New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well if we all had a David O'McKay protecting us from Church discipline like McMurrin then there's be no concern for anyone, I suppose.  Come to think of it, sure that's how it should be.  But it appears some people are targeted from high places.  I'm not sure him expressing fear of such to be out of this world. 

I did not know Arrington personally, so can't say whether he was a "nervous Nelly," but such claims seem rather bizarre to me.  Anything negative done to him would have been an extreme embarrassment for the LDS Church -- not only because he was not deserving of it, but because of his prominence.  It would have been akin to an excommunication trial for Hugh Nibley.  Simply out of the question.  The same applied to Sterling McMurrin.  He was not only the former U.S. Commissioner of Education, and a very prominent UofU professor with an endowed chair, but he was a famed writer and lecturer who said a lot of positive things about Mormon culture.  Pres McKay was not around to defend him during the 70s and 80s, so he had to be untouchable for other reasons.  I just don't give any credence to claims that he might have been subject to an excommunication trial.  Just nonsense.  What would have been the basis for such chicanery?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This must be why lazy people don't do a lot of research..  But why were the September Six specifically targeted?  It turns out that what they were teaching was true. 

I would suggest taking that question individually for each case of the Six, since there was not one overriding reason.  As to "what they were teaching was true," perhaps you could elaborate.  In only one case, that of Lavina Fielding Anderson, could what she had written be declared "true," and that was because she was simply reporting on actual facts and history in a long article in Dialogue -- as a professional journalist (with a PhD) who had formerly written for the Church magazines.  Even today, no one can explain to her what she has to repent of in order to be brought back into the good graces of the Church.  She attends Church regularly, as always.

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would suggest taking that question individually for each case of the Six, since there was not one overriding reason.  As to "what they were teaching was true," perhaps you could elaborate.  In only one case, that of Lavina Fielding Anderson, could what she had written be declared "true," and that was because she was simply reporting on actual facts and history in a long article in Dialogue -- as a professional journalist (with a PhD) who had formerly written for the Church magazines.  Even today, no one can explain to her what she has to repent of in order to be brought back into the good graces of the Church.  She attends Church regularly, as always.

I am sorry to say that I can't elaborate which is why I asked  I assumed that all professors were teaching pretty much the same thing. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not know Arrington personally, so can't say whether he was a "nervous Nelly," but such claims seem rather bizarre to me.  Anything negative done to him would have been an extreme embarrassment for the LDS Church -- not only because he was not deserving of it, but because of his prominence.  It would have been akin to an excommunication trial for Hugh Nibley.  Simply out of the question.  The same applied to Sterling McMurrin.  He was not only the former U.S. Commissioner of Education, and a very prominent UofU professor with an endowed chair, but he was a famed writer and lecturer who said a lot of positive things about Mormon culture.  Pres McKay was not around to defend him during the 70s and 80s, so he had to be untouchable for other reasons.  I just don't give any credence to claims that he might have been subject to an excommunication trial.  Just nonsense.  What would have been the basis for such chicanery?

Beats me about McMurrin. But this confirms my memory:

Quote

In 1952, Sterling McMurrin, a philosophy professor a t the University of Utah, met with two senior apostles, at their request, to discuss his religious beliefs. Entirely candid in his responses to their inquiries, he readily professed himsel f to have heretica l beliefs , while simultaneously re maining an active church member. Alarmed at his beliefs, they initiated a series of events that resulted, two years later, in McMurrin's Bishop making a decision to call a church court to put him on trial for his member ship. Although McMurrin resigne d himsel f t o letting event s unfold a s they might, his close friend, Apostle Adam S . Bennion, reacted swiftly to news o f the impending judicia l proceedings . Bennion informed Presi dent McKay o f the matter , and he , in turn , placed a phone cal l to McMurrin to request that the two o f them meet privately . In a 90-minute meeting a t the University o f Utah , McMurrin re sponded to the questions asked o f him, but made no attempt to ask fo r President McKay's intervention. McMurrin later recounted the conclud ing portion o f that meeting : [President McKay said,] "They canno t put you on trial!" And I said, "Well, President McKay, you know better than I what they can do, but it appears to me that they are going to put me on trial." He said, "They cannot do it!" And then, there was a rather long pause, and he said, "Well, all I can say is, that i f they put you on trial for excommunication , I will be there as the first witness in your behalf.". . . He said, "I have only one piece of advice to give you, just one piece of advice. It is the advice that my uncle gave me." President McKay indicated that this uncle was kind o f a non-conforming membe r o f the family, and a non-conforming member of the Church. "Now, when I was just leaving to go on my mission, we were down at the station, people were down there telling the missionaries goodbye , and my uncle shook hands with me and said , 'Now David, I just have one piece of advice to give you, just one piece of advice. Don't you ever let anybody tell you what to think, or what to believe. You just think and believe a s you please.'" And Presiden t McKay said , "Now, that's my advice to you. Don't ever let anybody tell you what to think or what to believe."11

In a follow-up letter , McMurrin wrote , "You have always been a symbol to me, as to countless others, of the religion that reaches out to include rather than exclude, that unites rather than divides, that is concerned with large moral and spiritual issues."12 Several week s later , withou t mentionin g an y names , Presiden t McKay used the forum o f Genera l Conference to send to the entire church the message that he'd sent to McMurrin: "Ours is the responsibility. . .to proclaim the truth that each individual is a child o f God and importan t in his sight ; that he is entitled to freedom o f thought, freedom o f speech , freedom o f assembly ; that he has the righ t to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. In this positive declaration, we imply that organizations or churches which deprive the individual of these inherent rights are not in harmony with God's will nor with his revealed word."13

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_11.pdf

In my mind, it'd be awesome if we as a Church today were closer to President McKay's line of thinking on these matters. 

It seems to me with this type of interaction on record it'd be hard for later leaders to want to take action against McMurrin.  Not many get the personal seal of approval from the prophet. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would suggest taking that question individually for each case of the Six, since there was not one overriding reason.  As to "what they were teaching was true," perhaps you could elaborate.  In only one case, that of Lavina Fielding Anderson, could what she had written be declared "true," and that was because she was simply reporting on actual facts and history in a long article in Dialogue -- as a professional journalist (with a PhD) who had formerly written for the Church magazines.  Even today, no one can explain to her what she has to repent of in order to be brought back into the good graces of the Church.  She attends Church regularly, as always.

Gileadi was part of Sept 6th.  His discipline was reversed a couple years later, clearing him of any charges. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Gileadi

his case seems to be a pretty clear case of leaders getting a little out of control in the whole process, setting a precedent, if there wasn't one already, demonstrating how any member could be targeted. 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Beats me about McMurrin. But this confirms my memory:

It seems to me with this type of interaction on record it'd be hard for later leaders to want to take action against McMurrin.  Not many get the personal seal of approval from the prophet. 

Thanks for that material on Pres McKay.  Seems characteristic of him.  However, part of the reason for McKay's concern with McMurrin goes back a generation earlier and acted as a shield for McMurrin -- who, by the way, was a very gracious and well-mannered man of letters, like McKay himself.  It was just unthinkable that action could really be taken to excommunicate McMurrin.

[Calm]

On June 20, 28 Heisei at 11:56 AM, Jeanne said:

This must be why lazy people don't do a lot of research..  But why were the September Six specifically targeted?  It turns out that what they were teaching was true. 

Perhaps you need to identify what they were teaching before assuming it was true.

For example, Allred's teachings were more doctrinal arguments, iirc, about Mother in Heaven and distorted how LDS view the Godhead.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/420280/LDS-EXCOMMUNICATE-FEMINIST-APPEAL-PLANNED.html?pg=all

Iirc, the Toscanos were pushing for women to receive the Priesthood, but I am more vague on them as I have read limited remarks from them.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you need to identify what they were teaching before assuming it was true.

For example, Allred's teachings were more doctrinal arguments, iirc, about Mother in Heaven and distorted how LDS view the Godhead.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/420280/LDS-EXCOMMUNICATE-FEMINIST-APPEAL-PLANNED.html?pg=all

Iirc, the Toscanos were pushing for women to receive the Priesthood, but I am more vague on them as I have read limited remarks from them.

I will read this over..thank you!

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you need to identify what they were teaching before assuming it was true.

For example, Allred's teachings were more doctrinal arguments, iirc, about Mother in Heaven and distorted how LDS view the Godhead.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/420280/LDS-EXCOMMUNICATE-FEMINIST-APPEAL-PLANNED.html?pg=all

Iirc, the Toscanos were pushing for women to receive the Priesthood, but I am more vague on them as I have read limited remarks from them.

I read this and was wondering.  Did she teach this in actual classes and state this as doctrine..I get the impression that it was more her observation  In any case, I wonder what would have happened if this was under the direction David O'Mckay.  Very interesting.  But by excommunication of these individuals, BY should have exed himself!  His doctrine was all over the place    Thank you for the info.

[Calm]

She published articles and books and if I am not being mixed up with others, was promoting praying to the Mother and had been asked to stop publishing them if she wished to not undergo church discipline. She refused to accept the condition and ended up being exed, which given her alteration of the Godhead alone was very appropriate IMO (her teachings on the Mother if she had left the Godhead untouched might not have been enough, though my memory is vague enough I might find something there sufficient in itself). Told she was not allow to get up in Testimony meeting to share her beliefs as well.  I don't know if she was teaching this across the pulpit but she was definitely publicizing and promoting what is viewed as false doctrine by the Church.

iirc we don't know why Gileadi was exed ( and restored quickly), the rest vary in obviousness IMO as well as some debate on why. 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

She published articles and books and if I am not being mixed up with others, was promoting praying to the Mother and had been asked to stop publishing them if she wished to not undergo church discipline. She refused to accept the condition and ended up being exed, which given her alteration of the Godhead alone was very appropriate IMO (her teachings on the Mother if she had left the Godhead untouched might not have been enough, though my memory is vague enough I might find something there sufficient in itself). Told she was not allow to get up in Testimony meeting to share her beliefs as well.  I don't know if she was teaching this across the pulpit but she was definitely publicizing and promoting what is viewed as false doctrine by the Church.

iirc we don't know why Gileadi was exed ( and restored quickly), the rest vary in obviousness IMO as well as some debate on why. 

Thank you..this clarifies a few things for me.