What do you do with a problem like Gina?

[Brent]

Sound of Music fans...go ahead sing it.

If memory serves joining another church (or baptism by that church) is one of the express actions requiring excommunication. So if you're in the Church Office Building what do you do with "No Action" and Gina? Do you somehow override the Stake level decision? Do you summon her or her SP to SLC for a sound beating? Release the Stake Presidency? Cry softly in your beer? Take a stiff shot of "Jolt" cola?

Where do you go from here?

[Just This Guy]

So the question is can you get double jeopardy in a church court? Or could this be the SP's way of punting the ball down the court to pickup again at a later date?

[wtfluff]

For what it's worth: I'm reading that this was "just" a Bishopric tribunal.

Apparently Gina could have requested a full Steak President/High Council tribunal, but she opted for the Bishopric. (She is a woman after all. Not important enough for a SP...)


Which means: Maybe SLC will just tell her Steak President to take care of the job that the Bishopric wouldn't do.

[Brent]

Had not internalized the Bishop not SP. So...does SP hqve any recourse other than replacing the bishop?

[wtfluff]

Had not internalized the Bishop not SP. So...does SP hqve any recourse other than replacing the bishop?

Don't know. From what I'm reading online, Gina was not going to attend her tribunal, but her Bishop and St(e)ake President "talked her into it" and in the report I quickly browsed she said it was a wonderful experience. It's likely that both her Bishop and St(e)ake President were present at the tribunal, but not the High(Dry) Council. If that's the case, both the BP and SP are in agreement, and hopefully going against higher orders.

[Reuben]

Sound of Music fans...go ahead sing it.

If memory serves joining another church (or baptism by that church) is one of the express actions requiring excommunication. So if you're in the Church Office Building what do you do with "No Action" and Gina? Do you somehow override the Stake level decision? Do you summon her or her SP to SLC for a sound beating? Release the Stake Presidency? Cry softly in your beer? Take a stiff shot of "Jolt" cola?

Where do you go from here?

This assumes the DC was done on orders from the COB. While I hope this is true and that they're tossing and turning in their coffins, I'm not aware of any evidence of it.

There never is - just denials that the outcomes are predetermined, which conspicuously leave room for all kinds of other orchestration and interference.

[moksha]

I think Gina's absolution on the alleged apostasy charge is wonderful.

This could make for a stirring Christmas movie on KSL or KBYU. It could be called "The New Zealand Miracle".

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/12 ... m-its-best

[Mormorrisey]

I was quite shocked, surprised and elated that this was the outcome for Gina on a general level - however, as an avid reader of her blog, the NZ church does seem rather different, as it is on the periphery. She's been extremely outspoken to a Bill Reel level of criticism at points in her faith journey, and her local leaders have often given her a pass. I suspect her last post in October when she talked about spiritual abuse was the catalyst for the council more than her baptism into another church, but it was heartening that some consensus was reached, rather than discipline. The exact opposite of the Reel council. Leadership roulette at its finest! But I'm happy for her, because she's happy about it. Isn't that all that matters?

In that light, I was rather shocked by some of the vehemence of the comments on both reddit and Gina's own Facebook page, that this outcome was nothing to celebrate, as it was still spiritual abuse. Still others accused her of toadying up to the patriarchy, which is simply nonsense if you've read any of her stuff. Gina is a deeply spiritual individual, and I can respect how she feels about her own personal experiences - if she says it was spiritual, that's her ownership of her own spiritual life. Good on her, and if she can put up with remaining a member of the church while having some freedom to be critical, well, for the love of God isn't that some of us would want if given half a chance?

Perhaps I'm just oversensitive to this as I went through a similar experience, when my local leader was ready to bring the hammer down and then also changed his mind - isn't love, acceptance and a willingness to negotiate and compromise with people something that Jesus would actually do? And what a church that has his name in it should be doing with it's own members instead of constantly berating them and/or insisting on boundary maintenance? It simply IS something to celebrate when it happens, because it doesn't happen often enough.

[Raylan Givens]

I would think the Islanders would be laid back. Probably don't care what SLC thinks, they will do it their way. Especially if they are the we are our own people.

I remember my last BP when I lived in the Old Pueblo. He was a NOM and would do his own thing. The SP was an old cattleman, ain't nobody telling him what to do. Besides, we we're almost in Mexico, don't most people go there to get away from things?

[blazerb]

Sound of Music fans...go ahead sing it.

If memory serves joining another church (or baptism by that church) is one of the express actions requiring excommunication. So if you're in the Church Office Building what do you do with "No Action" and Gina? Do you somehow override the Stake level decision? Do you summon her or her SP to SLC for a sound beating? Release the Stake Presidency? Cry softly in your beer? Take a stiff shot of "Jolt" cola?

Where do you go from here?

If I remember correctly, the handbook only requires that a court of love be held. It does not require a specific action. I'm happy for Gina.

[græy]

If I remember correctly, the handbook only requires that a court of love be held. It does not require a specific action. I'm happy for Gina.

From Handbook 1 - 6.7.3:

Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, “but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people”

So formally joining another church does constitute apostasy, and priesthood leaders "must take disciplinary action against apostates." Interpret that how you will. Gina's bishop determined that no action was sufficient action in her case.

[alas]

If I remember correctly, the handbook only requires that a court of love be held. It does not require a specific action. I'm happy for Gina.

From Handbook 1 - 6.7.3:

Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, “but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people”

So formally joining another church does constitute apostasy, and priesthood leaders "must take disciplinary action against apostates." Interpret that how you will. Gina's bishop determined that no action was sufficient action in her case.

I think that in Gina’s mind, being baptized by the other church was not an act of officially joining that church, but just being baptized as Christian. Most other Christian churches do not see baptism as stating that you belong to them for life, only that you are repenting of sins and dedicating your life to Christ. It s a declaration that you are a follower of Christ, not a follower of THAT denomination. Then you are free to find whatever denomination of Christianty works for you without being baptized again. It was a Christian baptism, not a baptism that declares her membership. Mormons don’t seem to get that other Christian churches are Christian first, and Episcopalian, Baptist, Lutheran, Whatever second, because they are Mormon first and if they get around to it, they claim Christianity.

If the act of being baptized was something I felt God required, then I would feel a need to be baptized Christian. My Mormon baptism was not something I choose or really understood. It was an act that made me Mormon, but was really not about dedicating my life to Christ. I don’t think 8 year old children are capable of signing any kind of contract, but Mormonism takes advantage of the fact that children don’t understand what they are signing up for, and then holds them to it as if it was a contract of signing away their life to Rumplestiltskin. The fact that I was actually forced into something that I didn’t really feel good about, just because my grandmother had a hissy fit about getting it done before I turned old enough to fully comprehend just makes it all worse. I think people need to fully understand and want this ceremony, or it is meaningless and we may as well not do it. So, I was never actually baptized. I WAS dunked in some water, but I was not babtized. Mormons are against infant baptism, but they think a few more years makes such a huge difference. Gee, how many 8 year olds still believe in Santa, let alone how many can explain to their parents that they don’t feel good about this, and yet this is supposed to be a free will informed choice. Male bovine droppings.

Some couples want to renew their wedding vows because they feel the Mormon wedding vows, well, don’t exist and especially don’t say anything about love and commitment. Well, I see the same need for a real Christian baptism that is my choice not just something done to me by my elders. (Elders in the normal sense that they are older than me)

Among other Christian churches, there are other things you do to officially join their congregation, not baptism. You all are still seeing this through a Mormon viewpoint. Maybe this bishop could see it from a nonMormon viewpoint.

[moksha]

Perhaps being a Mormon/Anglican could be like a dual Albanian/Canadian citizenship.

[sunstoned]

I think geography had as much to do with this decision as anything else. If Gina lived in St. George, this whole thing could have ended much differently.

[1smartdodog]

Perhaps it will set an example and lead to more tolerance.

I must say when listening to Gina’s podcast I hear the criticism, but it seems so much more soothing than liar liar pants on fire.

If some one were to come to me and tell me I am unattractive it is one thing. To punch me in the nose and tell me I am ugly May incline me to punch back.

It is not always what you say but how you say it. I don’t agree but I get why Bill was kicked out. I can not fathom any real good excuses for doing the same to Gina