More LDS Bloggers getting the call (NYT Article)

No. We aren’t posting or supporting things that are as inflammatory as Rock Waterman’s stuff. Seriously, some of his stuff is so over-the-top that I have absolutely no problem with a disciplinary council. All apostates aren’t liberals.

Of course, if you have a local leader who is trigger-happy . . .

You are next if your local leader says you are next..

I agree with Hawk on this one — with one exception — I do believe the HQ pulls the strings of local leaders. I was once involved as a Stake Exec Sec, and I saw firsthand how training from HQ, “suggestions” from higher up leaders, and impending visits from such leaders motivated them to take action on matters they otherwise would not have.

Also, I read an interview with Michael Quinn, one of the September 6 and it implies that yes, the higher ups do give tacit signals to clamp down on certain kinds of infractions. The fact that a lot of people seem to be getting called in and TR’s taken away, and threatened with discipline if they don’t stop blogging tells me there’s been some training on the issue at some point, likely. These things dont’ happen magically all at once.

Here is the PBS interview with Michael Quinn, excommunicated former BYU professor that shows the influence of higher ups on local decision-making. Also provides a bit of disturbing attitudes about our history that BKP made, such as that history professors have too much of a tendency to “idolize the truth”. Not the focus of this discussion, but something that floored me when I read it. Leaders tend to be compliant with training and general handbook statements, and also church bulletins….so, in that respect, the HQ does pull strings at the local level. The local people also consult with higher ups when they aren’t sure, receiving guidance.

Here is the section relevant to the role of HQ influence on local decision-making on one of the September 6, Michael Quinn:

It became clear to me, when I published a long article, almost 100 pages, about plural marriage after the Manifesto, that this was coming to a breaking point between me and the church, because my local LDS Church president, the stake president, was visited by a General Authority and told that I was to be called in and punished, and that at a minimum I was to lose my temple recommend, which was the basis for church employment, and I was a professor at BYU.

Then the leader of this meeting said, “And if this doesn’t keep him from doing this kind of thing, you should take further action as appropriate.” And he started to get up and walk out. He thought that was the end of it. And the stake president said, “Now, wait a minute.” He said: “Michael Quinn gave me a copy of this article on plural marriage after the Manifesto. I and my counselors have read it, and we don’t find anything in it that is contrary to faith. It talks about some difficult experiences the church went through, but we don’t see this as a reason to punish him. … And he hasn’t done this secretly, and we don’t see — we’ve read it.” And they asked, “Have you read it?” And he said, “No, I wouldn’t read anti-Mormon trash.” And they said, “Well, how can you judge that what he’s written is destructive of the faith if you haven’t read it?” And it went around and around, and finally after two and a half hours, the stake president said, “Well, I’ll call Michael Quinn in, and I will explain to him what you have said to us, and then we’ll go from there.”

And this representative said: “Oh, no. You can’t tell him that I told you what I’ve told you. You can’t tell him that this came from church headquarters. This has to be your objection that he is to be informed of, that you have objected to, and that you’re going to punish him for.” And the stake president said: “I’m not going to lie to him, so you decide: Am I going to tell him the truth and call him in, or am I not going to say anything to him? Because I am not going to lie to him.” This stunned this General Authority who had been sent from church headquarters, and he said, “Well, then you do [what] you feel you need to do.”

So the stake president called me in and explained this whole process, including the fact that he had been told to lie to me and to say that this was his personal objection to what I’d published. The stake president said: “I feel obligated to do something. I have to do something.” And he said: “I’m taking your temple recommend. You will not be able to go back to the temple without it. But,” he said, “I’m afraid that they’re going to use this as a grounds for firing you from BYU if you do not have temple recommend. So,” he says, “if anyone at BYU asks if you have a valid temple recommend, you tell them yes, and don’t volunteer that it’s in my desk drawer. And when it expires, I’ll renew it, but I’ll keep it in my desk drawer.”

And I knew at that moment that I was dead meat, that as long as that stake president was there to protect me I would be protected, but as soon as he was relieved of his position — and these are temporary positions; it’s a lay ministry — and another stake president who was more compliant was in the position, or if I happened to move … out of his stake, then I was dead meat. …

Full article here:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/quinn.html

Also, let’s not forget the experience of cWald as well. His leader also told him to stop posting and there was a discussion about the possibility of discipline.

DarkJedi – my local ward is so vastly superior to the reports I hear from others that I think either I am a huge optimist or my ward really is an outlier. I truly can’t imagine this kind of crack down in my ward. Maybe at the stake level, which I really don’t know.

As with most things with the church, I am quite confused. My very close friend who is a stake president, told me last month that the tone from HQ is one of working with people. Nine years ago, he said, HQ wanted SP to “discipline” the members. He said now they are supposed to work with the faithless and avoid church court. He commented on what a sharp contrast it hS been.

So, to see the church HQ now reversing confuses me.

I just thought I might share my little insight.

I think we can say whatever we all want – and after those words get thought on for a while – it’s often times good we say what is on our minds. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone can have an expectation to be able to publicly say whatever you want and then expect the church to allow you to continue claiming you are a member in good standing. They are entitled to free agency as much as we are.

You can be a “coward” like me and most people here – and use a pen name. And believe you me, I’m perfectly content being a coward. Or, you can choose to do it publicly, and accept the consequences. I’m not aware of any law of the universe that says consequences are required to be fair. Martin Luther spoke his mind and accepted the consequences, but so did Korihor. So did Joseph Smith for that matter.

As with most things with the church, I am quite confused. My very close friend who is a stake president, told me last month that the tone from HQ is one of working with people. Nine years ago, he said, HQ wanted SP to “discipline” the members. He said now they are supposed to work with the faithless and avoid church court. He commented on what a sharp contrast it hS been.

So, to see the church HQ now reversing confuses me.

I just thought I might share my little insight.

My SP has only been in place a few months, and I have only had a close relationship with him for roughly that same amount of time. But the message he gives us is the same as the one from your SP – he has made no secret, even to other members of the high council and to bishoprics, that I am there to help him work with the struggling members.

Now, there might have been some direction to take a look at people who are actively working within OW. In other words, I can see a very focused effort on that organization (and, again, I can understand easily both sides of the discipline dilemma with OW),

If I can speak frankly on this, I’ve heard the argument that person can see both sides many times before. To me, it’s a way of involving oneself in the conversation without necessarily taking a stand. For me, it’s the first step in drawing conclusions about how to resolve the problem, or where an individual stands on an issue. Not the last step.

I’ll tell you where I stand on this issue. Movements lose their edge when they are ignored. If the church wants to put the fire of OW out, then it should let them do their thing, and let the difficult of sustaining change take over and let the movement atrophy. By attacking the movement, the church only validates it as a viable force, creates martyrs, and fuels its fire. Personally, I feel even more alienated by the church now as threats of discipline are typical of church egocentrism that I see all around me. If they just left the OW people alone, I believe many of the volunteers would lose interest in OW and move on.