Does excommunication do more harm than good? I think the answer is unmistakably yes. It is just simply a bad idea to turn loyal members into enemies. There is the old adage that “they can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone.” I think when the church excommunicates someone, the church create their own enemies, and causes more bad will, not goodwill. It is simply counter-productive. Case in point: the most vehement anti-Mormons are former Mormons. The church could do more to control anti-Mormonism if they simply didn’t create so many enemies via excommunication. William Shepard and Michael Marquardt have just come out with a new book, Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism’s Original Quorum of Twelve. The book is dedicated to 6 of the original 12 apostles that never returned to the church: John Boynton, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, Thomas Marsh, William McLellin, and William Smith. I’d like to talk about some of the circumstances regarding not only these men, but the excommunications of the Three Witnesses, and the most of the Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. What were the issues these men quarreled over? The years 1837-38 are known as the most challenging times in LDS History. I’ve previously discussed the Kirtland Bank Crisis, but let me offer a brief summary here. The saints in Kirtland had just completed the beautiful temple there. Kirtland was one of the largest communities in Ohio, and the town needed a bank, so they petitioned the state of Ohio to create a bank. While some LDS members claimed that there were anti-Mormons in the Ohio legislature (and there were), several legislators were also worried about under-capitalized banks. These two factors led the legislature to turn down the charter for a bank. Discouraged, the saints in Kirtland set up an “anti-bank” (curiously, this sounds to me like anti-Nephi-Lehies.) The Kirtland Safety Society Anti-bank was set up to fill the banking needs of the city. In the 19th century, currency wasn’t regulated as it is today, and many banks as well as anti-banks issues bank notes that were treated as currency. You can think of them as IOU’s that can be distributed as currency. The failure of the Kirtland Anti-bank was part of a national banking crisis, failing with about 1/3 of all banks in the United States. The bank was grossly undercapitalized, bringing the economy of Kirtland to a screeching halt. From pages 139-40
In the spring of 1837, the Safety Society closed its doors and stopped redeeming bank notes with specie. Wilford Woodruff [not an apostle yet] recorded that on April 9 in the Kirtland Temple, Joseph Smith blamed the bank’s failure on “characters that professed to be his friends & friends to humanity” but had “turned tr[a]itors & opposed the Currency.” A convert who had been enthralled with Lyman Johnson’s preaching in New York, Ira Ames wrote that Lyman and Boynton had purchases a farm in Kirtland, making a down payment and borrowing the balance, then subdivided the land to sell at inflated prices. Ames bought eighteen acres at $100 per acre. After paying the apostles$1,500, he signed a mortgage. In the crisis following the bank failure, Boynton and Johnson were unable to meet their payments on the farm and the land reverted back to the original owner. Ames lost his land, along with his $1,500 and his improvements. He bitterly lamented: “Boyington and Johnson tried to get my horses from me for $300.” Historian Ronald K. Esplin explained that “it was in this atmosphere that some of the saints—especially certain leaders—began to differ publicly with the Prophet over fundamental issues of leadership.” They wondered “whether Jospeh Smith should confine his leadership matters to matters narrowly religious or whether it was appropriate for him to also advise the Saints in economic and other ‘temporal’ affairs.” Boynton and Johnson were roundly criticized for being “merchant apostles,” Esplin wrote, and they, in turn, blamed Joseph Smith for their predicament. Luke Johnson was “more quietly critical” but felt disheartened and “moved to the fringes of Kirtland Mormon society.” Warren Parrish, an officer in the Kirtland Safety Society and Joseph Smith’s former respected secretary, emerged in the spotlight as a leading critical voice and opponent of Joseph throughout most of 1837.
It was in this atmosphere that historian Dean Jessee wrote that 300 people “left the church, representing about 15 percent of the Kirtland population.” Among those leaving/excommunicated included Book of Mormon Witness Martin Harris, apostles Luke Johnson, John Boynton, as well as Warren Parrish. These loyal members turned dissidents took the church to court and were awarded the printing press as compensation for their financial losses. However, “loyalists” burned the printing offices down in retaliation, and in the process, damaged the adjacent temple. Hepzibah Richards said “The Temple and other buildings [were] badly scorched.” Warren Parrish’s letter to the Painesville Republican newspaper (and signed by Luke Johnson, John Boynton, Sylvester Smith, and Leonard Rich) claimed Joseph and Sidney weren’t honest and “lie by revelation, swindle by revelation, cheat and defraud by revelation, run away by revelation; and if they do not mend their ways, I fear they will at last damned by revelation.” In Shepard’s Sunstone presentation in Kirtland earlier this year, he said that the only apostles to remain consistently loyal to Joseph were Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball. Things were so bad that Joseph left in the dead of night, headed for Missouri. Joseph had previously appointed Book of Mormon witnesses David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery to lead the church in Missouri. Previous to Joseph excape from Kirtland, he has sent President of the Twelve Thomas Marsh , and next in line David Patten to investigate possible problems in Missouri. Patten and Marsh were alarmed to learn that Missouri leaders had sold land and personally profited from someo f these land sales, despite the fact that similar transactions had occurred in Kirtland. Marsh and Patten led a purge against Missouri leaders and charged these three men, as well as WW Phelps with (from page 117) “selling their lands in Jackson County, misuse of funds, and violating the Word of Wisdom.” Marsh then removed them from church leadership “Despite being outside of their jurisdiction, Marsh and Patten determined to do the very thing in Missouri that dissidents had done in Kirtland and topple the leaders.” Of course Cowdery also was upset with Joseph’s “dirty, nasty, filthy” affair with Fanny Alger. I find it hard to blame Cowdery, because even if one believes the polygamy revelations date to 1831, it wasn’t acknowledged to anyone in the church until at least 1840. But even after excommunicating the Missouri leaders, they didn’t leave them alone. Sidney Rigdon issued the famous “Salt Sermon” in which he said dissenters (this group includes Cowdery and the Whitmers) were (from page 176)
“good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under the foot of men….He said it is the duty of this people to trample them into the earth and if the country cannot be freed any other way I will assist to trample them down or to erect gallows on the square of Far West and hang them as they did the gamblers at Vickburgh [in 1835] and it would be an act at which the angels would smile with approbation. Joseph Smith in a short speech sanctioned what had been said by Rigdon, though said he[,] I don’t want the brethren to act unlawfully…”
David Whitmer, Lyman Johnson, Oliver Cowdery, and WW Phelps received a letter from 83 Danites threatening them. The four men left for Clay County to seek legal advice. While they were gone, their lands were confiscated and their families were forced from their homes. When they returned, they found “their wives and children on the road, clothing and bedding in their arms.” Phelps asked for forgiveness and was accepted back, but the other three left the area, staying with on again and off again apostle William McLellin. Marsh was soon called on a mission to England that he never served. Instead, the Mormon War broke out in Missouri, and apostle David Patten was killed in a battle. (The Haun’s Mill Massacre came at this time as well.) Marsh was growing concerned with the violence. Non-Mormon mobs visited Caldwell and Clay Counties, forcing saints out. Rigdon denounced Mormons espousing pacifism (such as Marsh). In retaliation for the previous raids, Mormons attacked Gallatin and Millport, invading homes, evicting women and children, and burning a number of structures to the ground. Marsh felt it was time to leave Missouri, and later testified of Mormon atrocities. From page 188,
Joseph Smith preached that “Mormons who refused to take up arms….should be shot or otherwise put to death.” … If they thought their affidavits might have a conciliatory effect, they were wrong. They inflamed the non-Mormons, whose suspicions were confirmed that Mormons were on a medieval style crusade. Marsh wrote to Far West to his sister and brother-in-law, Anna and Lewis Abbott that “I left the Mormons & Joseph Smith Jr. for conscience sake and that alone, for I have come to the conclusion that he is a very wicked man; notwithstanding all my efforts to persuade myself to the Contra[ry].”
William McLellin was later rumored to have participated in some of the raids to recover property from previous Mormon raids. It’s been a fascinating book to read so far, and I think illustrates the folly that excommunication helps the church. The reality of these situations is very complicated, and I find the men I’ve covered here so far as having legitimate concerns. I won’t say that these men were blameless, because there is plenty of blame to share in both sides of any disagreement. But I think there concerns were valid. I also think that the excommunications proved to INCREASE hostility to the church and caused many more problems than they solved. These excommunications in particular did more harm to the church than any short-term good that short-sighted leaders sought. I fear that current LDS leadership is repeating the errors of the past in trying to discipline Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Rock Waterman (although John has posted on Facebook that his stake president has asked to meet with him to “de-deescalate the situation.) Certainly the “milk strippings” story about Thomas Marsh is a gross oversimplification of his problems with the LDS Church, and I think charges of apostasy of these 3 people are also oversimplifications of the real issues. What are your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
Does a cancer cell do more damage inside the body or out?
MH, I think you can certainly argue that excommunication can antagonize former members, and cause them to retaliate in various negative ways. I agree that it would good idea for the church to look at apostasy in a more thorough and nuanced way, not just the “pint of cream” way.
But to really prove your case, as Sare-Bear asks, you need to show how retaliation outside the church is worse than any negative influence they might have if they stay inside the church. Which is worse: “heretical” views publicly advocated by active members, or anti-Mormon views publicly advocated by former members? That is the question.
The case against the church has reached critical mass fueled by the Nauvoo Expositor going virtual and replicating into what is now the bloggernacle. The church growth rate is currently plateauing, adding 40% to the missionary sales force returned a mere 4% increase in converts. Market saturation has been reached in most of the developed world and cultivating the undeveloped world will require subsidizing that will hurt the construction company the church has become.
The internet facilitated a profound power shift from the brethren to the members and ex-members that brethren are just mow waking up to and have yet to fully comprehend, but the outcome is already known; the church must repent and become more Christlike the only remaining question is how rapidly this will take place and how soft the landing will be. Chapel TBMs still in slumber are largely unaware of the approaching tsunami but they won’t be for much longer as dissatisfied but still active members have already begun to bring the bloggernacle refined issues to the pews woven into Sacrament meeting talks and classroom questions and OW sympathizers awaken their Mormon mommie and grandmommie friends. The church was assembled by proselytizing and it can be disassembled by proselytizing. The problem is similar to the OD1 showdown with the government. The church lies, spins, whitewashes and hides it’s uncomfortable truths and it marginalizes and villainizes certain classes of people in ways that would cause Christ to turn over the red seats in the Conference Center! The church has lost the power of revelation and as a result become Mosaic and pharisaical largely missing the point of Jesus’ ministry. Q15 faces a rapid die off in the near future of more than half of it’s members and the church will not emerge from that as draconian and repressive as it is today.
They can excommunicate in the face of these fundamentals but it will only strengthen the opposition and hasten the outcome. The church has changed and will continue to change in response to being confronted with it’s sins. The problem isn’t the JDs and KKs it the Packers and Oaks both present and past. The church will emerge more Christlike or it will devolve into a small prosperity gospel country club for conservatives sect that the uber orthodox are praying they will keep.
Is ex-communication counter-productive? Who cares. Its necessary and commanded. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, it will survive long after the JDs and KKs are dead and gone.
http://www.ldsaliveinchrist.com/2014/06/what-the-book-of-mormon-teaches-about-excommunication/
” it will devolve into a small prosperity gospel country club for conservatives sect . . . ”
I hope so as you define such a thing because I don’t believe in a “big tent” or “liberal” Mormonism. Liberalism sure has done a lot for the Community of Christ’s image and size.
The church survived its turbulent history as outlined above, and has prospered. No doubt the church, church leaders, and faithful members will have to deal with more difficulties. The time of the Gentiles will come and the church, church leaders, and church members will suffering greatly (see Helaman charters 1-16)
According to the Book of Mormon the worst enemies of the church have been dissidents.
30 And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.
(Book of Mormon | Alma 24:30)
7 And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.
8 But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven.
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 6:7 – 8)
MH- I think of excommunication like divorce. Do you believe that divorce is sometimes the only remedy to a trouble marriage?
Jettboy,
I realize there is a transitional membership cost associated with becoming honest and Christlike but that cost will be extracted because of the church’s sins and due the fear that underlies and motivates conservative personalities causing them to respond favorably to “us vs them” doctrine and rote bright line rules, it’s not due to some Godly superiority of conservative politics over liberal politics. Try as hard as you can but it’s impossible to turn Jesus into a consertive, he was clearly a progressive so how can the church be led by him and be conserative?
What’s missing that would bring liberals to church the way fear brings consertives? REVELATION! Teaching that goes beyond mindless obedience. Backing the church out of our personal lives. The LDS church is stuck marching in place as an OT pharsical church yet it has doctrine capable of taking it well beyond any NT church and more is waiting in the sealed portion! The sales force isn’t lacking, the product itself lacks meat and the charity of compassion that Jesus would extend to all.
Jared, I do think that divorce is necessary in some cases, but I also say that divorce (and excommunication) is used far more frequently than it should be. Both divorce and excommunication should be used less frequently, and in the cases of John, Rock, Kate, as well as Oliver, the Whitmers, and others it was used inappropriately.
The causes of excommunication in the cases above were not based on doctrine–not a single one of these apostles or witnesses EVER refuted the Book of Mormon or any of its doctrines, and neither is Kate Kelly or Rock Waterman. As such excommunication is inappropriate. I think Sidney Rigdon’s Salt Sermon was not inspired by God at all, and he should have been excommunicated for calling for the deaths of the Whitmers and Oliver Cowdery. Murder in the name of God is ecclesiastical abuse, and Oliver and the Whitmers were right to take issue with Rigdon’s speech. Rigdon not only made the issue worse, but caused the illegal confiscation and eviction of women and children. I dare anyone to say that God inspired Rigdon to declare “hang[ing Oliver and the Whitmers] as they did the gamblers at Vickburgh [in 1835] and it would be an act at which the angels would smile with approbation.” It was an awful speech in the name of God, and the angels were frowning over Rigdon’s incendiery remarks.
The result of these disagreements wasn’t apostasy at all. Apostasy is a catch all term for “not following your leaders directions.” I don’t fault Oliver or the Whitmers at all. It was more of an economic disagreement than a theological one. And the intense persectuion that followed could have been avoided if cooler heads had prevailed.
As for Kirtland, the bank fiasco was the result of people without expertise to run a bank, and Joseph’s misplaced optimism. The charges of wickedness among everyone were improper. It was simply good men without the knowledge to handle such complex financial transactions that turned on each other–it wasn’t apostasy.
That’s my problem with the charge of apostasy. As BiV said in her post, it isn’t the proper term. I do believe that excommunication is a valid tool that should be used far more sparingly than it is today or even in 1837. It harmed Oliver, the Whitmers, Boynton, McLellin, etc. To call then cancers is an unjust simplification that does not look at the facts of the issue at all, and for anyone to call these fine founders of the church “cancers” is an unrighteous judgment. A sliver, while painful, does not require cutting off entire limbs, or killing the individual. It is an over-reaction to a treatable medical condition, more akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. It does more harm than good.
The excommunications being discussed (as BiV correctly points out) are actually for heresy not aposticy as these members deny there own aposticy but oddly the church defines it for them and in doing so switches the focus from church history/doctrine right or wrong to blaming the member.
It works because the church indoctrinates us to be humble teachable like little children. The net of this is a parent child relationship in which the parent is always right (this is carried to unbelievely absurd levels such as the absolute rubbish taught about blacks that is now reputiated) and the child is always wrong! It is sleigh of hand that plays well to the slumbering tithe paying base even as it screams B.S. to thinking people.
Quite right Howard. “When my Father calls me, quickly I’ll obey…” Doesn’t matter what’s ‘right’, just, logical, etc. It just matters that one obeys. In the church, obedience is valued above other attributes, and that’s what this seems to come down to. ‘Don’t argue, just listen and do as you’re told’. Dialoguing is not a priority, as history has clearly shown.
The brethren have set themselves up as falliable but not correctable which when you think it through invites and allows a lot of error in the absense of “thus saith the Lord” revelation. This gives rise to the joke the Pope is infallibile but Catholics don’t believe it and the President of the LDS church is falliable but Mormons don’t believe it!
And it goes beyond that not only are they not correctable but they conduct business in a way the communicates they are not askable or accesible either except (with a few minor exceptions) to vetted audiances of TBM leadership and VIPs.
Pay, pray and obey!
Church discipline is definitely Biblical.
Howard: There are more reasons to bring a member “before” a disciplinary council than just for heresy or apostacy. Many if not most are not “loyal members” and don’t even attend. Any organization must have the ability to formally detach itself from association or being associated with members that have substantially failed to live up to its tenets, and/or might be a “threat” to the other members’ “weak spirits’ [see I Corinthians 8]. Not that members, especially TBMs don’t need considerable enlightenment, but I am biased toward that being gradual exposure and not an overwhelming shock–that causes the baby to be thrown out with the bath water.
In my 40+ years in leadership positions I served on about two dozen stake courts and about half a dozen bishop’s courts–none for apostacy/heresy. In all cases, the objective and tenor of the court was to help the member repent, change, and return to full fellowship.
I don’t agree with your opening statement, “Does excommunication do more harm than good? I think the answer is unmistakably yes.” It is too unqualified and narrow. However, in this day of easily accessible mass communication and wide dissemination of the martyr effect your point is certainly worth consideration.
Jettboy said:
So which is it? Do we worry about our “image and size,” or do we not?
fbisti,
Most organizations operate just fine without an excommunication procedure, the law is there to take care of the extreme cases, the church assuming they have a case could certainly seek restraining orders for such problems.
The problem with today’s LDS church is that in spite of Joseph’s opposition to creeds and in spite of D&C 10:64-64 the church has established creeds in the form of truth claims. They function primarily as a tribal pledge of allegiance. Some of those claims require setting aside reason in order to believe in the unbelievable! These testimonies built on sand are so fragile that in the absence of the spirit they become a house of cards assembled with sleight of hand and held together with the glue of confirmation bias and peer pressure. This is not the critics fault, it is the church’s problem, the critic is merely pointing out the logical in congruency. The thing that is missing happens to be another truth claim, on-going revelation but in practice it only occurs following agitation. So, in the absence of true revelation at the top (as implied) the people on the bottom are forbidden to discuss the emperor’s lack of cloths under the express threat of excommunication!
Frankly it stinks to high heaven!
There is some reason to wonder if Honor Culture was at play with Joseph Smith (psychologically). The charge that the Mormons were behaving in medieval fashion resonates. Although JS was from the north, not the south, these descriptions fit more with a post-civil war mindset, and JS predated the civil war and chose to live mainly on the then-frontier:
“While honor in the North evolved during the 19th century away from the ideals of primal honor and towards a private, personal quality synonymous with “integrity,” the South held onto the tenets of traditional honor for a much longer period of time.
Unlike the Northern code of honor, which emphasized emotional restraint, moral piety, and economic success, the Southern honor code in many ways paralleled the medieval honor code of Europe — combining the reflexive, violent honor of primitive man with the public virtue and chivalry of knights.
The code of honor for Southern men required having: 1) a reputation for honesty and integrity, 2) a reputation for martial courage and strength, 3) self-sufficiency and “mastery,” defined as patriarchal dominion over a household of dependents (wife/children/slaves), and 4) a willingness to use violence to defend any perceived slight to his reputation as a man of integrity, strength, and courage, as well as any threats to his independence and kin. Just as in medieval times, “might made right” in the American South. If a man could physically dominate or kill someone who accused him of dishonesty, that man maintained his reputation as a man of integrity (even if the accusations were in fact true).”
MH #7 – “The causes of excommunication in the cases above were not based on doctrine–not a single one of these apostles or witnesses EVER refuted the Book of Mormon or any of its doctrines, and neither is Kate Kelly or Rock Waterman.” I know nothing of Rock Waterman. I think many people, including KK’s local leaders, would say that in fact she has refuted the church’s doctrine. This whole discussion seems to be about what KK supporters judge to be “right and true” as opposed to what her local leaders might judge to be “right and true.” I think it’s fine to speculate, but ultimately, it’s like reading about a trial in the newspaper. Unless you’re in the disciplinary council to hear everything that is said and done, you aren’t in a position to “judge the judges.” I have been involved in four reinstatements (none of which, admittedly, involved apostacy.) They were wonderful experiences, and very needed in the case of those four particular individuals. I don’t think taking an absolute position against excommunication is justified. Someone excommunicated might repent and get back into the church after a year or two. Someone disfellowshipped might languish for years making no progress at all. There’s only one sure way to see how serious someone is about their membership in the church. Take it away and see what they’ll do to get it back. It isn’t something that should be done lightly, but I don’t agree that it should be taken off the table as an option.
IDIAT: Personally, I agree that excommunication may be right in some cases. But I would object to anyone being excommunicated specifically for apostasy if that person still believes in the church. That to me is the danger zone because it indicates that other factors are at play: 1) misunderstandings, 2) unrighteous dominion or abuse, or 3) mental illness.
IDIAT,
Very few come back from excommunication and those who do generally begin the journey immediately following it. For most it is a one way street out. Why wouldn’t dis-fellowship work just as well?
I agree – excommunications are on the table for moral sins = adultery, murder, etc. Excommunications for apostasy? I’m out. Any local leader could project this action against Kate Kelly and apply it to me: a blogging Mormon feminist publicly advocating for changes in the church . . . and bring me to a disciplinary council. I would have one impassioned defense, but most people think I would be apostate for even considering defending myself. That I should shut everything down and maintain silence in the face of priesthood overreach and just submit. Sigh. I’m not sure if I would.
My number one criticism is that I’m a stumbling block to others . . . I’ll tell you, if we censured everyone who is a stumbling block to faith and participation – we’d all be out, even most of our leaders. So . . . .
HuffPost Live interview with Kate Kelly On Now
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/mormons-face-excommunication-over-shake-up-proposals/5399200778c90a6cae000217
Hawkgrrrl (no. 18),
Somehow, belief isn’t good enough, is it? James 2:19 comes to mind, and all those fully “believing” persons were cast out (excommunicated, if you will). No, something more than belief is required. Otherwise, all those in James 2:19 would be in full communion (shudder the thought!).
I think the OP makes a great point. Kate Kelly clearly wants to be either the hero or martyr who brings priesthood ordination to women. I think she’d prefer to be the hero, but she may also think there’s something a little more noble in being the martyr (ala Stephen looking up to heaven while being stoned). But, I think she’s also discovering that being the martyr hurts perhaps more than she thought, and that maybe her situation is more like being in the minority position in a nasty family dispute – a lot of bad taste and no glory. Well, maybe some glory – she’s getting more press than ever. In the end, though, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her as an external enemy of the church, and I have no doubt she’ll have a following.
ji: James is specifically referring to the need for works that demonstrate our faith. Again, not an issue in the case of Sis. Kelly who is a faithful and observant member. She went to temple square (ill-advised perhaps) after public affairs said not to (is public affairs binding now?). Cite her with trespassing or jaywalking then. Apostasy? Excommunication? She bore her testimony in her ward last month. She’s a true believing Mormon. She’s not a demon (as in James 2:19). She is following all the TR question commandments. She just wants more responsibility and doesn’t understand why women shouldn’t be ordained.
Martin: That’s not at all how I see Sis. Kelly. Maybe she’s a Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, but she absolutely does not and did not want to be ex’d. She loves the church, has served faithfully her whole life, and wants to continue to have more responsibility. She doesn’t want to be a martyr. Are there women in OW who want to be martyrs? I have no idea. It’s a big enough group maybe someone does. She simply had the courage to ask tough questions, and was foolhardy enough to try liberal tactics in a conservative organization. Liberal tactics are always maligned in our church, although that’s a political difference if you ask me, not a legitimate reason to vilify someone.
Excommunication is not vilification. I wasn’t vilifying her either, btw.
Martin,
When you understand that it it’s actually about heresy rather than apostasy it is vilification.
Hawk-18 I think the whole point of a charge of apostasy is the accusation that in fact, the person does not believe in the church. Otherwise, the member wouldn’t go about doing the kinds of things that are defined as apostasy in the handbook. Anybody can say he or she believes in the church. I once was doing a TRI and asked the question about the president holding all priesthood keys. The member said yes then continued on and said she also believed the Pope held all keys, too. I don’t believe anyone is trying the part of thought police. But at some point, when one is expressing those thoughts and they are antithetical to the basic doctrines of the church, one has to conclude maybe the member doesn’t really ‘believe’ in the church. In life, sometimes the people who proclaim their innocence the loudest are the ones who plea bargain once they are behind the closed doors of the court.
IDIAT: I haven’t yet heard her express any thoughts that are antithetical to the basic doctrines of the church. To what do you refer?
Hmmmm, must be a weird book as two of those Members of the Twelve returned to activity after their excommunications, Thomas B. Marsh and heck Luke S. Johnson was a Bishop in Utah.
KUTV – Discipline for “Ordain Women” came from high level LDS leaders
http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_12001.shtml
Howard: I interpret that slightly differently. Local leaders took action based on what E. Clayton said. But then the church said “It’s a local matter.” Well, hallelujah. Let’s make it a local matter. BTW, her local leaders didn’t have a problem with it until that meeting, which is coincidentally right before the action. The church isn’t backing the local leaders yet. Welcome to being a scapegoat, VA SP.
Local leaders took action based on what E. Clayton said. That was the headline. I agree with this but how many local leaders would not take action following Clayton’s remarks? This is LDS top down double speak reenforced by a bias toward obedience and an intolerance for anything resembling push back.
Hawk:
Since you mentioned Honor Culture, I think we could make a good case for bringing back pistol dueling as an effective means of conflict resolution, especially for excommunication. In that case, my money is on Kate; her boldness would cause her bishop to concede before any shots are fired.
Seriously, though, “pistols at 20 paces” makes about as much sense today as the formal process of religious exclusion/ostracization that excommunication entails. Like dueling, the process is more likely to leave both parties wounded and does nothing to address the root concerns. To paraphrase Joanna Brooks, “…a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem”.
Regarding the lost art of LDS revelation.
L.A. Times, Hugh B. Brown in his just-published memoirs says that many church decisions called “revelations” were actually decisions first “thrashed out” thoroughly by the top authorities.
More included in the article regarding the ban on blacks and retiring aging leaders
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-03/local/me-923_1_mormon-hierarchy
The idea that this is a local issue is a total crock of sh**. Certainly Elder Ballard and/or Clayton could put a halt to this council with 1 phone call. If you watch the video in Howard’s link above, they asked Clayton for an interview, but he was “unavailable” for an interview. Why are they hiding? Because they have something to hide. This is BS.
Whizzbang, I am only half way through so far, but neither Marsh nor Johnson returned to their previous positions in the Q12. (They book has remarked that Luke Johnson returned, but Lyman Johnson never did.)
IDIAT, I will just add that the minority of people return from excommunication, so as a repentance process, it is not very effective. “I don’t think taking an absolute position against excommunication is justified.” Nor do I. As I mentioned to Jared, I think both divorce and excommunication are used far too often. Yes there are cases in which divorce and excommunication are appropriate, but my argument is that in the cases of Whitmers, Oliver Cowdery, KK, JD, Rock, etc, excommunication is inappropriate.
If anyone should be excommunicated, Sidney Rigdon’s fiery salt sermon calling upon the deaths of fellow Mormons should be grounds for excommunication. Rigdon isn’t really guilty of apostasy so much as inciting violence, which I would certainly argue would be an excommunicable offense and appropriate remedy. Anyone disagree?
I see over and over (on FB) the argument that we can receive personal revelation but we must keep it personal, as an argument for why Kate should be excommunicated. Well guess what – what about that crazy book that was published last year that all the right-wing Fox Newsers are using to predict the second coming? Visions of Glory? Seriously? That “person” is far more guilty of preaching false doctrine than KKelly. But whatevs, because if it’s false doctrine you agree with you buy copies for everyone you know — but if just wondering about future possibilities it makes you uncomfortable . . . off with their heads!
Kristine, I’d point out that God can indeed dispense revelation to individuals that He doesn’t intend for the body of the church, or that the body of the church may not be ready for. For example, slavery is just about the most evil thing I can think of, yet if the apostle Peter had become really outspoken about it, I could see Jesus censuring him at the time. Not because Peter wasn’t absolutely correct, but that because the commotion he might have caused among the populace and the Romans might actually impede Christ’s message and mission. How can that be? Because of the time, the place, the culture, and the attitudes of the people. Because the way Christ wanted to bring the people closer to God would have more effect than would Peter’s agitation. Because Christ had a longer view and knew stuff Peter didn’t.
Personally, I think OW may be doing something similar. They may be right – the Lord may want women ordained some day. I wouldn’t know. But, those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators clearly don’t feel that the Lord wants it right now. Maybe ordaining women right now would actually impede the progress of the church overall, at least in the short term. Maybe Sis. Kelly’s agitation is actually hindering the mission of the church. If that’s the case, given she’s unwilling to stand down, what should be done? The only alternatives are to ignore her or put her at a distance. They’ve been doing the former, and it sounds like they’re moving towards the latter.
It would be interesting to see what would happen to faithful Sis Kelly if the prophet called her up and said “Sis. Kelly, we’ve read your strong arguments, we’ve prayed, we’ve met in council, and we believe the will of the Lord is that women should not, at this time, be ordained.” (why they can’t respond this way I don’t know) What would she do then?
i suspect she’d respond “But did you have any women in that council?”
Martin: “It would be interesting to see what would happen to faithful Sis Kelly if the prophet called her up and said “Sis. Kelly, we’ve read your strong arguments, we’ve prayed, we’ve met in council, and we believe the will of the Lord is that women should not, at this time, be ordained.”” We don’t know the answer to your question because it hasn’t happened, but from all I’ve seen and read, I believe she would accept that answer if the prophet had actually stated that he did pray about it. Nobody from the Q15 has stated that to date, and Pres. Monson is quite ill.
“Maybe ordaining women right now would actually impede the progress of the church overall, at least in the short term.” Again, everything I’ve read indicates to me that she would accept a reasonable prayerful answer with a reasonable explanation. To date, there hasn’t been any answer indicating that the question was taken seriously. On the contrary.
I’m not a member of OW or KK’s biggest fan. I do not agree with a variety of things in this situation — do I think it’s apostasy . . . or that she and OW should have a place within our tent. I do wish a spirit of mutual understanding, respect, and love would have ruled the day. Unfortunately, neither side was interested in de-escalation. And both sides pointing fingers at the other does nothing for me.
Grammatic apostasy? I’m losing my mind.
Unwillingness to meet with local leaders? Srsly?
Hawk, I’d also point out that Sis. Kelly, by her own choice, represents more than herself. She’s not an individual simply asking questions, and she’s not just representing people who are simply asking questions. She has headed a movement and from fairly close to the beginning chose divisive tactics. Her temple square protest was arranged to publicly shame the church and rally supporters. I don’t know her personally, but as an institution, she’s pretty well established. She’s very available to the press, to put it mildly. The bloggernacle is agog that she would be attacked personally (excommunication is very personal after all), and I don’t understand why it should be so surprising.
“She has headed a movement and from fairly close to the beginning chose divisive tactics.” They wouldn’t have been perceived as divisive if the church saw that feminists can be faithful and aren’t always a threat.
“Her temple square protest was arranged to publicly shame the church and rally supporters.” Maybe the second time. The first time, it was a pretty simple idea. Request tickets to enter as a sign of taking our future priestesshood seriously. They didn’t invent the idea that women will be priestesses. The church’s “being shamed” was due to their own actions in denying the request. Why shouldn’t women be allowed to enter? Men are allowed to attend the women’s meeting. Should women not be vested in the priesthood? Will our cooties infect the meeting? What’s the big deal? I don’t see why we had to send them away in the first place. That was the divisive act.
I didn’t go, I wouldn’t have gone, I don’t give a fig for attending the priesthood session (or attending any of the sessions, honestly), but it does seem odd to me and always has that women were not allowed to go to the men’s session and that it wasn’t even broadcast until later. I sort of assumed it was so they could lecture against porn, but that’s gone mainstream in the last few years.
@36-We’ll probably never know if Elders Ballard and Clayton told the local leaders to call a council or it was somehow implied that it needs to happen. the fact is every organization needs some kind of a discipline system, whether it’s firing, loss of privileges, probation etc. I agree that few excommunicated people come back to Church, I personally know of a few. We are dealing with a lady now who was exed and the Church is bending over backwards to get her back but she won’t come to church!!! it’s all her! we want her back!!!!
As you probably know Orson Hyde was dropped from the Twelve, disfellowshipped and he returned to the Twelve, he lost his place in it but that’s what happens.Elder Orson Pratt was exed as well and he came back to the Twelve but like Hyde lost his place in the Twelve. His brother Parley was exed but returned a few months later and resumed his place in the Twelve.
Very excellent article, Mormon Heretic. I have
always felt that so many of the original Twelve falling-out with Joseph Smith said much more about Smith’s failures as a leader, than their failures as followers. I mean, these guys were chosen from Zions Camp (were willing to risk their lives at Smith’s command), and they had also served missions (some of them several) without purse, nor scrip, preaching what was seen, at the time, as a new, strange religion.
Rather than be tried, I felt that they should have received meritorious citations for following Smith so well. Joseph Smith was always changing things, and receiving new revelations, and he would have been a very challenging – if not impossible – leader to follow. Yet, they were dropped from quorum and from church, and forgotten so quickly; dumped like a one-night stand. Even faithful disciples of Joseph Smith – Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff – would admit in later years that Joseph was not much of a manager.
In the trial of Oliver Cowdery, there is a note in the Kirtland Elders Journal which records that during the discussion of Oliver’s accusations of Joseph’s marital infidelities, there were exchanges of eyes winking, and facial gestures (unspoken communications) between Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Yes, that is right. It appears that in the middle of church court, Joseph Smith was using a wink of the eye to convince brother Oliver Cowdery to maintain his secret. I suspect that Oliver thought/hoped that when Joseph and he exchanged smiles, that the court would not end in excommunication. After all, Oliver did mumm-up, and keet Joseph’s secret. Unfortunately, Oliver was excommunicated, anyway. There was Oliver, being loyal, once, again, to brother Joseph in the middle of his own church court. He got exed anyway.
It is not the late 1830’s anymore. The Church cannot hide all the past misdeeds of its leaders, anymore. The internet is the great equalizer. I don’t support female ordination, but I do think Ordain Women is having a healthy effect upon the Church. Growth can sometimes be painful. Excommunicating the leader of a goodly-sized band of educated, organized, and committed women is (A) truly not the best option, and (B) not going to work. The Brethren should not be jealous of the equalizing power that the internet gives to members. After all, we are commanded to be equal. If we are not made equal [here] in earthly things, we can never be made equal [by the Lord] in heavenly things. “If ye are not one, ye are not mine.”