147 responses so far ↓

• 1 Isaac // Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 pm

  Thank you for sharing John.

• 2 Craig // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:07 am

  Yes, thanks so much for sharing this. My favourite part is when you glared at them, two times. It made me smile.

  I also want to thank you for asking specifically about Prop 8, and for wearing that shirt. I can’t say I have any degree of confidence in their answer, but it means a lot to me you as such a fierce advocate for my rights.

  What really bothers me that they didn’t specify the charges, so as to make a real defence impossible.

  What I do hope is that your and Jana’s words made some sort of positive difference to those men, that even though they choose to excommunicate you (and it seems that was a predetermined action, regardless of what else happened), they might have some doubt in their minds the next time they try to punish and censor someone for speaking their beliefs.

  I have one question, do you have any idea whether everyone voted for your excommunication, or whether it was split. I have to admit to complete ignorance as to how it’s decided.

• 3 Melissa // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:07 am

  I am proud to call myself your friend, John. And given the long tradition of apostates you have joined, and some of their work, you can hold your head up high.

• 4 Tim // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:52 am

  Thanks for the account! You and Jana had noticeably different experiences here.

• 5 Megan // Sep 16, 2009 at 4:16 am

  I’m so glad you shared. I’ll be interested to read your thoughts over time.

• 6 Brecken // Sep 16, 2009 at 4:27 am

  As many of you guys know, I teach at university, and I had to take a break from writing a quiz to read this post! The textbook page I read JUST before starting to read your account is from a rhetoric book and it has this sentiment: “While managing power certainly involves the ability to control events, it also involves the ability to control meaning.”

  By this definition, I consider your choice to attend the council, to mindfully consider the words and actions of yourself and others there, and to share this window on experience with such candor is an act of great power.

  So…. Respeck! Booyakasha!

• 7 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 4:38 am

  John:

  I wish you well on your spiritual journey. I wish your family well as all of you adjust to your new circumstance.

  While we disagree on many points regarding the truths of Mormonism, I respect your choices and your right to follow truth as you believe it to be.

  There is a tendency in situations like this to emphasize differences. Differences on key points are critical. However, it is also important to recognize that in spite of differences, there are many shared values between you and the LDS religious community I hope that over the years our shared values and decencies will mutually soften any harsh feelings created by the ecclesiastical process and the disagreements over doctrinal matters.

  Kindest regards,

• 8 Rich // Sep 16, 2009 at 5:42 am

  John,

  Fascinating story. My own personal sometimes-grief/angst with the church is mostly political (no-doubt obvious from my previous rant). It’s tragically sad to realize how effed up things can get over politics (which, in the final analysis, is just the flip side of the religion coin). I wish the church could practice what they preach and truly remain politically neutral, but they instead seem to go out of their way to be in bed with the republican party, which to me operates so laughably far from the gospel of Christ as to seem the very opposite of “God’s Own Party” as too many members suppose it to be.

  Sorry, didn’t mean another rant here! Peace to you both…

• 9 Bridget Jack Meyers // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:14 am

  Fascinating account, John. Thanks for posting it.

• 10 Bridget Jack Meyers // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:20 am

  P.S. — I can’t get over the titles thing either, though I’m about as Japanese as Zhang Ziyi is. At BYU I remember one of my professors giving us a searing anecdote about how he referred one student to the Honor Code Office or something for discipline because he called him by his first name. It put the fear of God into us.

  So now I’m at Trinity where most of my professors are trying to get me to call them by first name. A few days after arriving, I sat at the same table as the university president for a lunch meeting and he absolutely insisted I call him “Craig.” I’m having a hard time with it.

• 11 Shelly! // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:21 am

  I have really appreciated being able to observe, at least distantly, this journey that you and Jana are on. Thank you. It has helped me to understand my own spirituality better and that is quite a gift.

  @GKB – Well said.

• 12 WendyP. // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:35 am

  Silly of me to point out, but hymns? There were hymns? Haha…

• 13 Jana // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:35 am

  It’s nice to hear it from your perspective, love.

• 14 Chris Bigelow // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:47 am

  Did you see the great NY Times article on social contagion. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13contagion-t.html?_r=1

  ‘Nuff said.

• 15 Alicia // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:48 am

  John,

  Thank you for sharing your journey.. you and Jana have always inspired my thoughts!

• 16 catbonny // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:49 am

  What does it mean when someone bears testimony? I am going to be honest and say that part of this question comes from Big Love in which Bill considers getting a 4th wife and his friend asks him if he has testimony for it?

  In the Christian church giving a testimony is just telling your story of how you came to accept Christ, but it is not considered divine- more of a personal reflection- wondered what the difference was in the Mormon world.

• 17 wren // Sep 16, 2009 at 8:00 am

  Thanks for sharing, John. My journey out, too, was related to things I learned as a Mormon – seeking out truth and what resonated as right through prayer and contemplation. I still have an affection for some aspects of church, so much that I’ve visited the ward here which is unlike any I’ve been in before – very diverse. There is a great freedom and liberation in enjoying it without the pressure and obligations – and fear.

  I have a feeling it was the temple stuff, even just reposting the picture from tv guide that was at issue. And it’s too bad, really. I found the Big Love ep to be a great fictional example of what happens when someone leaves the church for whatever reason – the character still felt a connection there and was disappointed to see it, however small, severed.

• 18 Molly // Sep 16, 2009 at 8:13 am

  catbonny — Testimony has two meanings in Mormonism.

  The first Sunday of each month, Mormon churches replace what looks like a pretty normal Protestant-type service with Testimony Meeting. There are no assigned speakers and any member in the congregation (although unbaptized children are allowed, too) can get up and say whatever they like. The idea is to share a thought or story of a recent spiritual experience you had, or to share words as you feel prompted in the moment. Doing this is called “bearing your testimony,” and in this sense the word is fairly similar to the sense of “testify,” except of course not in the courtroom sense.

  “Having a testimony,” as it was mentioned in the Big Love episode, means having a spiritual confirmation that a certain thing is true. There’s no formal procedure for this, although the general idea is that you search your thoughts and feelings, pray about it a lot, and come to a conclusion based on your feelings. Mormons wouldn’t use the term “having a testimony” unless it’s a fairly important decision, like marriage or what university to go to or whether to have another child. Mormons also describe “having a testimony” of the core tenets of Mormonism, such as “I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon,” and so on.

• 19 Elaine // Sep 16, 2009 at 8:27 am

  Thanks for that, John.

  I do have to say that I completely stand with Jana in not shaking hands with those men; I wouldn’t have been interested in or able to do that, either.

  The most interesting part of your account, for me, is the insistence of those men that the proceedings were “sacred”, and therefore not to be discussed. When, oh, when, are the leaders of the church, on all levels, going to cease hiding behind “sacredness” in order to keep their activities and their real beliefs secret?

  Your description of Jana’s transparency (about her Quaker membership, especially) during the evening shows her standing in stark contrast to the usual secretiveness of church leaders. Even when I was active in the church, I felt that the whole “it isn’t secret; it’s sacred” thing was a bunch of obstructionist bullshit.

• 20 Jana // Sep 16, 2009 at 8:42 am

  Oh Noes, Chris Bigelow–you better watch out or the excommunication bug might spread to you, too!

  

  I’ve heard other bloggers discuss the social contagion study but I haven’t had the time to read it myself. It’s fascinating to think about the ways our complex web of social networks impact each other. I’m especially curious about how the internet impacts this. Will there be a ‘contagion’ of ex’ing for online heresy?? I doubt it. This seems a very isolated case of local leaders getting their holy knickers in a knot about John’s blog–I don’t see any larger pattern emerging (though willing to eat my words if this changes).

• 21 Janet // Sep 16, 2009 at 9:22 am

  Hey there, John. I just want to wish you continued peace on your journey and congratulate you for the civil way you handled all of this.

• 22 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 9:58 am

  #12: “Silly of me to point out, but hymns? There were hymns? Haha…”

  If they had let John pick the hymn, I wonder if he would have chosen “Should You Feel Inclined to Censure.” Might have been more appropriate for the occasion.

  John’s OP: “I felt like I was two people, someone putting on a facade on Sundays and the authentic me underneath. ”

  John, I think this sentiment right here is what makes you so dangerous in the eyes of the LDS church hierarchy. They know this is true. They know there are many in their congregations who feel exactly like this, but who think they are alone in their thoughts. When you blog about your experience and say things like this, the church leaders know how powerful it is to those who are struggling with their own personal, private angst about putting on the church face on Sunday and knowing that it is not who they really are. The church culture over the past few decades has imposed on the members the requirement that they pretend to be something they are not. The church culture fosters the notion that to appear righteous through an outward conformity to Mormonism’s unique social norms is the equivalent of actually being righteous. Church culture compels people to abandon their authentic selves to appear righteous through a rigid conformity, leaving many people feeling empty inside. Church members are told that if they look happy and content, they will be happy and content. When they are not, it creates massive cognitive dissonance. Church leaders know that the only way to keep such members in the pews is to convince them that there is to make them feel isolated and alone in their self-doubting. When you and others talk about your experience of feeling inauthentic as a result of following the Mormon program, you present a danger to the church. When other members of the church discover that they are not alone in feeling this way, it empowers them to make the same kind of change that you have made. In response, the church must find a way to malign your reputation, so it does so by excommunicating you.

  Thanks for sharing your experience.

• 23 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 10:06 am

  With no disresepct to John, but if we are complimenting civility…how about a tip of the hat to the manner in which the LDS Church handled this matter?

  The LDS Church has a right to end a fellowship relationship with a member. (Just as much as a member has a right to end their relationship with the Church.)

  In this case, the Church treated John with dignity and respect. It did not seek to publicly humiliate or shun him.

  John used words like ” feathers, chocolate, kittens, and comfy cushions” to describe the process.

  Even in the face of his choice of in-your-face clothing, he did not get treated badly.

  He noted the handshakes, the smiles, and generally a civil tone.

  All this in the face of the rather critical statements John has made on this site toward his local LDS authority for calling him to a disciplinary council.

  I’d say that this is a situation where both sides took steps to act according to their beliefs. And were both respectful and civil.

• 24 Molly // Sep 16, 2009 at 10:13 am

  GKB,

  I think the church is going to get less complements upfront because they’re the ones who decided to do this. They called the meeting. They decided to take action.

  Just because they kicked him out of the church wearing pink bunny slippers and not combat boots doesn’t mean they deserve any special praise.

• 25 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 10:21 am

  GKB,

  The men (all men, no women, I notice) who convened the council sat in big comfortable chairs. 15 of them. And sat John and Jana in folding chairs at the end of the table. Was that polite and respectful?

  They paraded them in and out and around without apparent reason and without explanation. Polite? Respectful? Yes, they observed a few outward niceties such as handshakes and forced smiles. But what about their other actions?

  Was it respectful to leave the original “summons” to the church court on the doorstep with only the vague charge of “apostasy” and no explanation of how the process would be handled? Was it respectful to refuse to articulate a specific charge or to present him with a specific accusation or any evidence to support such an accusation? I think the whole process represents the arrogance and self-important sense of superiority that these so-called men of God possess. I see nothing but disrespect for John and Jana–no attempt by these men to find out what John believes, why he believes it, what motivates him. No attempt to discuss how what they were doing by excommunicating him would affect him and his family. I see nothing but the cold, bureaucratic rubberstamping of a decision made before the “council” was ever convened. That the men wore clean shirts and nicely pressed suits, it seems to me, is entirely beside the point. It confuses form for substance.

• 26 Molly // Sep 16, 2009 at 10:22 am

  An interesting find — Mormon apologists gossiping about John here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/45182-excommunication-in-progress/page__pid__1208715362__st__0&#entry1208715362

  I feel this thread is highly representative of how active Mormons speak about former and inactive Mormons, particularly with regard to the fact that people are willing to gossip about him without bothering to become well informed. (The guy who started the thread misunderstands who xJane is, and thread contributors don’t seem to be too familiar with John at all.) In my days of being a self-righteous, puritanical little pig I did it all the time and was proud of my ability to look down on the fallen.

• 27 Eric // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:01 am

  John, I am impressed with your journey, It has been fantastic to read about. Apostate or no I am glad to associate with you.

• 28 Craig // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:07 am

  I just read through the comments on the link Molly posted. It’s distressing to see such ignorant judgmentalism of someone and a situation they know virtually nothing about. I understand some of the comments – specifically ones where they say if he doesn’t believe then why does he care – even if I don’t agree, but a lot of them were personal attacks against John’s character, or just ridiculous lies made-up because of his status as ex-Mormon apostate. One commenter even criticises us here and those like us for daring to suggest that the church is oppressive or controlling, all the while exhibiting obvious signs of shunning a disgraced member of a sect. Some interesting irony to be had at the very least.

• 29 James // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:27 am

  Molly,

  I’m confused. You think the church was somehow outside its bounds to expel a person who clearly had no interest in being a member?

  Clearly, excommunication was the best for both parties. John is happier, and the church no longer identifies John as a member. I don’t see how anyone could not see this as a win-win.

  Why was it mean-spirited for the church to excommunicate someone who had no interest in being a member of said church?

  And, if you find members of a certain blog’s comments to be indicative of mormons as a whole, then well…I really don’t know what to say.

• 30 Molly // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:45 am

  @James I don’t think it’s inappropriate for any organization to decide they want to throw somebody out. That’s the church’s right as a private group.

  What I was saying is that the church in general, and the members of John’s excommunication court in particular, don’t deserve any special pat on the back for being civil during the precedings. I agree with Equality (#25) that the setup of the room and the inferior seats John and Jana were offered were subtle but uncivil attempts to show who was boss.

  GKB seemed to think they deserved praise for being civil. Just because they didn’t yell at anybody doesn’t mean they deserve a pat on the back. They were just following procedure, and I can’t think of anywhere else in life where following procedure earns you special praise. It’s just called doing your job. Does that clear up the confusion?

  This kind of reinforces my point about a common problem with Mormons failing to do research before passing judgment . . . that link was not to a blog. It was to a discussion board with numerous comments from many different people. Many voices, many examples. All of which yes, generally correlate with my personal experience of Mormons in general.

• 31 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  Hi James. Perhaps you did not see where I asked you before if you were the same James who commented on Lyndon Lamborn’s excommunication at the East Valley Tribune a couple years ago. Are you?

  I don’t speak for Molly, but I have seen others raise this question and it is a good one. The church certainly can purge from its membership rolls individuals who do not believe its teachings and are not actively engaged in the church community. I think the criticisms of the church’s excommunication of members like John do not relate to the church’s right to determine who can and cannot be a member–all private organizations enjoy that basic right. The criticisms, rather, concern the fairness of the process, the transparency of the process, and the reasonableness of the process.

  Let’s look at fairness. If it is the church’s position that the only people who should be members of the church are those who believe the doctrines and are active (i.e., those who “have an interest in being Mormon), then the church, in fairness, ought to purge from its rolls the millions of people who are members but who do not identify as such. But the church doesn’t do this. In many wards, the number of members in the ward directory is far greater than the number of people who regularly attend church. Which begs the question: why was John singled out? It is not because he stopped going to church, or didn’t pay tithing, or had doubts about the truthiness of the gospel. It can only be because he wrote about what he believed and felt and what he believed and felt was somehow considered threatening by the powers that be. It cannot be because he wasn’t “keeping the commandments” because millions of Mormons do not keep the commandments but are never brought to a church court. So why was he singled out? Seems unfair.

  Which brings us to the transparency issue. Members of the church can be (and are) excommunicated for not following rules printed in a handbook that they are not allowed to read. The church allows only male church members in certain ecclesiastical leadership positions to have copies of the Church Handbook of Instructions and the church threatens civil action against anyone who publishes the Church Handbook of Instructions. The CHI contains, as John mentioned, four definitions of “apostasy,” any one of which could get a church member excommunicated. Most members have no idea what is in the CHI. Jana herself is now under threat of excommunication for joining another church (the 1996 CHI specifically excluded joining another church as an independent element of “apostasy.” The 2006 version of the CHI changed that so now joining another church IS defined, per se, as apostasy. Thus, any LDS church member could be excommunicated simply for becoming a member of another religious organization.

  The church never told John what the specific charges were against him or the evidence they had against him, so that he could defend himself against the charge. The leaders simply told him they thought he was in apostasy, and that was pretty much that. No information about how the charges had been brought against him or by whom. Nothing about how the process would work, no explanation of why they were doing what they were doing. And a charge to avoid talking about it because the proceeding was “sacred,” as if by uttering the talismanic word “sacred” they could just shut down all discussion. (Aside: what does the sacredness of an event have to do with not discussing it? Baptism is a sacred ordinance–should people be prohibited from discussing baptism? The gospel, one would think, is sacred, yet Jesus said “go ye into all the world…,” etc.) If the church were so confident that it was doing the right thing by holding these courts, why the paranoia about recording them? Why the charge to not talk about it? Why all the secrecy with the CHI? Why not be open and transparent about it?

  Which brings us to reasonableness? Is all this really necessary for the church to control its membership? Assuming that we all agree that a church can determine who is and is not a member, what is the most reasonable way for the church to go about it? To selectively target certain individuals for special treatment to be summoned to a council presided over by 15 men (all of whom are simply “yes men” who will invariably follow the will of the stake president) to have a phony court without any substantive due process? The Lutheran Church of which I was once a member also purged members who were no longer interested in being a member. You know how they did it? If you didn’t show up to church for more than a year, they would call and find out if you wanted to stay on the rolls. If you said “no, I’m going somewhere else now,” they would thank you and remove your name and everyone would part amicably and peaceably. It is unreasonable for the church to conduct itself in the manner it does with respect to these so-called courts of love. This is not medieval Europe. The church ought to be above and beyond this zaniness.

• 32 John // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  Thank you again, everyone.

  Equality, Jana and I both feel that you hit the nail on the head. One of my primary motivations for blogging was because of how isolated I felt. When I bore less than orthodox testimonies or admitted doubt publicly in Church, it was usually with others like me in mind. It’s one of the main reasons why I’ve chosen to go through this so publicly when so many people would prefer I do this silently. I’m not doing it for the ones who prefer I stay quiet, which is why they don’t empathize and can’t understand my motive, I’m guessing.

• 33 John // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  Equality, I was referring to your comment in #22, btw.

• 34 John // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  Chris Bigelow (#14): it’s such a complex and fascinating article, with a range of conclusions and counter-arguments. It makes me curious as to what is so obvious to you as to say, “’nuff said.”

  The article said that the researchers felt that “they have for the first time found some solid basis for a potentially powerful theory in epidemiology: that good behaviors — like quitting smoking or staying slender or being happy — pass from friend to friend almost as if they were contagious viruses.”

  What positive behaviors could this refer to? Increased civility between atheists and LDS leaders? More of my blogging friends seeking excommunication? More folks stand up for gay rights? More MoF and Pilgrimsteps readers shopping at American Apparel? Pray tell, I’m intrigued!

• 35 James // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  Blog, discussion board, what’s the difference in the end, Molly? Honestly.

  “If it is the church’s position that the only people who should be members of the church are those who believe the doctrines and are active (i.e., those who “have an interest in being Mormon), then the church, in fairness, ought to purge from its rolls the millions of people who are members but who do not identify as such.”

  Let’s ignore for the moment that this is NOT the church’s position and take what you say at face value. Were the church to do so, undoubtedly the cry from the masses would be that the church was being cruel and judgmental in expunging thousands of people off their records. How could a church which proclaims to leave the ninety and nine do such a horrible thing?

  The church is always going to be the villain to some people.

  Ex-mormons are always going to be the villain to some people.

  Such is life. I’m not here to convince you of anything. I’m just here to show you that, just maybe, the way you think you see the world isn’t actually the way the world really is.

• 36 John // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:33 pm

  wren, I think you’re probably right about the temple postings. I was probably under watch, and that one crossed an arbitrary line is my guess.

• 37 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  John (#36):

  It might not have been any one thing. Of course, that is kind of the point of my long rant about the process–if your temple post crossed a boundary, they should at least have been (courageous? decent? forthright?) enough to let you know that that was what brought about the summons to the court. At least then you would have had something tangible to identify as the “charge” against you. And then you could have made a rational decision about whether you thought what you had done really did constitute “apostasy.”

• 38 James // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  Equality, you also fail to understand the nature of excommunication proceedings.

  You belittle the high council members as just “yes men” who bow to the whim of the stake president.

  In reality, the stake president is the only one who ultimately decides. It is not a vote. It is not a trial with the high council acting as jury members.

  High council members are asked to sustain the decision, but this does not mean the same as a vote, and I have heard on multiple occasions of high councilmen declining to sustain their stake president in the decision to excommunicate. For all we know, the person who John had worked with previously declined to sustain the stake president’s decision.

  Just because you depict excommunication proceedings a certain way doesn’t make them reality.

  And, the answer is no.

• 39 James // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm

  John,

  RE: the temple postings.

  In an earlier post, you chided me for my “tone” in regards to homosexuals and the issue of SSM. You said I should be respectful of their feelings and adjust my comments appropriately.

  I wonder, do you apply the same standards for members of the church and the things they hold sacred?

  The gay community holds sacred their right to marry whomever they want. When that right is mocked or treated lightly on this blog, you rush to their defense.

  I wonder, then, why you are quick to deride and generally hold in contempt many of the beliefs of Latter-day Saints, especially when you still hold many of them to be your “friends.” Does this not seem like a double-standard to you?

• 40 Craig // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  And just because you refuse to depict it a certain way doesn’t make it false.

  I am confused at why there is any need to tell John that he somehow did or said or felt something wrong here. This is about John (and Jana’s) subjective experience, how he perceived the incident, and how he felt about it.

  The church is within its rights as a private organisation to control its membership however it wants – but that doesn’t make their policies and actions ethical or right.

  What Equality said in #31 is how many of us feel, why we speak out, and expresses a common viewpoint from the perspective of those who dare to question and criticise.

  I do believe also that his depiction of the other men besides the SP as “yes-men” is accurate. Even if they decline to sustain the decision, they have no power, there is no fair trial, no evidence. They belittle themselves by being party to such a total sham and it needs to be portrayed as such. It’s a farce to make the people passing judgement feel better about themselves. As I’ve said many times, when any organisation or church feels the need to silence and discredit those who say truth, and has rules of secrecy which must not be broken, is hiding something nasty and dark. The LdS church claims to be “full of light and truth”, yet cast John out for speaking truth. To me, and many people here, that is very disturbing.

• 41 John // Sep 16, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  James: one word: audience. Mind on Fire is secular feminist pro-gay-rights blog and is part of a community of skeptics and recovering and fringe believers. We sometimes use words like “fuck” and “cunt”, we blaspheme, we are openly critical about religion to each other. This is just me, but I would not personally post a temple-revealing comment on a mainstream mormon blog or in Sunday school.

  So, no, I don’t feel this is a double-standard at all. I’ve said as much to church leaders. “Why do you all even read my blog?”

  Ack, forgot to include that in the post. During my testimony, I spoke about who my community consisted of, and that I wrote for them. I do not write with mainstream Mormons in mind at all.

• 42 James // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:00 pm

  Here we go. The metadebate about truth and light.

  We’re not going to come to an agreement, Craig.

  Again, you will always see the church as the villain. Nothing I say or do will ever change that, so I’ll leave you be.

• 43 Craig // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  @James

  I appreciate your question, it is a good one. John’s answer is a great one.

  I think that another difference is that when I criticise the church I am doing so because of actual demonstrated harm (much of which I have personally experienced) which I wish to stop, and harmful policies/doctrines/beliefs which I wish to be changed.

  Furthermore, I, like John, believe in transparency, openness and believe that secrets, even “sacred” ones are bad.

  On my own blog, when I discuss topics many Mormons feel shouldn’t be talked about, I do so not to get a rise out of Mormons, but rather to discuss my own experiences (including the temple), and to simply speak the truths of my experiences. It is not intended to be disrespectful, and it is not my fault if people take offence. It is intended to shed light onto things which are hidden, and often even lied about in order to protect their secrecy.

  The difference is the “sacred” thing that we gays want is called equality and civil rights. The sacred thing the LdS church wants is the right to discriminate and the right to have it’s religious (bigoted) beliefs be forced onto secular society and codified into law.

  There is a gigantic difference between me, an individual discussing my temple, mission, and other Mormon experiences (which I admit seem like blasphemy to many Mormons), and the church’s attempt to dehumanise not just gay members of its own church, but ALL gays.

  It’s just not the same thing at all.

  And no, nothing anyone could ever say can erase my experience in Mormonism. It was a supremely negative, abusive, and troubling one. I certainly think there are some good things about Mormonism, and many good people involved in it, but there is much which harms and needs to change. Suffering is bad, and the LdS church causes and perpetuates much suffering.

• 44 Molly // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  James,

  >>I wonder, then, why you are quick to deride and generally hold in contempt many of the beliefs of Latter-day Saints, especially when you still hold many of them to be your “friends.”<<

  John broke a taboo. He didn't mock. There's a difference between the two. He didn't put on his temple clothes and do a dance on YouTube.

  For believing Mormons, there's a general attitude of "if it breaks church policy or is critical of the church in any way, then it is Anti-Mormon(TM) and should be condemned as hateful." For non-believers in Mormonism, it's possible to discuss things that are forbidden to Mormons, but do it in a way that doesn't make light of it or misrepresent it.

  I'll add to my general experience with Mormons that they are mostly incapable of separating those two things.

• 45 James // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  Like I said, Craig, you and people like you and me and people like me are never going to see eye to eye.

  I wish you and John and others out there much peace and happiness.

• 46 Craig // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:26 pm

  Thank you. Same to you.

• 47 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  I realize that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to suggest in this venue that the manner in which John’s council process was ‘civil.’

  This is a community as John describes it that pretty much thinks the LDS Church is all bad…all the time.

  My post was in response to some of the fawning about how civil John was at his council.

  Yes. John was civil. He did not yell, scream, insult, belittle. He was mildly insulting and taunting with his choice of a being a walking gay-rights billboard…but he deserves compliments that he was civil.

  John went through the Church’s process by his own choice. He was given months of notice on which to resign. He chose to go through the council experience instead. He could have simply not shown up to the council and let the process take its own due course. He chose to participate in the process. He was given the option of making the council quick and easy. He chose to speak and call at least one witness. That was his choice. From everything I have read, John understood the basic process of an LDS council. He chose to participate.

  My comment was not about the rightness or wrongness of having the council. Nor was it about the logistical process of the council itself (what room it is held in, prayers, singing music, who was there, etc.) My comment was about how John was TREATED at the the council.

  Based on John’s own account, he was treated with respect and civility at the council. If you let go of all the other baggage…I think that fact is a pretty reasonable observation.

• 48 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  GKB,

  I agree that the men in charge of the council were polite and presentable in their fine-twined clothing as they pronounced their sentence upon him, which sentence, according to their belief system, will have the effect of eternally cutting John off from his wife and children and other family members, will consign him to at least 1000 years in hell, and remove any possibility of experiencing the glories of the celestial kingdom, including the chance to be in the presence of God the Father. At best, he can hope for a telestial glory, having turned his back on the gospel after once being enlightened. He will have no chance at “eternal increase’ and will lose all the blessings and benefits of the promises God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Etc. Yes, they were polite. But in their minds, they were essentially consigning him to an eternal fate reserved for murderers and adulterers and the like. And all because, apparently, he chose to speak his mind on an Internet site.

• 49 Craig // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  That advocating for gay rights is ever “insulting” is very, very sad.

• 50 polywogjones // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  John & Jana: amazing people. thx for publicly experiencing what would otherwise be a private affair. I’m disturbed, enlightened, sad and liberated – all vicariously through your posts. Peace and Joy.

• 51 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  Craig: (#48) “That advocating for gay rights is ever “insulting” is very, very sad.”

  HOW you advocate is the operative concept here.

• 52 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 3:01 pm

  “HOW you advocate is the operative concept here.”

  Yes, that’s what the people in power always say to those they are oppressing.

• 53 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  Equality: (#47) “But in their minds, they were essentially consigning him to an eternal fate reserved for murderers and adulterers and the like.”

  Actually, they were doing nothing of the sort. In the LDS belief system, God renders those sorts of judgements…not mere Stake Presidents and High Council members.

  What they most likely thought is that they were simply formalizing the break with Mormonism that John had publicly confessed on his blog.

  John has declared that he is an atheist, does not believe in the tenents of the Church, does not live many of the commandments of the Church…and has declared himself to be a ‘former’ Mormon before ever walking into that room.

• 54 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 3:11 pm

  Equality: (#51) “Yes, that’s what the people in power always say to those they are oppressing.”

  I for one do not think the Church ‘oppressed’ John in any way, shape, or form.

  John is a grown, intelligent, free-spirit. (And, from what I can tell…a pretty decent fellow.) He is in complete control of his life and destiny.

  Equally, as John himself has pointed out, the Church also has a right of self-determination.

  What happened as a result of that council is the Church deciding to part company with John. Recognizing that basic truth is liberating…not oppressing… for both John and the Church.

• 55 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  GKB (#54): ” Equality: (#51) ‘Yes, that’s what the people in power always say to those they are oppressing.’

  I for one do not think the Church ‘oppressed’ John in any way, shape, or form.”

  I didn’t say the church oppressed John. My comment related to your comment about how insulting it was for John to wear his Legalize Gay shirt. My comment was directed to your comment that the manner in which he expressed himself might have been insulting.

• 56 Equality // Sep 16, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  GKB (#53):

  Your apologetic defense that Mormons believe only God does the judging might sound good to someone who knows absolutely nothing about Mormonism, but anyone who has had extensive exposure to the LDS church knows the truth. Section 76 of the Doctrine & Covenants explicitly says who goes where and why and countless lessons and talks have been given and continue to be given concerning these things. To say that to the believers who were meting out this punishment it was nothing more than breaking a free association, as if they were expelling him from the jelly of the month club or something is disingenuous, at best.

• 57 John White // Sep 16, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  GKB (47)

  I’m not sure how being unprepared with explanations for the effects on Jana and the children’s sealings was respectful.

• 58 TammyT // Sep 16, 2009 at 5:03 pm

  Thank you, John, for being so candid about your experience. I actually have quite a bit more positive feeling towards Mormons than before I read your and Jana’s posts. You both are such incredibly good people. Thank you again for sharing.

• 59 GKB // Sep 16, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  John White:

  From my reading of John’s description, I’m not sure that they even knew that his wife was coming and would need to address that issue. Even so, that is more a matter of oversight than deliberate rudeness or harsh treatment.

  Equality:

  I guess we see things differently. Sure, there are eternal consequences for excommunication in LDS theology.

  However, excommunication is strictly a membership status action. Eternal consequences are left up to God and the person. True-hearted ecclesiastical leaders should not take pleasure or vindictiveness (as you have implied) in being inspired that excommunication is the appropriate decision.

  The fact remains. The formal removal of John Remy’s name from the records of the LDS Church (excommunication) simply formalized the truth and the fact that John had already left the Church in his heart and his mind…what he had declared quite publicly and openly to the world.

  I think it is significant that for all the complaining about the LDS Church, this action was taken with his full participation. It was done with respect and civility. He was not criticized by the members of this council. The LDS Church has not announced this action. The LDS Church has not sought in any manner to shun him, embarass him, disparage his character to anyone, and the LDS Church has made no public statement on the mattertht might stigmatize Mr. Remy. It has been a completely confidential and civil private ecclesiastical matter.

• 60 Jana // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:03 pm

  I have to say that I’m amazed how invested some of you are in these posts that we wrote about the church court(!)…

  I feel like there are so many details that I’m aching to comment on, but I don’t have the time (sigh). Let me just reiterate a few things:

  1) Even though I’ve discussed my discomfort with parts of the proceedings, throughout I felt fine. No one was rude or overtly insensitive. When I made a joke about wanting to sit in the foyer rather than the back room because the chairs were more comfortable, the nearest man offered to carry one of the comfy chairs to the back room for me.

  2) I did have the opportunity to ask questions before the proceedings and I didn’t ask about the consequences of the ex’ing then because it seemed preemptive. I erroneously assumed that there would be some sort of wrap-up meeting where I could address that if it, indeed, happened. I’m not upset about it now, but at the time I felt rather surprised at how abruptly the meeting ended.

  3) I am offended that not one person on either of our blogs has asked what I wore to the court.

  4) The day after the court I was pretty shaken up about it. There are reasons for my trauma that go beyond what happened in the stake center last Wednesday (but those reasons are rather personal so I’m not sharing them online). I’m doing much better now and I’m looking forward to moving on with our life.

  5) And just in case you were wondering…sleeping with an ex-mo is fun, indeed.

  PS to Equality: I need to have you start ghost-editing my blog–you speak my mind so much better than I do

• 61 Chris Bigelow // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:10 pm

  Hmm, I guess ” ‘Nuff said” was kind of a dumb thing to say, because I threw it out there as a question, not an answer. What I should have said was, “Does this relate, and if so how?”

  I’m curious about questions such as, What role did social contagions of different kinds play in getting you guys where you are today re: Mormonism? What social contagion role(s) have you played, are you playing, and will you continue to play in this arena. How much responsibility/accountability for that will you bear, eventually, once your knees do bow back down (perhaps not until some point in the afterlife). Especially with regard to your kids.

  Personally, I wonder how much apostate social contagion I can take before it starts to outweigh the orthodox Mormon social contagion I’m regularly exposed to, much of which frankly rubs me wrong–but so far, more apostate contagion rubs me wrong than orthodox does. I see so much pride in apostasy–I can smell it like a proliferating bacteria–and I consider you fascinating, charismatic Remys as basically a cautionary tale. I hope you come full circle some day sooner than later, but until then I’ll be wearing my spiritual face mask and using hand sanitizer as I continue to follow you and your blogs. Oh, the humanity!

• 62 Chandelle // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  Just wanted to say, thanks so much for writing about your experience. I’m interested to read your analysis. I have so much more to say…but I don’t have the words for it. Just…thanks.

• 63 John White // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:27 pm

  GKB (59)

  I’m stunned that you think not having information on impacts on sealings at a proceeding where excommunication is a potential outcome is merely an “oversight” and still falls under the umbrella of respectful treatment.

  Even if Jana hadn’t been there, the impact upon her needs to be understood and explained, doesn’t it?

• 64 Chris Bigelow // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:34 pm

  Equality #22: Wow, extremely well said. You state the problem so very, very well. I feel so much the same way so often.

  On the other hand, there’s no real solution offered here except prideful rebellion, no matter how you dress it up. The only real solution is to stay in, do what you can to help leaven the culture, put your personal dissatisfactions and unfulfilled natural needs on the altar and hope for compensatory blessings (same thing Mormon gays gotta do to stay in), and stay the course. Oh, and it doesn’t hurt to go to church in sandals and jeans once in a while too.

  My problem is that I’ve personally met the devil, and I can spiritually feel it sharply whenever I start to slide back over a certain line into his territory, and I’ve learned the hard way that the only truly safe ground is Mormonism. I hope you never have to meet him, but alas, some of us have to meet him face to face sooner or later as part of our training, experience for ourselves who the man is behind the curtain.

• 65 Jana // Sep 16, 2009 at 7:56 pm

  Chris:
  I know that our choices have impacted some of our friends and their adherence to Mormonism. But I don’t advocate that anyone else stop attending LDS church– when people come to me for advice I try to listen to their spiritual journeys and be supportive of whatever choices they make. I don’t think there’s any one perfect cookie-cutter approach to spirituality. Of course I do think the Quakers rock and love to take friends to Meeting, but I’m well-aware that this path isn’t for everyone. I imagine that it must be really tough for you to live in Provo because you’re not a typical Mormon. I’m sympathetic to how hard it must be (I’d keep up with those immunizations & flu shots if I were you)…

  IMO, if God is a wise and as compassionate being, I can’t imagine her faulting me for living true to my values and conscience. I try very hard to do good works, to be generous, to love others, and to live with integrity. I am grateful for the gift of life and I care for my body. I make mistakes sometimes, but I’m always trying to do better. If I do find myself face-to-face with the divine in the hereafter, I will not be ashamed of my choices and actions.

  As for our children: Those who know our family well IRL can chime in here and affirm that our kids are some of the most thoughtful, happy, well-mannered, bright, and values-led humans that you’ll ever meet (they take after their Dad in all of these things, honestly….). Both kids have been a part of all of our family’s decisions about church matters and they know that if they wanted to attend Mormon church that we’d go along with them. Believe me when I say that there is no cautionary tale here, my friend (though I appreciate your concern!).

• 66 MC // Sep 16, 2009 at 8:29 pm

  The Church is a bit purer now.
  Good luck, but we won’t miss you.

• 67 Ryan // Sep 16, 2009 at 9:02 pm

  Jana! What did you wear to the court?

  MC (#66) Ah, there’s that Christian compassion.

• 68 Jana // Sep 16, 2009 at 9:59 pm

  Ryan:
  How nice of you to ask!.
  I wore a charcoal grey pantsuit, white oxford-cloth button-down shirt, and a striped maroon necktie. For some reason no one thought my cross-dressing was weird at all.

• 69 Kelly Ann // Sep 16, 2009 at 10:24 pm

  Jana, how fashionable!

  John, just a quick question, why were there 20 men present? I thought the standard was 15.

• 70 Nylon Mesh Scoopnecka // Sep 17, 2009 at 12:15 am

  Dude, you made it way too easy for them. You should have pled not guilty and made them produce what they thought was evidence of your apostasy. That way at least you would have known what it was that stuck in their craw. What you did was nice for everyone involved. But the lawyer in me would have caused me to make them prove their case.

• 71 Ryan J // Sep 17, 2009 at 2:26 am

  Support is strong and growing. It’s nice to slap religious nonsense across the face with some reality, and with some noticeable public magnitude. By the way, the population of Mormon numb-nuts out there concerns me. Mormon numb-nuts out there…please speak up, and wake up!

• 72 Jana // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:42 am

  Kelly Ann:
  There were a few extra men (besides the 15) who had other responsibilities, such as taking notes of the proceedings, etc. Our local leader also attended. The total might have been closer to 18 rather than 20, but I never did take an exact tally.

• 73 Rainey // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:51 am

  Pride is another one of those things like fire, isn’t it? If you have too much or misuse the pride you have you get yourself in trouble. But if you don’t have any you’re a damaged human being. You don’t have any core to count on and you could find yourself listening to men when you should be listening to the stirrings of the spirit, no?

  Too many religions spend far too much time talking about pride when what they really mean is that they want docile souls they can manipulate.

• 74 Brecken // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:54 am

  Jana, it is interesting that no one made note of your clothing. If John had shown up in a dress, I’m sure it would have been a different matter entirely. Always an interesting double standard to me.

  Also on my mind… How do you guys process that weird moment when you were asked if you love each other?

• 75 Jana // Sep 17, 2009 at 10:25 am

  (Was just joking abt the clothes, btw–I hate wearing suits. I think I actually wore jeans and a tee, if I remember correctly).

  I think the “do you love each other moment” was meant to break the ice a bit after some intense conversation. I replied enthusiastically “Yes!”, but John was sort of startled when he was asked and it took him a moment to reply.

• 76 Eric // Sep 17, 2009 at 11:00 am

  John and Jana,

  I have followed your accounts of the excommunication with great emotion. You are very brave people and your love for the truth — and for each other — is the narrative which binds it all together.

  I am reading this at 2:30 in the morning on my phone in a sleeping village in the Gobi Desert. I know I haven’t commented for months, but it would have been very ungrateful not to comment now. Thank you both.

• 77 Mike S // Sep 17, 2009 at 11:26 am

  John and Jana,

  I’ve always just been lurking, and appreciate your thoughtful comments about your experiences. While I remain an active LDS member, comments like MC #66 will do more to get me to leave the LDS Church than anything you could write.

• 78 eBrown // Sep 17, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  Although John never intended to record the proceedings, the absence of such a record is another factor in my disdain for the supposed “fairness” of the proceeding. At trial and at almost every other proceeding in a criminal trial, the concepts of “making a record” and “protecting the record” are extremely important. Not only is human memory weak, and subject to prejudice and confirmation bias, but the presence of an objective record guarantees a degrees of openness and honesty which non-recorded proceedings may not have. It’s true that many matters are unrecorded as they occur in chambers or at a side-bar; however it is the responsibility of the lawyer to put any such proceedings ON the record if they have a bearing on the fairness, legality, or appealability of the proceedings. Which generally leaves only negotiations and discussions about dates, order of witnesses, etc., unrecorded. I note that while the council was adamant that John not record the proceedings, they had someone whose job was to make notes, a procedure not offered John, once again underscoring their attempt to create an imbalance in the power relationships. The justification given for the secrecy is that the proceedings are “sacred.” This is patently risible. The secrecy is obviously designed to avoid embarrassment, to emphasize a distorted power relationship, and to continue to constrain the excommunicant, and to hide the pettiness of the proceedings. Even the Inquisition provided attorneys for the accused, and the right to call witness for the accused and to question those who testified against him, and meticulous records were kept. This court of “Love” didn’t even provide that level of procedural protection: its operation was closer to a Star Chamber, with the process secretive and the result foreordained.

  John and Jana, by their love for each other and their luminous honesty, show what a “mildewed ear” these councils are.

• 79 GKB // Sep 17, 2009 at 2:45 pm

  ebrown:

  With respect, you cast this event as similar to a secular court. They are not. These are an administrative matter in a ecclesiastical setting. They are primarily spiritual in significance.

  Only critic of the Church refer to them as courts.

  John was perfectly free to ignore the council completely. He has that power and right. Just as a baptismal interview, temple recommend interview, and spiritual counselling with a Bishop are all private matters, so to is a Church disciplinary council.

  Your secular approach to this spiritual matter is understandable for someone who does not seem to understand the intended meaning of the LDS system.

  As a non-believer in Mormonism, you are free to voice your opinion. Better yet, you can establish your own system of belief. You can create whatever sort of organization around those believes you choose. You are free to accept, reject, and remove membership within your new religion. Lastly, you can establish any system of evaluation…with whatever transparency and documentation you are comfortable with.

• 80 GKB // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:02 pm

  ebrown:

  Another thought…John described this process as being akin to “feathers, chocolate, kittens, and comfy cushions.” He mentioned handshakes, small talk, smiles, and with some old friends on the council…friendly small talk.

  Jana described how they offered to move furniture for her so she could have a comfy chair to sit in.

  Doesn’t sound like sound like much of a star chamber to me.

• 81 Equality // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  GKB:

  Ah, the classic “hide behind a euphemism” defense. “It’s a disciplinary council, not a court! Gotcha!” Do you hear yourself, GKB? Really? That’s the best you can come up with? It also happens not to be true. While the CHI uses the euphemism of “disciplinary council” the terms “church court” and “court of love” have been used many times by members of the LDS church over the years. To say otherwise is to bear false witness, which could put you in danger of a disciplinary council yourself if not repented of. 2 Nephi 9:34.

• 82 wren // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm

  John, you totally should have worn a utili-kilt! I bet you have some smokin’ hot calves. I’ll leave it to Jana to clue us in.

• 83 Equality // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:09 pm

  A search of lds.org reveals 33 instances where church publications talk about “church courts.”

  GKB, I refer you to the many previous comments about why the politeness of the brethren involved in the disciplinary council is of some interest but does not absolve them of responsibility for engaging in an act which, from their own vantage point and by their own profession of belief, condemns John to an eternal separation from his family, among other things.

• 84 eBrown // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  GKB, the Catholic Church has an entire body of Canon Law to deal with just such matters. Equity comes primarily form Church courts. In my comment, I specifically provided an ecclesial comparison. Moreover the distinction between administrative and judicial process is specious, except insofar as it pertains to the burden of proof. Simply because a matter is held in an administrative proceeding does not mean that standards of fairness and transparency should be absent.

  Please do not patronize me, I understand “the intended meaning of the LDS system” quite well. Thank you for providing an example of that “system” in your remarks. As a believer in Mormonism, you apparently prefer an organization where you are not free to voice your opinion, and in which transparency, honesty, or fairness are not valued.

• 85 Molly // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  @GKB #79 – I call horse puckey. Everybody calls them courts. Church court is the most common phrase used for them, with “court of love” used rarely or sarcastically. The phrase has been in use for quite some time, even getting a joke made about it by the ever-brilliant Pat Bagley some 16 years ago: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/092-65-79.pdf

  And as has been stated before, just because somebody’s smiling at you and making pleasant talk doesn’t mean they’re doing you any unusual kindness. Refraining from acting like a jackass is what you *expect* from a group of grownups. It’s nothing remarkable.

  Also, woot for the utilikilt, and congrats to Jana for now having a bonafide rebel bad boy to sleep with. I think he needs a leather jacket.

• 86 GKB // Sep 17, 2009 at 3:40 pm

  To be factual…LDS Church USED to refer to them as ‘courts.’ Since that creates misconceptions, the Church’s official title for these processes is ‘Church Disciplinary Council.’

  Any search of lds.org will find decades old references to courts. I believe that the Handbook of instructions also refers to them as disciplinary councils.

  In fact, most Church training for these councils is to point out that these are not courts, they are not to be confrontational, and they are to be respectful and loving.

  I realize this is a subtle nuance…but it more properly reflects the intent and process intended by the Church.

• 87 Jana // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm

  John has the world’s hottest calves & can truly rock the utilikilt. I think a kimono would’ve been even better tho & would’ve been culturally appropriate, too!

• 88 Jana // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  GKB:
  I knew that the official lingo had changed re: courts, but everyone still calls them courts so that’s what I rolled with in my description. It’s sorta like the word “Mormon”–the GAs keep trying to get rid of it, but it sticks nonetheless.

• 89 Rainey // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  If church officials shake hands and smile while disrupting the eternal security of a family and then have nothing to offer in the way of consolation, direction or concern for the member who remains a member, I can’t see how that could be described as “respectful” or “loving” on this planet or any other. That’s just role playing and public relations.

• 90 eBrown // Sep 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  “…meet it is I set it down,
  That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain…”

• 91 SilencedByFear // Sep 17, 2009 at 5:27 pm

  I am sorry for you. I hope you find happiness. I also admire that you stand by what you believe.

• 92 Erin G. // Sep 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm

  I just love the first picture of the entry. Every time I see it I go, “Oh yeah!”

• 93 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 6:46 am

  Rainey: If church officials shake hands and smile while disrupting the eternal security of a family and then have nothing to offer in the way of consolation, direction or concern for the member who remains a member, I can’t see how that could be described as “respectful” or “loving” on this planet or any other. That’s just role playing and public relations.

  I am struggling to accept the comment above at face value. Is there genuine concern for the spiritual well being within Mormonism for the Remy family, or a sort of feigned indignation for the purpose of scoring a rhetorical point?

  If anyone actually and literally believe that excommunication ‘disrupts the eternal security’ of the Remy family…then they’d also understand this one of the natural consequences of John’s own actions. In other words, disrupting the eternal security of the Remy family is John’s choice.

  This council was an action that took place to determine John’s status in the Church. It was not a counseling or information occasion for Jana.

  Should there have been more detailed explanations offer to Jana? However, based on Jana’s description of refusing to shake hands and answer at least one question, it is possible that the Church participants did not believe that she’s have questions.

  Additionally, given Jana’s own self-published status as attending and having joined another religion (Quakers) I wonder if the Church participants even thought such counseling was even welcome or relevant.

  Either way, that situation is easily corrected. If Jana wants to have a greater understanding of how John’s excommunication affects her and the children…she can contact her Bishop. I am sure he’d be more than happy to meet with her. I think John would be more than welcome to participate. (If they are perceived to be on any sort of do-not-contact status, the Bishop will not contact them.)

  Rainey’s comment ignores the core truth. John had left the Church in every way but formal termination of his membership. Jana has joined another religion as well. This process was the formalization of this reality. In spite of the deep differences over religious truths, there was every attempt made to treat the Remy’s with civility. If Jana is genuinely interested in discussing her continued status in the Church…her Bishop’s door is always open.

  As I have said from the beginning. I disagree with John from a theological perspective…but I wish him well on his journey. I wish Jana the same blessings.

• 94 Equality // Sep 18, 2009 at 7:51 am

  GKB (#92): “John had left the Church in every way but formal termination of his membership. Jana has joined another religion as well. This process was the formalization of this reality.”

  So the church excommunicated him simply to formalize the reality that he was no longer a believer and active participant? Why would the church need to have fifteen to twenty men go through the Kabuki Theater to do that? And why, if that’s all it was, doesn’t the church do the same for the millions (literally) of people who are on the membership rolls of the church but do not believe and do not participate? Perhaps more to the point, why wasn’t Jana excommunicated at the same time? There must be something more to it than that. The church doesn’t hold these courts for everyone who stops attending and believing or even for everyone who posts criticisms of the church on a blog (if the church decides to go after such people, I can think of a number of Bloggernaclers who might be subject to a summons forthwith). No, John crossed some line with something he did or said on his blog. But due to the “sacred” nature of the proceeding, we are still left in the dark as to exactly what that line was.

• 95 Hellmut // Sep 18, 2009 at 7:54 am

  Weird. It feels like those guys knew that they were doing something wrong but wanted to be obedient.

  Reminds me of my grandparents’ generation.

• 96 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:14 am

  Equality:

  You are correct that Church disciplinary councils are very, very rare.

  As for the number of people participating, that is a matter of scriptural requirement. John was an elder, temple endowed, and a returned missionary (IIRC). A council at that level is called for by scripture.

  His apostacy is not in doubt. He has declared it openly. As such, the council did not get into all the minutia…it dealt with how to proceed with John’s status in the Church and would be the approapriate path for him.

  I will note that I found Johns open apostacy and criticism of the Church to be fairly unusual. Sure, there are all sorts of people who publicly take shots at the Church in their blogs and public forums…but not to the extent and with open self-declaration of apostacy. I think that makes John’s case unique and merited a council.

  I think that had John claimed at the council that he was not in apostacy, the members of the council would have been prepared to offer their opinions as to why. I think they avoided specifying the basis for his apostacy to make the process as non-confrontational and civil as possible.

  I don’t know John, I was not associated in any manner with this council. However, I think that John’s apostacy was established by a combination of self-declared truths:

  – His own self-declared apostacy

  – His declaration of his atheism

  – As an atheist, he no longer believes or accepts any of even the basic tenents of Mormonism.

  – His declaration that he leverages his membership in the Church to bolster his credibility when criticizing it.

  – His analogy that the Church acts like a sexual preditor abusing children.

  – Publishing recreations of the temple ceremony.

  – General and continued disdain and criticism of the Church on virtually every level.

  – His seeming complete lack of loyalty or affinity for the Church.

  These are just a few of the things I have noted since I have happened to surf my way to ‘Mind on Fire’ several months ago.

  I think that it was more than evident by John’s own words that the fellowship relationship and trust between John and the Church was completely broken. As such, the Church took the action that it did.

  I find it interesting that those who criticize the Church for being so dogmatic and legalistic are the very folks that seem to be dogmatic in demanding that the Church be legalistic when dealing with these matters.

• 97 John // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:21 am

  Quick comment:

  GKB said:

  “His analogy that the Church acts like a sexual preditor abusing children.”

  It is irresponsible to bring this up as a data point when it is completely removed from its original context. It means something entirely different in isolation than as one segment in a series. At least include a link to the discussion.

  Sorry, but I’m rankled at how people isolate that without even trying to understand it as an example of how abused some temple goers feel. It makes me want to reveal the murderous penalties all over again to underscore the point.

• 98 Rainey // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:21 am

  re #92

  Struggle if you will, GKB, but the fact remains and remains glaringly obvious that those men didn’t evidence the slightest pastoral concern for Jana or her children — her children who still have a lifetime on this planet and didn’t participate in blogging, refusing to shake hands or any other “offense”.

  It’s true that I don’t believe LDS cosmology. But I’m not the point, am I? The point is that those men who felt that they had the authority to sunder an attachment that John and Jana had agreed to make for a whole order of eternities believed it. And took their authority from those very beliefs. And exercised authority very selectively NOT to include any positive ministering behaviors. So they took the time to find out if the Remys loved one another (as though that was any of their business) but did NOT take even a moment — even though there were a good number of them and even though they had the highest level of counseling abilities and responsibilities for that locality — to counsel Jana on her own behalf or her children’s about their future or the present wound they had inflicted.

  You may dismiss any ongoing need Jana may have based on her failure to shake hands and shall we say pride on the inquisitors’ part — and her attendance at Quaker meetings. But the business of shaking hands or not is a question of mere (and amply understandable) manners on her part. And Quaker meetings don’t exclude or minimize in any way a person’s other beliefs and loyalties. Saying that she attends Quaker meetings is equivalent to saying she also attends PTA meetings. So, by dereliction and not a small amount of male chauvinist disregard, they dismissed not only Jana’s heart and beliefs but her career of stake-level service of years’ duration. And her children.

  Where is the proportion? Where is the guidance of the Holy Spirit? What would Jesus’ message in that moment have been?

  No handshake, smile or comfy chair quite stands up, does it? As I said, role playing and public relations.

• 99 Hellmut // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:59 am

  Remember Lavina Anderson, GKB? She did not even get charged when she was excommunicated.

  Church courts are poorly designed institutions where the stake president and the brethren can do what they want.

  In the Roman Catholic Church, there is at least canon law that regulates the behavior of ecclesiastical officers.

  There are tyrants who have better courts than our church.

• 100 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  John:

  I don’t think that citing your analogy is irresponsible.

  As a Latter Day Saint, I was deeply offended by that comparison — within the context you made it. Whether or not you feel that the analogy is appropriate; or have some justifying logic; is moot.

  I cited that analogy as an example of the sort of characterizations of the LDS Church that might be reasonably considered by other members of the faith as evidence of your apostacy.

  I am not condemning you for making such a statement.

  I am not trying to debate the fairness of the statement.

  I merely point out that it is one of a number of things you have published that might lead to members of the Church to conclude that it is time to part company.
  On that basis, I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider that statement.

• 101 Equality // Sep 18, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  “As a Latter Day Saint, I was deeply offended by that comparison.”

  Then you have sinned and should repent, according to Elder David A. Bednar:

  “When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.

  In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.

  . . .

  If a person says or does something that we consider offensive, our first obligation is to refuse to take offense . . . .”

• 102 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  Rainey:

  As I said, if Jana is concerned with these matters, the door is open for her to meet with her Bishop and discuss them. Ecclesiastical engagement goes both ways.

  My impression is that the citation issues of procedures, counseling, record keeping is more about fault-finding than the are caring about keeping or reparing the bond of fellowship between the Remy’s and the Church.

  If the Church had made this more of a procedural, confrontational meeting…the Church would be accused of being too formal and dogmatic.

  Had the Church spent time counseling with Jana for a few minutes at the conclusion of the meeting, I’m sure that there would be criticism that they were condescending and patronizing.

  Had the members of the council been terse, accusative, or unfriendly…I can only imagine all the complaining.

• 103 Equality // Sep 18, 2009 at 12:56 pm

  GKB #101:

  Are those the only other options? How about if the church had simply left the Remys alone?

• 104 Worthy // Sep 18, 2009 at 1:08 pm

  GKB #101
  Of couse the option of resignation was not presented by those dishing out the ecclesiastical abuse. The rare art form of “ea” is institutionalized and any easy way out is not considered.

• 105 Kaimi // Sep 18, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  Thanks for this post, John. It has been interesting to see you and Jana go through this process. I think that you have handled yourself fairly and with dignity. And it sounds like OM and his colleagues were as amicable as possible, too.

  Break-ups almost always suck on one level or another. On the other hand, they can also be important milestones in a journey. I’m sorry about the tension and stress this process added to your life; I’m glad that this formal break-up wasn’t any more painful; and I hope that you are able to build on it in a positive way in your own journey.

• 106 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  Worthy: Of couse the option of resignation was not presented by those dishing out the ecclesiastical abuse. The rare art form of “ea” is institutionalized and any easy way out is not considered.

  This statement is a perfect example of the fact that in the matter of John Remy…the Church could do nothing that would satisfy the critics.

  Agree with the Church or not…there could not have been much more of a diplomatic or responsible way for the Church to end its fellowship relations than it did with John.

  And, even though John has declared that he no longer believes in the Church, is now an atheist, does not attend the Church, does not follow at least some of the commandments of the LDS Church, does not participate in the Church, and is highly critical of the Church…the Church is abusive for no other reason that respectfully ending his membership.

  With all due respect, John’s public attacks on the Church are more abusive than the private and civil manner in which the Church treated John.

• 107 Kaimi // Sep 18, 2009 at 2:43 pm

  And Equality (81), you no-good rabble-rouser, you ought to know that there’s no authorization for a disciplinary council per se in 2 Ne. 9. Hellfire, sure, but not a disciplinary council. Know your statute, man.*

  *May not apply to women or to others not allowed to see the statute in question.

  And one other lawyerly quibble: Your 83 — “an act which, from their own vantage point and by their own profession of belief, condemns John to an eternal separation from his family” — probably misstates the orthodox LDS perception of the effect of the court.

  Of course, it’s true that there are many ways (pointed out by John and Jana) that the court reinforces a problematic hierarchical power structure, and those are absolutely fair game. But I don’t think it’s fair to imply that OM or others there thought that their decision would single-handedly send John to Hell.

  To an orthodox member, John’s own prior actions (atheism, beer drinking, lack of official repentance) have already condemned him; the court itself would not have much effect on John’s eternal status.

• 108 John // Sep 18, 2009 at 2:44 pm

  And nowhere near as abusive as the Church’s tricking me into miming my own throat-slitting, disembowelment and being sliced in half as a way of enforcing an oath to the same institution, and then pressuring me to keep silent about it. If that’s not abuse, I don’t know what is.

  Abuse in a relationship has to take into account the power structure of that relationship, which was largely my point in bringing up the semi-consensual sexual abuse analogy. (It would’ve been better for me to up the ages, to maybe make it a workplace or university abuse scenario).

  For some of us, it *is* that damaging. And to tell us it is socially unacceptable to openly discuss it because it’s offensive to others is comparable to telling someone who was sexually abused to keep quiet, because talking about sex is offensive.

• 109 John // Sep 18, 2009 at 2:45 pm

  My comment #107 was a response to GKB’s comment #105.

• 110 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 3:13 pm

  John:

  I think you miss my point. As I said, I am not debating the merits of your Church-as-sexual-child-preditor analogy.

  I am merely pointing out that such an analogy may be one of many reasonable indicators that you are opposed to Mormonism to the point of having apostasized.

  But, I sense that it may not be possible for you to see how that statement may play (regardless of your intent) with faithful LDS members.

• 111 G // Sep 18, 2009 at 3:14 pm

  whoa… 100 + comments.
  re the post, beautifully written john.
  /sigh… now diving into the comments…

• 112 Kaimi // Sep 18, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  No worries, John.

  Sorry for diving into lawyerly quibbles with Equality — occupational hazard, I think.

• 113 Equality // Sep 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm

  111:

  Aw, Kaimi, I’m sure John doesn’t mind. It sure isn’t the first time a law professor has critiqued my legal analysis. My 2 Nephi 9:34 reference was mostly snark anyway.

  Thanks, John, for letting me join in the conversation here. I hope I am not bringing the blog’s level of discourse and erudition down too many notches. It is interesting to note the degree to which commenters here are able to express their thoughts freely. You are not “excommunicating” anyone from your blog. Nor have you metaphorically stood up and taken the mic away from someone like GKB, for instance.

• 114 Wondering // Sep 18, 2009 at 3:42 pm

  My question to GKB is why do you care? If John is an apostate and you’re a faithful Latter-day Saint, why are you still reading his blog and feeling the need to respond to every topic in this thread.

  Would it not be better to step away and stop creating contention in your own life as well as the lives of others? Why do you feel compelled to basically recreate the same conversation in a variety of ways? You’re not going to change your mind, John’s not going to change his…at some point the conversation reaches an impasse and it’s time to move on.

• 115 Craig // Sep 18, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  @Wondering

  Excellent question. I’ve been wondering the self-same thing.

• 116 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm

  Wondering:

  Don’t worry. I won’t be spending too much time on this blog. Right now, it is of topical interest to me and I enjoy the conversation. As for the moment, I think that the discussion on this thread is evolving in a way that it hasn’t reached a circular conclusion.

  Equality:

  Isn’t it great that we live in a free country where John is free to express his opinions? We are also blessed with freedom of association. Anyone can associate with any group who is willing to have them. Groups have the right to set rules, and govern themselves. It is one of our most basic freedoms.

  For example, a meat-eating, animal-killing, leather-clad advocate of PETA most likely would not be accepted as a member. But…that’s a good thing.

  If I had a blog and accepted comments, you, John, and everyone here would be more than welcome to comment.

  John has the right to ban me from his blog comments. In fact, I have acknowledged that right by offering to leave any time he tires of my comments.

  You may not like what the Church did…or agree with their narrow spectrum of what is acceptable criticism…but that’s how it works in America.

  With such broad freedoms, there will always be instances of conflict at the seams of differing opinions and styles. There will be wounded feelings and a sense of loss when one party rejects another. Its too bad that conflict is the price we pay for these rights…but it is well worth the freedom in the bigger picture.

• 117 Rainey // Sep 18, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  GKB, I understand that you speak from the platform of LDS beliefs and, as such, recognize the right or need for LDS officials to take action for the benefit of the organization. OTOH, outside the LDS framework the fact remains that human beings purported to take action on another human being’s eternal salvation. That’s arrogant, hostile and foolish on the part of the inquisitors and the fact that they exhibited basic civility in the process doesn’t change that in the least.

  I’m trying as hard as I can to think of something in the Gospels that would justify such action on one person’s part to exclude others from God. For the life of me the only things I can come up with are things like “judge not lest ye be judged’, “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” and “blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled”. Those are Jesus’ own words and their sense is perfectly clear and I think they put John and his efforts for his gay brothers and sisters on very firm ground regardless of the restrictive and (forgive me but I genuinely don’t know how else to say this) sex-obsessed policies of the LDS.

• 118 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm

  Rainey:

  Interesting points. Excommunication is clearly a biblical concept.

  Matthew 18:15-17 (Jesus speaking)

  Romans 16:17 (Paul)

  2 John 10-12 (John?)

  The concept of expelling sinning and apostate members of the Christian community is both biblical and historical.

  The Bible is quite clear that God sets moral behaviors and expects the his Church to to abide by those standards and expel those who do not follow those moral standards.

  Also bibilical is the concept that the leaders of the Church have authority from God to make such decisions. As such, he has placed the right to judge such circumstances and to take action. 1 Corinthians 5

  I realize this does not fit with the modern and friendly anything-goes notion of Jesus…but that is pretty much what the Bible teaches.

  And, that is the beauty of our system of free religion and association. If you don’t agree with this approach to religion, you can join or start another religion. If you are at odds with the Church of which you are a member, they also have the right to sever your congregant relationship.

  That is what has happened in John’s case.

  It is a sad thing for such an association to end. However, I wish him well wherever he finds his most satisfying spiritual home to be.

• 119 Ray // Sep 18, 2009 at 5:58 pm

  In reading the comments concerning John’s excommunication and having attended a couple of these councils (courts) I can only tell you that John has left some things out. He would have been told exactly why the council was convened and the consequences of those actions, he would then have been given an opportunity to respond.

  Many of you have wondered why John merited excommunication and others who have become inactive are not. The simple answer is that John used his membership credentials to attack the church in a public way.

  Others have wondered why his name could not be simply dropped from the rolls. The answer is no. To remove membership a council must be held giving the member an opportunity to answer charges and express their wishes to or not to be removed from church membership. Here again John I think you are being disingenious and chose to use the process to further your own agenda when, if you didn’t want the fuss, you could have chosen to simply not show up. Only you know your reasons for choosing this route and then electing to make it public.

  I will probably not come back so all of you make of this post what you will but I assure you my desire for you all is that you may find the peace you desire.

  Incidentally John if I were to leave the LDS church I would probably also go athiest.

• 120 Equality // Sep 18, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  GKB:

  I agree that it is great to live in a country where people are free to express themselves and free to associate and free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) openly. I am thankful to the liberal minds who drafted the U.S. Constitution and established a government free from the influence of any particular religious sect, and established a government that would protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I am thankful that religious zealots believing their religion to be superior to others were not able to establish a government like so many that had been established before, in which State power and religious authority were commingled.

  I appreciate your point of view, having once shared a nearly identical one. I am glad that John allows a variety of viewpoints to be expressed here, and I hope you will continue to share your views. I disagree with those who think that, just because it is unlikely that you will persuade John to your point of view or that he will persuade you to his, you should not post here. I think there are many who read the comments here who might not share either point of view and be enlightened (or at least entertained) by the discussion.

  I fear some of my comments have been misunderstood. Perhaps I have not been clear. I think the LDS church has every right to determine who will and will not be a member. I think it has every right to set up the rules by which it will determine who can and cannot be a member. I think that it has every right to conduct disciplinary councils like the one it conducted “in John’s behalf.” The question, for me, is not whether the church was within its rights to conduct itself the way it did. Just because a person or entity has a right to act in a certain manner does not mean that it should be free from criticism for exercising that right.

  My criticisms of the church are not that it makes determinations about who can and cannot be a member. My criticisms concern the fairness and reasonableness of the manner in which it makes those determinations and the manner in which it relates to the members it chooses to “discipline.” I think the church deserves criticism for the way it has been conducting itself with respect to church discipline. John’s excommunication is simply the latest manifestation of what I see as a pattern of inequity, secrecy, indifference, arrogance, and hypocrisy. The church has a right to be close-minded. It has a right to be homophobic (just as in the past it was openly racist). It has a right to be sexist. It has a right to be anti-science, anti-reason. It has a right to be a bureaucratic corporation operating under the guise of a religious body. But just because it has a right to be all those things does not mean it has a right to be immune from criticism, either from its members, its former members, or outsiders.

• 121 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  Equality:

  Thanks for the comments.

  Not in my wildest dreams do I suffer from the delusion that anything I say is going to convince you or John to ‘Mormon up.’

  I hope that through a spirited, respectful exchange can come to see what each other thinks and feels. If that is possible, perhaps there can still be disagreement…but with less rancor.

  But have no fear…I do not plan on posting here too much longer. This is mostly a brief stay.

  Cheers

• 122 Anonymous // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:25 pm

  Equality and GKB:
  This discussion feels stifled by the fact that the LDS Church follows a strict policy of not commenting publicly about disciplinary councils out of respect for the privacy of the individual. Decisions are announced publicly only to protect the innocent, for example in cases involving predators of either the financial or sexual kind. That policy seems modeled after the Jesus I read about in the Bible who condemned sin in strident terms yet loved each sinner dearly.

  Everyone must admit that the opinions expressed here reflect a knowledge of only one side of the story. That doesn’t diminish the value of anyone’s opinion or experience, but it does make me question the utility of the general debate .

  You seem to agree that the Church had a right to sever its relationship with John. You also seem to agree that you’re not going to agree. Perhaps it’s best left at that.

  I realize that I don’t know the history except for what’s shared here, but I do see a question that hasn’t been addressed. For example, if I found out that one member of my ultimate frisbee team joined, became disenchanted with the rest of us but then remained a member of the team only for the purposes of disrupting us, making us lose, and potentially recruiting others to join him in doing so, I would feel a variety of negative emotions towards that person. I see that in the disappointment, sense of betrayal, anger and other emotions in the posts of some of the LDS on this site.

  John claims in the post itself that transparency and integrity are core values of this site. It also feels like loyalty is valued in this community. However John’s approach doesn’t seem very loyal to me. I understand that a long history of abuse can distort judgment, generate negative emotions and make us behave in ways we may regret.

  I don’t think any of us can discount the abuse John alleges. First, we didn’t witness it. Second, the fact that he felt that way is regrettable in any case and really all that matters.

  So a question for John – do you see a dichotomy between your values and the way you behaved? Do you regret at all sneaking around the fringes of the LDS Church and maintaining your membership only to have a stronger platform from which to snipe at it? Do you think you would have felt better about yourself if you had left when you stopped believing instead of constantly chafing and straining against the LDS organization and beliefs? If you had to do it over again, would you change anything about how you behaved during this chapter of your life?

• 123 Rainey // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:32 pm

  If your brother sins against you,[a] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[b] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthew 18:15-17

  So far as I can see this advises that people deal with differences between themselves having the matter witnessed by observers. The ultimate resolution is to not associate but I see no indication that Jesus sets one party up with authority to pass judgment on another or to interfere with another’s spiritual journey.

  Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances (T)contrary to the teaching which you learned, and (U)turn away from them. Romans 16:17

  Not the Savior’s words which must be regarded in an entirely different and authorative regard, but not different advice either. This is to say, the righteous are advise not to associate with the unrighteous. There is, however, no assertion of special authority for one person over anyone else.

  I’m not sure you provided the citation from John that you meant to. This passage is about the Good Shepherd and not, I think, relevant to what we’re discussing.

  As for Paul in Corinthians, I will concede that Paul –NOT Jesus — advises the new Christian community in Corinth who were experiencing turmoil to actively expel those who offended them. But he also advises them not to marry. Are you suggesting that Paul should be the authority on that matter as on the matter of discipline?

  “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. …

  32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 7

  For my part, I think this has to be regarded as subordinate to Christ’s own words which, as I suggested earlier, are clear and unequivocal that people are NOT to sit in judgment of others.

• 124 GKB // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:48 pm

  Equity:

  After a few minutes of thinking about it I have a question about your last comment. You said:

  Equality: “John’s excommunication is simply the latest manifestation of what I see as a pattern of inequity, secrecy, indifference, arrogance, and hypocrisy.”

  I am struck to wonder that if you believe that the Church has the right to excommunicate someone for apostacy…what qualifies?

  With no disrespect directed at John…he is a pretty classic example of an apostate from any religion…not just Mormonism.

  Apostate: One who has abandoned one’s religious faith, a political party, one’s principles, or a cause.

  John no longer believes in Mormonism. He declares himself to be an atheist. As an atheist, he rejects every basic tenent of Mormonism. He apparently does not follow the Word of Wisdom…a distinctive LDS commandment. He no longer supports the cause of the Church. He no longer attends Church or fellowships with the body of the Church. From what I gather, he does not support or sustain the leaders of the LDS Church. He has violated sacred covenants of he made to God within the context of the LDS Church. He is openly critical of the Church.

  Do you not agree that John represents a fair and reasonable candidate for excommunication…by any fair and reasonable definition of what ‘apostate’ means? In other words, John was fairly judged for what he really is in relationship with the Church…and his excommunication is logical in his particular case?

  If not…under what circumstances would the Church every act reasonably to excommunicate someone for apostacy? What could someone possibly do more than John has done to fairly merit excommunication?

• 125 John // Sep 18, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  Anonymous (#122):

  “Do you think you would have felt better about yourself if you had left when you stopped believing instead of constantly chafing and straining against the LDS organization and beliefs?”

  This presupposes two things: 1) that the transition from belief to unbelief is like an on/off switch with clearly defined boundaries from one state to the other; and 2) that such transition takes place in a vacuum without impact on or influence from the surrounding community. In reality, almost every deconversion is a long and drawn out process that may take months or years, and the primary lengthening influence is the church and its culture, which is (understandably) loathe to see anyone lose their faith and works very hard to a) help that person to recover their faith, and, if they can’t help hold on to the person’s faith, then b) keep them in the social organization as a quiet and externally conforming member.

  The Church (both the institution and its culture) also encouraged the lack of transparency, by exerting pressure on me to keep my doubts relatively quiet along the way. I began blogging to resolve the dichotomy between the external person who appeared to be a staunch believer at church, and the internal person who had serious questions and doubts.

  So, perhaps this is the real question: “Would you have felt better if you had left when you became more public about your unbelief and your criticism of the Church?” Even this is tricky, because for the space of a several years, I was committed to the culture and institution (my wife was still a strong member), desired to belong, and perhaps even had vestiges of belief. Because I felt that leaving wasn’t an option at the time, I felt that I had to critique aspects of the Church from within to stay true to my conscience. “I’m committed to this organization, but you’ve got to do something about this sexism,” etc.

  I’m really tired. I’m going to bed now. Not sure if that answered anything.

• 126 John // Sep 19, 2009 at 12:00 am

  Ray (#119) said:

  “I can only tell you that John has left some things out. He would have been told exactly why the council was convened and the consequences of those actions, he would then have been given an opportunity to respond.”

  Ray, I’d caution you on what I missed or not, unless you were there to say otherwise. I was never told why exactly the council was convened. That’s one of the strange things–I was only told that the the council was convened regarding my apostasy. Nothing more specific than that, other than the definition provided above. I listened very carefully because I wanted to know what specifically they had a problem with. I even probed for clarification. The tacit understanding is that my online writings were what made me qualify for the charge, and on that basis, I didn’t challenge them.

  Also, I was given opportunity to respond and it’s recorded above, if you read the post.

  The consequences were *briefly* touched on in the pronouncement of the sentence. The focus was on rebaptism. No specific mention was made of dissolution of my sealing to Jana or to my children, for example, though this was certainly implied in the loss of temple blessings. But in the 80 minutes of the proceedings, the stating of consequences took less than two sentences and 15-30 seconds.

  My theory is that the council content was deliberately minimized for two reasons: 1) they were worried that I had a recording device, and 2) they knew I would discuss the proceedings publicly.

• 127 Rainey // Sep 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm

  re #123
  “I’m not sure you provided the citation from John that you meant to. This passage is about the Good Shepherd and not, I think, relevant to what we’re discussing.”

  I guess I was pretty sleepy when I wrote that last night because, of course, the parable of the Good Shepherd is entirely appropriate to the discussion we’ve been having. It’s just that it tends to support the idea that Jesus would have responded by ministering to John and Jana instead of being judgmental and exclusionary. He would have taken seriously His role to lead by example and trust not turn sheep away.

• 128 Hellmut // Sep 19, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  Amen, Rainey. Jesus was a minister.

• 129 John // Sep 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  One general thought about this thread, and a comment about GKB’s participation, which several people have commented on. GKB, I am glad that you’ve invested significant time and energy in this and other threads and that you’ve been able to disagree and to challenge the community here while remaining respectful. And I’m glad that everyone has treated you with respect as well. It’s good to know that we can disagree on fundamental issues and still talk about them. I think that this is a relatively uncommon thing (unfortunately), and a thing worth pursuing in and of itself, even if the participants don’t influence each others’ minds much. It’s worth the striving to find common values and touch points from which meaningful dialog can begin.

  My other answer, I’ve written in this post.

• 130 Heber // Sep 19, 2009 at 9:04 pm

  Hey, John! Thanks for sharing your experience. Keep speaking truth to power.

• 131 Sister Mary Lisa // Sep 20, 2009 at 8:36 am

  Anonymous (#122): “So a question for John – do you see a dichotomy between your values and the way you behaved? Do you regret at all sneaking around the fringes of the LDS Church and maintaining your membership only to have a stronger platform from which to snipe at it?”

  I find this statement disingenuous. John’s membership status at any given time does not in any way strengthen his “platform.” His membership in the organization for twenty years is more than enough to qualify him to discuss Mormonism in any way for as long as he wants to. His being excommunicated isn’t going to suddenly negate his knowledge of and expertise in Mormon culture should he choose to discuss it.

  I also smiled at your use of the words “sneaking around the fringes of the LDS church” because you seem to be trying to make his motives appear suspicious and nefarious. What you are really highlighting for me is the church’s history of suppressing open discourse and open questioning of things found within Mormonism like sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. Openly discussing these things immediately pushes that member to the fringes of acceptability at church unless one is defending them as coming from God.

• 132 Hellmut // Sep 20, 2009 at 10:14 am

  “This discussion feels stifled by the fact that the LDS Church follows a strict policy of not commenting publicly about disciplinary councils out of respect for the privacy of the individual.”

  Please, that is not why they do not want to talk about the excommunication of John or the September Six.

  If it were about privacy then the Church could speak out when individuals waive their rights. Implicitly, John has already done so in this post.

  The secrecy serves the interests of Church leaders, not the individuals. As long as they shroud themselves into silence, the brethren need not be accountable.

• 133 Rainey // Sep 20, 2009 at 10:25 am

  “This discussion feels stifled by the fact that the LDS Church follows a strict policy of not commenting publicly about disciplinary councils out of respect for the privacy of the individual.”

  That, of course, is a matter that would be swiftly resolved if the church permitted anyone to tape the proceedings and offer them in their entirety for people to reflect on and draw conclusions as they would. Undoubtedly, the faithful would take comfort in the protection of their institution and the detractors would find ammunition to bolster their own conclusions. The sincere seekers would be able to approach closer to the truth. All of this strikes me as much better than one side being able to misrepresent things or, in the absence of verifiable information, conjecture to distort the facts.

  But, since the church refuses to permit that and refuses to comment even when given license to by the accused whose “privacy” they purport to be protecting, one can only conclude that the church benefits from the presumption of grave sins that is magnified in rumor within the church community. It’s hard not to see this as dishonest on its face.

  Really. How are all parties not served by a simple disclosure of the facts of the proceedings when the accused gives permission for such?

• 134 Sister Mary Lisa // Sep 20, 2009 at 10:32 am

  Good point, Rainey. All parties would be served by a simple disclosure of the facts of the proceedings. All parties EXCEPT the leaders at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They have other interests which are protected by secrecy. And sacredness.

• 135 John Williams // Sep 20, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  A truly fascinating account of the process, John. I think it takes a certain temperament to be willing to go through with it on their turf, all the ushering back and forth and testifying, etc. I have to admit, I get sort of nauseated just thinking about it. I have this weird feeling that there’s a modicum of underground power they’re still exercising over you in your celebration. After all, what exactly has changed now? Doesn’t a celebration of it, cathartic and wonderful as it is, simply endow (pun intended) the entire excommunication process with the degree (if not type) of symbolic significance they want it to have? Of course, maybe that’s your parting gift to them: let them feel that ritual is *still* power, even as you turn it upside down.

  I wonder now. Do you feel like Inigo Montoya at the end of Princess Bride? Like you’ve been in the excommunication business for so long, not sure what to do now?

  In any case, you’re welcome at our place anytime.

• 136 chosha // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:07 am

  I resigned a week and a half ago. It was time.

  I just wanted to say that I’m proud of you for wearing that shirt – not because I see it as provocative or antagonistic, but because it was wearing your honest feelings right there for them to immediately see. I don’t know why people have criticised you for letting yourself be excommunicated rather than resigning. I think your reasoning on that was fair and well-explained.

• 137 Craig // Sep 22, 2009 at 5:11 am

  Congrats chosha!

• 138 M // Sep 22, 2009 at 9:42 am

  Thanks for this much anticipated report, John.

  It quite literally freaks me out when church authorities use the “sacred proceeding” moniker to squelch discussion. You glare boy!

• 139 chosha // Sep 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm

  Thanks Craig!

  M: True dat. He’s planning to ex someone he considers apostate and he thinks they are going to see this kangaroo court as sacred? I’d have been tempted to give him a fiver and told him to buy a clue.

• 140 John // Sep 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm

  John Williams: Maybe I’ll become a pirate? And thanks for the invite.

  I’m not sure there’s any way I could escape doing things their way, esp. since what they wanted most for me to do was resign (it was suggested I do this about two years ago, I think).

  Chosha, CONGRATS!!! Woot!

• 141 chosha // Sep 28, 2009 at 8:05 am

  “Craig: That advocating for gay rights is ever “insulting” is very, very sad.

  GKB: HOW you advocate is the operative concept here.”

  Actually I think wearing a t-shirt with inoffensive words that happen to express a viewpoint that church officials may disapprove of is quite harmless when compared to holding a conference for member students in CA (or sending letters for bishops to read out to members on Sunday) where church leaders asked them to actively support and market/promote legislation that would impose church doctrine on non-members. I think I’d rather they simply expressed their views on a t-shirt.

  The point is that consistantly in this thread you have tried to defend the actions of the church as if it is not perfectly obvious that the flaws described are real and systemic. For example, you resorted to semantics over the court/council distinction when you are perfectly aware that ‘court’ not only was the official term, but is still commonly used in church documents and amongst members AND that the council in John’s case did in fact lay a charge, ask for a plea and pronounce a judgment – CLEARLY the actions of a court. You’ve done this repeatedly – argued with textbook doctrine and official policy against a claim based on real experience that negates it.

  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against your right to defend the church as you see fit. I just wonder if it is possible that even you yourself do not see how unconvincing it all is in the face of reality. A LOT of the people in this discussion know very well the official take you are presenting – they’ve lived it, taught it on missions, and in many cases even believed it themselves for a time. The reason they claim that stuff is bullshit is because they not only know it, but have lived with the real situation as well – to the point where the incongruity has become untenable.

  Craig has written recently on his blog about this idea that members arguing these issues want to negate the real experiences of ex-members as if they are merely some kind of trumped up bitterness with no basis in fact and as I’ve read over this thread in order to consider his point, I’ve come to see that he’s right. And because my feeling is that you are at heart a genuine person who believes in the goodness of the gospel, I wonder if you even see that you often do this very thing. I’d like to think you wouldn’t want to.

• 142 Craig // Sep 28, 2009 at 8:18 am

  Quite beautifully said Chosha.

• 143 Scurrilous J // Sep 30, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  Thank you for sharing this experience. I’m a Pilgrimsteps reader; this is the second post of read of yours (the post on the recent shooting was the first).

  As a questioning, all-too-lazy Methodist, I feel like I’ve stepped into another world – or maybe just another time. I know basically nothing about LDS, so I can’t comment on the details.

  But what I’ve taken away from your post is that this was right for you. You were ready to leave the church. I wish you luck in your continuing journey.

  I can’t help but worry about Jana (as much as someone who’s never actually met either of you can do so, of course). I wonder what comes next. I hope you’ll both share that as well.

  It’s really too bad they don’t have some sort of “exit interview,” where they have a specially-trained person guide you and your family through the next steps.

• 144 » Blog Archive » I am a Poor Wayfaring Man // Oct 1, 2009 at 8:33 am

  [...] (I guess it also might also get me excommunicated.) [...]

• 145 Sunday in Outer Blogness: Sunny Day Edition! | Main Street Plaza // Oct 18, 2009 at 10:14 am

  [...] to Effect Some Changes in Your Stake. (I know this doesn’t apply to those of us who have already been Ex’d or are hoping to be, but I’m just pointing these out as an alternate possibility [...]

• 146 Open Paren, Close Paren. A General Reflection on the Events of the Past Three Months. | Mind on Fire // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  [...] for Jana than for me, but also because I felt I was too close to analyze it properly. I wrote a retelling of the event within a week. I think I have enough distance to do a clearer analysis, so I’m looking [...]

• 147 dynomitegirl // Jan 27, 2010 at 7:16 am

  WOW, I have often wondered when my comments will get me excommunicated? When I wonder out loud people laugh at me. Either they don’t understand the church or they don’t read my comments (more of the second I am sure). Thanks for sharing your story…….WOW, what more can I say.

Leave a Comment