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

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.

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

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.

“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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.