Something I don't get about apostates

[Tex]

Finished watching "The Mormons" last night (more on that some other time) and was struck afresh by strange comments from apostates.

Take Margaret Toscano, self-proclaimed intellectual and apparent feminist. We first heard her voice in the documentary introduce her self as one (my words), "stripped of my wedding vows ... my sealing to my husband and my children has been cancelled." Later, she describes the disciplinary council where she was excommunicated as "violent," so much that she's confused when some of the high councilmen involved desire to shake her hand and express love for her after its completion. (One of the few moments I actually laughed out loud during the presentation.)

My question is, why does she care? If you feel that the Book of Mormon is not true or its history is a fraud, or that Joseph Smith was a fraud or a fallen prophet, or that the current leadership has lost God's favor, or that the doctrine is not true and does not make sense ...

... why do you care about the ordinances? I can understand missing the fellowship or the fraternity, but the ordinances? Why do you long for the ceremonies, the efficacy and value of which you by definition reject?

It is a fascinating paradox that intellectual apostates don't really want to leave the church, they just want to change it.

[MikeWaters]

What about Neil Labute's disfellowship? He was disfellowshipped for writing the play "Bash".

I think the key aspect to being excommunicated is that you have to do something public that someone high up in the church doesn't like.

If I write a play, where say, one Mormon mission kills his companion.....I won't be exed. Because the play will suck and will never see the light of day.

But if it did see the light of day.....all bets are off.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What about Neil Labute's disfellowship? He was disfellowshipped for writing the play "Bash".

I think the key aspect to being excommunicated is that you have to do something public that someone high up in the church doesn't like.

If I write a play, where say, one Mormon mission kills his companion.....I won't be exed. Because the play will suck and will never see the light of day.

But if it did see the light of day.....all bets are off.

I think there's a difference between private personal apostasy/wrongdoings and public apostasy/wrongdoings which directly/indirectly encourage others in the faith to do so likewise.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think there's a difference between private personal apostasy/wrongdoings and public apostasy/wrongdoings which directly/indirectly encourage others in the faith to do so likewise.

Or might be considered negative PR.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think there's a difference between private personal apostasy/wrongdoings and public apostasy/wrongdoings which directly/indirectly encourage others in the faith to do so likewise.

It does raise an interesting question, though. If you were to write something bad about the church and try to publish it but failed, I doubt you would be excommunicated. If you were to succeed, you very well could be.

So, you aren't excommunicated for your action alone necessarily, but you are excommunicated if other people act to promote your action. A bit odd.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Tex

Finished watching "The Mormons" last night (more on that some other time) and was struck afresh by strange comments from apostates.

Take Margaret Toscano, self-proclaimed intellectual and apparent feminist. We first heard her voice in the documentary introduce her self as one (my words), "stripped of my wedding vows ... my sealing to my husband and my children has been cancelled." Later, she describes the disciplinary council where she was excommunicated as "violent," so much that she's confused when some of the high councilmen involved desire to shake her hand and express love for her after its completion. (One of the few moments I actually laughed out loud during the presentation.)

My question is, why does she care? If you feel that the Book of Mormon is not true or its history is a fraud, or that Joseph Smith was a fraud or a fallen prophet, or that the current leadership has lost God's favor, or that the doctrine is not true and does not make sense ...

... why do you care about the ordinances? I can understand missing the fellowship or the fraternity, but the ordinances? Why do you long for the ceremonies, the efficacy and value of which you by definition reject?

It is a fascinating paradox that intellectual apostates don't really want to leave the church, they just want to change it.

I don't know that all are considered apostates.

I suspect most stories cannot be boiled down neatly into an issue of non-belief. Perhaps many people maintain belief but wish to explore areas that run counter to church teaching/doctrine and insist on doing so in a very public manner. Or they see aspects of their beloved Church that they think need changing and wish to publicly act as a catalyst for that change. Or as a matter of artistic or intellectual expression they wish to explore areas The Church finds unsavory/embarassing/unacceptable/dangerous.

I do wonder in such cases why they are willing to risk that which they hold so dear. I can only conclude that they hold one more dear than the other. Perhaps they are in the right. The Church is only a vehicle for the administration of The Gospel. I look to God to sort it all out in the end. Meanwhile, I see myself charting a safe course, which is easy since I rarely think outside of the box and am not very creative or talented.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So, you aren't excommunicated for your action alone necessarily, but you are excommunicated if other people act to promote your action. A bit odd.

It takes a village.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It does raise an interesting question, though. If you were to write something bad about the church and try to publish it but failed, I doubt you would be excommunicated. If you were to succeed, you very well could be.

So, you aren't excommunicated for your action alone necessarily, but you are excommunicated if other people act to promote your action. A bit odd.

This is really outside the question I asked, but I'll bite anyway. Is it really so odd? With apostasy, is not the seriousness of the remedy directly related to the extent of the "damage"? You can sit in your pew and apostasize all you want in your head ... it's when you begin to spread it to others that it becomes a problem.

More to my point, though ... perhaps myboynoah has hit it. People who are apostates don't really consider themselves apostates--they're good little Uzzahs, out trying to help the ark.

It still confuses me, though, that they crave the approval (via ordinance) of a church they feel has fallen.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It does raise an interesting question, though. If you were to write something bad about the church and try to publish it but failed, I doubt you would be excommunicated. If you were to succeed, you very well could be.

So, you aren't excommunicated for your action alone necessarily, but you are excommunicated if other people act to promote your action. A bit odd.

Attempted murderers don't get the same sentence as successful ones.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is really outside the question I asked, but I'll bite anyway. Is it really so odd? With apostasy, is not the seriousness of the remedy directly related to the extent of the "damage"? You can sit in your pew and apostasize all you want in your head ... it's when you begin to spread it to others that it becomes a problem.

More to my point, though ... perhaps myboynoah has hit it. People who are apostates don't really consider themselves apostates--they're good little Uzzahs, out trying to help the ark.

It still confuses me, though, that they crave the approval (via ordinance) of a church they feel has fallen.

I think it is a bit odd because the purpose of excommunication, according to the church, is to help a person repent. The actual reason for the excommunication you are hinting at is primarily related to the damage and negative publicity the person brought to the church (which makes the excommunication sound a bit more like PR or punishment than repentance). If that person's actions alone were sufficient to excommunicate them, then they would be excommunicated even if their publication didn't get a lot of attention.

So it seems a bit odd to me.