Did This SP Go Too Far?
 

This newspaper article is getting alot of play today across the country. I just wonder if it would have been better for the SP not to make a public announcement:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/98035

I found this interesting

He said he intends to continue to accompany his wife, Nancy, to ward services.
“It is tough to go, tough to attend, but I enjoy the fellowship,” he said.

He said he has no desire to join another church, adding that the Mormon faith has many merits, such as its strong family values and its internationally recognized welfare system to help those in need.

That's interesting, growing up in rural Utah I actually heard public announcements about members of my stake who were ex'd for polygamy. But to do it on account of the sharing of ideas, wow, I've never heard that. If you have the truth, why be afraid of ideas? What does the truth have to fear from inquiry? Are members not to be trusted to discern what is true and what is false in what this guy says? These, of course, are rhetorical questions.

Another guy who freaked out when he found out that the church has been white-washing its history.

That's why when discuss these controversial things on CG, we are actually doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.

No kidding.

I wonder what could be gained from the public announcement?

I don't have a problem with the public announcement. I think in D&C things are instructed to be much more public than they are typically done now.

For example, a person is supposed to confess their sins in front of the whole church. But we don't do that.

This is a lot like the case in Eagle Mountain we talked about before. My parents bishop announced to everyone in the ward to stay away from his family and beware his teachings.

I'm not familiar with the circumstances of this specific case, but when a person who has apostasized has served in leadership positions, the church has an interest in curtailing his influence. Innocent members, especially those less mature in gospel understanding or testimony, may be unduly influenced by someone whom they regard as authoritative. This is especially true (and probably directly correlative) to how vocal and public the person is about his apostasy. Publicly announcing discipline effectively dispels any aura of authority an apostate might artificially carry.

As noted in the article, such an announcement is rare, but apparently deemed necessary in this case. I understand the reasons why the church would feel a need to do so.

Wow, surely I don't know the details, but....I mean, was this guy and his family a danger to society, or was he a good guy who was vocal about alternative beliefs? I could understand taking away the home teachers, callings, and making sure that his message was not perpetuated in the church. But isn't it severely unchristian to use your standing in an LDS congregation to get people to ostracize him on a social level? Again, if he was a physical danger to society or a bad person, I guess I could see it...

The SP reminds me of some people I know and my youth. Beware of the boogie man because he could influence you to lose your testimony. These types don't think you should question publicly anything the brethern might say for fear someone could lose their testimony over it.

Geez, if their testimonies are that fragile, how they going to make it when the real trials come.

You don't think the church has an interest in making sure it clearly delineates who speaks for it, and who doesn't?

The guy would not hold any positions in the church. Surely the members could tell if he was saying something contrary to what other leaders were teaching.

For heck sakes, I don't know for sure if you are a leader or not and I can listen to your stuff and not damage my testimony.

Now if a guy is going around proclaiming to being a leader and spouting off falsehoods, then I would surely want to get it out he does not speak for the church.

Since it isn't church policy to out excommunicated members, I think you can be assured this is the SP's idea of what needs to be done and wouldn't be something done by all SP's.

He is the SP and has the right to do what he did. If I were in his Stake I would still raise my right hand and sustain him. Fortunately saying I sustain him doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

Very odd situation which might have been avoided through historical innoculation.

Innoculation? Joseph Smith and polygamy is hardly top secret material. I'm calling BS on this guy's claim he didn't know about this until a few years ago, ESPECIALLY since he claimed he went on a mission.

Actually, his little rant about losing his faith in the church due to his historical research sounds very familiar after hanging out in this Den of Innoculation.

I think it does have that interest. And yet, many apostates are excommunicated every year and this is not done so far as I know. I guess I wonder why the church's legitimate interests are protected in this fashion here but not in all cases.

One effect will be to humiliate the mans family. I actually have much more sympathy for them than him. He is apparently public about the fact that he doesn't believe in the church any longer so I can't fathom why he would care whether it was announced in sacrament meeting or on a full page ad in the newspaper, unless it is out of concern for his family.

His story may not wash and the claim of a SP making a public proclamation is also strange. This is the first of which I am aware.

It certainly is strange and not everything adds up.

I too find this guys story a little odd. His two daughters had gone inactive. All of his brothers are being bugged by this new found knowledge.

However, I find you a little out of it too. I don't know when this guy went on a mission, but I didn't find out about Joseph Smiths multiple wives until long after my mission. Back in the 60's we didn't care about those things.

I can also guarantee you many false things were taught as doctrine with the intended desire to keep the truth away from people who might have weak testimonies.

It can be a little sobering to grow up believing one thing and finding out you were being misled. Misled by people you were told would never misleed you.

I am not speaking of the brethern here, but leaders in wards and Stakes. Fortunately I learned that for myself and when I found out the brethern also mispoke, it wasn't a big deal.

I agree that this is a silly thing to lose ones faith over. However, the fact of the matter is that huge numbers of people are unfamiliar with it. Some of them are bothered by it when they find out.

As has been said before, the foundational claims of the church (and any religion) are fantastic and require faith to be believed. The point being that incorporating the truth into the narrative could be subtly accomplished and it would require no more faith to believe the full story that the partial story.

I don't see it as a big deal, I'm just not sure why we hold back on these things. In my business when someone is hiding something I usually assume that it must be bad for them else why hide it. I just don't see how this is bad for the church and while I wouldn't say it is "hiding it" it is at least obscuring it through omission. I certainly don't presume to counsel the brethren, i just don't see what the big deal about being open on this issue is.

Krakauer's book hit Finderson like a ton of bricks as well. So I don't think it is terribly uncommon for members to be shocked.

It seems like this man fits several parameters to combine for a perfect storm:

1. He held public leadership positions
2. He is vocal about his views
3. He has openly apostasized
4. He intends on remaining "active" (such as it is)

That seems like recipe for confusion among those less spiritually mature than BYU71.

That may be an effect, but I don't think it can be fairly reasoned that it is a supporting cause. And I don't doubt he's concerned about the effect on his family, but he should've considered that when he went public. It's his own behavior that has brought this down ... as you have already noted, not every apostate gets it read from the pulpit.

I like the idea he is remaining active. It can be a useful provokation.

Heck yes, let him remain active. However, if I was his Bishop I would let him know he is using the facilities and although he isn't required to pay tithing he doesn't get a free ride either. I would charge him a useage fee for the amount of time spent in the building.

Just to clarify, he went public after the church informed him that they were going public.

That being said I am sure his family would have suffered whatever embarrassment they will suffer whether the leaders read his name in church or not. It is not as if these things don't become popular on the relief society gossip circuit.

You are right. He is probably really ticked that it comes out that he is a theological threat, not very juicy.

If it had been left up to the imagination of the sisters, he could be a well known Don Jaun in the area. A cheating SOB.

how could a guy who just found out that JS had more than one wife be a threat. He must be a mental midget.

The real threat is the ward and leaders of the ward he grew up in. Sounds like his brothers are also folding like cheap suits over the issue.

I am greatful for my ward leaders and parents. Countless inaccuracies coming to light have not injured me.

I recall the Petersons growing up. They taught a sunday school class when I was about 14 or so. They were great. They were Mormon liberals, and would slip in a juicy fact or two during their lessons. Stuff that had been carefully hidden from us up until that point. I can't remember any examples, but stuff like "Joseph Smith had more than one wife you know". I don't know if it was that, but stuff that made your eyebrows raise a little.

I remember that they were taken in by the bishopric and reprimanded. I can't remember if they were released or just told to not mention stuff like that again.

Thank you Br. and Sister Peterson for telling the truth.

Not a comment on the person in the story, but my own personal experience - I was aware growing up of JS' polygamy, but NOT of his polyandry. To me there is a clear difference between the two. Polygamy as a religious principle is understandable in a historical context; polyandry is much more difficult and without scriptural precedent. Not a testimony breaker for me, just a perplexing question for which I have not heard a good answer. Clearly there are enough reputable historical citations and eyewitness testimonies to support the fact that the polyandry occurred. I don't understand the context or how it was justified.

The dude in Eagle Mountain is a lot strange. I believe Sterling Allen is fully funded by folks who donate money to him. Methinks he is a bit of a threat.

However, he is unique in Eagle Mountain. He pays his phone and internet bill. Monthly, and not one check has bounced!

Why then did it not object to the title Bruce R. McConkie gave to his book?

I am with Indy, many of us don't like the Church whitewashing history so we jump on our innoculation bandwagon because that is the endstate we desire.

There has to be more to this story than what is being reported. There is no way a guy in his 40's who is cognizant was unaware of what he claims he was unaware of.

McConkie, apostate. Yeah, that's about the same thing, isn't it.

Are you serious? I read most of it and thought it sucked. IIRC, it really wasn't even about the LDS Church. It was a book on crazy religious fundamentalists and the strange they do, just with the mormon vein so to speak. I never understood what polygamy had to do with the Lafferty's wigging out. It seemed very disjointed to me.

I agree that it wasn't a very good book. It did have historical tidbits in it that aren't going to be in your institute manual.

This guy is a total donkey's arse.

How stupid can you be to grow up in the Mormon Church and be an EQ president 4 times, and not know that JS had wives up the yin yang? And I wouldn't expect the Church to advertise it either.

This is the biggest problem for people who are so certain about their "testimonies." In my opinion, the first step in gaining a genuine testimony is to admit that we know basically nothing about supernatural things, and that other people also know basically nothing (including prophets).

The other thing this guy doesn't get is that if he wants it to be true, then that's all that matters. Alma nailed that one. I just take the things that I want to be true, and I keep wanting them to be true (e.g. polygamy in heaven). And the other things that I don't want to be true, I continue not wanting them to be true (e.g. getting sent to the telestial kingdom for masturbation).

Has nothing to do with apostacy and everything to do with ensuring those who speak for the Church are authorized, or at least accurate. Certainly one definition of apostacy is false teachings, and those are in the aforementioned book.;)

Ha! I know that guy. Well, I worked with him and he would try to discuss things with me when he found out I studied Greek. The following is a true story: He carried around a Greek Concordance (it was something like strong's concordance) with each Greek word numbered. He would take a number, such as Utah's area code, 801, and look up the corresponding Greek word. In this case, word #801 was the Greek for "foolish". He told me that this meant that people in Utah were being foolish and on the wrong track. I thought he was joking at first but soon realized he was dead serious. I just avoided these types of conversations after that. But I wouldn't see the need to treat him differently than other people. I would just nod my head, and say "hmm, interesting" and change the subject. The guy speaks for himself, no need to be ostracizing him socially as far as I'm concerned. Seemed like a good but misguided guy.

I'd bet it was polyandry that shook this guy up. Anyone who says that most LDS know about polyandry are dead wrong. But that being said there's still something wrong with this guy's story. Compton wrote an entire book documenting the polygamous and polyandrous relationships of Smith and Young, basically introducing many of us to the truth of what happened. Compton was never ex'ed. I really doubt this guy was ex'ed for his beliefs re: polygamy, there's something more to it than that.

I admire people so much more when they just say they didn't want to be Mormon anymore, or when they come out of the closet and say that Mormonism isn't compatible with a homosexual lifestyle.

I get really tired of reading about people's journeys of discovery...e.g. when they found out that JS did the nasty with a teenager in a barn, etc, and how they realized they couldn't belong to a Church that was founded by a hypersexual bipolar prophet.

I don't believe people are Mormon because the JS story (with visions, angels, plates, etc.) is easy to believe. I think people are Mormon because they like being Mormon.

And I don't believe people leave Mormonism because the JS story is hard to believe. People quit being Mormon because they don't like being Mormon.

That's the way I see things, anyway.

How can you say that it is a silly thing to lose ones faith over? If one is objective and one reads the unsanitized version of Church History, it is not at all difficult for one to come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was little more than a whore-monger who invented polygamy to cover-up his philandering. Why would you expect an objective person to come to any other conclusion?