78 responses so far ↓

• 1 Holly // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:50 am

  Well, it’s not the decision I would make by any means, but you explain your reasoning well, and I’m pretty darn curious about how it all shakes out. Good luck.

• 2 Melanie // Sep 8, 2009 at 11:45 am

  I’ll be thinking lots of happy thoughts for you guys on Wednesday. If it was me, I would go. I’ve always wished I could somehow confront the 100+ people who came to my baptism, to tell them what it feels like to lose your faith, what it feels like to leave, and what it feels like to be ok in the end. I’ve yearned for closure too.

• 3 Jonathan Blake // Sep 8, 2009 at 11:56 am

  Like I said on the last post, I don’t think there’s a right way to do this. I think it comes down to personal taste.

  You feel that a resignation isn’t a fitting ritual to bring closure to your membership. Who am I to question that feeling?

  For me, a resignation feels better because I leave on my on initiative, refusing to recognize their authority to pass judgment. Any resignation letter that I send will not be a meek “please remove my name from your lists” but a statement of why I couldn’t stay. It feels right for me that I take control of my own destiny.

• 4 G // Sep 8, 2009 at 11:58 am

  well said.
  you’ll be in my thoughts tomorrow.

• 5 Craig // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:04 pm

  There are times when I wish I had been excommunicated – that I had had a clearly defining moment of closure and a clear ending of membership in the church. Though I got part of that when I delivered my resignation letter to the bishop in person, it sometimes feels like it wasn’t quite enough.

  All of the reasons you give make perfect sense to me, and are all reasons I closely identify with. Because I didn’t go thorough excommunication myself, I’m very curious to know what your experience is going to be like.

  I think I’m close to being as committed to breaking down barriers of secrecy and exposing the truth as you are. Being one of those who was pushed to the margins in Mormonism and eventually left because there was no room in Mormonism for me because I am different, and as one who has come to truly feel like part of the virtual community you’ve created here, I’m very grateful you’re chronicling the experience for us, and letting us share in the journey – which is so similar to the one many of us are making or have made.

  Thank you.

• 6 Chandelle // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:14 pm

  I just wrote a long comment that probably sounded really harsh and unkind, but I decided to go with the spirit of the other comments here and just say, Good luck. Another vote for a wire.

• 7 alice // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  Your reasoning is clear and unequivocal and demonstrates great dignity and resolve.

  I wish you peace and resolution. And I hope you will put a tape recorder out for God and Man to hear what transpires. Love to hear what objections they may have or what explanation there might be for their failure to show as much fortitude and honesty.

• 8 William Shunn // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  (I caught the Card reference! I don’t find it entirely ironic, though, because Card’s collection really was concerned mostly with people on the fringes of Mormon society. That book is part of the proof that Card the Writer is [or, well, used to be] smarter and more compassionate than Card the Pundit.)

• 9 Jonathan Blake // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  IANAL, but if you considering recording the conversation, you’re on safer legal ground if everyone knows you’re recording. My suggestion was to put an audio recorder on the table where everyone can see.

• 10 Shelly! // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  John,

  While I haven’t hit this crossroads quite yet I do expect to at some point. I so appreciate the transparency you’ve allowed through your process. I belong to the group of people that you’ve always written for – a member of a nameless church that exists in the gray between Mormonism and the rest. And as I have faded more and more into inactivity and disbelief I’ve recognized that at some future point I’ll have to make a decision as to what I want my relationship with the church to be. Fortunately for me you’re journey has helped me with my own…and allowed me to begin my own healing process.

  I’ll be thinking of you tomorrow. And wishing you closure and peace.

• 11 Jonathan Blake // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  Or taking written notes.

• 12 Clay Whipkey // Sep 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm

  What if you record it, but only use the recording to maintain accuracy for your written account (and not publish the recording)? That seems like it would satisfy, but IANAL, either.

  The problem with openly taking notes or placing a recorder on the table is that you don’t get a very authentic exchange that way. You get the effect of people thinking in terms of PR more than how they really feel. A PR-influenced account of John Remy’s court doesn’t actually do anything to help random Joe or Sally prepare for their own low-profile court. Although, since these things can be so subjectively influence by the individual personalities involved, it might be impossible for anyone to truly “prepare”.

• 13 Mossie // Sep 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm

  My own departure from the LDS church was a significant event in my life, although it was done by a request for removal than by a court. I mentioned it briefly in
  this post: http://breathingmoss.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/utaaaahhhhh/

  Best wishes for this event in your journey with the institution.

• 14 Tabula Rasa // Sep 8, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  Good for you. Most people never get up the courage to attend such an event, I am sure it will be enlightening in many ways. Don’t be afraid to state your personal truths, but don’t expect to be understood. By standing up and being recognized you do the rest of us fringers a great service. It is too easy to dismiss and ignore dissent.

  80% of life is showing up. The rest is just details.

  P.S. If you need an audio recorder let me know.

• 15 leisurelyviking // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  *hugs*

• 16 xJane // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:13 pm

  Hopefully we’ll see each other as complex humans, worthy of compassion.

  I wish for this as well.

• 17 EBrown // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  Dear John and Jana,
  I want to let you know that I completely support and honor you and the path you are taking. I’m sure my experience as a trial lawyer colors my perspective, but I have fought every traffic ticket I’ve ever received; not because I cared about the money, but because I wanted to put them to their proof. If you say x, y, z was happening at the time I received the ticket, please bring the police officer to court to say I observed x, y, and z. Then if I choose I can say or not say that either x, y, or z could not have happened for the following reasons. Most importantly is that I show up. Just showing up is a way of reinforcing my sense of integrity, and also keeps them honest, or tries to. So while it might have been easier to just pay the fine, and not take personal leave, and have to juggle my schedule, etc. etc., ultimately it was better for me to go and fight it. BTW, I won my case about 50% of the time, bc the officers didn’t show up, despite the Court putting my matter to the end of the calendar to give the officer time to arrive. (My cases were always called at the beginning of the calendar and a default would have been entered had I not been there. Whatever.) But whether or not I won, I was present, conscious, and involved in what was going on in my life.

  I don’t see why you shouldn’t use some recording device if you choose. Your iPhone could serve as a recorder. So long as all parties know it’s being done there’s no illegality. But it’s completely up to you. I’ve found that note-taking in these circumstances is often difficult.

  You both are amazing and I’m sending you love and thoughts of chocolate.

• 18 Matt // Sep 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm

  I actually think a proceeding that is strongly influenced by the assumption that the world is watching is more interesting than one assumed to be secret. How will representatives of the church behave vis a vis their personal confictions?

  Not that it matters. At this point the church elders must assume that this case will be publicized. Might as well put the iPhone on the table, John.

  Thanks for sharing your reasons. My guess is that this won’t exactly follow a BoM model for how dialogs with apostates go. This alone is all the reason you need for publishing an account backed by a recording.

• 19 Yvette // Sep 8, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  John,

  I am moved by this amazing piece. I support your choice, 100%. The closure you seek I completely support.

  In one week, I shall be going to a court of a different sort, to finally, after nearly two years, officially terminate my marriage and spell out the terms of our settlement. It has been the most painful experience of my life, worse than any of the struggles I have faced before, but the point you make, that perhaps through this excommunication, you can find your greatest healing, I see and identify with that. The process of getting to this place has been far longer than I realized, not just the legal process, but also the emotional process; the loss of something sacred; the loss of a loved one; the loss of an illusion; the loss of family too.

  But by stepping up to the plate and facing it, not to fight it because you want to stay, but because you are looking for the ultimate letting go and healing from something that has caused you pain – all I can say is wow.

  I admire you and Jana immensely and respect your choices. You are all brave, amazing people that I look up to. You have inspired me in ways you cannot yet even imagine. Both for myself, but also for my own children. Even though we are not able to be extremely close right now, the truth is your efforts help me feel less emotionally isolated during this incredibly painful time.

  Namaste,
  Y.

• 20 Rich // Sep 8, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  I hope you bring a few questions with you John, e.g., “Why am I here on trial, while divisive, hate-mongering liar-for-a-living Glenn Beck is happily out damaging not only the reputation of the Church, but wreaking havoc on our nation, and nobody in authority seems to care?” (one I would bring along anyway). Food for thought. Another might be, “Can any of you explain to me why it is considered a moral (rather than political) issue whether two (SS) adults in love want to make a monogamous commitment to each other, seen as ‘undermining the sanctity of marriage’, yet a mass-murdering liar that led this nation into an illegal war (VP Cheney) and on to trillions of deficit spending, was invited to address BYU graduates, as some honorable, moral hero?”

• 21 GKB // Sep 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm

  In spite of all the hype, this sort of church council will more likely than not be a simple, fairly short affair. Most likely less than two hours, unless you choose to stretch it out.

  The LDS Church is a membership organization. Membership is by mutual consent. Continued membership in the Church requires continued consent from the member and the Church. Either party has the right to end the association.

  From my reading of this blog, Brother Remy has provided more than demonstrated more than a sufficient basis to show that the fellowship relationship between he and the Church is broken.

  This Church council will most likely formalize the truth. It is highly likely that the Church will withdraw Brother Remy’s membership in the form of excommunication.

  If this the council protocols are followed, this should be a non-hostile confrontational discussion and review of Brother Remy’s feelings, beliefs, desires regarding the Church, and his public criticisms of the Church. Once everything has been said, the ecclesiastical leaders will prayerfully decide what the most appropriate course of action is.

  These councils are usually private affairs out of respect for the individuals involved. There is usually very little…or no drama. Most likely, it is Brother Remy who is ratcheting up any drama or public sentiment.

  The LDS Church will most likely not discuss what goes on behind closed doors…again out of respect and need for Brother Remy’s privacy. There are also significant legal issues regarding the publicizing these processes. Most likely the only account that will be available will come from one side of the process.

• 22 John // Sep 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  Thanks again for the overwhelming support.

  Repeat for those who haven’t heard it: there will be no recording device. Thanks for the suggestions, however.

  GKB, I am actually taking heart at your description. I sincerely hope that your description is how it genuinely proceeds:

  “this sort of church council will more likely than not be a simple, fairly short affair…This Church council will most likely formalize the truth. It is highly likely that the Church will withdraw Brother Remy’s membership in the form of excommunication.”

  and

  “If this the council protocols are followed, this should be a non-hostile [and non?] confrontational discussion and review of Brother Remy’s feelings, beliefs, desires regarding the Church, and his public criticisms of the Church.”

• 23 eBrown // Sep 8, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  “Once everything has been said, the ecclesiastical leaders will prayerfully decide what the most appropriate course of action is.”

  This is complete bs. The “decision” has already been made, hasn’t it? It’s a foregone conclusion that John will be excommunicated. The private group prayer after John and Jana are excused is simply a moment to let the group check in with their already established biases, also known as “spiritual confirmation,” and then render the decision they knew they would render before this court of s0-called love. I call bs.

• 24 Glen Dutcher // Sep 8, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  I agree with your decision to go to the “Court O’Love.” It will give you an opportunity to put a voice behind your writings and your beliefs. I agree with a previous poster that your excommunication is a foregone conclusion because you have already been determined to be an apostate. Mainstream Mormons can’t get past this – all apostates are painted with the same brush. However, I am happy to see a couple of posters who seem to be devout wishing you good luck. I add my wishes for good luck and happiness, but mine come from the ranks of the apostates.

• 25 Patience // Sep 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  I’m so sorry. I know that you’re a great person Jana, you have an endearing smile. It makes me really sad for you guys.

  Hugs.

• 26 Hellmut // Sep 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm

  “The LDS Church is a membership organization. Membership is by mutual consent. Continued membership in the Church requires continued consent from the member and the Church. Either party has the right to end the association.”

  Sure, you can view the Mormon Church like a bowling league or the Rotarian Club. Then it is merely a matter of legalisms.

  Or you can view the Mormon Church as the Church of Jesus Christ. In that case, the Brethren are bound by the standards that the Savior himself has proclaimed.

  It is a tragedy that those Mormons who care most about gospel values are most likely to get into trouble with Mormon authorities.

• 27 Cate // Sep 8, 2009 at 5:53 pm

  A church court is not supposed to be a dramatic affair. It is supposed to be compassionate affair in which both the person being disciplined (from the Latin for taught/educated) and the church are equally represented.

  You will not be arguing a case before 15 men. The high council will divide and half will argue on your side. At least, this is how I know it to have been practiced in cases I’ve been privy to.

  Some courts end in disfellowship others in excommunication – the fact is that if you have gotten to the point where they are calling you in, there is a reason. Others end without formal discipline.

  John and Jana, you are both in my thoughts and prayers.

• 28 GKB // Sep 8, 2009 at 7:14 pm

  Hellmut: “It is a tragedy that those Mormons who care most about gospel values are most likely to get into trouble with Mormon authorities.”

  It has been my experience that this is NOT the case. I guess you and I see different things in the teachings and standards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  As to how confrontational the council is considered is a subjective matter. John may have a completely different view of the proceedings than the others in the room. As such, any reporting from him may be perfectly sincere, but reflect his own worldview and bias.

  I would not characterize the situation as high council as arguing with amoung themselves. Rather, one half of the council is assigned to represent the member to assure that they are treated fairly, that the person has an opportunity to share their thoughts, feelings, and facts. The other half represent the interests of the Church.

  John speaks of wanting public closure. To some degree, his comparison to his public baptism is slightly inappropriate. A disciplinary council is more like the private baptismal interview that John experienced prior to his public baptism. The baptismal interview was not public or announced. It was at this meeting that he presented himself to be considered for Church membership. In this meeting, he declared his intent regarding the Church, and the Church accepted him as a member. This was largely and administrative formality. The public baptism is where he accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior and was confirmed a member of the Church. The disciplinary council is (in a way) a reconsideration of the relationship…and intended to help guide the wayward member or sever the fellowship relationship. In the past, the actions of a council were made public. However, because of legal concerns for privacy this is no longer done. If Brother Remy loses his membership in the Church, he can be as public as he wishes to be. He can have any sort of party, announcement, or ceremony he chooses.

• 29 JTJ // Sep 8, 2009 at 7:16 pm

  Reason #6, submitting a resignation is a lengthy LDS process, mine took 8 months.

• 30 Andrew S // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:03 pm

  I’ve been reading the past few articles here, John, in this, I guess “series.”…and even the lengthy chains of comments (some of them quite rude), but I don’t get some parts of it.

  I get that there is some issue with the church (relating to authority, yours vs. theirs, and spilling over into inadequate information disclosure and things like that), but still, I don’t fully understand even that, because my experience doesn’t have that.

  But let’s look at this. Tomorrow, you might be excommunicated, or disfellowshipped, or maybe nothing will happen. But whatever happens from the perspective of the administration, where are you? Where are you going? It seems to me that you’re not “in” the church. Now, I understand that you’re Mormon. That’s your culture and heritage nothing and no one can take that away (especially not something like the administration). Maybe some members and family will THINK you’re less Mormon because you’re excomm’d (so I understand when you say that you feel being a member affects your “reach,” so to speak), but your voice doesn’t get stifled whatever happens.

  So, if you aren’t in the church, whatever happens tomorrow should be no big deal. You’re not fighting to remain in (because what purpose would that serve). You’re not being martyred, because well, the church isn’t sympathetic to that (as some commenters have pointed out). This is all a matter of course. Face it straight!

  I guess I don’t like GKB’s tone for whatever reason, but I think his message is sound. This isn’t a triumph. This isn’t the center of the world. This is just an administrative action that doesn’t mess up your beat. It does nothing that is of consequence to you, so don’t let it drive you down.

• 31 Enigma825 // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:10 pm

  I wish the best of luck to you and your wife AND family. You made the best choice for yourself and that’s what matters. I know I look forward to reading about your “Court of Love” experience when all is said and done. I just hate confrontations so my choice to resign before they axed was the best choice for me and me alone.

  Again good luck and best wishes!

• 32 amelia // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:27 pm

  andrew s (#30) says (echoing GKB’s general point):

  “I guess I don’t like GKB’s tone for whatever reason, but I think his message is sound. This isn’t a triumph. This isn’t the center of the world. This is just an administrative action that doesn’t mess up your beat. It does nothing that is of consequence to you, so don’t let it drive you down.”

  i understand characterizing excommunication as an administrative action on some level. it is, as others have said, in some sense a matter of the two parties to a covenant reassessing that covenant and whether it should stand. it becomes more problematic when one of those two parties purports to represent the third, divine party, namely god. which the high council does claim to do. that fact introduces all kinds of non-administrative ramifications that cannot be avoided and should not be minimized.

  as to half of the high council advocating for john…well that’s a little like saying half of the republican party will advocate for obama’s health care plan. no matter how committed they are to fair representation–and they may be very, very committed and make every attempt to represent john fairly–, they cannot shake their own prejudices and culture. they cannot get past the fact that they are so immersed in their culture that they only think of this procedure as an act of “love.”

  and let me be clear: i’ve been a recipient of church discipline (and, fwiw, i’m currently a member in good standing) and in my case I truly think it was an act of love; but i do not believe that all church discipline qualifies for that characterization.

  john, i truly hope that this:

  “Hopefully we’ll see each other as complex humans, worthy of compassion. If I don’t go to this meeting on Wednesday, I will know only that the Stake President and 14 nameless, faceless men sat in judgment and made a decision about me. I also would prefer for them to look me in the eye when they announce their decision.”

  is a possibility. know that tomorrow night i will be holding you and jana in the light.

• 33 Andrew S // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:37 pm

  re 32:

  Again, with the whole representing God thing, I think the question John should ask (and he’s probably asked this plenty of times) is…does he buy the church’s rhetoric in saying it does speak for God? I don’t think he does. So ramifications avoided. Not trying to minimize…but it seems like it takes two to maximize. If you don’t play the church’s game (which, you don’t have any reason to if you don’t care about the *administration* — again, this is separate from your heritage, which YOU own), then that is that.

  Now…there are potential problems with friends and family who still do play the church’s game (and plays by the church’s rules, listens to the church’s rhetoric, etc.,), but at this point, this can’t be helped. People are going to realize, in some way or another, than John isn’t the nice little true believing guy down the street. I would HOPE that they would realize that he’s a good person, friend, family member, despite his relationship with church administration.

• 34 Jana // Sep 8, 2009 at 10:43 pm

  So happy to see the comments of support on this thread.

  John’s choice is not the same as others’ & while I know he appreciates all the advice, I also fully respect that he’s doing this his own way. Ultimately it’s his moment to face his accusers & he can do so with the confidence of choosing to attend this event, of his own free will & all that…

• 35 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 5:54 am

  Jana wrote: “John’s choice is not the same as others’ & while I know he appreciates all the advice, I also fully respect that he’s doing this his own way. Ultimately it’s his moment to face his accusers & he can do so with the confidence of choosing to attend this event, of his own free will & all that…”

  With all due respect, I’d like to offer an alternative point of view. I think that Jana offers a sincere, but subjective view of her husband’s attendance at the council.

  I believe that it can be fairly stated that if there has been any ‘accusing’ in this situation it is Brother Remy publicly and aggressively accusing the Church. If anything, it can be said that it is the Church is facing its accuser (Brother Remy) and exhibiting confidence in its right to speak to its accuser and terminate its association with him.

  I present the thoughts above to demonstrate that the whole concept of victimologyas it relates to the member/church relationship is a matter of perspective.

  I do not believe that the LDS Church has ever sought to publicly oppose Brother Remy, publicly shun him, attack him, subject him to ridicule, profane things that are sacred to him, or to publicly advocate against him. All of these things he has done to the Church and its members.

  Obviously, the Church and Brother Remy see God, faith, eternity, and morality differently. Nothing wrong with that. Given that reality, perhaps it is time that the body of the Church and Brother Remy part company.

  I admit that I am a partisan observer. (Perhaps as partisan as Brother Remy) I am a convert to the LDS Church. Unlike Brother Remy, I have found great joy and peace in the Church and the Gospel.

  I respect that Brother Remy has evolved his spiritual sense of self. I disagree with his conclusions but support his right to publish those views. I have no qualms that the Church may decide that it is time to end the fellowship relationship. That is the nature and core of religious association.

• 36 William Shunn // Sep 9, 2009 at 6:14 am

  GKB (#35): I do not believe that the LDS Church has ever sought to publicly oppose Brother Remy, publicly shun him, attack him, subject him to ridicule, profane things that are sacred to him, or to publicly advocate against him. All of these things he has done to the Church and its members.

  John may have done those things to the church, but I’m not sure he’s done them to its members. Having done them to the church, though (and agreeing that the church has every right to throw him out), do you think the church has suffered actual harm at John’s hands?

• 37 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 6:44 am

  William Shunn (#36) “John may have done those things to the church, but I’m not sure he’s done them to its members. Having done them to the church, though (and agreeing that the church has every right to throw him out), do you think the church has suffered actual harm at John’s hands?”

  From the persepective of a non-believer, John has done no harm. However, from the persespective of believers, he has done harm.

  As a member of the Church, I have been personally saddened when he compared the Church to a sexual preditor. I was hurt that he’d publish recreations of the Temple ceremony — something I hold sacred. While you may find fault with what I find sacred, it is harmful to other members of the Church to do such things.

  If even one other member of the Church loses faith because of these actions, then John has harmed that member…and the Church as a whole. John’s voice is a contributing factor to the increasing hostility toward the Church.

  Now, does he think he is right? Yes he does. Does he have a right to speak his mind? Yes he does.

  For critics of the Church, there is a line of disbelief that once crossed, they believe that their actions are justified and not harmful. If anything, they consider challenging the faith of members to be a GOOD thing…beneficial…whether the members of the Church want it or not.

  If Brother Remy’s beliefs and actions are deemed to be out of harmony with the Church and even potentially harmful to the faith of others, the Church is justified to act.

  Also, in June. Brother Remy wrote that he had not resigned from the Church so that he could claim to be a member of the Church when criticizing it. He apparently wanted to have this added credential to leverage. In a manner of speaking this is a deception. On this basis alone, the Church may be justified in making it clear that John Remy is not a member of the faith. I think that resolving this membership camouflage is more than fair justification to have this council.

• 38 Jana // Sep 9, 2009 at 6:58 am

  If what GKB says above is true….does anyone else find it just a bit ironic that the behemoth LDS church can be so “harmed” by the words of a small-time blogger?

  If someone loses faith simply because John has openly discussed his temple experiences, then this church has a lot more to fear than a few rogue blogposts. And by ex’ing John it won’t silence him or take down anything of his from the web. And I doubt that anyone who is influenced by posts here even cares whether John is on the church rolls or not.

• 39 William Shunn // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:03 am

  GKB (#37): For critics of the Church, there is a line of disbelief that once crossed, they believe that their actions are justified and not harmful. If anything, they consider challenging the faith of members to be a GOOD thing…beneficial…whether the members of the Church want it or not.

  And what exactly is it that missionaries are doing when they knock on a non-member’s door and challenge that person’s faith? It’s sounds like you’re complaining about the fact that John has challenged the faith of church members, yet that very function, in reverse, is one of the three stated missions of the church as a whole! (Those being to proclaim the gospel, perfect the Saints, and redeem the dead.) How can challenging someone’s faith be a good thing when it goes one way, but a harmful thing when it goes the other?

  If even one other member of the Church loses faith because of these actions, then John has harmed that member…and the Church as a whole. John’s voice is a contributing factor to the increasing hostility toward the Church.

  Of course, John would see it differently, as do I. I’m delighted and deeply gratified every time someone writes to me and tells me that something I wrote helped contribute to their decision to leave the church. This is not because I want to give the church a black eye. This is because I’m glad for the individual members who were suffering emotional harm as a result of their association with the church. To me, it’s the same as hearing the stories of people who’ve gotten themselves away from emotionally abusive parents or spouses.

  I’m also very curious to be shown how hostility toward the Church is increasing. If anything, I would think that hostility toward the church has been steadily declining over the past 100+ years, having peaked back in the 19th century when, oh, I don’t know, people were actually killing Mormons for the crime of being Mormon. The church and its members have, in my experience, a rather overblown martyr complex.

  On this basis alone, the Church may be justified in making it clear that John Remy is not a member of the faith. I think that resolving this membership camouflage is more than fair justification to have this council.

  Please note, also, that I’m not challenging the stake presidency’s justification for calling a disciplinary council.

• 40 Andrew S // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:05 am

  I really have to agree with Jana at this point.

  GKB is really laying this case on too unrealistically. I know he’s going to say, “Well, you just believe this because you’re a non-believer,” but SERIOUSLY, if faith in the church can only be maintained by information withholding and cultivated ignorance of things — which, I might add, ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN THE CHURCH. It’s not like John is making anything up here — then I’m not quite sure how members even justify this fragile faith is a good thing. Obviously, the institution will say what it will want to say, and certain members will buy what they want to buy, but I think that if your faith is so fragile (or you acknowledge that others’ faith is so fragile), then you really should work on this faith instead of pinning things on John.

  The church really should work on the church, instead of pinning things on John.

• 41 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:07 am

  I don’t think that John’s musings on his personal blog will harm the Church as a whole. (I think to suggest that is twisting what I said.) I do believe that he contributes to an air of hostility and contention toward the Church. I think that his criticism of the Church and Gospel can affect the faith of individual members of the Church. I think that John has stated that he is using his continued membership in the Church as leverage for credibility in his attacks on the Church.

  For all those reasons, the Church has a right to part company with him.

  Even if none of that were at issue…John no longer believes or participates in the Church. He has declared himself to be an atheist. To call yourself a member of the Church is to declare that you are a “Christian” with all the attendant confessions of faith and trust in his saving atonement. To claim to be a Christian when you are not…is something of a deception before God and other members of the Church. I believe that integrity requires that if you are no longer a believer in Christ (as defined by the Church) you should withdraw your membership. If you choose not to do so, the Church has every right to end the membership for you. If anything, it is the most open and transparent that is appropriate in these circumstances.

• 42 eBrown // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:13 am

  “If even one other member of the Church loses faith because of these actions, then John has harmed that member…and the Church as a whole. John’s voice is a contributing factor to the increasing hostility toward the Church.”

  If even one member of the church loses faith because of these actions, then John has helped another member…and society as a whole. John’s voice is a contributing factor to the increasing reasonableness of society.

• 43 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:23 am

  ebrown (#42) “If even one member of the church loses faith because of these actions, then John has helped another member…and society as a whole. John’s voice is a contributing factor to the increasing reasonableness of society.”

  You are entitled to your opinion. The Church has every right to take a different view and to end the membership of someone who is no longer a faithful member of the faith, no longer believes, and actively criticizes the Church.

  May I suggest that your notion of ‘reasonableness’ is subjective and cannot be force onto those who disagree. Which brings us to the more core aspect of this discussion. There are a lot of voices in this discussion that seek to deny the right of the Church and its members to determine our own beliefs and rights of association.

  John will contiune to believe in whatever he wants regardless of whether he is a member of the Church or not. He will continue to publish criticisms of the Church. If he is excommunicated, none of that will change. The Church will not…and could not censor him. I doubt that the Church would even consider trying. The only difference is that (should John be excommunicated) we will go our seperate ways and John will publish as a former member of the faith.

• 44 Andrew S // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:25 am

  re 42:

  eBrown, but GKB will just turn around and say that that’s what a non-member would say. To a believing member, there’s great damage.

  that being said, I’m going to address GKB’s latter paragraph in 41

  re 41:

  I find it interesting that you use belief as a measuring stick here. Do you understand how many Mormons (new order, liberal, middle-way) do not literally believe in the church or certain core doctrines (e.g., Jesus, Book of Mormon historicity, etc.,) and yet still participate. Clearly, this isn’t the guidepost. You may have a case with things John has done in the past (e.g., revealing temple activity), but again, this only represents the administrative hullabaloo, not that he’s actually made any substantive error. (Again, you’ll probably disagree, because you buy into the administration. Others who don’t will not.)

  Really, I would say these things. John no longer believes in or participates in the Church (which is the organization and administration). He has declared himself to be an atheist, and his heritage is Mormonism. To call yourself a Mormon is not to call yourself a member of the church, and based on his life experiences, it is no deception. His relation with the church administration is an irrelevant red herring. I believe that integrity requires an individual to follow their conscience. (or if you want, the light of Christ). JOHN’S DOING THAT. HE’S WRITING THIS BLOG. HE’S DISSEMINATING INFORMATION. He’s maintaining his Mormon-ness, and now the church is trying to discount that Mormon-ness by marking against him on the official rolls. So, let that come. Of course, the church has a right to end that relationship if they want to.

  But John has every right to speak with integrity about his experiences and not be silenced.

• 45 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:41 am

  I understand that some Latter Day Saints are redefining what membership means. In doing so, they are attempting to carve out a bigger umbrella under which to stand and call themselves ‘Mormon.’ There are also closet apostates who for lack of courage, need for family and social acceptance, financial reasons, cultural or social reasons…feign faithful membership in the Church. Some ‘Mormons’ are trying to change the doctrines and practices of the Church from within. In a manner of speaking, all this is a process of secularizing the church and an attempt to evolve the church to become more universal and doctrinally pluralistic. We have watched this process take place with the Community of Christ (RLDS) Church.

  However, there are standards of belief, and fidelity to doctrine and church that are required of members. If John were a new potential convert and presented himself to the Church for baptism…believing what he says he believes now and is a critical as he is of the Church…he would would not be accepted for baptism.

  So…there is a standard of belief and action that is required by the institution of the Church. And, that is one of the core concepts of Mormonism…that there is a God-ordained institution with God-dictated standards. New Order Mormons, closet disbelievers, etc. can hide and mislead…but theirs is not the Church as established by Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith or led today by Jesus Christ through President Monson. The Church as an institution has the right to choose its associations.

  Hopefully, the council John attends will be respectful, kind, and non-confrontational. (Some of that will depend on John) But in the end, if the Church council ends his membership, they have every right to do so.

• 46 Jana // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:46 am

  GKB:
  You said “If John were a new potential convert and presented himself to the Church for baptism…believing what he says he believes now…he would would not be accepted for baptism.”

  That’s not entirely true. As an example: our son, upon turning 8, told the Bishop that he didn’t have a testimony and he wasn’t sure if he believed in Christ (this, after having made a dutiful study of the BoM). The Bishop decided that he should be baptized anyways.

• 47 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:51 am

  Andrew S (#44) “But John has every right to speak with integrity about his experiences and not be silenced.”

  Excommunication will not silence John. It will not have that effect…nor is it intended to.

  All excommunication will do is clear up his formal relationship with the LDS Church. It will settle matters of fellowship and the right to call oneself a member of the Church.

  John will be free to publish as he always has. He can come to Church. He can read the scriptures. He will still have his friends (in and out of the Church) He won’t lose his job, his home, his wife, his children. If he is shunned by any member of the Church that is an individual act that is not sanctioned or encouraged by the Church.

  The Church will not publicly humiliate John. Because John has made this a public controversy, the Church may issue a statement regarding his membership status. However, under normal circumstances cases of excommunication are private matters.

  In other words, John will be free to live his live as he has…except he may no longer be a member of the LDS Church.

• 48 William Shunn // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:58 am

  GKB (#45): Some ‘Mormons’ are trying to change the doctrines and practices of the Church from within.

  Apparently this works, since the Church keeps modifying its sacred, eternal, God-ordained temple ceremony so it will appeal more to people made uncomfortable by it.

  Clearly you can’t tell us enough times that the Church has the right to kick John out. What I find curious, though, is that a church so concerned with outward appearances doesn’t also dump from its rolls the approximately 50% of inactive members who don’t attend meetings and don’t contribute tithing. If John is hurting the Church and its member with his words, isn’t it much worse for the Church that a full half of its nominal members can’t even be bothered to trek down to the meetinghouse once a week? That apathy (not to mention lost tithing monies) would seem to pose a far huger threat to the Church than any lone blogger. At least people like John are trying to get people to engage with the idea of faith and religion.

• 49 Andrew S // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:59 am

  re 45:

  It’s not just that some Latter-day Saints (note, these ARE Latter-day Saints and are legitimately described as such) are redefining what membership means…it’s that historically and even to today, the General Authorities have allowed this.

  When you get down to it, the church doesn’t really care too much about creeds. You can believe what you want to a big extent because the temple recommend questions are pretty vague (John Dehlin wrote about this in his “How to stay in the LDS Church…”, and though I thought he went TOO far in his interpretations of some questions, I think he had a good point)

  Really, as you and others have alluded too, the church has much higher of a standard on orthopraxy (what you DO) than orthodoxy (what you BELIEVE). So, John’s blog doesn’t jive with that. I understand that. I think he understands that. I think John may wish the church didn’t have that standard, but the rules of the game are clear here.

  Now, that being said, let’s address here about “Mormons.” This term, unlike “faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (or even Latter-day Saint, for short), is not controlled by the church entity. ANYONE WHO HAS GROWN UP MORMON IS MORMON. Heck, even though the Community of Christ doesn’t use the term Mormon to describe themselves, I’d consider them Mormon.

  So whether you are cultural Mormon, ex-Mormon, post Mormon, whatever, you still have Mormon in there. It’s not for “lack of courage.” It’s because that’s the identity. You don’t walk away from xx years of your history. You own these years as much or moreso than any other person.

  What’s regrettable is that our church (institution), finds it more appropriate to shut out these people instead of embracing people who are culturally Mormon. Now, they have every right to shut out who they don’t think is a faithful member of the L-dS church, but I think it’s just regrettable that this is how they exercise it. We could be like the Jewish community, where secular Jews can still participate — because Judaism is cultural, not just religious.

  You talk about some Mormons trying to change the doctrine from within…but don’t you know that this is how the church operates? 1978 revelation? Official Declaration? In fact, if you want to look at a church that is more universal and doctrinally pluralistic, you don’t even need to look at the Community of Christ. Look at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why do I say this? BECAUSE we could instead be like the Fundamentalist LDS church. Is that what you want? THOSE guys are doctrinally exclusive.

  Even further, you have seen the LDS church downplay doctrines about the great apostasy (because it wants to play nicely with other Christian organizations). It has made inroads with other Christian denominations in other ways. Clearly, the church is trying to become more universalist. To be sure, the Community of Christ is much faster and took a different route, but the LDS church has loads of difference from the FLDS church, obviously, and universalizing is part of that.

  Again, I’m not arguing with his administrative membership. I’m not arguing if he should or shouldn’t be excommunicated. But regardless of what the administration does, he is Mormon. Because Mormonism isn’t about believing in the Book of Mormon, contrary to popular belief. It is about growing up in the environment, understanding the Mormon language and culture, and having that infused to your being, regardless of where you are institutionally.

  Am I making any sense? Of course the church council has every right to end his membership if they want to. I’m not arguing against this. But I am arguing about some “loaded” ideas from here. You want John to be “respectful, kind, and non-confrontational.” He has been doing this all along (unless there are some articles I haven’t been reading). Really, there is a different expectation of what this entails. You and the church probably think “respectful” involves not revealing the temple secrets (oops…sacredness, not secrets). John disagrees and he has every right to do so.

• 50 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:59 am

  Jana (#46) “That’s not entirely true. As an example: our son, upon turning 8, told the Bishop that he didn’t have a testimony and he wasn’t sure if he believed in Christ (this, after having made a dutiful study of the BoM). The Bishop decided that he should be baptized anyways.”

  I am not privvy to what your son said to your Bishop. However, I suggest that you are making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

  I would imagine that (if it were possible) your eight year old son presented himself to the Bishop and said that he was an atheist and was publishing temple ceremonies and other criticisms of the Church, drank beer, and did not consider himself to be a Mormon…that the Bishop would allow him to be baptised.

  My point is simple. If John presented himself in his current state of (dis) belief for baptism the Church would not go forward with accepting him as a member.

  Do you disagree with that?

  My point was to rebut the suggestion by another poster that there are no hard and fast standards for Church membership. There seems to be a sentiment that the individual is in control of setting standards for entrance into the Church…or continued membership. I simply observed that John’s current ‘package’ of beliefs would not qualify him for acceptance into the Church. That being true, how would his current ‘package’ justify continued membership?

• 51 Andrew S // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:07 am

  re 47:

  GKB, excommunication certainly won’t silence. But here’s something you and I both know (because you’ve brought it up in previous comments). Excommunication is the church’s way of changing John’s credibility.

  Because currently, now, John’s friends or family or ward members see John as, “Guy with heterodox beliefs who is a member of the church.”

  And after this excommunication, all of a sudden, this has the potential to change to, “Guy with heterodox who cannot be trusted for even a second because he is one of those dastardly evil ex-Mormons.”

  Don’t play coy. You know how members can be. You’ve even acknowledged this in your previous characterizations of John’s motives (John’s claiming “credential to leverage.”) What I am arguing is that John rightfully has this credential to leverage because indeed, Mormonism is his identity, but the church is undermining this (and it’s completely to their discretion to do this, don’t get me wrong, but still, don’t be blidn of what they are doing) by cutting against his administrative Mormon identity (e.g., his membership.)

• 52 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:09 am

  Andrew S…

  I think we are in agreement. I am sure that John will always have some cultural and social Mormonism in him. (I don’t know him…but I suspect that this will be true.)

  If he is excommunicated, he just won’t be a member of the Church.

  I don’t mean this with any disrespect…but I don’t think this is a bad thing. As a conformist member of the faith, I think it is a good thing that we apply standards to formal membership in the Church.

  My hope is that the Church can maintain as much respect, caring, and love as it can while it applies these standards. I wish John no ill and hope that if he loses his membership that he will be treated with love by all who know him.

  I wish him well in his continued spiritual journey. I hope that at some time in the future, he can reconcile himself to the Church and return.

• 53 William Shunn // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:10 am

  GKB (#50): There seems to be a sentiment that the individual is in control of setting standards for entrance into the Church…or continued membership.

  “Continued membership” is pretty much a joke. All most people have to do to continue as members of the church is keep their heads not and not talk about their doubts. A person can stop paying tithing, stop coming to church, drink all the beer he wants, and even beat his spouse without having his church membership threatened. It’s only when you start “saying” things that contradict church teachings that you start running the “risk” of excommunication.

  (And not even that is a guarantee. I’ve been loudly contradicting church teachings since 1995, and I’ve never even been *threatened* with excommunication. Probably because my local bishops have never known I live in their ward boundaries.)

  But anyway, it seems pretty clear to me that the church is far more concerned with words than with actions, more concerned with “dangerous” ideas than with “sinful” acts.

  So sure, John has earned excommunication. But when you step back and take a hard look at the whole process, is he really more deserving of it than hundreds if not tens or hundreds of thousands of others with whom the church is happy to keep inflating its rolls (McMORMONS — Over 13 Million Saved!) as long as they keep their contradictory lifestyles hidden from public view?

  Talk about a whited sepulchre.

• 54 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:16 am

  Andrew S (#51) “Don’t play coy.”

  I am not being the least bit coy. I don’t think that someone who has strayed from the faith as far as John seems to have done (based on his own comments) should have the endorsement of the Church in the form of being a member in full fellowship. I say that with no ill will toward John.

  Now, if that means that John’s credibility is lessened when he criticizes the Church…so be it. That is the natural consequense of being an exMormon.

  If that results in any form of stigma or shunning…that is completely inappropriate and out of harmony with the Gospel and Church standards. However, I would maintain that the possibility of such unfortunate circumstances are not justification for allowing him to be a member of the Church.

  I will say it again…so as to be perfectly clear…I wish John well. If he cares/cared about Mormonism as deeply as I do, this is a difficult transition. I hope he finds happiness and peace. For all I know, leaving the Church may be one of the most liberating experiences he will ever have.

  With that said, I am going to sign off for a while. (LOL…I am way to absorbed with this respectful exchange.)

• 55 Molly // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:18 am

  GKB: You’re ignoring the fact that excommunication from the church carries much more with it than merely removing someone’s name from the roster.

  Think about how Mormons treat people who have been excommunicated. I have never seen one person, not even those who came back later on, ever be treated as well as they were before. They are pariahs, usually cut off by many family and friends. The “courts of love” are dry affairs, conducted with a foregone conclusion and without any interest in an actual discussion.

  You might think your legalism is coming across as a fair and logical analysis of the causes and consequences of excommunication. But it’s too black-and-white and just comes across as smug and condescending.

• 56 Molly // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:23 am

  And a second thought:

  I constantly hear Mormons passing the buck on behavior that is both widespread and inappropriate. They blame the culture but insist the Church is immune. Rabid homophobia — not the same thing as civil opposition to gay marriage — is never censured. Shunning of former members — not the same thing as keeping clear of someone you have a legitimate grievance with — is never censured. Sure, there’s some official statements about civility and kindness, but nobody actually speaks out when someone is cruel. It draws attention and will just make that person be treated with suspicion.

  The culture of the church and the church itself are inextricably linked, and to play dumb about that is a big waste of everyone’s time. Each and every Mormon needs to take some responsibility and admit that.

• 57 Andrew S // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:24 am

  re 52:

  GKB, As I wrote in my first comment on this thread (at least, I think), even though I think I don’t like the tone, I do recognize I agree a lot with what you say.

  But what I’m trying to do is hammer out those places of disagreement.

  Namely, here are a few places of such
  1) As a nonbelieving Mormon, John did not have and does not have an obligation to resign from the church.

  2) As a blogger disseminating information, John did not and does not victimize the church or its members’ faiths. If someone loses faith after reading what John has written, that’s something on them and their faith, not on John.

  3) Excommunication is not a cut-and-dry move for the church. It *is* a political move used for damage control. Because it is used for damage control, it must have punitive effect against John (and I argue that it does). The mark of excommunication is meant to try to tarnish John’s credibility.

  4) So, John still meets the criteria for victimization. He doesn’t have to be flogged in public for this to be so. Even in a private, low-key court of love, victimization can and does still occur.

• 58 Jana // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:31 am

  John will be facing a group of men who’ve known him (or of him) for over two decades. This is pretty different from facing a Council made up of complete strangers. And, this is one reason that this event is so meaningful, certainly more so than a group of complete strangers calling a court. Some of these men have been close friends to our family and have seen John through every stage of his Mormon spiritual journey. I know that they care about our family and they care about John. Especially in the case of our SP, he’s a man that I have trusted implicitly in past interactions. I care for him and his family, too.

  I’m looking forward to hearing their part in this event & if they do break the council into halves to argue both sides of John’s case (as I’ve heard is typical procedure), I will probably be more than a bit emotional to hear some of them defend John.

  We can argue and nitpick details all we want about the church and its control (or lack of) on heterodoxy. But this is the stuff of real human drama–and it’s gonna be interesting!

• 59 GKB // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:46 am

  On second thoughts…I will make one final comment and then depart from this discussion.

  There have been a number of personal attacks on me for participating in this discussion…I am coy…I am smug…I am legalistic…I am condescending…etc. There have also been a number of attacks on the Church and its integrity in this discussion.

  I have attempted not to characterize any of you on a personal level. I have attempted to treat John factually and with respect, even though I disagree with him.

  What this thread demonstrates to me is the fact that intolerance, self-righteousness, and judgementalism can cut both ways. Beams-and-motes, pots-and-kettles.

  I fully recognize and acknowledge that the traditional members of the Church are humans in every way. I am always amazed that our critics sometimes seem to have a blind eye to their equally intolerant and biased behaviors.

  To John…peace be with you.

  And with that, I will stop kicking the hornets’ nest.

• 60 Andrew S // Sep 9, 2009 at 9:09 am

  re 54:

  I agree with your first paragraph as far as I recognize how the church administration operates now. This doesn’t mean I agree with this particular administrative policy, but as far as it is what it is, yes, they have that right not to endorse. To excommunicate.

  But it is the second paragraph that is problematic. John’s credibility is tarnished because the church has taken administrative action. not because of what John says. This is what I want to be absolutely clear about. This action is what the church is hoping to accomplish with excommunication. Where I disagree is that you’re directing this back on John. When in fact, regardless of what John does (e.g., he has blogged up until now, he will probably blog after now), what is changing is the church administration’s action. That is the reasonable difference.

  re 59:

  Even though you’re about to drop out, I will say something. I did not call you coy. I cautioned that you shouldn’t be coy. You determine if you are coy or not. If you are not coy, then you will realize that the church’s excommunicative action has a hostile effect against John. This isn’t controversial. This is what they are doing to preserve the institution and preserve the members — as even you admitted to earlier. By making John an official, administratively recognized “excommunicated member,” they sabotage his credibility to speak.

  If you are coy (and this is all up to you, I’m not saying which is which — I’m just hoping that whatever the case, you won’t be coy), then perhaps you’ll beat around the bush and absolve the church of any possible responsibility in this whole occurrence.

  So, please, spare me. Spare me the talk of intolerance, of self-righteousness, of judgmentalism, because I do not judge you. You have been allowed to speak your mind without action being taken against you on this site. Clearly, this site is affording you something that the church does not afford John. This is what we’re all saying here. So, please, spare us all. Spare us all beams-and-motes and pots-and-kettles, because as it is now, I’m not John, I’m not Jana, and I’m not any of the owners of this blog, but I can tell you that from what I’ve viewed in this discussion, you have been allowed to speak your mind in whatever way — to try to paint whatever picture you see of John’s actions and his attitudes — and everyone here has been quite accommodating to you. This is a striking difference between this site and the church, and we’re talking about that. We’re pointing it out. While you call this site the “hornet’s nest,” not one person stings you. While you call this site’s commenters “personal attackers,” not one person attacks you and expels you.

  This is markedly different than the church. And I’m not denying that as an institution, they have the right to exercise that. But though they have the right, that doesn’t mean we must acquiesce in silence.

• 61 wren // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:07 am

  I second the person who says it takes longer to resign. It took me 9 months and several phone calls and finally asking if I needed to seek out legal help before my resignation was processed – and I had a good relationship with the leaders. This was not an isolated incident. I’ve since come to learn this is quite common.

  On the other hand, my husband whom I was divorcing at the time, was excommunicated in 7 months. I still am baffled as to how an EQ prez got convicted of a felony involving a minor and wasn’t called into a stake disciplinary council immediately (and initially, it was only going to be a ward council until the stake prez was made aware of his rampant adultery). Strange and inconsistent standards.

  I’ll tell you what though, despite no longer having faith, I went to his council and I spoke my piece because those men needed to hear how their actions (and inaction) during that time impacted me as a woman who was supposed to be held in such high regard. After what I went through with my husband, the church’s poor handling of it all added insult to injury.

  Regardless of what I thought of their authority, as fellow humans they needed to hear it and I had a right to say it.

  I empathize with the people who don’t get it, who don’t understand why people “just don’t leave quietly” and still maintain some connections with or discuss the church. I used to be one of those people. I don’t know how shift their paradigms. I couldn’t shift my own until I went through my own experiences that prompted me to spare the judgement and enlarge my heart with more compassion.

• 62 Yet Another John // Sep 9, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  Up until a couple of days ago, I had never heard of you (I followed a link from Mormon Matters). For the sake of transparency (which is a buzz word for you) I admit (declare, state, confess, whatever) I am a True Blue Mormon (whatever that means) and that colors my perception of what I’ve read of and about you. I truly wish you the best in what you’re doing and hope it brings you peace and happiness. God is no respecter of persons and knows us each better than we know ourselves. Where ever this takes you, good luck.

  I’m more curious about my own reaction to this. Why am I following this and why do I care? Maybe it’s like watching a trainwreck, or a moth being drawn to the flame.

• 63 wayfarer // Sep 9, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  I’m so sorry that this has to be so bruising for you and those who love you.
  I’m hoping ,like you,that this will be the beginning of healing .My understanding of church disciplinary procedures as relayed by my husband,is that this is indeed the intention.
  I, too have a long history of struggle with church authority.But I think I’m finally woman enough to admit this has more to do with me and my mistrust of authority figures than it has to do with the church.The reasons are deeply personal to me and to do with my own pathology.
  The kindred spirits I have met over the years are exactly that.There’s always a reason why.
  I admire your integrity,and honour the fact that this will be a new phase of your life.

• 64 Cate // Sep 9, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  Yet another John,
  It is revealing that you, an active LDS, wish John well and hope that his journey brings him peace and happiness.

  Joseph Smith wrote that “All the religious world is boasting of righteousness; it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness. The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs… if you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another. “(JST p.247)

  Unfortunately, too many Christians (Mormons obviously included) take the call to remain unspotted from the world as a call to draw lines of exclusivity. They judge and condescend and in doing so commit the greater sin.

  You have chosen not to do such and are to be commended as a true example of your faith.

• 65 Jtj // Sep 9, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  #62
  is it a trainwreck, or a liberation? A moth to a flame or a revolution to a regime? Every TBM I know uses the same vernacular with respect to those who choose to leave. Wouldn’t it have been compassionate for the church to list genuine rejection of the theology for rational reasons instead of transgression or personal offense in last months ensign?

• 66 Cate // Sep 9, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  Wren,

  The LDS church usually waits to hold formal disciplinary proceedings where criminal matters are concerned. Anything written can be requested by the courts. Counselors and psychologists are known to withhold diagnosis for the same reason. A person can be excommunicated for acts that are not illegal but if the excommunication were presented as circumstantial evidence, it would be prejudicial.

  I’m so sorry you had to endure such an awful ordeal. I hope that life provides you with joyful experiences that are ten times as intense as was your suffering. Much love. Cate

• 67 Yet Another John // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm

  Jtj, #64, I read your response to my comment and think, yes, a trainwreck. As far as your comment about TBMs and their verncular, the same could be said of the those who leave the church. “Liberation” and “revolution to a regime” are just as common among them. I do commend John on his posts and responses. He’s posted publicly, solicited comments (comments enabled), and stated his case as he sees it. He hasn’t gone histrionic and vitriolic about it (as far as I know). He obviously feels strongly about his position and as I said before, I wish him the best. For him and his loved ones.

• 68 amelia // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:36 pm

  in 54, GKB says:

  “If that [excommunication] results in any form of stigma or shunning…that is completely inappropriate and out of harmony with the Gospel and Church standards.”

  this is just ridiculous. the rhetoric, of course, is that excommunication is an act of love and should not result in inappropriate behavior. the cultural reality is quite different. and to claim otherwise is to be obtuse. these men who are going to sit on a council tonight to determine the disciplinary action to be taken against john know the mormon culture every bit as well as i do. there is no doubt in my mind that they know john will be more fully ostracized, more viciously characterized, and more completely dismissed if they excommunicate him. no matter what they say about their intentions, i would argue that this is, at least in part, their intention: to remove john from any position of possible influence over other members of the church by rendering him persona non grata in the eyes of the church and its members.

  there’s little that drives me more *batty* about the lds church than the doublespeak it engages in. “we’re not telling people how to vote, we’re just asking them to do what they can.” “we’re not prejudiced against homosexuals, we just believe marriage is between man and woman.” blah blah blah. it’s all they same: hypocritical doublespeak. the least an institution like the church, which claims divine inspiration and guidance, could offer is honesty. i really don’t think that’s too much to ask. excommunication is intended to be a painful ostricism, complete with criticism and suspicion from other members. in my opinion, the church should acknowledge it as such rather than simply trying to sugar coat it as an act of love (i don’t deny that love may be one contributing factor, but it’s not the only one).

• 69 Rainey // Sep 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm

  Sending my very best thoughts for whatever good outcome you hope for.

• 70 William Shunn // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm

  Best of luck tonight, John! Be strong.

• 71 Craig // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  I completely agree with Amelia. It’s very frustrating when people try to discount the culture as being the strongest influence in people’s lives, and try to make a nonsensical distinction between “official doctrine” and how everyone behaves or what they “really” believe.

  There’s only one kind of doctrine, and it’s whatever the church members believe. It’s not 100% uniform, and it changes over time, and there just simply is no “real” doctrine which exists outside of the reality of the culture. Even if it is argued that there is a god and s/he has some “real” doctrine, it is clear that that doctrine is not being translated error-free to the LdS church, as evidenced by how many doctrines have changed, appeared, disappeared and evolved over the past 180 years.

  Because when the actions of the church or church members are rightfully criticised, and that criticism is dismissed because which ever people or leaders earned the criticism weren’t following the supposed “real” doctrine, and therefore there is zero fault, a culture has been created which is immune to criticism (no matter how useful, relevant, or needed), and therefore a culture which changes very slowly, and doesn’t expunge negative ideas. Those negative beliefs and actions are rooted in strong tradition and doctrines and are exempted from critique have made Mormon culture into one where emotional abuse, sexism and homophobia are rampant, and judgmentalism and self-righteousness are at the very core of the culture.

  Until the church and its members can accept criticism and get over the knee-jerk immediate rejection of all critiques as non-applicable because “the church is perfect but the members aren’t” and realise that many of the problems stem not from individuals, but are systemic and caused by underlying doctrinal issues which manifest themselves in the culture and in the people, the church is going to keep slowly imploding and losing credibility.

  It is a valid criticism that a person who is excommunicated is most often treated as a pariah and shut out of the community. While there do exist teachings which contradict that, there are stronger teachings which promote that sort of treatment. No church or religion is without its inherent contradictions, and Mormonism far from exempt. There are many battling beliefs and doctrines and nearly any idea or action can be justified with some passage of scripture, some talk by some prophet or apostle, or some article in the Ensign – and so can it’s complete opposite, and everything in between. There is no one right way to interpret Mormonism, nor one right way to live it. To pretend there is, is to be incredibly naïve or incredibly blind to the realities of Mormon culture and how completely the culture and those warring ideas influence people. It causes no end of pain to pretend that everything is love, joy, happiness, rainbows and unicorns, and ignore the fact that more often than not, the injunction to “love one another” is buried under “obey the commandments” and “be not of the world” and “avoid the very appearance of evil” and other more base and cynical doctrines which in practise supersede the noble teachings of Mormonism.

  There is a fundamental flaw which needs fixing, and John is one of those trying to fix it, and because he cares about the truth, he is being punished. And that’s a tragedy.

• 72 Craig // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:23 pm

  And good luck John. There are times like this when I can’t do anything for someone that I almost wish I still believed in praying. But not quite.

• 73 Shelly! // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:43 pm

  Craig – your last comment was so dead on. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve prayed to the unknown – whispering thoughts much in the same way I used to when I’d kneel.

  John I’m putting mine out there for you right now – since you’re not doubt in the thick of it all…

• 74 Rainey // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:27 pm

  I’ve had that feeling.

  I remember when I was a kid and would wish for things. I don’t think we lose that need as we grow up. We just think we need to color it with a more legitimate kind of rationality we call prayer. We want to think it’s more noble, the outcome less random. It’s still a wish. And when it’s sincere and grounded in good thoughts for someone else there’s nothing wrong with that.

• 75 Craig // Sep 9, 2009 at 9:16 pm

  @Rainey

  You articulated that very well. I couldn’t agree more.

• 76 Everyone’s talking… « Harmless Wisdom // Sep 12, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  [...] September 12, 2009 in Uncategorized | Tags: excommunication, Mormon about John Remy. [...]

• 77 This Blog is Not for You (Unless it is for You). | Mind on Fire // Sep 19, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  [...] The Top Five Reasons Why I’m Not Turning in a Letter of Resignation to the Church. [...]

• 78 quotes roundup- SUMMER 09 « darwinian remiix // Sep 22, 2009 at 8:45 pm

  [...] Remy (from this personal, well-written post on his LDS ex-communication ritual): Hopefully we’ll see each other as complex humans, worthy of [...]

Leave a Comment