Malcolm Jeppsen served as a Seventy from 1989-94, passing away in 2012. His daughter, Christine Jeppsen Clark talked to John Dehlin concerning her father’s role in the September Six excommunications in 1993. The Church has long maintained that excommunications are local decisions, but Church leaders at headquarters have been known to release stake presidents who don’t follow the desire of Church leaders. It was an interesting interview, and I wanted to transcribe some of the pertinent areas of Part 3 where Christine discussed her father’s central role in the controversy.
Christine stated that Malcolm was good friends with Boyd K. Packer, having attended school with him. Jeppsen was involved in some less controversial excommunications of polygamists in Manti, prior to turning his sights to the much more controversial September Six. She shared her own memories, and read from her father’s journal about that tumultuous time.
Approx. 24:00 Christine, “He was in North Utah Presidency, and also he was president of the South Utah Area. He thought it was unusual that while he was the chairman of the RNC Committee (Restoration of Blessings and Cancellation of Sealings Committee), which normally is a full-time job and they hadn’t ever given another assignment on top of that, he was asked if he would become involved as the area president of the South Utah Area at the same time with the admonition, the instructions that he was to [Christine is reading from his book] “clean up the apostate groups that were forming in southern Utah and eastern Utah.”
With that assignment, he says that one or two of the Twelve gave him some hints about how to go about taking care of these apostates so to speak. So he was armed with overhead slides, he says, and audiotapes of what has been said about following the prophet at the last General Conference, and he gathered all of the stake presidents and he told them, ‘there’s this problem that we’re having with people who are questioning the Brethren.’ They have the Brethren worried and we have got to do something about that. So he says that people can believe anything that they want and remain a member of the church, but they cannot teach false doctrine and do so as a church member.
So I always thought that was interesting because that’s what you’re being accused of, not so much you as Kate I guess. She’s being accused of teaching false doctrine, and I’d love to know if these people at this time were also just trying to explore issues in church history, or if they really were teaching false doctrine as much as questioning.”
26:20 John Dehlin, “Now I got the sense that some of these people in southern Utah were actually polygamists. It was like the Manti group, wasn’t it? And people who were trying to bring back polygamy, am I wrong there?”
Christine, “It seemed to be two different groups from what I can find out. The reason I say that is because I talked to a woman who was living in Manti during this period, and the reason we were friends and talking a lot—this was a couple of years ago because she also had an interest in the same things that I did, answering these very same questions. Because she had been wondering how this whole thing works as far as ‘how do you know who you’re listening to? How do you get answers to prayer and know that it’s the right source?’ That also was her obsession.
Because she had been asking those kinds of questions, she got lumped into that whole dissident classification along with Jim Harmston and others who were going back to fundamentalist Mormonism and yes starting their own polygamist groups. But I just thought it was so interesting that because she was faithfully questioning the same kinds of that things that Kate is. But wait, what about, is there more? Can we explore this? That’s what she was also doing and she apparently got on the same list with these others, more strident ones and had to explain why she wasn’t an apostate.”
John, “And so there’s this group with Jim Harmston, and it mentions a Jeff and a Ron Garff in southern Utah, then it also mentions a pilot in American Fork who had gained quite a following, and then it mentions Avraham Gileadi who is of the September Six. So it mentions kind of three different groups, or kind of areas, or regions or figures that your dad was sort of asked to deal with, right, as apostates?”
28:35 Christine, “Yeah, and the way he went about that was so interesting to me, and he told me about that at the time too. He, in fact I’ll just read it. He said,
I worked closely with the regional representatives there, and they reported to me weekly on the progress. I devised a form that indicated who was being worked with by whom, and what kind of progress was taking place.
In other words, he showed me the form, this was back in the day. Well, like he said, eventually some 40-50 persons in the Manti area alone were excommunicated. About 100 persons were eventually guided back into the church’s folds. So the stake presidents and bishops were working with these people individually, one on one and sending dad weekly their progress which he kept track of on kind of an Excel sheet, and then they reported weekly what kind of progress ‘was taking place and what were the chances they could be turned around with proper guidance, and if not, what was their church membership disposition?’ What did the stake president think was actually going to happen to them. Would they be able to be brought back to the fold and leave their apostate ways?”
30:10 John, “And so just like now the church seems—And I don’t even know how much of this matters. The church seems to want to heavily emphasize in these cases like with me and Kate Kelly and others that all the decisions are made locally, that the church doesn’t direct.”
Christine, “Right!”
John, “And you know, I’ve spoken with my stake president, he says that he has been given full power, he’s not been directed on what to do or what decisions to make, and that may or may not be true. I take him at his word. But what your dad’s journal talks about is how closely these stake presidents were corresponding with their Area Authorities or the General Authorities above them. There certainly is considerable collaboration, and we would expect there to be collaboration, right?”
Christine, “Well absolutely. Again, knowing that my dad was so compliant and so obedient to the brethren, I don’t think there’s any question that that’s why he was assigned to this case. In fact he says that some of these people in Manti went and to the media, “told the tv audiences that I was behind a big purging of dissidents in the area” and he said at a football game in the Rice Stadium [at the University of Utah] “someone plastered leaflets all over the parked cars telling the audience to call the Office of the First Presidency and demand that Elder Malcolm Jeppsen be released. The flier was headed ‘your church membership is in jeopardy unless you get rid of this out of control general authority.’ But what he said after that, is critical to, I think, understand the situation with you and Kate. ‘That was so inane since I wasn’t doing anything that I wasn’t instructed by that very First Presidency to do.’
And it may be that in high profile cases such as yours and Kate’s, the brethren said, do what you feel is the Lord, you know, do as you feel inspired by the Savior. But there’s no way that they aren’t aware of it, there is no way they aren’t concerned about keeping the doctrine pure, which was my dad’s mantra from President Hinckley, and having unanimity of faith and comportment in the members which is not represented by these movements, like this, very much like this.”
32:55 John, “As we learned about Denver Snuffer’s case, my case, and Kate Kelly’s case, a mid-level general Authority that has been implicated in all three cases is L. Whitney Clayton…”
Christine, “Yes.”
John, “…gentleman who with Elder Ballard we understand, were both very closely behind in Proposition 8 in California, Elder Clayton is an attorney from, I understand in southern California. He, according to Denver Snuffer, he directly instructed Denver Snuffer’s—well we have—Denver Snuffer says his former president wouldn’t take action. Denver Snuffer makes it sound almost as if his former stake president was released, and then when a new stake president was implemented, which is the guy Hunt is his name. He’s the CEO of Nuskin. He was the one who was put in, possibly by Elder Clayton, that’s when the excommunication ultimately happened against Denver Snuffer.
I know that in my case, I was working with President Jensen who was my stake president. He exonerated me and everything was fine. I know he had some interactions from Elder Clayton, but then my stake president was removed. A new one was put in, who’s Bryan King, and he told me that he was put in by Elder Clayton, and he’s the one who’s been taking action against me and we know that Kate Kelly, I think it was Ballard himself and Clayton who shows up in Kate Kelly’s stake a few weeks before Kate received her letter, and I think they even went on record in a meeting as saying that Ordain Women was an apostate group.
I’m not saying this is bad or good, this is just the way the Church seems to work. There are these mid-level general authorities who clearly have influence, who are assigned to deal with apostates just like your father was, and then while they very well may empower leaders to make their own decisions, there’s also clearly coordinating and corresponding regularly with local stake presidents getting feedback, and the point I try to make with my stake president, clearly wielding influence as to what ultimate decisions are made.”
Christine interrupts, “Absolutely.”
John, “Go ahead.”
Christine, “No go ahead. Finish your thought.”
John, “Oh, I was just going to say, what I think is—I don’t know if this is a bombshell, but I found it to be highly significant. I think we should read from your dad’s journal about what happened with Avraham Gileadi of the September Six.”
35:45 Christine, “Absolutely, that’s where I was going next.”
John, “So yeah, let’s talk about that next, because that is a bombshell I think. I think it’s a bombshell.”
Christine, “I think we need to. I think so too, and I think it needs to come out that this happened and why, and to understand, not even in a vindictive way; just to understand how the brethren work and how the system works, because it is a system. It’s an organization like any other, and the brethren are trying their best to administer a system and sometimes—since this system unlike any other organization claims that it is the Savior making the decision, inspiring like you said, the leaders on every level. Then we need to understand that’s what they think and let’s look now at this particular incident that to me was, like you said, shocking and yet important to understand.”
John, “I wouldn’t mind if you actually just slowly read from his journal starting on page 433 of your journal…”
Christine, “That’s what I was going to do.”
John, “…that the subtitle is ‘a widely known preistcrafter’, ok.
Christine, “Right.”
John, “Ok and this is talking about Avraham Gileadi who is one of the September Six.”
Christine, “Yeah.”
John, “Go ahead.”
Christine, “He tried to redact the names, he didn’t want to put Brother Gileadi’s name in this but he left a couple out.”
John, “Yeah, I know.”
Christine, “He forgot. It’s in there, obviously. But I thought it was so interesting that he said he was serving on the Correlation Committee of the Church at the time this issue came up.
Just an aside, he describes the Correlation Committee, which he loved. He loved the Correlation Committee where he said that some General Authorities kind of chafed and didn’t want to have to run their talks and so forth through the Correlation Committee, but he loved it. He said, ‘then I know that what I’m preaching is true,’ meaning I can be assured that it’s from the Savior. That was his view. He said the Correlation Committee looks at everything the Church publishes, even music it seems, or letters written by headquarters or anyone else, and so they were looking—this committee was looking at something produced, or wanting to be carried by Deseret Book by Brother Gileadi.”
38:39 John, “Let me read the background your dad wrote.”
Christine, “Yeah.”
John, “He said, ‘In October of this year, another challenge presented itself…”
Christine, “I’m kind of avoiding it.”
John, “…concerning a brother who lived in the Salem Stake. His stake president was President Randall Gibbs, an Oral Surgeon. The man had studied for a year in Jerusalem and then placed himself up as a ‘Jewish scholar.’”
Christine sighs, “oh, I was avoiding reading that because, my poor dad didn’t do his homework. He didn’t vet this very well, and he used to tell me this back in the day. In fact he says this on the next page. ‘He was far from being a Jewish scholar. His history was that of a rock singer,’ and he kept telling me that, he’s a rock singer Chris, and now he’s trying to pass himself off as a Jewish scholar, and I don’t know why he said that because Avraham studied in Jerusalem. He has a Ph.D. Hugh Nibley wrote the preface to some of his books. I don’t know where dad got this that he wasn’t…”
John, “He was not a fake scholar.”
Christine, “No! He wasn’t—somehow he got it into his head that he was passing himself off as a scholar when he really wasn’t. He was just a rock star. But again, now you’re talking about personality types and hearsay, rumor that informs decisions without being vetted and my dad ‘s not the first one to fall victim to that.
He says, ‘he changed his name while he was in Israel to make himself sound Jewish. He taught one quarter at BYU before they let him go. Now see! Ohhh!”
John, “That’s not true, right?”
Christine, “Well he was a graduate student at BYU!”
John, “Right.”
Christine, “So they let him go because he finished his degree! I mean you know what that’s like, so do I. You’re being paid, they’re paying you to be a graduate student, and then they stop, and so he just didn’t know that part.”
John, “And he wrote, ‘so he made big bucks teaching false doctrine to whomever would come to his seminars to the tune of $50. So your dad’s got this impression—maybe he was making big bucks, although it’s hard to imagine making big bucks in the Mormon circuits.”
Christine, “I know.”
John, “Ya know.”
Christine, “I don’t really understand this part of it like—but at any rate, but dad wasn’t the only one that thought that he was ‘a priestcrafter.’ You’ve got to go back to the paragraph before. Here his book, The Last Days, is now being vetted or passed through the Correlation Committee that dad was on. ‘The chapter was obvious false doctrine.’ Oh, is he talking about a specific chapter?”
John, “The Ensign was going to run in the Ensign.”
Christine, “Oh the Ensign, there it is.”
John, “They were going to run a chapter of Gileadi’s book in the Ensign.”
Christine, “Yeah, his book in the Ensign because it was immensely popular as an article in the magazine. That’s how it got to the Correlation Committee. ‘The chapter was obvious false doctrine.’ Now I have that book, I‘ve looked at that chapter, and it’s talking about the last days in terms of, what’s it called, ancient Hebraic traditions. What’s it called? Cabbalism.
In other words, how the Jews traditions informed their scriptures, and so forth. It’s actually really interesting, but to this Correlation Committee, not just dad, it was obvious false doctrine. ‘We disapproved it and even contacted the members of the Twelve whose responsibility was Deseret Book and they agreed it was false doctrine.’ So it’s not just my dad. False doctrine in what context, I am not sure but it doesn’t matter because the brethren disapproved it.”
John, “What’s interesting about the parallel between September 1993 and now is that just as they’ve gone after some progressives like Kate and myself, they’ve also gone after some very orthodox and some would say fundamentalist members like Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman and others.”
Christine, “Yes.”
John, “So with somewhat of a purge, they’re making sure to purge both sides of the ideological spectrum, right? The progressives and the too conservatives, right? And that’s what they were doing with Gileadi.”
Christine, “Yeah.”
John, “Because Gileadi was a true believer.”
Christine, “Yeah.”
John, “He was all about the Second Coming and the Signs of the Times in Isaiah and he was just trying to talk about, the end is coming.”
Christine, “Right, not unlike Denver where he just saw the signs that we need to pay attention to. Yeah.”
John, “Ok, so let’s—do you want to read, or do you want me to read the start of…”
Christine, “I will read.”
John, “because this is the big part right here.”
Christine, “This is the big part. I have it starred and underlined because to me this was extremely significant in light of what you’re talking about.”
John, “Yeah because at the time, as the September Six unfolded, as I understand it, the Church was on record saying that these were local decisions, I think it was Elder Oaks and Elder Packer who insisted that these were local decisions, right?”
44:10 Christine, “I believe so.”
John, “And that this was not something that was coordinated from above. But here’s how your dad…”
Christine, “That was not true.”
John, “So here’s your dad saying how he was involved as the mid-level, sort of potentially, you know L. Whitney Clayton of his time, right?”
Christine, “Exactly. So dad says, ‘his stake president was not interested in doing much about the problem,’ the problem being…
John interrupts, “Gileadi, excommunicating him.”
Christine, “Exactly. Being a priestcrafter, whatever that definition was at the Correlation Committee level, they did not approve of what he was doing.”
John, “Ok.”
Christine, “And he was apparently persisting in doing it. They took his book off the shelves of Deseret Book, by the way.”
John, “Right.”
Christine, “’I prodded him two times, and actually gave him a copy of the report from the Correlation Committee outlining Gileadi’s false doctrines that he was teaching.’ And again this wasn’t just my dad. ‘On his third visit to my office, he…’ this stake president, did he say who it was?”
John, “He did. He wrote it earlier, yeah.”
Christine, “Oh, President Randall Gibbs.”
John, “Yep.”
Christine continues reading from the journal, “’thanked me for my counsel and was leaving when I put my arm around him and said, “We’re short on counsel in this office, but long on direction. I’m directing you to take action to correct or else excommunicate this man. He cannot be allowed to be teaching what he is teaching and remain a member of the church.” Still nothing happened.’ Yeah that’s end-quote of what he told President Gibbs. And so President Gibbs apparently was getting personal revelation within his calling that Brother Gileadi was not—didn’t deserve excommunication, whatever his communication was, his interaction with Brother Gileadi, it wasn’t the same as my dad’s. However, next paragraph.
‘Still nothing happened, so he, meaning President Gibbs was released as a stake president. Ok.”
John, “In other words, very causal.”
Christine, “Absolutely.”
John, “We released him because he was not doing what your dad wanted him to do.”
Christine, “Excommunicate. It’s not just my dad though. This is the brethren.”
John, “Right. Yeah! Probably Elder Packer, right?”
Christine, “I wouldn’t be surprised.”
John, “Yeah, because Packer’s thumbprints were on the other September Six as well.”
Christine agrees, “Mmm Hmmm. And dad told me in the day, when this was all happening, the brethren have their hands full with things that are going on at BYU and dissidents and apostates they are that they’re handling, but this was in his area, therefore he was the one to deal directly with this.”
John, “Right, ok, keep going.”
Christine, “So he says, ‘the new one’, the new stake president, ‘called was a professor at BYU by the name of Leon Otten. He was appraised of the problem and he moved to correct it quickly. I gave him permission to use his Regional Representative in any fashion he wanted to cross boundaries of responsibility and gather whatever evidence he felt he needed.’ [Christine sighs]
So, I don’t know how much we want to get into how it all went down, because he’s quite detailed in…”
John, “I think it’s kind of crazy! I mean I..”
Christine, “I know, I don’t know how much time you want to take on why dad knows that the Lord’s hand is involved, how he, the signs that come to him that tell him he’s on the right track. I don’t know, do you want to read the whole thing?”
John, “Well whatever you think is interesting.”
Christine, “hmmm. Well and given that this is Brother Gileadi’s personal story that he’s probably never heard, I don’t know how much I want to go into it.”
John, “Yeah, so I guess we can say he was excommunicated, right?”
Christine, “Yeah, I think so. Dad felt strongly and gives a lot of detail which probably we should share with Brother Gileadi, but yeah…”
John, “Yeah, it’s crazy stuff.”
Christine, “Yeah, it’s crazy stuff, but crazy in the sense of signs that showed dad that he’s on the right track, and show President Otten that this is what the Lord wants them to do, and that again goes back to how do you know that you’re really being led by the Savior? Or some other influence on you? [Christine sighs] Yeah that’s a question that everyone needs to answer for themselves. We can read the next to last one I think, the last paragraph.”
John, “Yeah.”
Christine, “’The brother was excommunicated,’ because he forgot that he hadn’t redacted the name.”
John, “Ok, what do you mean by that? Oh right, right. Gileadi.”
Christine, “He thinks that he hasn’t said the name, even though he needed an editor for this book. This book by the way is 600 pages long.”
John, “Yeah.”
Christine, “It’s a huge tome, very lovingly put together and crafted.”
John, “But he does mention Gileadi previously, so yeah.”
Christine, “Yes he does. He forgot to take it out.”
John, “The brother was excommunicated.”
Christine, “Gileadi basically ‘was excommunicated and immediately the next day other dissidents who heard about it came to him wanting to sign on to a full page ad in the [Salt Lake] Tribune blasting what they were calling religious freedom. He would have none of it, telling him that he had made a mistake but he still loved the church immensely and would stop his seminars, etc. and do whatever he needed to do to get his membership restored. This he was faithful in doing and in about 18 months he was re-baptized into the church. I sent him a letter of congratulations when that happened, and I called it to the attention of the First Presidency.’
If you go on Brother Gileadi’s personal website right now, he keeps saying, ‘I am not a part of the September Six. Don’t include me with what is going on’, and he says on his website, ‘this excommunication has now been deemed to be a mistake. It has been expunged from my church records.’
Unfortunately we see my father as a well-meaining individual who thought he was acting with the approval and at the impetus of the Savior, along with General Authorities who were encouraging him, and yet it seems to have been not the Savior, and I’m sorry that it caused so much pain and grief to Brother Gileadi, but I think you could find other examples of this in the history of our church, well-meaning men who thought that they were being inspired by the Savior, but it’s apparently not that easy to determine what is the Savior and what is the source of some other information, and this is a classic example of that.”
I think this clearly shows apostles are intimately involved in excommunications of many members. Unfortunately, this meddling is against church revelation. Joseph Smith Smith stated that the “twelve apostles have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes where there is a regular high council established, to regulate any matter pertaining thereto” (Minutes of a Grand High Council, 2 May 1835, in Patriarchal Blessing Book, p. 2, Church Archives).This is the reason the church so strenuously tries to claim that these excommunications are local decisions, because they know they are violating this revelation when they meddle in the affairs of a stake. Such meddling contaminates the whole appeals process when they get involved.
Comments?
Wheat & Tares 
Do many honestly think there is NO communication/pressure from the hierarchy on such matters? Even before hearing Christine’s chat with John on this, it just follows the way the church works in everything else. JHB says we need to look more like missionaries and soon stake president’s are telling members they need to come to church with missionary haircuts, no facial hair (eyebrow’s excluded :), and in white shirts. Then from above the stake president is told that he took it too far.
It seems outside of any written/formal communication there is MUCH pressure and influence from leaders above all over the place. After all, we must worship leaders as infallible heroes! (sorry, a bit of early morning cynicism)
I kind of take the “this is a local leader” talk as, “you will not find in writing.”
Folks– there can’t be too many raised eyebrows over COB and the upper hierarchy’s involvement in these membership actions. What is disconcerting is to learn of the casual ignorance by these same actors as to the background and career antecedents of Bro. Gileadi. As a mere junior at BYU I took a religion class from Dr. Nibley that was also attended by Bro. Gileadi. Whether everything discussed was doctrinally sanctioned, I hesitate to opine, but these guys were scholars.
Well, I am still a bit skeptical of this. Not because I don’t think it happens, but because I still see in this transcription a lot of “reading into things” and John and Christine feeding off each other not entirely based on the diary but on “what they know.”
The Gileadi thing is quite confusing because his background was pretty well known at that time. I had his book and tapes.
No matter how you look at it, it’s not reassuring. Senior leaders appeared to meddle where they shouldn’t and then try to cover it up. Now they use carefully crafted wording to not technically lie, which state that they don’t direct excommunications, that those actions are handled locally. Meanwhile Elders Ballard and Clayton conduct trainings where they label specific people or groups apostate knowing full well the ramifications. It looks like Clayton is the new Jeppson, and that they’re still being careful to cover their involvement. It all reeks.
if they are or aren’t who cares?
Church leaders at all levels have considerable precedent, and sometimes considerable practice at “lying for the Lord.” Whatever is necessary to “protect and defend” (at the expense of truth) is seen as justifiable and righteous.
whizzbang, who cares? Joseph Smith Smith stated that the “twelve apostles have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes where there is a regular high council established, to regulate any matter pertaining thereto” (Minutes of a Grand High Council, 2 May 1835, in Patriarchal Blessing Book, p. 2, Church Archives).
The apostles care, because that is why they are leading this stupid campaign that all excommunications are local. They know they shouldn’t be meddling. THEY CARE, but are breaking their own rules.
It is unrighteous dominion. That’s why it matters.
My question is, what is wrong with the church leadership (all the way to the top) being involved in the excommunication process? It is not their responsibility to look after the church and it’s image as a whole? I would be surprised if they did not have anything to do with this process, especially high profile cases.
There would be nothing wrong with it if if weren’t against revelation. Isn’t that a problem Ken?
MH,
Are you suggesting the 12 and 1st presidency are not entitled to Revelation? There is a hierarchy, there always has been and there always will be. Stake Presidents report to the 12 and will (most anyway) take counsel and direction from the 12; and, they clearly would from the Prophet.
This is a simple one for me, I don’t understand what is problematic with Apostles and Prophets getting involved in ANY thing in the church. They are, after all, the presiding leaders.
No Ken, but where’s the revelation stating that Apostles should start meddling in stake affairs when Joseph clearly said they shouldn’t? Where is that revelation Ken? There isn’t one. Apostles should follow revelation, not exercise unrighteous dominion. That’s what I’m saying.
Can’t the stake president follow revelation as well when dealing with members of his own stake? To declare that excommunications are local decisions when in fact stake presidents get fired for not doing as they are directed is a gross falsehood. Why is the church claiming these are local decisions when clearly they are not?
Here is the problem Ken (in addition to the fact that these actions clearly violate Joseph Smith’s revelation.) To whom does Avraham or Kate or Lavina appeal their stake president’s decision? To the same body that booted them out? How is this fair? It is a violation of clearly established guidelines, and turns these church courts into kangaroo courts. It is a mockery of these “local decisions.”
If the apostles want to excommunicate Kate or Avraham or Lavinia, then stop the cloak and dagger denials. Publish a revelation that God says apostles can meddle in the local affairs. Be open about it. Excommunicate them yourselves. Don’t play these stupid semantic games that these are local decisions when they clearly aren’t.
Of course the apostles regulate the affairs of stakes. If not, what is the Handbook of Instructions? The real question is how is this sort of thing not inevitable given the apostles have sole authority to appoint and recall stake presidents?
Is this the only person of the “September Six” where there is a “gotcha”? Considering this decision was expunged from his record and that we know this decision was incorrect, we can’t take this one instance of pressure from above as proof that the more recent high profile excommunications came from above.
Seems to be just another instance of Dehlin trying to build up the church by trying to tear it down. He continues to sound like just another conspiracy theorist.
One of the interesting things is that you can see John Dehlin publicly calling the Brethren liars and he’s still got a membership while Kate Kelly asked why she needed to be excluded from the Priesthood session and got excommunicated. Sure, she encouraged other women to ask to be admitted to but at the last GC they were admitted to local sessions and they’re still members too.
This really grieves me, who would be a priesthood leader, caught between the people and the Lord?
We’ve had our recommends taken in an unrighteous dominion situation ourselves, but it does seem to me these guys are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They’re just doing their job as they see it, in their spare time. Makes me glad I don’t have priesthood authority.
@MH-In my friends’ stake in Idaho in 2007, he was stake clerk, he told me that there were about 35 excommunications. Do I believe that the Twelve Apostles were involved in all of those trials and meetings and stuff, just for that one stake? No! it would be an interesting stat. to get how many DC’s are called every year and how many of those people get exed. I would interpret the word “regulate” differently perhaps than others-I don’t see Apostles running a stake and calling people to do this, organizing this or that and other stuff Stake Presidencies do. if Apostles get involved in high profile trials it doesn’t make any difference to me and I don’t even know how involved they would get. They aren’t the ones meeting with these people and actually sitting in on the DC to make sure the person gets exed.
whizzbang, if it’s all ok why do they cover it up?
This is very similar to how Denver Snuffer was exed. Denver is in a ward with Russel Nelson’s daughter. Denver’s bishop and SP weren’t doing anything about it. This bothered Nelson’s daughter. One day when he was visiting his daughter, she asked him to do something about it. He orchestrated a regime change ,and when the new bishop and stake president were set apart, he handed them a note that said ” Congratulations on your new position, your first order of business is to take care of the Snuffer problem.”
A clear violation of protocol and scripture, and very similar to how the september 6 went down and how kate kelly’s excommunication unfolded.
If a Stake President witnessed a Bishop under his jurisdiction doing something inappropriate, not only is it the Stake Presidents’ right, it is his obligation to ‘reprove betimes with sharpness (clarify and provide direction) when moved upon by the spirit (who does not act out of anger or irritation)’. Likewise an Apostle can and should provide the same direction over a Stake president when moved upon by the spirit. It is not unrighteous dominion if the respective leader is acting under the direction of the spirit. Who are we to judge if they received that direction from the spirit or not?
@Ken,
I agree with you, but why do they keep saying over and over that it is totally a local issue and that the apostles are not involved. They have said that before and even one had to eat his words when it was clear he was.
I would think better of the brethren if they just owned up to it. I am kind of OK with them being involved when/where needed. Own it just like they stepped up and made the video of the garments and temple clothing.
I think one problem with high profile excommunications is that local leadership most likely will be hesitant to make a decision without higher up approval or guidance. Priesthood leadership is trained from the very beginning to support and rely upon the decisions of superiors. It’s built into our tradition of “sustaining vote.” Seriously, who ever opposes? So when the time comes to make tough decisions, the first thing to do is look at the Handbook. Have the Brethren given any guidance? If there is still a lack of clarity, they can seek guidance from regional leadership. No one wants to be stuck having made a controversial decision without having the support of brethren above them, and this would be true in any organization.
Also, the principle of correlation itself so completely permeates LDS leadership culture, that the correlation committee is really the de-facto decision making body in the church. The church wants consistency, unity, clarity. Joseph Smith’s 1830s revelation is outdated and not really applicable to modern church culture. Whether it should be or not is another matter. But it is not in the D&C, and many things Joseph Smith said are not practiced and believed today.
“I think one problem with high profile excommunications is that local leadership most likely will be hesitant to make a decision without higher up approval or guidance.”
Nailed it!
I don’t think any reasonable person would have much of a problem in theory with church leaders being sometimes involved in the discipline of members at the local level. Institutionally speaking, it makes perfect sense. That said, the brethren have brazenly and consistently lied about the practice. They are liars, period. Ken’s point about revelation demonstrates how curious such lying is. The brethren could, at any time, simply say it has been revealed that they are to be involved in such matters, and it would immediately become a non-issue. Yet they continue to lie and cover up. Anyone who either denies this is going on or honestly thinks there is no problem with leaders of a supposedly true church, who claim to commune with god, lying to their “flock” about their actions, is beyond credulous. He is an idiot.
“Is this the only person of the “September Six” where there is a “gotcha”? ”
Frank, I’m not sure what you mean by gotcha, but I did a book review of Latter-Day Dissent a while back, and 5 of the 6 were interviewed (Gileadi refused). Nearly all of them discussed the Strengthening the Church Members Committee which is run by General Authorities. In all cases, they said GA’s had their fingerprints all over their excommunications.
Whizzbang, I don’t think all excommunications come from on high, but Christine said concerning her father, “like he said, eventually some 40-50 persons in the Manti area alone were excommunicated. About 100 persons were eventually guided back into the church’s folds.” So, if there was a big issue with polygamy or a Denver Snuffer type issue in Idaho (I heard he is big outside of Utah also), then it could have come from a GA. We’d need more info for sure. But Jeppsen also “fired” a stake president who liked holding excommunications each week in a university stake. So it’s hard to say if local or central without more information.
Pangwitch, I hadn’t heard that about Nelson’s daughter. Snuffer is pretty open about it and he didn’t mention that. Seems strange to me that his daughter had anything to do with Snuffer, especially when previous stake president said Snuffer was fine.
Ken, you keep ignoring 2 MAJOR facts here. (1) Can you please tell me why it is ok for the apostles to disregard Joseph’s specific instructions? (2) Why don’t the apostles own up to the fact that they are controlling the situation? Why are they covering it up as a local decision? (I’d have a lot more respect for them if they owned it, instead of hid their involvement.)
Joseph clearly taught that there was to be a delineation between the high council and the Twelve. The High Council was supposed to take care of matters in stakes; the Apostles were to take care of matters where no stakes existed.
From LDS.org concerning D&C 102:
Didn’t Joseph orchestrate the ex’ing of a number of Church officials and members?
Jeff, yes, often over what appeared to be personal slights. There was a real code of honor (in the old time dueling pistols at dawn sense). Hey, and today we have an honor code at BYU that operates similarly. The more things change . . .
Yes Jeff, but a history of bad behavior in excommunicating people doesn’t make it right. It was just as wrong when Joseph used unrighteous dominion.
@Burt-if they do cover it up, how would we even know about it? obviously someone squeeled or they aren’t covering it up
@MH-DC 102 doesn’t say anything about the Twelve meddling in stake affairs. You can read your first quotation as saying that no High council member can go into some other stake and get involved because this is what Apostles are for-to get involved in stake matters if need be
Section 107:33-34 says that it is the business of the Twelve and Seventy in “regulating all the affairs” in nations and building up of the Church. So, to me, it isn’t out of line for the Twelve or the Seventy to be involved in some of these cases. I don’t think for one second they get involved in 99% of church courts but maybe a few
as to your second quotation the High Council don’t excommunicate anyone, the stake presidency does and they are accountable to their leaders
Whizzbang,
There are good coverups and bad coverups. The good ones get covered up; the bad ones get discovered. See Richard Nixon.
I was quoting from the LDS manual that gives commentary on D&C 102.
Once again, If they have the right to get involved, why are church leaders denying involvement in excommunications? This is the question nobody will answer.
MH-Maybe they aren’t involved in those trials but are in others-I’d have to see statements showing they say they aren’t but first hand evidence that they were, not third hand information
Our stake exed a teen (which is uber-rare) for something and I do know that as part of his visit here one of the Seventy interviewed this kid but I don’t know if he told him he’d be exed or if he instructed the SP to ex the person but maybe he passed on his views to the SP and then the SP took it from there
Nelson’s daughter is a bratty self-righteous tattle-tale. Honestly a grown woman making her daddy do something about the man she doesn’t like is so shameful and embarrassing. This was not part of the gospel I used to love.
Whizzbang, Christine was reading her father’s FIRST HAND account.
MH-which is consistent with what I said and what Joseph Smith seemed to say, they can get involved in they want to, but most likely won’t
I disagree with your interpretation.
Whizzbang, you seem to not want to answer the second question. Assuming the brethren have complete righteous authority to be involved in local disciplinary matters, how do you feel about the fact that church leaders regularly lie about such involvement?
Maybe they aren’t involved in those cases and so they aren’t lying. I don’t why this is such a big deal! why care if they are or aren’t? There other hills to die on and lose testimonies over than this, apparently
Whizzbang, it is a credibility issue. It is a badly kept secret. Most stake presidents woudn’t try their flock for apostasy if they didn’t receive pressure from above. If the GA’s want to try someone for apostasy, they should be transparent about it, instead of stating it is a “local decision.” This is complete BS, and leads many disaffected to state that the leaders lie. It’s pretty much impossible to argue that they don’t. Jeppsen admits pressuring stake presidents.
If the leaders want to excommunicate Kate or Avraham or John, then just be transparent about it. Members would understand, and I don’t think anyone would deny that they have a right. But if they are going by Joseph Smith instructions (which says they shouldn’t get involved), then quit lying about it. Just tell the truth. A temple recommend question is to be honest in all your dealings, but apparently they aren’t honest in excommunications. It’s a credibility problem. This does lead some to lose testimonies about it, and I don’t think it is unreasonable for members to point out where leaders aren’t being truthful.
MH-I guess we see things very differently
No, I don’t think that’s accurate, whizzbang. This is not an opinion based issue. Your credibility is as lacking as those whose self-acknowledged lies you refuse to even acknowledge. Does anyone else have an opinion on this practice by the brethren, or is whizzbang’s “if I don’t acknowledge it, it isn’t real” worldview fairly representative of mainstream mormon thought on this issue?