The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,337 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE
Total Articles:
16
Those who are excommunicated are no longer in "good standing" with the LDS Church. Persons that are excommunicated are no longer able to participate in any Mormon Church function, including praying, teaching or holding any office. The Mormon priesthood is taken away and all "blessings", rights and Temple privileges are taken away. Excommunicated members are not allowed to pay tithing however the church does not exempt them from paying tithing. Excommunicated members are further ostracized in Mormon Sacrament Meetings where they are forbidden to take the Sacramental offerings - or even speak vocally. Because of this, excommunicated persons are punished further in the eyes of other church members.
|
|
The Mormon Church believes that excommunication "Saves the Souls of Transgressors" and to "protect the innocent." Actually, excommunication in the LDS Church is all about protecting the LDS Church. Church members who disobey face Church Courts. The largest section in the Church Handbook Of Instructions is the section on discipline. Long guidelines are set out to ensure that members of the LDS Church obey or they are punished. The Church can and does take away rights of the members to participate in Church activities.
Those who are excommunicated are no longer in "good standing" with the LDS Church. Persons that are excommunicated are no longer able to participate in any Mormon Church function, including praying, teaching or holding any office. The Mormon priesthood is taken away and all "blessings", rights and Temple privileges are taken away. Excommunicated members are not allowed to pay tithing however the church does not exempt them from paying tithing. Excommunicated members are further ostracized in Mormon Sacrament Meetings where they are forbidden to take the Sacramental offerings - or even speak vocally. Because of this, excommunicated persons are punished further in the eyes of other church members.
Because the LDS Church is very concerned about lost tithing with the member, the LDS Church instructs the excommunicated member to save all tithing in either cash or in a savings account. If and when the member has served the penalty period (generally one to three years) and is rebaptised - the member is expected to back-pay the tithing.
| Following is a link summarizing the "September Six" excommunications. Named as such because six prominent scholars were all excommunicated or disfellowshipped. I want to note that MANY members are "punished" in the same way but because these were well known scholars, the church's actions against them were made very public.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtml
Excerpt from the link above:
1/ D.Michael Quinn -
Historian, and Former B.Y.U. Professor. He has written at least six articles for the "Ensign", and many for the Church owned journal - "B.Y.U. Studies". He is most well known for his extremely competent articles on Church sanctioned plural marriages after the manifesto of 1890.
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
2/ (person who asked to have their name removed from this page) -
Scholar. Noted for his excellent books on Isaiah and the last days.
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
3/ Paul Toscano -
Salt Lake Attorney. Also writer, together with his wife Margaret, of many articles, and a book entitled - "Strangers in Paradox." He spoke at the 1993 Sunstone Symposium and entitled his talk "All is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church."
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
4/ Lavina Fielding Anderson -
Editor and writer of the Church published "Ensign"
magazine from 1973 - 1981, prolific author, and compiler of recent events in the Church that she calls "spiritual abuse".
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
5/ Maxine Hanks -
Ardent feminist and editor of a book called "Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism". She has written and spoken extensively on the subject of Heavenly Mother.
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
6/ Lynne Kanavel Whitesides -
President of the Mormon Women's Forum.
- DISFELLOWSHIPPED.
The writer has had an opportunity to talk to Margaret Toscano twice (the most recent being 28th March 1994) since these disciplinary councils took place, and reports now on the situation as it now stands.
Three of the above group felt it necessary to appeal their cases to a higher ecclesiastical court (council). These were: Lavina Fielding Anderson, Paul Toscano and Lynne Whitesides.
Lavina's appeal was unsuccessful; her Stake President visited her and informed her that he had received a letter from the Brethren stating as such, but the letter had instructed him that he wasn't to show Lavina the letter or allow her to have a copy.
Lavina is still attending Church regularly each week and is trying hard to be as active as she is allowed. She is currently writing two books, one being a background and history to the events described above, the other being a list of "case reports" of what she terms "ecclesiastical or spiritual abuse".
Lynne Whitesides appeal was also unsuccessful, (she was disfellowshipped for "conduct unbecoming the laws of the Church") and since her appeal she has been given a list of areas in which the Church feels she needs to repent and change her ways. Two of these rules are that she must agree not to discuss nor talk about Heavenly Mother, and also she must agree not to associate with any others who hold similar views to her own.
Paul Toscano felt strongly that there was legal and ecclesiastical prejudice concerning his Stake Disciplinary Council, as he was informed that Gordon B. Hinckley was involved in arranging that court and having him disciplined. Paul felt therefore unable to appeal to the Quorum of the Twelve, of which Brother Hinckley is a member, and also felt unable to appeal to the First Presidency for the same reason, in addition to knowing that President Benson is unable to physically or mentally understand the intricacies of the situation.
Paul therefore decided to take the advice of the Lord given in the Doctrine and Covenants and to appeal to the General Assembly. Needless to say, his appeal was unsuccessful and was told such by his Stake President. His reply, signed by President Hinckley, was similar to Lavina's, although his Stake President, against the wishes of the letter, decided to let Paul see the reply. The letter said that the Brethren have prayerfully considered his appeal, and have decided to uphold the decision of the Stake Court. They also hoped that he would repent and return to full fellowship, and also asked that he should not be shown the letter, nor be given a copy of it.
The Toscano's are currently not attending meetings at Church, but are strongly involved in a group called the "Mormon Alliance" and are as active as they can be. The are currently asking the Lord to reveal to them what they should do with their lives.
I am not sure what Maxine Hanks is doing at the moment.
Michael Quinn decided that it wasn't worth appealing and so has decided not to. He did not feel a desire even to attend his Disciplinary Council, but wrote a defense instead. In that defense he wrote:-
"I vowed I would never again participate in a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."
But he did reaffirm his faith that:-
"Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was God's prophet of the Restoration and that Ezra Taft Benson is the prophet, seer and revelator on the Earth today."
Michael is not attending meetings with the main body of the Church, but is still actively engaged in talking at group meetings outside the Church, and historical research.
And an excerpt from a site discussing Grant Palmer's recent disciplinary action:
http://www.tungate.com/Grant_Palmer.htm
More recent excommunications over intellectual issues include David Wright (1994, for not believing in a literal Noah and for articles about Biblical events that were viewed as questioning the historicity of the Book of Mormon), Michael Barrett (1994, for writing letters to correct news stories about Mormonism), Brent Metcalfe (1994, for the anthology "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon"), Janice Allred (1997, for submitting theological papers to a Sunstone symposium), Margaret Toscano (2000, for writing on feminist issues - but really for being Paul's wife).
| Editor Note: This message was part of a section of messages, but I thought it was great so...
Dear [ *** ],
You know that story about the golden plates? It's not true.
You know that story about God commanding Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others to practice polygamy? It's not true. Joseph Smith made it all up so that he could commit adultery.
You know the "bad guys" and "evil apostates" who printed up the Nauvoo Expositor, which was then destroyed by Joseph Smith? Turns out they were telling the truth and Joseph Smith was trying to hide his lies.
For those of you who went to the temple before 1990, did you ever wonder why God wanted you to pantomime your own disembowelment and throat-slitting as "penalties" for revealing the secret handshakes ("tokens") and stuff? And did you ever wonder why God would need anybody to ever learn such things as silly secret handshakes in order to get to heaven? Well, wonder no more. Because Joseph Smith made all that up too. It was not "revealed" to him by the spirit or god or any other-worldly beings. Actually he mostly just copied the rituals of the Masonic lodge, AFTER he had joined a Masonic lodge in Illinois. Now that you know this, don't the secret handshakes and bloody penalties make more sense?
You know, Masonry, through much of its history, has acted as a kind of secret combination or secret fraternity. Secret handshakes and passwords just go with the territory in secret combinations. And if you're operating a secret combination and you want to keep it secret, you impose violent penalties on people who blab the secrets. Doesn't really have much to do with exaltation, becoming gods or anything spiritual at all, really, now does it? But it does make sense when you realize that Joseph Smith was trying to keep his serial adultery, er..."plural marriage" scheme secret for himself and his initiated insider friends. (This is what the Nauvoo Expositor was in the process of exposing when it was violently suppressed by Joseph Smith.)
For those of you who went to the temple after 1990, do you ever wonder why the exciting, if gruesome and bloody, penalty pantomimes were deleted? Now that you know where they came from, it's pretty easy to deduce that they were deleted because the General Authorities realized that they were pointless and embarrassing. Of course this isn't much of an endorsement for the veracity of the "restored" endowment ordinance, is it?
When the Prophets tell you they can't lead the church astray, have you ever wondered whether they are leading the church astray when they say that? Answer: Of course they are--just as Brigham Young was leading the Church astray, when he sacrificed the lives of the handcart pioneers to save money for his pet projects and when he led the church astray with his Adam-God doctrine and Blood Atonement doctrine, and just as Gordon B. Hinckley was leading everyone astray when he denied the LDS Church's doctrine of eternal progression in an interview with a prominent San Francisco newspaper.
If you know anything about the Mark Hoffman bombings, do you ever wonder how so many priesthood leaders (including Gordon B. Hinckley), supposedly with special powers of discernment, could have been so completely deceived by Hoffman, while "gentiles" having no priesthood saw right through him?
Have you ever questioned anything about the Church and the authority of the "General Authorities" at all?? If not, you probably are a person of blind faith and blind loyalty, who has no desire to know the truth about the church. You don't care what the truth is, as long as you feel comfortable in your delusional cult. As Boyd K. Packer said, "some truths aren't very useful." If you fall into this category, please just go back to your comfortable sleep. I'm sorry for disturbing your dreams.
Thank you for your attention.
| A molecular biologist at the CSIRO is facing excommunication from the Mormon Church after writing a book challenging its central teachings.
Dr Simon Southerton was raised a believer but in 1998 abandoned the church of which he was a bishop - the equivalent of a parish priest - when he could not reconcile his faith with scientific research.
A year ago he published a rebuttal of the Book of Mormon teachings which claim native American and Polynesians were descendants of Israelite tribes who had migrated to the Americas centuries before Christ.
In Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, Dr Southerton challenged the church to declare the Mormon scriptural text an "inspired fictional story".
"The DNA evidence we have today clearly shows that native Americans and Polynesians are both descended from Asian ancestors," he told the Herald.
He said more than 7000 native Americans had been DNA tested, proving 99 per cent of their DNA came from Asia.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| Back in the ealy 80's I was serving (I love that word) as a bishop in a military ward. The several wards surrounding Fort Campbell, KY were located in Clarksville, TN and Hopkinsville, KY. I had occasion to speak with the stake president about a member for which I was to hold a bishop's court (a.k.a. "court of love") and, since I was just 25, had only been a bishop for a month and it was my first court I asked for some direction.
I expressed my concerns about holding this court for the mother of a young family who had been accused of "kissing" another man. The person who brought the charges was the former bishop and he had not witnessed the heinous act...he had been told about it by another member.
I was concerned that just holding the court might damage the faith of this young woman and since the details were rather sketchy maybe it should just be ignored and I should watch the situation develop.
To my first point he said that it was in the Lord's hand. That the kiss was obviously provactive enough to warrant the court and that I should not be concerned that it could not be corroborated by other witnesses.
He then told me something interesting: That Mark E. Peterson had held a focus group in the past year or so that gathered a bunch of excommunicated mormons together to understand the "excommunication experience" better. I was intrigued and wondered what the findings were and the outcome. We only spoke briefly so I did not get a lot of details but he said that a vast number of exommunications never returned to the church...I think he said more than 80%...and that almost all of those did not feel they were treated with "love" in the courts. I also asked if the process had changed because of the focus group and he did not have an answer.
I never revisted the topic while I was a bishop and never heard another word about it.
Sadly, and much to my shame, I did as I was commanded and held the court on the flimsy evidence provided. I could never ascertain that anything beyond the single kiss, which she claimed was on the cheek, took place. Her husband was offended and she never looked me in the eye after that.
| As many of you known, I have started a nondenominational ministry here and I have also partnered with The Food Bank Of Iowa to serve this neighborhood.
I'm not conventional and I am flawed. I make mistakes and do wrong.
My first Sunday was Christmas Sunday. I had about twenty people in attendance, and I had only printed about 200 fliers so I guess that's good. I also had 2 LDS salesmen (missionaries) in attendance. In good LDS tradition they arrived quite late and entered rather annoyingly. They sat in the back and made some notes. My services focused on introducing myself, my Mormon past, the birth of Christ and how The Trinity. I closed with a brief sermon about salvation. All in all about 45 minutes. Afterwards many people stuck around and talked while the two Mormon boys made a dash for it. I learned a lot about the people who came and even got myself a music director out of it.
So I woke up this morning late and I have been working all day building new shelves because the food bank has promised me a lot more food than what I currently have space for. I left for the store to grab some snacks and I find tacked on the front door of the church a notice, kind of like an eviction notice, from the church of jospeh smith of mormons - an excommunication hearing notice. They didn't even put it in an envelope! I can't believe it, do they think this is Utah? They only make up 0.25% of the population. Muslims outnumber mormons in this state. I hadn't had any visitors all day, I am curious if that letter turned any visitors away.
What is the best form of action? My current plan is to notify the LDS mission president in writing that his sales force is to stay out of the building and to stay off of the sidewalk in front of the building. Can I do any more with that letter? I also intend on attending the hearing and basically turning it into Christianity Vs Mormonism. At the end of the hearing I plan on standing up and delivering a verdict against members of TSCC, and then walking out.
My more fighting side wants to erect a giant cross on the front lawn of the stake center. But I just won't do that.
Update:
I made a decision regarding LDS Inc's decision to attempt to excommunicate me.
I have had some nice offers of help to put a spotlight on the LDS for this action. However, I respectfully must decline any offers for help. I have a several reasons for that.
The first and foremost reason that I must decline is that I do not want to become a cheap midwestern Ed Decker clone. I do not want to be the antimormon/exmormon preacher. What I feel called to do is serve the community I am in, a poor community. I honestly think that if I were to go and be an antimormon I would fail at that task and I would fail my primary goals as well. I'll leave the insane stuff to those crazy people that show up on LDS Inc's doorstep at conferance time.
Two, I feel as though simply writing a serious letter to the church stating that the members of LDS Inc, acting in their role on behalf of LDS inc may not enter my property at anytime. This includes missionaries who are wearing name tags. My letter will also detail that I have resigned and the nature of my unsigned hand delivered letter.
However, as long as LDS Inc leaves me along. I will not be taking any action, for the reason that LDS Inc is too small here in Iowa to affect my ministry at all. Mormons comprise about 0.25% of the population. There are more muslims than mormons in Iowa. LDS Inc is not big enough or strong enough to matter, and I will treat them as such.
Concerning the action of excommunication, again I plan on taking no action outside of informing them again that I have already resigned. If they hold a court, then I will not attend. If they make a statement, then so be it. Less than 1/4 of one percent of the population will hear about it.
I intend to keep posting here, as being a member did effect me personally, but that will be really the only dealings or concern I have with Mormonism, and that is recovery from it - it's effects - and it's programing.
| HP class Sunday Am lesson.
"Wisdom is what we as Priesthhood holders need. We lack intuition that women and prophets have. We have facts and that is what gets us in trouble." Then quote from D&C about prophets. seers and revelators having this divine knowledge to quide them and set them apart from us and the rest of the world. "As a result of this intuition they can get the wisdom they need to quide the Church." We as HP generally lack that so "lets set the prophet GBH as our example."
Everyone thought lesson was great, uplifting.
After class I asked teacher if maybe his theory fell apart re: GBH, Oakes and Pres. Kimball and the Hoffman papers.
Several brethren were listening. Bad mistake on their part!!!
I explained that according to what he said and read Pres. Kimball should have known they were fake. I explained that two others who were prophets seers and revelators should have also known they were fake.
"They were acting as men, not prophets. They also make mistakes and are not perfect, are you perfect. Because you are not perfect you should not expect them to be perfect?"
Bad thing to say to me, Dr _________.
I responded that they were men of God, His chosen and that they should have prayed about it like you suggested in lesson and gotten an answer. We look to these men for guidance and examples.
"The Hoffman papers does not affect your salvation. It does not affect the doctrine of the church. It does not affect geeting into CK.It does not affect the day to day activity of the Church" was his reply.
I then told him that it affected me because I beleieved these men and Pres Kimball saying these were original documents. These documents had to do with JS and the Church. They were important. I said it bothered me greatly to find out they were false and these men did not know.
"God is testing you. These men make mistakes like JS did with bank problem he had. You are not perfect. You should have prayed about it and found out for yourself if they were true or not instead of relying on the brethren."
"How could I? I did not see them or feel them or touch them. That is the pondering before we pray part you quoted in class this am."
"He then said he did not know alot about the Hoffman papers but it will not affect our salvation."
I explained that I could show some other examples to show that the quote from D&C may not be as accurate in its intepretaion as he said in the lesson. He then started to talk about JS being taught over the years by various Lamanites and that when he translated he knew a lot about these people. In the lesson he talked about Oliver Cowdrey not being able to translate because his heart and mind was not into it. I asked if we knew what he translated? No? I asked who told him it was incorrect? JS. I asked did he put his head into hat like JS did. No. I aksed if there were witnesses? he did not know. Neither do I. But the teacher assured me that JS was prepared just like our modern prophets are.
I again came back to Hoffman papers and asked how many people knew they were fake before Pres. Kimball said they were true? There were some people that said so according Sunstone magazine articles.
"This was a test that God is giving to us." was his reply.
I then concluded that when I come to a class I come to learn and I expect my teachers to know and be able to discuss the issues.
The HP group leader at this point then asked to set up an appointment to see me. I guess I beat up his teacher too much!!!!
All I want in HP class and adult classes is to discuss the points and have people come to their own conclusions. I did not say the teacher was wrong but his logic and presentation did not fit a certain set of events. I prsented a different side of the argument about prophets, seers and revelators, the side that I as a student was struggling with. It seemed I knew my facts and history.
That is why when they disfellowshipped me they said, "BRO _________ you will never ask another question in Church again or we will have a court and excommunicate you for not following the directions of this court."
Nice how the church surpresses ideas.
As an aside there was one HP who watched this very carefully and I am sure went home and pondered my side. I am not there to convert people in or out of the church but to discuss at a deep level the gospel.
| Courts of Love
"The bishop’s court and the high council court have properly been referred to as courts of love. The sole purpose of a Church court is to bring about in the Lord’s way a spiritual judgment for every Church member that will hopefully eliminate for all time an irregularity or transgression that could prevent him from the ultimate blessing of exaltation. . . . . The Lord’s plan is totally positive."
Answer/Elder Robert L. Simpson Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era, July 1975, 46
As a young mother I remember a Relief Society lesson titled, “Courts of Love.” It was about the process of church disciplinary courts; often a necessary step for repentance. These were the forums where a sinner would be brought to be judged before God’s holy men. These men through the power of discernment and spiritual guidance would determine the sinner’s fate. The most onerous punishment that could be exacted was excommunication. A formal definition defines it as: “Formal expulsion from a religious body, the most grave of all ecclesiastical censures. Where religious and social communities are nearly identical it is attended by social ostracism.”
When Mormons committed a grievous sin like adultery or apostasy excommunication was often exacted as a necessary step in repentance. The gravity of the punishment had to fit the gravity of the sin. Without a just and commensurate punishment, the person could not fully repent and return to our Heavenly Father.
In the Mormon world, this meant not being able to pray in church, participate in classes, hold callings, wear the special underwear of the faithful, attend the temple, and other actions as determined by one’s ecclesiastical leader.
What this also meant is that a parent would be forbidden from attending a child’s temple wedding and a man would not be able to bless, baptize, ordain, or confirm his child. All of these important rites and ceremonies were taken away. These were the things that made you Mormon, a part of the inner circle, a worthy member of the church. All of these important anchors would be taken away in the hopes of rehabilitation.
Without excommunication, without paying the price, without the demands of justice being met, the person would be lost for the eternities. When the sinner humbly submitted to the requirements of repentance, the miracle of forgiveness would eventually occur.
The exact amount of time needed to demonstrate true repentance was determined by the leaders through prayer and seeking the guidance of the spirit. But through a broken and contrite spirit, through complete acceptance of the punishment and subjugation to the process, forgiveness would eventually be extended. The person would be rebaptized and in due course all blessings restored; if the person became sufficiently humbled.
Therefore, though this seemed harsh, we were told it was an act of compassion. This process of rejection, public humiliation, personal desolation, isolation, expulsion and social banishment, was euphemized as kindness, a gift, benevolence and concern. This was the beautiful gift of repentance and forgiveness. These were the courts of love. It honestly terrified me. I could not imagine the shame of such a thing.
Growing up the sins we heard the most about were sexual transgressions. As a teenager, sex was something that was talked about constantly at my high school with my friends, but rarely in my home. When it was discussed it was in the vaguest of terms and usually to make sure that we knew that sex outside of marriage was wrong. What we did talk about in my home and at church incessantly was being morally clean and keeping the law of chastity.
This meant to avoid any kind of sexual gratification or activity. No petting, no nudity, no masturbation, no visual stimulation, no stimulation at all. Being morally clean was not just about avoiding anything sexual it was also about being modest in dress and action and keeping one’s thoughts clean and pure so that you were not tempted or tempting or ever in a situation where something could happen. Mormons strove to never have an impure thought.
This fear and avoidance of anything sexual was obsessed about in the Mormon Church. Repression and denial of one’s sexuality was righteous and as a young latter day saint women I knew that I should be modest, chase, and remain untainted from things in the world. These constant convoluted messages created tremendous shame for me about my body and sexuality.
My parents had tried once or twice to teach us about sexuality. My mother had talked about human genitalia in the most clinical of terms, as though that should answer our questions about sex. She never said anything about the actual act. They told us that procreation was something reserved for marriage, it was beautiful, a gift of creation, and a sacred thing between husband and wife. But this great power used outside of marriage was a serious sin. So serious in fact, that only the shedding of innocent blood and denial of the Holy Ghost was worse.
These were the unpardonable sins. Sexual sins were next to these. There were actually talks given by general authorities who said that they would rather have a child die than to have that child lose their virtue. One of the prophets claimed that it would be better for a woman to die rather than be raped. I would imagine myself in the situation and wondered if I had the courage to choose death.
Like so many teenagers, I could not imaging my own parents knew anything about sex or had any insight to share with me. My parents had an unhappy and angry marriage. I did not want them to be my role model for how all this would work.
Sex was very confusing. It was beautiful and sinful, a gift and a temptation, wrong until it was right and something that I must and could control. I’m sure I was told all the things that Mormon parents tell their kids. The fact that it is a biologically process that is hormonally driven, fascinating, and natural was ignored. Sex was moralized, demonized, sermonized and scrutinized and our parents hoped to attach enough shame, guilt and confusion around the subject to produce the desired behavior. Kids who did not have sex until marriage and then never ventured outside of the marriage bed for any kind of gratification.
But as the inevitable happens kids have sex. (No Mormon believes this is inevitable.) When I was about twelve, our neighbor, Sharon, a young Mormon girl, became pregnant during the summer before her senior year in high school. She was a pep-girl and popular. Though this was the sixties and the sexual revolution was in full swing, it had not really hit our small farming community yet, and definitely had not hit our smaller church community.
Sharon was immediately the talk of every conversation. All of the archaic beliefs about sex, girls, pregnancy, if we had ever thought we had evolved beyond them, were revealed.
Sharon was sinful, what worthy boy would want her, she would carry this stigma forever, her child would carry this stigma forever, she was unworthy, and most importantly to the Mormons, she had broken the law of chastity. The damning comment made in whispers and bowed heads was; she was pregnant out of wedlock, a simple phrase that connoted unending shame.
Though she had to step down from being a pep girl, she continued going to school. As she became bigger, and everyone became more uncomfortable around her, she eventually dropped out of high school. She continued to attend church and seemed happy enough to me, a young and callow teenager.
Sharon’s family rallied around her and was clearly supportive. Sharon had been my dance teacher and I had gone to her home every week for lessons. But she was five years older than me and we were not really friends. I never talked to her about what was happening nor knew what she thought or how she felt.
I did know how my father felt about it though. He called me into his room one day and explained to me what all of this meant. He and my mother, he explained, had a wonderful physical relationship and it was sanctioned and blessed by Heavenly Father. This image of my parents was in direct contrast with the fact they did not even seem to like each other.
He continued and stated that with marriage, procreation was a miracle and a blessing. Children were gifts and a special obligation for righteous parents committed to serving the lord. But Sharon had committed a serious sin. She had had sexual intercourse (a term both my father and mother would use that made me completely uncomfortable) outside of marriage and now this pregnancy brought shame instead of rejoicing. It was an important lesson for us girls to learn. We needed to obey the law of chastity and remain morally clean.
Sex had to be the most confusing and emotional charged subject that Mormons dealt with. The bipolar messages about sex, though constant seemed a little silly to me. I tried to have this strong feeling that sex in marriage was beautiful and sacred, a power given by Heavenly Father, a spiritual experience and a religious commitment.
I tried to believe that before marriage; sex, thoughts about sex, and any sexual expression were the most vile and impure thing imaginable; but it just seemed overblown to me. I was fascinated, curious, and sure when it was my turn it would be amazing, but I really was not that interested.
I did not understand the commotion around Sharon. I just could not accept that her having sex had been so wrong. Stupid maybe, but what made it sinful. Was there malicious intent? Were these two kids trying to do harm? Was ten minutes in a car all it took to make someone awful, irresponsible, harmful, and all the other things I associated with “wrongful” behavior.
Was Sharon really like a thief, an abusive parent, or a cheating business partner? Was she evil, but not quite as evil as a murderer? That did not make much sense. But there was something I did feel was wrong and completely unsettling. How Sharon was judged and treated.
The messages that the church taught about repentance and forgiveness were confusing and contradictory. Repentance was more than acknowledgement of something wrong with a commitment to change and sorrow for the transgression. Repentance the Mormon way required payment, humiliation, and shame.
And it wasn’t always a personal experience. It was often very public, played out in front of the members of the church. Why was being pregnant such a shameful experience? Why couldn’t Sharon just repent and why was it any of our business if she did or didn’t? Why was Sharon held up to us as an example of sin? She was a seventeen year old girl, who gave in to natural biological pressures and probably some unnatural pressures (not to mention a young hormonal boy) that living in such a conflicted culture produced.
One thing she did that was pretty gutsy back then; she stayed, had her baby and kept him. The church felt pretty strongly that babies to unwed mothers should be put up for adoption.
Whatever the church suggested, was to many an edict from Heavenly Father, so to not obey was rebellion and showed a lack of repentance. With her family at her side, she faced the judgments of those she had grown up with and known her entire life. Depending on the eyes of the beholder, she was either brave or defiant.
As the pregnancy progressed, for the most part, our small community warmed up to her and accepted her pregnancy. After she gave birth, her son seemed accepted and loved. Sharon attended regular Sunday services, participated in church activities, and went on with her life.
I could not help but mentally stare at her. It wasn’t that I thought she was bad. It was that she was different. She was outside the perfect path for young women. I wondered all the time; what was she thinking, going through, feeling? I was curious, not concerned.
Our community treated her with kindness. The kindness that is extended to those who have committed a transgression. Being a sinner among Mormons is not an acknowledgement of humanness, but willful disobedience by someone chosen. Being fallible was not OK. Perfection was the expectation. The judgments of her were fairly constant though unspoken. Life moved on as it does, but her actions were not forgotten.
Sharon had gone on to college, danced in the local ballet company and seemed to be a responsible and loving mother. After a few years everything started to correct itself. Sharon met and became engaged to a young, worthy, good looking, Mormon man.
He loved Sharon and her son and her family loved him. I remember watching him with Sharon’s son. He seemed like a natural father and was very attentive. As odd as this sounds, I felt a sense of relief. Sharon’s marriage would return us to a sort of equilibrium. A social homeostasis effect was taking place. I wondered as I watched all of this from a distance if she was in love or if this was the way to make her life normal again. Her little boy was now two and a half years old.
Good Mormons get married in the temple and this requires living a chaste life. One can be chaste, even though a sin has been committed, through the process of repentance. This typically requires some passage of time in the Mormon culture. Though more than three years had past since the commission of the sin and Sharon was active and apparently repentant, when she went to get a temple recommend she was denied. She had gone to my father for the interview. He explained to her and then later to us girls what he had told her.
He felt he could not give her a recommend because of the message it would send that sex was OK and that you could break the commandments of Heavenly Father and still go to the temple. Sex was a grave sin, not something that is just erased. Sharon had had a baby out of wedlock and had brought shame and pain to her family, the church and to herself.
Enough time had not passed in his mind to justify her recommend to go to the temple. Enough time had not passed to merit forgiveness. He asked her if she understood why he could not give her this recommend? It was a rhetorical question, of course. He was not interested in her opinion.
He was the judge. He determined her worthiness and meted out Heavenly Father’s judgments with righteous arrogance and self-serving benevolence. When he determined enough time had passed, he would then let her enter, as though it was a gift for him to bestow.
He asked her: “What message did she want to send to the young girls that knew her and knew what she had done?” It was not enough that he would continue to humiliate and ostracize her, he had to have her agree with him.
He had to be acknowledged that he was the righteous judge. My dad told us that Sharon had understood why he could not give her a recommend. He said that she had agreed that she did not want to send the wrong message to other young women.
Maybe Sharon did agree, maybe she understood, I will never know. But I did not. I felt angry and hurt and that I had somehow been treated unfairly. My entire physical reaction to the story told me this was wrong. This was the sin. I felt disgusted, not just by my father, but by my church.
This all happened just a few days before her wedding and I do not know if this had any impact on what happened next. We got a call the day before the marriage was to take place that it had been cancelled. On Sharon’s wedding day, she returned all the gifts. I answered the door when she came to our home. My father graciously told her that she did not need to return the gift. He seemed kind and supportive. I wonder if he felt any responsibility for what was happening or if he thought that this was a direct result of her unrighteous decisions.
An experience like this only made Mormons more committed to their beliefs. My father was either righteous and just in denying Sharon a temple recommend or he was impacting her life without any right. This was either god’s will or my father’s will to hurt and punish her. It was better for all to believe in the truthfulness of the church and the process of repentance.
My father loved to judge people. He loved the church courts. I would listen to him and the other righteous men talk about the process. They had the right to determine who was worthy and who wasn’t. They relished this power, this control. It was simple really. There were the rules, there were the judgments, and if we were found to be sinful or lacking we were to repent.
Sins had to be paid for and even Heavenly Father was bound to these eternal laws. These all too human men were the ones to know when someone had paid the price required of Heavenly Father. Repentance was the only way to salvation and it meant admitting defeat to members of a church who do not understand defeat.
It was confession of sin to a church that teaches that no sin is ever acceptable. Mormons believe that they will someday become Gods. Sin is something the very elect should be able to avoid.
We were all complicit in the hurt that was done through this judgment process. We all agreed to the rules. My father and men like him all over the world would judge and we would be judged. All the rules and constructs that we adhered to as though there were prison bars that held us and shackles and chains that constrained us, were made up.
The life of a Mormon.
| Questions have been raised on this board recently about the nature of the faith and committment of excommunicated Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn and disfellowshipped LDS educator Grant Palmer:
"Subject: Quinn and Palmer: a question
Date: Oct 11 13:53
Author: levine
Mail Address:
"I was just wondering if authors like Quinn and Palmer have a master plan to try to stay in the church so they can influence as many people as possible.
"Wouldn't more TBM's read their books if the authors are still mormons? I've wondered why Q & P would want to remain members. Or maybe the reasons are just personal ones."
_____
GRANT PALMER: RETIRED BUT "ACTIVE" IN HIS OWN WAY
Reliable sources inside Mormonism, positioned both to know and verify, report that Palmer is living in modest retirement, in a small home in San Diego--and has been privately relaying information to interested parties regarding details on the resignation from Mormon ranks of certain prominent members.
______
D. MICHAEL QUINN: A BANISHED BUT STILL IN-THE-HEART BELIEVER
With regard to Quinn, he is no longer a member of the Mormon Church, having been excommunicated for apostasy in 1993 for his published research on post-Manifesto polygamy.
Quinn is a friend of Steve Benson (who voluntarily left the Mormon Church in 1993) and who, according to Benson's account of personal visits with Quinn, has nonetheless remained a faithful believer in what Quinn regards as the restored truthfulness of the Mormon Church.
In a previous RfM post made in July 2005, Benson wrote of Quinn's situation, as follows:
"Michael Quinn . . . has chosen to remain a believer in the supposed truthfulness of Mormonism.
"I have known Mike as a personal friend for several years and admire him greatly, both as an individual and as a scholar, although we disagree on some fundamental matters.
"After I left the LDS cult in 1993, I had more than one occasion to talk directly, and in person, with Mike about his own perspectives and beliefs pertaining to Mormonism.
". . . Mike shared his testimonial belief with me that the Book of Mormon was a literal historical record of ancient and accurate vintage, that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to reveal His divine truth to the world, that through Joseph Smith the golden plates were translated and that following the death of Joseph Smith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell into apostasy through the corruption and sin of its leadership--and that this 'falling away,' if you will, of the Mormon Church from the purposes and designs of God's original 1830 restorative act, has continued up to the present time.
"Mike told me that it was his belief that a second Restoration (i.e., one coming after the initial return of God's true Church to the earth in 1830 through the hands of Joseph Smith) was necessary in order to rehabilitate the Mormon Church and again make it the organization through which God would lead and guide His children on earth.
"I asked Mike how he could believe such things, especially given what many have considered his devastatingly revealing historical dissection of Mormon origins and its extensions of power.
"Mike acknowledged to me that he knew that his belief in Mormonism did not sound logical but that he nonetheless possessed a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon, of the prophetic calling by God of Joseph Smith and of the truthfulness of the Mormon Gospel as God's one and only true Church."
______
QUINN THE PROPHESIED APOSTLE, QUINN THE PHONE-TAPPED APOSTATE, QUINN THE TARGET OF DEATH THREATS AND QUINN, THE MAN ABANDONED
In a further RfM post, also in August 2005, Benson noted some information about which Quinn had himself spoken publicly--namely, that Spencer W. Kimball had promised Quinn that if he remained faithful, one day he would be an apostle:
"Mike [spoke of] . . . a promise made to him by then-apostle Spencer Kimball, at the time Mike was still an active, temple-endowed, well-respected member of the Church.
"Mike said that Kimball promised him that if he continued in faithfulness and obedience, he, too, would one day become an apostle.
"'Mad_Viking' then asked me [Benson], 'So, was it your impression that he held on to his beliefs of Joseph Smith's divine mission, despite his admission of it being illogical, simply because of this statement made to him from Spencer W Kimball?'
"I replied:
"Mike Quinn told me he had a testimony of the Mormon Church as God's true Church; the gold plates as genuine, translated artifacts; and the mission of Joseph Smith as being God's chosen prophet of the Restoration.
"Mike did not tell me that he held on to those beliefs in the hope that he would someday become an apostle (as then-apostle Spencer W. Kimball promised him, if Mike remained faithful), and I did not draw a link between the two because Mike did not make one. His belief in Mormonism seemed more personal and much deeper than any anticipation of advancement through the ranks. It was a quiet, soft-spoken type of conviction about which Mike did not make a big deal--but to which he appeared truly committed.
"I found Mike's testimony startling, incongruous and at significant odds with his unparalleled research that clearly, in my opinion, exposed the fraud, frailities and fictions of Mormonism.
"But Mike's ultimate testimony in Mormonism seemed to rest on his belief that it was initially restored by God's hand in pure and true form, then became corrupted through the human-caused downfall of its leaders who subsequently followed Joseph Smith into power in the post-Smith era.
"Mike Quinn holds on to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains God's true Church on the earth--but that it is in dire need of a complete restorative overhaul in order to bring it back to its original integrity, purpose, luster and exaltation-providing power.
"What is all the more amazing about Mike's deep-rooted faith is to see how his devotion to the basic claims of Mormonism has remained strong, despite all that he has been through.
"At the peak of his career as an historian, Mike was a highly-regarded profesional in his field, both in out and of the Church.
"Then, Mike's daring and ground-breaking research on the Mormon Church's deceptive practice of post-Manifesto polygamy (which the Church tried hard to keep hidden from the public) led to his excommunication on the grounds of apostasy. Dallin Oaks, in particular, was bitterly incensed at Mike's decision to air his findings and told me personally that Mike was a person without character who could not be trusted.
"Mike's stake president also darkly hinted to him that he was being investigated on "moral" charges (relating, in all probability, to Mike's honest acknowledgement of being gay).
"Mike told me that his home phone was tapped (most likely by Mormon Church security), and that, moreover, he was able to verify the power drain on his telephone line (indicating a deliberate intrusion) through the use of special phone equipment. He said that the likelihood of the drain actually being a tap was supported by employees at the local SLC phone company.
"Mike was also the subject of death threats. His heterosexual marriage of many years ended in divorce and his teenage son committed suicide by hanging himself in one of Salt Lake City's surrounding canyons. Mike's professional career subsequently took a nose dive. He found himself unemployed and without the necessary grant funding to continue his historical research.
"He moved to Mexico for a time to live with a friend and, at one point, was literally living day-to-day, hand-to-mouth.
"Through it all, Mike has maintained his testimony in what he believes to be the truthfulness of the Mormon Church. This bespeaks a personal devotion greater than any hoped-for call to Mormon apostleship. At this point in his life, Kimball's promise to Mike in that regard seems, shall we say, a tad out of reach.
"Nevertheless, Mike's sincere belief in the LDS Church--a Church which in its depraved and destructive state has persecuted and maligned him--remains firm.
"Go figure."
_____
WHY QUINN WAS EXCOMMUNICATED
In another RfM post in August 2005, Benson provided background details on the reasons why Quinn was excommunicated from the LDS Church--including the privately-expressed vitriolic reaction (behind closed doors of a Mormon apostle's office) to Quinn's published writings on post-Manifesto polygamy:
"Inquiries have recently been made . . .about what constituted the basis for the excommunication of D. Michael Quinn from the Mormon Church for supposed 'apostasy.'
"Not coincidentally, prior to getting the ecclesiastical axe, Quinn--a noted historian and former tenured BYU professor--had written at least six articles for the LDS Church’s premiere magazine, the Ensign, as well as had published several more in the LDS-owned and operated journal, BYU Studies.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtm...
_____
"As to what exactly prompted Quinn’s expulsion from Mormonism’s ranks, RfM poster, 'Mad_Viking,' asked the following:
"'In light of [Quinn's post-excommunication expression of his personal testimony in the truthfulness of the Mormon Church], it is simply amazing that he would maintain faith. I amhonestly baffled by it.
"'Is the research that got him excommunicated available to the public?'
(Mad_Viking,”Re: No, that was not my impression," Recovery from Mormonism Board, 4 August 2005, 1438 hours)
_____
"Yes, Quinn's research on the subject is publicly available.
"In a nutshell, Quinn’s 'sins' were having had published in the Spring 1985 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a devastating historical account of the shell game played for decades by the Mormon Church in its deliberate campaign of misdirection and misinformation.
"Quinn’s Dialogue article has been praised thusly:
”'This essay is one of the best pieces of Mormon literature we have. [Quinn] went to Gordon [B.] Hinckley before he ever published this essay and showed him what he had. He then told . . . Hinckley that if he did not want it published then [Quinn] would not publish it. . . . Hinckley toldMike that he needed to do what he felt best so [Quinn] published it because he felt it dealt with a very sensitive issue that needed to be addressed.'
http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg...
_____
"Quinn himself explained the post-Manifesto reasons for his excommunication in his article, 'On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath)':
“'In 1985, after Dialogue published my article "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904," three apostles [Boyd K. Packer, Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson] gave orders for my Stake President to confiscate my temple recommend. Six years earlier, I had formally notified the First Presidency and the Managing Director of the Church Historical Department about my research on post-Manifesto polygamy and my intention to publish it . . . Now I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." The Stake President was also told to ‘take further action’ against me if this did not ‘remedy the situation’ of my writing controversial Mormon history. . . .
"'I told my Stake President that this was an obvious effort to intimidate me from doing history that might "offend the Brethren" (to use Ezra Taft Benson’s phrase). . . . The Stake President also saw this as a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU. . . .
“'At various stake and regional meetings, Apostle Packer began publicly referring to "a BYU historian who is writing about polygamy to embarrass the Church." At firesides in Utah and California, a member of BYU’s Religious Education Department referred to me as "the anti-Christ of BYU." . . . Church leaders today seem to regard my post-Manifesto polygamy article . . . as "speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed" because they themselves regard certain acts and words of those earlier Church leaders as embarrassing, if not actually wrong. I do not regard it as disloyal to conscientiously recreate the words, acts and circumstances of earlier prophets and apostles. . . . .
“'No one ever gave me an ultimatum or threatened to fire me from Brigham Young University. However, University administrators and I were both on the losing side of a war of attrition mandated by the General Authorities. . . .
“'On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation, effective at the end of the current school semester. . . . I explained [that] "the situation seems to be that academic freedom merely survives at BYU without fundamental support by the institution, exists against tremendous pressure and is nurtured only through the dedication of individual administrators and faculty members." . . .
“'Three months after my departure, it angered me to learn to learn that BYU had fired a Hebrew professor for his private views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Although I personally regard the Book of Mormon as ancient history and sacred text, I told an inquiring newspaper reporter: "BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That’s like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind." . . .
“'When BYU’s Associate Academic Vice-President asked me if that was an accurate quote, I confirmed that it was. "Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the University’s Board of Trustees [meaning the Quorum of the Twelve] and administrators," I wrote. "By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era). . . .
“'"It is . . . my conviction that God desires everyone to enjoy freedom of inquiry and expression without fear, obstruction or intimidation. I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the General Authorities, who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites --access to information, uninhibited inquiry and freedom of expression.” (Quinn, D. Michael. 'On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath).' In Smith, George D., ed. Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 91-95).
_____
"THE COMPLETE TEXT OF QUINN'S EXPLOSIVE ESSAY
"Quinn's essay on post-Manifesto polygamy that so propelled paranoid Mormon leaders into hanging him can be found at:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg... . . . "
_____
In a subsequent RfM post in August 2005, Benson referenced the following additional, published information about Quinn's excommunication:
"After tape recordings and transcriptions of Quinn's talk, 'On Being a Mormon Historian,' began to be published and circulated without his permission, national attention to Quinn's views was heightened by a February 1982 issue of Newsweek headlined, 'Apostles vs. Historians.'
"From that point forward, the Mormon squeeze play on Quinn began in earnest.
Writes Quinn:
"'A few days [after publication of the Newsweek article], a General Authority invited me to his office. He warned me that he found Elder Packer to be easily offended and vindictive years afterward.
"'In May [1982], my stake presidency informed me that five former bishops had recommended me to be the ward's new bishop but that Apostle Mark E. Petersen had blocked the appointment. He asked the stake presidency, "Why is Michael Quinn in league with anti-Mormonism," apparently referring to the unauthorized publication of my essay by the Tanners.
"'Elder Petersen arranged for the stake presidency to bring me to the Church Administration Building at 47b East South Temkple to meet with Apostles Petersen, Benson and Packer. The second counselor in the stake presidency accompanied me. The Apostles were careful not to ask me a single direct question. In order of seniority (Apostle Benson first, me last), each of us expressed his own views of the Newsweek article, the "problems" of writing Mormon history and the effects of all this on the faith of LDS members. The meeting was congenial and supportive.'
"That seeming support was to eventually evaporate, as those same three Apostles began a deliberate pressure campaign to have Quinn discredited, isolated and deposed, despite the fact that Quinn had proven himself to be a highly regarded researcher and acclaimed educator.
"Notes Quinn:
"'In the spring of 1986, graduating history majors at BYU voted me 'outstanding professor.' That fall BYU's administration had my name dropped from a list of participants in an upcoming celebration of Mormonism in Britain. Then, for the second year in a row, BYU's administration denied my application for "Professional Development Leave." This time the college dean invited m to his office to explain why. He said the Apostles on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees had prepared a list of faculty members and research topics which BYU administrators were forbidden to support. "I have always hoped that one day BYU will become a real university," the dean said, "but this makes me feel that that day will never arrive."
"'By January 1987 pressures on me increased. BYU's administration required the History Department and Charles Redd Center for the American West to withdraw funds they had promised me to give a paper on general American religion at the University of Paris. It did not matter that the advanced text of the paper, entitled "Religion, Rationalism and Folk Practices in America to the mid-19th Century," made no reference to Mormonism. I paid my own way to France to represent BYU.
"'Despite all tha that had happened, until January 1987 I could not yet believe that my life's hopes were at an end. A new department chair let me know that my situation would improve only if I stopped doing research which implied Mormon studies. . . . Abandoning Mormon history may have been safe in the climate of repression but it as unacceptable to me, especially as an option of duress. "Publish or perish" is the experience of scholars at most universities, but for this Mormon historian it was "publish and perish" at BYU.
"'After publication of my Early Mormonism and the Magic World View in mid-1987, two members of BYU's History Department circualted the rumor that my stake high council was excommunicating me for apostasy. The rumor was completely false but more important, I had thought these rumor=mongers were my colleagues and friends. When a student asked the Dean of Religous Education if BYU was going to fire me, he replied that the Board of Trustees had decided against it. "Like stirring up a turd on the ground," he told the student, 'firing Mike Quinn would only make a greater stink.' At this point, I began applying for research fellowships that would allow me to leave BYU. . . .
"'On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation . . . At the time of my resignation, I had tenure ("continuing status"), was Full-Professor of History and was Director of the History Department's graduate program. My letter of resignation represented my formal acknowledgement of failure--personal and institutional. . . .
"'I again addressed [the issue of academic freedom] in 1991 after a rarely-used joint declartion by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles condemned the annual Sunstone Symposium. . . . Those who questioned this statement were being summarily dropped from Church positions and both Church and BYU administraive pressure was directed against a junior professor of anthropology at BYU who had given a symposium paper. I observed in a newspaper story,
"Consistently, from the beginning, the [LDS] Church leadership has always been uncomfortable with open forums that have been organized by the rank and file." However, I added, "in the 19th-century, the leadership recognized the existence of a loyal opposition and the 20th does not.". . .
"'Since leaving BYU and Utah, I have been an independent free-lance writer. I still do Mormon history. People of various persuasions still seem eager for it.'"(D. Michael Quinn, 'On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath),' in George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 89-90, 92-96)
_____
Eventually, Benson met with two Mormon apostles in private conversation--where the ugly truth behind Quinn's excommunication became apparent in raw, personal terms:
"YEARS LATER AMONG THE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE; BABBLING BALONEY ABOUT HISTORY AND BUBBLING BITTERNESS OVER QUINN
"Additional sordid details behind the excommunication of Quinn seeped out some eight years after his post-Manifesto essay was first published.
"These facts were provided by two of the Mormon Church's highest henchmen—'Apostle-ologists' Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks.
"On 9 September 1993, my wife Mary Ann and I met with Oaks and Maxwell in Maxwell's Church office, #303, located in the Church Administration Building, in downtown Salt Lake City.
We had approached them with a list of detailed and wide-ranging questions about fundamental doctrines, teachings, practices and policies of the Mormon Church that significantly troubled us--and about which we felt we deserved credible and straight-forward answers.
"In the broad sense on the polygamy question, we wanted to know from these pre-eminent damage controllers why the Mormon Church had not been more forthcoming and honest with its history with regard to the official practice (and later blatant denial of) polygamy.
"Then, specifically, we wanted to know about what I have subsequently referred to as 'the mystery of history, and those who tell the truth about polygamy--without permission.'
"In that meeting with us, 'good cop' Maxwell offered unconvincing rationalizations for the Mormon Church’s failure to be honest and forthcoming about its practice of polygamy.
“'Bad cop' Oaks followed up by launching a shockingly shabby attack on Quinn’s personal integrity.
_____
"MAXWELL'S MURKY MEANDERINGS
"In answer to the larger inquiry, Maxwell cagily replied by noting that the process of writing history is frustrating, complex and incomplete.
"He handed us a photocopy of a sermon. (The copy turned out, I discovered later, to be a talk Maxwell himself had delivered during the 1984 October General Conference entitled, 'Out of Obscurity.' However, the single sheet excerpts that he handed to us contained no title or author, although it had been marked up in red ink for our benefit. Maxwell’s address ultimately appeared in the General Conference issue of the Ensign, 10, November 1984, p. 11).
"Quoting from a 'Tribute to Neville Chamberlain,' delivered in the British House of Commons, 12 November 1940, Maxwell’s sermon declared:
"'History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days.'
"The sermon then addressed what Maxwell verbally described to us as the definition of history: a collection, he said, of 'floating mosaic tiles':
"'The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding.
"'The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, donot seem to fit . . .
"'So, belatedly, the fullness of the history of the dispensation of the fullness of times will be written.
"'The final mosaic of the Restoration will be resplendent, reflecting divine design and the same centerpiece—the Father's plan of salvation and exaltation and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ.'
"What Maxwell’s excuses lacked in clarity, Oaks’ made up for in character assassination
_____
"OAKS' VICIOUS PERSONAL ATTACKS ON QUINN
"While Oaks was much less colorful than his charming so-charlatan Maxwell, he was much more direct in dealing with the substance of our question.
"Oaks acknowledged that he had read Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy, covering the period from 1890 into the early 20th century.
"Oaks also confessed that the Mormon Church had not, in fact, been honest about its practice of polygamy during that time. He admitted that the case, as laid out by Quinn, was, in fact, true. Oaks admitted that, in his opinion, lies had indeed been told by Mormon Church leaders about the continuing practice of polygamy after it supposedly was ended by the Manifesto of 1890.
"But enough of admitting Church wrongdoing.
"Oaks then proceeded to attack Quinn personally by accusing him of breaking his word.
"Oaks said that Quinn had been given access to all of J. Reuben Clark's papers for the purpose of writing a book on Clark's years of Church service. Oaks said he had assured the Church that Quinn was credible, in order that Quinn could be given access to those records. Oaks noted that shortly after Quinn's research was published on Clark, out came Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy.
"Quinn, Oaks told us angrily, had violated Oaks' confidence. He accused Quinn of having taken more information out of Church archives than he had been given permission to examine and research, going in.
"Oaks said that Quinn was not an innocent victim in this affair. Oaks informed us that he subsequently wrote Quinn a letter, in which he expressed his "deep disappointment" with him and telling Quinn he had exceeded the limits of their original understanding.
"In that letter, Oaks further said, he told Quinn that he now regarded him as someone who could not be trusted. Oaks added that Quinn would not tell us about these things, if asked, because of Quinn's involvement.
"On that last point, I wanted to see for myself.
"In August 2001, in a personal visit with Quinn at a gathering in Fort Worden, Washington, hosted by a group of gay Mormon fathers (where Mary Ann and I had been invited to speak), I recounted to him Oaks' version of events and asked him for his own recollections.
"Visibly agitated but in a controlled and quiet voice, Quinn emphatically denied that he had violated any research agreement with the Church Historical Department.
"He told me that it was clearly understood going in that he had open access to archival materials."
[see: http://twincentral.com/site/pages/art... , Part 4]
_____
"CONCLUSION: A FINAL WORD ON MICHAEL QUINN
"Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell, I know Michael Quinn.
"Michael Quinn is a friend of mine.
"You are no Michael Quinn."
| |
