A few months ago, I received an advance copy of a new book by Philip Lindholm called Latter-day Dissent: At the Crossroads of Intellectual Inquiry and Ecclesiastical Authority. The book was released on Friday by Greg Kofford Books. Lindholm interviews 5 of the “September Six”, as well as 3 others.
The September Six refer to a group of 6 intellectuals that were disciplined by the church in 1993.
- Lynne Whitesides*
- Paul Toscano
- Maxine Hanks
- Lavina Anderson
- Michael Quinn
- Avraham Gileadi**
*Five of the six were excommunicated with Lynne Whitesides being the exception–she was disfellowshipped.
**Of the six disciplined, only Avraham Gileadi was rebaptized. Lindholm notes in the Introduction,
A conservative biblical scholar, Gileadi consistently refused to speak to the press following his excommunication, and he remains the only member of the September Six to be rebaptized and admitted back into the fold. In keeping with this precedent, Gileadi did not respond to my interview request for this volume.
Lindholm also interviews 3 others who have been disciplined by the church since 1991:
- Margaret Toscano,
- her sister Janice Merrill Allred, and
- Thomas Murphy.
For balance, Lindholm interviews Donald Jessee, former employee of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department.
I really liked the book. My only mild criticism was the fact that it is apparent these interviews occurred several years ago, but the book is just coming out now. For example, the author asked every guest if they believed Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet, rather than Thomas S. Monson. I asked the publisher why some of the material seemed dated, and he said it took quite some time to get permission from all of the people. The last interview took place in 2004.
The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications themselves) was learning about the Strengthening the Church Committee (SCMC). I had never heard of it before. In describing it, Lynne Whitesides said on page 6,
There is a Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.
Footnote 4 on page 181 further clarifies this.
According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the Strengthening Church Members Committee is a “clipping service” that “pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems. That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.” Quoted in “News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,” Sunstone 92 (November 1993): 69. The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the Strengthening Church Members Committee when it stated, “This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.” Quoted in “News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,” Sunstone 88 (August 1992): 63. Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.
I really thought Whitesides “Gestapo-like” comment was a wild exaggeration, but Donald Jessee, former employee of the church PR department confirmed that files are kept on certain members and discipline up to excommunication does occur. According to Wikipedia,
The committee was formed during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson,[1] soon after Benson became president in 1985.[2]
The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry.[3] The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). England came to regret his impulsive comments and apologized to all parties individually.[4]
In response to this public discourse, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee.[5] LeFevre said that the committee “receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that ‘conceivably could do harm to the church'”, then the committee will “pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” According to LeFevre, however, “the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.” Discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders.”[6]
After reading all this, I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs. I keep hearing in different settings that the church is much more open now, but I’m not so sure. For example, at a recent conference at BYU, professor Ronald Esplin said this is one of the best environments to study church history since the “Camelot” era of the 1970s.
However, discipline for intellectuals still seems to occur. The Wikipedia article mentions that in 2004, the committee put together a dossier on Grant Palmer, author of Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. (Palmer was disfellowshipped.) In the introduction, Lindholm notes on page xii, that excommunications of academics has continued beyond the notorious 1993 September Six (formatting changed)
- In 1994, Professor David Wright of Brandeis University and editor Brent Metcalf were excommunicated for their scripture studies in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology
- In 1995, author Janice Allred was excommunicated for her writings about Mother in Heaven.
- In 2000, Professor Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for her theological reflections, and
- in 2002, Professor Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for his anthropological work on Mormonism.
- In addition, many other unnamed intellectuals were called into disciplinary interviews that did not result in excommunication.
I know Simon Southerton resigned under pressure from the church following his publication of information on DNA and the Book of Mormon. A few weeks ago, I learned that John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and StayLDS was summoned to a meeting with his Stake President. He said the meeting went well, and solicited comments to his website. From my point of view, it bears a lot of parallels with Lynne Whitesides experience in 1993. I really wonder how things will turn out for John, as it appears that something odd is happening in a few stakes up near Cache Valley.
Let me end with a quick summary of things the church apparently doesn’t like us discussing:
- Lynne Whitesides was disfellowshipped for “why I thought it was all right to pray to a female diety.”
- Paul Toscano was excommunicated for defending his wife Margaret. Basically Margaret was the real target. To save her, Paul blasted church leaders and was excommunicated for insubordination. (I’ll discuss Margaret in a bit.)
- Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for her book Women and Authority.
- Lavina Fielding Anderson was excommunicated for documenting ecclesiastical abuse in the Church.
- Michael Quinn was excommunicated for writing a chapter in Hanks book, Women and Authority, and for a Sunstone presentation in 1992 called “150 Years of Truth and Consequences in Mormon History.”
- Janice Merrill Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.
- Margaret Merrill Toscano was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother. (Note Janice and Margaret are sisters.)
- Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.” Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon. Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.[3]“
If you’re interested in more information, I have a longer version of this post. What do you think of the state of intellectualism in the church?
the man speaking out most vociferously against communist tactics and policies, employed communist tactics and policies against his own people….I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you. That’s probably more shocking than learning that Ayn Rand secretly used Social Security.
My offhand reaction is that perhaps you ought to reconsider characterizing your only criticism as “mild” …
Because it seems awfully germane that “the last interview took place in 2004” …
I mean, does the same “Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time” … really matter at all — now — in 2011?
Just riffing on the book’s title and your review, it seems like what’s being described is more of a “historical juncture” than anything like a “crossroads” for anyone reading today …
Much has happened since 2004. There’s no longer any need to wait around for a hardcover to get published before answering the question of “how much the apostles monitor blogs” … If you’re a blogger, pay attention to your stats and more than likely you’ll see the monitoring in realtime.
And so what?
Here’s the real story: it doesn’t matter. It’s wasted energy on the part of the monitors … even more wasted than spending time imagining that the September Six matter to the current generation that’s finding its own reasons for moving on.
Lavina Fielding Anderson’s story is interesting because she is personally kind and mild, yet her “documentation” is one-sided, acknowledged as so, and often inaccurate, which she also acknowledges.
What do you do when you have access to only one side of the story, you know your sources are biased, but you want to publish in an area?
Chino, those were excellent points. I’ll have to think on them more.
I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs.
I doubt the apostles themselves spend much (any?) time on the Bloggernacle, but if they don’t have some Church employee monitoring it, they are derelict in their duty. Imagine all of the good ideas they otherwise would never hear about.
Thanks, Stephen. From one blogger to another, tipping me off about a “clipping service” that might be hot on my trail … scares me about as much as learning that the local macramé mafia has got my number.
Seems like old news in many respects. Without reading the book myself, it’s hard to determined how impartial it is. Having one old guy from the Church’s PR department doesn’t sound very balanced.
The other thing is that the majority of the so-called ‘September Six” are martyrs for their cause and they have enjoyed their celebrity in those circles. One only had to watch Margret Toscano’s melodramatic performance on the “The Mormons” and listen to the Mormon Stories podcasts to get that. There is only one side to their story–Theirs.
Another critical point, they were disciplined for continual public teaching of their views after they were asked to stop. Not for holding any particular views.
Last point, Intellectualism is in the eye of the beholder, not those that wish themselves so.
“Another critical point, they were disciplined for continual public teaching of their views after they were asked to stop. Not for holding any particular views.”
I’m curious as to how “teaching” differs from “expression” in this day and age?
Doesn’t the difference boil down to insider understandings that have a whole lot to do with simple physical proximity to geographical centers of ecclesiastical power?
“I’m curious as to how “teaching” differs from “expression” in this day and age?” It all boils down to the Loyalty Test. If asked, you either pass it or you don’t. Nobody will make bones about teaching vs. expression – they will just ask if you would stop if asked by church leadership. If you profess loyalty to the entity, the angel of death passes by your door. If not, well, you were warned. For good or bad, it’s the same test JS administered in his day. If you didn’t pass it then, you might end up with a dishonorable mention in the D&C (followed 150 years later by some sort of absolution in a BCC post).
Sorry to be such a dope, but I felt like I was understanding everything in that comment until the “absolution in a BCC post” bit … What’s that all about?
I would love to get boyd k packer, loren dunn, or the stake presidents side of the story. does anyone think we ever will?
“I would love to get boyd k packer, loren dunn, or the stake presidents side of the story. does anyone think we ever will?”
Not likely. Elder Dunn is no longer with us. And this is not something the Church discusses in the open. perhaps in a biography ala Kimball/McKay.
Chino: She’s probably referring to posts like this, wherein intrepid Internet Mormons dare to question a 170-year-old faith-affirming smear campaign.
jeff, with all due respect, it is one sided because one side has chosen not to discuss their side. it makes it appear that the church has something to hide.
donald jessee was not a good spokesman for the church, imo. (he did state clearly that he was speaking for himself and not the church.) it seems like the church has more to lose than to gain by speaking, and that is why they have chosen to remain silent. therefore, charges that this is one-sided are a bit weak, imo. yes it is one-sided, but would the church be persuasive if they told their side? judging from donald jessee, I think not. but I would love to hear packer’s side anyway. it would certainly add a dimension to the story that is greatly lacking.
Thanks, Carson N. I think I understand better now and agree that it’d be a better world for all of us if folks like John Hamer were allowed to join the LDS correlation committee.
I find the stories and claims of the first 4 members on your list of the September 6 and M Toscano to be very onesided. I essentially do not trust their accounts of what happened. We will never know what really went down since the SP’s are not allowed to talk about it. I lean in favor of the SP’s based on the post excommunication behavior of the others. I have sympathy for Quinn and believe that Avraham Gileadi handled things well
MH,
I like the idea of a committee and I’m glad most of the above were kicked out.
The problem with the sin of Apostasy is that it is effectively a poor attitude; thus, it is hard for the apostate to see themselves as a sinner and equally as hard to repent. With almost any other sin, attitude can determine the outcome. For example, a member that is caught in the snares of Pornography or legal drug addiction the discipline will depend on their attitude. If the attitude is one of defiance — then the priesthood leader will respond in kind – probably with some type of church action. On the other hand, if they are truly penitent – they are truly sorry and really want to change, the Bishop will be a champion of change. They will work with them on counseling, courses and any other method to help them change. They may have some informal form of discipline, but it will typically not go to a disciplinary council. The main difference is attitude; and, almost the whole of apostasy is a poor attitude.
We all have choices to make each day. We can take our hearts and minds into many places. The more time we spend in our selected destination the more we become like that place.
From James Allen’s book: As a Man Thinketh
Mind is the Master power that moulds and makes,
And Man is Mind, and evermore he takes
The tool of Thought, and, shaping what he wills,
Brings forth a thousand joys, a thousand ills: —
He thinks in secret, and it comes to pass:
Environment is but his looking-glass.
In my opinion, the church should protect itself from members who attack from the inside. This is regulating the affairs of the church. All organizations do this.
The Lord taught Alma the older what to do with those who refuse to follow the Lord’s way. See Mosiah 26.
Those church members who are gifted with intellect have a choice to consecrate their gift to God or not. Should they chose to use their gift to frustrate the Lord’s work then they will suffer a thousand ills.
Those like the Sept 6 seem to spend their intellectual gifts in causes that can be likened to dumpster diving.
Followers of Christ need to tested in many ways. This includes the most difficult of test, that of grappling with paradoxes.
Holy Crap! I also had a fair amount of skepticism toward the rumors of a gestapo-like committee. I shouldn’t be so surprised, but I am. I’d really like to know the status of it now. It does seem as if it’s getting a bit better though.
Also, Re Chino #2, I guess I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Why doesn’t it matter? Why wouldn’t the SS matter to the current generation? Why should we not care whether or not the monitors can/are identifying us? It’s clear that people are STILL being called into SPs offices for various sundry accusations of apostasy. Unless we’re willing/ready to part with the church shouldn’t we be cautious and wary of what we say/do? I’m not saying this is a good thing, or that’s how it should be, but the practical matter is that it does, in fact, matter. Maybe I’m not getting your gist.
Will,
You communist
MH,
“jeff, with all due respect, it is one sided because one side has chosen not to discuss their side. it makes it appear that the church has something to hide.”
When has the Church ever told “their” side of a disciplinary action?
And the “other” side had much to gain by being the victim because they knew the Church would never publically defend itself. So what reason did they ahve to be balanced in their approach?
You know, this is not me wanting to sound like a big meanie, but at first glance, bbell’s comment looks to be incoherent. I mean, if one side isn’t allowed to speak, it’s kind of a given that the final report is gonna wind up reading just a tad bit one-sided.
Then again, after a second look at bbell’s comment, maybe there’s an opposite one-sided aspect that hasn’t been fully appreciated here: all the accused are named, while the accusers continue to enjoy the anonymity that “SP” affords.
So here’s my suggestion: just to keep things fair and two-sided going forward, if the LDS church wants to excommunicate me or any of my friends, the folks who render that judgment aren’t gonna be referred to as Bishop or Stake President or whatever … you’re gonna be named just like Lynne and Paul and Maxine and Lavina and Michael and Avraham got named in this post.
Fair?
Chino,
“all the accused are named, while the accusers continue to enjoy the anonymity that “SP” affords.’
Actually, the named “victims” all self-identified. And, at the time, it was pretty well known who all the players on both sides were. You can look that up…..
while I agree that the church should defend itself from ‘attacks’ in or outside the church, just what exactly were these people (s6) attacking? they were advocating god the mother and female priesthood for the most part. that is not an attack, but rather a theological disagreement. the church can and did discuss these issues in general conference and other venues. but did it need to excommunicate them? I don’t think so.
orson pratt and brigham young had public fueds over doctrine and orson didn’t get exed. what’s the difference with the s6?
if a new revelation about god the mother comes in the future, then toscano and whitesides may become mormon galileos, and the church may need to backtrack, like it has with john d lee of mmm infamy. lee has had temple blessings restored, which seems to indicate he was a scapegoat in that unfortunate event.
jeff, the church did talk about the danzigs recently. they left the mormon symphony and the church following a letter to the editor about gay rights.
MH,
“just what exactly were these people (s6) attacking? they were advocating god the mother and female priesthood for the most part. that is not an attack, but rather a theological disagreement.’
Not sure you are remembering this correctly. The problem may have been what they were teaching, but it was also that they were publically advocating their doctrine after repeatedly being told not to. They still had the right to do that, but if the Church leadership decides that is apostacy, then a DC is called, which it was.
Also, they did not qualify to be in the same position as Orson Pratt and Brigham Young to be preaching to the whole Church.
They also have the opportunity to retuirn to the Church if they choose like Avraham Giladi did.
Also, I suspect the Church might handle it differently today.
they did not qualify to be in the same position as Orson Pratt and Brigham Young to be preaching to the whole Church.
Exactly. The S6 weren’t teaching in sacrament meeting, Sunday School, or RS/PH meeting; they were in academic circles (aka Sunstone or up at the U.) Brigham and Orson were speaking in GC. The S6 all said they were expressing their own opinions and did not in any way represent the official teachings of the church. So what’s the problem? Were they really attacking the church, or were they stating disagreement with certain aspects of theology?
Hey Jeff,
You say:
“Actually, the named ‘victims’ all self-identified. And, at the time, it was pretty well known who all the players on both sides were. You can look that up…”
Yeah, I could. But I’m not gonna bother. Because you already “suspect the Church might handle it differently today.”
And I agree they would. And I think we both know why.
“they were in academic circles (aka Sunstone or up at the U.)”
Apparently, they were teaching in public and someone complained. I don’t think it mattered that is was “academic….”
so when someone in the church complains that you have a beard, then you should shave? do we cater to the complainers or do we tell them to mind their own business?
All that mattered, apparently, is Snitches Über Alles.
“so when someone in the church complains that you have a beard, then you should shave?”
Really?
jeff, I am hoping you see my point. if we are hauled in to a church court for someone complaining, then we are much more gestapo like than anyone here wants to admit. I don’t view this strengthening the church committee as inocuous at all. it smacks of unrighteous dominion in the worst possible way.
MH,
“jeff, I am hoping you see my point.”
I think you are way overreaching in your comparison.
It doesn’t happen that way. DCs don’t just happen because someone complains. They tend to be drawn out affairs that susally take months from the first meeting with the Bishop or Stake President.
yes, it probably was an over reach, but the general point still stands. many wards have people complain if a teacher uses anything outside the manual. it can be maddening. some of these people get leadership positions, and feel it is their personal mission to shield members from all other points of view.
what ever happened to ‘teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves?’ if lynn thought it is ok to pray to mother in heaven, then give a gc talk denouncing the idea. does lynn need to be exed, or merely corrected? I vote the latter. the former strikes me of unrighteous dominion and isn’t using persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, or love unfeigned.
whether right or wrong, all of the accused felt that they weren’t treated well, and nobody really tried to persuade them how they were wrong.
Gileadi was always the “odd man out” of the September Six. Although it is impossible to lump the others together as to the cause of their church discipline, he always seemed separate. He was not – to my knowledge – a Sunstone participator (I had attended sessions by all of the others prior to 1993). He is an outstanding Isaiah scholar, trained well beyond any in the Church today that I know of in his field, and was fully backed by Nibley (which I would have thought would protect anyone in this life or the next). His stance on the future “Davidic servant” appears to have been his downfall, although his arguments seem pretty sound to this amateur.
MH,
“if Lynn thought it is OK to pray to mother in heaven, then give a GC talk denouncing the idea. does Lynn need to be exed, or merely corrected?
I think it was handled as a local issue not a Church-wide issue. So a talk in GC would not have been appropriate. And I think correction was tried.
The former strikes me of unrighteous dominion and isn’t using persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, or love unfeigned.
I think you’d find the local Church Leader felt they practiced that and it was not well received.
You apparently came to a pretty definite conclusion about the whole situation based on what you read in that book.
As one who has been under investigation by church authorities for quite some time now, what I have noticed, at least in my particular case, is that the leadership no longer uses the law of witnesses. Instead, they rely upon a confession by the accused to give them jurisdiction.
A strategy that has worked for me, keeping me excommunication-free, is to say nothing when questioned. My standard response to all inquiries about suspected wrongdoing is: “If I am guilty of iniquity, bring forth two or three witnesses and properly accuse me according to the law of witnesses found in the scriptures. Until you do that, I will not answer any of your questions.” If a leader still persists in asking questions, which inevitably he will, just say, “no comment” or “I have nothing to say,” etc.
This effectively neutralizes everything, because, as I have found out and stated above, the leadership relies upon your own admittance that you did something they consider to be wrong (even if you don’t think it is.) They need you to admit that you did it. If you don’t even admit that you did something (because you say nothing), then they must bring forth two or three eyewitnesses that saw you do something. Nothing can proceed without either one of these things.
I say let the leadership perform their callings of keeping the church justified by weeding out the unrepentant, but let them do it according to the scriptural law, using the law of witnesses. The only way this can happen is if the LDS shut their mouths and say nothing when.
For more info on this principle, see The law governing of confession.
Lol. I used the word admittance, which my dictionary says is now obsolete. Just read the word as admission.
ldsa, what a novel approach!
jeff, I will quote from the book when I get home to give you a flavor of how the accused tell the story.
I’m looking forward to seeing. I’m sure the church will have been unfair to them. But that is just a guess.
I have a rehearsal tonight so I might not see it until tomorrow.
mh–
When I read your comments, I realize the road you’ve traveled is familiar to me.
I decided a long time ago to let the Lord deal with leadership the way He sees fit. I will not counsel Him. However, I will ask Him to keep me out of difficulty with those He calls to preside over me.
I pray for the leaders at all levels in the church. Some of them are in dire need of our prayers. I just learned that a former bishop I know, a stand up guy–been bishop twice–was excommunicated recently. I don’t know the reason,though I’m certain it didn’t have anything to do with the subject of this post.
We all struggle with pride, some more than others. Pride is the opposite of humility. In my opinion, the sept 6, and all others that I am familiar with who have allowed themselves to be excommunicated for like reasons lack humility.
Those who are well studied in the history and doctrine of the church need to make sure humility is practiced. Humility will see them through the paradoxes. For example, if someone wants to pray to their mother in heaven, why do they have to announce it, teach it, and go toe to toe with the Lord’s servants over it? It makes no sense to do so if they want to be close to their Heavenly Father. Those who lack humility don’t really want to know the Lord.
I hope all that read my words will practice humility. An indicator of humility is our willingness to go the Lord admitting our nothingness, pleading for forgiveness of our sins, asking for the tender mercies of the Lord to be extended.
I know by experience this approach will yield blessings.
It’s hard to give credibility to someone who uses the phrase “a gestapo-like group” to describe the strengthening members committee. I feel more inclined to feel sympathy for the members of the disciplinary council who have been demonized by these people.
Except, is it not also possible that practicing integrity of oneself includes standing up for something you believe and not giving in when someone in a position of authority demands that you submit to his request? Humility is fine and dandy, but I hate how our church interprets humility to mean agreeing with and always submitting to authority.
There is nothing better than someone standing up for what s/he believes, even and especially when confronted and challenged by authority. Leadership could do better by these people by having a modicum of humility themselves… instead of thinking that the position of authority means that everyone must agree with your point of view or else be on the path to apostasy.
Given the poor response most of the GA’s had to many aspects of Mormon Doctrine, Elder McConkie’s book might have made for a September 7th had it been published in the 90’s.
E,
It’s hard to give credibility to someone who uses the phrase “a gestapo-like group” to describe the strengthening members committee. I feel more inclined to feel sympathy for the members of the disciplinary council who have been demonized by these people.
When I first read your comment, I thought you meant the SCMC committee was local. Perhaps that isn’t what you were saying, but let me be clear. James E Faust of the First Presidency and Russell M Nelson of the Q12 were on the committee in 2004. As for feeling “inclined to feel sympathy for the members of the disciplinary council”, most of the S6 agree with you and have sympathy for their local leaders. The next quote from the book is for you and Jeff.
Jeff,
I think it was handled as a local issue not a Church-wide issue. … And I think correction was tried.
Lynn disagrees with your characterization. Let me quote from the book (I’m going to cut down several quotes for brevity.) Her bishop called her in and said,
Now, here is the sympathy part.
“Except, is it not also possible that practicing integrity of oneself includes standing up for something you believe and not giving in when someone in a position of authority demands that you submit to his request?”
This comment makes an important point.
The idea of humility in conflict with integrity may be the central issue, the primary concern for some of those who chose to go toe to toe with church leaders that resulted in their excommunication.
When principles come into conflict the higher principle should prevail. For example, thou shalt not kill vs protecting your family. What’s the higher principle?
Those who will not conform chose integrity, thinking that the principle they cleave to is higher than the covenants they’ve made. For example, those take up the cause of feminism take delight in pitting early prophets against current prophets. If one believes Joseph Smith was a prophet and the current leader is also a prophet, why would they prefer Joseph Smith? I think the answer has more to do with their political than their spiritual inclination.
They have agency and when a choice is made then so be it. In some cases this results in excommunication. The door to return is open to them if they later choose to follow the prophet.
Personally, I think it take great integrity to take the path of humility and choose to covenants over intellect when a choice is required.
I have seen unnamed men and women work through the conflict of humility vs integrity. Those who have chosen the principle of covenant over other interest have also found God in deeper measure.
We don’t hear about them but they, in my estimation, are heroic. For every Grant Palmer or Paul Toscano there are many others whose example is lost to public view.
If we believe in Mormonism then we know that God will try us in complex ways, but also promises to deliver us if we will seek Him diligently.
Humility is usually a pretty good course. Sometimes you think you’re being Abinadi and you turn out to be Korihor, and sometimes it turns out to be the other way around, and it’s King Noah who’s been deceived.
I said, “if Lynn thought it is OK to pray to mother in heaven, then give a GC talk denouncing the idea. does Lynn need to be exed, or merely corrected?
Jeff said, I think it was handled as a local issue not a Church-wide issue. So a talk in GC would not have been appropriate.
There is an interesting exchange between Paul Toscano and Philip.
Maxine Hanks also discussed why she felt church discipline was organized higher than local levels. (formatting changed)
Jared, regarding humility, I think you make some really good points. We all know that Jesus was a perfect example of humility. But when he went up against the Pharisees, does this sound humble? Is this how we should act in the face of unrighteous dominion?
* Matthew 12:34 – “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
* Matt 23:27 – “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”
I don’t think any of the S6 used this kind of language in face to face meetings (well, except for Paul Toscano….that guy came across as a real jerk.)
Finally, it appears to me that you are saying that these people were excommunicated not for false teachings, but rather for pride. Is this true?
If “it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” (D&C 121:36-39), doesn’t this apply to those who exed the S6 as well? I see them as trying “to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”
I don’t see them following the counsel to administer the priesthood
Only Gileadi has returned. Do you think the others might “esteem thee to be [their] enemy”?
I think it would be wise to weight the damages who was hurt by their actions and by how much? If the church believes it’s good name was damaged through no fault of it’s own I think it’s important to remember that it has grown immensely since Joseph and is no longer in neonatal ICU but a successful global institution it should be able to stand up to criticism from it’s members by now without retaliation.
Given what Alma states about those who have had the mysteries of heaven revealed to them?
Obviously, the sign of true revelation is keeping it to yourself.
I had not thought of the verses in Alma in that way until just now.
Some have questioned the one-sided nature of the portrayal of events. This is the way of all break-ups. The breaker-upper, the one who breaks it off, is the one who has the upper hand. That person is bound by etiquette to be silent about the break-up. The breakee, OTOH, as the loser in the relationship, the one cast aside, has no such obligation.
hawkgrrrl,
completely off topic, but did you intend for your Mormon in the White House post to not have any comments?
Dan – not at all – I will fix that! Thanks!
Re Jared-
I really like your comments and you bring up great points. For me, however, there’s a real problem. I think humility within Mormonism implicitly implies a certain amount of subjection to authority. You mention we should choose the higher principle, but when the “higher principle” is clouded by the rules the authorities dictate then the “higher principle” will always be to subject to that authority. In other words, if we use your reasoning, the authorities of the church define what the higher principle is because they control the covenants, the doctrine, the principles, etc. They always win. Mormonism would never tolerate another Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young. We would excommunicate him!
As MH pointed out, I just don’t see the principle you’re advertising in the scriptures. Humility does not mean subjecting to authority, or keeping covenants, or obedience, etc. My own definition of humility is one’s willingness to accept what is true. Clearly that’s difficult as we all have different definitions of what is true, but I can’t help but feel that many in the S6 felt they were humble by that measure and I applaud their courage. They were simply unwilling to submit to authority – something they had in common with Jesus, Joseph Smith, Galileo, Martin Luther, etc. etc.
Humility is in the eye of the beholder. It was an extremely humbling experience to leave the church after 40 years. The issues on the shelf kept mounting through the years and ultimately led my spirit to say, “Enough”. I felt very humbled to need to turn my back on everything I believed was true yet after so many years became clear to me is not. As ward members write letters to me letting me know how wrong I am or come to my office to set me straight (both of which have happened multiple times), I do not try to affect their feelings about the church the same way they tell me what they “know” to be true. In this regard, I leave them alone, I wish they would leave me alone. Sorry, I fail to see the humility in saying God talks to you and not to me (or the other 99.9% of humanity that is not active LDS).
@51
Stephen: Alma’s not talking of “mysteries” in the sense you suggest, but rather of ordinances.
Alma had just revealed something profound about himself. It is subtle, but nonetheless true. In meekness he has proffered an invitation. He has not set himself up to be admired. He does not consider himself better. He has delivered the invitation to those to whom he is ministering, just as you would expect someone possessing this great, holy calling to do.
All the more remarkable is that he extends this invitation to an unredeemed, critical, reproachful audience of unconverted. He does not shield them from these great mysteries.
He does not flinch or hold back because it would be to “cast pearls before swine.” He knows where the line is drawn, for in the preceding chapter they have explained to an audience that there are mysteries withheld from the public. (Alma 12: 9-11.) There are things kept from public knowledge and obtained only by heed and diligence. The line involves sacred ordinances, NOT higher knowledge. You give that and you make converts. You withhold it and you blend into the morass of churches who teach merely a form of godliness without any power to save. (JS-H 1: 19.)
#49 MH
I don’t think church leaders and the Pharisees have anything in common. Moreover, I don’t think MH believes that either.
I’ve always loved the beauty and tenderness of D&C 121:36-39. I hope church leaders are able to draw near to the principles taught therein when they excommunicate a member.
I don’t have personal experience with excommunication, so I’m not qualified to add anything meaningful to that part of the discussion.
However, my thoughts about practicing humility when one faces issues of church history or doctrine does come from experience.
When I first became aware of the kind of things Brian (#57) is referring to I was deeply troubled. I felt immense pain. I might have even left the church if it wasn’t for the manifestation of the Spirit I had received earlier in my life. Because of these experiences, I view the church and its leader from a faithful perspective (that doesn’t mean I think they’re infallible).
We live in a day of complex trials for church members. We are being tested to the limit. What then is the solution? I agree with Heber C Kimball when he said:
This Church has before it many close places through which it will have to pass before the work of God is crowned with victory. To meet the difficulties that are coming, it will be necessary for you to have a knowledge of the truth of this work for yourselves. The difficulties will be of such a character that the man or woman who does not possess this personal knowledge or witness will fall. If you have not got the testimony, live right and call upon the Lord and cease not till you obtain it. If you do not you will not stand. Harold B. Lee quoting Heber C. Kimball, BYU, June 28, 1955; also in “We Believe” by Rulon T. Burton, p. 1038-39.
The personal witness he is referring to is not found in pouring over church history and doctrine difficulties. It is found in humbly calling on the Lord for help. Consider the following:
Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God. Helaman 3:35
When I wrote about humility this is what I had in mind.
@jmb275
I agree with your definition of humility. In the scriptures, we could just as easily replace the word “humility” with “teachable”. It’s not submitting to authority, or any leader telling us to do something, it’s being teachable.
Humbling yourself is not just some droop-faced, hang-dog expression to wear on your countenance. Rather, it is opening your heart up to higher things.
#51:
Mosiah 27: 32, 35
In my reading of the Book of Mormon — no preacher kept his mouth shut about an angelic visitation or other vision.
The “too sacred to share” doctrine appears to be a Gentile invention that apparently some can read back into the Book of Mormon.
Jared, MH and Mormon Heretic are the same person. Yes, I do believe that Pharisees and many members of the church (including the hierarchy) do share traits in common with Pharisees in that there is an over-reliance on superficialities of the law rather than focusing on the spirit. (Earrings, beards, blue shirts come to mind as quite pharisaical, and I think Jesus would have bristled at these ridiculous admonitions by church leaders.) God looks at the heart, but in the case of the S6, I don’t think the leadership even tried to look at the hearts of the S6.
Could you specifically address how Jesus was humble in regards to those scriptures from Matthew I quoted?
Mh,
Thanks for the story on Lynn. I am quite sympathic, really. I wonder if they entire group was painted with the same broad brush. Certainly, from what I know the Toscano’s were much more combative.
I knew that the GAs were involved, so I guess in Utah, “local” issues may get their attention.
But still, it is one side of the story and the timeline is not really understood.
jmb275
“…I can’t help but feel that many in the S6 felt they were humble by that measure and I applaud their courage. They were simply unwilling to submit to authority – something they had in common with Jesus, Joseph Smith, Galileo, Martin Luther, etc. etc.”
I agree with this statement in that Jesus, Joseph Smith, Galileo, Martin Luther did stand up against unrighteousness. However, I don’t agree that the S6 were dealing with unrighteous church leaders.
This all comes back to what our perspective is of church leaders, as I wrote in my comment to MH (#59). Is Pres Monson a righteous man?
When I use the word righteous, I am not suggesting perfection.
The only way to really know the answer to my question about Pres Monson is by personal revelation.
“I just don’t see the principle you’re advertising in the scriptures. Humility does not mean subjecting to authority, or keeping covenants, or obedience, etc.”
Following are a few scripture I refer to on the subject of humility:
3 Therefore they did forsake all their sins, and their abominations, and their whoredoms, and did serve God with all diligence day and night. 3 Nephi 5:3
Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and persecution and all manner of afflictions, and would not turn and revile again, but were humble and penitent before God. 3 Nephi 6:13
Jared:
That doesn’t even matter. At all.
The minute we focus on our, or anyone’s righteousness we lose focus. When people suggested Christ was righteous, or good, he deferred to the Father every time.
IMO, the Church ™ and her members focus way too much on Monson at the expense of Christ.
When people refer to Monson (or any of our leaders) as righteous, or good, there is no deferment to some deity. In fact, it’s encouraged and it continues.
About a year ago I followed the news stories through church owned entities (Deseret News, Church News, Official Statements, etc.) and the findings shocked me… we simply focus way too much on Church, Monson and other leaders. I basically tallied up how many times different titles/things were mentioned and written… from Prophet/President to Apostle/Elder to Christ/Jesus and several in between. In each news article, the titles of Church leadership were mentioned between 8x and 7x per article, while Christ/Jesus was mentioned approximately 0.09x per article [I did not count the “official” name of the Church ™].
Do I sustain our church leaders as “Prophets, seers and revelators.” yes is my answer–I sustain the aspiration and hope that our church leaders are in fact prophets, seers and revelators. However, the question in the TR interview is NOT, “ARE the church leaders in fact using the seer gift; prophesying and revealing hidden things?” Heck if I know. Has any of them picked up a seer stone and actually “seered” something since Joseph? Not that I am privy to. Have the leaders issued any prophecies? I am game–tell me what they have prophesied and I will then we/I can judge for ourselves. And what have they revealed that has been hidden? Tell me.
I do not conflate office with gifts anymore then I pretended to have the gift of discernment just because I was a bishop or that no one else in my congregation did not have that gift–even greater then myself.
Then there is scriptural/spiritual precedence/pattern wherein the convergence of office and being a prophet is more the exception then the rule: There were presiding authorities when: Jeremiah the outcast priest prophesied; Lehi was surely an outcast, Amos a common shepherd; John Baptist crying from wilderness and then the ultimate illegal alien Samuel the Lamanite—the Nephites had a presiding authority but apparently THE prophet that Jesus specifically endorsed as being His prophet was Samuel–go figure.
So, when someone says do you sustain and follow the words of the Prophets, I say absolutely–it is just I am open to who he/she/they (not exclusive to office) might be in any generation and I am far more interested in the substance/content of the message then the office.
Anyway, here is a little post I did on another blog on this topic that was sparked by our GD lesson on Jeremiah last year. http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/where-is-jeremiah-today/
I am not saying that I do not sustain our leaders and their office and I do pray, hope they have direct contact with the other world—but I can only judge them by their fruits as to whether they are in fact acting as seers, revelators and prophets and not just office holders. And given scriptural precedence I think God can speak to and send whomever he wants whether it intersects with office or not–so I am open to suggestion
#58 Bertie,
How do you know that Alma is talking of ordinances when he says mysteries? You wrote:
There are many comments I would like to respond to, but time is a limiting factor.
MH surprised me when he wrote:
“… I do believe that Pharisees and many members of the church (including the hierarchy) do share traits in common with Pharisees in that there is an over-reliance on superficialities of the law rather than focusing on the spirit. (Earrings, beards, blue shirts come to mind as quite pharisaical, and I think Jesus would have bristled at these ridiculous admonitions by church leaders.) God looks at the heart, but in the case of the S6, I don’t think the leadership even tried to look at the hearts of the S6.”
I don’t agree with his assessment. I think it was excessive, an unwarranted.
The Pharisees represent a special kind of evil. They did all they could to frustrate the Savior’s work and eventually succeeded in having him crucified. The Savior knew their hearts and aptly described them saying, “ye…outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:28).
It is unwarranted to compare the apostles and prophets of our day in any way, or degree to the Pharisees. Doing so opens the idea that they would crucify the Savior if His first coming occurred in our day. I’m sure MH wouldn’t suggest that possibility.
LDSA,
The Greek mysterion is a technical term equivalent to the Latin sacramentum — which simply means “ordinance”.
The term was normally used in the context of the Greek “mystery religions” which were common in the ancient world and included various secret doctrines and rituals.
Paul and later Christian writers essentially borrowed a loaded Greek word when speaking of “the mysteries” — and it would have referred not only to certain doctrine, but also to the various rituals associated with them.
Jared,
“The Pharisees represent a special kind of evil.”
Sorry, you are wrong about this. The Pharisees were a particular sect of Judaism that preached being separate from non-Jews, did not like the Greek culture and used the oral as well as written law. I would venture to guess that most pharisees never heard of Jesus and had nothing to do with his death. They were just trying to practice their religion the way they thought God wanted them to. the fact that they did not recognize the Savior was a result of centuries of teaching that deviated from the scriptures and were looking beyond the mark. While some of their leadership might have joined the other Jewish leaders in encouraging the Romans to kill Jesus, you cannot paint the group with that broad of a brush anymore than you can blame all Mormons for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Jared,
Jesus was killed by the Romans. Its time to stop the anti-semetic rhetoric.
Jared, it is evident to me that you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes being a pharisee. As I understand it, your definition is that the pharisees were responsible for Jesus’ death. Under your definition, comparing the church hierarchy to pharisees is probably blasphemous. Now that you’ve explained that (and I am hoping that I am understanding it correctly), then I can see your point of view.
However, as I tried to explain with the beards and blue shirts, I have a much broader definition of being a pharisee. In our own Bible dictionary, the definition of a pharisee is much broader than your narrow interpretation.
You talk of humility, yet from the words of the S6, I think there is evidence of “spiritual pride” among the Brethren. Their desire to limit the speaking of the S6 was based on a desire to exert “authority of oral tradition as of equal value with the written law.” Additionally, the limitations on speaking made the church hierarchy guilty of
“strict observance of the law” just like the Pharisees.
I do think that we have a problem in the church where we “reduce religion to the observance of a multiplicity of ceremonial rules” such as home teaching, blue shirts, beards, earrings, etc. As such, like the pharisees, some of our actions can be a “major obstacle to the reception of Christ and the gospel.” Christ doesn’t look on the outward appearance–he doesn’t care about tattoos–he looks upon the heart.
Jared, we are supposed to “liken the scriptures unto us.” When we look at the pharisees as if they were a bunch of bad people and think that we’re much better, that’s spiritual pride (and not the humility you’ve been preaching.) When Jesus said that one of the apostles would betray him, the apostles didn’t say, “I bet it’s going to be Judas”, they said “Is it I?” We need to look inward to see the motes and beams in our own eye, and not be blinded by the motes in the pharisees or samaritans eyes and view them as the worst sinners.
We need to examine ourselves and see if we are pharisees, and we all are (myself included.) Would we have denied the Savior like Peter did? Well, I’d rate Peter as much higher than me spiritually, so I’d have to say that I probably would have denied the Savior, and also be guilty of his death. We are all weak, and we need to examine our weaknesses and not view ourselves as better than the pharisees. Jesus told us in Matthew 5:20, “But I warn you–unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!”
We all have moments of being like Nephi, and other moments of being like Laman. To deny that is to misapply the scriptures, IMO.
LDSA:
It’s been a long time since I’ve considered the word “mysteries” synonymous with “ordinances”, at least scripturally speaking. I’m not sure where I originally picked up that idea…
…I do know Nibley shared the same sentiment (and it’s likely I first picked the idea up from him). He once wrote:
Haven’t time to get any other sources for you, but that’s a starting point.
Justin and Bertie, thanks for the info.
Bertie, I wonder if Nibley’s writings applied to the Nephites. He used the phrase “early Jews,” so if he had in mind Jews living from 600 BC and earlier, obviously this applies. But even if he only had in mind the Jews living during Christ’s time (like the early Christians), it still might apply if it came down from aniquity.
Justin, same goes with Greek and Latin. Although Greek and Latin are not reformed Egyptian, if this teaching was handed down from ancient times (600 BC and earlier) then surely this can tie into what the ancient Nephite Alma was saying.
Bertie, would you say, then, that every mention of mystery or mysteries in the Book of Mormon is referring to ordinances? (The hyper-link is to all 20 instances in the BOM, so you can check them out.) Or, would you say that only of Alma 12?
[Btw, here is how my dictionary defines the word “mystery,” which has five shades of meaning:
The 4th and 5th shades do not apply to this discussion, so I won’t list them.]
Sorry for the thread-jack, Mormon Heretic.
LDSA — in my comment #69, I concluded with, “it would have referred not only to certain doctrine, but also to the various rituals associated with them.”
I think that the 20 instances of “mystery” in the Book of Mormon can work under such a definition: i.e. one that encompasses the “secret” doctrine as well as the secret rites that are associated with the teaching.
But neither is English. To some degree we have to trust in the translator of the Book of Mormon to have chosen the English word that best communicates that idea that was contained in the Reformed Egyptian word.
And though while I can’t get at what specific word Alma would have written — I can look at the meaning of the word chosen by Joseph Smith to translate the specific word Alma wrote — and can with some degree of reasonability use the translated word to get at the meaning Alma, etc. had in mind.
LDSA:
Threadjack continued… I do not consider all usage of the term “mystery” to be synonymous with “ordinances”, but that is the general rule of thumb I use.
Matthew 13:11 could, therefore, read:
“…it is given unto you to know [the sacred secrets] of the Kingdom of Heaven…”
Most of the Christian world probably doesn’t link the term “sacred secrets” with ordinances, but even in the modern LDS lexicon, if one were to say “sacred secrets” it would be possible to link that to ordinances done in the temple.
In the BoM, like the use of the words kruptos and musterion, it’s quite likely that mystery was used in different places to mean different things – I’m not denying that – but I’ve seen more than a few people use Alma’s words to justify the modern gentile way of watering down the gospel and sacred experiences. Alma, I think, was referring directly to ordinances… and I’m of the mind that if the LDS church stopped drifting away from doctrine and the watering down of lessons, manuals and the like, then the LDS wouldn’t have as much a problem retaining converts, tripping over senseless issues (like tattoos, beards, etc) and focusing on whited sepulchres.
Well, I think that the words quoted are probably more about portions of “his word” than ordinances.
#70 Jeff-
Thanks to you for the added insight and correction.
Would you agree with this:
The Pharisees that conspired to have Jesus crucified represent a special kind of evil. Jesus condemned them with harsh words on many occasions. He asked the Father to forgive the Roman soldiers who actually crucified him but the Pharisees weren’t mentioned.
Jared, you’re still going for a narrow definition. There are plenty of Pharisees that did not seek the death of Jesus. In fact, Nicodemus may have been a Pharisee. I think we can agree that Nicodemus was a generally good guy, and I hope you can see the Pharisees in a different light.
Certainly Nicodemus did not represent “a special kind of evil.”
#72 MH-
I carefully read your comment. There is much I agree with.
I urge caution, however, regarding inflammatory language. I’m not a lawyer but I understand that when evidence is presented in a legal proceeding the court requires the presenter to refrain from language that might influence the jury inappropriately.
I think implying church leaders dealings with the S6 is similar to the way the Pharisees treated Jesus is inflammatory, and therefore unfair because truth is obscured.
I don’t know enough details to make sense of the S6 episode. I don’t think anyone outside of the S6 and church leaders does either.
I urge caution when dealing with these kinds of things. Recently, one of the great scientific thinkers of our day was reported to have said that heaven is a fairy tale for those who are afraid of the dark. If true, it doesn’t make any sense for a great thinker to make such inflammatory comments when he knows the press will report it.
What did he hope to accomplish? What does it say about him? Doesn’t he realize how negatively this will impact many people and cultures? He is welcome to his opinion, but a man in his position needs to be responsible as well.
I appreciate the exchange of ideas at W&T. I will try to practice what I’ve said, but can’t be sure I will be a 100%. If Hawkings can blow it then I can too. I’d at least be in good company.
I hope Hawkings will clarify and temper his comment.
I think implying church leaders dealings with the S6 is similar to the way the Pharisees treated Jesus is inflammatory, and therefore unfair because truth is obscured.
Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. I think the wicked seek to hide sins (and I can quote plenty of scriptures.) The honest in heart seek to speak clearly. I hope the Brethren will not use unrighteous dominion when trying to excommunicate good men and women that may have different theological points of view.
Jesus stands for free agency. Satan stood against it. The Brethren should not be afraid of free agency. Silencing by excommunication does not seem to support the idea of free agency that we all fought for.
Jared,
“The Pharisees that conspired to have Jesus crucified represent a special kind of evil. Jesus condemned them with harsh words on many occasions.”
“a special kind of evil?” No, I won’t use that term. That might we reserved for those who knew who He is was and conspired to have Him killed anyway.
The main group of conspirators were more likely Herodians, those Jews who were in cahoots with the romans. They were afraid of anyone who might want to take their power away. The Pharisees were more contesting Jesus against their own beliefs. that was the nature of the times. There were many pretenders to the Messiahship and each one was tested against the prevailing ideas of what the Messiah would do for the Jewish people. Jesus didn’t pass the test because he spoke of Spiritual salvation rather than temporal escape from the Romans. it was the same message as God had given the Israelites for hundreds of years with a bit more thrown in.
BTW, Jesus said forgive THEM, for they know not what they do. It is the big THEM (everyone) who conspired against Him.
Fair enough.
Question:
How do you think church leaders should handle those who insist on talking, writing, and promoting ideas that create difficulty for the mission of the church after they’ve been asked not to? This applies to things that are false and true.
MH,
“I hope the Brethren will not use unrighteous dominion when trying to excommunicate good men and women that may have different theological points of view.”
You’ve made the assumption that that was the primary reason. Because you do not know the entire story, it is wrong to assume that. Besides, excommunication did not silence the different viewpoints, in fact, it made them louder. So what was the use?
The Pharisees did not conspire to crucify Jesus. That was a lie that was used to help sever the ties between early christians and Judaism. Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was considered a potential threat.
It is this lie that has fostered anti-semitism for thousands of years.
As long as we are jacking threads, I don’t believe Judas betrayed Jesus either. The story as told in the Gospel of Judas makes more sense, that Judas helped bring about that which Jesus knew had to happen. That Judas did so at the request of Jesus. Judas betraying Jesus for 20 pieces of silver makes no sense and I don’t believe it. Also interesting that the apostle that “betrays” Jesus is named Judas.
Jeff, excommunication did not silence the different viewpoints, in fact, it made them louder. So what was the use?
I couldn’t have said it better myself. If the church leaders had not excommunicated the S6, (1) they wouldn’t be the internet sensation they are now, (2) they would probably have maintained better control over people like Mike Quinn and Lavina Anderson, and (3) all 6 would probably still be good, tithe-paying members today. That’s been my point the whole time. Excommunication didn’t fit the crime. If they had used persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, etc, the S6 would have been much less popular today. Excommunication was the wrong remedy to the problem.
Jared, I don’t know if your question was addressed to me, but let me take a stab at the answer.
How do you think church leaders should handle those who insist on talking, writing, and promoting ideas that create difficulty for the mission of the church after they’ve been asked not to? This applies to things that are false and true.
I think many of the things Maxine Hanks mentioned in comment 48 were appropriate. Most non-bloggernacle members of the church still don’t know who Paul Toscano is, or Lynne Whitesides, or Avraham Gileadi. Most probably thought the GC talks were wonderful on their own merits, and had no idea these talks were reactions to Paul or Lynn or Lavina. I don’t fault any of the GA’s for whatever topic they choose in General Conference.
My problem is that the punishment didn’t fit the crime. There was no reason to excommunicate these 6 people. If you think Margaret Toscano is wrong about God the Mother, then state your reasons why she is wrong–don’t excommunicate her. Tell her not to speak in church–that’s fine. But, if she is teaching a class at the university, that’s her deal. Denounce it. Use scriptures to show why she is wrong. Talk about Joseph Smith and Ezra Taft Benson’s revelations on the subject. But don’t try to demonize her by excommunication. That’s unrighteous dominion and an attempt to “to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness.” That’s where leaders were wrong, and the scriptures say that “behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”
I have to say that I do believe that the Spirit of the Lord was greatly grieved over this entire incident. I do believe that this action was a “major obstacle to the reception of Christ and the gospel.”
Perhaps I am guilty of counseling the Brethren. If I am wrong, I ask for the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ. But Jesus spoke out against injustice, and I am trying to follow his example. I think my allegiance to Jesus is more important than worrying if speaking about this will “create difficulty for the mission of the church.” While there may be short term difficulties, I think the church will be healthier in the long run if they don’t continue to make mistakes like this. While some think the church will never make a mistake like this again, I’m not so sure. History tends to repeat itself, but I hope we’ve all learned better.
Bishop Rick, Judas was the ultimate dissident–I don’t think it is too much of a threadjack. (And Justin I didn’t have anything to add to the mysteries discussion, but I thought it was interesting and didn’t mind that threadjack.)
I believe that I’m the one who mentioned Judas first anyway. (And I’m not so sure that Judas was the betrayer, or simply following Jesus commandment–but I was trying to use the traditional story rather than the funner, speculative one.) If we keep going down this road, it will be a threadjack though.
Sounds like a topic for a different post.
MH,
“Perhaps I am guilty of counseling the Brethren. If I am wrong, I ask for the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ. But Jesus spoke out against injustice, and I am trying to follow his example.”
My point to you is that you do not have enough real factual information to make this kind of judgment. You should be willing to give the brethren involved as much the benefit of the doubt as you have the stories of those who had the disciple given to them.
That would be equally Christ-like.
Do you think Christ would hold his tongue on an issue like this? Would Christ have exed these people?
“Do you think Christ would hold his tongue on an issue like this? Would Christ have exed these people?”
What kind of a question is that? According to the Gospel, he has plenty to say to those who were espousing false doctrine and acting hypocritical. I believe, if I am not mistaken, he didn’t have an organized Church per se, so I really do not know what he “would” have done. Again, not enough data to really know one way or the other. It almost sounds like you are saying that Jesus would never have ex’ed anyone for any reason, but the mean, Church leaders do, going against what Jesus, himself, would have done.
However, if He is inspiring the leadership of His Church, then, maybe indirectly, He does ex people.
However, that is mere speculation on my part. No different than rendering judgment with only part of the story, I suppose.
Jared: Re 46
“If one believes Joseph Smith was a prophet and the current leader is also a prophet, why would they prefer Joseph Smith?”
Although this comment is several days old now, I think answering it is important to understanding the ongoing conflicts many have in sorting out commitments to faithfulness and sense of personal integrity.
When you see what appears to be obvious conflict between prophets, there is an obvious factor that requires one to assume JS, not the successor, is correct IN THE ABSENCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
It’s sort of a variation of the old joke: If my parents didn’t have any children, chances are I won’t either. If Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet, chances are Elder Monson (or, in my case, Elder Veazey) isn’t either. You always START with the presumption that the current prophet is less likely to be correct than the prophet from whom his authority is derived.
For the same reason, any new revelation, policy, or doctrine must be tested against the teachings of Jesus, from whom the authority of all prophets is derived.
Now we may conclude from OTHER evidence — personal testimony, other witnesses, hard science, scriptural scholarship, conflicts within the canon, etc. — that our previous understandings were wrong or incomplete, but we can’t automatically assume that the default position is that of the current prophet.
We must always ask, like Abinadi, “If you sit in Moses seat, WHY do you not teach what Moses taught?” [Emphasis mine.]
Jeff, what I’m getting at is that Jared and many others think it is acceptable for the church to silence critics. The Pharisees, Sadducees and Romans attempted to forcibly silence Jesus, yet he spoke out strongly against injustice anyway. So, no, I don’t think Jesus would have excommunicated anyone for apostasy.
The church is acting more like the Romans when it tries to give a spiritual death penalty of excommunication. If Jesus disagreed with Paul Toscano, for example, I am sure Jesus would have given a humble tongue lashing to Paul and said something like “if ye knew me, ye would know my mother” or something like that.
I had a Jewish friend that told me that a Jew can never be excommunicated for any reason, including murder. He said that Jews believe that God will be the judge, and it is not up to any man to judge. Excommunication is a judgment. I’m fine with excommunicating for serious crimes like murder, rape, embezzlement, etc, but apostasy seems like a completely different category, don’t you think? These people, unlike Nehor, were not seeking to tear down the church or kill people, but rather expand spiritual knowledge. They very well could be wrong. But their sins aren’t as scarlet as murder or child abuse. Excommunication of these 6 doesn’t fit their crime.
Christianity uses excommunication far too often, IMO. I think we could learn something from our Jewish cousins.
MH,
I guess the lack of excommunication was also fulfilled thru Jesus.
#93 Fire Tag–
I think you make some important points. It wasn’t my intent to say that the current prophet(s) is always going to be correct. However, if we accept continuing revelation as a principle then we’re required to sustain one propet or the other on occasion.
For example, the doctrine of polygamy. Was it revealtion that started and ended polygamy. If so, both men were acting as prophets.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
MH-I enjoy learning and acquiring greater understanding. I usually focus my attention on the doctrine of Christ because that is where I have experienced the manifestations of the Spirit.
On occasion, I venture out onto topics like you’ve brought up in this post.
I appreciate your scholarship and ability to communicate. I sincerely hope that your intellectual strengths don’t crowd out your receptiveness to things of the Spirit.
Please don’t misunderstand my comment as being critical. All of us are living in a fallen world and are subject to it.
My constant prayer is that I can endure to the end and be counted as a true follower of Christ. The closer I get to the things of the Spirit, the more I realize my nothingness.
Jared:
Actually, I think polygamy is a good example from the standpoint of an RLDS / CofChrist background. We viewed the imposition of polygamy (especially in secret) as inconsistent with the doctrine of Christ — so we would logically welcome the ending of polygamy on earth as a return toward truth. We would not try to assume both were correct.
When we confronted baptisms in polygamous South Asian cultures in the 1970’s, we received new revelation that both told us how to deal with the immediate situation and affirmed a more universal principle that “monogamy” is the basic principle on which Christian marriage is to be built. I expect that principle will now have application in the early 21st Century as the CofChrist struggles to understand the issues of same sex attraction as they affect our mission in North American cultures.
I am a Freemason and an Ex LDS, I’ve been through the Temple back when the Oaths Representing having one’s Throat slit, Heart Cut Out, and being Disemboweled, for non capital offense crimes were part of holding a priesthood of the Apron. The God whom I serve doesn’t utilize agreements that are non binding due to the illegality of the covenants used by the LDS at that time and still never corrected. Literally all of the current leadership received their personal endowments prior to 1991 when the Blood oath penalties were dropped. Why is it that the famous Dalin Oaks can’t see that his endowments were not legally sanctioned, and thus are non binding.If our Father allowed Fraudulent covenants within his priesthood, He would be a party to the fraud.
Being a Free Mason, I have first hand testimony (not hearsay) that the only reason there was not a penalty yet revealed for for the violation of the secrets associated with the Sure sign of the nail and the ” health in the Navel, morrow in the bones etc” is the Masons only had three penalties to steal from. If one’s name were written in “the book of the law” he would have the principles of procedural law written on his/ her heart and will be able to understand what I’ve explained. Most will not have the spiritual security clearance to understand and will just blindly follow the leaders/