

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    Sept. 24, 2012 6:55 a.m.

    @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.

  • whatnext Clearfield, Utah
    Sept. 23, 2012 7:48 p.m.

    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

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 23, 2012 5:44 p.m.

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

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 23, 2012 5:37 p.m.

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

    By whom?

    Oh, 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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 23, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 23, 2012 3:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Sandee Spencer Longwood, FL
    Sept. 23, 2012 3:10 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2012 2:22 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2012 1:47 p.m.

    All claims about Twede vs Romney which favor twede are ludicrous, without substance, and are most certainly false. I spent a few minutes on his blog to see if there is anything directly opposing the church. I found that there most certainly was.

    Consider the following claims:

    "Romney is imperfect"
    "Romney has lied"
    "Romney has sinned"

    All these COULD be true. Let's assume for a moment that they are. Now consider the following:

    "We are all as imperfect with sin"

    Does the church excommunicate those who sin? No. Does it excommunicate members who turn to apostasy and try to lead other members away from the church? Yes. Has Romney tried leading members away? No. Are there fine disputes about doctrine that Jesus Christ commanded us not to engage in? Yes! Claims against Romney's political philosophies have gone directly against what we have been commanded. Are we being commanded to follow Romney? No. To not dispute? Yes.

    Lastly, Twede's publications argue quite the opposite, and do nothing to substantiate the church as the true church of God. Rather, they only cast doubt and do the opposite. The truth is very plainly testified by the spirit.


  • nschulzke Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 23, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    He's not excommunicated yet, and we don't know whether he will be. So commenters: stop talking about it as if he has been already.

    The vast majority of MormonThink isn't about Romney, it's about the Church and its teachings. And it's all intended to draw members away. When a person who associates with such a group claims to be a Mormon for the purpose of increasing the credibility of the group, it is more than natural for them to be singled out for counselling and possible disciplinary action.

    The church has a long-standing policy of not directly addressing sources of anti-Mormon literature. Mormon scholarly groups, however, actively address and, yes, challenge such "information". In fact, FAIR itself has an entire section of their webpage devoted to MormonThink specifically, not to mention a vast analysis of critics comments in general. So to say that the content of MormonThink goes unchallenged is ridiculous.

  • fkratz Portland, OR
    Sept. 23, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    One of the interesting aspects of MormonThink is that much like Richard Packham's Homepage, no one has really challenged the information contained withing. It seems that folks should appreciate sources of information which offer something other than what is put out by LDS. (org). We are indeed fortunate to be living in the internet/information age where we no longer have to rely on "pamphlets" or word of mouth to obtain information, especially that which is critical. Thanks Mr. Twede!

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Sept. 23, 2012 12:54 a.m.

    Utter lunacy to expect to retain Church membership in the face of all the anti-LDS garbage on his blog. We don't need "cultural" members in the Church.

  • Hawkeye76 Saint George, 00
    Sept. 22, 2012 11:32 p.m.

    The LDS Church spokesman said: Church discipline becomes necessary only in those rare occasions when an individual’s actions cannot be ignored while they claim to be in good standing with the church.
    Since Mr. Mitt Romney's factual misrepresentations about our President are so publically visible and so oft repeated why has he not bee disciplined? Is there some misunderstanding about the clarity of the Articles of Faith's doctrinal stance on ethics and honesty. Mr. Romney is the face of the Church right now, like it or not, and it would seem advisable for the Church to rebuke him in some form for his dishonesty. I am not speaking of the political bending of the facts that is unfortunately common place in politics today; but of known and deliberate and repeated factual misrepresentations.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    Sept. 22, 2012 11:20 p.m.

    1. It will not matter in the long run - but because the church disciplinary councils are strictly confidential, the other side can say anything publicaly to justify themselves and put the church in a bad light - and they usualy do.

    2. It doesn't matter who you are or what you are - anyone of us who accuses someone based on hearsay or rumor and then we broadcast, with no proof, that what we heard is true - becomes a tale bearer and a false witness.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 22, 2012 11:06 p.m.

    While I agree that the LDS church can excommunicate any of its LDS members they wish, I think it is a bad idea to excommunicate those that doubt the authenticity of the church and post things that make the church look bad, especially if those things he is posting are true. It only makes the church look like they are hiding something. Additionally, if what he is posting is not true, a better approach would be to explain in general conference or elswhere what is false about what he is saying instead of excomunicating him and trying to sweep it under the rug and effectively censoring him which many Americans believe is vile .

    I believe, If this man is excommunicated for saying things bad about the church that are in fact true, but make the church look bad, It will end up increasing the number of LDS apostates who actually believe truth is important. If he is posting lies that make the church look bad and he is excommunicated with no explanation of what the lies were, the same result will occur as the lies are left unrefuted and many will still believe he was telling the truth.

  • Nanook of the North Camarillo, CA
    Sept. 22, 2012 10:50 p.m.

    OK, Watcher, are you Sen. Reid's bishop or stake president? Otherwise, what qualifies you to decide Brother Reid's faithfulness or lack thereof? What specific behaviour are you referring to? Or are you one of those Mormons who is convinced that the Republican Party is the only true party on the earth? (A claim which I and many other more-left-wing Mormons would dispute vociferously.) Seriously ... name specific behaviours that you think make Br. Reid an unfaithful Saint?

    Sept. 22, 2012 10:09 p.m.

    Hay: Dixie Dan, If Harry Reid was a faithful member of the LDS church, he wouldn't behave the way he does.

  • lloydlewisjr Montrose, CO
    Sept. 22, 2012 8:19 p.m.

    To Economist: The Church said this individual was not being disciplined for anti -Romney writings. That was the denial subject.
    shaedow: it's an LDS publication.
    Funny how they can leave the church, but they can't leave the church alone.
    If one is going to stir the sewage and put a spin on everything for their own satisfaction, perhaps it is better to have them released from membership and baptismal covenants. If you don't believe it, leave it, but leave it alone because obviously if one is not doctrinally sound, they have no business spouting off about it.
    Just my take on it.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Sept. 22, 2012 6:13 p.m.


    That's is NOT the purpose of Church discipline at all. They are not at any time "invited to leave their official status" as members. That would be 100% counter to the mission of Jesus Christ. Church discipline is a complicated process, very rarely discussed in the open (thus the reason why many including yourself misspeak as to its purpose), that is geared completely towards repentance. The Church does not excommunicate people and effectively say, "good luck with whatever." Excommunication is a step towards full repentance, necessary in only the most severe cases. It is the intention of those administering the discipline that the individual will continue to work with Church leaders to return to full fellowship.

  • Dixie Dan Saint George, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 6:04 p.m.

    I wonder how many faithful LDS members have been disciplined for their comments on Harry Reid, who is a faithful member of this church?

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 4:50 p.m.


    "The Mormon church, like every church, has every right to make and enforce whatever rules they want. And members are free to take it or leave it. But it's difficult to see much if any association with Jesus of Nazareth in any of it."

    Perhaps you find it difficult to associate Jesus with the Holy bible also?

    Mathew 21:11-13

    "And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

    And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

    And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Sept. 22, 2012 4:47 p.m.

    Anything and everything in one way or another is political within the church organization. Name one thing that is not.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    The Church got dragged into another story during the political "silly season." Even though it is not about Romney, certain media outlets are hyping it as such.
    In the end it is an issue between the Church and a member. There is no political connection here.

  • Sandee Spencer Longwood, FL
    Sept. 22, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    There is a big difference between being disciplined by the church for being anti-Mitt Romney or for being discplined for speaking publicly and clearly against the church itself.

    It always puzzles me why folks that are hostile to the church and speak openly and publicly against the church are so dismayed if the church desires to release them from their membership and baptismal covenants. All are welcome to attend worship services and activities. But those that choose to work, speak and write against the church are invited to leave their official status as believing, practicing members.

  • shaedow Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    I found the blog on the Tribune. He is the managing editor of Mormonthink which you can find by adding the standard COMmercial ending to the above. ;) Shae

  • shaedow Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    I notice that the paper chooses to offer a very one-sided story here, favoring the Mormon faith. This can be seen by noticing there is no name given for the blog, but FAIR is prominently featured along with its address. Seems getting our own information, or understanding both sides is not encouraged here...

  • Economist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 6:35 a.m.

    OKay, this makes no sense. The title of the article is, "LDS Church says disciplinary claim is patnently false", but yet the article discusses the fact that there is a pending disciplinary hearing on the 30th of Sept and that excommunication is just one of the many options afforded to the council.

    So which is it?!? Either this guy is going to be disciplined or not? The double speak in this one is strong Obi-Won

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 22, 2012 2:57 a.m.

    The Mormon church, like every church, has every right to make and enforce whatever rules they want. And members are free to take it or leave it. But it's difficult to see much if any association with Jesus of Nazareth in any of it.