Maxine Hanks Rejoins The Flock

[Pahoran]

You show YOUR bias by assuming there is a 'spin on the subject'. The silence that the ecclesiastical leaders demand on such sensitive subjects is not always appropriate because it deceitfully leads people to believe that there is something to be hidden or that 'confidentiality' is necessary. In such cases, the inappropriate reaction would be 'well...we don't know".

On the contrary, that is entirely appropriate.

That there are two parties to each of those excommunications is a fact. That we have only one side of the story is also a fact. That those individuals chose to tell their side, knowing that the other side would not be forthcoming as any sort of check or control upon their versions, is also a fact.

Ignoring these relevant facts and assuming that one side == the whole truth shows its own bias, IMHO. The Church has done nothing "deceitful" at all.

From the times that I have read/heard members of the September Six speak about their excommunications there has never been reason to believe that they were lying about their experiences. To dismiss their side of the story because of the silence of the other side further shows the extent of bias...a bias that demonstrably shows poor character.

That's uncalled for.

Your binary solution set is a straw man. It is not the case that someone who isn't lying must therefore be telling it exactly like it is. If you've ever spoken to two recently-divorced spouses, you might suppose they are describing two completely different divorces -- or, perhaps, that one of them is "lying." What is more likely is that both of them are honestly describing their own perceptions, which may or may not have some resemblance to what actually happened.

Let me give you an example: when members of the so-called "September Six" claim that their excommunications were directed by the evil Darth Packer, they are claiming knowledge of private communications to which they cannot possibly be privy. IOW, this is an assumption, or at best a conclusion, of their own, which proceeds from no facts. It is not "bias," therefore, to treat this confident -- but baseless -- claim with a considerable degree of caution, if not outright scepticism.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

I disagree with excommunications of academics if the content of the writings are NOT explicitly demonstrated by their authors as 'anti' work. Deeming works 'anti' should also be critically analyzed because of the biased 'rank and file' or 'believe and obey' position...albeit an ignorant position.

So Lavina published works on sanitized history? So what! Who cares?!?

So Maxine and Lynne advocated Mormon feminism and priesthood? Who cares?!? The church wasn't going to change its position on the subject.

So Janice Allred reflected and published work on her OWN perceptions of the Heavenly Mother (in which she never claimed as LDS DOCTRINE...only the ignoramuses such as her SP and others saw it as such)? Who cares?!? It was reflective and not published by Intellectual Reserve.

These cases are ridiculous.

Are you now prepared to back assertions with facts and documentation?

Let me help you get started. It is an offense to publically teach false doctrine, using your membership in the church to gain credence to those ideas. It is also an offense to seek/attempt to gain followers (converts) to those false teachings. Does this help?

"Who cares?"

Well, it is important to understand that each of these hearings were held by **local** leaders, who were alone in making this decision. You can be assured that there were discussions with these individuals, and they made their own decisions regarding the long term outcome. As you point out, only one returned. It is not inconceivable that the five had no interest in remaining in the church as long as they had "made their point" to embarrass the church.

The general church leaders care that the church is not lead down a false path as many other religious organizations have done. The church is not lead by theologians but by prophets, and it cannot allow these self-appointed teachers to corrupt the church.

There are many churches lead by councils of bright, intelligent individuals, and they would be delighted to have such people join their organization, perhaps even in a leadership role. And these six five surely are much happier elsewhere.

"ridiculous" Yes, for someone absent of the full details and facts, it may seem so. Have you considered that you have been manipulated? The church has not given its side of the story, only allowing them to give theirs.

Perhaps if you were in full possession of the facts, you would see things very differently.

[Damien the Leper]

On the contrary, that is entirely appropriate.

That there are two parties to each of those excommunications is a fact. That we have only one side of the story is also a fact. That those individuals chose to tell their side, knowing that the other side would not be forthcoming as any sort of check or control upon their versions, is also a fact.

Ignoring these relevant facts and assuming that one side == the whole truth shows its own bias, IMHO. The Church has done nothing "deceitful" at all.

Pahoran, go back and look at what I wrote in my first paragraph. What I implied by my statement, which I was sure would be misunderstood, is that silence can be deceitful because it leads many to draw unnecessary and problematic conclusions. I never suggested that only one side is more truthful than the other. To assume that such was implied by my post shows a telling agenda of deliberate mischaracterization of the posts intent.

Also, I am not contending the facts that you present in your response. Nor did I give reason to suspect that I did.

Let me be clear...I DID NOT SAY THE CHURCH COMMITTED ANY ACT OF DECEIT.

That's uncalled for.

Your binary solution set is a straw man. It is not the case that someone who isn't lying must therefore be telling it exactly like it is. If you've ever spoken to two recently-divorced spouses, you might suppose they are describing two completely different divorces -- or, perhaps, that one of them is "lying." What is more likely is that both of them are honestly describing their own perceptions, which may or may not have some resemblance to what actually happened.

I did not suggest anyone lied. Until the ecclesiastical leaders come forward to comment on their side of the story we only have one set of information. I do not expect the LDS leaders to come forward to do so nor should they have to but to conclude that "because we [church leadership] are silent on this matter we are therefore excused of any responsibility in the matter" is fallacious. I'm NOT suggesting that they are but I have heard opposers to my position ignorantly suggest so. And that does NOT mean that I'm accusing YOU of doing such either. You are much more intelligent than that.

Furthermore, I did not in any way mischaracterize an opponents position.

Let me give you an example: when members of the so-called "September Six" claim that their excommunications were directed by the evil Darth Packer, they are claiming knowledge of private communications to which they cannot possibly be privy. IOW, this is an assumption, or at best a conclusion, of their own, which proceeds from no facts. It is not "bias," therefore, to treat this confident -- but baseless -- claim with a considerable degree of caution, if not outright scepticism.

Regards,

Pahoran

Whether Oaks lied to Benson about Packer's involvement Toscano's excommunication is of no concern to me. "Darth Packer" is an insidious mischaracterization of those who don't necessarily agree with Packer and his personal agenda as an apostle of the church. However, I will take a moment to be insidious and suggest that there are those opponents of Packer that would deem him as such but I know of very few compared to those who would NOT characterize him as "Darth Packer".

I'm curious as to how you can be certain that no one can be privy to the information which you claim they cannot be. That is an assumption as well. Is this demonstrated solely based on the silence that has ensued on the behalf of the ecclesiastical leaders? If so, that would be quite an awkward notion.

[Damien the Leper]

Are you now prepared to back assertions with facts and documentation?

Let me help you get started. It is an offense to publically teach false doctrine, using your membership in the church to gain credence to those ideas. It is also an offense to seek/attempt to gain followers (converts) to those false teachings. Does this help?

YOU are now RESPONSIBLE for PROVING what you are accusing these individuals of. Does it help? Yes, it shows your agenda and attitude.

"Who cares?"

Well, it is important to understand that each of these hearings were held by **local** leaders, who were alone in making this decision. You can be assured that there were discussions with these individuals, and they made their own decisions regarding the long term outcome. As you point out, only one returned. It is not inconceivable that the five had no interest in remaining in the church as long as they had "made their point" to embarrass the church.

YOU are now RESPONSIBLE for PROVING what I have bolded above. And let's avoid the 'because the handbook states this as policy' or 'because the leadership says so' arguments. They won't stick.

The general church leaders care that the church is not lead down a false path as many other religious organizations have done. The church is not lead by theologians but by prophets, and it cannot allow these self-appointed teachers to corrupt the church.

You are correct that the church is not led by theologians nor is it led by individuals who actively and consistently demonstrate a working knowledge of theological subjects, exegesis or scriptural scholarship. Then you could always quote, albeit ad nauseum, the 14 Fundamentals (which would get you nowhere by the way) Make no mistake about my words...they are NOT meant to disrespect the leadership. I recognize that the leadership is doing the best they can with the best knowledge they've got.

There are many churches lead by councils of bright, intelligent individuals, and they would be delighted to have such people join their organization, perhaps even in a leadership role. And these six five four surely are much happier elsewhere.

Avraham Gileadi is a member of the church just Maxine Hanks is. Also, Lavina Fielding Anderson still attends meetings every week. She has stated so, herself. Lynne Whitesides has moved on, Paul Toscano just doesn't bother and I don't know what Michael Quinn is doing.

"ridiculous" Yes, for someone absent of the full details and facts, it may seem so. Have you considered that you have been manipulated? The church has not given its side of the story, only allowing them to give theirs.

I have never been given a reason by any of the September Five (I don't group Gileadi in this) to feel or believe I have been manipulated. The leaderships choice to withhold their side is their problem and responsibility.

Perhaps if you were in full possession of the facts, you would see things very differently.

If the both sides had been forthcoming with ALL the facts and openly discussed them with each other, we would ALL see things very differently.

[Bob Crockett]

I took substantial professional and personal abuse during the Prop 8 contest due to Maxine's website which linked my Prop 8 contribution (a public matter) to my church position (a private matter). I asked her to remove my name from her website, stating it was a personal and private matter as to my religious affiliation and responsibilities. She refused. I am glad to see one less effective enemy back in the fold.

[Evangeline]

Valentinus,

I wonder if the people who decided that church discipline was necessary are losing any sleep over their decision. If so, then that is between them and God. If not, then that is also still between them and God. *If* they committed an injustice, then that will be on their heads.

There is nothing stopping those who have been excommunicated from returning back to the fold if they so choose. There is nothing stopping them from having a personal relationship with God and progressing spiritually.

I refuse to make any judgments on the situation, not because I have an "agenda," but because I refuse to allow the bitterness of others to affect my own personal relationship with God.

I have seen what I consider significant injustice in my own life (injustice that has caused me a lot of pain), but I chose to keep the issues as private as possible and not proclaim my indignation to anyone who would listen.

I have had to learn (and continue to learn) the principle of forgiveness in my own life.

I will ultimately let God judge those who have hurt me and my loved ones just as I will let God be the judge of all the people involved in these excommunications.

[DonBradley]

CD: "The church is not lead by theologians but by prophets."

Although theology is Maxine's area of greatest expertise, I know she would completely agree. In fact, she's told me that Elder Kristofferson's talk at the most recent General Conference also well represents her view. Theology, hermeneutics, and other intellectual explorations of the faith can potentially make real contributions to our understanding. But what constitutes doctrine in determined by the prophets.

Don

[DonBradley]

When the Church disciplines someone it also provides them a shield of privacy surrounding the reasons for that discipline. It would be ironic and counterproductive for us to then use that privacy protection as grounds for voicing private speculation that authors may have been disciplined for moral malignancies along with, or instead of, for their writings. We would do better to follow the Church's lead on the matter.

Also, not to be overlooked in the discussion of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of such speculation is the very real fact that someone who was excommunicated nearly two decades ago has returned, through baptism, to the Church, with a renewed and expanded testimony. The occasion is one on which we should be united in gladness rather than one that should spark renewed arguments about the events of way back in 1993.

Don

[Nemesis]

When the Church disciplines someone it also provides them a shield of privacy surrounding the reasons for that discipline. It would be ironic and counterproductive for us to then use that privacy protection as grounds for voicing private speculation that authors may have been disciplined for moral malignancies along with, or instead of, for their writings. We would do better to follow the Church's lead on the matter.

Also, not to be overlooked in the discussion of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of such speculation is the very real fact that someone who was excommunicated nearly two decades ago has returned, through baptism, to the Church, with a renewed and expanded testimony. The occasion is one on which we should be united in gladness rather than one that should spark renewed arguments about the events of way back in 1993.

Don

On this wise note, thread closed.

Nemesis