Negative Consequences of Excommunication to the Church

[Anonymous]

I have been reading D. Michael Quinn’s book on “The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power”.

It’s a long book, and as a Finance and Accounting Major, I find it actually lacking the kind of rigor I would like to see in financial analysis of financial data. Often, a stream of facts and figures (call it a stream of consciousness about the facts in many spots) about which its hard to draw conclusions, hard to read financials on Kindle, and without norm groups or comparison in most parts of the assessment. Still opens up one’s eyes, but disappointing in certain ways too.

However, it does expose the inner workings of money and finance in the church. There were clearly abuses in the early days under Brigham Young where it wasn’t clear where Brigham Young ended and the church started. In the beginning there was much integration of business interests and church interests too that I think blurred ecclesiastical lines. Some would argue that it was necessary to develop Utah, which had no other economic force there, which I get.

At the same time, subsequent chapters tended to leave me with the impression that while there was mismanagement of funds, primarily due to speculative investments and non-financial people at the top, there wasn’t widespread abuse of individuals profiting significantly from the church. At least so far — the book is hard to slog through, although it’s a massive historical undertaking by D. Michael Quinn.

Anyway, that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is my ongoing reflection on what the church unleashed when they excommunicated D. Michael Quinn as a member of the September 6. He was an academic, and published papers on that leaders found objectionable. I understand, he is of course, no longer a member of the church.

HIs excommunication makes him a man with nothing to lose really. Like Braveheart (William Wallace) as portrayed in the famous movie by that name. Quinn can research, write papers, and publish his ideas freely without fear of reprisal from the church since he no longer has anything to lose. I see the only real liability to writing frankly and honestly about church history is the church refusing to give him access to their archives. Yet somehow, he managed to get access to a lot of financial information for his current book on Wealth and Power anyway.

He wrote Extensions of Power years ago, and I read the history of tithing policy in our church. I hate to say it, but it helped me work through my own concerns about tithing. I saw how policy developed over time from a rational, historical perspective. And I reached my own tentative conclusions (which can change at the drop of a hat) that that current tied tithing concept (required for a TR) was a result of years of leaders trying to get the members to give generously to keep the church afloat. Although it was never Quinn’s intention, I believe, to inform people’s views on tithing, his candid historical approach, his ability to present the naked facts, helped me see tithing for what I believe it was — in the cold light of day.

So, I see excommunication of writers and academics as a very touchy situation for the church. Academics make their living researching and publishing, and have a talent for it. Many will continue to do it after they are excommunicated. And they end up at Sunstone….

With the membership at stake, they are likely to “tow the line” and respond to counsel and warnings not to open up and disseminate cans of worms. But without membership to lose, they are a voice from history — and in the case of D. Michael Quinn, I find him to be balanced and honest in his approach. A bit like Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling and how Bushman has managed to be candid (while retaining his membership), But in D Michael Quinn’s case, with even greater freedom to avoid caveats, soft-pedaling statements, or even the likely suppression of facts you might get from a member in good standing. Who is obviously under scrutiny and under threat of discipline if he says something that is construed as disloyal, anti-Mormon or unfavorable to the church.

So, I offer this as reflection on the efficacy of excommunication of people who have a talent and desire to write and publish. Excommunication only amplifies their writing and their voice. In Quinn’s case, there is no angst in it either — it just comes across as historical, balanced, factual, and novel — because we don’t often get those qualities in church publications on touchy subjects. Even the Gospel Topic Essays are written with a pro-church bent (understandable since the church published them to help leaders bolster the faith of people with concerns on those issues). With Quinn, I find there is no apology, just a sharing of the facts and drawing conclusions from them.

Thoughts on the efficacy of excommunication of people who have the ability to reach large numbers of people with church-related messages post-excommunication?

[Anonymous]

Excommunication used to sound like the worst thing that could ever happen to a person to me… and then I got the opportunity to transition in my faith and understanding of God. Now it doesn’t sound so bad to me. Since I am not sure about the afterlife (I am pretty sure there is one), it takes a lot of venom out of the meaning of excommunication.

Sometimes I think the church has histamine allergic reactions when it comes to the members. The church will set out pretty blindly to crush/eliminate perceived threats that aren’t actual threats ( or wouldn’t be if handled differently). Now, as the member we try not to set off the allergic reaction whenever possible – sometimes that includes taking a break from the church, walking away from the church, or even getting names removed from church records.

Sometimes I think the church in it’s zealousness to clear out foreign invaders triggers the equivalent of anaphalactic shock – most unpleasant, a more extreme (potentially deadly) reaction. I do think that without changes, the church will die out as an organization eventually.

But if you are the person who gets excommunicated, you can become an agent of change, and have nothing left to lose. I think that greater respect is given for those who were excommunicated who are balanced and not trying to rock the boat or get attention, such as D. Michael Quinn sounds to be.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

But if you are the person who gets excommunicated, you can become an agent of change, and have nothing left to lose. I think that greater respect is given for those who were excommunicated who are balanced and not trying to rock the boat or get attention, such as D. Michael Quinn sounds to be.

Agreed. I tend not to listen to people who perpetuate one-sided, polemic, unbridled negativity toward the church. We could name some of those people who are clearly anti-Mormon and have written books or founded movements or organizations. But when they are balanced, and go about writing about the church without any sort of obvious agenda, and present ideas fairly, I guess I respect them. The fact that I bought a second book by Quinn is evidence of that.

[Anonymous]

I believe that in the case of the September 6, the excommunications were to mark the works and writings of those individuals to be unacceptable and have real consequences. It served as a huge warning to many in the academic and journalism community.

It also serves as a red flag for any unsuspecting LDS person reading the material. I believe many members knowing that a researcher was excommunicated would dismiss anything they say or do as anti-Mormon as a reflex. In a way it is genius. The organization does not need to respond to the particular claims or statements to diminish or dismiss the effect of the work on the loyal membership.

SilentDawning wrote:

A bit like Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling and how Bushman has managed to be candid (while retaining his membership), But in D Michael Quinn’s case, with even greater freedom to avoid caveats, soft-pedaling statements, or even the likely suppression of facts you might get from a member in good standing.

I believe that Bro. Bushman was honest and yet his work in RSR was as faithful as he could be while maintaining that honesty. He had some freedom in how to order or prioritize the facts (like any other historian) and Bro. Bushman was upfront about his “believing” bias. However, Bro. Bushman’s work is still fairly unsettling to many unfamiliar with the historical narrative. I believe if Bro. Bushman had published RSR in 1990 as it is currently written then he too would have been excommunicated (assuming that he published it without the church’s blessing).

However, from a corporate standpoint I understand the need for an organization to control its own story. If an employee was consistently leaking confidential or even just plain negative information online, that employee would not be employed for long. Excommunication is how the church fires people.

[Anonymous]

As I spend years learning so much, mulling over things, and trying to figure out how I feel about them – I would say that one of the big issues I have is not quite so much church history, but how the current and several generations have dealt with that history.

Take the example above of tithing. To me I was sold a story that it has always been the way it is because GOD said so. Sure they used to pay, “In kind” with chickens, eggs, and other bartering like items (I have no issue with that). But most of the rest of the story seems like layers of white wash to frame it “from God on high” and you had better not ever doubt it. I actually can swallow the story of the church having financial issues and twisting the arms a bit of the members to turn over a bit more to the church.

Please treat me like an adult and not like a stooge.

[Anonymous]

I agree that guys like Quinn don’t have anything to lose and are thus freed by excommunication. The only thing they really lose is dissemination of truth to those who won’t read their works because they’ve been ex’ed.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I agree that guys like Quinn don’t have anything to lose and are thus freed by excommunication. The only thing they really lose is dissemination of truth to those who won’t read their works because they’ve been ex’ed.

I’m not sure all people would know he was ex’d. Some will, of course, but people on the fringe, like me, will see it as teh unvarnished truth.

His writing tends to be pretty fair, and candidat the same time. If you read the reviews on Amazon, people thought it was pretty darn fair and researched.

I think the excommunication route is more effective when the person being excommunicated doesn’t have a tendency to voice their opinions to large groups….at least, not a negative opinion.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I think the excommunication route is more effective when the person being excommunicated doesn’t have a tendency to voice their opinions to large groups….at least, not a negative opinion.

I was just thinking about it and realized that Excommunication probably had greater meaning in the past when it could include being cast out of the society of that person.

Now there are groups all over you can join online or in person to find greater support in the challenges of life so you don’t need the support of your local group as much.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

I think the excommunication route is more effective when the person being excommunicated doesn’t have a tendency to voice their opinions to large groups….at least, not a negative opinion.

I was just thinking about it and realized that Excommunication probably had greater meaning in the past when it could include being cast out of the society of that person.

Now there are groups all over you can join online or in person to find greater support in the challenges of life so you don’t need the support of your local group as much.

Agreed — although not excommunicated, I don’t know where I’d be if I didn’t have an online community like this to share my thoughts with…

[Anonymous]

Excommunication covers so many things. There are those who need to be ex’d, such as the embezzlers and sexual predators. Then there are those who have been involved in consensual sex, maybe in or out of marriage and someone else’s marriage sometimes… there are also some people who are just trouble makers – and I don’t mean in any ideological sense.

Then there are the people who are dissidents… ex’ing them is the problem. Probably more than any other group other than the troublemakers but they will always be trouble.

[Author]

Posts