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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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