Have things changed?

[Mortal Man]

Apparently someone reported to John Gee that via this thread, I had suggested that Gee and Wright hold similar views regarding the BofA.

The important thing is not to accuse anyone here of being a tattle tale.

(cough) Will Schryver (cough)

[Scott Lloyd]

Family, heritage, community.

As pertaining to the latter two, it strikes me that they are not entitlements.

Heritage is bequeathed to those who remain faithful and loyal. Community, in a fundamental sense, is an assemblage of like-minded people. Dissent seems to be the antithesis of these things, and loss of heritage and community is, perhaps, the price one pays for it.

[Daniel Peterson]

The important thing is not to accuse anyone here of being a tattle tale.

(cough) Will Schryver (cough)

'Twasn't I. But I can't see anything wrong with directing somebody's attention to something said about him on a public message board.

[Cold Steel]

I was (am?)an apostate Catholic. I just could not believe it no matter how hard I tried. ... I have no desire to be within the culture at all. Maybe that is why I am having trouble with all this. It is all so foreign to the way I do things.

Not sure I understand. Did you ask for excommunication or were you excommunicated as a disciplinary action? Like many early church converts, I suppose I viewed the various churches I associated myself with a temporary stone stepping until I found "the" church. Never was I able to understand why revelation ceased, why there were no more apostles and prophets. When I first talked to a Mormon in 1968, I rather defiantly threw that out to him -- how dare he claim his church to be the true church without revelation and apostles? How could he be so presumptuous to know unless God Himself had so spoken?

When he told me the story of the First Vision, I thought, "Yeah, so what. Ellen G. White had a vision, then she died and everyone went back to no revelation." But as he explained that prophets and apostles continued, I said, "Real apostles? Not just in name only?" That's when I really felt I had found something worth looking into. It was like leaving a life raft after having been rescued. Who cared what happened to it?

I couldn't understand Wright, either. You believe in the church or you don't. If you don't, pretend you do if you want to stay (though I can't imagine why). But don't defy the church and expect that it will respect your quest for truth. The church is either what it claims to be or not. It's not just a way station.

.

[David Bokovoy]

'Twasn't I. But I can't see anything wrong with directing somebody's attention to something said about him on a public message board.

I don't see anything wrong with someone directing somebody's attention to something I said about him on a public message board either. I do have a problem with what I said being misrepresented, but alas, I'll accept that as a reflection of my apparent failure to adequately express myself.

[maklelan]

I don't see anything wrong with someone directing somebody's attention to something I said about him on a public message board either. I do have a problem with what I said being misrepresented, but alas, I'll accept that as a reflection of my apparent failure to adequately express myself.

Yeah, get it right, Bokovoy.

[Cold Steel]

It seems to me that David's trial never ended.

David can still repent like anyone else can. His excuse that he knows too much to buy into the church's claims is a bit presumptuous to me. I've heard Sunstonians claim that Hugh Nibley "sold out" to the church early on...that he knew it was a crock, but decided to stay with it. This is absurd and if they believe that, they didn't know the man. He had more of a conscience than anyone else I've ever seen in the church and he lived a true Zion-type life, certainly more than his other members of his family.

Wright's views on the Book of Mormon are intellectual conclusions that have nothing to do with spiritual conversion. If Smith were a pious fraud, then he should have been happy to put the church in the rearview mirror. I was shocked when he wept. When this happens, it usually shows that something's not entirely resolved.

[Nofear]

Not sure I understand. Did you ask for excommunication or were you excommunicated as a disciplinary action?

While I'm certain mfbukowski will answer for himself, my suspicion is the answer is neither. One can be 100% apostate and yet not be subjected to disciplinary actions by the body from which the individual apostatized.

[saemo]

While I'm certain mfbukowski will answer for himself, my suspicion is the answer is neither. One can be 100% apostate and yet not be subjected to disciplinary actions by the body from which the individual apostatized.

A latae sententiae penalty follows automatically, by force of the law itself, when the law is contravened.

In the code of Roman Catholic canon law currently in force, there are eight instances when a person may incur excommunication latae sententiae. Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330 are verified, the following persons incur excommunication latae sententiae:

• an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;

In essence, mfbukowski has excommunicated himself.

[jwhitlock]

I was at the Sunstone meeting where David Wright got his notice that he'd been excommunicated. He'd just given a lecture on how his faith had been destroyed and how he now viewed the Book of Mormon as pious fiction. He'd started out, he said, to be another Hugh Nibley, but along the way he began to slide. He'd just sat down when he got the news from Salt Lake City and I recall that he wept. I didn't know him, but I approached him and asked what, exactly, it was that he found so troubling.

The only person that can destroy your faith is you. Either you make a conscious decision to put it aside, or you allow yourself to be influenced by others to destroy it.

I'm getting some mixed signals on this thread concerning the criticism of academics such as Wright. Even though they write publicly about their disagreements with the fundamental principles of the restoration, when we question those disagreements, we are accused being judgmental and engaging in persecution. Is it really being claimed that "academic freedom" makes a person untouchable when it comes to apostate behavior? The more I read of what Wright has publicly written, and the more I hear about what he has publicly said, the more I wonder why the Church, in its turn, is being judged by some of Wright's supporters for finally taking action against him.

I can't help but compare what he has written with what Toscano said in the PBS documentary on Mormons. There are uncomfortable similarities in attitude and approach towards those Church leaders who took action against them.

Frankly, I've been disappointed that the specifics of what Wright has written have been neatly sidestepped in the name of not being "judgmental" about him. It's frustrating to have so much evidence of apostasy, and so little willingness to discuss specifics, as if we have to tread on eggshells in order to avoid offending the lofty concept of intellectual freedom. Perhaps if there was some evidence of retraction of past statements, or some other mitigating information, we could see past the stark reality of what has been written - despite attempts to water it down.

But instead, we are just chided for questioning him at all, while simultaneously being told that he is viewed as a "hero" by those new, young intellectuals who are growing up in a Church that has repented of its past sins.

Something simply doesn't fit.

[mfbukowski]

In essence, mfbukowski has excommunicated himself.

Wow.

No tears, no internet statements saying how rotten the (Catholic) church was to me. I like the church, love the people- they are called "my family"-- I just can't make myself believe in so much of it. Just the usual stuff, transubstantiation, invincible ignorance, the Trinity, the lack of understanding of what happens to infants who die without baptism-- you know, just a few little things.

And I definitely don't hang out going to mass because of a cultural and social background. But I do have a document signed by some papal secretary that says that all I have to do at the hour of death is to say the word "Jesus", and I get a Plenary Indulgence. My uncle bought it for me when he went to Rome in the 1950's. For those of you who don't know what that means, it means that all my sins will be forgiven. I saw those same documents on sale when I visited Rome myself, that time, in 1970.

So I'm cool. Got my insurance policy.

[Mortal Man]

It seems to me that David's trial never ended.

David can still repent like anyone else can.

I meant that his trial hasn't ended for us. And what exactly should he repent from? Saying that Isaiah variants in the BoM interrupt Hebrew bicolons? Noting that the New Testament epistle to the Hebrews is found in Alma 12-13? Pointing out that variants developing from English polysemy are impossible in Hebrew? Please be specific.

His excuse that he knows too much to buy into the church's claims is a bit presumptuous to me.

Not to me it isn't. I'm no Hebrew Bible scholar but I can follow his arguments well enough to see how strong they are.

Wright's views on the Book of Mormon are intellectual conclusions that have nothing to do with spiritual conversion.

If you're talking about throwing your hands in the air, shouting "I BELIEVE IN JESUS!!!" and passing out at the feet of your televangelist, then I'll agree with you.

I was shocked when he wept. When this happens, it usually shows that something's not entirely resolved.

Like the long-term damage to his wife and kids?

[Mortal Man]

I'm getting some mixed signals on this thread concerning the criticism of academics such as Wright. Even though they write publicly about their disagreements with the fundamental principles of the restoration, when we question those disagreements, we are accused being judgmental and engaging in persecution. Is it really being claimed that "academic freedom" makes a person untouchable when it comes to apostate behavior? The more I read of what Wright has publicly written, and the more I hear about what he has publicly said, the more I wonder why the Church, in its turn, is being judged by some of Wright's supporters for finally taking action against him.

I'm not judging the church. As I've stated many times, there are two sides to every story and we only have one side. No organization will last for long if it allows its members to publicly undermine its roots. It is possible to be intellectually honest without poking the church in the eye (and if I ever figure out how to do that I'll mend my ways).

It's seems to me that Wright made the same mistake as Galileo; i.e., Galileo was fine until he began using his discoveries to reinterpret scripture. The Catholic hierarchy saw that as invading their turf.

When faced with facts that obliterate your dearly-held beliefs you have three choices:

1) The Thomas Stuart Ferguson approach; i.e., go undercover and "spoof a little back." This should not be considered cowardly, since it's usually done to protect the family from upheaval.

2) The Brigham Henry Roberts approach; i.e., submit your concerns privately to the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles for their consideration; then keep pestering them until they send you off on a mission. Sadly, this avenue is unavailable to the vast majority of members.

3) The Galileo Galilei/David Wright approach; i.e., charge in with all guns blazing and let the casualties land where they may. This is gutsy and admirable and will likely win you martyrdom but is traumatic to the family and will leave you with the mother of all hangovers.

Frankly, I've been disappointed that the specifics of what Wright has written have been neatly sidestepped in the name of not being "judgmental" about him.

I'm always happy to talk specifics; it's the only way to make progress on this board. What specific writings of his did you have in mind?

[Mortal Man]

I do have a document signed by some papal secretary that says that all I have to do at the hour of death is to say the word "Jesus", and I get a Plenary Indulgence. My uncle bought it for me when he went to Rome in the 1950's. For those of you who don't know what that means, it means that all my sins will be forgiven. I saw those same documents on sale when I visited Rome myself, that time, in 1970.

So I'm cool. Got my insurance policy.

That's awesome. Where can I get one of those?

[mfbukowski]

That's awesome. Where can I get one of those?

Well I originally thought that he got it through "connections" which he had because he DID in fact have them, (phd in philosophy from a Jesuit school, with further study in Rome) but then in my first trip to Rome I saw the same kind of document available for sale in a lot of the souvenir shops, so it made me a little, well, suspicious. I am not sure if they are still selling them or not.

I want to dig the thing out and scan and post it- I am not sure where it is at the moment. It's got a round picture of Pius XII, with an explanation that members of our family have this privilege and some handwriting in Italian at the bottom, and a signature. I used to think it was the Pope's autograph, but when I learned Latin and some Italian, I realized it was only a secretary of some kind.

Lots of people claim indulgences were not sold after the middle ages, but I know better. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread.

But the point is, if you don't believe it anymore and get excommunicated officially or by automatic rule of law, why should it be a big deal? The point is, if you think the church is not valid, why should you care if they excommunicate you?

[saemo]

For those of you who don't know what that means, it means that all my sins will be forgiven.

So I'm cool. Got my insurance policy.

Sorry, it doesn't mean your sins are forgiven. For that you need to go to Confession.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But the point is, if you don't believe it anymore and get excommunicated officially or by automatic rule of law, why should it be a big deal? The point is, if you think the church is not valid, why should you care if they excommunicate you?

And this is precisely what is so telling.

I know some people claim that it's hard to move out of an entire 'cultural' framework, but I personally know people who've grown up in environments where their previous faiths were at least as omnipresent as anything in 'Mormon' culture--the last woman I taught as a missionary had been raised a Jehovah's Witness and had awards for numbers of hours logged proseltying with her family, I used to be in a ward with a woman who grew up in a small Italian village where she didn't even know that Protestantism existed, and I've belonged to branches where nearly every member but me was raised Muslim)--yet they simply walked away when they found something more satisfying. No bitterness, no attempts to save those who hadn't been 'enlightened' yet, no need to 'recover' from anything, no overwhelming sense of loss. The contrast is stark.

[ChristKnight]

Sorry, it doesn't mean your sins are forgiven. For that you need to go to Confession.

Correct. For those that don't know what it means, an "indulgence" only applies or "works" after your sins are forgiven. Indulgences do not forgive sins, so it is incorrect to say that a plenary indulgence will allow one to say "Jesus" at the hour of death and have their sins forgiven. For an indulgence to "work" you must have already confessed your sins, and the indulgence works after forgiveness of sins.

Wikipedia has a decent article on indulgences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Sorry for going off topic, just had to correct this.

[David Bokovoy]

It appears to me that many here would do well to recognize the validity of what B.H. Roberts observed so many years ago:

"The fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." B.H. Roberts, "Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era, 1906, Vol. Ix. March, 1906. No. 5.

When researchers both within and without of the Church take our restored scriptures seriously and produce evidence that challenges traditional assumptions, Latter-day Saints should not feel afraid of the scholarship. Granted, the evidence may indicate that believers will need to shift some of their traditional paradigms of belief in the process of providing "the most reasonable explanation possible," but paradigm shifts happen all the time in our Church history.

Even the so-called "Limited Geographic Theory" that so many apologists view as the most reasonable way to interpret the Book of Mormon represents a paradigm shift that resulted from taking the book and its claims seriously. Despite what Meldrum and his followers suggest, learned Latter-day Saints who adopt this "non-traditional" approach to the Book of Mormon are not "apostate." They are simply providing what they see as "the most reasonable explanation possible." But make no mistake about it, it is a paradigm shift from many traditional assumptions.

Similarly, some may need to adopt a few paradigm shifts if they accept the serious academic investigations of biblical scholars such as David P. Wright. This is not a problem. Consider the ideas put forth by Blake Ostler and others on Book of Mormon expansion, etc. Rather than calling scholars to repentance for challenging our assumptions, let us put forward "the most reasonable explanation possible" to answer their criticism.

Ultimately, I agree with B.H. Roberts, the Book of Mormon "is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know."

[David Bokovoy]

Yeah, get it right, Bokovoy.

Maklelan, here, is a great case in point. A generation ago, his outstanding work on Psalm 82 would have been met with serious challenge.

Just a couple years ago, I received an invite to submit an article to the Religious Educator intended to help seminary and institute teachers recognize some of the ways contemporary biblical scholarship on the divine council relates to modern revelation.

In response, I wrote a very basic article explaining such titles as

[wenglund]

However, I've heard from other people that certain seventies have been tasked with monitoring this board for the purpose of identifying candidates for excommunication.

Are these "other people" the same people who, like Gladys Kravitz of Bewitched infamy, peep through their cyber windows at their neighbors here at MaDB, and gossip incessantly about us in their shady and exmo circles--some to the point of stalking leading LDS apologists?

If so, I would just like to wish them success in getting a life (preferrably one that isn't as irony rich as currently), and also offer them the very best for the Christmas Holidays.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[dblagent007]

I remember that someone said they knew a member of the Seventy that occasionally reads this board.

I Wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that the Church monitors this board in an automated fashion. We already know that the Church monitors 6,000 websites that are related to Mormonism.

I would be surprised if a Seventy was charged with the task of monitoring any of these websites.

[wenglund]

I remember that someone said they knew a member of the Seventy that occasionally reads this board.

I Wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that the Church monitors this board in an automated fashion. We already know that the Church monitors 6,000 websites that are related to Mormonism.

I would be surprised if a Seventy was charged with the task of monitoring any of these websites.

You participate here under the guise of a spy ("dblagent007"), so it would be a surprise if you were suprised about alleged monitoring, since that is what spies do.

To the trained eye, though, there is a striking difference between "monitoring" in the form of automated news-clipping services, and "monitoring" in the form of personal excommunication hunts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[dblagent007]

To the trained eye, though, there is a striking difference between "monitoring" in the form of automated news-clipping services, and "monitoring" in the form of personal excommunication hunts.

True. However, there are a couple of things we know. First, the Strengthening Church Membership Committee monitors a collection of information (the scope of which I don't know) and passes material that it discovers along to the writers' and authors' local priesthood leaders (watch out MM). Why do they do this - to bring questionable subject matter to the attention of the leaders to determine if further action is warranted. Second, the Church monitors the content of 6,000 websites (I assume that is automated, but I really don't know).

Are these two programs tightly integrated or completely separate? I don't know. Let's hope not.

[Mortal Man]

It appears to me that many here would do well to recognize the validity of what B.H. Roberts observed so many years ago:

"The fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." B.H. Roberts, "Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era, 1906, Vol. Ix. March, 1906. No. 5.

When researchers both within and without of the Church take our restored scriptures seriously and produce evidence that challenges traditional assumptions, Latter-day Saints should not feel afraid of the scholarship. Granted, the evidence may indicate that believers will need to shift some of their traditional paradigms of belief in the process of providing "the most reasonable explanation possible," but paradigm shifts happen all the time in our Church history.

Even the so-called "Limited Geographic Theory" that so many apologists view as the most reasonable way to interpret the Book of Mormon represents a paradigm shift that resulted from taking the book and its claims seriously. Despite what Meldrum and his followers suggest, learned Latter-day Saints who adopt this "non-traditional" approach to the Book of Mormon are not "apostate." They are simply providing what they see as "the most reasonable explanation possible." But make no mistake about it, it is a paradigm shift from many traditional assumptions.

Similarly, some may need to adopt a few paradigm shifts if they accept the serious academic investigations of biblical scholars such as David P. Wright. This is not a problem. Consider the ideas put forth by Blake Ostler and others on Book of Mormon expansion, etc. Rather than calling scholars to repentance for challenging our assumptions, let us put forward "the most reasonable explanation possible" to answer their criticism.

Ultimately, I agree with B.H. Roberts, the Book of Mormon "is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know."

Amen!

This my friends, is why David Bokovoy gets paid the big bucks.