- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I recently read the following article in the Church News. It is titled: “Utah businessman now back in the fold”. Written by: Carrie A. Moore. Dated: Apr 03, 2004.
It’s an old story & you may be aware of the event.
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/45320/Utah-businessman-now-back-in-the-fold.html It is a rather long article. I’m reading it for the first time.
It is the story of Hyrum Smith of St. George UT who is (or was) very prominate in the church, the community & business.
He had a moment of clarity where he decided he needed to practice what he preached regardless of the cost to his personal life.
He is related to many of the general authorities including the “original” Hyrum Smith”. Joseph’s brother.
It is the story about a man that realises that he is living a lie & has to do something about it.
The reporter talks about the process he took to recognize the mistake, correcting it & the process of rebaptism.
I’m curious how everyone reacted to the story.
I found it interesting.
I personally don’t know if I would have the strength.
Mike from Milton.
I read the article — it was very readable. I think Hyrum makes some excellent points. How hard it is for the ex’d person to come back — that the majority just throw in the towel. What does that say for our culture?
Quote:In a conversation that proved to be prophetic, he discussed his situation with Elder Holland early on and was told, “You know, Hyrum, you’re about to find out who your real friends are.”
“He was right about that. There were people who took me apart publicly.”
The process was more painful than anything he had ever experienced, he says, not simply because his good name was gone but because the consequences in every arena were so severe. “I think Latter-day Saints have a greater challenge admitting they are leading a double life, because the culture doesn’t encourage you to fix problems but to hide them.”
He believes the two most welcome groups of people in the church “are the righteous ones and the liars. If you screw up and admit it, you get chewed up by the culture.”
He has since had “a lot of relatively prominent people say, ‘I don’t think I’d ever do that, I’d just take care of it privately and not go through it.’ That’s why 97 out of 100 people who are excommunicated don’t come back. That’s a scary number, and you ask yourself why.”
He realizes that many of those were “caught in their sins, and they just say, ‘Screw it, I’m not interested.’ But for others, the process takes a long time and you have to go through all those restrictions. They get worn out and say they’re not going to tolerate it anymore.”
His description of the four-hour interrogation leading to rebaptism was also enlightening — about how it takes the Church longer to catch up to the Lord sometimes.
It bothers me a bit how the upper leaders tend to give time and an ear to prominent Mormons, as they did Smith. He talks about his conversations with different leaders who reached out to him. Us average Joe Mormon’s dont’ have such luxury….we get letters read over the pulpit to leave them alone….that part bothers me a bit….
Anyway, thanks for the article. I liked how balanced Smith was — recognizing the downside of our culture, while ponying up for what he did and taking steps to be right with God — how the Mormons define it, anyway.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:“I think Latter-day Saints have a greater challenge admitting they are leading a double life, because the culture doesn’t encourage you to fix problems but to hide them.”
He believes the two most welcome groups of people in the church “are the righteous ones and the liars. If you screw up and admit it, you get chewed up by the culture.”
His description of the four-hour interrogation leading to rebaptism was also enlightening — about how it takes the Church longer to catch up to the Lord sometimes.It bothers me a bit how the upper leaders tend to give time and an ear to prominent Mormons, as they did Smith. He talks about his conversations with different leaders who reached out to him. Us average Joe Mormon’s dont’ have such luxury….we get letters read over the pulpit to leave them alone….that part bothers me a bit….
Anyway, thanks for the article. I liked how balanced Smith was — recognizing the downside of our culture, while ponying up for what he did and taking steps to be right with God — how the Mormons define it, anyway.
amazing article…very telling. the process of church discipline is clearly flawed…i tend to think that his prominence and financial stature gave him access to ‘friends’ that, even as difficult as it was, enabled his return. i think the winner is hyrum smith, who in the end recognized that whatever people in the church thought of his being exed no longer mattered.the idea that the church welcomes only the “righteous and the liars” is so antithetical to what it should be: a refuge for those who are honest about their weaknesses. as sinners all, perhaps not with grounds for excommunication, there are no truly “righteous” (except maybe my DW). each person’s weakness (sin) is a cross to bear. excommunication, imho, brands a scarlet letter on the honest person, often removing him or her from exactly the support s/he needs to get whole.
the ultimate paradox is that when the savior said, “be ye therefore perfect” he was talking about the need to accept those who are “different”, and to be whole (telios) and loving of all, rather than being partial, favoring only those who appear righteous, and shunning the sinner. even the TR interview implies the need to shun those who are opposed to the church: apostates and sinners. everything the savior said and did is diametrically opposed to the LDS process of church discipline.
the problem is the sinners aren’t different than the so called righteous, because we all sin, and the only difference is degree. we need to talk openly about getting whole. whenever i have seen open discussion emerge in the church, it rapidly gets squashed–instead, there is only happy talk about how wonderful it is to follow all the commandments and GC talks ever given. if we follow the brethren, we will be happy. since we almost never hear an honest talk about recovering from sin, where then is the path to follow if i am honestly a sinner?
in another context, that of 12-step programs, each person introduces himself or herself as an addict, alcoholic or otherwise, a person who qualifies to be part of that group by virtue of weakness. each person who shares doesn’t paint a rosy picture, and doesn’t preach or tell you what to do. instead, each shares personal experience, strength, and hope. there is no excommunication or censure, in fact, it is by being a recovering ‘sinner’ one qualifies in being there. listening to another recovering ‘sinner’ tell about how s/he has daily been able to succeed gives me strength and hope, and practical advice as to how to get better.
in these groups i have seen love and compassion beyond all measure. i no longer attend, having moved well beyond the specific weakness that got me there, and being led by the spirit (as i understand it) to a path of my own. i miss the fellowship and love, and find it so unfortunate that because the church forces hiding of sin, there is little real sharing in meetings.
Hyrum Smith leaving the church was a huge deal. The guy was one of the best known Mormons in the 90s due to the popularity of the Franklin planners. Finding out he had an affair was like a betrayal to everyone in a way. Before the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, average members looked to this guy as a great example of gospel principles in action. And he was a huge hypocrit as he points out. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. I don’t think it’s true that someone needs friends in high places to come back into the fold. I know many who were exed and rebaptized later. I think it’s that when you fall from such a prominent height, having been in roles where you were the judge of other people (Newt Gingrich *cough* *cough*), it’s important to make sure the person really is committed to coming back and is repentant and that this isn’t the first return in a long string of them.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Hyrum Smith leaving the church was a huge deal. The guy was one of the best known Mormons in the 90s due to the popularity of the Franklin planners. Finding out he had an affair was like a betrayal to everyone in a way. Before the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, average members looked to this guy as a great example of gospel principles in action. And he was a huge hypocrit as he points out. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
I don’t think it’s true that someone needs friends in high places to come back into the fold. I know many who were exed and rebaptized later. I think it’s that when you fall from such a prominent height, having been in roles where you were the judge of other people (Newt Gingrich *cough* *cough*), it’s important to make sure the person really is committed to coming back and is repentant and that this isn’t the first return in a long string of them.
i think you make a good point, especially in the context of judging. my issue is that the members look to these guys as heros, and thus measure themselves, ourselves to the unreal standard of heroism.to LDS, JS is the ultimate hero, and during his lifetime and ever since, the church leadership hides his humanity. in my impression, by obscuring JS’s failings then and now, it creates a sick dysfunction about the ideal life. by lying to everyone, JS had no healthy way to recover. in the end, his coverup of polygamy and polyandry resulted in him commiting felony in destroying the expositor, and resulted in his death. and yes, to me, JS is a hero, but a tragic one who fell hard.
to me, the ideal hero is the authentic one. the ideal life is the authentic life. i have more respect for hyrum smith as a recovering hypocrite than i ever did as the hero successful lds businessman.
I agree that friends in high places aren’t necessary. I think the fact the he was so BIG before the fall may have made it even more imperative to grill him like they did — at least, in the minds of the people doing the readmission. Yes, but I agree that the LDS Church is a hard place to go against the norms. You pay a high price in social sanctions when you violate the rules of the group. A very high price.
I agree with the difficulty and the issues expressed in the comments thus far – except that Brother Smith didn’t just “violate the rules”. He broke one of the most fundamental commandments in existence – and I have no problem with excommunication for those who commit adultery, with a few exceptions, especially those in leadership positions. Coming back is brutal for most people, and the humiliation assoicated with excommunication is a big part of that. I really wish we weren’t so judgmental and could embrace even the egregious sinners more easily (that our culture, both in the Church and society in general, wasn’t so focused on punishment and public shaming) – but, sometimes . . .
Old-Timer wrote:I agree with the difficulty and the issues expressed in the comments thus far – except that Brother Smith didn’t just “violate the rules”. He broke one of the most fundamental commandments in existence – and I have no problem with excommunication for those who commit adultery, with a few exceptions, especially those in leadership positions.
Coming back is brutal for most people, and the humiliation assoicated with excommunication is a big part of that. I really wish we weren’t so judgmental and could embrace even the egregious sinners more easily (that our culture, both in the Church and society in general, wasn’t so focused on punishment and public shaming) – but, sometimes . . .
We are in agreeement Ray. Perhaps I should’ve said “violated the commandments” . And yes, there is a lot more punishment doled out than simply loss of membership.
wayfarer wrote:the ultimate paradox is that when the savior said, “be ye therefore perfect” he was talking about the need to accept those who are “different”, and to be whole (telios) and loving of all, rather than being partial, favoring only those who appear righteous, and shunning the sinner. even the TR interview implies the need to shun those who are opposed to the church: apostates and sinners. everything the savior said and did is diametrically opposed to the LDS process of church discipline.
the problem is the sinners aren’t different than the so called righteous, because we all sin, and the only difference is degree. we need to talk openly about getting whole. whenever i have seen open discussion emerge in the church, it rapidly gets squashed–instead, there is only happy talk about how wonderful it is to follow all the commandments and GC talks ever given. if we follow the brethren, we will be happy. since we almost never hear an honest talk about recovering from sin, where then is the path to follow if i am honestly a sinner?
Quote:Through it all, he’s developed a deeper understanding of “godly sorrow” and knows if he were to ever sit in judgment of another church member, he would do things differently. “I found myself experiencing some pain going through it in that I did not make more of an effort to help others (that he had sat in judgment on) through the process. I could have done a lot more, played a much more mentoring role in helping people get back. The reason people don’t come back is because they feel ostracized.
“We don’t talk about it (excommunication) in the church, and it’s unhealthy that we don’t. There are a lot of people in pain out there who want to come forward but don’t have the courage to do it. There’s a lot of it out there, a lot of guys who have stumbled — more guys than women, I think, and they’re living dual lives.”
I understand one of the principle reasons for excommunication to be to awaken in the sinner a knowledge of the seriousness of their guilt, to give them a taste of the final judgment a little early so that they can change things in their life before the end. But with a 97% failure rate, this seems like a terrible way to reform a sinner.I was also thinking about the 4 1/2 hour interview he went through on his way back and how it took extra long because he didn’t cry. This reminded me of when I did something wrong in grade school and the principle gave me the choice between a suspension or a spanking. I chose the spanking because it was shorter. He started spanking and I held back tears (because that’s the manly thing to do) and he spanked and spanked until finally I could stand it no more. I started to cry and the spanking stopped. Apparently the spanking could have gone on for an undeterminable length until the tears flowed for that was the intended effect. Had I known that, I would have started sobbing as soon as the principle first lifted his hand.
His thought that the two most welcome groups in the church are the “righteous and the liars” is very fitting. It would also seem that being a liar is a helpful skill to have in the repentance process, or at least knowing how to perform the role of contrition.
Also his issue about living dual lives seems to be much more ubiquitous than just those who might otherwise be excommunicated. How many of us present a front at church and to be accepted of the group. We know that the other members of the group have faults and imperfect home lives just as we do and sometimes when we feel trusting enough we can share with another and break down the walls of perfect isolation that separate us. In this definition of “dual lives” it is the women that suffer at least as much as the men. So yeah, I am a liar – although I choose to define it as playing my expected role and being responsible about what I share with whom. How is that different than the rationalization Bro. Smith speaks of, calling a thorn by another name to mask the pain. Hi my name is Roy. I am a sinner, a liar, and I’m a Mormon.
:wave: Roy wrote:I understand one of the principle reasons for excommunication to be to awaken in the sinner a knowledge of the seriousness of their guilt, to give them a taste of the final judgment a little early so that they can change things in their life before the end. But with a 97% failure rate, this seems like a terrible way to reform a sinner.
A couple of years ago I was speaking to a retired BYU prof that had been a counselor in the MTC presidency who said that they weren’t excommunicating missionaries because of the low return rate. I don’t know if it’s policy or if just a loosening of the old rule that if you committed a sexual sin excommunication was an automatic.
Quote:Also his issue about living dual lives seems to be much more ubiquitous than just those who might otherwise be excommunicated. How many of us present a front at church and to be accepted of the group. We know that the other members of the group have faults and imperfect home lives just as we do and sometimes when we feel trusting enough we can share with another and break down the walls of perfect isolation that separate us. In this definition of “dual lives” it is the women that suffer at least as much as the men. So yeah, I am a liar – although I choose to define it as playing my expected role and being responsible about what I share with whom. How is that different than the rationalization Bro. Smith speaks of, calling a thorn by another name to mask the pain. Hi my name is Roy. I am a sinner, a liar, and I’m a Mormon.
:wave: Been their and done that. The people in the branch I serve in and in my home ward, with one exception, have no idea how I feel. I can pray and answer gospel doctrine questions with the best of them and they don’t have a clue. There are some Sundays when it’s so burdensome I just stay in the clerk’s office the whole time and wonder if it’s worth it. A low point recently was when they showed the promotional stuff for Mormon.org and I wondered how a person like me would ever even dare to put myself up there or try and explain the mental gymnastics I go through to even show up. Oh, well.
GBSmith, I hate to sound so dumb but, when you say… Quote:A couple of years ago I was speaking to a retired BYU prof that had been a counselor in the MTC presidency who said that they weren’t excommunicating missionaries because of the
low return rate. I don’t know if it’s policy or if just a loosening of the old rule that if you committed a sexual sin excommunication was an automatic. What do you mean by “low return rate”? Is that the % of missionaries honorably completing their missions?
Mike from Milton.
Mike, Sorry to not be more clear. He was referring to missionaries that committed an offense anytime during their missions and that once excommunicated almost none were re baptized and returned to full fellowship.
GBSmith wrote:He was referring to missionaries that committed an offense anytime during their missions and that once excommunicated almost none were re baptized and returned to full fellowship.
Interesting question…I can acknowledge some valid uses for excommunication. What would be the pros and cons of exing a missionary for committing fornication as a missionary? Theologically he is an endowed Melchesidec priesthood holder and personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ and His kingdom on earth…but OTOH – he is just a kid.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.