Is the LDS Church Vindictive?

[Physics Guy]

Okay, one final thread based on the really, truly, staggeringly good thread over at the fittingly named MADboard. (And yep---you know who you are, you little birdy you---thanks, one more time for the link.) On this particular tangent, one poster wonders about why Simon Southernton was ex'ed so close to the time that his book appeared. (He had, after all, been inactive for something like seven years, and the adultery---which was supposedly the "real" reason he was ex'ed---had taken place two years prior as well.) In any case, the poster called Severian asks an intriguing question:

After reading this report about Simon Southerton from the link above:

Well the Mormons are now taking action against their wayward former bishop. Simon Southerton hasn’t been to church for seven years, but he’s still officially registered as a church member, and on 31st July, he’ll appear before a church Disciplinary Council, the outcome of which could be formal excommunication.

But what’s strange about the case is that the charge is not apostasy, but adultery. Two years ago, Simon had a relationship during a period of separation from his wife, with whom he’s now reunited. And this raises the question of why the church would bother going ahead with disciplinary proceedings on a purely personal matter against someone who hasn’t darkened the door of the temple since 1998. Simon Southerton thinks the church has a not-very-well-hidden agenda

Can other members who have been inactive for years suddenly be subject to Excommunication, or was this because he wrote a book?

Here's Professor Peterson's reply:

I'm sure that inactive members with whom Church leaders have long had no contact and of whose activities bishops and stake presidents and others know nothing can get away with more, in terms of immorality and promise-breaking, than can inactive but vocally apostate members who go on the lecture circuit against the Church, are repeatedly identified as "Mormons" in media reports in which they criticize the Church, write articles and books against the Church, and the like.

Is this surprising?

Is there anything particularly wrong with it?

Are you thinking the same thing I am? Severian sure is!

It seems to put it in the category of vengeance. I thought that was to be avoided.

Here's the reply:

No it doesn't. A vocal and very public apostate is naturally going to catch the attention of Church leaders in a way that a quiet unbeliever or discreet and inactive covenant-breaker isn't. It's just that simple.

But I would add that, where a person seems possibly to be trading on his membership (e.g., appears to seek media attention and is always referred to as a "Mormon biologist"), it might be appropriate, without being vengeful in any way, to abrogate that person's manifestly unvalued membership.

In other words, to take revenge on him for dissenting. Sort of like what happened to the September Six. Or Jeffrey Nielson. Or... jeez, the list goes on and on!

Anyways, a bit later, a poster called "Phobos" provided an excerpt from Southernton in which the disciplinary council is referred to as a "kangaroo court." The Good Professor doesn't approve of this at all, and proceeds to look up the term in his dictionary:

kangaroo court n. 1) a mock court set up without legal basis, such as a fraternity, sports team or army squad might set up to punish minor violations of organizational decorum. 2) slang for a court of law in which the violations of procedure, precedents, and due process are so gross that fundamental justice is denied. It usually means that the judge is incompetent or obviously biased.

I fail to see any way in which the disciplinary council that voided Southerton's membership was "without legal basis" in Church ecclesiastical procedures or grossly violated procedure, precedents, and due process such that fundamental justice was denied. He doesn't deny his adultery.

Now, obviously, Southerton would like to have used his disciplinary council as a vehicle to spout off about his opinions on Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon. (Being excommunicated for sexual immorality and promise-breaking is . . . well, so un-heroic. It's not likely to propel one into the pantheon of scientific truth-seekers along with Scopes and Galileo.) But adultery is an eminently excommunicable offense in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I'm unaware of any rule prescribing that a person gets to choose which of two entirely valid reasons for his or her excommunication is to guide a disciplinary council because it will better serve his media interests.

No, instead, the Church gets to decide. How very interesting indeed. You know, know that I think about it, why didn't the Church simply ex him for both things? Wouldn't that have solved the matter? Or is this yet another instance of Church PR whitewashing?

If you needed any confirmation, here's our favorite academic, one more time:

I think the Church had little reason to further Southerton's quest to portray himself to the public as a modern-day Copernicus or Galileo.

Is the Church obliged to excommunicate adulterous apostates in a manner that will enhance their standing with the media and assist their publicists?

Well, at least he admits that PR was a prime motivation for the Church, if not just simple vindictiveness.

Truly, an amazing thread which is not to be missed.

[_harmony]

I wonder why he keeps referring to Southerton as "promise-breaking"? If breaking a promise is an excommunicatable offense, everyone whoever promised to do something (pick up the dry cleaning, drop off the prescription, walk the dog) and didn't would be subject to church discipline.

[_truth dancer]

I really don't get the whole excommunication thing...

In the case of Simon... the church ex's him, gives him further publicity, brings the issues in the forefront, makes the church look REALLY bad.

From the church's perspective I just don't see the purpose at all... unless it is just to be mean, get some revenge, and exert power or something.


~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I fail to see any way in which the disciplinary council that voided Southerton's membership was "without legal basis" in Church ecclesiastical procedures or grossly violated procedure, precedents, and due process such that fundamental justice was denied. He doesn't deny his adultery.

Now, obviously, Southerton would like to have used his disciplinary council as a vehicle to spout off about his opinions on Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon. (Being excommunicated for sexual immorality and promise-breaking is . . . well, so un-heroic. It's not likely to propel one into the pantheon of scientific truth-seekers along with Scopes and Galileo.) But adultery is an eminently excommunicable offense in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I'm unaware of any rule prescribing that a person gets to choose which of two entirely valid reasons for his or her excommunication is to guide a disciplinary council because it will better serve his media interests.

Southerton was not ex'ed for adultery -- the official reason given by the Church was Southerton's "inappropriate relationship with a woman." Seems to me that the disciplinary council could not establish adultery, so, instead, used this very vague reason as a pretext to get rid of him for his controversial writings.

[_harmony]

I fail to see any way in which the disciplinary council that voided Southerton's membership was "without legal basis" in Church ecclesiastical procedures or grossly violated procedure, precedents, and due process such that fundamental justice was denied. He doesn't deny his adultery.

Now, obviously, Southerton would like to have used his disciplinary council as a vehicle to spout off about his opinions on Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon. (Being excommunicated for sexual immorality and promise-breaking is . . . well, so un-heroic. It's not likely to propel one into the pantheon of scientific truth-seekers along with Scopes and Galileo.) But adultery is an eminently excommunicable offense in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I'm unaware of any rule prescribing that a person gets to choose which of two entirely valid reasons for his or her excommunication is to guide a disciplinary council because it will better serve his media interests.

Southerton was not ex'ed for adultery -- the official reason given by the Church was Southerton's "inappropriate relationship with a woman." Seems to me that the disciplinary council could not establish adultery, so, instead, used this very vague reason as a pretext to get rid of him for his controversial writings.

And what exactly does an "inappropriate relationship with a woman" entail?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And what exactly does an "inappropriate relationship with a woman" entail?

Not sure, but they would have used "adultery" if they could have established it.

[_harmony]

And what exactly does an "inappropriate relationship with a woman" entail?

Not sure, but they would have used "adultery" if they could have established it.

Makes me wonder how he could be a "promise-breaker", if he never promised to avoid something they don't even define. I mean... is it possible to be ex-ed for doing something you never promised to avoid?

[_Jersey Girl]

Whoever's quote this is (couldn't tell from the OP):

"Well the Mormons are now taking action against their wayward former bishop. Simon Southerton hasn’t been to church for seven years, but he’s still officially registered as a church member, and on 31st July, he’ll appear before a church Disciplinary Council, the outcome of which could be formal excommunication.

But what’s strange about the case is that the charge is not apostasy, but adultery. Two years ago, Simon had a relationship during a period of separation from his wife, with whom he’s now reunited. And this raises the question of why the church would bother going ahead with disciplinary proceedings on a purely personal matter against someone who hasn’t darkened the door of the temple since 1998. Simon Southerton thinks the church has a not-very-well-hidden agenda "

It appears that the evidence suggests that Simon Southerton repented of whatever wrong doing he had with another woman outside the bounds of his marriage vows, in that he was able to be reunited with his wife.

So, the church is now ex-ing him for a sin he repented for.

Huh?

Jersey Girl

[_harmony]

Whoever's quote this is (couldn't tell from the OP):

"Well the Mormons are now taking action against their wayward former bishop. Simon Southerton hasn’t been to church for seven years, but he’s still officially registered as a church member, and on 31st July, he’ll appear before a church Disciplinary Council, the outcome of which could be formal excommunication.

But what’s strange about the case is that the charge is not apostasy, but adultery. Two years ago, Simon had a relationship during a period of separation from his wife, with whom he’s now reunited. And this raises the question of why the church would bother going ahead with disciplinary proceedings on a purely personal matter against someone who hasn’t darkened the door of the temple since 1998. Simon Southerton thinks the church has a not-very-well-hidden agenda "

It appears that the evidence suggests that Simon Southerton repented of whatever wrong doing he had with another woman outside the bounds of his marriage vows, in that he was able to be reunited with his wife.

So, the church is now ex-ing him for a sin he repented for.

Huh?

Jersey Girl

For Mormons, the Atonement only works for the individual up to a point. Personal repentence done for an offense requiring priesthood intervention does not count, according to the church. It's that authority thing again. In other words, he couldn't repent of adultery without a bishop. And as a former bishop, he knew that.

[_Jersey Girl]

Whoever's quote this is (couldn't tell from the OP):

"Well the Mormons are now taking action against their wayward former bishop. Simon Southerton hasn’t been to church for seven years, but he’s still officially registered as a church member, and on 31st July, he’ll appear before a church Disciplinary Council, the outcome of which could be formal excommunication.

But what’s strange about the case is that the charge is not apostasy, but adultery. Two years ago, Simon had a relationship during a period of separation from his wife, with whom he’s now reunited. And this raises the question of why the church would bother going ahead with disciplinary proceedings on a purely personal matter against someone who hasn’t darkened the door of the temple since 1998. Simon Southerton thinks the church has a not-very-well-hidden agenda "

It appears that the evidence suggests that Simon Southerton repented of whatever wrong doing he had with another woman outside the bounds of his marriage vows, in that he was able to be reunited with his wife.

So, the church is now ex-ing him for a sin he repented for.

Huh?

Jersey Girl

For Mormons, the Atonement only works for the individual up to a point. Personal repentence done for an offense requiring priesthood intervention does not count, according to the church. It's that authority thing again. In other words, he couldn't repent of adultery without a bishop. And as a former bishop, he knew that.

Thanks for explaining that process to me, harmony. Do we know if he repented with a bishop?

Jersey Girl