Overall, I thought “The Mormons” was a wonderful documentary that showed most of the positive things about the Church from a secular perspective while also exploring many of the criticisms in a fair way.
In this post, I would like to touch on one area where I thought the documentary really fell short, and this is the area of how we treat intellectual dissidents.
UPDATE: Look at this link for complete transcripts from “The Mormons.” Both Elder Holland and Daniel Peterson touch on this issue pretty eloquently.
As many of you know, I am a convert to the Church. I have been a member since 1999. Most of my family members are in the Church but for various reasons I was not baptized when I was young. Before I was a member, I was extremely suspicious and even hostile to the Church. I considered myself an agnostic, humanist intellectual and of course found all of the Church’s claims preposterous.
I could quote anti-Mormons books on polygamy and our “discriminatory” treatment of gays, our opposition to the ERA and of course could give long discourses against our onetime policy of not giving blacks the priesthood.
But one thing that never bothered me about the Church — even a little bit — was the idea that if you opposed what the Church stands for you could get kicked out. I just don’t think opposing or criticizing the Church for this reason passes the common sense test.
The first problem is that, of course, most people who disagree with what a group stands for end up leaving anyway. And, in the vast majority of cases, the Church leaves you alone if you stop coming. I’m not talking about home teachers and/or missionaries — I’m talking about Church discipline. Yes, there are a few cases, and some of them are prominent, that contradict this point, but the reality is that if you don’t believe in something foundational about the Church, and you speak out about it, and you stop coming to Church, chances are extremely good you will never have to face Church discipline. Anybody who has served in a bishopric on on the high council knows that, in practice, most Church members are much too busy trying to keep things together with the members who come to Church to worry about those who have stopped coming and don’t want anything more to do with the Church.
So, Church discipline is not a Torquemada-like process where enforcers are out there searching for dissidents so they can bring them before a show trial. In reality, dissidents are mostly left alone.
The second problem has to do with the basic issue of how groups describe themselves. And this is where “The Mormons” really failed, in my opinion. A group has a right to define what it stands for. If you what to change what that group stands for, and the majority of the members do not agree with you, at a certain point, you have two choices: leave the group and join another one that represents your beliefs or accept the majority view.
And when you take into consideration that one of our foundational beliefs is that we are guided by revelation, not the philosophies of men, it becomes even more important that you accept the precept that your little ideas don’t determine Church policy.
But, getting back to the idea of group definitions, it is basic common sense that the members of groups either accept what a group stands for or they leave. If you are in a knitting club and you want to make it a bridge club, and the majority of the members of the club want to keep it a knitting club, well, you have two choices: go join a bridge club or shut up and start knitting.
I think there is a lot of room for intellectuals to explore different areas of Church policies. In my eight years in the Church, I have heard some wild, wild theories tossed around. Anybody sitting in Gospel Doctrine or Priesthood for a few weeks is likely to hear some very strange ideas put forward. But at the end of the day, the Church has to stand for something or it stands for nothing. And if you are an intellectual who wants to challenge the foundational aspects of the Church, and Church authorities tell you repeatedly that you can’t be a member of the Church if you challenge those foundational ideas, well, you have two choices: leave or find something else to study. If, at the end of the day, you can’t accept those two options, then, yes, you may face Church discipline.
As a Church member, I wholely support the Church’s position on this issue, if only from the common sense viewpoint that a group has the right to define itself. I think we have to look no farther than the Episcopal Church to see what can happen to a group that lets its members change the definition of what it stands for.
I would also like to point out that as a member of the High Council I have served on disciplinary councils. The process is exactly the opposite of a Torquemada show trial, which is what “The Mormons” seemed to imply. Instead, it is a process of love and caring that emphasizes the importance of repentance and personal growth. Without going into details, I can say that the Spirit is always attendant in such councils.
I thought “The Mormons” did an extremely poor job of dealing with this issue. The viewer was left with the overall impression that a group of aging patriarchs grill dissidents to death and then gleefully excommunicate them while being falsely nice about the whole process. Except for a five-second clip of Terryl Givens pointing out the obvious — that we always hear only one side of such councils — there was no Church response at all. Perhaps the Church decided not to talk about such Councils, but I find it hard to believe the producers could not find a faithful bishop, stake president or Church member to defend the Church disciplinary process.
You left out the third choice: persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned.
Greenfrog, I assumed that this was a given, that both the dissident and the Church authorities would act this way. My post is based on what I called “at the end of the day,” which means that if a member is openly defying the Church and what it stands for, what Church authorities should do. But I agree with your suggestion that this is how all members should act.
Geoff B,
Do you perceive there to be a difference between “open defiance” and “honesty and candor about a disagreement”?
Great summary and post, Geoff.
I am still recovering from staying up until 11:00 p.m. to watch part two (I get up at 5:00 a.m. during the week), but it was definitely worth it!
I guess I would say all cases are different. There is obviously a continuum from a member who has openly joined a Tanner-like group and is actively trying to recruit members to that group to a person who quietly opposes a specific Church policy but accepts 99 percent of what the Church stands for. I don’t pretend to know how bishops and/or stake presidents should act in each individual case — I can only speak in generalities.
The other point in the presentation that was completely missed is the concept that excommunication is intended to be a temporary condition leading back to membership in the church, through the process of repentance. The program left the impression that once you are out, that’s it. Period.
Tom, excellent point. Thank you for making it.
Thanks, Geoff.
@6 – Our view of “excommunication” is a bit different than that of the Catholics. But you’re absolutely right — in many cases, it’s better that the person NOT be a member of the Church while they resolve their sins or issues.
Toscano was openly defiant to the Church leadership and was doing things the Church considered to be an embarrassment. Whereas if I have a disagreement with my bishop, I’m honestly trying to work within the system, not tear it down.
I used to be sympathetic to Toscano, and Trevor Southey. This documentary has had the impact of making me MUCH less sympathetic to them. They really turned me off.
While I suppose there are certain, very extreme, cases where excommunication as Mormons understand it may be appropriate, in my opinion, it should be very rare (like capital punishment or abortion should be).
While many who have been disciplined by the Church are rebaptized or reinstated, in my experience, many, perhaps a majority, do not reapply, even after they have reformed their lives. For example, I have met several people who were excommunicated years ago for fornication or adultery who have reformed their lives, are now happily married and raising well-adjusted children, but who have decided not even to apply for rebaptism. Robert Kirby wrote on Saturday about such a friend, excommunicated 10 years ago for an undisclosed reason, who has not returned. http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_5768368
I also know some who have chosen to affiliate with, and are raising their children within, denominations that offer more support and hope in response to sin, rather than a revocation of temple sealings or the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I think the Church has been wise recently in discouraging (or at least reducing the frequency of) excommunications in high profile cases for “apostasy.” Tom Murphy was not disciplined, and Simon Southerton’s disciplinary council explicitly did not consider any issues of “apostasy.” And I do not think the membership at large is in any danger of being lead astray by these alleged “false prophets.”
DavidH, I have to respectfully disagree with you on a few points. I do think the membership at large can be led astray by people like Murphy, and in fact I know several people who have cited his DNA work as one of the main reasons they left the Church. His work is not faith-promoting and was certainly used by antis to draw people away.
Now, neither you nor I know the details of his case and whether he should be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. That is something that wisely should be left between him and his bishop and/or stake president. But I am suspicious of people who take these kinds of cases public in the first place. Stop and think for a second: what is the motivation for taking a private disciplinary council public except to embarrass the Church in some way? What else could possibly be gained? The Church keeps these details strictly confidential (I can tell you that my stake president has told me in very strong terms not to tell even my wife a single detail about any disciplinary council I have participated in, and I have complied). So, why can’t Murphy and others have the same courtesy?
As for excommunication/disfellowship in the cases of fornication and/or adultery, I will agree that there are many cases where it is not necessary. The person involved is inactive, for example. But in the case of somebody who is involved with children or has a high-profile position in a ward or stake, such discipline is extremely important. And I think you need to consider the role of discipline in the repentance process. I can tell you that many people feel dirty after committing such sins, especially if they broke temple covenants. Like the Roberto Deniro character in “The Mission,” they need a way or overcoming the sense of guilt they feel. Attending a Church council, confessing their sins and beginning the repentance process is extremely important for many people — for their own good. It is true some may not come back to the Church, but that is a decision between themselves and the Father. It is not the Church’s fault they committed the sin in the first place.
One of my mentors when I joined the Church used to say, “if you think you are far from God, then check out who moved.” And the same thing applies to those who decide to commit sins and then not return to the Church. They have moved from the truth and should come back. We need to show them love and forgiveness (Joseph Smith was a great example of this) but they are responsible for their own actions at the end of the day.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that Salt Lake directed (or suggested) Murphy’s stake president to put a hold on the disciplinary council that he had threatened. I may be wrong, but I suspect Salt Lake directed (or suggested) that Southerton’s council only consider his conduct and not any apostasy charge. If that is so, I believe the decision was correct.
I have participated in Church disciplinary councils for roughly 20 years (including a period when they were called “courts”). My observation is that the trend has been to reduce the frequency and the severity of sanctions. Many of the people I have met who were excommunicated and have never come back were young single members (even a recent convert) who had been excommunicated for fornication at a time when President Kimball had encouraged tougher sanctions. Spencer W. Kimball, “To Bear the Priesthood Worthily,†Ensign, May 1975, 78 Many of those individuals, quite frankly, felt a complete loss of hope after having been cut off from the Church, and thought that returning to the Church would require surmounting what seemed to them impossibly high barriers.
That being said, some priesthood leaders, but not all, have a gift (or feel it is important) to reach out and lift those who have felt that Church discipline meant abandonment by the Church (and implicitly by God). I recall that, while I served on our high council, one bishop in particular brought to our council more men to be rebaptized or reinstated than all other bishops combined. And these were men who had been excommunicated or disfellowshipped many years ago in other places.
Geoff, I do not know whether you have yet had an opportunity to serve as a bishop. But I am pretty sure you were, are or would be like that bishop in our stake who could give hope to those estranged from the Church and/or God when it had seemed to them there was no hope. That is, that you, like he, would make an effort to find those on the margins of the Church, or even technically not in the Church, and help them back to the fold and feeling God’s love.
DavidH, as always, I’m flattered by your comments. I’ve served in a bishopric, and now on the High Council. I doubt I’ll ever be a bishop but will be on of those people always serving in the High Priest’s group or working as a ward missionary. I hope to continue to go to the temple at least once a month and serve a mission when I’m in my 60s. I hope to be one of those low-profile types doing the grunt work. I remember a comment by Hugh Nibley that he had made a covenant with his Heavenly Father to always serve well in small, low-profile callings. That’s the type of Church member I hope to be.
I really think it IS my calling to try to help those who feel estranged from the Church because I can empathize with them because of some of the bad choices I made before I joined the Church. I’ve worked with a handful of people since I joined and I flatter myself to say I’ve had some limited success. The key is, as you say, showing God’s love, which I really try to do in my limited way. I agree that the primary goal of disciplinary work should be to let that love shine through on people who have made mistakes. I’m sure we can agree on that.
Speaking only as a convert and one that has left the church because of ill treatment at the hands of members, I have no problem with any of the church polices or programs. I joined to obey God and his leaders not to fight or try to change the church. If you are BIC life long member then it is a part of your life and culture. If a life long member has never gained a spiritual testimony I can see how they may want to try to change the church and feel they need to or have a right to do so. They may see it as just a church and not the Kingdom of God. I can not speak for them or to how they may see the church. Under their life long membership it might be harder to not object and have creative criticims, ect. I love the church and the gospel but if someone wants to fight against the church through sin or its doctrine the after all necessary warnings and help, then I see no problem with excommunication. I hope the church will all ways police the members and protect me and my family from those that may try to take away the most important thing I have which is my testimony.
Excellent post.