Tal Bachman wrote:I don't have time to answer your whole post right now, but you seem to have left entirely unconsidered the most important points in my post. That certain Mormon apostles or members chose to dissent does not mean that Mormonism allows for "righteous dissent against the Lord's anointed". Could anything be more obvious? You've never heard of Oliver Cowdery, obviously, or David Whitmer, or John Boynton, or...(yawn).
Tal, have you ever read Richard Poll's
History and Faith: Reflections of a Mormon Historian? If not, I think I see why your not getting my point. The church has a long history of "Liahonas" and liberal thinkers (ie, dissenters from orthodoxy). Have you ever read Sterling McMurrin's interview with Blake Ostler? Well in that interview McMurrin blasted Packer for his authoritarianism, criticised the church, stated his agnosticism, said that "angels don't give gold plates to teenage boys", among many other criticisms - and remained a member. Do you know that Henry Eyring Snr, the father of current apostle Eyring Jnr, had heretical views, which he published? You have years of reading ahead of you, because you don't understand the diversity of Mormonism. I can see why you think the church is a cult, because you really haven't had much exposure to the facts of history, or if you have, you're interpreting them according to your brand of former orthodoxy. In other words you've set up a straw man. However, I think you're set in this thinking.
No, you haven't replied to all the examples I gave. Maybe, like your original "discoveries" about church history, this is too much for you to handle, that the church has historically been far more tolerant than you realise. Yes, there have been purges, there were times you could be excommunicated for minor offences, but all these have come and gone in cycles. Again, is this how cults behave? That's why I said I believe Mormonism has "cultic strains". So did the Catholic church, you know, those people who led the Inquisition.
What is surprising about so many of your examples is that they stand against your arguments. For example, Amasa Lyman was KICKED OUT, Ray. Did your encyclopedic knowledge of Mormon history extend that far? He was KICKED OUT. Case closed. How ridiculous of you to cite an excommunication for apostacy as an example that Mormonism has a theological allowance for "righteous" disagreement with a sitting prophet speaking as such. How ignorant.
I never said he wasn't eventually excommunicated. I said he remained for a long time as an apostle while he had heretical views. About five years. Yes, the leaders thought it was a serious problem, I mean, heck, the man was an apostle! By the way, despite Brigham Young's teaching that "only those who enter polygamy are saved", many refused to take up polygamy, including the father of Spencer W. Kimball. Young repeatedly told the men that unless they entered polygamy they would not be exalted. Go read it in the JD. Yet many defied it. I am not suggesting that dissent is normal, or acceptable to the majority, but a long history of dissent exists in Mormonism. Quinn started making his "idolatry" charges in the 1970s, several of which were published in prominent media, like
Newsweek, and some members were concerned about this. So they asked Elder Packer why Quinn was not excommunicated, and Elder Packer replied, "there's no need to, they excommunicate themselves". So how long did Quinn's dissent go on? More than 13 years. Eventually the church leadership reached a point where so many
members were concerned that they finally acted. In 1985 Quinn wrote "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904", in
Dialogue, in which he showed the deception of the leaders regarding polygamy during that period. This was some six years after he had denounced the idea of blindly following church leaders as "idolatry". Yet he continued for another eight years in the church after this article in
Dialogue, all the while still criticising the church leaders. How much more dissent do you want me to show you? In the '90s there was a crackdown, that's true. However,
Dialogue started in 1966 as a
liberal thinking journal for what
Time magazine called "ruffled believers". In other words - not orthodox! Have you read many editions of
Dialogue? Do you know what it contains? Do you know how many people have been excommunicated for being published in
Dialogue? I actually know of NONE. I do know that some
Dialogue contributors, like Quinn, were eventually exed for other writings in other journals or in books. Then there is
Sunstone. How many editions of
Sunstone have you read? Do you know what it contains? Do you know the unorthodox, liberal, heretical tradition of
Sunstone? Sure, the church has advised against Sunstone Symposia, stopped church employees from attending, etc., but to say that the church does not allow dissent from within is wrong. I repeat, the church has a long history of allowing dissent without excommuncating dissenters, even if they did not agree with the content of such media. On forums like this all we hear is the "bad news". People criticise the excommunication of Quinn, but totally ignore that the church allowed his dissent, unpunished, for over 13 years. History has many nuances, and you and others are failing to see the full perspective. I could have remained in the church if I wanted, and as I said before, I taught Gospel Doctrine with the full knowledge of my bishop and stake president that I did not believe the Book of Mormon was historical, and I rejected the "only true church" idea.
And Orson Pratt was ALSO kicked out, at least from the Quorum of the Twelve, during the brouhaha surrounding Joseph Smith's (likely) attempted seduction of Sarah, his wife. And he was only reinstated once he declared his loyalty for Joseph Smith over his own wife! Ray, please do Australia's criminals a favour, and never go into defence law, okay? You'd have them all hanging in no time! "Your honour, as proof that my client is innocent, I present to the jury a perfect DNA match positively linking my client to the murder victim!".
I understand you're a lawyer, is that true, or just a joke? Well if you are, Tal, I'm glad I know how you reason and put your case, and I might just choose do defend myself.
And not only that, but Brigham Young forced Orson Pratt to make public confession of the "errors" in his doctrinal teachings on the nature of God, on penalty of being KICKED OUT of his position! Come ON. You must be joking! OPEN YOUR EYES. What good is reading Mormon history, if you don't understand any of it?
And these examples, as well as so many others, show why the BY quote you present doesn't have the meaning you wish for it, but I have to run at the moment.
Open your eyes, Ray.
My eyes are fully open. The church never said it was a democracy. There
are rules and standards people have to abide by, and
agree to abide by when joining, and I'm kind of wary about circumstances like yours where you were born into the church. I was a convert, so I made my choice of my own volition when I was 20. However, in 1983 I became unorthodox, and for four years I spoke openly of those unorthodox opinions in classes, to individuals, to leaders, and yes I was not treated kindly all the time, and was viewed as a heretic. I was deeply concerned that what I was experiencing with "cog. diss" would eventually affect other members, and I told them they need to warn the church leaders, and to expose more members to the facts, things such as were being published in
Dialogue and
Sunstone, and by Signature Books. I made a dire prediction when I left the church in 1987, again of my own volition, that in the future, unless these things were rectified, and members taught accurate history (which they could access individually just as I did, but most didn't) thousands would leave the church. In those days I could not have imagined the internet, and how all this information that I knew in the '80s would spread like wildfire, and the consequences. I am not saying the church is guiltless, nor that it does not have "cultic strains", and also a history of white-washing, and many lies of omission in magazines and church media. It has been guilty of propaganda on a large scale, and sometimes it has taken measures to "protect" its members, hence excommunications like Professor David Wright (which incidentally, I understand Dr. Dan Peterson did not support), and the September Six. So don't misread me, Tal. I am not defending the church. I am only telling you that, historically, dissent has often gone unpunished, and this is NOT what you find in cults. FARMS eventually took on the anti-Mormons, because they church ignored them for years, and from 1990 on you would have been hard pressed to find any anti-Mormon book which went unreviewed by FARMS.
When you discovered all of this history it shattered you. Right? Well what you discovered only a few years ago I knew since the early 1980s. Tal, I used to sit in the university library and comb through every and anything I could find on Mormonism. I then realised that I could no longer be TBM. However, I remained in the church mainly for family reasons, and because I thought many things still spiritually resonated with me, and I was allowed to express my opinions. I didn't want to destroy faith, because I felt the church did so much good in many people's lives, but one bishop asked me WHY do you have so many "issues" and questions, tell me. So I told him, and within a year he was out of the church. Unfortunately this is the downside I see, that faith has to be protected, for many, not all. There are legions of posters on FAIR who think anti-Mormonism is bunkum, and that they have nothing to fear from history. But the other consequence is people like yourself. Have you ever wondered why people react so differently? I seriously wonder, but I still don't have all the answers. I don't doubt their faith is gone, but I also wonder about the negative reactions and all the church-bashing.
I have a question for you. How many posters on RFM were excommunicated for dissent?
Is it not the case that most who leave the church do so by name-removal? I'm sure they have many internal struggles, especially with family, but do you also recognise how many say they're happy to be out? Why? Because they could not express their views? Because they were afraid of excommunication? Or did they just lose faith and were much happier and freer? I make no qualms about the fact that I could have stayed if I wanted, but I didn't want to stay. I could have remained a practising heretic or liberal just like Richard Poll. So why would I now turn around and call the church a "cult"?
When you were interview by several media, after you left the church, you said you just realised that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, but a "charismatic genius". Did your view change since 2004? And one last question: Are you now prepared to tell the public that you now know Joseph Smith was a fraud? Let me put a "Wadeism" to you: If not, why not?
Maybe I haven't read it, or missed it, but I have seen at least two interviews in which you referred to Joseph Smith as a "charismatic genius". I'm just wondering if you have "softer" views of Joseph Smith. Because when I described him in those terms on RFM four years ago I got a severe blasting, especially from Deconstructor. If I didn't chant the "fraud mantra" I was not "one of the crowd".