the september six

[USU78]

The Quinn and Packer stories are, I think, the least understandable disciplinary moves. Both disciplined for publishing things that now appear to be widely accepted in apologetic circles. Neither was questioning the doctrines of the Church, and Quinn, at least, still believed. (I don't have info about Packer.)

I thought Lynn Packer was in that 'group', but I guess I was wrong.

So why bring his name up? You are the only one who mentioned him in connection with a group with which he had no connection. Lynn is a years-long friend and colleague of mine -- and former neighbor.

Mind yourself here. I will not be shy in advising him to be aggressive in response to any libel.

[StBalthasar]

(StBalthasar @ Jan 31 2005, 09:40 AM)

Maybe nobody is accusing someone of lying; that does not preclude, however, that there is another side to the story. As an attorney I hear my clients' "true" side of their own stories all the time (and get paid to proceed based upon those truths), but often there are other truths that are just as valid - even when NOBODY is lying.

So are you saying there is no reason to discount what the Sept Six say happened in their disciplinary councils, simply because they said it? Or are you saying there is reason to assume they lie about it, when they tell their story? After all, it is their story, nothing more and nothing less. They lived it; surely they would be the ones best able to tell it.

No, I'm simply saying that even if the SS statements are as accurate as humanly possible, they are still only their own perspectives. In other words, reporting their entire observation of "their story" is not the same thing as reporting the entire story. They can't really presume to know what the bishops/stake presidents/counselors/high counsellors thought or saw or, most importantly, felt.

Think of it this way: two eye-witnesses, one car accident, nobody lies. One witness was in the car not looking at the light, the other was a passerby waiting to walk and specifically looking at the light. Although neither is lying, neither has the complete story (one missed the light, the other missed the car) due to focus & perspective. In this case, from the Church's point of view, the SS missed the Light because they focused only on the Church. Or something like that.

[wenglund]

Does anyone know what happened to this group of members who were disciplined? Do we know why and what happened with that?

Last I heard (years ago), they were supposedly going to cause the complete and utter collapse of the Church.

With such alleged power and influence, who can doubt that they have a great following today, and are a substantial influence in bringing much good to the world.

I am suprised that these questions above need even be asked.

Ummmm....what was there names again...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sr1030]

Wenglund: Last I heard (years ago), they were supposedly going to cause the complete and utter collapse of the Church.

Can I have a reference to where you heard that?

Wenglund: With such alleged power and influence, who can doubt that they have a great following today, and are a substantial influence in bringing much good to the world.

I am suprised that these questions above need even be asked.

Ummmm....what was there names again...

They certainly have had an influence on the decline in growth rate of the LDS church. That is the key and the focus for most. It certainly is for me. Most of us are satisfied with the progress to date.

sr

[Bob Bennett]

They certainly have had an influence on the decline in growth rate of the LDS church. That is the key and the focus for most. It certainly is for me. Most of us are satisfied with the progress to date.

Presumably the cause and effect analysis will be forthcoming.

[Matt Andrews]

Libel? Holy cow, USU78! Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I meant (it is easy to be misunderstood on a message board, particularly on issues where emotions can run high).

To clarify, I said 'I thought' he was, but 'I was wrong'. I remembered the story of him exposing Paul H. Dunn, and being fired for it. I thought that he was one of the so-called Six, but it appears that is not the case. I didn't mean anything derogatory by it at all, and actually intended quite the opposite, which is why I said I didn't understand why the Church would punish him for publishing that was true, and is now widely accepted as such. From what I understand, Packer did the right thing in publishing his findings, and the Church was wrong to fire him for it.

Apparently Necessary Legal Disclaimer:

If I have made any errors in this post, I apologize. Such was not my intent. If anything in this, or any other post I've ever written is offensive to anyone, I apologize. Such was not my intent, and I apologize if anyone mistakenly interpreted my words to to imply otherwise. Please do not sue me. I guarantee, I'm not worth it, unless you want a beat-up 1988 Honda that doesn't start in cold weather. Actually, I'd consider letting someone just take it, at this point. Piece of junk.

Appendum to Legal Disclaimer Above:

I apologize if I have offended the Honda corporation, or any of its subsidiaries. They make wonderful cars, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I will probably buy another one someday.

Appendum to the Appendum:

I apologize if I have offended any other automobile manufacturers. While Hondas are wonderful cars, I'm sure your cars are also wonderful, and I apologize if you mistakenly interpreted my words to imply otherwise. I also apologize to anyone who doesn't currently own a car, or to anyone who is a personal friend of a non-automobile owning person.

[wenglund]

Wenglund: Last I heard (years ago), they were supposedly going to cause the complete and utter collapse of the Church.

Can I have a reference to where you heard that?

I don't recall specifically, but it could have been one or more of the many unmemorable detractors on ARM.

Wenglund: With such alleged power and influence, who can doubt that they have a great following today, and are a substantial influence in bringing much good to the world.

I am suprised that these questions above need even be asked.

Ummmm....what was there names again...

They certainly have had an influence on the decline in growth rate of the LDS church. That is the key and the focus for most. It certainly is for me. Most of us are satisfied with the progress to date.

Aside from missing the point, can I have a reference to the study that established this alleged correlation.

From all the statistic I have seen, the growth rate has fluctuated in several direction since the "September 6" episode decades ago (and for various reasons), but the Church has continually grown.

I find it interesting that you have set such "lofty" negative goals for yourself (i.e merely diminishing the growth rate of the restored gospel of Christ).

For those of us who actually have confidence in our beliefs, and trust in the purely positive pursasive power of the truth, could care less what the growth or decline rate is in your Pharasiac faith, by set our sights instead on uplifting mankind and offering the saving and redeeming power of Christ to all willing to enter the door he has openned for them.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

They made their choices, though, and the Church authorities made theirs.

I don't think it is necessarily 'whining' if they maintain their position that the authorities acted poorly, anymore than it would be to maintain that Quinn and Packer did. I'll agree with juliann, though, that at least some shouldn't have happened.

Quinn gives me the impression of someone who had a bad hair year or two and really just wants to be a scholar. It is some of the others that made a career out of whining...and it was whining. Year after year we read about their stories. The problem is they have magazines that are willing to shovel it out for them. Its only been recently that I have seen this "why can't we just get along" which is suspiciously coincides with the dimming spotlight.

[Pelagoram]

To Whiskypete re: A. Giliadi:

I remember reading that his obstreperous behavior consisted of having a few different interpretations of certain Old Testament passages. I am aware of a deviation about the sticks in Ezekiel, which he discusses in one or two of his books. Seems like he was counseled to cease disagreeing with the Church on the meaning of these verses in his talks, and felt that he had complied but was disciplined anyway. I never felt that he belonged with the other five, which is evidenced by his humble submission to authority. I admire him very much for that.

[Outshined]

It's getting a bit petty in here, with threats of libel charges...

Good luck if you think that would stick.

[will2believe]

Quinn gives me the impression of someone who had a bad hair year or two and really just wants to be a scholar. It is some of the others that made a career out of whining...and it was whining. Year after year we read about their stories. The problem is they have magazines that are willing to shovel it out for them. Its only been recently that I have seen this "why can't we just get along" which is suspiciously coincides with the dimming spotlight.

Quinn is a top-notch historian, whose later work is unfortunately saturated with his own agenda. The others are acting just as any of us would in the face of a perceived injustice.

[urroner]

The others are acting just as any of us would in the face of a perceived injustice.

So many of us would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry will, but speak for yourself.

[will2believe]

The others are acting just as any of us would in the face of a perceived injustice.

So many of us would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry will, but speak for yourself.

I'm not sure what the baby/bathwater remark refers to. I'm simply saying that standing up for oneself shouldn't be regarded as whining.

[urroner]

The way I understood you comment, and I've been known to really misunderstand things, just ask either of my ex wives, is that any of us would have the same reaction that several of the "sept 6" had "in the face of a perceived injustice."

Well, after having been wrongfully accused of child abuse, I didn't react in the way most of them did by bellyaching about it and playing the role of a martyr.

[Blink]

(StBalthasar @ Jan 31 2005, 09:40 AM)

Maybe nobody is accusing someone of lying; that does not preclude, however, that there is another side to the story. As an attorney I hear my clients' "true" side of their own stories all the time (and get paid to proceed based upon those truths), but often there are other truths that are just as valid - even when NOBODY is lying.

So are you saying there is no reason to discount what the Sept Six say happened in their disciplinary councils, simply because they said it? Or are you saying there is reason to assume they lie about it, when they tell their story? After all, it is their story, nothing more and nothing less. They lived it; surely they would be the ones best able to tell it.

No, I'm simply saying that even if the SS statements are as accurate as humanly possible, they are still only their own perspectives. In other words, reporting their entire observation of "their story" is not the same thing as reporting the entire story. They can't really presume to know what the bishops/stake presidents/counselors/high counsellors thought or saw or, most importantly, felt.

Think of it this way: two eye-witnesses, one car accident, nobody lies. One witness was in the car not looking at the light, the other was a passerby waiting to walk and specifically looking at the light. Although neither is lying, neither has the complete story (one missed the light, the other missed the car) due to focus & perspective. In this case, from the Church's point of view, the SS missed the Light because they focused only on the Church. Or something like that.

I don't remember reading anything that says the SS knew what the bishops/stake presidents/counselors/high counselors thought, saw, or felt. I think that was quite a bit of the problem between the representatives of the church and the SS. The SS had no idea what the representatives of the church were thinking or why. But I haven't read everything there is to read about the events surrounding the SS, so it's entirely possible I missed that.

[USU78]

From what I understand, Packer did the right thing in publishing his findings, and the Church was wrong to fire him for it.

Lynn is unlikely to be viewed as being a public figure. You have no defense on "well, I thought I knew but I guess I don't." Your speculations about a specific individual who has not chosen publicity on his personal life are actionable. I cannot stress this too much.

[USU78]

Quinn gives me the impression of someone who had a bad hair year or two and really just wants to be a scholar. It is some of the others that made a career out of whining...and it was whining. Year after year we read about their stories. The problem is they have magazines that are willing to shovel it out for them. Its only been recently that I have seen this "why can't we just get along" which is suspiciously coincides with the dimming spotlight.

Quinn's mistake was in homosexualizing LDS history, apparently advancing a personal agenda as "sociohistorical" theory.

Part of his downfall is in "outing" (as he claims to have believed) an ancestor of mine (amongst others), whose cause was taken up by a shirttail relative of mine who knew the subject of Quinn's calumny, knew the true history of a certain Church musician's choice to remain unmarried (his fiance was tragically killed when a prop pistol in a play turned out to be loaded with live rounds), and who was so personally offended by Quinn's self-serving effrontery that he savaged Quinn's pseudohistory.

Quinn may have made a name for himself early on, but lost himself in his selfadulation and selfcongratulations.

[juliann]

Quinn may have made a name for himself early on, but lost himself in his selfadulation and selfcongratulations.

I know that some of these people made a lot of enemies and I don't doubt it was for good reason. I wasn't around or even aware of all of this at the time. I am only going from what I observe (or don't observe) now.

At any rate, I think this thread is getting far too personal. One of the problems about talking about LDS public figures is that it is always going to involve someone's relative or friend. We just can't get away from each other.

[KevinG]

One of the problems about talking about LDS public figures is that it is always going to involve someone's relative or friend. We just can't get away from each other.

This would be a bad point to start a thread on the legacy of polygamy wouldn't it?

[USU78]

One of the problems about talking about LDS public figures is that it is always going to involve someone's relative or friend.  We just can't get away from each other. 

This would be a bad point to start a thread on the legacy of polygamy wouldn't it?

[Bob Bennett]

Blink:

I don't remember reading anything that says the SS knew what the bishops/stake presidents/counselors/high counselors thought, saw, or felt. I think that was quite a bit of the problem between the representatives of the church and the SS. The SS had no idea what the representatives of the church were thinking or why.

I'm not so sure about this. If the SS had availed themselves of the opportunity to attend their respective disciplinary counsels, they should have become quite aware of what their Church leaders thought and saw. The matter would have been fully discussed there. Each would have had every opportunity to discuss their feelings and perceptions with his/her priesthood leadership. Prior to (and after for that matter) the formal disciplinary counsel, there would typically be any number of individual meetings with the bishop and/or the stake president to discuss the nature of the apparent infractions and to chart a course of action. On the other hand, if a person has predetermined that he has no interest in the counsel or actions of his file priesthood leaders, he may not be as privy to their thoughts. However, even if he refuses to attend his own disciplinary counsel, his stake president will send him a letter outlining the decision that has been made, the consequences of that decision and the path he should pursue to come back into full fellowship.

[Blink]

Blink:

I don't remember reading anything that says the SS knew what the bishops/stake presidents/counselors/high counselors thought, saw, or felt. I think that was quite a bit of the problem between the representatives of the church and the SS. The SS had no idea what the representatives of the church were thinking or why.

I'm not so sure about this. If the SS had availed themselves of the opportunity to attend their respective disciplinary counsels, they should have become quite aware of what their Church leaders thought and saw. The matter would have been fully discussed there. Each would have had every opportunity to discuss their feelings and perceptions with his/her priesthood leadership. Prior to (and after for that matter) the formal disciplinary counsel, there would typically be any number of individual meetings with the bishop and/or the stake president to discuss the nature of the apparent infractions and to chart a course of action. On the other hand, if a person has predetermined that he has no interest in the counsel or actions of his file priesthood leaders, he may not be as privy to their thoughts. However, even if he refuses to attend his own disciplinary counsel, his stake president will send him a letter outlining the decision that has been made, the consequences of that decision and the path he should pursue to come back into full fellowship.

It seems to me like a church disciplinary court would be a tense situation, one filled with presumptions and assumptions which may or may not be accurate, one in which openly sharing feelings and perceptions might not be considered a wise move by those on the receiving end of the discipline. Such a pressurized environment can be construed to be non-welcoming. It might even be considered the antithesis of an environment condusive to sharing (or listening). Protective walls would be the norm, I suspect. Communication takes a nosedive, behind those sorts of protective walls.

[USU78]

"It seems to me like" one can surmise anything one wants in the absence of actual data.

[John Russell]

Blink:

I don't remember reading anything that says the SS knew what the bishops/stake presidents/counselors/high counselors thought, saw, or felt. I think that was quite a bit of the problem between the representatives of the church and the SS. The SS had no idea what the representatives of the church were thinking or why.

I'm not so sure about this. If the SS had availed themselves of the opportunity to attend their respective disciplinary counsels, they should have become quite aware of what their Church leaders thought and saw. The matter would have been fully discussed there. Each would have had every opportunity to discuss their feelings and perceptions with his/her priesthood leadership. Prior to (and after for that matter) the formal disciplinary counsel, there would typically be any number of individual meetings with the bishop and/or the stake president to discuss the nature of the apparent infractions and to chart a course of action. On the other hand, if a person has predetermined that he has no interest in the counsel or actions of his file priesthood leaders, he may not be as privy to their thoughts. However, even if he refuses to attend his own disciplinary counsel, his stake president will send him a letter outlining the decision that has been made, the consequences of that decision and the path he should pursue to come back into full fellowship.

It seems to me like a church disciplinary court would be a tense situation, one filled with presumptions and assumptions which may or may not be accurate, one in which openly sharing feelings and perceptions might not be considered a wise move by those on the receiving end of the discipline. Such a pressurized environment can be construed to be non-welcoming. It might even be considered the antithesis of an environment condusive to sharing (or listening). Protective walls would be the norm, I suspect. Communication takes a nosedive, behind those sorts of protective walls.

Church disciplinary councils can be tense, but they are often deeply moving and spiritual, in my experience. There is opportunity for the individual to express concerns, and to work to resolve issues. They also provide the opportunity to clarify concerns. I guess my feeling is that those who fail to participate in their own disciplinary councils have chosen to remain misunderstood, if they feel so.

[Blink]

Church disciplinary councils can be tense, but they are often deeply moving and spiritual, in my experience. There is opportunity for the individual to express concerns, and to work to resolve issues. They also provide the opportunity to clarify concerns. I guess my feeling is that those who fail to participate in their own disciplinary councils have chosen to remain misunderstood, if they feel so.

Is the presumption of innocence the norm for a church disciplinary council? Or is the presumption that the member is guilty? If the latter, is the presumption of guilt one reason why the accused may choose to not participate?

I don't presume to speak for the SS, but I don't see how the presumption of guilt is conducive of a cordial meeting. And I don't see how a presumption of innocence would ever result in a disciplinary council. So if the disciplinary council is conducted with the presumption is that the person is guilty of whatever the charge is, then operating from that parameter would generally preclude a listening attitude and feed into the tense atmosphere. Or so it seems to me.

USU, the next time you sit through a church disciplinary council, perhaps you could give a first-hand account. Until then, I'm just left with supposition and whatever family experiences I have access to.