A
- Status
T
ttnacath
Guest
This has not changed, as I understand from my Mormon friends.
A
Answersplease
Guest
why_me said:
P
ParkerD
Guest
Answerplease,
If you must, then thanks for demonstrating the eventuality that some who dissent publicly, particularly if their livelihood in some way depends on being acknowledged by others as a scholar to be trusted, have other motives than the pure motive of loving God with all their heart, might, mind, and strength. No other motive is acceptable to God–not scholarship, not money, not the accolades of the press or the accolades of others.
You might want to research the outcome of the dissent of the particular person you quoted before presenting his ideas as though those ideas are something to be admired. I’m not going to do that for you.
Have a wonderful day, all, with much peace and with the firm idea planted in your soul that each of us is asked to love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength, and He will bless your life for doing that very thing.
If you must, then thanks for demonstrating the eventuality that some who dissent publicly, particularly if their livelihood in some way depends on being acknowledged by others as a scholar to be trusted, have other motives than the pure motive of loving God with all their heart, might, mind, and strength. No other motive is acceptable to God–not scholarship, not money, not the accolades of the press or the accolades of others.
You might want to research the outcome of the dissent of the particular person you quoted before presenting his ideas as though those ideas are something to be admired. I’m not going to do that for you.
Have a wonderful day, all, with much peace and with the firm idea planted in your soul that each of us is asked to love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength, and He will bless your life for doing that very thing.
A
Answersplease
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
J, Michael Quinn was and is an avowed, practicing homosexual, Answersplease. Now, there’s nothing wrong with being homosexual…except that it is very difficult to obey God’s instructions regarding chastity and marriage if one is attracted to one’s own gender. Those who want to be actively homosexual AND a Temple going Mormon are going to find that the two things are incompatible.
In fact, they are going to be excommunicated. No matter what Quinn SAYS about the church, the fact is–he’s openly gay, was openly gay before his excommunication, and that’s why he was excommunicated–that, and his published claim that Mormons ‘quietly accepted’ homosexual relationships in the early days of the church. We didn’t.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Quinn was excommunicated for his essay on post-manifest polygamy within the LDS church. (The “manifest” being referred to is the one in the mormon D&C, which states polygamy is no longer practiced or endorsed in the mormon church.)
LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904
A
averagejoe84
Guest
Over the years since the introduction of correlation the church has constructed a faith promoting history of its own creation and early history. Unfortunately having only been created a few hundred years ago the source documents are readily available. The problem then becomes that the faith promoting version of events turns out to be highly sanitised.
A quick example would be Joseph Smith’s vision at 14 of God and Christ. The version in the Mormon canon is actually one of multiple accounts he wrote, which initially just have him seeing an angel and then evolve into seeing God & Christ. Somewhat stupidly though the evidence for the vision is shaky church leaders have become unequivocal about it saying that the whole church etc… rests on its validity!
Of course many mormons will be unaware that other first vision accounts exist, just as they are unaware of a great many ugly historical truths airbrushed from ‘official’ history. For the mormon hierarchy, history should be faith promoting, which isn’t exactly the same as true. Boyd K. Packer is well known for his thoughts in this area. For mormons defence of the religion is far more important that historical truth.
A nice summary from Wikipedia:
A quick example would be Joseph Smith’s vision at 14 of God and Christ. The version in the Mormon canon is actually one of multiple accounts he wrote, which initially just have him seeing an angel and then evolve into seeing God & Christ. Somewhat stupidly though the evidence for the vision is shaky church leaders have become unequivocal about it saying that the whole church etc… rests on its validity!
Of course many mormons will be unaware that other first vision accounts exist, just as they are unaware of a great many ugly historical truths airbrushed from ‘official’ history. For the mormon hierarchy, history should be faith promoting, which isn’t exactly the same as true. Boyd K. Packer is well known for his thoughts in this area. For mormons defence of the religion is far more important that historical truth.
A nice summary from Wikipedia:
In reality then mormon scholars are in a difficult situation. Publish something true and it could lead to excommunication as it did for the september six. I went to a Sunstone conference where a professor from BYU appeared to speak about how the Book of Mormon as literal truth was unsustainable, but as allegory had plenty to say. He had to appear under a pseudonym as he was facing excommunication and unemployment. Sounds like something out of a bad communist dictatorship huh?
W
why_me
Guest
If you notice the BYU professor who published what he or she published challanged the truth of the book of mormon. He or she would have faced excommunication or disfellowshipment for that.
Now what happens to a catholic priest who begins to challenge the law of celibacy or becomes a spokesperson for priests getting married ? Or an archbishop who marries priests? I do believe that he is shown the door. Does that sound like a communist dictatorship?
A
averagejoe84
Guest
Clergy are one thing academic discussion is another and the two don’t equate. Your argument would be valid if the guy were a stake president and he was teaching his theory as gospel from the pulpit, but he wasn’t. Also he wasn’t challenging the truth of the BOM he was challenging it’s literal accuracy which is different. The discussion was relevant because the RLDS had recently changed their views officially.
What mormons never seem to understand about academia is that it’s a big conversation. You publish something that says X it’s read over and critiqued by someone who then says Y… That’s how knowledge and progress come about.
The fact remains you either allow historians to tell the truth according to the source material or you force them to repeat a version of half truth that’s more convenient. You either have academic freedom and integrity or you don’t.
W
why_me
Guest
Here is something about Quinn from the FAIRwiki:
D. Michael Quinn
Fellow member of the “September Six” Lavina Fielding Anderson wrote of Quinn:
Michael resigned from Signature’s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable…He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard…
[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath…
When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family’s past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.[2]
It is difficult to avoid the impression that Anderson is here describing Quinn’s eventual decision to follow his homosexual inclinations, especially when Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, “He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering.”[3]
Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a “heretic.”[4] “Heresy” has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions.
Despite the fact that his marriage had ended, and that he had embraced homosexuality, Quinn refused to attend his disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was “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.”[5]
Despite Quinn’s claims that this was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying “There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are not related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing.”[6] On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and “demanded that Michael explain the ‘moral allegations’ [he] had heard about him.” Anderson is critical of the stake president for later alluding to Quinn’s homosexual behavior even more directly. Writes Anderson:
A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the “very sensitive and highly confidential” matters that were not related to Michael’s historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and “plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this.” He added a ham-handed post-script: “Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare.” The allusion to Michael’s sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.[7]
Anderson is apparently under the mistaken impression that if one’s sins are not public knowledge, Church leaders have no right or obligation to take action if such behavior comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson’s wholly sympathetic account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Still, Church members promise that they will not engage in such behavior—if they choose to, they ought to either resign, or they will be excommunicated. Quinn seems willing to do neither. He was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with his leaders. Again, he refused any contact.
Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges “of conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy.” Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.[8]
Anderson tells us later that “Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened.”[9] So, Quinn is not kept from an on-going homosexual liaison because he agrees with the Church’s stance that such actions are wrong. Following his excommunication, Quinn “came out” as a practicing homosexual.[10] Quinn also wrote a book claiming that “the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders.”[11] Any doubt of Quinn’s position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly “because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman.”[12]
D. Michael Quinn
Fellow member of the “September Six” Lavina Fielding Anderson wrote of Quinn:
Michael resigned from Signature’s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable…He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard…
[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath…
When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family’s past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.[2]
It is difficult to avoid the impression that Anderson is here describing Quinn’s eventual decision to follow his homosexual inclinations, especially when Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, “He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering.”[3]
Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a “heretic.”[4] “Heresy” has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions.
Despite the fact that his marriage had ended, and that he had embraced homosexuality, Quinn refused to attend his disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was “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.”[5]
Despite Quinn’s claims that this was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying “There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are not related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing.”[6] On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and “demanded that Michael explain the ‘moral allegations’ [he] had heard about him.” Anderson is critical of the stake president for later alluding to Quinn’s homosexual behavior even more directly. Writes Anderson:
A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the “very sensitive and highly confidential” matters that were not related to Michael’s historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and “plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this.” He added a ham-handed post-script: “Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare.” The allusion to Michael’s sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.[7]
Anderson is apparently under the mistaken impression that if one’s sins are not public knowledge, Church leaders have no right or obligation to take action if such behavior comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson’s wholly sympathetic account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Still, Church members promise that they will not engage in such behavior—if they choose to, they ought to either resign, or they will be excommunicated. Quinn seems willing to do neither. He was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with his leaders. Again, he refused any contact.
Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges “of conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy.” Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.[8]
Anderson tells us later that “Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened.”[9] So, Quinn is not kept from an on-going homosexual liaison because he agrees with the Church’s stance that such actions are wrong. Following his excommunication, Quinn “came out” as a practicing homosexual.[10] Quinn also wrote a book claiming that “the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders.”[11] Any doubt of Quinn’s position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly “because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman.”[12]
W
why_me
Guest
Part 2 from the above:
So, we have here a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. Even he and his advocates indicate that he embraced and accepted his own homosexuality, and clearly sees nothing wrong with doing so. All of this is more than sufficient grounds for excommunication. History need not enter the matter at all.
Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
he called BYU an “Auschwitz of the mind,” and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.[13]
he compared his Stake President’s desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul’s decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.[14]
Anderson praises Quinn’s “ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways.”[15] She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This glowing claim ignores, however, Quinn’s frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.[16] (For more information, see Quinn on Boyd K. Packer.)
In short, Quinn’s problems may have stemmed partly from his historical work, especially given his errors—but, his own behavior, acts, and words were more than sufficient by themselves to merit excommunication by any measure. He also refused to attend his own disciplinary council, and can thus continue to claim that it was all because of his history work—though even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that far more was going on than Quinn would like to admit.
Despite the claims about history, Quinn argues at length that homosexuality is not a sin, insists that the Church and its leaders are wrong to act as if it is, he repeatedly attacks leaders of the Church with ridiculous charges comparing them to Nazis and Stalinists, and he misrepresents the statements of some apostles to make another member of the Twelve (Elder Packer) look bad.
The striking thing is not that Quinn was excommunicated, but that it took as long as it did. His stake president’s efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank’s efforts as “sounding plaintive and unjustly accused,” “mildly phrased but…threatening,” accompanied by “a ham-handed postscript.” For Anderson, at best Hanks “was probably sincere,” though Quinn’s sincerity and rectitude is never questioned for a moment.
Quinn’s letters, by contrast, are “temperate…even sympathetic,” showing “a tone of genuine weariness,” and he is filled with a “calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him.”[17]
Despite Anderson’s one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying over months to speak privately with a wayward member who refuses to believe the problem can be with him, and who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.
Unfortunately for this view, the historical record tells a different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six
en.fairmormon.org/Church_discipline/Scholars
Every thing is always open to interpretation. But this wiki information is still under construction and needs work.
So, we have here a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. Even he and his advocates indicate that he embraced and accepted his own homosexuality, and clearly sees nothing wrong with doing so. All of this is more than sufficient grounds for excommunication. History need not enter the matter at all.
Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
he called BYU an “Auschwitz of the mind,” and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.[13]
he compared his Stake President’s desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul’s decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.[14]
Anderson praises Quinn’s “ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways.”[15] She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This glowing claim ignores, however, Quinn’s frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.[16] (For more information, see Quinn on Boyd K. Packer.)
In short, Quinn’s problems may have stemmed partly from his historical work, especially given his errors—but, his own behavior, acts, and words were more than sufficient by themselves to merit excommunication by any measure. He also refused to attend his own disciplinary council, and can thus continue to claim that it was all because of his history work—though even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that far more was going on than Quinn would like to admit.
Despite the claims about history, Quinn argues at length that homosexuality is not a sin, insists that the Church and its leaders are wrong to act as if it is, he repeatedly attacks leaders of the Church with ridiculous charges comparing them to Nazis and Stalinists, and he misrepresents the statements of some apostles to make another member of the Twelve (Elder Packer) look bad.
The striking thing is not that Quinn was excommunicated, but that it took as long as it did. His stake president’s efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank’s efforts as “sounding plaintive and unjustly accused,” “mildly phrased but…threatening,” accompanied by “a ham-handed postscript.” For Anderson, at best Hanks “was probably sincere,” though Quinn’s sincerity and rectitude is never questioned for a moment.
Quinn’s letters, by contrast, are “temperate…even sympathetic,” showing “a tone of genuine weariness,” and he is filled with a “calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him.”[17]
Despite Anderson’s one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying over months to speak privately with a wayward member who refuses to believe the problem can be with him, and who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.
Unfortunately for this view, the historical record tells a different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six
en.fairmormon.org/Church_discipline/Scholars
Every thing is always open to interpretation. But this wiki information is still under construction and needs work.
R
ricko
Guest
Quote:
Too bad you have a problem with going back in the history of the LDS. Shows how the LDS and Joseph Smith were false from the get-go.
Quote:
.
Too bad you have a problem with going back in the history of the LDS. Shows how the LDS and Joseph Smith were false from the get-go.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Here is my analogy-- I say that that anyone who believes that the Book of Mormon as literal truth is deceived, although it has some literal truth in it. I say that as allegory it has plenty to say, and much of that condemns the LDS church. In order to say what I have to say, I must also say that Masonry has some positive points.
Do I expect to get in trouble with my Catholic Church? Nope.
A
averagejoe84
Guest
Well I think we’re agreed that why me’s analysis is a straw man.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Wrong.
His disciplinary hearing was preceeded by several attempts to talk to him about his personal conduct. He had resigned from his post at BYU, he had divorced his wife, Jan, and was living in New Orleans. His stake president wrote him several letters asking to talk to him about “very sensitive and highly confidential” matters unrelated to Quinn’s writings. Lavinia Anderson, one of the 'September Six," was very supportive of Quinn…and even she was aware that his excommunication was about his homosexuality, his advocacy of it, and his insistance that the church approved of it early on. While she was of the opinion that his homosexuality was none of the church’s business, and was as disgusted with his excommunication on those grounds as she would have been on the grounds you claim he was excommunicated for, the fact is, he was excommunicated for “conduct unbecoming a member of the church” (his homosexuality and advocacy of same) and “apostasy.” The ‘apostasy’ part was not a unanamous finding–and that was about his writings in regard to homosexuality. I have news for you, Rebecca. *NOBODY CARED *about what he wrote regarding polygamy. However, because Quinn refused to show up at his own excommunication hearing, he could claim whatever he wanted to—and he didn’t care to claim that he was ex’d because he was gay and was becoming more and more militantly gay by the week. He presents himself as being victimized because he wrote about post manifesto polygamous marriages.
Well, whoopedo. That’s pretty lame, y’know. What amazes me is that he is still DOING that, when admitting the truth–that he was ex’d for being actively gay–would actually get him more sympathy. I guess he’s been lying about that for so long that he has to keep it up. I’ll bet he’s berating himself for that lapse of judgment, though; as it is, his openly gay lifestyle is telling people that the Mormons might have been OK with him being gay–they just didn’t like him dissing their university (BYU is the equivalent of Auswitz? Really?).
Get a grip, Rebecca. Quinn was ex’d because he was gay, behaved in an openly immoral way, divorced his wife and generally made an idiot of himself. If he is so ashamed of his lifestyle choices that he can’t admite the reason for his excommunication, that says a lot more about him than it does about the church.
Of the other five members of the “September Six,” we have
Lynne Whitesides, who advocated worshiping a “Mother in Heaven.” She now distributes peyote for the Native American Church.
Avraham Gileadi: apostasy, evidently–but perhaps not. At any rate, he has been rebaptised and is an active member of the church and a respected author and expert on Isaiah.
Paul Toscano, for 'apostasy and false teaching." After reading a coupld of his books, like “Strangers in Paradox: Explorations in Mormon Theology” and “The Sanctity of Dissent,” I can understand why. Shoot, in some ways ‘The Godmakers’ is nicer to us.
Maxine Hanks: excommunicated for apostasy…she wrote “Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism” with Quinn. She also advocates worshiping a Heavenly Mother.
Lavinia Anderson: also a feminist with very sharp opinions on women and the priesthood. She still attends church as a non-member.
Frankly, Rebecca, I don’t understand why WE are not allowed to excommunicate members who so publically and sharply criticise us. YOU guys certainly do! Come to think of it, we do not excommunicate anybody for heresy–that’s simply what one thinks. We excommunicate only for actions; what one DOES.
For instance, simply being gay is not an excommunicable offense. It’s not fair to punish someone for the nature of the temptation; a stray thought not acted upon is merely …a stray thought.
One of the things that results in latae sententaie excomunication is heresy–wrong thinking.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You do realize the letter he received requesting his “court” appearance outlined the reasons, and that this letter was published in the SL Tribune? Three publications were listed.
So sure, you can make up all you like, or go by the LDS myth spinners, or, you can find the letter.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I don’t have a problem with going back into history…if you don’t. The problem, of course, is this double standard I am faced with.
…that, and this accusation that the CoJCoLDS is being accused, in 2010, of being anti-Catholic, bigotted and insulting–and you have to go back over a hundred and fifty years to find a quote that would support your claim.
…and that you use these few quotes from a century and a half ago to justify the stuff YOU say right now.
If that doesn’t bother you, it should.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, no. The Catholic church is NOT going to give you any grief about saying that the BoM 'condemns the LDS church," Jerusha. Nor is it going to give you any grief about saying that “Masonry has some positive points.”
On the other hand, Bruce R. McConkie, a man who was a highly respected leader of the church and soon to be made an apostle of it, got in a LOT of trouble with the LDS church for writing that the the Catholics were the church of the devil. He was told to fix that in all future editions of his book. Since the church doesn’t DO that sort of thing a lot, that was a fairly big deal.
Oddly enough, I’m not really all that impressed with your claim that the Catholics wouldn’t have any problem with you being insulting/critical towards another faith.
D
dianaiad
Guest
CFR.
- Status