THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE
Total Articles:
19
Those who are excommunicated are no longer in "good standing" with the LDS Church. Persons that are excommunicated are no longer able to participate in any Mormon Church function, including praying, teaching or holding any office. The Mormon priesthood is taken away and all "blessings", rights and Temple privileges are taken away. Excommunicated members are not allowed to pay tithing however the church does not exempt them from paying tithing. Excommunicated members are further ostracized in Mormon Sacrament Meetings where they are forbidden to take the Sacramental offerings - or even speak vocally. Because of this, excommunicated persons are punished further in the eyes of other church members.
|
|
The Mormon Church believes that excommunication "Saves the Souls of Transgressors" and to "protect the innocent." Actually, excommunication in the LDS Church is all about protecting the LDS Church. Church members who disobey face Church Courts. The largest section in the Church Handbook Of Instructions is the section on discipline. Long guidelines are set out to ensure that members of the LDS Church obey or they are punished. The Church can and does take away rights of the members to participate in Church activities.
Those who are excommunicated are no longer in "good standing" with the LDS Church. Persons that are excommunicated are no longer able to participate in any Mormon Church function, including praying, teaching or holding any office. The Mormon priesthood is taken away and all "blessings", rights and Temple privileges are taken away. Excommunicated members are not allowed to pay tithing however the church does not exempt them from paying tithing. Excommunicated members are further ostracized in Mormon Sacrament Meetings where they are forbidden to take the Sacramental offerings - or even speak vocally. Because of this, excommunicated persons are punished further in the eyes of other church members.
Because the LDS Church is very concerned about lost tithing with the member, the LDS Church instructs the excommunicated member to save all tithing in either cash or in a savings account. If and when the member has served the penalty period (generally one to three years) and is rebaptised - the member is expected to back-pay the tithing.
| Following is a link summarizing the "September Six" excommunications. Named as such because six prominent scholars were all excommunicated or disfellowshipped. I want to note that MANY members are "punished" in the same way but because these were well known scholars, the church's actions against them were made very public.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtml
Excerpt from the link above:
1/ D.Michael Quinn -
Historian, and Former B.Y.U. Professor. He has written at least six articles for the "Ensign", and many for the Church owned journal - "B.Y.U. Studies". He is most well known for his extremely competent articles on Church sanctioned plural marriages after the manifesto of 1890.
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
2/ (person who asked to have their name removed from this page) -
Scholar. Noted for his excellent books on Isaiah and the last days.
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
3/ Paul Toscano -
Salt Lake Attorney. Also writer, together with his wife Margaret, of many articles, and a book entitled - "Strangers in Paradox." He spoke at the 1993 Sunstone Symposium and entitled his talk "All is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church."
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
4/ Lavina Fielding Anderson -
Editor and writer of the Church published "Ensign"
magazine from 1973 - 1981, prolific author, and compiler of recent events in the Church that she calls "spiritual abuse".
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
5/ Maxine Hanks -
Ardent feminist and editor of a book called "Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism". She has written and spoken extensively on the subject of Heavenly Mother.
- EXCOMMUNICATED.
6/ Lynne Kanavel Whitesides -
President of the Mormon Women's Forum.
- DISFELLOWSHIPPED.
The writer has had an opportunity to talk to Margaret Toscano twice (the most recent being 28th March 1994) since these disciplinary councils took place, and reports now on the situation as it now stands.
Three of the above group felt it necessary to appeal their cases to a higher ecclesiastical court (council). These were: Lavina Fielding Anderson, Paul Toscano and Lynne Whitesides.
Lavina's appeal was unsuccessful; her Stake President visited her and informed her that he had received a letter from the Brethren stating as such, but the letter had instructed him that he wasn't to show Lavina the letter or allow her to have a copy.
Lavina is still attending Church regularly each week and is trying hard to be as active as she is allowed. She is currently writing two books, one being a background and history to the events described above, the other being a list of "case reports" of what she terms "ecclesiastical or spiritual abuse".
Lynne Whitesides appeal was also unsuccessful, (she was disfellowshipped for "conduct unbecoming the laws of the Church") and since her appeal she has been given a list of areas in which the Church feels she needs to repent and change her ways. Two of these rules are that she must agree not to discuss nor talk about Heavenly Mother, and also she must agree not to associate with any others who hold similar views to her own.
Paul Toscano felt strongly that there was legal and ecclesiastical prejudice concerning his Stake Disciplinary Council, as he was informed that Gordon B. Hinckley was involved in arranging that court and having him disciplined. Paul felt therefore unable to appeal to the Quorum of the Twelve, of which Brother Hinckley is a member, and also felt unable to appeal to the First Presidency for the same reason, in addition to knowing that President Benson is unable to physically or mentally understand the intricacies of the situation.
Paul therefore decided to take the advice of the Lord given in the Doctrine and Covenants and to appeal to the General Assembly. Needless to say, his appeal was unsuccessful and was told such by his Stake President. His reply, signed by President Hinckley, was similar to Lavina's, although his Stake President, against the wishes of the letter, decided to let Paul see the reply. The letter said that the Brethren have prayerfully considered his appeal, and have decided to uphold the decision of the Stake Court. They also hoped that he would repent and return to full fellowship, and also asked that he should not be shown the letter, nor be given a copy of it.
The Toscano's are currently not attending meetings at Church, but are strongly involved in a group called the "Mormon Alliance" and are as active as they can be. The are currently asking the Lord to reveal to them what they should do with their lives.
I am not sure what Maxine Hanks is doing at the moment.
Michael Quinn decided that it wasn't worth appealing and so has decided not to. He did not feel a desire even to attend his Disciplinary Council, but wrote a defense instead. In that defense he wrote:-
"I vowed I would never again participate in a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."
But he did reaffirm his faith that:-
"Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was God's prophet of the Restoration and that Ezra Taft Benson is the prophet, seer and revelator on the Earth today."
Michael is not attending meetings with the main body of the Church, but is still actively engaged in talking at group meetings outside the Church, and historical research.
And an excerpt from a site discussing Grant Palmer's recent disciplinary action:
http://www.tungate.com/Grant_Palmer.htm
More recent excommunications over intellectual issues include David Wright (1994, for not believing in a literal Noah and for articles about Biblical events that were viewed as questioning the historicity of the Book of Mormon), Michael Barrett (1994, for writing letters to correct news stories about Mormonism), Brent Metcalfe (1994, for the anthology "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon"), Janice Allred (1997, for submitting theological papers to a Sunstone symposium), Margaret Toscano (2000, for writing on feminist issues - but really for being Paul's wife).
| Editor Note: This message was part of a section of messages, but I thought it was great so...
Dear [ *** ],
You know that story about the golden plates? It's not true.
You know that story about God commanding Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others to practice polygamy? It's not true. Joseph Smith made it all up so that he could commit adultery.
You know the "bad guys" and "evil apostates" who printed up the Nauvoo Expositor, which was then destroyed by Joseph Smith? Turns out they were telling the truth and Joseph Smith was trying to hide his lies.
For those of you who went to the temple before 1990, did you ever wonder why God wanted you to pantomime your own disembowelment and throat-slitting as "penalties" for revealing the secret handshakes ("tokens") and stuff? And did you ever wonder why God would need anybody to ever learn such things as silly secret handshakes in order to get to heaven? Well, wonder no more. Because Joseph Smith made all that up too. It was not "revealed" to him by the spirit or god or any other-worldly beings. Actually he mostly just copied the rituals of the Masonic lodge, AFTER he had joined a Masonic lodge in Illinois. Now that you know this, don't the secret handshakes and bloody penalties make more sense?
You know, Masonry, through much of its history, has acted as a kind of secret combination or secret fraternity. Secret handshakes and passwords just go with the territory in secret combinations. And if you're operating a secret combination and you want to keep it secret, you impose violent penalties on people who blab the secrets. Doesn't really have much to do with exaltation, becoming gods or anything spiritual at all, really, now does it? But it does make sense when you realize that Joseph Smith was trying to keep his serial adultery, er..."plural marriage" scheme secret for himself and his initiated insider friends. (This is what the Nauvoo Expositor was in the process of exposing when it was violently suppressed by Joseph Smith.)
For those of you who went to the temple after 1990, do you ever wonder why the exciting, if gruesome and bloody, penalty pantomimes were deleted? Now that you know where they came from, it's pretty easy to deduce that they were deleted because the General Authorities realized that they were pointless and embarrassing. Of course this isn't much of an endorsement for the veracity of the "restored" endowment ordinance, is it?
When the Prophets tell you they can't lead the church astray, have you ever wondered whether they are leading the church astray when they say that? Answer: Of course they are--just as Brigham Young was leading the Church astray, when he sacrificed the lives of the handcart pioneers to save money for his pet projects and when he led the church astray with his Adam-God doctrine and Blood Atonement doctrine, and just as Gordon B. Hinckley was leading everyone astray when he denied the LDS Church's doctrine of eternal progression in an interview with a prominent San Francisco newspaper.
If you know anything about the Mark Hoffman bombings, do you ever wonder how so many priesthood leaders (including Gordon B. Hinckley), supposedly with special powers of discernment, could have been so completely deceived by Hoffman, while "gentiles" having no priesthood saw right through him?
Have you ever questioned anything about the Church and the authority of the "General Authorities" at all?? If not, you probably are a person of blind faith and blind loyalty, who has no desire to know the truth about the church. You don't care what the truth is, as long as you feel comfortable in your delusional cult. As Boyd K. Packer said, "some truths aren't very useful." If you fall into this category, please just go back to your comfortable sleep. I'm sorry for disturbing your dreams.
Thank you for your attention.
| A molecular biologist at the CSIRO is facing excommunication from the Mormon Church after writing a book challenging its central teachings.
Dr Simon Southerton was raised a believer but in 1998 abandoned the church of which he was a bishop - the equivalent of a parish priest - when he could not reconcile his faith with scientific research.
A year ago he published a rebuttal of the Book of Mormon teachings which claim native American and Polynesians were descendants of Israelite tribes who had migrated to the Americas centuries before Christ.
In Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, Dr Southerton challenged the church to declare the Mormon scriptural text an "inspired fictional story".
"The DNA evidence we have today clearly shows that native Americans and Polynesians are both descended from Asian ancestors," he told the Herald.
He said more than 7000 native Americans had been DNA tested, proving 99 per cent of their DNA came from Asia.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| Back in the ealy 80's I was serving (I love that word) as a bishop in a military ward. The several wards surrounding Fort Campbell, KY were located in Clarksville, TN and Hopkinsville, KY. I had occasion to speak with the stake president about a member for which I was to hold a bishop's court (a.k.a. "court of love") and, since I was just 25, had only been a bishop for a month and it was my first court I asked for some direction.
I expressed my concerns about holding this court for the mother of a young family who had been accused of "kissing" another man. The person who brought the charges was the former bishop and he had not witnessed the heinous act...he had been told about it by another member.
I was concerned that just holding the court might damage the faith of this young woman and since the details were rather sketchy maybe it should just be ignored and I should watch the situation develop.
To my first point he said that it was in the Lord's hand. That the kiss was obviously provactive enough to warrant the court and that I should not be concerned that it could not be corroborated by other witnesses.
He then told me something interesting: That Mark E. Peterson had held a focus group in the past year or so that gathered a bunch of excommunicated mormons together to understand the "excommunication experience" better. I was intrigued and wondered what the findings were and the outcome. We only spoke briefly so I did not get a lot of details but he said that a vast number of exommunications never returned to the church...I think he said more than 80%...and that almost all of those did not feel they were treated with "love" in the courts. I also asked if the process had changed because of the focus group and he did not have an answer.
I never revisted the topic while I was a bishop and never heard another word about it.
Sadly, and much to my shame, I did as I was commanded and held the court on the flimsy evidence provided. I could never ascertain that anything beyond the single kiss, which she claimed was on the cheek, took place. Her husband was offended and she never looked me in the eye after that.
| As many of you known, I have started a nondenominational ministry here and I have also partnered with The Food Bank Of Iowa to serve this neighborhood.
I'm not conventional and I am flawed. I make mistakes and do wrong.
My first Sunday was Christmas Sunday. I had about twenty people in attendance, and I had only printed about 200 fliers so I guess that's good. I also had 2 LDS salesmen (missionaries) in attendance. In good LDS tradition they arrived quite late and entered rather annoyingly. They sat in the back and made some notes. My services focused on introducing myself, my Mormon past, the birth of Christ and how The Trinity. I closed with a brief sermon about salvation. All in all about 45 minutes. Afterwards many people stuck around and talked while the two Mormon boys made a dash for it. I learned a lot about the people who came and even got myself a music director out of it.
So I woke up this morning late and I have been working all day building new shelves because the food bank has promised me a lot more food than what I currently have space for. I left for the store to grab some snacks and I find tacked on the front door of the church a notice, kind of like an eviction notice, from the church of jospeh smith of mormons - an excommunication hearing notice. They didn't even put it in an envelope! I can't believe it, do they think this is Utah? They only make up 0.25% of the population. Muslims outnumber mormons in this state. I hadn't had any visitors all day, I am curious if that letter turned any visitors away.
What is the best form of action? My current plan is to notify the LDS mission president in writing that his sales force is to stay out of the building and to stay off of the sidewalk in front of the building. Can I do any more with that letter? I also intend on attending the hearing and basically turning it into Christianity Vs Mormonism. At the end of the hearing I plan on standing up and delivering a verdict against members of TSCC, and then walking out.
My more fighting side wants to erect a giant cross on the front lawn of the stake center. But I just won't do that.
Update:
I made a decision regarding LDS Inc's decision to attempt to excommunicate me.
I have had some nice offers of help to put a spotlight on the LDS for this action. However, I respectfully must decline any offers for help. I have a several reasons for that.
The first and foremost reason that I must decline is that I do not want to become a cheap midwestern Ed Decker clone. I do not want to be the antimormon/exmormon preacher. What I feel called to do is serve the community I am in, a poor community. I honestly think that if I were to go and be an antimormon I would fail at that task and I would fail my primary goals as well. I'll leave the insane stuff to those crazy people that show up on LDS Inc's doorstep at conferance time.
Two, I feel as though simply writing a serious letter to the church stating that the members of LDS Inc, acting in their role on behalf of LDS inc may not enter my property at anytime. This includes missionaries who are wearing name tags. My letter will also detail that I have resigned and the nature of my unsigned hand delivered letter.
However, as long as LDS Inc leaves me along. I will not be taking any action, for the reason that LDS Inc is too small here in Iowa to affect my ministry at all. Mormons comprise about 0.25% of the population. There are more muslims than mormons in Iowa. LDS Inc is not big enough or strong enough to matter, and I will treat them as such.
Concerning the action of excommunication, again I plan on taking no action outside of informing them again that I have already resigned. If they hold a court, then I will not attend. If they make a statement, then so be it. Less than 1/4 of one percent of the population will hear about it.
I intend to keep posting here, as being a member did effect me personally, but that will be really the only dealings or concern I have with Mormonism, and that is recovery from it - it's effects - and it's programing.
| HP class Sunday Am lesson.
"Wisdom is what we as Priesthhood holders need. We lack intuition that women and prophets have. We have facts and that is what gets us in trouble." Then quote from DandC about prophets. seers and revelators having this divine knowledge to quide them and set them apart from us and the rest of the world. "As a result of this intuition they can get the wisdom they need to quide the Church." We as HP generally lack that so "lets set the prophet GBH as our example."
Everyone thought lesson was great, uplifting.
After class I asked teacher if maybe his theory fell apart re: GBH, Oakes and Pres. Kimball and the Hoffman papers.
Several brethren were listening. Bad mistake on their part!!!
I explained that according to what he said and read Pres. Kimball should have known they were fake. I explained that two others who were prophets seers and revelators should have also known they were fake.
"They were acting as men, not prophets. They also make mistakes and are not perfect, are you perfect. Because you are not perfect you should not expect them to be perfect?"
Bad thing to say to me, Dr _________.
I responded that they were men of God, His chosen and that they should have prayed about it like you suggested in lesson and gotten an answer. We look to these men for guidance and examples.
"The Hoffman papers does not affect your salvation. It does not affect the doctrine of the church. It does not affect geeting into CK.It does not affect the day to day activity of the Church" was his reply.
I then told him that it affected me because I beleieved these men and Pres Kimball saying these were original documents. These documents had to do with JS and the Church. They were important. I said it bothered me greatly to find out they were false and these men did not know.
"God is testing you. These men make mistakes like JS did with bank problem he had. You are not perfect. You should have prayed about it and found out for yourself if they were true or not instead of relying on the brethren."
"How could I? I did not see them or feel them or touch them. That is the pondering before we pray part you quoted in class this am."
"He then said he did not know alot about the Hoffman papers but it will not affect our salvation."
I explained that I could show some other examples to show that the quote from DandC may not be as accurate in its intepretaion as he said in the lesson. He then started to talk about JS being taught over the years by various Lamanites and that when he translated he knew a lot about these people. In the lesson he talked about Oliver Cowdrey not being able to translate because his heart and mind was not into it. I asked if we knew what he translated? No? I asked who told him it was incorrect? JS. I asked did he put his head into hat like JS did. No. I aksed if there were witnesses? he did not know. Neither do I. But the teacher assured me that JS was prepared just like our modern prophets are.
I again came back to Hoffman papers and asked how many people knew they were fake before Pres. Kimball said they were true? There were some people that said so according Sunstone magazine articles.
"This was a test that God is giving to us." was his reply.
I then concluded that when I come to a class I come to learn and I expect my teachers to know and be able to discuss the issues.
The HP group leader at this point then asked to set up an appointment to see me. I guess I beat up his teacher too much!!!!
All I want in HP class and adult classes is to discuss the points and have people come to their own conclusions. I did not say the teacher was wrong but his logic and presentation did not fit a certain set of events. I prsented a different side of the argument about prophets, seers and revelators, the side that I as a student was struggling with. It seemed I knew my facts and history.
That is why when they disfellowshipped me they said, "BRO _________ you will never ask another question in Church again or we will have a court and excommunicate you for not following the directions of this court."
Nice how the church surpresses ideas.
As an aside there was one HP who watched this very carefully and I am sure went home and pondered my side. I am not there to convert people in or out of the church but to discuss at a deep level the gospel.
| Courts of Love
"The bishop’s court and the high council court have properly been referred to as courts of love. The sole purpose of a Church court is to bring about in the Lord’s way a spiritual judgment for every Church member that will hopefully eliminate for all time an irregularity or transgression that could prevent him from the ultimate blessing of exaltation. . . . . The Lord’s plan is totally positive."
Answer/Elder Robert L. Simpson QandA: Questions and Answers,” New Era, July 1975, 46
As a young mother I remember a Relief Society lesson titled, “Courts of Love.” It was about the process of church disciplinary courts; often a necessary step for repentance. These were the forums where a sinner would be brought to be judged before God’s holy men. These men through the power of discernment and spiritual guidance would determine the sinner’s fate. The most onerous punishment that could be exacted was excommunication. A formal definition defines it as: “Formal expulsion from a religious body, the most grave of all ecclesiastical censures. Where religious and social communities are nearly identical it is attended by social ostracism.”
When Mormons committed a grievous sin like adultery or apostasy excommunication was often exacted as a necessary step in repentance. The gravity of the punishment had to fit the gravity of the sin. Without a just and commensurate punishment, the person could not fully repent and return to our Heavenly Father.
In the Mormon world, this meant not being able to pray in church, participate in classes, hold callings, wear the special underwear of the faithful, attend the temple, and other actions as determined by one’s ecclesiastical leader.
What this also meant is that a parent would be forbidden from attending a child’s temple wedding and a man would not be able to bless, baptize, ordain, or confirm his child. All of these important rites and ceremonies were taken away. These were the things that made you Mormon, a part of the inner circle, a worthy member of the church. All of these important anchors would be taken away in the hopes of rehabilitation.
Without excommunication, without paying the price, without the demands of justice being met, the person would be lost for the eternities. When the sinner humbly submitted to the requirements of repentance, the miracle of forgiveness would eventually occur.
The exact amount of time needed to demonstrate true repentance was determined by the leaders through prayer and seeking the guidance of the spirit. But through a broken and contrite spirit, through complete acceptance of the punishment and subjugation to the process, forgiveness would eventually be extended. The person would be rebaptized and in due course all blessings restored; if the person became sufficiently humbled.
Therefore, though this seemed harsh, we were told it was an act of compassion. This process of rejection, public humiliation, personal desolation, isolation, expulsion and social banishment, was euphemized as kindness, a gift, benevolence and concern. This was the beautiful gift of repentance and forgiveness. These were the courts of love. It honestly terrified me. I could not imagine the shame of such a thing.
Growing up the sins we heard the most about were sexual transgressions. As a teenager, sex was something that was talked about constantly at my high school with my friends, but rarely in my home. When it was discussed it was in the vaguest of terms and usually to make sure that we knew that sex outside of marriage was wrong. What we did talk about in my home and at church incessantly was being morally clean and keeping the law of chastity.
This meant to avoid any kind of sexual gratification or activity. No petting, no nudity, no masturbation, no visual stimulation, no stimulation at all. Being morally clean was not just about avoiding anything sexual it was also about being modest in dress and action and keeping one’s thoughts clean and pure so that you were not tempted or tempting or ever in a situation where something could happen. Mormons strove to never have an impure thought.
This fear and avoidance of anything sexual was obsessed about in the Mormon Church. Repression and denial of one’s sexuality was righteous and as a young latter day saint women I knew that I should be modest, chase, and remain untainted from things in the world. These constant convoluted messages created tremendous shame for me about my body and sexuality.
My parents had tried once or twice to teach us about sexuality. My mother had talked about human genitalia in the most clinical of terms, as though that should answer our questions about sex. She never said anything about the actual act. They told us that procreation was something reserved for marriage, it was beautiful, a gift of creation, and a sacred thing between husband and wife. But this great power used outside of marriage was a serious sin. So serious in fact, that only the shedding of innocent blood and denial of the Holy Ghost was worse.
These were the unpardonable sins. Sexual sins were next to these. There were actually talks given by general authorities who said that they would rather have a child die than to have that child lose their virtue. One of the prophets claimed that it would be better for a woman to die rather than be raped. I would imagine myself in the situation and wondered if I had the courage to choose death.
Like so many teenagers, I could not imaging my own parents knew anything about sex or had any insight to share with me. My parents had an unhappy and angry marriage. I did not want them to be my role model for how all this would work.
Sex was very confusing. It was beautiful and sinful, a gift and a temptation, wrong until it was right and something that I must and could control. I’m sure I was told all the things that Mormon parents tell their kids. The fact that it is a biologically process that is hormonally driven, fascinating, and natural was ignored. Sex was moralized, demonized, sermonized and scrutinized and our parents hoped to attach enough shame, guilt and confusion around the subject to produce the desired behavior. Kids who did not have sex until marriage and then never ventured outside of the marriage bed for any kind of gratification.
But as the inevitable happens kids have sex. (No Mormon believes this is inevitable.) When I was about twelve, our neighbor, Sharon, a young Mormon girl, became pregnant during the summer before her senior year in high school. She was a pep-girl and popular. Though this was the sixties and the sexual revolution was in full swing, it had not really hit our small farming community yet, and definitely had not hit our smaller church community.
Sharon was immediately the talk of every conversation. All of the archaic beliefs about sex, girls, pregnancy, if we had ever thought we had evolved beyond them, were revealed.
Sharon was sinful, what worthy boy would want her, she would carry this stigma forever, her child would carry this stigma forever, she was unworthy, and most importantly to the Mormons, she had broken the law of chastity. The damning comment made in whispers and bowed heads was; she was pregnant out of wedlock, a simple phrase that connoted unending shame.
Though she had to step down from being a pep girl, she continued going to school. As she became bigger, and everyone became more uncomfortable around her, she eventually dropped out of high school. She continued to attend church and seemed happy enough to me, a young and callow teenager.
Sharon’s family rallied around her and was clearly supportive. Sharon had been my dance teacher and I had gone to her home every week for lessons. But she was five years older than me and we were not really friends. I never talked to her about what was happening nor knew what she thought or how she felt.
I did know how my father felt about it though. He called me into his room one day and explained to me what all of this meant. He and my mother, he explained, had a wonderful physical relationship and it was sanctioned and blessed by Heavenly Father. This image of my parents was in direct contrast with the fact they did not even seem to like each other.
He continued and stated that with marriage, procreation was a miracle and a blessing. Children were gifts and a special obligation for righteous parents committed to serving the lord. But Sharon had committed a serious sin. She had had sexual intercourse (a term both my father and mother would use that made me completely uncomfortable) outside of marriage and now this pregnancy brought shame instead of rejoicing. It was an important lesson for us girls to learn. We needed to obey the law of chastity and remain morally clean.
Sex had to be the most confusing and emotional charged subject that Mormons dealt with. The bipolar messages about sex, though constant seemed a little silly to me. I tried to have this strong feeling that sex in marriage was beautiful and sacred, a power given by Heavenly Father, a spiritual experience and a religious commitment.
I tried to believe that before marriage; sex, thoughts about sex, and any sexual expression were the most vile and impure thing imaginable; but it just seemed overblown to me. I was fascinated, curious, and sure when it was my turn it would be amazing, but I really was not that interested.
I did not understand the commotion around Sharon. I just could not accept that her having sex had been so wrong. Stupid maybe, but what made it sinful. Was there malicious intent? Were these two kids trying to do harm? Was ten minutes in a car all it took to make someone awful, irresponsible, harmful, and all the other things I associated with “wrongful” behavior.
Was Sharon really like a thief, an abusive parent, or a cheating business partner? Was she evil, but not quite as evil as a murderer? That did not make much sense. But there was something I did feel was wrong and completely unsettling. How Sharon was judged and treated.
The messages that the church taught about repentance and forgiveness were confusing and contradictory. Repentance was more than acknowledgement of something wrong with a commitment to change and sorrow for the transgression. Repentance the Mormon way required payment, humiliation, and shame.
And it wasn’t always a personal experience. It was often very public, played out in front of the members of the church. Why was being pregnant such a shameful experience? Why couldn’t Sharon just repent and why was it any of our business if she did or didn’t? Why was Sharon held up to us as an example of sin? She was a seventeen year old girl, who gave in to natural biological pressures and probably some unnatural pressures (not to mention a young hormonal boy) that living in such a conflicted culture produced.
One thing she did that was pretty gutsy back then; she stayed, had her baby and kept him. The church felt pretty strongly that babies to unwed mothers should be put up for adoption.
Whatever the church suggested, was to many an edict from Heavenly Father, so to not obey was rebellion and showed a lack of repentance. With her family at her side, she faced the judgments of those she had grown up with and known her entire life. Depending on the eyes of the beholder, she was either brave or defiant.
As the pregnancy progressed, for the most part, our small community warmed up to her and accepted her pregnancy. After she gave birth, her son seemed accepted and loved. Sharon attended regular Sunday services, participated in church activities, and went on with her life.
I could not help but mentally stare at her. It wasn’t that I thought she was bad. It was that she was different. She was outside the perfect path for young women. I wondered all the time; what was she thinking, going through, feeling? I was curious, not concerned.
Our community treated her with kindness. The kindness that is extended to those who have committed a transgression. Being a sinner among Mormons is not an acknowledgement of humanness, but willful disobedience by someone chosen. Being fallible was not OK. Perfection was the expectation. The judgments of her were fairly constant though unspoken. Life moved on as it does, but her actions were not forgotten.
Sharon had gone on to college, danced in the local ballet company and seemed to be a responsible and loving mother. After a few years everything started to correct itself. Sharon met and became engaged to a young, worthy, good looking, Mormon man.
He loved Sharon and her son and her family loved him. I remember watching him with Sharon’s son. He seemed like a natural father and was very attentive. As odd as this sounds, I felt a sense of relief. Sharon’s marriage would return us to a sort of equilibrium. A social homeostasis effect was taking place. I wondered as I watched all of this from a distance if she was in love or if this was the way to make her life normal again. Her little boy was now two and a half years old.
Good Mormons get married in the temple and this requires living a chaste life. One can be chaste, even though a sin has been committed, through the process of repentance. This typically requires some passage of time in the Mormon culture. Though more than three years had past since the commission of the sin and Sharon was active and apparently repentant, when she went to get a temple recommend she was denied. She had gone to my father for the interview. He explained to her and then later to us girls what he had told her.
He felt he could not give her a recommend because of the message it would send that sex was OK and that you could break the commandments of Heavenly Father and still go to the temple. Sex was a grave sin, not something that is just erased. Sharon had had a baby out of wedlock and had brought shame and pain to her family, the church and to herself.
Enough time had not passed in his mind to justify her recommend to go to the temple. Enough time had not passed to merit forgiveness. He asked her if she understood why he could not give her this recommend? It was a rhetorical question, of course. He was not interested in her opinion.
He was the judge. He determined her worthiness and meted out Heavenly Father’s judgments with righteous arrogance and self-serving benevolence. When he determined enough time had passed, he would then let her enter, as though it was a gift for him to bestow.
He asked her: “What message did she want to send to the young girls that knew her and knew what she had done?” It was not enough that he would continue to humiliate and ostracize her, he had to have her agree with him.
He had to be acknowledged that he was the righteous judge. My dad told us that Sharon had understood why he could not give her a recommend. He said that she had agreed that she did not want to send the wrong message to other young women.
Maybe Sharon did agree, maybe she understood, I will never know. But I did not. I felt angry and hurt and that I had somehow been treated unfairly. My entire physical reaction to the story told me this was wrong. This was the sin. I felt disgusted, not just by my father, but by my church.
This all happened just a few days before her wedding and I do not know if this had any impact on what happened next. We got a call the day before the marriage was to take place that it had been cancelled. On Sharon’s wedding day, she returned all the gifts. I answered the door when she came to our home. My father graciously told her that she did not need to return the gift. He seemed kind and supportive. I wonder if he felt any responsibility for what was happening or if he thought that this was a direct result of her unrighteous decisions.
An experience like this only made Mormons more committed to their beliefs. My father was either righteous and just in denying Sharon a temple recommend or he was impacting her life without any right. This was either god’s will or my father’s will to hurt and punish her. It was better for all to believe in the truthfulness of the church and the process of repentance.
My father loved to judge people. He loved the church courts. I would listen to him and the other righteous men talk about the process. They had the right to determine who was worthy and who wasn’t. They relished this power, this control. It was simple really. There were the rules, there were the judgments, and if we were found to be sinful or lacking we were to repent.
Sins had to be paid for and even Heavenly Father was bound to these eternal laws. These all too human men were the ones to know when someone had paid the price required of Heavenly Father. Repentance was the only way to salvation and it meant admitting defeat to members of a church who do not understand defeat.
It was confession of sin to a church that teaches that no sin is ever acceptable. Mormons believe that they will someday become Gods. Sin is something the very elect should be able to avoid.
We were all complicit in the hurt that was done through this judgment process. We all agreed to the rules. My father and men like him all over the world would judge and we would be judged. All the rules and constructs that we adhered to as though there were prison bars that held us and shackles and chains that constrained us, were made up.
The life of a Mormon.
| I use to be married to a man who came from a very prominant LDS family in my area [Not Utah]. We were not married in the temple [closest one was Washington DC at the time], because I wanted my father to walk me down the isle and for all my friends and family members to be at my wedding. I myself, was born and raised in the church but the thought of my cousins and friends who were not members, not being able to be with me, just never sat right, so I insisted on a civil wedding. The bishop at the time who was a long time family friend, performed the ceremony, outside in the dew of the early morning. It was beautiful.
A few months after our 4th wedding anniversary my husband announced to me that he no longer wanted the responsibilities of being a "husband or father". Needless to say, I don't stay anywhere I am not welcome, so he left for work and I packed up my son and myself and left. No harsh words, no yelling, no screaming ... more in shock than anything else.
I gave my husband three months to come to his senses. He didn't. I filed for divorce. Also during this time, he made no phone calls to even check on the whereabouts of myself or our son. Such a nice guy!
After I filed for divorce I met with him a few times face to face. His only request was to ask me if we could still "date". HELLOOOO ... we're getting a divorce. We all know what he meant by "dating". My answer ... ABSOLUTELY NOT!
About one month after I filed divorce "I" was visited by two elders of the church who had come to inform me that a church court was being convened on my behalf. When I questioned them as to the "why's", all they would tell me was that I would find out when I attended. So, basically I was in the dark as to what I had done or didn't do, that a church court was being called.
The date on the letter was during a period that I was going to be out of town. I informed them of this and told them that there was no way I could attend given the date due to previous plans I had already made. They asked me when I would be returning ... I told them and I was assured that the date would be changed and that I would receive notification.
I never heard another word about it. No letter. No nothing. Silence.
About 2 years later I was going to be re-married. My soon to be husband at the time was a non-member and was taking the discussions from the missionaries. My fiance really liked the elders and asked if they would not only baptize him, but also marry us. They told us they would have to get permission from their mission president.
A few days went by and they stopped in to tell us that they could not marry us. When my fiance at the time asked them why not, they instructed us that the reason was because we were both "non members". I started laughing. I reminded them both that I was a BIC baby and grew up in the church. I don't know how much MORE of a member I could be, if that didn't qualify. They both looked to the floor and then one of them spoke. They told me that they didn't know how to tell me this, but, NO I wasn't a member any longer. Any longer? What does that mean? I asked. They told me I had been "excommunicated" two years previous.
I was shocked and rip $hit. I wanted to know WHY? WHEN? WHERE? and HOW? They told me they didn't have any details other than that I had been "excommunicated". My fiance still told them that he wanted them to marry us. They told us that their mission president told them it was ok with him, but that they would have to get permission from the bishop, and that it was the bishop that told them, "NO" and informed them that I had been excommunicated.
I told them, no problem. I would be getting back with them after I had talked to my stake president who was an old family friend. I called him and he saw me immediately. He said that he had no idea that I had been "ex'd", and that he had looked high and low for my "church file", but couldn't find it anywhere, so therefore, he didn't have the "facts" of the case to give to me to help answer any of the questions that I had. He also told me that he was very upset about it all and that he would "draw the waters of the baptism" and he would "re-baptize" me right then and there. I told him to save the water.
I also told him that I had no idea what was going on, but I highly suspected that my ex-inlaws were behind the whole thing. I told him that I would not then, or ever be re-baptized because I hadn't done anything to lose my membership in the church. I also told him that my baptism was between myself and God and that 'NO MAN' could remove that and then basically told him where I thought the bishop should go ... said something about a place where the sun didn't shine. :-) I also spoke to him about my fiance's request to have the elders marry us. He told me he would call the mission president and give a thumbs up, over-ruling the decision made by the bishop.
The elders married us. To this day ... 25 years later, I have no idea why I was excommunicated. I stayed active for many of those years and even held callings as an "ex'd" member. I figured it was their problem ... not mine. I never heard another word about it.
Then I stumbled on the 'truth' about the church about 8 years ago ... [thanks Eric] and figured they did me a favor ... I just didn't know it at the time.
| From the Salt Lake Tribune:
Peter Danzig did not set out to be a Mormon activist.
Danzig said nothing in 1993 when church officials charged six well-known Mormon scholars and intellectuals with apostasy for their writings or speeches about LDS issues. He kept quiet when Brigham Young University fired history professor Steven Epperson, a member of Danzig's Mormon congregation, for serving the homeless rather than attending church.
In 2006, Danzig finally felt compelled to protest. BYU adjunct professor Jeffrey Nielsen lost his job for arguing in a The Salt Lake Tribune column that the LDS Church was wrong to oppose gay marriage and to enlist Mormon support for a constitutional amendment against it.
The dismissal appalled Danzig, who had explored the questions of homosexuality while pursuing a graduate degree in clinical social work.
"I wish to express to Jeffery Nielson that I admire his courage and that I stand with him," Danzig wrote in a letter The Tribune published on June 14, 2006. "I was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ."
What happened next is disheartening to many who believe the church should allow its members to express divergent political and personal views. While others wrote letters in support of Nielsen without facing discipline, Danzig endured months of grueling attacks on his motives and membership.
"There is room in the [LDS] Church for honest disagreement regarding church positions," LDS Spokesman Scott Trotter said. "Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders."
Deciding when a person is in "open opposition" varies among Mormon bishops and stake presidents. Clearly, someone at the top thought Danzig had crossed that line.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8345693
| 5 years ago, I found myself face to face with a "Mormon Court of Love" … although I had not broken any Temple covenants, I certainly tip toed around them. And in keeping with my Mormon upbringing… I felt the weight of guilt bearing down on my shoulders due to my actions. But I faced my mistakes, took full responsibility for it and turned to the only church I had ever known to help put the pieces of my guilt fractured life back together again.
In hind sight, turning to the church was both the worst decision of my life and the best decision of my life. Instead of finding a loving compassionate, Christ-like church, I experienced something very different from the one the LDS Church PR machine advertises on TV. A church more concerned with its own image than caring for the worth of a shattered individual soul. I entered the process, a broken man…but I, as a TBM, I had the faith that if I subjected myself to the repentance process…I would find the means to put my fractured life back together again.
My faith was misplaced. After making a full and complete confession of my transgressions to my bishop, I was passed on to my Stake President where I was again required to confess my sins.. I had been a sitting member of the Stake High Council...I was held to a higher standard. My SP felt that I needed to feel the full weight of my sin by experiencing a "Stake Court of Love". I felt like a lamb being led to slaughter, I had sat on Courts of Love as a member of the High Council...I had NEVER had anyone with my infraction have to go to a church court…but I humbly submitted myself.
Unlike its name…a Mormon “Court of Love” is anything but. In my situation, there was NO love or compassion. From the beginning, I experienced a "Burning at the Stake, Center" rather than any process involving “Love”.
Despite having sat in on many church courts...nothing in my previous experience had prepared me for what I was about to experience. At the onset, I was subjected to voyeuristic questioning by men seeking intimate details of every act that led to my fall from grace.
Those in attendance made demeaning assumptions that went far beyond anything I had done or confessed to. I kept thinking...how they can make these huge leaps of assumption. There was an overabundance of humiliating accusations and questions, a holier than thou, pompous air emanating from these untrained men who by all accounts, it seemed to me, had never made a mistake in their own lives… but there was no love…no hint of compassion or understanding.
Call me naive’, but I honestly thought that if I was forthright, open and honest in subjecting myself completely to this so called court of love I would be dealt with in a loving compassionate way…I was sorely mistaken.
Imagine taking on the entire offensive line of an NFL team all by yourself. I was overwhelmed by what the church expected me to do. I literally had to expose my soul and lay everything out for these men to sift through. Every action I had made was on the table for their personal examination. There were no boundaries... or limits set to their questioning....my entire life was subject to their examination. They felt they had the right to lay everything in my life on the table to be examined and weighed.
For three hours I allowed these righteous Mormon men to grapple through the most intimate embarrassing details and aspects of my personal life and marriage. Some of the 18 men were neighbors and all were long time acquaintances.
I thought I was prepared for what I had to do…but unless you have laid bare your soul as I have done…you have no idea what a church court is like and nothing can prepare you.
I laid my soul bare and opened it up to their inspection and scrutiny. Minute after agonizing minute I shared the most intimate details of my personal life and allowed them to sift through my life with their judgmental fine toothed combs. No question seemed too personal, no subject matter too out of line for them to delve into. Their hits came at me from every direction. No one stood to defend or to protect me. No padding, no defense men, no helmets no timeouts, no referees.
Hour after painful hour I sat there submitting myself to their far fetched abusive allegations and accusations that far exceeded anything I had confessed. No one came to my rescue and no one stood up to say ... HOLD ON HERE this has gotten out of control. This man has taken enough.
Absolutely nothing lay between me and those who sat in judgment over me. I was subjected to wave after wave of abusive, insensitive questioning. They collectively threw me under their spiritual bus. If I hadn't lived through it myself I would NEVER have thought Mormon men were capable of such uncaring judgmental abuse.…and no, there was no love.
Following my inquisition, I was informed that I had been excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. My world fell apart. I wanted to die. But I accepted their decision.
OK, so I thought, surly NOW the love would start, right?...surly now these men would reach out to me in some meaningful way… surly these men who had participated in my massacre would help clean up the mess that had become my life… surly they would show forth an INCREASE in love less I esteem them as my enemies, right?
If I had hoped that someone would be sending in the cavalry to rescue me...I would soon be sorely disappointed. There was no rescue coming...there was no love coming. In fact, of the 18 men who had participated in my so-called court of love, only two made any attempt to reach out and help put my shattered life back together. One of them being the Stake President who had failed to manage my church court. I was basically left alone, a broken, excommunicated Mormon man.
Following my court, I ran into several of these men in public situations... several of these men would look at me,then turn and walk away rather than approach me them at the local store or mall. It was a complete and total shunning. On more than one occasion. But for more unforgivable...was they they extended the same treatment to my TBM wife and family. On one occation, I literally begged for help… it never came. I was cast out and left to put the shattered pieces of my life back together on my own.
In hind sight, being cast off and excommunicated was the best thing that ever happened to me. Little else could have woken me up to the reality of Mormonism’s claims My excommunication allowed me the freedom to truly investigate Mormonism without the constraints placed on me by my LDS upbringing.
I was able to ask the hard questions I had always been afraid to ask. I was no longer afraid to discover if the church was all it claimed to be.
Perhaps the most difficult and painful part of this re-investigation process was discovering that I had put my faith in a church that had been less than honest with me. I literally cried...when I discovered the length the church had gone to lie to me and keep its history from me. I soon discovered that many of the churches foundational stories were quite different in reality than I had been taught in Sunday school, Seminary and Institute.
The Mormon Church broke my heart, NOT because I was excommunicated…but because the institutional church had been and continues to be less than honest with its own membership regarding its foundational stories. I cannot reconcile why a church that teaches such high moral standards finds it necessary to be less than honest when it comes to its own history. Shame on them.
Since my forced departure from the church, I have experienced a freedom of spirit that is hard to put into words. Like taking a breath of fresh mountain air on a crisp spring morning or diving into the cool springtime waters of a mountain lake. I feel so alive. I am free to THINK, I am free to FEEL, I am free to be ME, I am free to LIVE in a manner I mistakenly thought was only possible within the confines of Mormonism!!!!
Lessons learned:
I will NEVER give power to a man made organization ever again.
I will NEVER take shit from any Mormon period.
My excommunication was unquestionably the worst experience of my life…
My excommunication has led me to the best experiences of my life…
But in some odd way it has made me the man that I am today....a man whom I honestly LOVE.
| I thought this might be interesting to some of us here. I obviously can't and won't say how I obtained this and I ask that those of you who know me personally outside of our Internet community keep this information here on the forum as my wife is still TBM and doesn't know I came across this or that I'm posting it online.
The following is the Internet communication between those "leaders" involved in a "court of love". We all know what goes on at one of these things but this is a little inside perspective on how the decision to disfellowship or excommunicate a member is made. I also found the counsel for the "rehabilitation" of the member particularly "one size fits all". I may post the others that I have and all of the advice for "rehabilitation" is the same. Talk about revelation and being guided by the spirt. The hole thing is a joke! I'm suprised that after going through one of these that anybody actually followes the courts advice and guidlines and actually has a desire to return to an active role in the cult. Nothing too shocking but I'm not sure if anything like this has been shared before.
Disciplinary Council Summary If more space is required, attach an additional sheet. Names of persons participating in the disciplinary council (counselors, clerks, high councilors, witnesses and others)
XXX, Bishop, Presiding.
XXX, 1st Counselor
XXX, 2nd Counselor
XXX, High Councilor, clerk
Details and circumstances surrounding the misconduct and evidence of repentance, including testimony given by the person, witnesses, and priesthood leaders. (Do not include the name of any nonmember. If the transgressor’s relationship to a nonmember is fundamental to the cause for disciplinary action [such as in the case of child abuse], make reference to the relationship, but do not state the nonmember’s name.) If the transgressions involved any form of child abuse, outline the specific nature of the abuse.
This sister was born in the covenant in XXX. She was the sixth of seven children. All but one of her siblings are active, as are her parents. The parents raised the children to become independent when they reached the age of 18. She was told in so many words to graduate, move out, and become independent. There seemed to be a lack of emotional support at the very least. After graduating from XXX High School, she worked for the (CITY NAMED) ARC for three years and for XXX for two years. At age 23, she began serving a mission in XXX, which concluded honorably. Afterwards, she returned to XXX and later worked for the XXX XXX, the XXX XXX in collections, the XXX XXX in advertising and for XXX. Currently, she works as an Administrative Assistant for the XXX. During this period, she also enrolled in several community college courses.
The member voluntarily reported a history of sexual misconduct beginning at age 19 when she became involved with an inactive member in heavy petting and two instances of oral sex. These transgressions were reported and she was placed on formal probation for a period of two to three months.
After completing her mission in XXX, this individual began suffering from depression with suicidal thoughts. She enlisted the aid of several counselors. She described her emotional state at that time as building walls to keep people out. This lasted until she was 32, when, she reported, she was able to break through the wall. About the time she attained the age of thirty, she engaged in a couple of instances of heavy petting with a member of the Church. She confessed this to her Bishop, was placed on informal probation and the Bishop helped her to end the relationship. She reported feeling as though she was attracting sexual predators.
In January 2006 she confessed to her current Bishop an event involving one instance of light petting with a job applicant where she worked. The couple ended the evening quite late at his hotel room where the offense took place. This was handled informally by counseling by the Bishop.
In March 2007, this sister became acquainted with a member via the Internet. She dated him until November 2007. The couple had multiple encounters involving sexual intercourse at their homes and hotels. The sister reported that it was she who initiated the sexual advances but that she was not interested in marrying him. This matter was discussed between their two Bishops. The male member, who lives in another State, is also subject to a disciplinary council proceeding.
The sister reports that she is not sure where she is emotionally now. She feels like she is in a good place but does not trust herself. She expressed that she has had a good relationship with the Savior, even when she wasn’t there.
If this is a reconvened disciplinary council, specify any transgressions committed after the person was placed on probation, disfellowshipped, or excommunicated. If various transgressions were committed, list the nature of each transgression and the last time each was committed.
This does not apply.
Important considerations leading to the council’s decision.
The offenses constitute violations of Temple covenants.
The sister has been subject to previous actions of counseling, informal probation and formal probation for prior sexual misconduct. In one of these instances she had initiated the offensive behavior.
The council perceived through the sister’s behavior, her demeanor and speech that, while her remorse may very well be sincere, it did not reach a depth appropriate to the seriousness of the misconduct. The sister engaged in a pattern of behavior conducive to opportunities to lapse into sexual misconduct. For example, most contacts were with members from out of State and initiated via the Internet. Currently she is dating a non-member.
The council recognized that this individual has a history of emotional/psychological issues that may have contributed to her decisions to transgress. However, they do not seem to be so severe as to impair her agency and judgment.
The council determined the individual will be disfellowshipped and the period for which it would apply would be solely determined by the member’s spiritual progress. No representation was made regarding the duration of the period of disfellowshipment. This was to avoid either minimizing the seriousness of the misconduct by offering a prospect of rapid reinstatement or of discouraging the member by stipulating a duration so long that she would become discouraged.
The sister was instructed that she was not to partake of the Sacrament. She would not be assigned a calling nor would she be given any visiting teaching responsibilities. Her Temple recommend has expired and she will not be given a new one until the period of disfellowshipment has been favorably concluded. She is not to sustain Church officers nor is she to participate in Sunday meetings; e.g. bearing testimony, teaching or participating in classes. She is not to be called upon or engage in public prayer.
She was provided with a reading and study list consisting of the following:
- Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson.
- Put on the Whole Armor of God by Leon R. Hartshorn
- The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball
- Of Souls, Symbols and Sacraments by Jeffrey R. Holland.
- Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmidge.
The member was also told that she should be an active participant in Ward activities such as Family Home Evening, Ward service projects, the monthly XXX service, and the Single Adult religion class when it reconvenes in August, to engage in kneeling personal prayer morning and evening, daily Scripture study and to attend all Sabbath meetings.
The First Counselor and his wife have been called to be her home teachers. She is also to keep the Word of Wisdom, wear the Temple garment and to continue to pay tithing.
She is further instructed to meet with the Bishop each week just to shake his hand, make an appointment to meet with the Bishop monthly. The sister was also encouraged to seek out the services of an LDS counselor to resolve issues related to connecting with others socially and emotionally.
Note from Infymus: This will now be a part of this member's permanent record that will travel with this member for the rest of her life. The Mormon God may "forgive and forget" or "sins as scarlet" "white as snow", but the Cult never forgives and never forgets. Even if you leave the Cult, your records will never be destroyed and will continue to follow you wherever you go. Those who have completed “name removal” will still have a record - simply notated that you have had name removal.
| I thought this might be interesting to some of us here. I obviously can't and won't say how I obtained this and I ask that those of you who know me personally outside of our Internet community keep this information here on the forum as my wife is still TBM and doesn't know I came across this or that I'm posting it online.
The following is the Internet communication between those "leaders" involved in a "court of love". We all know what goes on at one of these things but this is a little inside perspective on how the decision to disfellowship or excommunicate a member is made. I also found the counsel for the "rehabilitation" of the member particularly "one size fits all". I may post the others that I have and all of the advice for "rehabilitation" is the same. Talk about revelation and being guided by the spirt. The hole thing is a joke! I'm suprised that after going through one of these that anybody actually followes the courts advice and guidlines and actually has a desire to return to an active role in the cult. Nothing too shocking but I'm not sure if anything like this has been shared before.
Disciplinary Council Summary If more space is required, attach an additional sheet. Names of persons participating in the disciplinary council (counselors, clerks, high councilors, witnesses and others)
XXX, Bishop, Presiding.
XXX, 1st Counselor
XXX, 2nd Counselor
XXX, High Councilor, clerk
Details and circumstances surrounding the misconduct and evidence of repentance, including testimony given by the person, witnesses, and priesthood leaders. (Do not include the name of any nonmember. If the transgressor’s relationship to a nonmember is fundamental to the cause for disciplinary action [such as in the case of child abuse], make reference to the relationship, but do not state the nonmember’s name.) If the transgressions involved any form of child abuse, outline the specific nature of the abuse.
This sister was born in the covenant in XXX. She was the sixth of seven children. All but one of her siblings are active, as are her parents. The parents raised the children to become independent when they reached the age of 18. She was told in so many words to graduate, move out, and become independent. There seemed to be a lack of emotional support at the very least. After graduating from XXX High School, she worked for the (CITY NAMED) ARC for three years and for XXX for two years. At age 23, she began serving a mission in XXX, which concluded honorably. Afterwards, she returned to XXX and later worked for the XXX XXX, the XXX XXX in collections, the XXX XXX in advertising and for XXX. Currently, she works as an Administrative Assistant for the XXX. During this period, she also enrolled in several community college courses.
The member voluntarily reported a history of sexual misconduct beginning at age 19 when she became involved with an inactive member in heavy petting and two instances of oral sex. These transgressions were reported and she was placed on formal probation for a period of two to three months.
After completing her mission in XXX, this individual began suffering from depression with suicidal thoughts. She enlisted the aid of several counselors. She described her emotional state at that time as building walls to keep people out. This lasted until she was 32, when, she reported, she was able to break through the wall. About the time she attained the age of thirty, she engaged in a couple of instances of heavy petting with a member of the Church. She confessed this to her Bishop, was placed on informal probation and the Bishop helped her to end the relationship. She reported feeling as though she was attracting sexual predators.
In January 2006 she confessed to her current Bishop an event involving one instance of light petting with a job applicant where she worked. The couple ended the evening quite late at his hotel room where the offense took place. This was handled informally by counseling by the Bishop.
In March 2007, this sister became acquainted with a member via the Internet. She dated him until November 2007. The couple had multiple encounters involving sexual intercourse at their homes and hotels. The sister reported that it was she who initiated the sexual advances but that she was not interested in marrying him. This matter was discussed between their two Bishops. The male member, who lives in another State, is also subject to a disciplinary council proceeding.
The sister reports that she is not sure where she is emotionally now. She feels like she is in a good place but does not trust herself. She expressed that she has had a good relationship with the Savior, even when she wasn’t there.
If this is a reconvened disciplinary council, specify any transgressions committed after the person was placed on probation, disfellowshipped, or excommunicated. If various transgressions were committed, list the nature of each transgression and the last time each was committed.
This does not apply.
Important considerations leading to the council’s decision.
The offenses constitute violations of Temple covenants.
The sister has been subject to previous actions of counseling, informal probation and formal probation for prior sexual misconduct. In one of these instances she had initiated the offensive behavior.
The council perceived through the sister’s behavior, her demeanor and speech that, while her remorse may very well be sincere, it did not reach a depth appropriate to the seriousness of the misconduct. The sister engaged in a pattern of behavior conducive to opportunities to lapse into sexual misconduct. For example, most contacts were with members from out of State and initiated via the Internet. Currently she is dating a non-member.
The council recognized that this individual has a history of emotional/psychological issues that may have contributed to her decisions to transgress. However, they do not seem to be so severe as to impair her agency and judgment.
The council determined the individual will be disfellowshipped and the period for which it would apply would be solely determined by the member’s spiritual progress. No representation was made regarding the duration of the period of disfellowshipment. This was to avoid either minimizing the seriousness of the misconduct by offering a prospect of rapid reinstatement or of discouraging the member by stipulating a duration so long that she would become discouraged.
The sister was instructed that she was not to partake of the Sacrament. She would not be assigned a calling nor would she be given any visiting teaching responsibilities. Her Temple recommend has expired and she will not be given a new one until the period of disfellowshipment has been favorably concluded. She is not to sustain Church officers nor is she to participate in Sunday meetings; e.g. bearing testimony, teaching or participating in classes. She is not to be called upon or engage in public prayer.
She was provided with a reading and study list consisting of the following:
- Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson.
- Put on the Whole Armor of God by Leon R. Hartshorn
- The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball
- Of Souls, Symbols and Sacraments by Jeffrey R. Holland.
- Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmidge.
The member was also told that she should be an active participant in Ward activities such as Family Home Evening, Ward service projects, the monthly XXX service, and the Single Adult religion class when it reconvenes in August, to engage in kneeling personal prayer morning and evening, daily Scripture study and to attend all Sabbath meetings.
The First Counselor and his wife have been called to be her home teachers. She is also to keep the Word of Wisdom, wear the Temple garment and to continue to pay tithing.
She is further instructed to meet with the Bishop each week just to shake his hand, make an appointment to meet with the Bishop monthly. The sister was also encouraged to seek out the services of an LDS counselor to resolve issues related to connecting with others socially and emotionally.
Note from Infymus: This will now be a part of this member's permanent record that will travel with this member for the rest of her life. The Mormon God may "forgive and forget" or "sins as scarlet" "white as snow", but the Cult never forgives and never forgets. Even if you leave the Cult, your records will never be destroyed and will continue to follow you wherever you go. Those who have completed “name removal” will still have a record - simply notated that you have had name removal.
| Editor Note: See http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9871783 - Chad Hardy was excommunicated for creating a "Men On A Mission" calendar.
Hi everyone - this is my first post on here. I want to say hello to all my new Post Mormon friends. First I have to say thank you to everyone who has been following this media storm and showing support in regards to the calendar and "scandal" surrounding it. When the calendar came out last fall, we created quite the media buzz, but nothing like these past few days.
I had posted this on exmormon.org earlier today, and thought I would repost it here in case anyone might be interested in some of the things the press did not cover.
Yesterday was a very interesting experience. It actually was not as bad as I thought – and the gentlemen were very respectful. I would hate to have been there to discuss a “serious transgression” like if I had to tell them I masturbate 20 times a day or something grievous like that. ;) It seemed a bit intimidating at first, but once I was given the floor and was able to speak it gave me a feeling of liberation to educate these men to what I am all about, and to shed light on the hypocrisy and judgment that exists in the church – which is the reason why I chose to disassociate from the fold back in 2002. For me, yesterday was an overall positive experience, mainly because I went in there with the knowledge that these men have no power over me, and their “authority” really only applies if you give it to them.
The only reason I went through with the court was to give an opportunity to open dialog and educate, since that is kind of what I am all about. I had a very good letter of resignation sitting in my car, and debated several times to hand it to them, and call the whole thing off. But I was so curious to see if they would actually dare excommunicate me. There was also a small bit of hope in the back of my mind that they would just let it go and not go through with it mainly for my family’s sake.
The entire issue at hand during the council was the calendar. Sure, they threw in that I was not honoring my priesthood and temple covenants – but that was not the issue. There was NO talk of any transgression on my part, though the SP did ask one more time if I was having an affair with my female employee and if I had any inappropriate relations with anyone from the opposite sex prior to going into the council. (By the way, the accusation came from an online message I left her on myspace or facebook that she was the love of my life hot mama, or something like that, LOL - and I do joke all the time that she is my sex-retary. Shame on me for having a sense of humor!!!)
After I spoke, and the floor was opened for questions, one of the “elders” asked me if Thomas Monson was sitting across the room from me and asked me to stop the calendar, would I do it. I responded by saying that is like asking the Marriott's to stop selling porn in their hotel rooms. This calendar is so much bigger than me. I am not the only person involved in its production. I am just the only Mormon that is involved in the production. I could back out, but that would leave it in the hands of non-Mormons who would prefer that the pictures were racier. I explained this to them. I am the one who pulled the “missionary position” t-shirts off the website because we were getting a lot of complaints. My non-Mormon partner respected me enough to not sell them, but would prefer that we do because they were hot sellers.
I do have to wonder if the men in that room were backed in a corner to ex me. They seemed to be more hurt for agreeing to the sentence than I was for receiving it. It was clear to me that they had already been told how this would go, and the only way they would not ex me is if I agreed to stop production of the calendar. I did not back down.
Just so everyone knows and understands – I went into this project with eyes wide open and both feet firmly planted on the floor. I knew what I was getting myself into. It was kind of like a social experiment, and everything has played out exactly how I thought it might. The one thing that happened that I thought would never happen, was the church to give me the opportunity to put the spotlight on the issue. They opened the door wide for me and I walked right through it. Sure I could have stayed quiet about the disciplinary council – but what good would that have done? How would that have raised awareness? Now people know what happens, how and why. There is more to this than just a silly calendar. With the messaging and the business element of the calendar aside – this has now put the spotlight on the hypocrisy that exists within the church. Those who choose to see it will see it. Those who choose to believe that I am evil, justice has been served and the church can do no wrong will continue in their spin cycle. And life goes on. I hope the models in the calendar continue to have courage and stay proud of their decision to appear in it.
I feel good about everything. I am a little exhausted by all the media, but that is to be expected. I hope a lot of good comes from this. Thank you for the support! I am now one of your brothers!!! Let’s support Brother Call and go to a Maverick store and get some beer and cigarettes and get a room at the Marriott and watch some porn to endorse their 10%!!!
PS: I officially graduate from BYU on August 15 – as a NON member!!!
| I know everyone is speculating about my excommunication, and thinking there must be more to the story that I am not telling. Well I am the only one who can ever openly say what went on in the court that day, but I will say this, and say it by swearing on the Bible and everything that is good and holy on this planet: There was NO talk of ANY form of personal transgression AT ALL during my disciplinary council. The "other" charges that Frank Davie casually broke confidence and slyly shared with the Associated Press to create this assumption was simply that I do not honor my priesthood (by not attending church meetings) and do not honor my temple covenants (by choosing to remove the sacred garment.) The entire meeting was about the calendar, and after I spoke, all the questions that were asked by the council ALL had to do with the calendar. Just for the record, my reasons for leaving the church had nothing to do with transgression. Quite frankly, I was sick and tired of the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the members and I never felt like I was a fit in the "country club." I never felt I could trust LDS people, therefore I decided to leave the fellowship, but I never left my faith. I will say, that since doing this calendar, I have met the best LDS guys ever. These men are top class, and I respect and honor them.
Now the Church did try very hard to try to find a moral transgression by spying on me so they could excommunicate me for that instead of having to embarrass themselves by excommunicating me over the calendar. After initially meeting with me in my home about the calendar, a few weeks later Frank Davie requested to meet with me one-on-one to discuss some "personal matters." I have attached the email correspondence below so you can read just how this unfolded.
After refusing to meet with Mr. Davie several times as he would never tell me what the "personal matter" was, he finally agreed to tell me over the phone. He flat out asked me if I was living with my (female) coworker, and if we were having sex!!!! I was speechless. Not only do I not live with her, the closest we have ever come to sex is when she has shared her sex life with me. We are really good friends, and that is about it. I asked him where he got this information, and he said he could not share that with me, just simply that it had been brought to his attention. I work out of my home, and she comes and goes from my house all the time, so I could only imagine they had been spying on me, especially when he would not share the source. He went on to ask me if I had been involved in any inappropriate relations with anyone of the opposite sex. He was digging, and it was obvious. This was the third time I have been falsely accused of erroneous transgressions, and then of course being denied to know the sourceof the inaccurate information. That is why, when I received my summons for a disciplinary court, I went to the press. The back story has never been published, which has in turn created much speculation.
Before my court started, I met with Mr. Davie in his office where he went over the proceedings of the court so I would know what to expect. Once again he asked me if I had been involved with my coworker and brought up a myspace message that I had written to her about being my hot sexy mama, or something flirtatious like that. So they were looking at my myspace friends to see what kind of comments I was leaving??!!! He also then asked me once again if I had any inappropriate relations with anyone else of the opposite sex. I then honestly and accurately answered. This was NEVER brought up in the council. Not even a hint of it. It was simply the two things I mentioned above, and the "inappropriate project" (AKA the Calender) that I was involved in
Here is email coorespondance as it unfolded over the past several weeks:
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@ Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 2:00 PM To: Chad@ Subject: Missionary Calendars?
Brother Hardy,
Bishop Olds and I appreciated the opportunity we had to come to your home last April 15. As you may recall, we discussed with you the publishing of the returned missionary calendar. During our visit, I mentioned to you that the calendar was inappropriate and asked that you give careful consideration to terminate its publication. It simply does not represent the Church or Church missionaries in the right way. You shared with Bishop and I that you would discuss this with your work partner. I would welcome an opportunity to come to your home again or you may wish to visit with me otherwise to further discuss your decision. Please give me a call at XXX-XXXX or answer to this email. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you, President Davie
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Chad Hardy wrote:
Hi President Davie,
The Men on a Mission Calendar is owned by CMH Entertainment, LLC. I am not full owner of this company. This company is backed by financial investors that are invested in the publication and distribution of the calendars and other products it produces. The 2008 Men on a Mission Calendar was one of the top 10 best selling model calendars in the 2007 season. Its success is being followed up by the 2009 Calendar which has already been guaranteed distribution across the US for the 2008 buying season.
We are standing behind the project, its message and philanthropic purposes. Though we understand not everyone agrees with the project, the individual expressions of those involved have reshaped perceptions, removed walls, and shown an outpour of acceptance and tolerance around the world. Everyone involved has experienced the positive ripple effect of what this project has created. This project in no way is meant to demean, disrespect or misrepresent the LDS church fundamental beliefs. The project is based on individual models who at one time in their life served a full-time service mission. It was their choice to appear in the calendar and share their personal experiences and stories.
I understand and appreciate your personal concerns and thank you for your understanding of my decision to stand behind my project and business venture.
Best,
CHAD
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:24 AM To: Chad Hardy Subject: Re: Missionary Calendars?
Dear Brother Hardy,
Thank you for your response and explanation of why you are maintaining this calendar project. I still need to visit with you one-on-one, regarding you personally of which I do not wish to share via email or over the phone. It is important that you and I have some time together. I am available this Sunday, June after 9:00a, at the conclusion of early morning meetings. Please give me a call as soon as possible as I will be looking forward to meeting with you. You may call me directly at XXX-XXXX.
Thank you, President Davie
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Chad Hardy wrote:
I appreciate your consideration; however your intentions at this point are unclear. I do not feel there is anything more I need to discuss. If you can clarify your intentions, or the purpose for wanting to meet with me, I will consider a meeting.
Thank you for the understanding.
Best, CHAD HARDY
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Frank Davie wrote:
Brother Hardy,
Please give me a call and I will be pleased to discuss this matter with you, so as to clarify my reason for wanting to meet with you in person.
Thank you, President Davie
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@ Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:54 AM To: Chad Hardy Subject: Re: Missionary Calendars?
Brother Hardy,
I would like to hear from you as soon as possible.
Time is moving along and we need to visit with each other even by phone.
Please give me a call at XXX-XXXX.
President Davie
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Chad Hardy wrote:
I have tried to call you a couple times and got no answer. What is the urgency?
Best,
CHAD
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 8:21 AM To: Chad Hardy Subject: Re: Missionary Calendars?
Brother Hardy,
I am on vacation and will be returning to the US, June 27. For some reason, I have not received any of your calls or voice messages but that is OK as I still want to visit with you in person for what we need to talk about. I again would be pleased to come to your home or you can meet me at the stake president's office. When I return, I will look forward to setting an appt. with you. Sorry you keep you wondering what this is all about, however, it needs to be talked about between the two of us as it is quite personal.
Thank you, President Davie
I THEN SPOKE TO MR. DAVIE ON THE PHONE AS OUTLINED ABOVE AND THEN RESPONDED WITH THIS EMAIL:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Chad Hardy wrote:
Hi President Davie,
I have been giving it some thought, and I no longer see a value or purpose to speaking with you anymore in regards to my personal life or my business affairs. I appreciate you taking false accusations and misinformation to the source and hope you are satisfied with the correct information.
Regards,
Chad Hardy
From: Frank Davie [mailto:frankernstdavie@] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:56 AM To: Chad Hardy Subject: Re: Further Contact
Dear Brother Hardy,
I had hoped that from our conversation yesterday, previous emails and with our visit to your home, that we would be able to continue meeting with each other and that I might have the opportunity to work with you. It is apparent that you have chosen the path that you have. You have broken your priesthood and temple covenants and engaged yourself in a project that is considered inappropriate. As you would hopefully understand, this is all considered as 'conduct unbecoming of a member of the Church'. In the near future, I will have two elders deliver to your home or sent to you by registered mail, a Notice of a Church Disciplinary Council to be held in your behalf. The date and time will be indicated in the notice. Again, I had hoped that we would have further conversation, that I might help you to come to an understanding of your Church responsibilities. Since you have chosen not to meet with me any further, I have the responsibility to take this action in your behalf. I thank you for sharing all that you havethus far. It is my intent to do all that I can to help you and will look forward to any opportunity to do so, should you change your mind. Please give me a call if you wish to do so.
Sincerely, Frank Davie Stake President Warm Springs Stake
| Dear President S_____,
I hope you were able to spend a pleasant Friday evening with your family since you did not have to travel to Kearney to deal with what must be a rather unpleasant part of your responsibilities. As you know, you and I have only met once, and that was a brief meeting last month. I want to assure you that I wish you no ill will, and am truly sorry for any discomfort you feel in having to deal with me and this situation that we are both in.
As I indicated to you in my e-mail of last Thursday, I am not clear on what conduct you believe I have participated in that was "unbecoming a member of the church" or how you reach the conclusion that I "have been in apostasy." I would appreciate some more information about those things so that I may prepare a proper response for the disciplinary council.
Because I have asked you to explain yourself, I think it only fair that I explain myself. Inasmuch as I have had a little fun at the expense of stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, and area seventies, I want to offer my sincere apology to any I may have made feel uncomfortable in any way with my letters of late July and early August. As I explained in my two-part YouTube video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeJtp0... and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw70YM... ) those letters were designed essentially as a publicity stunt, and it met with success beyond my wildest dreams. I hope there are no lingering hard feelings over this stunt of mine. I hope that it is clear that while there are certainly leaders and members all throughout the church who disagree with the First Presidency's stance on Proposition 8, there was no serious attempt to organize people into secret combinations, using code words, tokens, secret handshakes and other such nonsense.
I have now had a few days to contemplate what to write to you. There are many, many things I wish to both say to you and to ask you, but in the interest of brevity I will keep it to just a few.
First, it seems that the church's current position is in direct opposition to the eleventh and twelfth Articles of Faith, and verses in DandC 134. The right of civil marriage exists in California for gays and lesbians, as clearly stated by the California Supreme Court. Regarding the Twelfth Article of Faith, the church's efforts are clearly not to obey, honor and sustain the law as it now exists, but to overturn that law. Further, many other religions currently have the spiritual and religious right to solemnize marriages for gay or lesbian couples and our church is seeking to deny them these spiritual and religious rights. Our Eleventh Article of Faith and DandC 134 both clearly state that we don't feel we should interfere with the spiritual or religious rights of others, and DandC 134:9 specifically states we feel it is inappropriate to mingle religious influence with civil government where that fosters one religious viewpoint, but proscribes spiritual privileges and individual civil rights of others. I know thatwe claim the right speak boldly about our own moral convictions, but DandC 134:4 clearly limits the exercise of our religion where it "infringes upon the rights and liberties of others." Marriage is a "right" in this country (as clearly stated in Loving v. Virginia in 1967) and that right is recognized by the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the United States is a signatory. It seems clear to me that the church is attempting to force its own moral standard upon others, and in so doing, depriving them of religious and spiritual privileges and civil rights. I am opposed to such action, as are many other church members.
Second, the hymn "Do What Is Right" (Hymns #237) resonates with me, and I am willing to "Do what is right, and let the consequences follow." I also take great comfort in knowing that President Thomas S. Monson agrees with this sentiment, for he said in the April General Conference:
[quote] You know what is right and what is wrong, and no disguise, however appealing, can change that. The character of transgression remains the same. If your so-called friends urge you to do anything you know to be wrong, you be the one to make a stand for right, even if you stand alone. Have the moral courage to be a light for others to follow. There is no friendship more valuable than your own clear conscience. . . . ("Examples of Righteousness" - Priesthood Session, April 2008)[/quote]
The disguise that the church is attempting to foist upon others is that there will be some damage to society if gays are allowed to marry. The disguise is that this bigotry and intolerance come from God. The disguise is that this bigotry is not bigotry at all, but unconditional love. The disguise is that this bigotry seeks the common good, rather than to continue the Mormon-centric and paternalistic false traditions of our Mormon, Christian and Abrahamic fathers.
Most of my friends for the last twenty years have been members of the church. Even as those friends now urge me to either join with them in their intolerance or stand silent while they attempt to deprive others of their rights and privileges, I will stand up and try to stop them, even if I must stand alone.
There are many more things I could say, President, but I will close with these questions for you to contemplate, and hopefully answer as your time and energy permits.
When gay marriages began to be performed in Massachusetts and later California, did it cause you to want to leave your wife? Did it cause you to become gay or want to become gay? Did it cause your you or your wife to abandon or want to abandon your children? Did it cause you to fall into a life of debauchery and sin? Did it cause you to change your life in any way for the worse? If none of these things happened to you, was that because you are superior to others, or because there is no real harm to come from gay marriage? If you didn't experience these terrible things and I didn't, and President Monson didn't, and I can find no one else who did, then what harm is there to the family? Please, tell me what catastrophes or terrible outcomes await us if gay marriages continue as opposed to if they are stopped? Would not the precedent of a religious minority able to codify its own morality offer a greater risk to Mormonism and to society than gay marriage? Is going down the slippery slope of taking rights away from minorities really a good idea?
I look forward to hearing from you, and I wish you and your family well.
Sincerely,
Andrew D. Callahan
| In December of 2007 I became pregnant out of marriage, and decided the best thing to do was to inform my bishop as soon as possible. I live in a small town and did not want him to hear this big piece of information as second or third hand gossip. I felt that I was showing a great deal of respect by being forthright with my news.
I went in to my appointment with the bishop and told him. He was furious to say the least. I was told at that point not to take the sacrament, pray in public, or pay my tithing. I knew they would hold the church discipline counsel but kindly requested they wait until I was out of my first trimester, as I was concerned what the stress would do and did not want to risk the pregnancy.
My counsel was held in May 2008. The decision was made to disfellowship me. I felt this was way too harsh because of some other extenuating circumstances, I really felt I should have been shown more mercy than I was. But what was done was done and I was determined to do what was required to be 'in good standing' again. At one point I had also been told by my bishop that he was mistaken when he told me to stop paying my tithing. I was allowed to do that again.
Not only did I have to go through the public humiliation of it all, but I was harassed by a sister in my ward who felt I should give the baby up for adoption. She said so in a very nasty email she sent me. Yes folks, she did not even have the nerve to say those things to my face.
When my beautiful blessing from heaven daughter was five months old I had decided enough was enough. I felt the only thing that mattered now was her and that by depriving me of 'blessings' in the church that I was not in a position to be a good mom for her. I felt that the way I was being treated was a reflection on my precious and innocent child that I did not like. As a parent I asked myself, if I felt a child should be punished constantly for something done wrong well over a year ago. I wondered how my sins were between me and my bishop when the treatment of me was so public. I mean don't tell me that people don't notice when one of their fellow ward members passes on the sacrament tray without taking it. I also decided not to pay tithing anymore. After all if I was not good enough for the church...neither was my money.
I realized that I am a good person, worthy of respect that I was no longer receiving at church. A house of worship is one place that a person should always feel safe and loved. I had spent months feeling like a bad person who was constantly being judged by others. I went to a meeting at another church and was floored. The main message was that the lord loves me. It finally clicked...it sunk in. God loves me for me, he created me and knows me better than I know myself. He LOVES me. I am not just some naughty little girl he sent to a corner and forgot. I am special to the lord and am so grateful that I am learning this again and am no longer going to the mormon church. I also went out and bought a coffee pot with my 'tithing' money I stopped paying, and the cup of coffee I have each morning with my sister is one of my simple pleasures that I enjoy immensely! It is also nice to read stories of others who have had similar experiences and to know that I am not alone.
| There is no expectation of privacy for anything that is said in a church setting (while you're still a member) ...
While researching the Norman Hancock vs LDS Inc case, I ran across the following statement (re: Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville case):
"... the Oklahoma court found against Marian regarding the issue of internal confidentiality. Again churches are not required to maintain confidences there is no expectation of privacy (see Penley v. Westbrook for a modern example). This is something that comes up again and again in discussions regarding church discipline so its worth commenting here, that a member that talks within a church to another member has no legal rights of confidentiality. Readers here should note that if they want to maintain their legal rights, they should not discuss things in church or in a church capacity!"
http://church-discipline.blogspot.no/...
This is another reason - while you are a member of a church - to not say anything to anybody within a church setting.
The writer also points out: "That once someone quits instantly their legal protections against libel and slander are restored."
http://church-discipline.blogspot.no/...
I take this to mean that bishops (and priests) are not compelled to maintain confidentiality of its members, but they may if they choose to. But once you've handed them the letter of resignation, then they need to keep their mouths shut, as they would be liable for damages ralating to any slander or libel.
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
|
