Book Review: Latter-Day Dissent

A few months ago, I received an advance copy of a new book by Philip Lindholm called Latter-day Dissent: At the Crossroads of Intellectual Inquiry and Ecclesiastical Authority.  The book is supposed to be released on Friday by Greg Kofford Books.  Lindholm interviews 5 of the “September Six”, as well as 3 others.

The September Six refer to a group of 6 intellectuals that were disciplined by the church in 1993.

  1. Lynne Whitesides*
  2. Paul Toscano
  3. Maxine Hanks
  4. Lavina Anderson
  5. Michael Quinn
  6. Avraham Gileadi**

*Five of the six were excommunicated with Lynne Whitesides being the exception–she was disfellowshipped.

**Of the six disciplined, only Avraham Gileadi was rebaptized. Lindholm notes in the Introduction,

A conservative biblical scholar, Gileadi consistently refused to speak to the press following his excommunication, and he remains the only member of the September Six to be rebaptized and admitted back into the fold.  In keeping with this precedent, Gileadi did not respond to my interview request for this volume.

Lindholm also interviews 3 others who have been disciplined by the church since 1991:

  • Margaret Toscano,
  • her sister Janice Merrill Allred, and
  • Thomas Murphy.

For balance, Lindholm interviews Donald Jessee, former employee of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department.

I really liked the book.  My only mild criticism was the fact that it is apparent these interviews occurred several years ago, but the book is just coming out now.  For example, the author asked every guest if they believed Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet, rather than Thomas S. Monson. ÂI asked the publisher why some of the material seemed dated, and he said it took quite some time to get permission from all of the people.  The last interview took place in 2004.

The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications themselves) was learning about the Strengthening the Church Committee (SCMC).  I had never heard of it before.  In describing it, Lynne Whitesides said on page 6,

There is a Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.

Footnote 4 on page 181 further clarifies this.

According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the Strengthening Church Members Committee is a “clipping service” that “pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems.  That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.”  Quoted in “News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,” Sunstone 92 (November 1993): 69.  The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the Strengthening Church Members Committee when it stated, “This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics.  It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.”  Quoted in “News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,” Sunstone 88 (August 1992): 63.  Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.

Here is what Donald Jessee, former employee of LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department said when asked about the committee.  From page 217-220,

Donald:  It ‘s a committee that seeks information that, in time, if the proper action is taken, does just that–it can strengthen Church members through proper discipline.

Philip:  How so?  Many excommunicants have claimed that it collected files on them in preparation for potential disciplinary courts.

Donald:  They do it by caring about members of the Church.  Discipline is designed to help members who have gone astray.  The Church from its beginning has gathered anti-Mormon literature and derogatory or false information about the Church.  If the source of this information comes from Church members of record, then action is taken.  The Church must be aware of its critics and enemies.  Again, Church leaders must keep the Church morally clean and ethically straight.

Philip:  Should academics avoid publishing research if it could be understood as contradicting the Church’s position on a given topic?

Donald:  Members can publish whatever they want.  There’s no censorship.  It depends on the context and the person’s motives in doing what has been done.  If a BYU professor, whose salary is paid with Church funds and who has signed an honor code of conduct to keep university rules, then publicly goes out and violates them, then that person is subject to discipline, but he or she is free to speak about any issue he or she wants to….

Philip:  What about those topics not yet given much attention by Church leaders?  Do members have free reign on those topics?  Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for doing genetic research that the Mormon Church had yet to conduct.  How much freedom is one afforded on such controversial but relatively unaddressed topics?  Mother in Heaven is another example of a controversial topic upon which people have published and been punished for doing so.

Donald:  Well, in the case of Murphy, he says that because of DNA he has proven that the Book of Mormon is not true.  How does he know?  There were other groups of people here in America before Lehi arrived here….How could DNA prove or disprove the truthfulness of a book brought here under the hand of God?…

I do not know anything regarding those who have been disciplined for publishing on the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.  Chances are they presented their ideas in a way that ran counter to true religion and to the Church and its teachings.  Speculation on such matters can lead members astray and destroy faith in God the Father.  Praying to a Mother in Heaven is not a true doctrine, no matter how it is defined or presented.  It undermines faith in the true process of offering prayers, which is to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Christ.

Members can believe anything they want.  Church members may believe they have a Mother in Heaven, but to go out teaching that we ought to pray to her, or that we give details about her when both the prophets and the scriptures are silent–this violates the teachings of the Church…

If Church members go to their friends and start talking about practicing plural marriage, they are not in harmony with the Church.  Yes, there are some things where common sense says, “Don’t discuss it in private or in public.”  Otherwise, hey, I’ve got the freedom to think anything I want, but I need to be careful that I’m not trying to represent the Church with my point of view or convince others that a certain doctrine or practice represents true religion or is what the issue or is what the Church teaches.  As an individual, I can speculate all I want on any issue or topic as long as I keep to myself those matters that are not in harmony with truth and the Church and its teachings.

If I am a prominent or well thought of member of the Church, and I present a paper in the name of religious freedom that one might consider worshiping idols, I can expect Church discipline.  That doctrine is contrary to true religion and the teachings of God.  To bring up controversial topics in meetings such as sacrament meeting, Sunday School, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, etc., could raise questions and jeopardize one’s standing in the Church…

Philip:  Yet Janice Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for her insistence on publishing a clearly speculative paper entitled, “Toward a Theology of God the Mother.”4 Why was she disciplined for asserting her opinion?

Donald:  I believe I have already established the fact that I can’t comment on Church discipline, as that is confidential and would violate privacy issues.  As a member of the church, I don’t know.  I wasn’t involved there and don’t know the facts.  Such a doctrine has not been revealed through a living prophet, and it is not appropriate to be a member of the Church and teach to others in any setting doctrines or practices that run counter to true religion and the Church and its teachings, such as practicing plural marriage or other theories that are not mainstream teachings of the living prophets.

I really thought Whitesides “Gestapo-like” comment was a wild exaggeration, but after hearing what Jessee had to say, I’m not so sure.  According to Wikipedia,

The committee was formed during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson,[1] soon after Benson became president in 1985.[2]

The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry.[3] The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). England came to regret his impulsive comments and apologized to all parties individually.[4]

In response to this public discourse, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee.[5] LeFevre said that the committee “receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that ‘conceivably could do harm to the church'”, then the committee will “pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” According to LeFevre, however, “the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.” Discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders.”[6]

After reading all this, I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs.  I find it a little ironic that President Benson started it.  He was quite a conspiracy theoriest, as I mentioned in my post about his anti-Communist rhetoric.  I keep hearing in different settings that the church is much more open now, but I’m not so sure.  For example, at a recent conference at BYU, professor Ronald Esplin said this is one of the best environments to study church history since the “Camelot” era of the 1970s.

However, discipline for intellectuals still seems to occur.   The Wikipedia article mentions that in 2004, the committee put together a dossier on Grant Palmer, author of Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.  (Palmer was disfellowshipped.)  In the introduction, Lindholm notes on page xii, that excommunications of academics has continued beyond the notorious 1993 September Six (formatting changed)

  • In 1994, Professor David Wright of Brandeis University and editor Brent Metcalf were excommunicated for their scripture studies in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:  Explorations in Critical Methodology
  • In 1995, author Janice Allred was excommunicated for her writings about Mother in Heaven.
  • In 2000, Professor Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for her theological reflections, and
  • in 2002, Professor Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for his anthropological work on Mormonism.
  • In addition, many other unnamed intellectuals were called into disciplinary interviews that did not result in excommunication.

I know Simon Southerton resigned under pressure from the church following his publication of information on DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Last week, I learned that John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and StayLDS was summoned to a meeting with his Stake President.  He said the meeting went well, and solicited comments to his website.  From my point of view, it bears a lot of parallels with Lynne Whitesides experience in 1993.  John has recently been interviewed on ABC and other news organizations.  Lynne was called in to talk to her bishop following an interview with Chris Vanocur on Channel 4, KTVX.  Here’s what Lynne said on page 4,

In May when my bishop called me to come in to talk, I thought, “Wow…this is great.  Maybe the system does work.  Maybe this church really is a place where I can get comfortable.”  I was very excited.  I left early from my feminism class up at the University of Utah to meet with him.  When I walked in, he was with his two counselors, all in suits, and I’m thinking, “Wow, they really want me back at church.  This is great!”  I sat down, and Virgil Merrill, the bishop, said, “Elder Loren C. Dunn has asked us to meet with you to see if we need to take any ecclesiastical action against you.”

I started to laugh and couldn’t stop.  “Give me a minute,” I said, “I thought you called me in here because you cared about me.  Let me just have a quick moment to adjust.”  Their faces…you could see that what I has said shocked them, but then we had a lovely talk.  It was not confrontational at all; it was amazing.  At the end, Virgil said he was going to tell Dunn that I was fine.  So, when I received the summons letter I was shocked.

Philip:  Your bishop gave you no warning at all that you were going to be tried by a church court?

Lynne:  No, nothing.  When I found out, I called Lavinia [Fielding Anderson] immediately….We also wrote a letter to the bishop saying that if he went through with the church court, then we were going to let the media know.  Virgil wrote back saying that he wanted to hold it.  He didn’t realize what he was getting into.  He didn’t realize how much press coverage it was going to get.  We heard through the grapevine, he was getting pressure from [Boyd K.] Packer2 and other leaders to excommunicate me.

Philip:  Can you elaborate on “the grapevine”?

Lynne:  One of the bishopric counselors involved in my court was related to a  reporter I knew.  Both were at a barbecue once, and the counselor told the reporter, not thinking it would ever get back to me, that they were getting pressure from Church leaders to “do something” about Lynne Whitesides.  Well, it did get back to me, and I knew this going into the trial.

Well, I’ve already quoted quite a bit from the book.  Let me end with a quick summary of things the church apparently doesn’t like us discussing:

  • Lynne Whitesides was disfellowshipped for “why I thought it was all right to pray to a female diety.”
  • Paul Toscano was excommunicated for defending his wife Margaret.  Basically Margaret was the real target.  To save her, Paul blasted church leaders and was excommunicated for insubordination.  (I’ll discuss Margaret in a bit.)
  • Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for her book Women and Authority.
  • Lavina Fielding Anderson was excommunicated for documenting ecclesiastical abuse in the Church.
  • Michael Quinn was excommunicated for writing a chapter in Hanks book, Women and Authority, and for a Sunstone presentation in 1992 called “150 Years of Truth and Consequences in Mormon History.”
  • Janice Merrill Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.
  • Margaret Merrill Toscano was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.  (Note Janice and Margaret are sisters.)
  • Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.”  Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.[3]

This book is very timely for me.  I have wanted to get more involved in church history.  I also want to maintain good standing in the church.  Lindholm quotes Armaund Mauss in the introduction.  Mauss is a retired Mormon sociologist from Washington State University.  From page xxii

Even the most careful and diplomatic comments will not be much appreciated by many Church leaders, perhaps by most Church leaders, whether general or local.  We have to understand that much going in.  Do not expect to appear on the short list for bishop or Relief Society president if you have been regularly commenting on local or general Church matters.  If prominent Church positions are important to you, keep quiet.  If you’re going to speak up, whether in oral or written media, first cultivate thick skin, then abandon your aspirations for important Church callings; you shouldn’t have them anyway.  Finally, don’t whine when you’re passed over or looked upon with some suspicion.37

Footnote 45 quotes Mauss as saying,

I have come to feel increasingly marginal to the Mormon community during my adult life, at least in a social and intellectual sense, despite my continuing and conscientious participation in church activity (including leadership) and despite my own deep personal faith in the religion itself.

Lindholm goes on to say on page xxiii that

Mormonism is not alone in its desire to censor.  Most Christian traditions–Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike–have a long history of disciplining vocal dissent,42 which is a practice supported by a rather strong biblical basis.43.  The LDS Church, however, is different in that its leaders actively discipline select members in order to sustain the appearance of doctrinal purity for the sake of the Church’s integrity and public image.44

What do you make of this church discipline?  Do you have any advice for me?

48 comments on “Book Review: Latter-Day Dissent

  1. Your comments seem to confirm that it’s an unbalanced book. For example, while Quinn likes to portray himself as an academic martyr, Lavina Anderson all but says the real issue was his homosexuality. (“DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn,” in Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters) Does that receive any mention, or is Quinn simply taken at face value?

  2. Ben, I can understand why you would call the book “unbalanced”, but that’s not a term I would use to describe the book. As shown above, the book is written in interview format, and Lindholm simply tries to get the “dissenters” side of the story. I can’t say for sure because I don’t know, but I think it was really difficult to get Jessee’s permission–I suspect he was the only person that would talk to Lindholm to get the “church’s” side of the story. Unlike the other interviews, Lindholm makes a big disclaimer at the beginning of the interview that Jessee’s interview was edited and approved by Jessee. It sounds like Jessee did much more editing of his interview than any of the “dissenters.”

    I think this book fills a wonderful void. Many people on the bloggernacle have wanted to know more about the September Six–and this is the first book to really get their side of the story. We all know the church doesn’t officially comment on church discipline, citing privacy reasons. Well, I get that, but I am curious and want to know more.

    As for Quinn, his homosexuality wasn’t an issue in 1993 when he was excommunicated. Lindholm asks about it later in the interview, so yes there is info, but it was my impression that Quinn wasn’t “in the open” about homosexuality until long after he was exed. Does the essay you referred to paint a different picture?

  3. Wow, what a book. I hope this comes out in iBook or Kindle format.

    My advice to you is to continue to do exactly what you are doing.
    Unless it is known who MH is in the real world, you should be fine.
    Of course, I don’t know the type of resources that are available to this committee.

  4. Actually, we’ve heard nothing but the SS side since it happened… And yes, the essay by Anderson shows that Quinn’s sexuality was an issue, more important to his SP than his history writing.

  5. Ben, do you feel that Donald Jessee’s comments represented the church’s side well?

    Bishop Rick, I have been toying with getting rid of anonymity. I’m still undecided on the issue. My brother says that if I want to get published, I should use this blog as a resource since a certain number of people are already familiar with me. I’ve reached out to 2 scholars in particular, asking them about the wisdom of doing things for Sunstone. One person said it’s fine, while the other recommended against Sunstone. Hmmm….

  6. Hi, MH. I also had the chance to read a prepub copy and put a review together.

    Many people on the bloggernacle have wanted to know more about the September Six–and this is the first book to really get their side of the story.

    As I mentioned in my review, I think Lindholm actually missed an opportunity to make a stronger contribution in that he mostly overlooked all the previous stuff that has been published on this topic. Most of these folks have described their experiences in various symposia, publications, and youtube videos. Unfortunately the book has no bibliography, which would have been a really useful tool to help readers locate what’s already been said.

    As for Jessee, I was almost entirely dissatisfied with his interview.

    I dislike excommunication (to speak quite broadly), but I was still disappointed with Lindholm’s book generally.


  7. ps, I’ve done stuff with Sunstone and Dialogue.

  8. I think that this goes way back in church history. Remember Hiram Page and his peep stone? And then there was an attempted coup by some members of the Quorum of the twelve against Joseph. Remember how many members were vocally critical of Joseph during his tenure as prophet?
    We must also remember that it is not just the so called intellectuals who get excommunicated for publicly espousing doctrines and theories that run counter to or superimposed on the official LDS doctrine. They are just the ones that get the publicity. It seems that it is always portrayed as an intellectual versus the “establishment” of the LDS church scenario.
    There is always going to be this conflict. And I am not here to judge either side. That is not my place. But there are two sides to each story.


  9. BHodges, I’m pretty new on the Sunstone scene–I’ve been twice, and haven’t been exposed to the S6 stories. Perhaps this is a great book as an introduction for people like me. I’m not at all as familiar with their stories as you and Ben are. I guess this is a book for people like me. I’ve looked for info on the internet, but haven’t found anything that answered my questions, and this book fit the bill nicely for me.

    Bhodges, I remember your presentation at the Mormon Media symposium at BYU. Do you find that (as Armaund Mauss says) you are “looked upon with some suspicion” at church?

    Glenn, more than 100 years have passed since Hiram Page and his peep stone. I don’t see any current church members using peep stones and announcing revelations at church. The rhetoric today about church leaders isn’t anything like Joseph experienced. Is anyone recommending that Pres Monson be thrown in jail? Are there warrants out for his arrest? Is he running for president? I mean the criticism today is child’s play compared to criticism of Joseph in 1838. Back then, apostles were getting exe’d, not college professors. People like William McLellin were the “so called intellectuals” of the day. So I’m feeling like this is an apples to oranges comparison.

  10. MH,

    Well, you didn’t give me the getting published bit of all this. That does change the picture a bit. Still, if you come out of anonymity, you have to be prepared for the worst as well as the best.

    Personally I think it would be great, but there are TBMs that read your blog and consider you an anti, and there are DAMUs here that consider you an apologist.

    I wouldn’t be concerned if it were the other way around.

  11. Do you find that (as Armaund Mauss says) you are “looked upon with some suspicion” at church?

    To be honest, I couldn’t answer that unequivocally either way. As far as people I know personally, week to week in church, I’d say no, not really. From what I can tell people in my ward are comfortable with me. Once in a while I hear something that sounds a bit anti-intellectual in a church meeting and I pick and choose when I make any sort of reply in those moments.

    As far as some Mormons I’ve interacted with online, most definitely I’d say there has been a bit of suspicion, but not really all that much.

    To the extent that people feel uncomfortable with me I hope to let my light so shine as best I can and hope everything comes out in the wash.

    this is part of the problem I had with Lindholm’s book. I don’t think he tied it to an overall narrative which takes into account current movements in Mormon scholarship.

  12. Ah, “TBM.” That delightfully underhanded label.

  13. BHodges,

    From me it is not meant to be underhanded at all. I use it because everyone knows it describes a faithful member of the LDS church. I don’t consider it any more underhanded than DAMU.

  14. Bishop Rick, yes I’m well aware of being called both anti and apologist–as a moderate, I would expect some flak from both sides I guess. The anti stuff always causes me to scratch my head. I gave my mom “Rough Stone Rolling” a while back and asked her how she liked the book. She felt it was a bit too anti for her tastes. Well, if Richard Bushman is considered anti, then it really is tough to be a moderate Mormon.

  15. That’s exactly the point. People don’t like moderates. They want agreement or disagreement. Moderates are associated with something luke warm being spewed out of someone’s mouth.

    Moderates have scripture against them…and everyone knows those scriptures.
    Doesn’t matter if the scripture is being misapplied or not.

  16. @Mormon Heretic

    MH —

    Your point about your mother’s response to “Rough Stone Rolling” is very discouraging to me.

    I’ve seen the same response in my family — basically that the book is “too realistic” and thus is not faith promoting. I was even told by one close family member that they didn’t want to know the truth, that they preferred the sugar-coated version that had previously learned.


    That kind of “head in the sand” mentality is just maddening to me.

  17. “The LDS Church, however, is different in that its leaders actively discipline select members in order to sustain the appearance of doctrinal purity for the sake of the Church’s integrity and public image.44”

    Didn’t get that point at all. It is certainly true in the CofChrist as well, although the disciplinary boundary is closer to acting/declining to act in the name of the church or failing to distinguish church doctrines from personal opinions.

    As to my advice, you’ll know more about my opinion after this weekend.


  18. FireTag, I look forward to your post.

    I guess I will keep my anonymity for now. I read some disturbing allegations at StayLDS that a few stakes near Cache Valley are hunting for “Middle Way” Mormons. CWald from Oregon claims that it is instigated by an Area Authority Seventy. If you dare wade through all the 140+ comments, cwald makes some interesting claims, enough to keep me anonymous for now. See http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2456

  19. Wow, I read about half the comments including all of CWald’s.
    That is really something. You can bet this site is being monitored as well.
    I had never heard the term “Middle Way” mormon before, but it describes me pretty well. Not 100% but close enough.

    Can’t you use a pen name and still get published?

  20. Thanks for your interest, Rick. The book will be released in Kindle format in 2-3 weeks.@Bishop Rick

  21. I appreciate the review of the book, and hope it does indeed introduce those unfamiliar with the events of the September Six to that socio-historical milieu and the personalities of those involved.

  22. Philip, great to know. I will keep a look out for it.

  23. @Mormon Heretic
    MH, my point is that there has been dissent and excommunications in the church from the very first, and not just from “intellectuals.” I was not comparing then and now, but pointing out then, now, and all in between. And, I think I am safe in saying, that it will continue.

    And, we really only hear one side of the story.


  24. Bishop Rick, a pen name is something I have considered. The jury’s out. But I am excited to attend the MHA meetings later this month in St. George, and I hope to do some networking with established scholars to see if they can guide me through talking about controversial topics. Many have been able to do it just fine.

    Philip, thanks for stopping by! I also post at another blog called Wheat and Tares and will post a shorter review there on Monday. It has a much higher readership, and it would be nice for you to comment there if you have time. I expect a lively conversation over there.

    Glenn, I would love to hear Boyd K. Packer, Loren C. Dunn, or any of the stake presidents sides of the story. How about you? Do you think we ever will?

  25. […] podcast, but John gives a very interesting introduction to the book.  In light of my recent post Latter-day Dissent, I thought I would continue the theme of how the church deals with intellectuals. This book was […]

  26. Befor anyone commends the CofC for being more “open-minded” and “tolerant” than the LDS, I would recall lots of their membership being called on the carpet for not supporting women’s ordination. At least one congregation had their elected presiding Elder removed because of it, and later the entire Stake was declared to be in a state of disorder.

  27. […] you’re interested in more information, I have a longer version of this post.  What do you think of the state of intellectualism in the church? […]

  28. Rick: People don’t like moderates. They want agreement or disagreement. Moderates are associated with something luke warm being spewed out of someone’s mouth.

    I think it entirely depends on what one is moderate about and in what way. (Think of the word of wisdom, for instance. we could take it apart and apply it in many different ways. in what ways and how seems to be the key.)

    From me it is not meant to be underhanded at all. I use it because everyone knows it describes a faithful member of the LDS church. I don’t consider it any more underhanded than DAMU.

    I take issue with this because “TBM”, it seems to me, is not a self-applied label but rather an attempt to otherize. In most of the contexts I’ve seen it in it refers to gullible people who don’t do much critical thinking, and thus can’t see the obvious problems with Mormonism. Thus they are active in the Church because they don’t know any better. Derision or pity, take your pick, but that’s what the label means to me. As for DAMU, I try to avoid applying a label like that. If people adopt it for themselves that might be a bit different. I reckon most members of the Church haven’t ever heard of wither term, though. That’s one reason I don’t think it will make the same sort of voyage that “queer” has made, a term applied by outsiders to differentiate or marginalize which is then co-opted by the target and embraced. (The term “Mormon” made this journey too.)

  29. Your point about your mother’s response to “Rough Stone Rolling” is very discouraging to me.

    That is disappointing, but I’m not really discouraged by it. This may be partly due to the fact that I gave my mom a copy of RSR and she really liked it. So did my grandpa, who is a former stake pres. and currently a temple sealer/stake patriarch.

  30. Here’s one curious suspicion: it seems to me that some of the people who are surprised or appalled about excommunication are also the sort of people who act as though they know a lot about church history. If this were they case, they might be more ready to draw on historical instances of excommunication dating back to the 1830s, but we don’t see a lot of that in the discussion. Instead we see appeals to first amendment rights, of all things, and things like that.

  31. mark, firetag often comments here and he is a member of the CoC. he has said the the CoC learned from the divisiveness of the 1980’s and has tried to avert similar problems now. about 25 percent of the CoC left over the issue of female ordination. the divisive issue now appears to be gay marriage, but they seem to be handling it better than they did in the 1980’s.

    bhodges, are you referring to any people here not understanding early church excommunications in context?

  32. BHodges, I understand your point about TBM, but at the same time you chose to be offended where no offense was intended. Not much I can do about that.

  33. Bhodges, I have been called a TBM on some of the more liberal and anti websites, and I accept the label gladly. As has been said before, some people think I’m too liberal to be called a TBM, but I am a believer. Onmy newest post, I also accept UBM (Unorthodox Believing Member) and TBMH (True Believing Mormon Heretic) as well.

  34. […] Avery.  John gives a very interesting introduction to the book.  In light of my recent post Latter-day Dissent, I thought I would continue the theme of how the church deals with intellectuals. This book was […]

  35. You know, I read all of this and I have to ask the simple question with regard to the official LDS church: Is this Jesus? I thought Jesus was just about loving one another and “go thy way and sin no more.” “Come unto me all ye who are heavy ladden and I will give you rest.”

    All of this mean spirited, witch hunt mentality and conduct by the LDS church is anti-Jesus.

    And all of these excommunications! Over what? Praying to a Mother in Heaven?! Voicing your opinions even though they suggest contrary doctrines? What‘s wrong with someone just attending church to take the sacrament and to have some Christian fellowship regardless of what they think and SAY?

    I don’t understand this nonsense that no one can speak their opinions among ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’? That’s just so… cultish. God gave me a brain to reason and figure things out. There is no evil in using it and discussing what it conjectures.

  36. I’m not very comfortable with the term “cultish”. Mormons acted much less severe than Catholics when Galileo was forced to recant (among other items), and nobody really refers to the Catholics as a cult. Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.

  37. […] to share the story of Lavinia Fielding Anderson.  She is a real enigma to me.  She is one of the September Six excommunicated in 1993.  Despite this, she has continued to attend her ward faithfully every week.  She shares a unique […]

  38. […] to share the story of Lavinia Fielding Anderson.  She is a real enigma to me.  She is one of the September Six excommunicated in 1993.  Despite this, she has continued to attend her ward faithfully every week.  She shares a unique […]

  39. […] year, Mormon Heretic reviewed a book, Latter-Day Dissent, which provided an insight into the SCMC through its coverage of the September […]

  40. […] Utah State University, and will be publishing a book on the Lost 116 pages.  Maxine was one of the September Six, excommunicated in 1993 for being outspoken on feminism.  After that, she became part of the ministry in the Gnostic […]

  41. […] in which I think Church Leaders are concerned.  In these ares, I think I can understand why the Strengthening the Church Members Committee are concerned, though I still disagree with their decision to pressure Snuffer’s stake […]

  42. […] podcast, but John gives a very interesting introduction to the book.  In light of my recent post Latter-day Dissent, I thought I would continue the theme of how the church deals with […]

  43. […] to share the story of Lavina Fielding Anderson.  She is a real enigma to me.  She is one of the September Six excommunicated in 1993.  Despite this, she has continued to attend her ward faithfully every week.  She shares a unique […]

  44. […] Authority Malcolm Jeppsen.  In the interview, Malcolm Jeppsen was a driving force behind the September Six excommunications in 1993, and there was a concerted effort against these church members.  Malcolm was heavily […]

  45. […] Authority Malcolm Jeppsen.  In the interview, Malcolm Jeppsen was a driving force behind the September Six excommunications in 1993, and there was a concerted effort against these church members.  Malcolm was heavily […]

  46. […] to be cautious when discussing history.  This controversial era of church history influenced the Sept Six Excommunications in 1993.  Haws discussed Richard Bushman’s internship program to help groom Mormon scholars begun in the […]

  47. […] few months after this [in]famous talk, six intellectuals were disciplined (known now as the September Six–five were excommunicated and one disfellowshipped.) The church initially claimed that these […]

  48. […] few months after this [in]famous talk, six intellectuals were disciplined (known now as the September Six–five were excommunicated and one disfellowshipped.)  The church initially claimed that these […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 569 other followers

%d bloggers like this: