Ow Not The First Excommunication

[ERayR]

What if there really isn't anything more to it? What if the Church actually made a mistake in this particular case? If she actually didn't do anything that merits excommunication and her excommunication is ironically another incidence of ecclesiastical abuse, what’s the path back?

 

Presumably there isn’t a statute of limitations on appealing an excommunication.  The First Presidency could reverse the excommunication on appeal, and simply undo it with the stroke of a pen.  But that raises the question: if the institutional church really were wrong about this, does it have the humility to admit it and fix it?

 

Or to accept things as they are and follow the outlined procedure in her letter for returning to the Church.  That might require swallowing ones pride but the last I heard you can not take it into the Celestial Kingdom.

[Tsuzuki]

This guy needs more humility. Just look at him all puffed up in pride.

 

[Zakuska]

This guy needs more humility. Just look at him all puffed up in pride.

 

I like the digs. Can I wear them to church this week?

Edited June 27, 2014 by Zakuska

[eddie]

Look I have no idea why she was excommunicated, and the only reports we have are her own. Chances are she received a letter much like KK did explaining the reasons for the discipline.

Many people claim Michael Quinn was excommunicated for his writings, but that has never been revealed by the church. He has been in various same sex relationships over the years, and while I don't know if that has anything the original transgressions, it is an excommunicable offense.

Simon Southerton also claimed he was excommunicated for his work in genetics, but now acknowledges it was for adultery. The point of this is that you only ever really hear one side of this, usual to an angry dissident if they are going to the press.

It very well could be there are issues behind all of these besides what has been reported or meets the eye.

Edited June 27, 2014 by eddie

[Analytics]

What are the particulars about the abuse that LFA alleged? I'm not really familiar with the specifics.

 

Thanks!

 

According to all available sources, Lavina Fiielding Anderson was excommunicated for writing the paper “The LDS Intellectual Community and Church Leadership: A Contemporary Chronology,” published in Dialogue in the Spring of 1993.

 

The paper describes “the clash between obedience to ecclesiastical authority and the integrity of individual conscience,” and presents a chronology that includes various statements made by church authorities, and actions taken against intellects and feminists.

 

She said she had to write this because she “received the calling of a witness in the household of faith.” She said she compiled this history so that the community of the Church could achieve understanding, forgiveness, and love.  Asking her to deny her motivations for writing this would be like asking Moroni to deny the Christ.

 

The article can be read here:

 

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N01_23.pdf

Edited June 27, 2014 by Analytics

[Tacenda]

Look I have no idea why she was excommunicated, and the only reports we have are her own. Chances are she received a letter much like KK did explaining the reasons for the discipline.

Many people claim Michael Quinn was excommunicated for his writings, but that has never been revealed by the church. He has been in various same sex relationships over the years, and while I don't know if that has anything the original transgressions, it is an excommunicable offense.

Simon Southerton also claimed he was excommunicated for his work in genetics, but now acknowledges it was for adultery. The point of this is that you only ever really hear one side of this, usual to an angry dissident if they are going to the press.

It very well could be there are issues behind all of these besides what has been reported or meets the eye.

I was about to CFR about Simon committing adultery, I guess I was unaware of it.  But then decided to check on it my self.  I c/p the quotes below.  It gives a different light on the subject. 

 

Hi Folks,

Some of you may hear reports about my upcoming disciplinary council. I just thought I would clarify a few things that were a little incorrect in the story I saw.

My wife and I left the church 7 years ago in 1998. We separated in 2003 for a period of almost 2 years. Several months after we separated I met a woman and we were close friends for about a year. She was in the process of leaving the church, lives interstate, and was separated from her husband (now divorced). The relationship ended and about 6 months later my wife and I got back together. We have been together for about 9 months and things are going well.

I am proud to be an apostate and deliberately never requested that my name be removed from the records. There are only two ways that my name can be removed. I could request it myself or they must hold a church court. They can't take my name off the records without my knowledge. I wrote Losing a Lost Tribe because I want to pressure the church to change its teachings and doctrines that are racist and wrong. Native Americans and Polynesians are not descended from Israelites and they are not the descendants of the imaginary cursed Lamanite race. I was looking forward to a court because it would give me an opportunity to admit to the charge of apostasy and defend my integrity.

Like many church leaders in Australia, my Stake President is aware that I have publicly challenged the teachings of the church for several years. Rather than hold a court on the charge of apostasy, he chose to take the sleazy route. He arranged for church leaders in another state to meet with my friend and to get a signed confession that she had had a relationship with me. She admitted she had before she knew what they were up to, and then refused to sign anything. Several weeks ago the Stake President and bishop met with me and my wife. I wasn't interested in talking about the adultery charge and we spent most of the time discussing my difficulties with the Book of Mormon. It was a very pleasant discussion and both seemed very sincere. Two weeks later I received a letter from the Stake President inviting me to a disciplinary council to answer adultery charges. He made no mention of my apostasy in the letter.

I deserve to be excommunicated. I fully expect to be excommunicated. But I am disappointed that the Stake President has engaged in official backbiting and snooping in order to avoid discussion of the more difficult issues related to Polynesian and Native American ancestry. I suspect he would probably prefer his high council didn't hear about this.

As a bishop I never snooped into the lives of inactive members to look for opportunities to discipline and the bishops I have known didn't do this either. If they did they would be holding courts all the time. We have not attended church in 7 years and have not had a single home teaching visit during that time. Now I am back with my wife they choose to haul me into a church court to punish me for alleged sexual sins. My wife is looking forward to attending the court and letting them know how she feels about the course of action they have taken. Should be interesting!

Regards

Simon               

 

Hi Folks

I just wanted to let you know the outcome of the Disciplinary Council. I apologize that has taken a while. Today was pretty hectic.

I was excommunicated for "having an inappropriate relationship with a woman" when I was a member of the church, married and a priesthood holder. The meeting went for 3 hours. It was in a small room and it stank by the end of the whole exercise. I spoke to them for about 1.5 hrs; my wife was in there with me for about 10 minutes of that time. They deliberated for the rest of the time. The entire meeting was cordial and the council followed the usual process.

I was not excommunicated for adultery. They did not have evidence to support that charge. They attempted to get evidence this week but were unsuccessful. It was clear that someone connected with either family has pressed for the case to go to a disciplinary council. Each family is now left to wonder who this person was, as the Stake President would not disclose this information. We must protect the gossip mongerer.

When I was invited to respond to the allegations, I refused to discuss my private life with these men. I challenged the Stake President about the appropriateness of prying into family relationships in order to deal with me. What was to be gained by the church interfering now when the events they are so obsessed with occurred almost 2 years ago and for the last 6 months both relationships have been healing? I have been back with my wife for almost 8 months and the other couple are doing likewise.

The Stake President denied that they were avoiding the issue of apostasy and that the charge they were investigating was more important. I seriously question this claim. I am convinced that they were intent on avoiding a council on the charge of apostasy. I was clearly instructed before the meeting that if I attempted to talk about "DNA" and my apostasy that the council would be immediately shut down and that it would be completed in my absence. I respected their request (foolish me) but told them that it was very difficult to defend my integrity against their charges if I couldn't give good reason why I didn't believe in the claims of the church anymore. I also told them that it was extremely unusual for the church to pursue someone who hadn't had anything to do with the church for the last 7 years. In my 10 years on numerous bishoprics, I never observed this.

I strongly challenged the council of 15 men about their motives. I asked if alleged misconduct over 2 years ago between separated adults was more serious than the charge of public apostasy for the last 6 years. There is clear evidence that I am doing my best to heal the relationships with my wife and family but I have given no signs of stopping my apostasy. I was stunned when members of the council assured me that the alleged "inappropriate relationship" was more important than the apostasy. I then quoted from the LDS General Handbook of Instructions where it says that a DC MUST be held for apostasy and MAY be held for adultery. I am confident that there are thousands of Mormon bishops and Stake Presidents who would strongly disagree with the entire council on this issue. Clearly they were set on the path to excommunication regardless of anything I said and the route they took to achieve the objective.

I suggested the Stake President consider calling the council off and to hold another council on the rather obvious charge of apostasy. I said that I was quite prepared to make this a painless process because I could not deny the obvious evidence of apostasy that is plain for all to see. Clearly, I was wasting my breath.

After reading out the decision of the court I asked the Stake President if he had been instructed by his superiors to carry out this council and he denied this. I am inclined to believe him. I think he was absolutely determined from the outset that I was going to be excommunicated. If he called off the council he would have looked a fool and everyone else risked letting the President down if they questioned the appropriateness of the decision.

A kangaroo court in kangaroo country

Simon         

 

This is becoming distasteful.  Let's stay out of people's private lives.    

[Zakuska]

"Like many church leaders in Australia, my Stake President is aware that I have publicly challenged the teachings of the church for several years. Rather than hold a court on the charge of apostasy, he chose to take the sleazy route. He arranged for church leaders in another state to meet with my friend and to get a signed confession that she had had a relationship with me. She admitted she had before she knew what they were up to, and then refused to sign anything. Several weeks ago the Stake President and bishop met with me and my wife. I wasn't interested in talking about the adultery charge and we spent most of the time discussing my difficulties with the Book of Mormon. It was a very pleasant discussion and both seemed very sincere. Two weeks later I received a letter from the Stake President inviting me to a disciplinary council to answer adultery charges. He made no mention of my apostasy in the letter."

 

-Why does this sound like Nauvoo De ja vu?

 

At least in Joseph Smith case they had signed Affidavits.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Zakuska

[eddie]

-Why does this sound like Nauvoo De ja vu?

At least in Joseph Smith case they had signed Affidavits.

Once again this is one man's story and the church will not respond to it. I am always skeptical in such situations that the entire story is being told.

I am skeptical in the case of Jane Law and other claims since that time.

[ERayR]

Once again this is one man's story and the church will not respond to it. I am always skeptical in such situations that the entire story is being told.

I am skeptical in the case of Jane Law and other claims since that time.

 

But of course.  Southerton is(as they all do) taking advantage of confidentiality that the Church maintains to make himself look as good as he can.  Even with him telling the story his defiance of church authority in church matters shouts loud and clear.

[Robert F. Smith]

If LFA really doesn't know what is required to be rebaptized, has she asked her bishop and stake president? If they don't know, they can find out.

 

I think there has to be more to it than you represent, Robert. It's not like it's the same bishop and stake president, either. It happened way back in 1993. That's 21 years . . .

You may be right or wrong, rongo, but it is indisputable that Lavina wrote that long Dialogue article.  Should she now lie and denounce the article as false and inaccurate (even if the facts are correct) in order to satisfy someone?  Or should she simply declare that her authorship of the article as an endowed Mormon was not permissible?  Would her repentance in that fashion be satisfactory?  Of course that does not address the problems I mentioned above in which some LDS members who write attacks on the Church are not exed.  It also ignores the issue of professional historians and reporters who just happen to be endowed Mormons.  Should they neglect to tell the facts whenever an LDS Church issue comes to the fore?  Should a convenient Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish reporter be sought out to report the troubling facts, thus allowing the Mormon reporter to breathe a sigh of relief.  Sounds absurd and comical to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

For me it would be any of them.

That's absurd and a non-answer.  Go back and look at your comment.