What Can Faithful Non-Members Do in the Spiritual Life and Ministry of a Ward or Stake?

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And it’s news to me that temples are now stocking soda with caffeine. In the temple where I serve we have vending machines in a small break room open only to staff and ordinance workers. It’s still caffeine free (except for chocolate milk, which has never been an issue in the Church). We don’t have a cafeteria for patrons, but I understand those have been discontinued wherever they were once located. 

Lips that have touched Coca Cola shall never touch mine.😙

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you should look at who starts the threads you appear to dislike.  It is not usually the critics or those I am guessing you see as progressive, though both start quite a few (Pogi started 3 such threads in December, maybe 2 or 3 the rest of the year I am guessing from the titles and numbers of posts; California Boy started one in June 2020 and 3 more in 2017, HappyJack has 3 in 3 years, Seeking has 4 since 2015).  You can check yourself by going to posters’ profiles and clicking on “see activity” on the right side and then “topics” on the left side of the profile.

I don’t know what group I fall into, but in case anyone is curious looks like I start a few controversial threads a year, most my threads are more social or FYI and don’t get a lot of responses…which is fine, though if my posts were ignored my ego might be hurting a bit…but there is no lack there, I get a bounty of responses.   
 

So everyone can see where to look in a profile, here’s mine for an example:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/249-calm/content/?type=forums_topic&change_section=1

 It should hardly be surprising though when critics, former members, and less traditional members/believers respond to these opening posts from the more traditionally leaning posters.  This “traditional” is not meant to be the slightest dismissive label as I see tradition as an important and valuable quality, but if you have one you prefer, I will be happy to change it if it works for the group I am thinking of…which includes Smac (who, btw, posted about a dozen such threads since beginning of December), Scott (posts such a topic about once a month), Ken (saw one or two recently on thread list), yourself (rarely start such threads, but saw two in fall), and quite a few others with Smac being the most prolific thread starter on the board, I believe.  I personally have no problem with the choice of topics he posts on even when I disagree with his conclusions or how he presents the info as I think there is value in discussing them for a variety of reasons, including the effect on the Church in general.  I greatly appreciate his efforts, keeps me informed as Smac’s threads are often the first place I see these topics, which I like to keep aware of because of my involvement with FAIR in case we get questions about any of them.

Thanks for the advice. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Having said that, I will know blow it by affirming that I would take that even one step farther and advocate for Oneness across the entire Christian community so that many more agreements might follow. I too believe we all are One in Christ, but our respective boundaries and dogma prevent us from experiencing or acknowledging it. We need to be more specifically loyal to our specific group than to experience the joy of Oneness, which might threaten those dividing mechanisms in our dogma that make us unique and "more" correct.

I’m not sure I understand this. Would you please comment on these words of the Savior in Matt 7? Sorry for the fonts...I have no control over them on my pad.

Quote

¹³ “Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the road is spacious that leads to destruction, and many people are entering by it. ¹⁴ How narrow is the gate and how constricted is the road that leads to life, and there aren’t many people who find it!”

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are savage wolves.¹⁶ You will know them by their fruit. Grapes aren’t gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they? ¹⁷ In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a rotten tree produces bad fruit.¹⁸ A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a rotten tree cannot produce good fruit. ¹⁹ Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into a fire. ²⁰ So by their fruit you will know them.”

²¹ “Not everyone who keeps saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven. ²² Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name, drove out demons in your name, and performed many miracles in your name, didn’t we?’ ²³ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil!’”

 

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Lips that have touched Coca Cola shall never touch mine.😙

So that's why I'm single, still, after all of these years!    

   

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

With all respect, this post also has its own hints of self-righteousness IMO. I’m trying to understand why it’s ok for everyone to express their opinions except those who have a more traditional or orthodox view of things.

The board change I have witnessed is from it once being a vigorous defender and expositor of the faith with incredibly qualified and respected participants to now often just being another sounding board for the latest supposed outrages in our history, policies, and doctrines. That’s not something I celebrate. 

It's the difference between "I don't like the changes the board has gone through because I don't enjoy discussing news articles about the church" and "I don't like the changes the board has gone through because it's full of whiny members who don't defend the church anymore."

One is expressing a personal opinion that doesn't include a negative judgement against anyone.  The second focuses on judging other posters negatively, with themselves as the standard for what the correct behavior would be.

Hopefully that explains why it's "ok for everyone to express their opinions", but self-righteous when someone expresses opinions that include the implication that others need to repent or are otherwise behaving poorly.

Edited January 5, 2023 by bluebell

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's the difference between "I don't like the changes the board has gone through because I don't enjoy discussing news articles about the church" and "I don't like the changes the board has gone through because it's full of whiny members who don't defend the church anymore."

One is expressing a personal opinion that doesn't include a negative judgement against anyone.  The second focuses on judging other posters negatively, with themselves as the standard for what the correct behavior would be.

Hopefully that explains why it's "ok for everyone to express their opinions", but self-righteous when someone expresses opinions that include the implication that others need to repent or are otherwise behaving poorly.

No, it doesn’t explain it, but thank you.

This seems to be an opinion that includes the implication that others need to repent or are otherwise behaving poorly.

Quote

It’s the “I don’t like the changes the board has gone through and therefore the changes are wrong” crowd that seem a bit self righteous to me. As if they are the standard for what the board (and the members who post here) should be and believe.

Peace. I’m fine to leave it there. 

Edited January 5, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So that's why I'm single, still, after all of these years!    

   

Yes! Time to go modern and take up the devil’s brew! Cheers!🥤
Glad to be of help, hermano mío! 😉

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So that's why I'm single, still, after all of these years!    

   

I'm not the kind of man who tends to socialize
I seem to lean on old familiar ways
And I ain't no fool for love songs that whisper in my ears
Still single after all these years
Oh, still single after all these years

 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So that's why I'm single, still, after all of these years!    

   

 

 

☝️

Edited January 5, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

 

☝️

How did you get my picture?

The summons arrives in the morning, you scoundrel ! 😡

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, manol said:

I understand and respect that.  Thank you disagreeing so agreeably!

I don't think our differing views of how Zion Societies come about are mutually exclusive.  Alignment with the First and Second Great Commandments and a profound (if not precisely defined) Oneness are areas where I think our paradigms overlap.

I am a part of a group who tried to start an earthly Zion almost exactly 300 years prior to the Saints. That effort did not work. It crashed and burned. The LDS efforts in Missouri and Ohio did not work. They crashed and burned. Any and every other attempt to do the same has failed. I do not believe that either human nature or human society as it is right now is capable of such a thing, no matter how passionately some try. I do not believe it is meant for humans in this current dispensation to ever create a Zion. I believe Zion is reserved for another dispensation after the judgment. Just my .02 cents.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, it doesn’t explain it, but thank you.

This seems to be an opinion that includes the implication that others need to repent or are otherwise behaving poorly.

Peace. I’m fine to leave it there. 

Just before you leave it there, I think it is entirely appropriate for you to simply be you. You don't need to be me before I can ponder on your comments.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Balaam said:

Hello Navidad.  I'm a member of the Church, 61 years old now, and I'm fascinated by the idea that you and your wife, at 73 years old, and after 5 years with us, would rather be faithful non-members than members of the Church while staying with us.  Surely you must know that you can both offer a lot more and enjoy more as members than non-members of the Church.  Why not offer everything you can offer by joining the Church as members with us?  I hope you will reflect on that question for a while before offering a response.  When you have considered that thought for a while, I'd like you to tell me, if you can, what it is that is holding you back.  What more do you or could you think you still need to hear?

I have heard it said that some people need more time than other people to make the decision to become members of the Church, and since as yet I do not understand why, I am hoping you might help to enlighten me.  How much more time do you think you may need?  I've read that it took 2 years of study before Brigham Young decided to become a member of the Church, and considering how strong in the faith he later became, I wonder why it took him so long.  I was ready to join the Church after only about 2 weeks of study, so in my case I would say time itself did not seem to be a factor.  At least not that I was aware of, as it seemed so to me.  I was 28 years old at that time, if that matters any at all.  I know many people do not choose to join with us but you are apparently with us but only as a non-member.  Why not take the plunge and join entirely, with all of your body and soul?

Genuinely curious and interested in you and your wife.  Sincerely.  And I appreciate that you are with us as much as you are.

HI Balaam: Welcome to the board and thanks so very much for your kind post. I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I hesitate to answer your question because I in no way wish to come across as being critical, negative, or anti-anything. I will limit my response to your question about why we prefer being non-members than members. I don't have time right now to respond adequately, so please allow me to go do what I need to do right now and I will reply when I get back to the computer. Best wishes and again, welcome.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Just before you leave it there, I think it is entirely appropriate for you to simply be you. You don't need to be me before I can ponder on your comments.

“Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong 
Whether I find a place in this world or never belong 
I gotta be me, I've gotta be me 
What else can I be but what I am

“I want to live, not merely survive 
And I won't give up this dream of life that keeps me alive 
I gotta be me, I gotta be me 
The dream that I see makes me what I am

“That far-away prize, a world of success 
Is waiting for me if I heed the call 
I won't settle down, won't settle for less 
As long as there's a chance that I can have it all

“I'll go it alone, that's how it must be 
I can't be right for somebody else 
If I'm not right for me 
I gotta be free, I've gotta be free
Daring to try, to do it or die 
I've gotta be me”

——Sammy Davis Jr.

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not sure I understand this. Would you please comment on these words of the Savior in Matt 7? Sorry for the fonts...I have no control over them on my pad.

 

Hi Bernard, perhaps I can clarify in this way . . . when I talk about "the Christian Community" I am speaking of those who in sincerity and truth have named the name of Christ as Savior and Lord, repented, and acknowledge the atonement as the means of the gift of grace, both in word or in deed. I am not talking about every single person who claims to be a Christian or to belong to a Christian group/denomination/sect, etc.  I do not believe every member of a Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, LDS, etc etc. church or denomination are part of the Christian community. No church in and of itself is part of the Christian community. Christ did not die for churches, He died for individuals. Every LDS, Lutheran, Brethren, or whatever group comes to the Community of Christ individually. So no, I don't think that community has anything at all to do with denominations, groups, sects, etc. That is why I don't think it matters to God about certain things like the mode and manner of ordinances. What matters to God is the inward witness and testimony. That can be verbalized at an ordinance once in a life, every Sunday at the Sacrament, or never.

That is why I am provisionally certain (there is that phrase again) that no ordinance is in and of itself salvific. I can't believe that every 8 year old who is baptized in the LDS Church receives the gift of the Holy Ghost as if it is some autonomic response. Ditto for every person in any other church who goes through their ordinances, classes, or trainings, but shows very few signs of a commitment to Christ.

Now, how do I Navidad, know who is or is not truly a member of the Christian Community? That's easy, he or she thinks just like me! That is a joke! Just a joke! 🙃The fact of the matter is that I don't know. There is no way I can know! I don't read minds, souls, or spirits. While we are at it, I am not an expert in body language either. Only God knows and He isn't telling. What about those who have never heard, or have rejected? That is where mercy comes in at the judgment seat. I have my views on that, but this isn't the place to go into that. Just let me say that I believe there will be pre-Conquest Aztecs who will come unto the Father by Christ at His (Christ's judgment). That is why Christ is both the way and the judge.

Clearly, not everyone who cries Lord, Lord is part of the Christian Community. Yet there are those who, like the thief on the cross or the women at the well cry out and are accepted sans ordinance, training, confirmation, or a life lived in commitment to Christ. After all salvation is not earned, it is a gift. The Greek in Ephesians 2: 8,9 uses the definite article - the gift. The word dóron is in the superlative culminative (as used by some Greek scholars about the superlative). It is thee gift - the best gift. Of the 19 times the word is used in the New Testament, it is only used in the superlative 9 times, and then in differing ways. It can be translated as a gift, but also as a sacrifice. Our salvation comes at price of the sacrifice which is a gift of God. Those in the Christian Community, to one degree or another recognize that. I hope that helps a bit.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Navidad

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, it doesn’t explain it, but thank you.

This seems to be an opinion that includes the implication that others need to repent or are otherwise behaving poorly.

Oh believe me, I have my self-righteous moments.  I know my weaknesses.

[Navidad]

On 1/4/2023 at 3:33 PM, Calm said:

Do you see Arrington’s stuff as more faith promoting than Bushman’s?

Who are you thinking of?  I know of one who was ostracized, but not disciplined (Brooks), some excommunicated who promoted false doctrine as well as putting out information about dissent in the Church, etc, so I don’t think one can positively claim it was the info that put the Church in a bad light that led to the excommunication.

B Carmon Hardy was my favorite Mormon historian. Great writing style and excellent researcher. I don't remember if he was excommunicated or resigned from the church. I don't have time right now to dig up a citation on that. Perhaps someone here knows for sure. I think he resigned his membership, but I could be wrong. The several times I emailed back and forth with him, he was very kind, especially since I had never met him in person.

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, Balaam said:

Hello Navidad.  I'm a member of the Church, 61 years old now, and I'm fascinated by the idea that you and your wife, at 73 years old, and after 5 years with us, would rather be faithful non-members than members of the Church while staying with us.  Surely you must know that you can both offer a lot more and enjoy more as members than non-members of the Church.  Why not offer everything you can offer by joining the Church as members with us?  I hope you will reflect on that question for a while before offering a response.  When you have considered that thought for a while, I'd like you to tell me, if you can, what it is that is holding you back.  What more do you or could you think you still need to hear?

I have heard it said that some people need more time than other people to make the decision to become members of the Church, and since as yet I do not understand why, I am hoping you might help to enlighten me.  How much more time do you think you may need?  I've read that it took 2 years of study before Brigham Young decided to become a member of the Church, and considering how strong in the faith he later became, I wonder why it took him so long.  I was ready to join the Church after only about 2 weeks of study, so in my case I would say time itself did not seem to be a factor.  At least not that I was aware of, as it seemed so to me.  I was 28 years old at that time, if that matters any at all.  I know many people do not choose to join with us but you are apparently with us but only as a non-member.  Why not take the plunge and join entirely, with all of your body and soul?

Genuinely curious and interested in you and your wife.  Sincerely.  And I appreciate that you are with us as much as you are.

Hi Balaam: I am back at the computer.

My wife and I have chosen not to join the church with the following thoughts in mind:

1. I wouldn't mind being rebaptized for the reason that a denomination or church requires it for membership. I cannot, however agree to be rebaptized under the rationale and premise that my former baptism (by immersion, in the name of the Godhead and by one in authority - my own father!) is not a valid baptism for a number of reasons. That is a very different rationale. If my dad didn't have priesthood authority from God, I don't know who has it. So if being rebaptized is a repudiation of my baptism as a child by immersion by my father, complete with covenants, then I cannot consent.

2) In the same vein, after five years in the ward and meeting all over the US with LDS members in various circumstances I do not accept LDS exceptionalism. Joseph Smith founded a church, not thee church. His, was one church that sought to restore the New Testament church. His was neither the first nor the only to attempt that. I could not agree that the LDS church is thee only restorationist church. I am a Mennonite and Mennonites were attempting to establish Zion and restore the church in 1530. Erasmus was a Catholic who was attempting to restore the church from within even earlier than the Anabaptists (Mennonites). I honor his work. So I could not agree that the LDS church has restored the early church in some unique or special way.

3) I believe the LDS is led by prophets, but prophets who are such in a New Testament manner, not as the prophets in the Old Testament. I believe that modern prophets in whatever group are prophets in a forthtelling sense, not a foretelling sense. Old Testament prophets were prophets in both senses. I believe Billy Graham (as one example) was a prophet in the same way as the LDS prophets are prophets. They have the gift of prophecy - preaching and teaching the gospel in a special way that others without that gift cannot.

I think that about covers it. We acknowledge that every church/group/denomination has a right to establish its guidelines, statements of faith, etc. Our challenge is that the LDS apparently does not and has not anticipated having faithful non-members. So the rules (handbook) are very limited in that regard. Things are by and large left to interpretation by local leaders. When they change, our role changes. It is confusing and stressful. We love our time in the ward with the folks in ministry (when allowed), worship (when allowed), and fellowship (always allowed). We are pleased and grateful for the opportunity to attend the ward. With each change of bishopric, things change for us. For three years in the ward I sat with or just behind a general authority emeritus. What a kind and Godly man who supported our involvement in an open and wide manner. He passed away a year or so ago. I miss him so much! He was the father of our stake president ever since we started attending the ward. Our SP and I had a good cry two weeks ago in our living room, thinking about his dad.

I hope this helps. None of this is meant as a criticism of anything. It is as simple an explanation as I can give for why we have not and most likely will not join. Blessing to you and thank you for asking.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

B Carmon Hardy was my favorite Mormon historian. Great writing style and excellent researcher. I don't remember if he was excommunicated or resigned from the church. I don't have time right now to dig up a citation on that. Perhaps someone here knows for sure. I think he resigned his membership, but I could be wrong. The several times I emailed back and forth with him, he was very kind, especially since I had never met him in person.

Not finding anything to suggest he was excommunicated. My guess is not as that would have been noteworthy, imo.  Am asking friends who will know.

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, Balaam said:

And you wrote something else while you were at it.  I was pleasantly surprised to see your new post immediately after I posted my last one.

If possible I'd like to give you some good reasons to join and overcome your reluctance to join. 

What if you somehow became convinced that your dad did not have priesthood authority from Jesus Christ to baptize you even though your dad sincerely believed he did have that authority when he did it?  But rather than not knowing who did have that authority, you would know who had it and still has it now.  Would you still not consent to be baptized by someone with valid priesthood authority from Jesus Christ?  FWIW, my Dad also baptized me, when I was 14 years old, and at that time we both believed he had the authority to do it.  But now I know better, and even though now I know he did not have that authority, I still appreciate his intentions and desire to do it.  

Intentions don't always justify what people choose to do.  It is a big thing to claim to have the authority of God.  To try to make a point, my Dad liked to compare the Bible to a play book for people who wanted to play ball. He believed that by following the examples of what those people of God did in that book, we could also be like them and learn to play ball as they did.  I liked the analogy at first and for a while, but later I realized the faulty logic.  Learning to play ball by reading a play book doesn't make those people who learn it members of a Major or even a minor league.  And imposters can think the same thing, that by acting like others they can be perceived as those others.  Counterfeit instead of true currency also springs to my mind.  Yes, we can learn about others by reading stories they wrote about what they saw and what happened among them, but that is history.   The true church of Jesus Christ is here among us today, and yet many people can't find it because they haven't learned to distinguish the real thing from well-intentioned but still invalid and unauthorized copies.

I'm going to leave this one alone because that would leave us with only 2 issues to deal with instead of the 3 you mentioned.  And being prophets in only the New Testament sense is not necessarily a bad thing.

Yes, what you said helps me to understand you better.  Let's see how long it takes me to convince you to become a member of the Church you already attend and have attended for the last 5 years.  Just a couple of concepts to get before you are ready.

Good evening: While I appreciate it, I am not sure that this is the place for convincing. In five years on this forum, I don't remember anyone being convinced of anything different from that which they brought with them to it. I sincerely don't want to get into a back and forth that ends up with hurts, pain for either of us, or boredom for those tired to those kinds of back and forths (is that a word?).

I stipulate that you have priesthood power and authority in your church that I don't. I also stipulate that you have no priesthood power or authority in the Mennonite church with the exception of recognizing Christ as the eternal High Priest and the Royal Priesthood you hold as do all true believers. I stipulate you have ministerial priesthood authority in the LDS church. I do not. You have no ministerial priesthood authority in the Mennonite or Baptist church. Do you stipulate to that? I stipulate the Book of Mormon is clear that priesthood authority comes from the Holy Spirit. I believe that as well. I would think you do too. It is not handed down person to person, but God to person because all authority is found in Christ and is authorized by Him via the Holy Spirit. That is my belief. Perhaps you can share if that matches your beliefs.

You have a doctrine that teaches that my ministerial priesthood is universally null and void next to yours. I do not stipulate to that. You have a belief that Christ only accepts as valid ordinances performed by some male in the LDS church. I do not stipulate to that. We most likely share points of agreement and others of disagreement. I think LDS baptisms are valid. You believe my baptism is invalid. I believe neither baptism (yours or mine) had any salvific efficacy to it. I think that about does it. No convincing of the other. Just graciously stating our beliefs and hitting "submit reply" as brothers in Christ. I am not you and you are not me. Christ loves us both, not as members of this or that church, but as His individual child. He has no favorites. That makes neither of us less than the other. You are an LDS Christian. I am a non-LDS Christian. I am quite sure we both do our very best and a little more to honor Him and to take His name upon us and live that way. I am convinced of that! Are you?

Edited January 6, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

Navidad, he wasn’t excommunicated, he told a friend who was good friends with him he and his wife came to the same conclusion on the truth of the Church and so left it.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think that about covers it. We acknowledge that every church/group/denomination has a right to establish its guidelines, statements of faith, etc. Our challenge is that the LDS apparently does not and has not anticipated having faithful non-members. So the rules (handbook) are very limited in that regard. 

Sorry to interject, but I saw this comment and have to ask - can you explain what you mean by this?  

I think religious liberty is one of the core founding principles of Mormonism.  In regards to these rights and privileges, it is written in our own canonized articles of faith:

Quote

We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Joseph Smith further stated:

Quote

I believe that a religion is instituted of God and that men are amenable to him and to him only for the exercise of it.

Quote

When we see virtuous qualities in men, we should always acknowledge them, let their understanding be what it may in relation to creeds and doctrine. For all men are, or ought to be, free, possessing unalienable rights and the high and noble qualifications of the laws of nature and of self-preservation; to think and act, and say as they please, while they maintain a due respect to the rights and privileges of all other creatures, infringing upon none. This doctrine I do most heartily subscribe to and practice.

Quote

 

the inalienable right of man being to think as he pleases, worship as he pleases, etc., being the first law of everything that is sacred

 

There are dozens more like this.

While you may acknowledge the right of every church to establish its own guidelines etc. you seem to be struggling with our right to establish our own guidelines in relation to the requirements for full-participation and fellowship in the church.  By excluding you from full participating and fellowship because of your non-membership, you seem to be interpreting that as rejecting the rights of other churches.  I don't understand that.  Some may not like our guidelines, but I hope that they will respect and truly acknowledge our right to create them. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Navidad, he wasn’t excommunicated, he told a friend who was good friends with him he and his wife came to the same conclusion on the truth of the Church and so left it.

Ok, I wasn't sure. His book on plural marriage and one on the colonies are still the best in print IMHO. Thanks for finding out for me. I was superintendent in San Diego when he was in Fullerton. I wish I had gone up to meet him. I emailed several times, but never met the man. I found his essay written late in his life as kind of an autobiography very informative. I forget the name of it. best, Navidad

[Calm]

On 1/4/2023 at 5:00 PM, pogi said:

I haven't read enough of Arrington to answer that. 

What is your opinion on the September Six?   

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides, Avraham Gileadi, Paul Toscano, Maxine Hanks, Lavina Fielding Anderson and D. Michael Quinn

Given the private nature of excommunication, the reasons for excommunication are not always certain and we can only go off of other accounts.   

To excommunicate someone for publishing a criticism, history that the church disagrees with or doesn't want published, seems contrary to the teachings of Joseph Smith to me.

I actually talked to my dad about this recently and he stated that a historian was excommunicated in our Stake when he was bishop for publishing history that the church didn't agree with and didn't want published.  I will have to ask him his name. 

I don't think that disciplinary measures would be taken today for some of this stuff. 

My memory is failing me, but I seem to recall a historian was excommunicated for publishing the history of blacks and the priesthood (a history which is published by some in the church today without disciplinary measures).  But I don't trust my memory enough on this one unless someone can back me up. 
 

In my view if you read the stuff the six produced, it wasn’t history that was the issue for any of them, it was other activity including activism (mostly feminism iirc) and false doctrines.  Whitesides was pushing Mother In Heaven stuff as did Janice Allred (not one of the Six).  Gileadi was and is into the Davidic King stuff and his excommunication may have been premature, but even if he isn’t going off into the weeds himself, he is going to conferences and preaching to those who do…a lot of the end times group take his stuff very seriously.  He has to know what is going on after doing it all these years, but still persists.  It’s concerning.  Paul Toscano was excommunicated for apostasy and false teaching, I have read some and agreed it was apostasy, though memory is too vague at this point, he didn’t interest me much.  For Quinn, just from the wording of the summons (or whatever you call them) he was excommunicated for homosexual behaviour even if he wasn’t officially out.  His orientation was an ‘open secret’ as I understand it.  Anderson was probably the closest from what I hear, but even she was intending to use her database of spiritual abuse to push for change as I understand it.

My friend, who double-checked my memory for me, did point out that Fawn Brodie might qualify.  She wasn’t exactly a believer though…

I am not saying times and attitudes haven’t changed or that historians were never pressured or at least felt very pressured.  I think the Gospel Topics Essay and JSPP show that there has been significant change as well as the rebaptism of Maxine Hanks, without her having to disavow her book.

I am only challenging the belief historians were exed for doing critical history.  It was pretty much always something more.  Certainly didn’t help.  And their lives were disrupted by pressure from leaders and not always pleasant.  I just think it is important to be accurate.

Arrington was pretty frank imo in his writings.  He led the way for historical scholarship treatments, imo.  Wrote some quite controversial stuff. In some ways he got shut down unfortunately, but not excommunicated.  As I understand it, he felt threatened that he might be at times even if not actually threatened, but I don’t know details as never read his autobiography.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Lester Bush is the historian you are likely thinking of in regards to black history.  I believe Bush was ostracized and unlike Brooks, eventually left, but I don’t believe he was excommunicated.  I suppose one could say he might as well have been, but I don’t know his story well enough to draw that conclusion.

I would hope both Brooks and Bush would have been able to publish without any blowback these days, the others…they may not have been excommunicated so quickly, but my guess is if they stayed on the same activism and continued creating new theology surrounding Mother In .heaven (iirc Allred had the Godhead being the Mother, Father and Son, but it has been decades since I read her books) and questioning authority of church leadership, it still would be happening today.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Calm