the september six

[Blink]

This is bizarre reasoning.

Hopefully to clarify:

1) Everyone who ever lived on the earth and was unable to do their own temple work will have their temple work done for them during the millenium. The great expansion of temples worldwide is to facilitate this process. This is a basic doctrine and policy of the church. I don't know where your first paragraph is supposed to go or the point you were trying to make.

2) The LDS church insists that certain earthly ordinances be done ("dance card" and other assorted paperwork be signed by the appropriate individuals), including baptism, confirmation, receiving the Holy Ghost, ordination (for males), endowment, and sealing in order for eternal salvation to take place. Those ordinances are not optional and all are cancelled by excommunication.

3) An excommunication in error is moot (God can and does restore lost blessings in those cases), but that is small comfort to those who must spend their lives without the blessings of church membership, temple attendance, testimony bearing, etc., because of the unrighteous dominon and eccesiastical abuse of church leaders.

4) Excommunications for certain heinous crimes are clear-cut and easy to ascertain, but apostacy is subjective and is never clear-cut.

5) Changing the church disciplinary council process would clear up many of the issues surrounding them. Offering the accused the option of opening the disciplinary council to the public, offering the accused the option of securing their own counsel, and taking excommunication as a sanction off the table in subjective cases would be a good start.

6) This thread is about excommunication not fantasies, specifically the excommunication of the Sept 6.

I hope that is clear now.

[juliann]

5) Changing the church disciplinary council process would clear up many of the issues surrounding them. Offering the accused the option of opening the disciplinary council to the public, offering the accused the option of securing their own counsel, and taking excommunication as a sanction off the table in subjective cases would be a good start.

Great! Yes! It's clear! You have clarified! Are you done complaining? Let's all sign a petition before she re-clarifies what she has said over and over and over for another nine pages! Here! Contact the church directly, "blink"! http://www.mormon.org/question/talk/0,8554,796-1,00.html

When you explain this those Elders will rush it to Church Headquarters, I'm sure. They will probably put you in a think tank just cause you are so gosh darn concerned as you ponder what is wrong with everyone but yourself.

[USU78]

Excommunications for certain heinous crimes are clear-cut and easy to ascertain, but apostacy is subjective and is never clear-cut.

I would think that public advocacy of positions diametrically opposed to the core beliefs of the Church would be clear-cut, but then I am a bear of little brain.

[Kenngo1969]

Blink Previously Posted: [T]aking excommunication as a sanction off the table in subjective cases would be a good start...

Ken Responds: Is there such a thing as a non-subjective case? Even in things like adultery and incest, it still comes down to a case of "He-said-she-said," or "The-child-said-versus-the-adult-said..." Even in a court of law, with much more stringent rules of evidence and procedure, just because a jury hears seemingly-damning evidence doesn't mean its members are going to give that evidence as much weight as another observer might.

Besides, don'tcha just Loooove it? More proof positive we LDS can't win. According to about half of our detractors (Blink and his/her ilk), if we excommunicate, we're being cold, cruel, mean, and heartless. According to about the other half, however, if we don't excommunicate, we're just "holding onto" members "on paper" in order to inflate the Church's statistics. See, e.g., http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=6828. Sigh!

[Calm]

Well done on offering the clarification. Why not start from that position next time rather than wasting your own and others' time with vagueness and innuendo?

those who must spend their lives without the blessings of church membership, temple attendance, testimony bearing, etc., because of the unrighteous dominon and eccesiastical abuse of church leaders.

Agreed that they may end up spending their lives without these blessings. That's harsh and wrong if they are not at fault. But what in the world does this have to do with their eternal salvaltion/exaltation since this only has an immediate effect during their mortal lives?

This is a basic doctrine and policy of the church.

If I applied the same reasoning you used for excomunicants to those deprived of these blessings due to general circumstance, this would read "that is small comfort to those who must spend their lives without the blessings of church membership, temple attendance, testimonly bearing, etc. because of the happenstance of where and when they were born or who they've encountered during their lives."

If the deprived due to natural circumstance should be comforted by this basic doctrine of the Church, then why couldn't the deprived due to man's intervention be comforted even when they are dealing with the mundane consequences of being wrongly excommunicated (lost status, seen as not trustworthy, can't participate in things that have meaning for them, etc.)? What is it that makes their circumstances so unique that it places them beyond the comfort of God's justice and mercy, the Atonement, the Gospel and all its implicaitons?

The most likely reason why they wouldn't experience the comfort is because they've made the choice to let someone else define who they are and have accepted the role of victim. This may be through willfulness or ignorance. Either way, it is their choice, not reality that would lead them to this state. Whether or not they are accountable for this choice will depend on their knowledge about it, but refusing contact with church courts is not exactly a way to increase one's personal knowledge about the experience. Instead it is an acceptance of the status quo.

So I would suggest that the most accurate way of stating your proposition is "that it is small comfort for those who refuse to be comforted."

Offering the accused the option of opening the disciplinary council to the public, offering the accused the option of securing their own counsel, and taking excommunication as a sanction off the table in subjective cases would be a good start.

This is opinion. Have you any evidence that this would happen? My opinions are that it wouldn't make any difference to the actual decision, just the presentation; if people aren't in the state where they know enough of their personal belief and behaivour to be able to discuss it themselves rather than have others put words in their mouth, then they have a bigger issue than the perception of others going on; and last, that removing options is effectively hamstringing the Church from both protecting itself and helping others. Since you are the one agitating for change, I think the burden of proof is on you.

If the decision is about whether or not apostasy has taken place, how does making it public change the determination of what is and isn't apostasy.

Why would the accused need someone to speak for him when it is an issue of apostasy? It's not a case of moral or emotional support as he can bring that along now. All he has to do is deny or confirm if he is publicly teaching the doctrinces that the court has defined as apostasy.

Define what makes it a subjective case in the terms of a court for apostasy. There are some pretty concrete, objective guidelines from what I've seen.

[Blink]

They will probably put you in a think tank just cause you are so gosh darn concerned as you ponder what is wrong with everyone but yourself.

This thread is about the excommunications of the Sept 6. Why would I ponder what's wrong with me on this thread? That would be off-topic and a needless distraction. If you want to discuss what's wrong with me (or you, or anyone else), I'm sure there's a place and a procedure for that. However, this thread is about the excommunication of the Sept 6, so that is what I'm discussing.

[Blink]

Well done on offering the clarification. Why not start from that position next time rather than wasting your own and others' time with vagueness and innuendo

I wasn't aware that anyone is forced to participate on this thread, calmoriah. Feel free to bail at any time.

Agreed that they may end up spending their lives without these blessings.  That's harsh and wrong if they are not at fault.  But what in the world does this have to do with their eternal salvaltion/exaltation since this only has an immediate effect during their mortal lives?

Do you think that the blessings of this life have no bearing on where we end up in the next? Just a few of the blessings that, when revoked wrongly, could significantly impact a person's eternal salvation:

--temple marriage could end in divorce, if the spouse believes the panel of church leaders instead of the spouse, which has eternal ramifications for the ex'ed.

--children are unsealed to parent, so they could easily be lost to an ex'ed member in the event of a temple divorce, also with eternal ramifications for the ex'ed.

--job could be lost, if the person's boss isn't openminded about employing an ex'ed member, and then the person may have to move away from their family, their support system.

--bitterness leading to a complete breakdown in health and character.

Once the dominoes start to fall because of an incorrect decision, it's very hard to stand them back up again. Through no fault of their own. the person is permanently changed as a result. Why should they be forced to go through the repentence process in order to regain that which was incorrectly taken from them?

This is a basic doctrine and policy of the church.

If I applied the same reasoning you used for excomunicants to those deprived of these blessings due to general circumstance, this would read "that is small comfort to those who must spend their lives without the blessings of church membership, temple attendance, testimonly bearing, etc. because of the happenstance of where and when they were born or who they've encountered during their lives."

I prefer to keep the discussion surrounding excommunication, if you don't mind. My comments are all specific to excommunication. If you want to expand the discussion to include other circumstances, perhaps you could start another thread?

Offering the accused the option of opening the disciplinary council to the public, offering the accused the option of securing their own counsel, and taking excommunication as a sanction off the table in subjective cases would be a good start.

This is opinion.

I never said it was anything else.

Have you any evidence that this would happen?

Evidence that what would happen?

My opinions are that it wouldn't make any difference to the actual decision, just the presentation; if people aren't in the state where they know enough of their personal belief and behaivour to be able to discuss it themselves rather than have others put words in their mouth, then they have a bigger issue than the perception of others going on; and last, that removing options is effectively hamstringing the Church from both protecting itself and helping others.

I disagree. Obviously it would make a whole lot of difference, if one bases their opinion on the outcomes of the recent disciplinary councils for Bro Murphy and Bro Palmer. They both discussed their situations openly with the press; the church backed down in Bro Murphy's case and opted for a lesser sanction in Bro Palmer's.

And I'm curious about your comment about the church protecting itself. From what? From whom? Why would the church need protection from anything? The church is the accuser, not the accused.

Since you are the one agitating for change, I think the burden of proof is on you.

Proof of what?

And I hardly call posting on an internet bulletin board "agitating for change". When I circulate a petition and picket the church office building, then you can say I'm agitating for change. Until then, I'm not agitating for anything.

If the decision is about whether or not apostasy has taken place, how does making it public change the determination of what is and isn't apostasy. 

Who said anything about the public being the body that makes the decision in a church disciplinary council? Not me. It's not the public's decision to make. Opening up the proceedings wouldn't change who makes the decisions. It would only change who gets to watch the decisions being made. Opening up the proceedings would greatly reduce the opportunity for unrighteous dominion and ecclesiastical abuse, IMO. The church leaders would still decide what is doctrine, what is apostacy, what is acceptable and what is not. The public would just have the opportunity to watch the decision-making process and hear the comments.

Why would the accused need someone to speak for him when it is an issue of apostasy?  It's not a case of moral or emotional support as he can bring that along now.  All he has to do is deny or confirm if he is publicly teaching the doctrinces that the court has defined as apostasy. 

One of the gentlemen on the thread earlier said that one of the HC are appointed to represent the accused. That is what I referenced when I said the accused should be able to bring their own counsel and not be required to use that which is given to them.

Define what makes it a subjective case in the terms of a court for apostasy.  There are some pretty concrete, objective guidelines from what I've seen.

The church has a difficult time defining what is doctrine at any given time, so how can they determine what is apostacy? (For example, evil speaking of the Lord's annointed can be interpreted a thousand different ways, depending on the circumstances. If someone tells a joke about a GA, is that evil speaking enough to be hauled in front of a church court? Is Heavenly Mother doctrinal or not? We teach the concept in the temple and in our hymns, but is it doctrinal?) The difficulty in determining what is doctrine and what is apostacy from that doctrine is hampered by concepts like continuing revelation and confusion over the difference between policy and doctrine.

Excommunicating someone for apostacy should be as concretely determinable as excommunicating someone for murder. It's not; it's subjective and the lines in the sand are continually shifting depending on where you live, who your bishop is, how liberal your local leaders are, and what GA's pet doctrine was trod on that week.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Two comments.

1) When Blink writes:

Do you think that the blessings of this life have no bearing on where we end up in the next? Just a few of the blessings that, when revoked wrongly, could significantly impact a person's eternal salvation:

This once more indicates the feeling that the church, as an institution, somehow has the power to grant or deny eternal salvation. The church, of course, believes that excommunication, rather than a denial of blessings, is a way to encourage repentance.

2), Blink writes:

Excommunicating someone for apostacy should be as concretely determinable as excommunicating someone for murder. It's not; it's subjective and the lines in the sand are continually shifting depending on where you live, who your bishop is, how liberal your local leaders are, and what GA's pet doctrine was trod on that week.

The problem with this black and white thinking is that apostacy comes in degrees. Murder doesn't. And it is, I would think, (and here I am not speaking from experience), easier to repent of apostacy than it is to repent of murder. Apostacy is something which presumably can be corrected, and, as the CHI (which I have never had any problems getting access to) points out, apostacy of public figures, educators, and others in leadership positions is always considered more serious than the same apostacy by others who do not fit these categories. I suppose you would be happy if we placed everyone at the same level. Would you want the bar raised for the general membership or lowered for those in leadership positions?

Ben

[Blink]

The problem with this black and white thinking is that apostacy comes in degrees. Murder doesn't. And it is, I would think, (and here I am not speaking from experience), easier to repent of apostacy than it is to repent of murder. Apostacy is something which presumably can be corrected, and, as the CHI (which I have never had any problems getting access to) points out, apostacy of public figures, educators, and others in leadership positions is always considered more serious than the same apostacy by others who do not fit these categories.

That is why I think excommunicating someone for apostacy is subjective, Ben: because who you are sometimes matters and sometimes doesn't. There is no consistency. It's not even what you say or what you write. People perceived as mere members are sometimes not ex'ed for the same things leaders are ex'ed for, but they are sometimes.

Some excommunications are very easy to understand, because the same standard is applied no matter who commits the crime. If a leader commits murder, he's ex'ed. If a regular member commits murder, he/she's ex'ed. Why are the rules different when it comes to apostacy?

Let's use some of the Sept 6 as an example: Lavina Fielding Anderson was ex'ed for publishing a list of attacks by LDS officials on intellectuals in Dialogue. What apostacy was that? She published a factual list. Essentially she was ex'ed for daring to speak the truth about some of our leaders. What doctrine did she trash?She wasn't a leader (not a GA, not General RS Pres, not a professor employed by BYU). Why was she ex'ed? Is it an excommunicatable offense to speak the truth, even if it's negative, about someone?

Maxine Hanks was ex'ed for publishing her thoughts about Heavenly Mother. Heavenly Mother is doctrinal. We teach about her every day in the temple, we sing hymns about her, she is the goal of every LDS woman. What apostacy did Maxine Hanks commit? She wrote her thoughts about a doctrine of the church.

D Michael Quinn was ex'ed for writing about church history. He wrote the truth as he found it, complete with hundreds of footnotes. Where is the apostacy in that? Grant Palmer also wrote about church history, the truth as he found it. He was not ex'ed.

Apostacy is subjective, based on who the person is, what they do for a living, even where they live; standards are inconsistently and inappropriately applied. The whole process needs to be reviewed and updated.

[Calm]

I prefer to keep the discussion surrounding excommunication, if you don't mind. My comments are all specific to excommunication.

In other words, you either taking it out of context or limit it as to isolate it from the rest of human experience. Makes it much easier to misrepresent, doesn't it?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Blink writes:

That is why I think excommunicating someone for apostacy is subjective, Ben: because who you are sometimes matters and sometimes doesn't. There is no consistency. It's not even what you say or what you write. People perceived as mere members are sometimes not ex'ed for the same things leaders are ex'ed for, but they are sometimes.

But this is only reasonable. It is exactly what you would expect. Leaders get excommunicated on occaision - even when they are repentant - as a way of showing that this kind of behaviour (whatever it was) is not acceptable. Members get excommunicated if they aren't repentant. But, if they are repentant, they often may not be excommunicated for the same thing. (I speak in generalities, since of course it would be impossible to develop any kind of statistical model based on the silence of the church).

Some excommunications are very easy to understand, because the same standard is applied no matter who commits the crime. If a leader commits murder, he's ex'ed. If a regular member commits murder, he/she's ex'ed. Why are the rules different when it comes to apostacy?

Because apostacy isn't murder and it isn't like murder. And of course, the moment we start building interpretational walls, we reduce the ability for the leadership to show mercy (that is to say the bar gets raised and not lowered).

Let's use some of the Sept 6 as an example: Lavina Fielding Anderson was ex'ed for publishing a list of attacks by LDS officials on intellectuals in Dialogue. What apostacy was that? She published a factual list. Essentially she was ex'ed for daring to speak the truth about some of our leaders. What doctrine did she trash? She wasn't a leader (not a GA, not General RS Pres, not a professor employed by BYU). Why was she ex'ed? Is it an excommunicatable offense to speak the truth, even if it's negative, about someone?

Am I supposed to accept Peggy's description of the event as being an accurate and full disclosure? How do you come to the conclusion that it was "the thruth"? (I am not saying that it wasn't, I am simply pointing out that once more you are dealing with only one side of the story). Lavina wasn't just a member. Let's not forget that either. She was well known, and very widely read (due to her position as editor of the Ensign). Does the church have the right to protect itself? And just as importantly, do we believe Lavina's conclusions which led her, essentially, to criticize the church as a whole (much like you are doing now) for the way that she perceived what was happening?

Not all intellectuals in the church are threatened or excommunicated. (I never have been - and I am certainly not your run-of-the-mill conservative LDS). But no matter how we slice it, the notion of whether the church has the right to excommunicate someone for public criticism of leaders and their policies is, in your mind, insepperably attached to your view on the meaning of excommunication. As long as you view excommunication as a way of denying someone exaltation, you won't be able to view the position of the church with any compassion.

Maxine Hanks was ex'ed for publishing her thoughts about Heavenly Mother. Heavenly Mother is doctrinal. We teach about her every day in the temple, we sing hymns about her, she is the goal of every LDS woman. What apostacy did Maxine Hanks commit? She wrote her thoughts about a doctrine of the church.

Obviously you haven't read a lot about these individuals, have you. I have less concern for Maxine Hanks than I do for Lavina (who is still widely respected within the church). Hanks made this public comment in the LA Times in 1994:

I was told that my feminist ideas were "contrary to the laws and order of the church." I agree. My excommunication was justifiable.

She agreed with her excommunication. It was, she noted, "a small price to pay for my voice." Somehow, I sense that maybe you haven't read her material? (The parts about a heavenly mother are really the things that got her excommunicated - although when she started promoting to her students to pray to their Heavenly Mother - which is not something that is advocated by the church - it raised some eyebrows and was the cause of complaints to the University).

D Michael Quinn was ex'ed for writing about church history. He wrote the truth as he found it, complete with hundreds of footnotes. Where is the apostacy in that? Grant Palmer also wrote about church history, the truth as he found it. He was not ex'ed.

And those footnotes still contain references to Hoffman forgerys don't they. Obviously he felt it was the truth. But when the truth as you find it (and I certainly don't agree with him in many places) leads you to conclude that the church is not a good thing, and then you begin to be critical of it and destructive to the faith of those within it, that is grounds for excommunication for apostacy. The church has to protect the faith of its members. Of course, as any length of participation in a forum like this will tell you, having the church publish "their side" of the story usually simply gets dismissed on the grounds of bias.

Apostacy is subjective, based on who the person is, what they do for a living, even where they live; standards are inconsistently and inappropriately applied. The whole process needs to be reviewed and updated.

I know people who have had challenges with what I view as inappropriate charges of apostacy. Most of them have come to terms with their leadership (which changes from time to time) and have continued faithfully in their membership and in the service they offer.

And while I keep hearing from you that you think that the process should be reviewed and updated, you haven't offered anything in terms of how you think it should be updated (except to suggest that it should be an open process - a point which I disagree with on the most fundamental levels). Perhaps apart from this observation you should share with us in what specific ways you think the process should be updated, and also what end you think that these changes will achieve. What is the objective of the updates? To reduce the number of excommunications? (I don't think this is reasonable, the church should have the right to excommunicate where it feels necessary to do so). To make it more clear to the members that certain actions can or will result in excommunication? (I am not sure this would have affected most of the S6). What is the objective you have in mind? To make the church more universalistic?

Ben

[Calm]

I prefer to keep the discussion surrounding excommunication, if you don't mind. My comments are all specific to excommunication.

Perhaps you could explain how asking for clarification of your comments about excommunication by requesting what is different for excommunication as opposed to other circumstances is not discussing excommunication.

How is asking how and why the counselors involved in the excommuncation process are not peers when they have equal standing on a day to day basis not talking about excommunication?

How is asking what is different between the comfort given by the doctrine of the Atonement and other Gospel principles as it relates to spiritual deprivation caused by excommunication as opposed to spiritual deprivation caused by other circumstances not talking about excommunication?

[Calm]

2), Blink writes:

Excommunicating someone for apostacy should be as concretely determinable as excommunicating someone for murder. 

The problem with this black and white thinking is that apostacy comes in degrees. Murder doesn't.

Actually murder does come in degrees. It's even defined in the law that way--first, second, third degree murder. Plus there are other forms of killing that may or may not be considered equivalent to murder depending on the circumstances.

What makes something justifiable murder as opposed to unjustifiable depends a great deal on intent, something that is often only accessible through the accused's own comments. Thus rendering murder as subjectively perceived as every other human behaviour.

In deciding excommunication, would it be right to excommunicate a soldier who committed murder (ambushing another unit is murder since they are not usually in immediate danger and have intentionally placed themselves in harm's way).

Would it be right to excommunicate a battered wife who murdered her husband while he was sleeping because he told her that he was going to kill her the next day no matter what she tried to do and she believed him with all her heart?

Another so called black and white excommunication issue--abortion.

If we excommunicate women who have abortions, why would we allow women who have had them be baptized?

Should we excommunicate doctors who perform abortions as part of their required normal duties?

Should we excommunicate a woman who claims that she got an abortion because she wasn't emotionally able to care for a child or only those who claim that they weren't financially able to care for it, excommunicate a married woman if it's a financial reason, but not a single woman if she claims the reason is that she couldnt' support herself during the pregnancy, etc (add whatever reason is given for abortions these days).

Nothing is black and white because intent and background--context--always varies from individual to individual. Creating an unrealistic standard is not furthering Blink's argument at all, but is probably the only way she can attempt to appear to justify it.

[Calm]

because who you are sometimes matters and sometimes doesn't. There is no consistency.

You'd think that Blink would be in full agreement on this as being right and proper since she's the one dividing the world into us and them, peer and nonpeer. How can she demand equality at the end of the process while denying it at the beginning?

[Calm]

The parts about a heavenly mother are really the things that got her excommunicated

I suspect you meant "aren't".

Blink, you have not presented any actual quotes of the Six or where you acquired your knowledge of them or what that knowledge actually entails, including if you have actually read any of their work.

If we are limited to talking about the Sept Six, a demonstration that you are even capable of understanding the specifics of the case and are not just making unfounded, unsupportable, unrealistics and generally unacceptable assumptions about people you are assuming to talk for.

And since you are using them as your ultimate example of excommunication for apostasy, how about describing with their own evaulation of their lives as opposed to your speculations how they demonstrate your "domino theory" of excommunication? They've been excommuncated, unfairly in your view. Demonstrate how this exercise of unrighteous dominion has directly led to undesirable in their view spiritual deprivation. I'm thinking the ultimate archetypes should present clear examples of the destructive spiritual wake that crashed through their lives as a clear result of ecclesiastical abuse (as opposed to the spiritual destruction brought on by the personal choice of adultery or murder).

[Blink]

The degrees of murder have to do with the planning and intent of the accused, IIRC, not with the result of the act. Justifiable murder isn't called murder; it's called justifiable homicide and is not an excommunicatable offense (from what I understand). It matters not what degree of murder occurs, the accused is still excommunicated.

That is not the same for apostacy. Different levels of apostacy result in different sanctions. Sometimes even the same level of apostacy results in different sanctions.

Abortion? That deserves it's own thread, I think. It's too big a subject for a thread about the Sept 6, because the FP has not been clear about consistently sanctioning members who participate and none of the Sept 6 was ex'ed because of anything to do with an abortion.

And you've got my point backwards. I'm not trying to create an unchanging standard. I'm pointing out that some excommunicatable offenses are concrete and always result in excommunication (murder), and some are subjective (apostacy). And taking away someone's eternal salvation based on something as subjective as apostacy is pretty drastic, even if God can restore them in the end.

[Calm]

Justifiable murder isn't called murder; it's called justifiable homicide and is not an excommunicatable offense (from what I understand). It matters not what degree of murder occurs, the accused is still excommunicated.

But if a person is found guilty of murder when it was really justifiable homicide and excommunicated on that basis, how is that inherently different than finding someone guilty of apostasy when they are only guilty of asking some tough questions?

If the act is the same--putting a bullet through someone's brain, what is it that makes it murder or homicide? What makes voicing criticism of leaders the healthy concern of a committed member or the nitpicking of an apostate? Why will some look at a terrorist's suicide bombing as murder and others as justifiable homicide? Why do some look at a protestor in front of a temple yelling 'whore' in a young girl's face as someone doing God's work and others as an obscenity?

What makes you think that deciding what is justifiable and what is not is any easier for murder than it is for apostasy since all judgment of right and wrong is ultimately based on intent and the complicated context of individual circumstances?

I'm pointing out that some excommunicatable offenses are concrete and always result in excommunication (murder), and some are subjective (apostacy).

And I'm demonstrating that all offenses are subjective because it's not the behaviour that is what measured, but intent. And intent is always subjective.

[Calm]

And taking away someone's eternal salvation

Still using that bizarre claim?

Didn't you state that it was really "moot"? Are you now retracting that position?

An excommunication in error is moot (God can and does restore lost blessings in those cases)

If something that has not been given yet is restored, it's not been lost in the first place. There is a difference between eternal and temporal blessings. Eternal salvation can be anticipated in this life and that anticipation may be lost, but salvation comes when we step back into the presence of God and that is not something that takes place in this lifetime. Unless you can demonstrate that excommunication will prevent someone who God wants at his side from being at God's side, then you cannot demonstrate that anyone has the ability to take away another's eternal salvation.

From True to the Faith:

Eternal life, or exaltation, is to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, where we will live in God

[Calm]

D Michael Quinn was ex'ed for writing about church history. He wrote the truth as he found it, complete with hundreds of footnotes. Where is the apostacy in that? Grant Palmer also wrote about church history, the truth as he found it. He was not ex'ed.

YOu are making the assumption that there is something nefarious about why one was exed and why one wasn't based on your own lack of trust for church leadership (my assumption based on your claims that public scrutiny would alter the decision making outcome and that the court appointed counselor might not justly represent the accused).

However, there is a much more obvious one that actually has concrete evidence as opposed to pure speculation for its position.

Palmer announced that he was altering his behaviour as instructed by the church leaders. Quinn did not.

It is quite possible that both were found guilty of apostasy. One was willing to change and demonstrate repentance in the manner that would be recognized by those involved. The other was not.

You are confusing the "sentence" with the "judgment" and assuming that because one part of the process may be identical, the other should be as well regardless of each individual's response to the judgment.

Two people are found to be guilty of adultery. One is a leader, one is not. Both are repentant, one is excommunicated, the other is disfellowshipped. You apparenlty think that both should be excommunicated or neither. In another case, neither are leaders, but one is still excommunicated and one is not. The first is not repentant, the second is. Do you still think both should be excommunicated or neither?

Question: If you agree that repentance should affect whether or not excommuncation occurs in other cases, why do you assume that it shouldn't have affected the outcome in either the Quinn or Palmer case.

I am taking bets on whether or not you are going avoid answering the question by claiming I'm not talking specifically about excommunication because my clarification process involves adultery. This is ignoring the fact that what I am really doing is trying to get you to define specifics about excommunication. You can manage to answer the question by ignoring all the clarification part though and focusing purely on what happened in the Quinn and Palmer cases. Think of the rest as a bone for those less focused than you are.

[Calm]

One of the important issues of jury choice is how much exposure they have had to a case before trial and what type of exposure they have because of concerns of prejudice in viewing the evidence.

Jurors are often instructed not to pay attention to any discussion and even forbidden to discuss it with others. Jurors also at times have their identities protected to avoid undue pressure.

Judges are appointed, not voted on, because of the fear that they will be overly concerned with public approval in making their judgments.

Public exposure has both positive and negative consequences. The pressure that publicity provides is more likely to be unfair and unjust because it is more likely that the public is uninformed about the background as well as the procedure and policy.

There are effective ways to guard against 'groupthink' and other problems of closed groups and the Church has structured the process to include many of them. While there is no guarantee that every council will follow them sufficiently, there is no effective way to guard against public pressure from the wrong direction.

What if on the day of the church court for apostasy, it was attended by the local So Much Iron Rod in Their Soul That They Wore Slip On Shoes contingent who hadn't didn't know anything about the case but since they based their whole existence on "avoiding even a whiff of the appearance of evil" didn't think they needed to. They got there early along with the ExMormons for Satan contingent and the two groups packed the place? Are you still comfortable with the idea that it should be publicly viewed?

If you think it should still be left up to the accused and let him take the risks, I am curious as to what are your thoughts on the rest of his or her family or friends and neighbours that may be discussed during the proceedings. Do you think they have a right to have an input on whether or not it is public or do you think they should be left without protection from publicity even if they want protection?

Three more questions--if a person is found guilty justly in a public setting and at that point is unrepentant, do you think it will be harder, easier or no difference to whether or not he is more likely repent in the future.

If a person makes an appeal on a church court after being found guilty in a public setting and that finding is set aside, do you think it will be harder, easier or make no difference for him to reestablish or develop more positive relationships with those involved and aware?

An apostate decides to use the church court as a publicity stunt so declares he wants it to be open. His wife, who loves him dearly, but is also faithful to the Church is present and hears all his denouncement of the doctrine and members. Do you think their relationship will be improved by his choice?

All these situations will have negative effects that are in my opinion (which has evidence for it from similar situations) that will be exacerbated by publicity and possibly lessened by sensible and compassionate management when private.

[Blink]

Unless you can demonstrate that excommunication will prevent someone who God wants at his side from being at God's side, then you cannot demonstrate that anyone has the ability to take away another's eternal salvation.

Then I take it you believe the LDS church does not have the authority to take away a person's earthly ordinances, that the LDS church lacks the authority to remove those blessings. In which case, the LDS church is indeed in apostacy and acts without authority.

In which case, you agree with at least a few of the S6, since that was Toscano's argument, wasn't it? That the church had no authority to excommunicate him for apostacy because it was itself in apostacy. And Lavina Fielding Anderson was correct in her claims of ecclesiastical abuse, based on the GA's and other leaders' lack of authority due to unrighteous dominion.

[juliann]

In which case, you agree with at least a few of the S6, since that was Toscano's argument, wasn't it? That the church had no authority to excommunicate him for apostacy because it was itself in apostacy.

Well...sounds like a win-win situation to me! Toscano unloaded an apostate church and the church unloaded an apostate. What's your beef (as if you ever needed one to despise everyone and everything in the church)

And Lavina Fielding Anderson was correct in her claims of ecclesiastical abuse, based on the GA's and other leaders' lack of authority due to unrighteous dominion.

And yet here she is....subjecting herself to it every Sunday. Don't they have a name for refusing to leave your abuser? Battered Spirit Syndrome?

[Calm]

Then I take it you believe the LDS church does not have the authority to take away a person's earthly ordinances, that the LDS church lacks the authority to remove those blessings.

You can certainly take it that way, but it would only be because of lack of reading comprehension.

Those in the LDS Church that hold keys, any keys, hold what authority God grants them, including to speak and act and delegate in his name in the ways that he has instructed them. God hasn't granted anyone the power to condemn someone to hell unrighteously. He reserves eternal judgment for himself. Temporal judgment he has in part placed into the hands of authorized men, but with certain limitations attached. Nor has he relinquished all temporal action into man's hands, but acts on his own when and how he desires.

Those with the keys have the authority to remove the opportunity of participation in some of the outward practices associated with temple covenants (offering of ordinance participation for the most part). The individual has others (chastity, acceptance of ordinance participation, etc). Some of these overlap, others are unique to the stewards, some to the individual. Remove some or all, the covenant will not be complete until all are restored, but all that we are worthy of receiving will be given or restored by the time we are before the Throne of God. Who's to say that there are parts of the covenant not currently in force for each member sometime during their life and it is only through faithful participation in the Sacrament that we return our covenant to full effect, so to speak. Who's to say the covenant can even be complete for any of us until we come before God? There are hints that there is more to come both possibilities in this life and in the life to come.

The Church has the God-given and directed authority to control the mortal dispensing of eternal covenants. OTOH, it doesn't have any authority to prevent an individual from living worthily of temple covenants whether they are currently in force or not. Nor does it have authority to force someone to do the same. It doesn't have the authority to stand in the way of someone God is welcoming into his Presence. It does have authority to allow or prevent someone in acting though the outward appearances of the ordinance. Whether it takes place inwardly at the same time and is maintained inwardly is not in their hands.

A member could have a gold star next to each of his ordinances slots and have glowing references from his home teacher all the way to each of the 12 and the First Presidency and it means nothing eternally until God judges it means something.

We are all dependent on others for the bestowing and completion of our required work. No one can do the work for him or herself alone. Perhaps there are some more dependent than others, but we really have no way of judging that, so it is as likely that difference in dependence is judged insignificant in the end.

You yourself stated that God would 'restore' all ordinances if they were removed unjustly. Since the restoration of these ordinances would take place before the eternal aspect of exaltation kicks in (inheritance of a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom), then there is no net loss occurring simply from the temporary temporal removal of member status. If a person is worthy of an eternal inheritance, that place is there waiting for him whether or not he has possession of the keys fulltime. The only thing that matters eternally speaking is if he has the keys to the kingdom in his possession on judgment day. And that is purely up to him and God and will be done in whatever manner God requires it to be done.

The Church would be in apostasy if God instructed the reinstatement of anyone's ordinances and those in authority refused. Do you see this as a problem at the moment?

You know, the term 'unrighteous dominion' comes from one of the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants on the Priesthood. If you ever bothered to actually read it, really read it with understanding, this discussion would never have occurred because you would be quite familiar with the limitations God has placed on Priesthood authority.

But you are a smart woman. I'm sure with a little sincere and faithful effort you can still find the answer about what is really unrighteous dominion and how God takes that into account when it comes to authority and judgment.

Herman Helmuth (IIRC, can't get to my book right now) was a young lad who was excommunicated by his bishop and executed by the Nazis. His excommunication was removed since the only reason it had been made was in an attempt to prevent other German LDS from being killed. For us in mortal life on mortal earth, his ordinances were not in force for a defined period of time. For him who had stepped out of time, into eternity, how can one make the same claim?

Question: Do you believe in anyway that the boy has somehow been deprived of his eternal exaltation for even one second?

[Blink]

Then you agree with me that apostacy is subjective. How nice.

And you've convinced me: the church does not have the authority to effect anyone's eternal salvation at all. How comforting that is. They cannot change it, cannot take it away, nothing they do makes any difference in the long run. How silly of me, to think they actually could do that.

Thank you.

[juliann]

You are so welcome. Glad we could be of service.