"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[selek]

if you want to misinterpret what i posted go ahead.

Sorry. You said it. If I were the only one who saw it, perhaps my "interpretation" might be flawed.

But I WASN'T the only one.

You said it. You implied it.

And now that the stain's on the dress, you're trying to claim you didn't have (verbal) intercourse "with that woman".

there are several unanswered question

None of which are relevant to your innuendo.

COULD (NOTICE COULD once again slowly this time COULD) one supports for a position that is in oposition to the LDS Church precluded someone from being issued a Temple Rec. or COULD ones support for a position in opposition to the Church be grounds for "the church" to demand surrender of a Temple Rec.

Thank you for reiterating your hypothetical and unseemly innuendo.

By adding the qualifier, Could, however, you are changing the rules of the game.

Is it possible? Yes.

But you previously specified a reasonable justification for such a fear.

For the fear to be reasonable, there must be a precedent establishing similar events/outcomes.

So- is there any precedent of someone's Temple recommend being revoked for opposition to Prop 8? You haven't provided any.

So- is there any precedent of someone's calling being revoked for opposition to Prop 8? You haven't provided any.

So- is there any precedent of someone being disfellowshipped for opposition to Prop 8? You haven't provided any.

So- is there any precedent of someone excommunicated for opposition to Prop 8? You haven't provided any.

In short, is there any reason or precedent for a reasonable mind to believe that opposing Prop 8 would incur the wrath of the Church? You haven't provided any- and the actual evidence trends the other way.

The Church issued several statements specifically counterin g that allegation. The Church stated baldly and publically that opposition to Prop 8 was not an offense which could result in Church discipline.

All you've done is offer a bit of fear-mongering designed to paint the Church (falsely) as authoritarian, vindictive, and petty- in direct contravention of the facts.

Can you honestly claim to support and sustain the leadership of the Church while spreading falsehoods about them?

You are carrying the water for bigots and demagogues.

But I guess we all have to have a hobby.

I do not have to provide proof that anything happened - as I have not stated anything happened.

B.S. You implied it was a reasonable fear- you made the charge, and so you have to supply evidence for that position when asked to do so.

I only suggest that in the minds of some PERHAPS (read slowly PERHAPS) they remain silent because of a legitimate fear of loosing their Temple Rec. hence the need to bring up a question of the Temple Rec. interview. do I know of time when it has happened. Nope. Does that mean it does not happen. NOPE.

Yet you've provided no evidence that said fear was in any way "legitimate".

Thank you for the admission that your fear-mongering is utterly without factual or evidentiary foundation.

However, does the LDS Church require surrendering a Temple Rec. on demand. YEP it sure does, infact such contractual condition is printed on the Rec. .

Which is utterly irrelevant to the charge at hand.

I have a fair amount of respect for you Frankie (despite your unfortunate political handicaps ) but in this instance, you're off the mark.

[Jason]

I consider this statement:

I do not have to provide proof that anything happened - as I have not stated anything happened., I only suggest that in the minds of some PERHAPS (read slowly PERHAPS) they remain silent because of a legitimate fear of loosing their Temple Rec.

To be an effective retraction of this statement:

i am saying that there is a very real and legitimate reason for LDS members who wish to attend the Temple to remain silent.

Apparently it isn't very real and isn't legitimate - it's only "PERHAPS in the minds of some".

[frankenstein]

Can you honestly claim to support and sustain the leadership of the Church while spreading falsehoods about them?

can you honestly claim "surrendered on demand" IS NOT printed on a Temple Rec.

Can you honestly claim that a Temple Rec. question does not ask about "opposing" views to those held by the Church.

I have not said anything about the Leadership of the Church I have not suggested anything about the leadership of the LDS Church, I presented a hypotethical that COULD be the basis for a claim that not all who "seemingly" supported Prop 8 did not out of "doing what is right" - according to the Gospel, but MAY HAVE (Perhaps) been swayed to support Prop 8 or at least not opening or actively work against Prop 8 simple to maintain their good standing in the LDS Church.

why is it so incomprehenisble for you all to consider a hypothetical.

and since we are so free throwing about CFR and mindreading.

USU

At no time, however, was anybody compelled to participate, donate, or get involved in any way. At no time was anyone compelled or pressured to change his mind on the subject. There were no church courts for the unwilling. There were no late-night meetings or even phone calls. There were no releases from callings. There were no protests, boycotts of businesses, no publications of names in the paper, and certainly no physical threats, assaults, or intimidation.

"AT NO TIME" that is a definative statement so please CFR....

Did you speak with every single person? were ever present at every single meeting/discussion/gathering of the members of the church no matter where or when it occured (consider that close to 40 - 50k dollars in support of prop 8 came from one ward in Central Texas - i was in that ward and read the public donation list and saw names of people i know)? I think not, so you are just blowing hypothetical s as much as anyone else. You can not prove what you assert did not happen and I can not prove what I suggest could have been the case was in fact the case.

however, we both have a basis for HYPOTHESIZING that what we each assert could be true.

[USU78]

Can you honestly claim to support and sustain the leadership of the Church while spreading falsehoods about them?

can you honestly claim "surrendered on demand" IS NOT printed on a Temple Rec.

Can you honestly claim that a Temple Rec. question does not ask about "opposing" views to those held by the Church.

I have not said anything about the Leadership of the Church I have not suggested anything about the leadership of the LDS Church, I presented a hypotethical that COULD be the basis for a claim that not all who "seemingly" supported Prop 8 did not out of "doing what is right" - according to the Gospel, but MAY HAVE (Perhaps) been swayed to support Prop 8 or at least not opening or actively work against Prop 8 simple to maintain their good standing in the LDS Church.

why is it so incomprehenisble for you all to consider a hypothetical.

and since we are so free throwing about CFR and mindreading.

"AT NO TIME" that is a definative statement so please CFR....

Did you speak with every single person? were ever present at every single meeting/discussion/gathering of the members of the church no matter where or when it occured (consider that close to 40 - 50k dollars in support of prop 8 came from one ward in Central Texas - i was in that ward and read the public donation list and saw names of people i know)? I think not, so you are just blowing hypothetical s as much as anyone else. You can not prove what you assert did not happen and I can not prove what I suggest could have been the case was in fact the case.

however, we both have a basis for HYPOTHESIZING that what we each assert could be true.

When in doubt of your ability to provide a single factual precedent for your position, demand that your opponent prove a negative.

[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off after a short battle]

ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.

BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.

ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off!

BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn't.

ARTHUR: Well, what's that then?

BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.

ARTHUR: You liar!

BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!

[frankenstein]

usu i am just using the same tactics as you..... please CFR your absolute statement.

[USU78]

usu i am just using the same tactics as you..... please CFR your absolute statement.

Horsepucky. I asked that you provide one counterexample.

You asked that I prove "X" never happened. You know this is logically impossible, right?

[Jason]

Is there any point in arguing this further? Frankenstein has already admitted that he has nothing.

[frankenstein]

Horsepucky. I asked that you provide one counterexample.

You asked that I prove "X" never happened. You know this is logically impossible, right?

usu78 you accused of narrator of clarvoyence because he stated "many" he was booted for not providing a CFr

you USU state "ALL" or to be more precised you assert than NONE whatsoever, please CFR. I am asking you to prove the positive of your statement you obviously know ever jot and tittle that occured with Prop 8 so please prove the positive of you statement that "ALL" acted in a certain way.

so please prove the positive of you claim.

[Chaos]

Is there any point in arguing this further? Frankenstein has already admitted that he has nothing.

Frankenstein if you can't back up an inflammatory claim about Mormons in general either back off or leave the thread. Everybody move on now.

[selek]

usu78 you accused of narrator of clarvoyence because he stated "many" he was booted for not providing a CFr

you USU state "ALL" or to be more precised you assert than NONE whatsoever, please CFR. I am asking you to prove the positive of your statement you obviously know ever jot and tittle that occured with Prop 8 so please prove the positive of you statement that "ALL" acted in a certain way.

so please prove the positive of you claim.

Spelling errors aside, I take this to be an admission that you weren't really trying to advance a serious argument or to add to the conversation, you were just trolling for a "gotcha" to avenge Narrator.

Got it.

Thanks.

Oops....Sorry Chaos. Didn't see your post.

Moving along......

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein if you can't back up an inflammatory claim about Mormons in general either back off or leave the thread. Everybody move on now.

chaos what is my claim.

My claim is that perhaps some people may have supported prop 8 or remains silent to avoid conflict with their preisthood leaders.

Preisthood leaders (bishop Stake Pres.) have authority to pull a Temple Rec. Such authority is printed on a temple rec. A question in the temple rec. interview is about supporting opposing views to the church.

so it is quite possible, that some remained silent or supported prop 8 because of fear of their church standing.

USU claims ALL acted a certain, that is a bold statement I would like him to prove it.

[USU78]

So, let's consider the tactic of attacking the money and organizational derring-do of CA Mormons, the logistical support of 50 East North Temple, and the failure to attack those groups which supported Prop-8, but provided the actual voters: The RCC Dioceses and the Black Churches of CAA.

How can we account for this tactic?

[frankenstein]

So, let's consider the tactic of attacking the money and organizational derring-do of CA Mormons, the logistical support of 50 East North Temple, and the failure to attack those groups which supported Prop-8, but provided the actual voters: The RCC Dioceses and the Black Churches of CAA.

How can we account for this tactic?

squeky wheel gets the grease.

Did the Pope issue a edict on Prop 8 - that is one way or the other? Meaning, is the LDS Church which is headquarter in another sovereign the only Worldwide Church which issued a "directive" of sorts on passing prop 8? (i.e. How dare those religious zealots in Utah tells us Ca. what to do)

Where Catholic bishops as involved as LDS Leaders in campaigning for Prop 8. If other Churches were not as heavily involved, in the campaign, then I can understand. but if all things are equal concerning prop 8 cmpaign then the only going after the LDS is best described as animus.

edit to clarify....

[Pahoran]

squeky wheel gets the grease.

Did the Pope issue a edict on Prop 8 - that is one way or the other? Meaning, is the LDS Church which is headquarter in another sovereign the only Worldwide Church which issued a "directive" of sorts on passing prop 8? (i.e. How dare Utah tells us Ca. what to do)

An appeal to prejudice that only works on the assumption that Mormons == Utah.

IOW, it's a bigoted argument.

I have it on good authority that every Mormon who voted for Prop. 8 was a California resident, and ipso facto not a Utahn.

Where Catholic bishops as involved as LDS Leaders in campaigning for Prop 8. If other Churches were not as heavily involved, in the campaign, then I can understand. but if all things are equal concerning prop 8 cmpaign then the only going after the LDS is best described as animus.

Animus as in animosity? Reprobates attacking rectitude?

I can believe that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[empbac]

Come on now, everything is biological isn't it? Let's say I believe drinking alcohol is wrong...and I never touch the stuff. Every time I walk by a bar at a social event I get absolutely no temptation to drink -- it has no appeal to me. Yet one day I decide to take a drink, let's say i am having a difficult time emotionally and a friend offers me some wine to "soothe the nerves." I drink it and like the effect. Later I find myself craving it -- to the point that now I schedule it into my daily routine. Has there been a change in my biology? Most certainly. Is there now a complex feedback loop tht involves psychology and biology? Again, absolutely. There are probably even changes in my brain structure as well as various endocrinological changes.

Now who knows how much of my desire to drink is based on factors like seratonin and other "feel good" hormones. And there may also be differences in how my body reacts and how the bodies of others I know react. And yes, it might be difficult for me to get the thought of drinking alcohol out of my mind no matter how many lectures about teh health effects, effects on family and discussions of the WofW take place. So is it now a part of "who I am" both psychologically and physically? Yes. Is drinking, even to excess, wrong? I guess it depends on who you talk to. The thing is, had I never partaken of the alcohol, in fact, if I lived in a country where alcohol was illegal, nothing would ever have happened in regards to my relationship to alcohol. I believe this is applicable to the whole same sex and biology debate since the supporters of normalization of homosexuality try to make it sound as if homosexuality is natural (actually I would say it is -- sex is natural and so if there were no limits on human expression of sexuality all people would be in some way bisexual) then we should all say "Fine, let us make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality in all areas of life, including religion. Well, no, if we believe in the foundations of the Abrahamic religions we have to stand firm tht homosexuality is not compatable with the teachings of any of the prophets.

Yes, the universe is physical. Nothing outside nature is known to exist.

Comparing alcoholism to homosexuality? Really? You're using a weak analogy. A better comparison would be race or gender, though these present problems too. Alcohol dependence takes a long time to develop, not a one-time sip, as you hint. You need to first demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice. Then you can use your analogy. In any case, let's talk about alcohol. It ultimately doesn't matter what your opinion of alcohol is -- there is no sound justification for you to deny it to others, because that's not your responsibility. Each person governs their own life, and it's the mutual respect of human rights that allows social fluidity. When you infringe on another's rights, you're making a value statement about those rights: you don't respect them. Prop 8 sought to make it impossible for gays to get married. Going by your alcohol analogy (which is weak), a proper comparison for this legal action is alcohol prohibition. Whether it's a drug like alcohol or the ability of gays to marry, it's none of your business. Your letting others do as they wish, so long as they don't infringe on your rights, grants you those same rights. But you can't have it one way only. If you want others to obey your rules but not the other way around, you're a hypocrite. Prohibition is an infringement of human rights, since -- even if users are hurting themselves, which is a complicated subject -- you don't have an ethical justification for order others what to do with their own bodies. Whether we use your analogy or not, your logic fails. It all seems to come down to a few base assumptions. You said: "the supporters of normalization of homosexuality try to make it sound as if homosexuality is natural (actually I would say it is -- sex is natural and so if there were no limits on human expression of sexuality all people would be in some way bisexual) then we should all say "Fine, let us make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality in all areas of life, including religion. Well, no, if we believe in the foundations of the Abrahamic religions we have to stand firm tht homosexuality is not compatable with the teachings of any of the prophets."

You made up your mind. Homosexuality is wrong because all the prophets have thought so up to now, and the analogy you presented is just a post hoc rationalization. Wonderful. A clear argument from authority, popularity, and even a little Slippery Slope, all rolled into one neat package.

[empbac]

I am sorry, but did you say that, "Sexual orientation is biological"? Do you have a reference for that? I have heard of no gay gene being discovered. Quite the contrary, science currently states they don't know, but there are discussions about it being nature, nurture, and choice. I may have missed it, so please enlighten us. However, should you actual do the research and find nothing to support your claim, please come back and let us know the results. When making such definitive, declaritive statements, please get your facts straight.

The LDS Church is hardly the only one that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In fact, the vast majority of Christianity takes this position. There is a minority of Christian churchese that appear to support it, but they are a small minority.

My facts? Try Wikipedia. In fact, I offered the link in the post I put up right after the one you quoted. The info is already there.

I thought the rest of Christianity was apostate. Why would it matter what they do? And what are you trying to say, that if all your friends jump off a bridge, you should do it too? Who cares what other churches are doing. The Mormon church used its power to pass a law. That means it should no longer have tax-exempt status. Am I wrong? Don't try to hide the church behind other churches. Explain why it wasn't wrong for doing what it did.

[Lachoneus]

The Mormon church used its power to pass a law. That means it should no longer have tax-exempt status. Am I wrong?

Of course you are wrong. Here is the IRS tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations. Please quote for us where the Church violated the law so that it should lose its tax exempt status.

[selek]

The Mormon church used its power to pass a law.

Factually false- on at least a dozen different levels.

The worst that can be said (with any degree of veracity and intellectual integrity) is that the Church allied with others in an attempt to persuade voters to pass a law- and was ultimately successful.

No force was used.

No coercion.

No threats.

No strong-arming.

No "power" was exerted.

The voters of California- not the Church- passed the law.

That means it should no longer have tax-exempt status.

This is a nonsequitor. Participation by a tax-exempt entity does not automagically cause one to lose that status.

I wonder if you're as eager to see other non-profits stripped of their tax-exempt status because their members are engaged in lawful political activity. I rather suspect your outrage is rather selective in this case.

Your outrage is also irrelevant- the United States Supreme Court recently upheld the Church's right to participate in political dialogue.

In addition to being inane, your argument is contrary to the law, un-Constitutional, and frankly, un-American.

Am I wrong?

According to the United States Supreme Court, you are dead wrong.

Don't try to hide the church behind other churches. Explain why it wasn't wrong for doing what it did.

The Supreme Court ruled that the organizations- including the Church- have a legal right to participate political discourse- such as Prop 8.

Since that right is guaranteed under the Constitution, it is up to you to explain why that right should be abridged.

We are under no obligation to defend our rights to the likes of you.

You will have to make a case for why our rights should be abridged.

I predict you will fail to do so (preferring emoting over reason) just as you failed to make the case against Prop 8.

Your entire tenure in this thread has been an attempt to blame the Mormons for passing Prop 8.

We didn't.

The dirty little secret is that the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA passed Prop 8.

You need to take your argument up with them.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Prop 8 sought to make it impossible for gays to get married. Going by your alcohol analogy (which is weak), a proper comparison for this legal action is alcohol prohibition.

Actually, a more apt comparison within this analogy would be opposing state endorsement of alcohol consumption and the equation of alcohol consumption with something like water consumption. Absolutely nothing in the US--or in most other nations--can prohibit two mutually attracted persons of the same sex living together, setting up a household together, owning property jointly, employing powers of attorney to guarantee access rights in the case of illness or death, etc. Marriage is about none of these things; it is about one thing only: the seeking of legal state sanction in order to attempt to normalise and domesticate a particular sexual behaviour which is still widely understand in most places not to provide the societal benefits demanding state sanction.

Speaking within the analogy, though I would prefer they didn't, I don't much care if people consume alcohol as long as they do it privately (the reason everywhere I've ever lived has had a law prohibiting drinking alcohol in streets, on footpaths, or in other public spaces) and responsibly, but I do have a problem if the boozehounds want the state to start endorsing and even piping into people's homes alcoholic beverages the same way they endorse and provide water.

[frankenstein]

The Mormon church used its power to pass a law. That means it should no longer have tax-exempt status. Am I wrong?

the irs does not even know how to apply any "code" you could site. The irs makes a decision which is then either affirmed or reversed by the courts.

I wonder if you're as eager to see other non-profits stripped of their tax-exempt status because their members are engaged in lawful political activity. I rather suspect your outrage is rather selective in this case.

for example, the NOW President in New York issued a public statement that it is the duty of woman to vote for Hillary Clinton. the IRS couldn't be bothered to go after this group

What does history show the IRS does go after,

religious groups

1. A university (religious) lost its tax exempt status because the university had a policy against interracial marriages and dating.

2. a preacher who held a hypothetical conversation between Jesus, GWB, and Al Gore. Yep the IRS went after this preacher with vengeance.

[Damien the Leper]

Your own words make it clear how his statements were taken out of context.

Just above you stated that he "made generalized statements concerning 3 different groups of people."

Packer was talking about groups. About political movements. Your original charge (and you're not the first to have made it) was that individual homosexuals were the threat.

As demonstrated, he was talking about political movements, not individuals.

I don't believe I ever said that something was directed individually but collectively. Maybe we are talking in circles. Let me clarify. I don't merely see them as political movements I see them as people who are also part of religious movements. To disengage political from the religious creates, IMO, a blind eye. Historically and even in the modern world politics plagues religion just as religion plagues politics.

Admittedly, the separation of church and state was not to make them mutually exclusive but to counter balance bureaucracy. The religous state should not dictate the federal state and vice versa.

In the words of Wanda Sykes, "If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex."

The problem with this logic is that it was not "intellectuals" who were excommunicated. It scholars who presumed to dictate to the Church and stood in opposition to it.

This example could more strongly be seen in the words of Paul Toscano. I understand what you mean.

These people wre not excommunicated because they were intellectuals, but because they were arrogant apostates and ark-steadiers.

This is an opinion that could be construed as loaded with emotion as well.

For proof, I point you to the long list of Mormon Scholars on the Mormon Scholars Testify site (referenced from these boards' homepage). These people are all intellectuals, yet they have not been excommunicated.

I looked at the website. I am impressed. However, I would like to see them not walk on eggshells when divulging in controversial historical matters. A former professor (Religion in America) of mine once stated that "with each religion formed you must take the good with the bad and maintain objectivity as opposed to subjectivity". A good friend of mine was excommunicated from the Catholic church. He openly questioned the claims to authority and the inaccuracies of historical account and the white-washing of history. The charge that the Archdiocese accused was that of apostasy. He was told that to question the authorities of the Catholic church, papal infallability, etc. was to question God. Such arrogance! No church is innocent nor is it excused from its controversial history (i.e., MMM, polygamy, Danites from Mormonism). To attempt to silence those who openly explore and question aspects to theology and history is not a crime. My friend told me that "no Pope, or church leader for that matter, is excused from criticism and question".

What is the difference between these intellectuals and the September Six? Since they're all intellectuals- the reasons for the excommunications must lie elsewhere.

Let's look at the September Six:

D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated for his works "Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power" and works documenting the continuation of plural marriages (performing weddings/sealings) after the 1890 Manifesto.

Paul Toscano was excommunicated for being critical of church leadership and for a speech he gave at Sunstone "All is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church".

Lynn Kanavel Whitesides was disfellowshipped for advocating Mormon Feminism.

Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for advocating Mormon Feminism.

Lavina Anderson was excommunicated for documenting changes to official church history and documenting cases of spiritual and ecclesiastical abuse found in the Mormon Alliance Case Reports.

Avraham Gileadi...not exactly sure why he was excommunicated. I don't think that he is appropriately bunched in with the other five.

Further excommunications:

Janice Allred for works on God the Mother and Mormon Feminism.

Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for the same reasons as her sister Janice.

David Wright for asserting that the Book of Mormon was a 19th Century document.

Michael Barrett was excommunicated for disobedience do to correcting news stories about Mormonism.

Brent Metcalfe for questioning the genealogical link between American Indians and Israelites.

Shane LeGrande Whelan for the continued publishing of his book "More Than One: Plural Marriage, A Sacred Heritage, A Promise For Tomorrow".

Grant Palmer for his book "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins".

The question then becomes whether it truly is "progress", don't you think?

That is subject to individual opinion.

You're trying to convince the members of the Church at large that a mistake was made. It's your agenda, you have to make your case.

You're trying to change our minds, remeber? It's up to you to prove that you're right where we're wrong.

But that's the thing, Selek. No matter what I say or documentation I give...I'm not going to change your mind. I think that many Mormons take far too literally D&C 1:38. It reminds me of what my friend said concerning the Catholic church. I strongly agree with him in the sense that we must separate the institution from God since the institution is imperfect and subjected to human flaw.

And for the record, words like "diatribe" and "ignorant cop-out" are both loaded and emotionally charged. That's an appeal to emotion, not reason.

You might disagree with the reasoning these women employed, but that doesn't make them "ignorant", nor does it mean they are "copping out".

I understand what you mean but please show worthwhile logic employed by these women that just doesn't only stem from what church leaders have said concerning the subject.

As I said, I'm working from memory (which may well be incorrect)- which is why I offered the qualifier in the first place. Give me some time to double check my information and I'll get back to you.

If I'm wrong, I'll happily withdraw the charge.

I will do the same.

Contary to my press, I'm neither dogmatic nor blind on the subject. One of my closest friends (and the godfather to my daughters, of all things) is a practicing homosexual.

He's also one of the most honest, compassionate, and trustworthy individuals I know.

If I could be shown- truly shown- that this change was not only equitable but beneficial to society in the long run, I would support it.

Thus far, I haven't seen that to be the case.

I'm not going to say that a good case has been made of the argument against what you and others share. I admit that the fallacy of the anti-8 argument is that it is too emotionally charged and not based in substantive logic.

[Daniel2]

Grant Palmer for his book "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins".

Grant Palmer was excommunicated for "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins"...??

Darin

[USU78]

Let's look at the September Six:

D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated for his works "Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power" and works documenting the continuation of plural marriages (performing weddings/sealings) after the 1890 Manifesto.

No he wasn't. The reasons for his excommunication were personal, having little if anything to do with his advocacy in that there book.

[snipsies]

Grant Palmer for his book "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins".

No he wasn't. He was never excommunicated. And he still draws full retirement from the CES.

Just to clarify a couple from your lists.

[Damien the Leper]

No he wasn't. The reasons for his excommunication were personal, having little if anything to do with his advocacy in that there book.

If you are asserting that it was because he was gay or having to do with his homelife, Quinn would more than likely disagree. Quinn stated this: "I vowed I would never again participate in a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."

He never attended his disciplinary council.

No he wasn't. He was never excommunicated. And he still draws full retirement from the CES.

Just to clarify a couple from your lists.

You're right. I looked at an article incorrectly. I apologize.

[Damien the Leper]

Grant Palmer was excommunicated for "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins"...??

Darin

No, he wasn't. I retract the statement because I misunderstood what was said.