Dr. D. Michael quinn has passed away

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Richard R Lyman was excommunicated for adultery, not heresy.

Snip

Edited April 23, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Fair Dinkum]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He made waves in the study and writing of Church history, but I think it overwrought to say he “changed the course of Mormonism.” Changing how you personally view the Church is not changing the Church itself.

 

When I served my mission an investigator asked me about Joseph putting a stone in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon, I told him that that was a anti-Mormon lie and at the time the church did not acknowledge Smith's folk magic connections.  However not only does the church freely acknowledge this reality it has even published pictures of the rock on the front cover of the Ensign.  Yes Quinn not only exposed church history but he changed its very course. 

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Richard R Lyman was excommunicated for adultery, not heresy.

I know that, I didn't give the reasons why they were exed-but he like his grandfather was exed nonetheless

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't think better scholarship and a more open approach to Church history had anything to do with the Church becoming more open and publishing things like the essays, the Joseph Smith papers?  Even the much more honest Church History museum redesign and Beehive House tours I have applauded here before.

More availability online and in print has definitely led to the Church being more willing to embrace it's history. I think they're moving strongly in the right direction (still more to come hopefully).  And I think academics like Quinn making history available to anyone who cared to look was definitely one factor.

I'd say Marlin K. Jensen has more to do with that than Quinn did

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I would expect it to happen more with family petitioning, especially for a spouse or descendants.
 

Hubener was an exceptional case.  Hard to see him as part of a pattern or trend. 

I agree.  I was citing him as an example, and not for the proposition that there exists "a pattern of trend."  I don't think there is a pattern/trend regarding posthumous restoration of blessings.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

52 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I know that, I didn't give the reasons why they were exed-but he like his grandfather was exed nonetheless

In the days of Amasa Lyman’s excommunication, the general consensus among the leaders and rank and file of the Church was that Lyman was suffering from some sort of psychological instability that caused him to go off the rails. Based on my investigation, there were two primary reasons why Joseph F Smith & company posthumously reinstated Lyman’s membership and his apostleship. The first is that it was generally believed he had lost his mind, and the second is that one of his daughters told Joseph F Smith of a dream/vision she had in which her father was in a state of abject misery, dressed in black, and begged her to tell the leaders that he had had enough and desperately wanted to be brought out of his state of spiritual exile. President Smith’s response was, “it looks like he’s suffered enough.”

Edited April 23, 2021 by teddyaware

[Jeanne]

I am so sorry to hear this. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I'd say Marlin K. Jensen has more to do with that than Quinn did

I'd say Marlin K. Jensen made the right choices when he became historian to handle the copious increase in historical documentation provided by scholars like Quinn.
I give Jensen full credit for his work.  But without the Quinns I'm not so sure he would have needed to bother.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well since his excommunication was for PR reasons that's hardly surprising.

That's a pretty damning statement.

Or would you consider PR an acceptable reason for excommunication? I don't think you would, but just checking.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a pretty damning statement.

Or would you consider PR an acceptable reason for excommunication? I don't think you would, but just checking.

I corrected myself.
His resignation from the quorum was the PR stunt.
His excommunication was a few years after due to his behavior towards the quorum afterwards.  (He was even rumored to have cursed George Albert Smith by the priesthood which led to Pres. Smith's illnesses and mental health issues, a claim Taylor denied).
But he felt wronged by the quorum leading to the excommunicable offenses.

Edited April 23, 2021 by JLHPROF

[rongo]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I personally don’t see a problem with posthumous reinstatement of blessings for anyone because it would work like proxy temple work, only if confirmed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  We do temple proxy work for plenty of non repentant at death individuals already, so why not this set as well?

My problem with the phenomenon as it exists in the Church is twofold: 

1) It appears to be something for the elite, but not for the rank-and-file (ironically, the aristrocratic Mormon families Quinn wrote of in his "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" that self-perpetuate today among general authorities in North America). Rex Lee or the Lymans can advocate and succeed in posthumously getting blessings reinstated for ancestors, but it's not common for the "commoners."

2) As some in this thread have argued, "If the posthumous reinstatement doesn't accord with God's will, He will sort it out in the hereafter, so it doesn't hurt anything." This same logic would argue for just leaving it as it is, for the same reason (if someone was unjustly excommunicated, God will fix what needs fixing) ---- and avoid the Mormon royalty favoritism. 

Other bad judgment calls (in my view) could be mentioned, such as Wilford Woodruff allowing Albert Carrington to be ordained an elder 15 minutes after his death so he could be buried in his temple clothes (Carrington had begged to be able to, but died before they could carry out the ordinance). 

This kind of stuff tends to shake confidence in other things, too, like the second-anointing (which are also divvied out favoritism-style). If people like Tom Phillips aren't really exempt from sin from the second anointing (and I hope it's true that you can't sin with impunity because of it, Calvinist-style), then what good is it, really? Especially since it appears to be mostly a Mormon elite "perk." 

[rongo]

Question: were Mathias Cowley and Moses Thatcher also reinstated posthumously?

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Question: were Mathias Cowley and Moses Thatcher also reinstated posthumously?

Elder Matthias Cowley didn't need to, he was just stripped of his priesthood but he later had that come back. He served a mission to France in the late 1930's, and he spoke at the tabernacle sometime before he died. I had read somewhere that Elders Cowley and Taylor were the best speakers in the church and it was quite shock when they were dropped from the Twelve

Edited April 23, 2021 by Duncan

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

but it's not common for the "commoners."...

like the second-anointing (which are also divvied out favoritism-style). 

How do we know this is accurate if these are not advertised?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

How do we know this is accurate if these are not advertised?

Anecdotal experience, outside of general authorities. I've always felt that they shouldn't talk about the experience, but some do. And some are pretty prideful about it, too.  

[HappyJackWagon]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

My problem with the phenomenon as it exists in the Church is twofold: 

1) It appears to be something for the elite, but not for the rank-and-file (ironically, the aristrocratic Mormon families Quinn wrote of in his "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" that self-perpetuate today among general authorities in North America). Rex Lee or the Lymans can advocate and succeed in posthumously getting blessings reinstated for ancestors, but it's not common for the "commoners."

2) As some in this thread have argued, "If the posthumous reinstatement doesn't accord with God's will, He will sort it out in the hereafter, so it doesn't hurt anything." This same logic would argue for just leaving it as it is, for the same reason (if someone was unjustly excommunicated, God will fix what needs fixing) ---- and avoid the Mormon royalty favoritism. 

Other bad judgment calls (in my view) could be mentioned, such as Wilford Woodruff allowing Albert Carrington to be ordained an elder 15 minutes after his death so he could be buried in his temple clothes (Carrington had begged to be able to, but died before they could carry out the ordinance). 

This kind of stuff tends to shake confidence in other things, too, like the second-anointing (which are also divvied out favoritism-style). If people like Tom Phillips aren't really exempt from sin from the second anointing (and I hope it's true that you can't sin with impunity because of it, Calvinist-style), then what good is it, really? Especially since it appears to be mostly a Mormon elite "perk." 

I think you're right that it is often "little" things that shake peoples confidence in leadership. Some people discount the "little things" as being insignificant but I think they can be very meaningful. Your example of the Second Annointing (2A) is one of those things that really shook me. I had lived 40 years of active church life and service having never heard of it as a contemporary temple ordinance. It really made me question what else I hadn't been told. Then the efforts of my study increased and I found quite a bit that I either hadn't been told, or had been told was incorrect or anti-mormon propaganda but actually was factual.

With the 2A I discovered that they used to be given out as freely as the endowment. Information about a person's 2A was sometimes included in their obituaries etc. And then you get the Tom Phillips types and I just throw my hands up in the air and wonder what's the point. It came to feel like men meddling in God's business with no real power of discernment. It definitely hurt my confidence in church leadership.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Elder Matthias Cowley didn't need to, he was just stripped of his priesthood but he later had that come back. He served a mission to France in the late 1930's, and he spoke at the tabernacle sometime before he died. I had read somewhere that Elders Cowley and Taylor were the best speakers in the church and it was quite shock when they were dropped from the Twelve

They weren't dropped, they resigned, or rather were forced to resign with promise of future reinstatement.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't think better scholarship and a more open approach to Church history had anything to do with the Church becoming more open and publishing things like the essays, the Joseph Smith papers?  Even the much more honest Church History museum redesign and Beehive House tours I have applauded here before.

More availability online and in print has definitely led to the Church being more willing to embrace it's history. I think they're moving strongly in the right direction (still more to come hopefully).  And I think academics like Quinn making history available to anyone who cared to look was definitely one factor.

I think the personal influence of Quinn in all of this has been exaggerated here. 
 

Take the Joseph Smith Papers Project, for example. I think that had more to do with the prior work of scholars at the erstwhile Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at BYU, the improvement in professionalism at the Church History Department under the leadership of Elder Marlin K. Jensen and Richard E. Turley Jr., and the generous financial endowment from the Larry H. Miller family than it did with the poking and prodding of Quinn and other critics. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

When I served my mission an investigator asked me about Joseph putting a stone in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon, I told him that that was a anti-Mormon lie and at the time the church did not acknowledge Smith's folk magic connections.  However not only does the church freely acknowledge this reality it has even published pictures of the rock on the front cover of the Ensign.  Yes Quinn not only exposed church history but he changed its very course. 

I think your response to the investigator may have had more to do with your own callow naïveté at the time than with direction from the Church. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think your response to the investigator may have had more to do with your own callow naïveté at the time than with direction from the Church. 

Ahhh, the old - "It's your fault you didn't know the details!" - trope.  Well played.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

When I served my mission an investigator asked me about Joseph putting a stone in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon, I told him that that was a anti-Mormon lie and at the time the church did not acknowledge Smith's folk magic connections. 

I don't think this is an accurate characterization.  From FAIR:

Quote

D. Michael Quinn has been the most prolific author on the subject of "magic" influences on the origins of Mormonism. According to William Hamblin:

Quinn's overall thesis is that Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saint leaders were fundamentally influenced by occult and magical thought, books, and practices in the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is unmitigated nonsense. Yet the fact that Quinn could not discover a single primary source written by Latter-day Saints that makes any positive statement about magic is hardly dissuasive to a historian of Quinn's inventive capacity.

Joseph Smith and his followers undoubtedly believed in supernatural power. And, they may have had some ideas about how to access that power that now strike us as inaccurate and even strange. This is not surprising, given the two centuries and massive scientific advances which separate our culture from theirs. However, there is no evidence that Joseph and others considered these things to be "magic," or the "occult," nor did they consider "magic" or the "occult" to be positive things.

The use of the terms "magic" and "occult" are prejudicial, loaded terminology

When critics use the term "magic" or "occult," they are using prejudicial, loaded terminology. Used in a neutral sense, magic might mean only that a person believes in the supernatural, and believes that supernatural can be influenced for the believer's benefit.

However, critics are generally not clear about what definition of magic they are using, and how to distinguish a "magical" belief in the supernatural from a "religious" belief in the supernatural. Scholars of magic and religion have, in fact, come to realize that defining "magic" is probably a hopeless task. John Gee noted:

Defining "magic" as "religious beliefs other than their own"

In 1990, Cambridge University published Stanley Tambiah's Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, which showed that the definitions of many of the most important writers on "magic" were heavily influenced both by their backgrounds and their personal ideological agendas: they defined "magic" as religious beliefs other than their own. In 1992, the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Magic in the Ancient World failed to come to any agreement on what "magic" was. The plenary speaker, Jonathan Z. Smith, in particular voiced strong opinions:

I see little merit in continuing the use of the substantive term "magic" in second-order, theoretical, academic discourse. We have better and more precise scholarly taxa for each of the phenomena commonly denoted by "magic" which, among other benefits, create more useful categories for comparison. For any culture I am familiar with, we can trade places between the corpus of materials conventionally labeled "magical" and corpora designated by other generic terms (e.g., healing, divining, execrative) with no cognitive loss. Indeed, there would be a gain.

So "at the time the church did not acknowledge Smith's folk magic connections" seems pretty misleading.  There is nothing for the Church to acknowledge.  The Church hasn't "acknowledged" this because there is no competent evidence of it.

As for it being an "anti-mormon lie," I'm curious when you served your mission.  Elder Nelson acknowledged the "stone in the hat" in a June 1992 talk to new mission presidents, and again in a July 1993 Ensign article:

Quote

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

I knew about this stuff in the mid-80s.  Seerstones are used as a plot device in Storm Testament V.  After I read the book I asked my dad about it and he filled me in.  

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

However not only does the church freely acknowledge this reality it has even published pictures of the rock on the front cover of the Ensign. 

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse that the Church "freely acknowledges" Joseph Smith's "folk magic connections."

In October 1987, then-Elder Hinckley made a few remarks about "folk magic" in response to the Hofmann matter:

Quote

I recall a letter from an individual who asked that his name be taken from the records of the Church because he could no longer believe in a church that had to do with an experience with a salamander.

Now, as you know, these letters, together with other documents, have been acknowledged by their forger to be total frauds and part of an evil and devious design which culminated in the murder of two individuals.

I have wondered what those whose faith was shaken have thought since the forger confessed to his evil work.

However, I hasten to add, the vast majority of Church members, all but a very few, paid little attention and went forward with their faithful service, living by a conviction firmly grounded in that knowledge which comes by the power of the Holy Ghost. They knew then and they know now that God watches over this work, that Jesus Christ is the head of this Church, that it is true, and that happiness and growth come of following its precepts and teachings.

Out of this earlier episode has now arisen another phenomenon. It is described as the writing of a “new history” of the Church as distinguished from the “old history.” It represents, among other things, an effort to ferret out every element of folk magic and the occult in the environment in which Joseph Smith lived to explain what he did and why.

I have no doubt there was folk magic practiced in those days. Without question there were superstitions and the superstitious. I suppose there was some of this in the days when the Savior walked the earth. There is even some in this age of so-called enlightenment. For instance, some hotels and business buildings skip the numbering of floor thirteen. Does this mean there is something wrong with the building? Of course not. Or with the builders? No.

Similarly, the fact that there were superstitions among the people in the days of Joseph Smith is no evidence whatever that the Church came of such superstition.

Joseph Smith himself wrote or dictated his history. It is his testimony of what occurred, and he sealed that testimony with his life. It is written in language clear and plain and unmistakable. From an ancient record he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. It is here for all to see and handle and read. Those who have read with faith and inquired in prayer have come to a certain knowledge that it is true. The present effort of trying to find some other explanation for the organization of the Church, for the origin of the Book of Mormon, and for the priesthood with its keys and powers will be similar to other anti-Mormon fads which have come and blossomed and faded. Truth will prevail. A knowledge of that truth comes by effort and study, yes. But it comes primarily as a gift from God to those who seek in faith.

And from then-Elder Oaks (also in October 1987) :

Quote

What of the allegations of Joseph Smith’s involvement in folk magic?

Hofmann’s forged documents and some of the critical commentary on their significance have the apparent purpose of persuading members and nonmembers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the Church is based on superstition instead of divine revelation.

It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers.

And from Pres. Hinckley in September 1985:

Quote

There is another group presently receiving wide publicity across the nation. They are poking into all the crevices of our history, ferreting out little things of small import and magnifying them into great issues of public discussion, working the media in an effort to give credibility to their efforts.

None of this is new, of course. From the day that Joseph Smith walked out of the grove in the year 1820, critics and enemies—generation after generation of them—have worked and reworked the same old materials. They have minutely explored the environment in which Joseph Smith lived in an effort to rationalize—some on the basis of folk magic and the occult—the remarkable things which he did. Early in this fishing expedition, one of them gathered affidavits from neighbors and associates in an effort to undermine the character of Joseph Smith. This old bale of straw has been dished up again and again as if it were something new. They have raked over every available word that he spoke or wrote, and they then in turn have written long tomes and delivered long lectures trying to explain the mystery of his character and his work.

And from the Church's 2003 Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual:

Quote

One unusual public issue that affected the Church was the Mark Hofmann bombing case in Salt Lake City in October 1985. Beginning in 1980, Hofmann had sold, donated, or traded numerous documents that he alleged were connected with historical events of the Church. Some of the documents received considerable public attention. These documents included the Anthon transcript, allegedly the document Martin Harris had shown Charles Anthon, and the Martin Harris letter to William W. Phelps (the “salamander letter”), which falsely portrayed Joseph Smith as heavily involved in folk magic and treasure seeking. Then in October 1985 homemade bombs tragically killed two innocent individuals. A third bomb a day later severely injured Hofmann.

So do you still stand by the assertion that the Church "freely acknowledges" Joseph Smith's "folk magic connections?"  Seems like a substantial mischaracterization.  If I'm wrong, then please show me where the Church has done this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

When I served my mission an investigator asked me about Joseph putting a stone in his hat to translate the Book of Mormon, I told him that that was a anti-Mormon lie and at the time the church did not acknowledge Smith's folk magic connections.  However not only does the church freely acknowledge this reality it has even published pictures of the rock on the front cover of the Ensign.  Yes Quinn not only exposed church history but he changed its very course. 

How exactly was this Quinn's doing?   The stone in the hat sources have been quoted in church publications and other church related books and periodicals prior to Quinn coming on the scene, although the interpretations of the sources have varied.   (One example is the 1977 Ensign article by Richard Lloyd Anderson, "By the Gift and Power of God".  I remember that article well because it came out while I was on my mission.  B. H. Roberts also covered it in earlier publications). There is no doubt that Quinn has influenced the area of Latter-day saint history, but I think you are exaggerating a bit.   There are many factors that brought about changes and got people looking at the original sources more closely (including the Mark Hofmann forgeries).   Did he really bring about this particular change?  

EDIT:  I got interrupted and had my post editor open for a while, and it was only after I posted that I saw the other responses to your statement.  But I'll keep my comments here to add to what has been said above.

Edited April 23, 2021 by InCognitus

[smac97]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

My problem with the phenomenon as it exists in the Church is twofold: 

1) It appears to be something for the elite, but not for the rank-and-file (ironically, the aristrocratic Mormon families Quinn wrote of in his "The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" that self-perpetuate today among general authorities in North America). Rex Lee or the Lymans can advocate and succeed in posthumously getting blessings reinstated for ancestors, but it's not common for the "commoners."

I'm curious as to how accurate this assessment is.  Is it "not common" because the rank-and-file simply don't ask?  Or are they somehow prohibited or discouraged from asking?

5 hours ago, rongo said:

2) As some in this thread have argued, "If the posthumous reinstatement doesn't accord with God's will, He will sort it out in the hereafter, so it doesn't hurt anything." This same logic would argue for just leaving it as it is, for the same reason (if someone was unjustly excommunicated, God will fix what needs fixing) ---- and avoid the Mormon royalty favoritism. 

But the logic aside, mercy and hope militate in only one way: reinstatement.  I think that's a distinction with a difference.

And again, what if this isn't a "Mormon royalty favoritism" thing?

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Other bad judgment calls (in my view) could be mentioned, such as Wilford Woodruff allowing Albert Carrington to be ordained an elder 15 minutes after his death so he could be buried in his temple clothes (Carrington had begged to be able to, but died before they could carry out the ordinance). 

I guess.  The ordinance could also have been performed by proxy.

5 hours ago, rongo said:

This kind of stuff tends to shake confidence in other things, too, like the second-anointing (which are also divvied out favoritism-style).

How much other "stuff" is there, really?

5 hours ago, rongo said:

If people like Tom Phillips aren't really exempt from sin from the second anointing (and I hope it's true that you can't sin with impunity because of it, Calvinist-style), then what good is it, really? Especially since it appears to be mostly a Mormon elite "perk." 

Again with the "appears" thing.

I agree with you about the whiffs of Calvinism.  I'm not that worried.  I don't think it works that way.  As for this being a "Mormon elite 'perk,'" I'm not sure what that means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to how accurate this assessment is.  Is it "not common" because the rank-and-file simply don't ask? 

Whom would the rank-and-file ask? 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or are they somehow prohibited or discouraged from asking?

Try asking Elder Bednar about the 2nd anointing at a stake conference Q&A.  Seriously, this is one of those questions that raises the ire of general authorities, and you will be chastized for asking about it. 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with you about the whiffs of Calvinism.  I'm not that worried.  I don't think it works that way. 

I also don't. I think a lot of the 2nd anointing stuff, and some of the reinstatements are just decisions of man, being nice, etc., and aren't binding. I think what Joseph taught is true, and the keys are there, but in practice over the years (and especially in more recent times) . . . It's definitely not an essential ordinance, and the faithful without it are on as good a footing as those with it. 

Receiving the 2nd Comforter is another story. But, I don't believe that depends on the ordinance of 2nd anointing.

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for this being a "Mormon elite 'perk,'" I'm not sure what that means.

The only ones we know of today are general authorities. I assume their wives, too. In the past, as @HappyJackWagon noted, it used to be put in obituaries and things like that. Every now and then, people become aware of people in their stake (Kevin Barney many years ago was annoyed at a couple in his stake who paraded it around and brought it up as much as possible). 

Just my opinion, but I don't think very many outside of the "aristocratic families" are even offered it. 

[Duncan]

if your ancestor was exed and I assume too disfellowshipped or something (before anyone asks, excommunicated or disfellowshipped), all you need to do is write the First Presidency with what you know and ask for a reinstatement and whatever they do on their end they can grant it and would tell the Temple President what will happen next for your ancestor. I am finding some interesting stories on family search about this such as;

“In answer to our letter President Smith said we were to choose a proxy and as Logan Stake Conference would be held in Logan November 25 and 26 (1961), and if the time and place were agreeable to us, and if they could make arrangements with the Temple Presidency, the matter might be taken care of then. We were to get in touch with the Apostle who would come to the conference.”

 

also apparently "many men" in Southern Idaho had their names removed from the Church just so they could vote in the 1888 Presidential Election. Apparently if you believed in celestial marriage you were disenfranchised according to Idaho law and soyou  couldn't vote. To vote though you unmade yourself a member of the church

 

Some of the reasons people got exed are bizarre such as

"To limit contact between church members and the wild environment of the Montana mining camps, local church authorities forbade church members from hauling freight from the rail junction at Corrine to the camps in Montana. ... decided to do so anyway and was excommunicated from the LDS church for doing so. Two years before his death he was rebaptized into the church. "

Someone's great Aunt, who died in 1965 and had been exed for polygamy, according to this 2020 letter. She was rebaptized and had all her temple blessings restored last July. Kinda neat!