- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
MH – any idea when you can divulge what you know? VERY interested in what you have been reading. I don’t know cwald. I asked the guy who sent me the book, and he wasn’t sure, but I think it will be available in the next few months. F4H1, yes I agree with you–the name is very misleading. mormonheretic wrote:I don’t know cwald. I asked the guy who sent me the book, and he wasn’t sure, but I think it will be available in the
next few months.F4H1, yes I agree with you–the name is very misleading. MONTHS! You’re killing me here MH.
Ok cwald, thanks to your comment, I emailed my friend. The book is being published mid-May, and he gave me permission to blog about it, which I plan to do. The book is called “Latter-Day Dissent”. I don’t have it with me right now and the author’s name escapes me at the moment, but I’ll post more info later. The author interviews 5 of the September 6, as well as a few others (including Margaret Toscano, and a guy who did research on DNA and the Book of Mormon.) When I read the first 2 chapters on Whitesides and Paul Toscano, their tales about the Strengthening the Church Committee, it seemed almost too much like they were exaggerating. Honestly it seemed a bit much. So I skipped to the last chapter and the author interviewed Jessop, former PR official for the church. Jessop emphasized that these were his views only and not the church’s views. He refused to comment on specific cases, but seemed to confirm many of the things Paul Toscano said.
Paul said that when he attended his church court, the high council had a transcript of a speech he gave at a conference (Sunstone?). Paul said that the transcription had a few errors, and if they had asked him for the transcript, he would have provided it. It seemed to me that they built a mountain of “evidence”, and basically blindsided “the accused” with it without trying to understand context. There was definitely no “due process.”
The overall sentiment I got from the book was like hearing the divorce of 2 close friends. Both come out looking bad, despite your fond feelings for them. Paul’s comments seemed to be largely confirmed by Jessop, though Jessop refused to comment on any specific case.
Paul comes off as a real jerk, and I think nobody would be surprised he was excommunicated. Yet Michael Quinn and a female historian whose name escapes me were very sympathetic figures.
thanks mh. I know that the Mormon story podcast with Paul T. Was pretty darn good.
My guess is that they are not actively trolling websites to find dissenters. But if I start stirring trouble, and there is printed words that establish my behavior as destructive to the purpose of the church, they’ll use what they can to establish grounds for dismissal. If I’m not causing trouble, I have nothing to fear on sharing my opinions.
I don’t think it is like what DA was referring to, that they aren’t open to feedback (my interpretations of DA’s words). I think it is more that some feedback is healthy, and some is just not appropriate or helpful.
I’m open to my kids giving me feedback, but I will also discipline them if they start getting disrespectful or undermining my authority. You can’t live under my roof and say and do whatever you want and I have to allow it and keep offering benefits.
Just because some individuals are treated harshly doesn’t mean the church is out to get all of us, or is big brother.
PiperAlpha wrote:My guess is that they are not actively trolling websites to find dissenters…But if I start stirring trouble, and there is printed words that establish my behavior as destructive to the purpose of the church, they’ll use what they can to establish grounds for dismissal. If I’m not causing trouble, I have nothing to fear on sharing my opinions.
I don’t think it is like what DA was referring to, that they aren’t open to feedback (my interpretations of DA’s words). I think it is more that some feedback is healthy, and some is just not appropriate or helpful…I’m open to my kids giving me feedback, but I will also discipline them if they start getting disrespectful or undermining my authority. You can’t live under my roof and say and do whatever you want and I have to allow it and keep offering benefits. Just because some individuals are treated harshly doesn’t mean the church is out to get all of us, or is big brother.Maybe I exaggerated a little to emphasize my point but what I meant by these comments was that it seems strange that this group is called the “Strengthening Church Members Committee” but what they really do is keep an eye on members that openly criticize or disagree with the Church. Personally, I don’t believe that Grant Palmer, Michael Quinn, and Simon Southerton really said anything all that disrespectful or uncalled for to really deserve to be disciplined by the Church.
It looks to me like the main reason the Church wanted to single them out and crack down on them was mostly to try to punish and discredit them as apostates simply because they published research conclusions that did not agree with the Church’s official story. Maybe the Church has learned its lesson to some extent after seeing some of the bad publicity surrounding some of these cases and it makes it look like they are trying to hide something. However, I think the main reason this group won’t necessarily try to crack down on all the “apostate” bloggers is mostly because there are getting to be too many of them, not necessarily because they don’t want to punish them all if they could.
Quote:It looks to me like the main reason the Church wanted to single them out and crack down on them was mostly to try to punish and discredit them as apostates simply because they published research conclusions that did not agree with the Church’s official story. Maybe the Church has learned its lesson to some extent after seeing some of the bad publicity surrounding some of these cases and it makes it look like they are trying to hide something. However, I think the main reason this group won’t necessarily try to crack down on all the “apostate” bloggers is mostly because there are getting to be too many of them, not necessarily because they don’t want to punish them all if they could.
How easily could they identify these bloggers, who do so anonymously?
I think attitudes overall about these things have changed dramatically over the past 15 years or so. I think the “old” attitude absolutely was one of “monitoring” what people were saying in an effort to root out apostasy – but I think there is MUCH more an attitude now of “monitoring” what people are saying in an effort to understand what is believed and thought at the grassroots level. I’m not saying the more traditional attitude no longer exists or plays a part, since I don’t think it ever will or can disappear completely (given the deep protection tendency all of us have to some degree), but I have seen a significant change overall. Some of you might not know this, but I have been almost as active as anyone else in the world in the overall “Bloggernacle” over the past 4 years, and I have seen quite a few times when I was quite certain a comment or statement or reference in General Conference was a result of something that was written and discussed in the Bloggernacle – of which comments, statements and references the vast majority were positive.
I finally got to my book review, and discuss the SCMC quite a bit. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/05/09/book-review-latter-day-dissent/ Interesting synopsis of the book. I liked the part about expecting to be marginalized if you even diplomatically speak out about even minor issues at the local level. Very timely for me as I’m finding my feelings are getting closer and closer to the surface in various priesthood meetings. Plus, I’ve experienced the same thing simply about being asked for a release from certain callings when they became too much for me. Also, pivotal was the story about the feminist Lynne Whitesides who met with the Bishopric and they opened with “We’re here to decide if there should be discipline against you” — rather than focusing on her individual needs.
Yes, from what we’ve seen — both from cwald’s recent experience, and this particular book, as a Church we adopt that attitude that it’s better that one person should suffer discipline than the image of the Church, or the faith of the rest of the members be damaged. A tamer version of “it is better that one person shall perish than an entire nation dwindle in unbelief”.
What about the author of the book — wouldn’t that person be at risk of discipline for airing this side
of our Church’s operations? Do we know their their status before the Church?
I found the author’s website, which is a litany of creativity, art, and intellectualism combined:
Quote:Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.” Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon. Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.[3]“
I think saying he was “almost excommunicated” is a bit of a stretch. I live in the Seattle area and followed this story with interest. Murphy was called in for an interview with the SP and in anticipation of being disciplined, which I think he was angling for, had called a press conference and arranged for a reporter for the LA Times to be present. I think the SP saw that the church was going to be used so just declined to give Murphy the forum and publicity he wanted. I’ve said earlier that I think the church learned something from the September 6 business and that it may be better to just ignore someone than to let them make more of themselves than they are.
Philip is not a member of the church. Quoting from the back cover, he
Quote:obtained his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford, and is a guest lecturer at both Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and Mediehogskolen Gimleklooen, Norway. Of his seven degrees, he holds separate masters’ degrees from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and has published in volumes for scholarly and popular audiences alike. He has also worked in documentary film production for ITV and BBC Religion and Ethics, and is a managing member of the international production company 24/30 Cinema.
SD, I feel quite marginalized in my ward and viewed with suspicion–and this despite being one of the most diligent home teachers in the ward. I remember sending an email to the stake pres about how large our ward was, and that I thought it needed to be split (we were above 750 at the time). About 2 months later, it was split, but I feel like my efforts to be a good member are not valued. I try to be tactful, but like Armaund Mauss says, “Even the most careful and diplomatic comments will not be much appreciated by many Church leaders, perhaps by most Church leaders, whether general or local.”
GBSmith, here’s a quote from the Thomas Murphy interview. In November 2002, he was called in to a meeting with the stake president (Latimer). They discussed his DNA research, his concerns about sexist teachings, patriarchal authority, the church’s position on homosexuals, and Murphy acknowledged that he felt the Book of Mormon was a 19th century document. Murphy said (pages 193-195),
Quote:Latimer said he didn’t think it was good for a member of the Church to be saying the things I was saying, because it was giving people the wrong impression. The way to deal with that, he said, was to initiate a disciplinary council that would consider removing me from the Church. Then he hold me to think it over and said, “This is not a threat, but would you maybe just consider rethinking your conclusion?” It certainly seemed like a threat. If I would change my conclusions, then I could maintain good standing in the Church. I responded, “I’m not going to change my mind or my opinion.”
…
I said, “If you’re going to discipline me, then I think it would be best to get if over with.” So, we agreed upon the date of December 8. Before the date came I spoke with my colleagues here at Edmonds Community College, because I knew I didn’t want to go quietly and wanted to make sure that publicity would not negatively impact my job.
…
Latimer gave two reasons for not proceeding. One was that Church disciplinary action is supposed to help bring people to repentance and back into the fold, and he didn’t think disciplinary action in my case would achieve that goal. The other was that disciplinary action is supposed to protect the Church, and he didn’t think it was protecting the Church. In my case, it was actually counterproductive.
BHodges has an interesting review of the book as well: See http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/search?updated-max=2011-04-02T15%3A55%3A00-06%3A00&max-results=1 Quote:Latimer gave two reasons for not proceeding. One was that Church disciplinary action is supposed to help bring people to repentance and back into the fold, and he didn’t think disciplinary action in my case would achieve that goal. The other was that disciplinary action is supposed to protect the Church, and he didn’t think it was protecting the Church. In my case, it was actually counterproductive.
I think GBSmith had the real reason — the SP was afraid of the publicity. I’ve been on councils where the person is so defiant about the discipline they don’t even bother to show up. They excommunicate anyway. Further, one purpose of discipline is to ‘protect the Church’. If this SP truly thought the research was going to damage testimonies or the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon, then this would have been a valid reason to excommunicate. So, if what GBSmith says is true (and I believe it is), this SP realized that raising awareness of the research through a high profile excommunication would probably do more harm than good. The fact that it wouldn’t have changed Murphy into a repentent member again was probably incidental. Further, it wouldn’t surprise me if the SP was getting some coaching from above. The Church has long adopted the philosophy that when you kick and scream about abuses of our doctrine etcetera, it only elevates awareness.
Perhaps this is what they learned about the September Six excommunications. Some went on to publish books or start organizations that had aims that were counter to the Church.
One other thing, as soon as you remove someone’s stake in the organization by excommunicating them, I think there is potential for them to become even more of a loose cannon. They are like William Wallace in the movie Braveheart — they have nothing to lose. On a smaller scale, this happens when someone decides not to buy into the whole TR concept as well. All of a suddent, all you have is moral suasion to change the person’s mind.
It’s kind of like the kid who, when threatened with loss of television priviledges, says “Fine take it away then; then I’ll do whatever I choose”. If the person has the ability to author books and sway opinion, I think heading straight for excommunication can do more harm than good.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.