More Mormons are leaving the LDS Church than ever in its history. Not content with this, Church leaders are also kicking out Mormons in record numbers.
The last two years have racked up a spate of excommunications of Mormons for what is termed “apostasy.”
What is “apostasy”? Well, in practice, it is has come to mean holding the wrong idea and then telling it to somebody else. But what is this “wrong idea” members are not allowed to share? The answer to that is contained in the most recent excommunication of Alan Rock Waterman.
What Constitutes “Apostasy”?
First, we know what that “wrong idea” is not. It is obviously not hypocrisy and being two-faced.
How do we know this? Because in spite of the fact the LDS Church has publicly proclaimed it is okay to voice your opinion about Church matters and to blog about such things, 
Mormons are still being excommunicated for doing just that. If hypocrisy and being two-faced constituted “apostasy,” the entire Church leadership would have to excommunicate themselves.
I love the smell of napalm in the morning!
The list of those who have been excommunicated for “apostasy” is growing long. Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly, Carson and Marisa Calderwood, John Dehlin, and last week, Rock Waterman. (I apologize if I have missed any names on the list. But one of the good things about apostates is you don’t have to worry about hurting their feelings.)
Despite the mixed messages the Church has sent about what constitutes apostasy, actions speak louder than words. A comparison of John Dehlin and Rock Waterman will make the point only too clear.
The Process of Elimination
Sherlock Holmes described the process of elimination this way: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
John Dehlin and Rock Waterman are as different in their religious beliefs as night and day. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. But they were both excommunicated.
I propose an experiment; that we utilize the process of elimination 
by listing the reasons for why these two were found guilty of apostasy. Once we have done so, we can compare the list and, by the process of elimination, perhaps find out what apostasy really is.
1. The Book of Mormon—Rock Waterman believes the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. John Dehlin does not. No match there. This means that one’s belief in the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with apostasy. You can be an apostate whether you believe the Book of Mormon is true or not.
2. Joseph Smith—Rock believes Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. John does not. Again no match. From this, we may conclude you can be in apostasy if you don’t believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. And you can also be in apostasy if you do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.
3. Jesus Christ—Rock believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world. John believes neither of these things. No match. Surprising as it may seem, it makes no difference what beliefs a person holds about Jesus Christ. You can have a burning testimony of everything the scriptures teach about Jesus and still be an apostate as far as the LDS Church is concerned.
4. Church Leaders—Rock Waterman does not believe modern Church leaders are necessarily “prophets, seers and revelators,” as they are billed.
But wait a minute. Neither does John Dehlin. We finally have a match!
What does this mean? It means that if we have found the one common denominator 
between the excommunications of Rock Waterman and John Dehlin, we have likely identified the one thing that constitutes “apostasy.” And with this match, we have done so.
The sole reason that Rock and John were excommunicated for apostasy is because of their lack of belief in the prophetic calling of current LDS Church leadership.
Conclusions
What is our take-away from this experiment?
It doesn’t matter what you believe about the Book of Mormon. It doesn’t matter what you believe about Joseph Smith. It doesn’t even matter what you believe about Jesus Christ.
If you have difficulty sustaining current Church leadership as prophets, you are in a state of “apostasy.”
“Follow the Prophet” has become the primary tenet of the LDS Church. More important than “Follow the Savior.”
Case in Point: As taught by the Church, if the prophet tells you to do something the Savior is against, and you do it anyway, you will be blessed. Who is given supremacy here? The prophet or the Savior? Funny we never hear that saying the other way around.
Question: Why is it the organization that claims to be Christ’s one and only true church is more concerned with its members’ views about its leaders than it is with its members’ views about Jesus?
Because “Follow the Prophet” is the primary tenet, 
“Doubting the Prophet” is the cardinal sin.
You can doubt almost anything you want in the LDS Church. You can doubt the Book of Mormon. You can doubt Joseph Smith. You can even doubt that Jesus Christ is the Savior.
But don’t you dare doubt the prophet.
This is a strange state of affairs.
It might cause a person to wonder if this position makes any sense.
It might cause a person to reflect on the Church leaders who teach this.
And upon further reflection, it might cause a person to begin to doubt the inspiration of those Church leaders . . .
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
The horror! The horror!
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
Normally I agree with you Corbin, but not this time. I don’t think they (TBMs) see it as a “this is all that matters” but rater a checklist that all the boxes need marked. To “belong” they feel you need hit all the marks-they see it like defining a bird-four things are needed be alive, lay eggs, fly and feathers. It might be alive, fly, and lay eggs,but a dragonfly (waterman) is not a bird. It’s closer than say a drone (john) which can fly but the lack of feathers isn’t why the drone doesn’t count-it was eliminted at alive. Another apostate (kate) again Meets some criteria (bats are similar to birds) but still not “fit”. I don’t agree with this setup;I think there should be room for us ostriches that can’t fly. But rather than see that nuance they just dig in that we are not birds and should leave because we don’t hit all the boxes-no matter how close we come. Mormon ism to them is a very narrowly defined experience.
Hi, Flyingratman!
Thanks for your comments.
First, I want you to know I appreciate your viewpoint even if we don’t always agree.
That said, the reason I find Rock Waterman’s excommunication so illuminating is that he hits all the check-marks except for one.
It is the one check-mark he doesn’t hit that forms the basis for his “apostasy.”
This seems to me clear evidence that what constitutes “apostasy” is not hitting that one check-point, regardless of how well you fill the bill on all the rest.
Also, your metaphor of likening different kinds of members to birds made me think of this quote from Moby Dick:
“There is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he for ever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar.”
I thought of this scripture after I read your post and listened to Rock’s comments about how the council did not ask his devotion to the Saviors only to the brethren.
O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One…… and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name. (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi, Chapter 9)
We even witness this at the veil in the temple …..why do we have a whispering officiator standing by our side?
Maryann
Thanks for the quote, Maryann!
Unfortunately, the quote is from Jesus.
And as I mentioned in the blog, it appears the LDS Church is not so much concerned with our views about Jesus as it is with our views about the leadership . . .
;^)
Let’s try another way of analyzing this. Let’s look at what the letter written by John Dehlin’s Stake President actually says. Maybe it sheds some light:
“Specifically, the council concluded that you were in apostasy on the following issues:
• Your teachings disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ
• Your statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction
• Your statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God.”
The “sole reason” that John Dehlin was excommunicated was not a “lack of belief in the prophetic calling of current LDS Church leadership”. He was excommunicated for believing – and teaching – that the Church is a complete fraud from top to bottom, from its beginning right up to the present day and, if that weren’t enough, that so too is Jesus Christ a fraud. The “prophetic calling of current LDS Church leadership” is a drop in the bucket here. The sum of Dehlin’s “lack of belief” dwarfs the Rock of Gibraltar.
John Dehlin is the worst possible example of an unwarranted excommunication.
Let’s quote further from the letter:
“I also want you to know that I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause. Our Heavenly Father has given us moral agency to decide how we will live our lives and cherished free speech rights in this country that allow you to openly state your opinions. But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error.”
So much for “lack of belief” as the “sole reason.”
So let’s see what Alan Rock Waterman’s letter from the Stake President says. Maybe it’s a short letter. Maybe it states that the sole reason for his excommunication is his “lack of belief” in the prophetic calling of current LDS Church leadership.
Maybe, as does the letter to John Dehlin, it says more.
Hi, Tim!
Thanks for reading the blog and for your comments.
Maybe I wasn’t making myself clear, though.
The point is to compare the reasons for John Dehlin’s excommunication with those for Rock Waterman’s excommunication.
John’s stake president said he excommunicated John for not believing in the Book of Mormon.
But we know that isn’t grounds for apostasy. Why? Because Rock Waterman DOES believe the Book of Mormon. But Rock was excommunicated anyway.
John’s stake president said he excommunicated John for not believing Joseph Smith was a prophet.
But we know that isn’t grounds for apostasy, either. Why? Because Rock Waterman DOES believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. But Rock was excommunicated anyway.
John’s stake president said he excommunicated John for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
But we know that isn’t grounds for apostasy. Why? Because Rock Waterman DOES believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. But Rock was excommunicated anyway.
The only common denominator between the bases for excommunicating John Dehlin and Rock Waterman is their lack of belief in the prophetic calling of current LDS leadership.
That is why I conclude this is what really constitutes “apostasy” in the eyes of LDS Church today, and why it is I say that such “lack of belief” does indeed constitute the “sole reason” for their excommunications.
Corbin you writing is thought provoking but as a lawyer you should know logic better.
One could similarly ask “Why are Bob and Jim in jail? Bob robbed a bank but Jim did not so that isn’t why. Jim burnt down a grocery store but Bob did not so that isn’t why. But both Bob and Jim have mustaches. At last we have found the real reason they are in jail”.
I feel for Rock Waterman but I dislike spurious arguments even if I sympathize with their conclusions.
And lest I be accused of comparing believing the Book of Mormon to robbing a bank, it is the form of the argument I am criticizing, not the content.
Spot on, Corbin. I think you’re exactly right about what’s common in the John Dehlin and Rock Waterman cases. Probably not surprising since, as you point out, the highest good in the Church is to obey leaders.
Thanks, Ziff!
I am reminded of the recent TribTalk interview with Elders Oaks and Christofferson.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2112602-155/tomorrow-at-115-pm-lds-apostles
They were asked at the 9.00 minute mark, “What is the difference between a belief and its expression?”
Elder Christofferson’s answer was significant in this regard. He stated in relevant part:
“A heavy question. We have members in the Church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues. . . . In our view, it doesn’t really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the Church and its leaders.”
This is an excellent post, Corbin. I wonder, however, whether the real problem lies not in the waywardness of the leadership so much as a failure of many members to appreciate the role of their priesthood leaders in their salvation. Take for example the words of Brigham Young in 1860:
“Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit of God; and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, no matter whether it is found in a pulpit or on a throne, nor how much divinity it may profess, nor what it professes with regard to revealed religion and the account that is given of the Saviour and his Father in the Bible. They may say that they acknowledge Him until doomsday, and he will never own them, nor bestow the Holy Spirit upon them, and they will never have visions of eternity opened to them, unless they acknowledge that Joseph Smith is sent of God.”
Now, this raises a whole host of different issues. We can object that this is not doctrine or that Brigham Young did not see himself as a prophet in quite the same sense Joseph Smith did. But what I am talking about here, as realistically as possible, is the historical culture of an organization. One can also quote the Book of Mormon, and certainly that is a good place to begin to marshal a case to the contrary, but it is necessary to apprehend the actual culture of Mormonism, going back to the time of the second prophet, and even during the life of Joseph Smith himself, in which Smith obviously played a crucial part in securing the salvation of the members of his Church, in order to get a good handle on why this kind of thing is happening.
If the current leaders see themselves as the heirs of Smith’s legacy of priesthood authority and savior-ship, then one can understand why they think apostasy is the rejection of their divinely appointed leadership. Do they believe they are called of God? Yes. Do they believe that they have the same keys Joseph Smith possessed/s? Yes. So, how is the rejection of their leadership not apostasy when a rejection of Joseph would have been considered such.
I think you make an important point here, Trevor, regarding looking as realistically as possible at the historical culture of the organization.
I agree with you that modern Church leaders do see themselves as the sole inheritors of the priesthood keys from Joseph Smith.
Priesthood keys run backward in time to Joseph Smith (and beyond that to Jesus Christ) in the LDS view of things, and also from top to bottom.
I also think that the LDS Church has done such a good job at conflating the president of the Church (and the Church itself) with the Savior, that many see any questioning of Church leaders as tantamount to questioning Jesus himself.
This is the case even though a quote from the Teachings of Church Presidents manual indicates the contrary. The quote is in the Ezra Taft Benson manual and is being taught throughout the Church this year in Priesthood and Relief Society; even this very month. (I link to the manual lesson in the blog above.)
The quote to which I refer is, of course, the statement attributed to Heber J. Grant that if we do what the prophet tells us to do, we will be blessed, even if the prophet is wrong.
Though this quote may contain a certain degree of hyperbole, it does appear that, even theoretically, the point is tacitly conceded that there is a distinction between the directives of the prophet and those of Jesus Christ.
In other words, we should never go so far as to believe that the words of the prophets are necessarily those of the Savior.
Consider also the words of Joseph Young, uttered on July 26, 1857, in the Salt Lake City Bowery:
“Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph his Prophet, and in Brigham Young his successor. And I add, “If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph was a Prophet, and that Brigham was his successor, you shall be saved in the kingdom of God.”
Heber C. Kimball in the same meeting:
“We receive the Spirit of Jesus as he receives it from the Father, and we receive it from the Son, or down through the channel of the Holy Priesthood from the Father; then we are like one vine or one tree, the Father being the root, and the Son of God the tree or vine that sprung from the Father, and we are the branches, or this Church is the main branch sprung from that vine. Then, inasmuch as we abide in Joseph or in Brigham, and then Brigham abides in Joseph, and Joseph in Peter, and Peter in Jesus, and then Jesus in the Father, don’t you see we are one? And then we will extend it to the Twelve in these last days; they are one with the First Presidency, and then the Seventies with the Twelve, and then the High Priests and other officers.”
And, later in the same speech:
“You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living Hod, and look upon him as a God, and also upon Brigham Young, our Governor in the Territory of Deseret.”
Those are excellent quotes, Trevor, and I thank you for sharing them with us.
It looks like the practice of defining true Mormons by their acceptance of current Church leaders may have started as early as Brigham Young.
I can’t help but note the dating of these statements to July of 1857, at the height of the Mormon Reformation, characterized by such black-and-white us-versus-them rhetoric.
Additionally, such statements regarding acceptance of Brigham Young may have been directed at others claiming the succession from Joseph Smith, Jr.
It may be the LDS Church is undergoing a modern version of its original Reformation period.
We can only hope the results will be less tragic.
Fun game. Let’s widen it just a bit to see if this is something new.
Oliver Cowdery 1838: Excommunicated for not supporting the prophet. All reports say he believed the Book of Mormon. Rebaptized in 1848.
John W Taylor 1911: Excommunicated for not following and supporting church leaders (regarding polygamy). Maintained his belief in “Mormonism” until he died in 1916.
Apparently, this is not the first time a believer in Christ and the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated.
If belief in Christ and the Book of Mormon were the only requisites for Church membership than many, if not all, LDS splinter groups and the Community of Christ qualify as members. No one seems to be making a fuss in those groups so there must be more to it than that.
If, as claimed, the LDS church is the restoration of Christ’s church and the church leaders are chosen by Him would it not be reasonable (or at least in line with historical precedent) to separate from the church those who claimed otherwise?
What is less understandable is all the sturm und drang when someone, who no longer believes the institutional church, is excommunicated. Call your boss a jerk and work to undermine his authority with others and see just how many people are surprised when you get fired.
10% of the leadership of the Church was excommunicated in the 1800s. It’s hard to get worked up over formally recognizing the status of two (or six) who left the Church in 2015.
Did the Church change or did they?
The Church changed.
That much is obvious to any disinterested observer.
Corbin Volluz,
Corbin, either I’m mixed up or you are (and it might be me). It seems to me that the only way you could make a telling argument is if Rock Waterman also rejects the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the divinity of Jesus Christ – and yet none of these were mentioned in his case as constituting apostasy as they were in John Dehlin’s case. Then you could say there is inconsistency in how these cases were handled and how apostasy is defined: One way for Dehlin, yet another way for Waterman.
All three could be grounds for excommunication. They were for Dehlin. They weren’t for Waterman because they don’t apply to him – he doesn’t reject these things. If he had rejected them, as has Dehlin, they would have been (or could have been) adduced as evidence of apostasy and his letter would read the same as Dehlin’s.
I think we can agree that accepting the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and the divinity of Jesus are not signs of apostasy. They are therefore irrelevant in the case of Waterman.
What you have correctly highlighted is the common denominator in both cases of rejecting the prophetic calling of the current leaders. Maybe Waterman pushed the envelope in other ways as well and those are mentioned in Waterman’s letter along with the leadership issue.
Am I making any sense?
I think I am understanding where you are going with this, Tim Bone.
But I do not expect any stake president’s letter to Rock Waterman explicating the reasons for his excommunication.
The only reason John Dehlin’s stake president sent him a letter was to tweak John by making it clear he was not being excommunicated for advocating LGBQ issues and ordination of women.
It was a PR move, pure and simple.
Time will tell, though.
Corbin, I appreciate what you are trying to do here. But your logic is off. You have only proved that not sustaining the brethren in and off itself is an excommunicable offense on the grounds of apostasy. That does not automatically mean that nothing else counts as apostasy, or can be, in and of itself, grounds for excommunication for apostasy. To prove that, you would have to go through every single apostasy trial/court of love ever held in the history of the church and find that every single one that ended in excommunication had “not sustaining the brethren” as a common denominator AND cases where each of the other offenses you listed were found NOT grounds for apostasy as long as the person still claimed to sustain the brethren.
For example,
-a case where someone was found “guilty” of not believing Jesus was the Savior, but still proclaimed to sustain the brethren, and therefore was NOT excommunicated.
-A case where someone proclaimed to others Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but that same person still sustained the living prophet and the brethren so he/she was not excommunicated.
– A case where someone believed and taught others the Book of Mormon was false, but he/she still sustained the brethren so therefore was not excommunicated.
-A case where someone did not have a testimony of the restoration, the Book of Mormon, nor of Jesus Christ and actively preached against these thing, but still sustained the living brethren as prophet seers and revelators with all his/her heart and therefore was not excommunicated.
If you went through every single case and found even one case of someone being excommunicated on grounds of apostasy while claiming to sustain the brethren, or that made no mention of sustaining the brethren at all in the apostasy charges, then your whole argument that failing to sustain the brethren is the ONLY grounds for apostasy goes caput: for in that one case something else was enough.
Do you think Kate Kelly would count?
Not sure this is helping…
I imagine this line of speech derives from the Old Testament where Moses says he will be made as God to Pharoah.
Let me see if I can find it . . .
. . . Bingo!
Exodus 7:1–“And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
If.
Just got this comment from a friend who wishes to remain anonymous:
__________________________________________
Lol. Love the line “one of the good things about apostates is you don’t have to worry about hurting their feelings.”
That’s inspiration for a good two line t-shirt:
apostates are people too
#apostatelivesmatter
Corbin Volluz,
But if we have to choose between following Christ or following our leaders, we are to choose our leaders. Our leaders are setting themselves up as Gods, with most unsavory results. Give them a little authority, as they suppose…
Hi, Marsha!
I think your point highlights what I have come to refer to as the “conflation issue” in the LDS Church.
The Church has become conflated with Jesus Christ, as have the leaders.
Thus, we “come unto Christ” by being baptized into the Church.
When we “listen to a prophet’s voice,” we automatically “hear the words of God.”
But being a prophet, and speaking the words of God, do not come by virtue of an office.
If so, the high priest who condemned Jesus did the right thing.
They are gifts that must be given from God. They cannot be manufactured.
I like Joseph Smith’s definition of a prophet as one who has the spirit of prophecy, which he went further to define as “the testimony of Jesus.”
These things are bestowed by the election of God, not by the election of men.
I also like the scriptural definition of “scripture” as what a person (any person!) speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost.
If the LDS.Org Gospel Topic essays have had a negative influence, perhaps D&C 19:22 (from a believer’s standpoint) was not only a warning, but a prophecy relating to our day.
Thanks for commenting, Brian. Nice to see you here!
I see D&C 19:22 somewhat differently, perhaps.
Maybe I should quote it here so everybody knows what we are talking about:
D&C 19:22 “For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.”
In context, this is talking about the teaching that “eternal damnation” is “God’s damnation” and therefore does not last forever.
I think the gist is that if people find this out, they may think faithfulness to God to be expendable and so perish.
When it comes to items of Church history, however, and the way Church leaders have conducted themselves, and continue to conduct themselves, I see application of this verse as problematic.
It is obviously subject to abuse in this arena.
The hiding of questionable conduct by leaders can easily be justified by saying they are actually doing a favor to the members they are keeping in the dark–this is milk before meat–if they were to learn of it, they might perish.
I do think you have hit on a long-standing strain of thought in LDS Church leadership with this, though.
The record seems clear that only those things that are “faith promoting” are deemed suitable for dissemination in the Church.
Anything not deemed “faith promoting” is squelched and hidden away.
This is where Elder Packer was coming from when he famously said that not all truths are useful.
The question could be asked, however, as to whether faith in a one-sided version of Mormonism is really faith at all.
I believe it was Alma who said something about faith being a hope for things that are true. He did not say faith is a hope for things that are half-true or white-washed.
It is precisely this attitude by the Church of hiding the truth from its members that has gotten it into the jam it is now in.
Time will tell whether the recent Church essays are too little too late.
Or too much too soon.
Interesting. I didn’t see that anyone brought in Kate Kelly. She believed in the prophet, but didn’t follow the prophet. She asked the prophet to pray. Although, this isn’t telling the prophet what to do, it was apparently close enough.
Although, I am inclined to think her excommunication was mostly about gender roles, rather than the prophet, but I do think it was a factor.
I agree with you, Sabbath.
It seems Kate Kelly’s fault was believing too much that Church leaders are able to receive revelation from God.
She may have believed it more than they believe it themselves . . .
Corbin Volluz,
And I see that, however to confirm such suspicion we’d need to find someone who hits that point, but not the others and not exed–perhapssomeone who thinks Joseph was a prophet, sustains leaders, accepts Christ but openly and actively discusses the BOM is fiction? Otherwise, none of the above could be marked. (Kate seems to be the closest I can think of, but only because she pushed the idea publicly Monson could receive an answer but he wouldn’t ask)
I agree with you that, of all the people I know about, Kate Kelly seems to come closest to fitting that particular bill.
Of course, we have information only on those excommunications that have had a high enough profile to have been reported on to any degree.
Here, I might suggest the famous story of William Hamblin, who was observed by a fellow Mormon to be in a high degree of inebriation.
When this fellow Mormon reported the circumstances to Brigham Young, Brigham Young replied, “Well, you have seen a good man drunk!”
Corbin Volluz,
My understanding is that the presiding authority is required to send a letter in any case of excommunication, explaining the decision, appeal procedures and a hope for reinstatement.
You may be right about this, Tim. My understanding is that these letters are typically form letters that use stock language about being excommunicated for “conduct unbecoming” a member of the Church.
I think this was originally done so as not to reduce the specific sins to writing, which could cause embarrassment in the case of sexual transgressions.
But in the arena of excommunicating members for “apostasy,” the use of the same stock language has the effect of making it difficult to get behind the “real” reasons for the discipline.
In other words, it usually doesn’t spell out what specific acts are believed to have constituted “apostasy.”
This was similar in Rock Waterman’s case to his summons, which stated only that he was accused of “apostasy,” without setting forth any factual basis for the accusation.
The LDS Church could use a little more due process in this regard.
BINGO! We have a winner
Let us hope the prize is not a disciplinary court.
maybe in a 100 years time the lds church will be like the muslims…you can insult god but not the prophet muhammed……maybe you can insult Jesus but not ‘the brethren’
A trenchant and timely observation, indeed.
Corbin Volluz,
You hit the nail on the head. Here is Marion Romney from 1950:
“What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, what the Lord would say if he were here. If we do not agree with what they say, it is because we are out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)
To them, if you don’t believe in the “prophet”, you don’t believe in Jesus. You are out of harmony.
Thanks for the quote, Johnny.
Marion G. Romney was a staunch promoter of this sort of thinking, to be sure.
I believe it is Marion G. Romney who related the story of a couple of decades before the recounting regarding an otherwise unattested statement of Heber J. Grant telling him personally that if the prophet tells you to do something, and it is wrong, you will still be blessed for doing it.
These types of statements tend to have staying power.
It was picked up by Ezra Taft Benson in his 14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet, and is repeated again throughout the Church this year in its Priesthood/Relief Society Manual.
I sometimes wonder if Heber J. Grant ever even said such a thing.
Though it makes precious little difference at this point.
In addition to the excommunications, I wonder how many people have had lesser penalties, such as having their temple recommend revoked because the bishop's definition of "sustain" meant they could not disagree with the current leadership, especially publicly and had to blindly follow all that was said in General Conference. How many then left the church voluntarily after not wanting to be in such an atmosphere? I suspect what we see with the excommunications of more public people is just the tip of the iceberg.
I agree the high profile excommunications are just the tip of the iceberg.
For example, there is the case of April Young Bennett who had to either step down from her position on the board of Ordain Women or attend her brother’s temple wedding.
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2068013-155/mormon-steps-down-from-ordain-women
No resign–no temple recommend.
This is what passes for free agency in today’s LDS Church.
I sold a pickup to another member in the church. That person defaulted on the payments. I went to the bishop, as I didn't know how to handle the situation. It was akin to stealing from the poor. He asked if I had a contract. I did. He said to "enforce the contract." So, I did. I sued for payment or repossession. I won the repossession. Then the church came after me, to get the truck back for the man who defaulted. There was no offer of payment. The leadership planned to take me and my husband before the counsel, take my temple recommend. The bishop's secretary was the chief of police. We started getting pulled over and given tickets, with the cop asking us if we knew (the executive secretary name here)… We had threatening phone calls, and people showing up at our door. The man we sued also threatened to kill me if I didn't drop the lawsuit. No one listened. This is just one of the experiences we had with the church.
This type of thing is why I try to make it a rule never to do business with Mormons.
Authority. It just seems like a harmful plague meant to beat us into the ground till we submit, rather than help pick us up out of the mud.
Jesus had a different idea about authority.
He said something crazy about the greatest being the servant of all . . .
Which is where my issue with the current LDS church seems to stem. It just doesn’t fit with what was taught and what ultimately feels right. I love the message of service, and latched onto it for so many years. Now, I just don’t recognize it from the top down. It’s like the current organization is unrecognizable from what I was always taught it was supposed to be.
The corporate church has taken over the spiritual church, I fear.
That is why it seems church leadership is more interested in administering than in ministering.
This is of course the natural progression of corporations. They are like machines and have their own built in programming. Corporations automatically replace those who won’t further their interests with those who will. Members know the church is a corporations but assume that it won’t fall victim to the practices of ‘worldly’ corporations. Might as well expect a church owned threshing machine not to tear of your hand if you put it in the works. I believe that corporations are the secret combinations of our day. They murder for profit, let the guilty go free, grind the face of the poor, now have sole management of the government and have seduced most of the populace to partake of their spoils. Secret and private are close cousins as are combination and corporation. Some may say “But if the church isn’t a corporation, what would become of it?” Hmmm….
Brian C. Hales,
The essays are nothing to do with milk and meat Brian, they’re apologetics, plain and simple. No “higher doctrines” are being revealed therein, just a whole lot of tap-dancing around what are genuine historical and doctrinal problems.
And one would hope the phrase “milk before meat” would never be used in the context of discussing plural marriage.
Corbin,
I’ve read through the comments but I’m still having a hard time following your line of logic. Wouldn’t we would need to fail to find a case where someone is not excommunicated while denying one of the following: 1) The divinity of Jesus, 2) the Book of Mormon, 3) or Joseph Smith as prophet, but while still sustaining the current prophets?
Even then, there are couple of problems. First, you would have to prove a negative. We don’t have a comprehensive list of excommunication and their reasons so that becomes a practical impossibility.
Second, local leaders may see someone in apostasy where others do not. Although the possibility of a mass conspiracy at the headquarters level may be fun to entertain, the more realistic possibility is that many local leaders are just incompetent, leading to inconsistencies in disciplinary councils (a natural result in the law, as you know, when cases aren’t published or used as precedent).
Also, if someone were to deny any of those three criteria, it would be difficult to imagine that person being willing to sustain current Church leaders. And that is more likely the reason we haven’t seen a case like the one we’re looking for rather than it being a reflection on what the Church uses as a criteria for apostasy.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with your conclusion. I’m just not seeing how John and Rock get you there. I do think there is an unhealthy obsession with complete and unconditional obedience to current leaders. I also think that there needs to be something softer than excommunication for these cases, something that sustains continued dialogue rather than cutting it off.
Thanks for your comments, Kyle. You may be right. But I am not sure.
Here is how I look at it.
The example of Rock Waterman standing by itself proves that a person can believe in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ and still get excommunicated. It was Rock’s reticence about current Church leadership that did him in.
The contrast of John Dehlin’s situation only serves to make the case stronger, to my mind.
I think the evidence from these two cases alone make at least a solid case for the conclusion that the cardinal sin in the LDS Church is questioning the leadership.
Which is why Elder Oaks is so strong about not criticizing them . . . even if the criticism is true.
I am not claiming a conspiracy in all cases of excommunication, but it is clear to me that, at least in these two cases, there was coordination and direction from above.
John’s stake president was quoting material from old Mormon Stories podcasts that he didn’t listen to himself, and where he was obviously given the information from a third party.
Rock’s bishop (or stake president) admitted that higher-ups were involved, one of whom had the last name “Smith,” according to Rock’s recollection.
This would almost certainly have been D. Zackary Smith, the Area Seventy over Rock Waterman.
“Conspiracy” is such a loaded word.
Maybe it would be better if we just said that there appears to be a coordinated effort at top levels of the LDS Church to issue directives that members who blog or podcast regarding personal issues with Mormonism are to be dealt with by local leaders.
Deftly done, Corbin. It is painful — extremely painful — for "believing" members of the LDS Church to read this. (I found it painful…and I was excommunicated (like Rock) for apostasy 14 months ago, even though I share Rock's testimony of the "core" tenets of Mormonism, as you've outlined.) I have received revelations from God confirming His witness regarding Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. But when I was compelled by my stake president and bishop to bear witness of the "prophet, seer and revelator" Thomas S. Monson (peace be upon him), I couldn't honestly do it. I had received no such revelation! That being said, I have nothing against the man. I faithfully "supported and sustained" him and I had no problems or disagreements with his leadership (a billion-dollar mall notwithstanding). But when I confessed I had received NO REVELATION FROM GOD regarding him, the stake president said, "Well, maybe you ought to get that revelation!"
The truth of the matter is we've been excommunicated for "following" (believing) Denver Snuffer. Dehlin was an obvious apostate. Others, too, have recently been excommunicated for "over-turning the Mormon apple cart". You can't lump us all together. Rock and I weren't excommunicated because we are ambivalent (at best) regarding Monson. It's because we agree with Snuffer and have publicly testified we have received confirmation from the Holy Ghost that he has taught the truth.
Thanks for sharing that with us, William.
I know only a little about Denver Snuffer, though I did a review of his book, “Passing the Heavenly Gift,” last year in a blog on this site.
Without passing judgment on Denver Snuffer one way or another, I think his popularity is a sure indicator of the fact Mormons are starving for the voice of prophecy, for a witness of Jesus Christ, for the Spirit to be in their lives and in their worship.
And these Mormons are not finding it in the LDS Church.
This alone is significant.
In your last sentence, you appear to lump Rock Waterman in as a believer of Snuffer’s teachings.
Is this correct?
My impression was that Rock Waterman had publicly disavowed any connection with Denver Snuffer.
I think y'all are missing the biggest point of all. The entire focus must be on Jesus Christ! He is one of the Holy Trinity. There is no way to the Father but thru me (Jesus Christ). It was Jesus, the perfect, totally sinless lamb of God who willingly gave His life, so that by repentance of sin, thru His blood, and belief that He (Jesus) is the ONLY Son of God, Savior and Redeemer of our lost and sinful lives can we be reconciled to the Father. Then and only then are we then the children of God. That being said – it doesn't matter which person (man) living or dead – claims to be as worthy as who? Oh yes, Jesus, is not to be believed or trusted! Even if they say they preach the word of God! 2 Corinthians 11:14 "And no wonder, for even Satan [who even believes in God!] himself masquerades as an angel of light. And Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we (the original disciples of Christ) preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! Galatians 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to ease men, I would not be a servant of Christ! And let's not forget, the final book of the bible. It's actually called Revelation. It tells of the end times – when life as we now know it ends. Nowhere does it talk about Joseph smith or the BOM, D&C or PGP. but it does say false prophets will come in my name (Jesus Christ). The focus is still on Jesus Christ and those who believe He is the only Son of God. People. Focus on Jesus. He's the only way. "I Am the way, the Truth and the life! No one comes to the Father but by Me." How much more clarity need there be??? The Gospel is Christ crucified. Not some mum I jumbo that has not founded, factual root or history. And, the Book of Mormon isn't even the gospel beliefs of the lds faith!!! It's the Doctrine and Covenants… rules and laws by "man". Do research that reveals truth! Put your brains and energy into the focus, Jesus Christ! For man is imperfect and will ALWAYS let you down…I love all you people. As does God – for that is one of His characteristics – love. God IS love. And wants no one to perish. Focus of God – what He has for you, not what you think you can do good enough or enough of, to earn that love. He IS love. And we can do NOTHING to earn His love and favor. It was His gift! That's what grace is! His loving gift to save our wretched souls from the bondage of sin, in order to be reconciled – paid for in full – in order to be made Holy to return to His presence!!! Turn from man. Turn to the Love of Jesus! He came to set you free!!!!!
Becca,
Shorter version: He has confused necessary conditions with sufficient conditions.
I think the following example of a sufficient condition is apropos:
Example 3: An occurrence of thunder is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of lightning in the sense that hearing thunder, and unambiguously recognizing it as such, justifies concluding that there has been a lightning bolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
OK, suppose hypothetically (I have not done it deliberately) I end up committing an act of civil disobedience and get caught (I-594 comes to mind as a possibility, also any of the 3 federal felonies a day every peaceable citizen commits, on average) and I need some counsel, could you give a good referral to a non-member colleague?
My previous comment was supposed to be in reply to your comment on the truck situation. No need to reply on this forum, if you deem it not appropriate.
I am happy to help, but it depends on where you are located. I don’t know a lot of attorneys in other states.
You might want to consider contacting the ACLU, though.
That is a good example, but I don’t know if it counts as fair; the Word of Wisdom was looked at very differently in that era of Church history. Perhaps a better example would be the Van Allen’s and their “let’s get rid of section 134”? It could be argued that their “issue” was Joseph, but felt firm about the other core tenants of Modern Mormonism? (Though from what I understand, the court was dismissed without disciplinary action.)
Corbin,
Lets all resign right now.
I think that would be a far more accurate conclusion to take from the excommunication of Rock. It also makes sense that they would excommunicate you for receiving that revelation. In fact I'm not sure why you would want to stay a member of the LDS Churxh if you felt God telling you to go elsewhere. Could you elaborate on that point?
I don’t know that Rock has claimed to have received any revelation that Church leaders are uninspired.
“There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave to tell us this.”
Rather, Rock has stated that if the time should ever come that President Monson came forward with a message he claimed to have been given him from God, Rock would be all ears.
Actually, I believe I live in your state, and stake (LDS church stake), just closer to the beach vs. the Cascade Mountains.
This is all hypothetical, as my wife is adamant that I don’t do anything to jeopardize my job, which a felony charge could do, in spite of the heroic fantasy of “armed civil disobedience” to “unconstitutional
laws” such as I-594 (research/google Patrick Henry Society or Kit Lange for more info on what I’m talking about).
However, there is still the claim of nobody being able to get through a day of living without committing at least 3 federal felonies, and that we are all just criminal felons (in the eyes of some obscure, or not so obscure federal regulation somewhere) who have just not been caught yet.
You may contact me at my e-mail if you wish, and If I feel the need in the future, I can look you up in the phone book.
I would strongly recommend that you, and all parties, refrain from any sort of “armed civil disobedience.”
Peaceful civil disobedience is one thing.
Armed civil disobedience is something else entirely.
People end up with worse than a felony conviction through armed civil disobedience.
I think you should listen to your wife on this one.
Awful!!!
Can you unpack that a little?
What Mormon teach about the birth of a handicapped Child and minorities especially in third world countries
"This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valient, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations…." (Decisions for Successful Living pp 164-165) TLDP: 497
“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).
wonder what race is enlightened ?
What Mormon teach about the birth of a handicapped Child and minorities especially in third world countries
"This privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seemingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaithful or not valient, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limitations…." (Decisions for Successful Living pp 164-165) TLDP: 497
“There is no truth more plainly taught in the Gospel than that our condition in the next world will depend upon the kind of lives we live here. …Is it not just as reasonable to suppose that the conditions in which we now live have been determined by the kind of lives we lived in the pre-existent world of spirits? That the apostles understood this principle is indicated by their question to the Master when the man who was blind from his birth was healed of his blindness, ‘Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?’ (John 9:2.) Now perhaps you will have a partial answer to some of your questions as to why, if God is a just Father, that some of his children are born of an enlightened race and in a time when the Gospel is upon the earth, while others are born of a heathen parentage in a benighted, backward country; and still others are born to parents who have the mark of a black skin with which the seed of Cain were cursed and whose descendants were to be denied the rights of the priesthood of God” (Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living, pp. 164-165).
I wonder what race is enlightened ?
Great post Corbin! That does seem to be the #1 way to guarantee an excommunication.
Can you supply a church reference that backs up your quote please? " if the prophet tells you to do something the Savior is against, and you do it anyway, you will be blessed."
See the link in the blog above to the relevant lesson in the current Priesthood/Relief Society manual.
The link is right after the words, “Case in point.”
I don’t think the reasoning in the post holds because I don’t think that the various bishops or stake presidents who run church courts are working from the same script. Excommunication stew is whipped up on the spot — there is no fixed recipe. There are a few guiding principles, but even they are not really binding. Five different bishops, five different excommunication cases, they are going to be doing five different things, if they could even articulate what exactly they think they are doing.
But the approach of looking at actual cases is the right method, for understanding the proceedings if not to construct rules of decision. What the Handbook says doesn’t really have much to do with actual proceedings. Various statements made by LDS leaders or posted at LDS.org don’t really have much to do with actual proceedings. But reports of actual proceedings (necessarily a bit spotty, since the Church does not make an actual record or allow the participants to record the proceedings) is the best source for understanding what happens in LDS church courts. I don’t find the picture that emerges very encouraging.
I agree with you that the picture that is emerging is not very encouraging.
If all the bishops and stake presidents are being guided in their decisions by the Holy Spirit, I see no excuse for their not working from the same script.
And there is evidence that at least some of these excommunications (such as that of Rock Waterman and John Dehlin and Kate Kelly) had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, but instead were orchestrated at higher levels.
The marching orders were given to their stake presidents.
What happened at the disciplinary hearing was just a fait accompli.
An interesting and insightful article, Corbin. And yet, I think it misses an essential component. I will not touch on the leadership roulette effect, which is a huge problem (and frankly surprising in an organization that is in most other respects so tightly controlled from the central headquarters).
The real common denominator here is that those excommunicated for apostasy have been critical of some aspect of the church and have made that criticism public. The public part is, I believe, the lynchpin.
It would be difficult to find anybody less believing than I am. “Secular humanist” and “atheist” are not terms of endearment in the Mormon church. I believe in no gods, no prophets, no scriptures, no revelations, no religions. I have repented from my former belief. I think the people who lead the church are mostly good, well-intentioned individuals, but are either deluded or hypocritical. I’m sure there are a few bad apples who conceal naked ambition under a cloak of piety, but the few I have met personally seem to be people of integrity. However, despite good individuals, in the aggregate, the general church organization appears distinctly corrupt, self-serving and mostly intent on self-preservation.
In short, I am a “capital A” Apostate.
And yet, despite my unbelief, my generally unfavorable view of the general church leadership, and the fact that I do not hide my unbelief from people when the topic comes up, I remain, technically, a member of the church. Why? Because I do not broadcast my unbelief or my criticism of the church in public venues. And I believe there are lots and lots of people just like me.
Thanks for your comments, Mark.
I agree with you that the “public aspect” is a lynchpin.
I had thought it was the essential lynchpin at first, but then the case of the Van Allens came up where the husband posted one blog about how he thought section 132 was not from God, but a revelation of man.
He was immediately contacted by his bishop about taking it down or facing a disciplinary counsel.
I am not certain the Calderwoods were very public. Certainly not in the sense that John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer and Rock Waterman were/are.
And numerous “lesser” disciplines have been imposed on members who were not very public.
Such as Kate Kelly’s parents having their temple recommends taken away for supporting their daughter.
And April Young Bennett being forced by her stake president to step down from her position as Ordain Women board member as a condition precedent to her renewing her temple recommend so she could attend her brother’s wedding.
And then there is the case of the Sunday school teacher in Hawaii who was recently released from his calling for teaching correlated materials from the Church’s own website.
I imagine these to be but the tip of the iceberg.
Mark,
OK, I’ll bite. Why do you choose to remain a member of the church in any way at all, “technically” or otherwise?
Publicly airing grievances seems to be important in the excommunication of so called apostates. This is the church of p.r. and public disagreements damage the message. So the openly and publicly disagreeable must be stamped out, silenced, or publicly punished. That’s what Jesus would do.
LOL, Jonathan!
My reading of the New Testament has Jesus being the openly and publicly disagreeable fellow who had to be stamped out, silenced, and publicly punished.
Funny how things have changed.
Or have they?
Stop dwelling on a fantasy made-up person who will reward you when you are dead. Make the world a better place because it is the right thing to do now
Laura Lee, I read your post and your closing line stating that this was an experience with "the church" is really an experience you had with members of the church? Members of any religion are imperfect.. I am sorry for your experience with some members (local leaders) of the church. The LDS Church or its leadership do not claim perfection.
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said, "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.
In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”6
This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth."
Just my two cents worth. I am sorry for the experience you had. I hope that things got worked out. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I hope that I am doing all that I can to be an example of Christ. I know that I fail but I can only hope that I am getting better every day.
Jennifer Zur I left totally after there were enough experiences in the Church perpetuated against my family and other families that I would be murdered in my sleep if I were to reveal them all. I'm not talking "mistakes." I am talking about deliberate acts of evil by leaders, those people who are entrusted with the welfare of others. And I have researched enough to know that there are coverups at all levels of hierarchy. You can quote your beloved Uchdorft all you want. I have quotes I can use as well, such as Brigham Young's quotes from the JoC. The church is not real anymore, and it is not blessed by God. It hasn't been real since JS was murdered by LDS members in the mob.
Tim Bone,
It’s funny you should ask, Tim. I had originally talked about that a little in my comment but ended up deleting it because it didn’t seem germane to the point I was making. There are several factors influencing me in this space. Probably uppermost is inertia. Having grown up in the church and lived over four decades as a faithful member, my habits and sensibilities, instincts and low-level operating system, all were formed in that cultural milieu. If an analogy would help, you could say that my native language is Mormonese and, try though I may to overcome it, I will probably always speak with a Mormon accent.
Second is my parents. Due to my graduation from the church, I fear our relationship will never quite be the same as it once was. There’s a constraint, the elephant in the room, that’s always present in our interactions now. I’m in the odd position of blaming the church as the main driver behind this constraint while simultaneously not wishing to completely sever that connection for fear that to do so would constitute another blow to my Mom and Dad.
The third reason is that the gesture of formally resigning would be an implicit acknowledgment that the church organization possesses enough authority over me to make be follow its policies and procedures with respect to leaving its ranks. Now that I am past my ‘angry’ phase, my goal is to cultivate a state of total indifference to what the church hierarchy does, says or thinks. I think that’s the best sort of insult, don’t you?
Finally, I think that resignation is an irreplaceable piece of ammunition that can only be used once. If the church does perpetrate another outrage like Prop 8, something that stirs me from indifference to anger, then I will have that one last little spitball to chuck at it.
So that’s it. It’s a mess of conflicting motivations and emotions, isn’t it?. I think it boils down to this: I value the cultural and social ties that I formed in a long life in the church and I am reluctant to perform the symbolic gesture that makes my separation from all that official.
Funny how this keeps coming to mind today with the 14 fundamental lesson I’m sitting through….
And thus we see how all truth may be circumscribed in one great whole.
Mark,
Everyone should be able to empathize with conflicted motivations, conflicted emotions, and inertia. I think we all do – and must – experience them.
It seems to me, though, that you are still in the “angry phase”, as evidenced by the need for (and enjoyment of) a still better sort of insult and the one last spitball you hold in reserve. Both belie the “total indifference” you say you seek. One state or the other must give way. I’m not sure you will find that this conflict will be, or can be, fully resolved.
Atheism is a profession of faith like any other. It has no more hope of “proof” than its religious competitors. (In fact, it has none, the only possible confirmation being oblivion after death which, of course, and in a poignant irony, cannot and will not be observed or appreciated (or enjoyed) by the departed.
As someone whose conflicted motivations and emotions, as well as inertia (lots of that), have been confidently resolved in favor of the truths of the Restored Gospel, I hope for your return to a faith as vigorous as its rejection. In general, I would say, LDS parents have two plans in mind when raising their kids. Plan A is that exposure to the Gospel and the Church will result in an independent commitment to faith. Plan B is that, should Plan A fail in the short term, the exposure to the Gospel will at some later time prove decisive, as it did for Enos and has for many others, that a compass point will be remembered when needed most. For many, whose rebellion may run unchecked (and zealously defended) through mortality, this may not kick in until after this life. I realize all of this fits into the “we’ll-see-won’t-we” category.
I apologize (sort of) for sounding like your parents. But I can and do wish you well.
Atheism is not a profession of faith, it is the rejection of faith claims. It’s really that simple. It’s not a faith system. It’s not a system that claims there is no God (there may be individuals that claim that whom are also labeled as “atheists” but this is not what atheism is), or tries to prove there is no God. It isn’t making any positive claims, and doesn’t have a burden of proof as such. It’s simply the rejection of the positive claim there is a God.
I find it interesting, and even troublesome, that in the original article, and in the subsequent discussions, a few important points have been completely ignored. (Intentionally?)
I believe God knows exactly what is going on in the church right now. He knows exactly what the brethren are saying and doing in His name. He knows exactly what needs to be said and done for us right now. Today. We can guess, assume, hope, speculate, even lobby for what we think might or should happen tomorrow. But God knows what He wants us to know today. And He is going to tell us through his living prophet. The challenge of faith is to accept that, or not.
In Doctrine & Covenants, section 1, the Lord says:
14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;
15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;
16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world….
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, IT IS THE SAME.
And, for those who have been through the temple, we didn’t make covenants to BELIEVE the Book of Mormon, or to BELIEVE Joseph Smith is a prophet, or even to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ. However, we did make a covenant to avoid “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.”
We are expected to sustain and follow our living prophet. He is our prophet TODAY. While we may learn from and follow teachings from other prophets (Abraham, Moses, Joseph Smith, even Gordon B. Hinckley), we have a prophet for us TODAY. I can only assume that what Brigham Young said, or what Spencer W. Kimball said, or any other prophet of this dispensation said, was specifically for the Lord’s people at that specific time. We can speculate, hope, assume, and even lobby for what we think the next prophet might say, or what we think he should say (which is only beating your head against the wall for no reason), but we are to listen to our prophet TODAY. Are we really trying to say we know better than God?
I truly feel for members of the church who have had difficult and painful experiences with leaders of the church. That can’t be good – for anybody. Nobody ever said living the gospel was going to be “fair” or “comfortable” or the same for all members. However, I do believe that following the leaders of the church is an important lesson that we must all learn, regardless of the comfort level. When (not if) the time comes when the Lord calls upon us, through his leaders, to really do something hard (like packing up your family and leaving everything behind, or something else in preparation for the Lord’s second coming), what will our response be?
After all the complaining, judging, belittling, and sniping of church leaders, will you even hear or recognize the call when it comes?
Are church leaders exempt from these scriptures? Is it not possible that they are the ones not heeding the words of the Lord, or the Lord’s servants? Can’t anyone be considered a servant of the Lord at various times throughout their lives if they are striving to be?
It isn’t evil speaking of the lords anointed to question them in certain matters, or hold them accountable for their actions, or the actions of the organization, or evils such as lies… excuse me, “carefully worded denials” that can be attributed to them.
And who, exactly, are the “Lord’s anointed”?
Good question that I don’t have the answer to. It seems a term created that can change as desired.
Especially when Greek for “anointed” is “Christ.”
Dusty,
Atheism is not so simple. Depending on who’s talking, there is “implicit vs. explicit” atheism, “positive vs. negative” atheism, along with discussions of “practical” and “theoretical” atheism. I used faith in the broad sense of “confidence”, not in the sense of “faith system” (whatever that is).
To the question, “how does the universe work?” atheists say: “Not in the way theists say it does. We reject positive claims that there is a God.” Atheists have confidence that an accurate description of reality does not include positive claims that there is a God. Something else does or might describe reality – no positive claims will be made – but claims that do include the existence of God are to be rejected.
Ideas don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re parts of a mobile, if you touch it in one place it moves somewhere else as well. Clearly, this position rejects religion, or at least churches, there being no positive claim of God that can be accepted and therefore no entity to even be available for worship. There is no resurrected Jesus Christ before whom all will be judged, because any positive claim that Christ is God (or even “a” god) is to be rejected out of hand. An atheist would refuse baptism in any church – why give allegiance to a being for whom or for which every positive claim is to be rejected?
To say that atheists aren’t making positive claims or don’t have a burden of proof is misleading and naïve. Rejecting positive claims that there is a God is to make a statement about reality and about what to expect or not expect from reality. That rejection has repercussions. Atheists are confident that rejecting positive claims that there is a God will have no downside to them personally in any “spiritual” sense. I say that’s a statement of faith whether atheists want to recognize it as such or not.
The problem here is that discussion will likely become one of semantics – and will likely founder there.
You have ideas and questions twisted in there that don’t need to be. Thank you for your clarification on the use of the word faith, since religious topics are involved that is the lesser used version and I did assume the other definition myself, or the more commonly used definition within the LDS framework. I was only seeking to address the misconception of what atheism is, and how it is often misrepresented. Misconceptions I used to have myself.
Atheists (whether agnostic, or gnostic about their views) are people, they may have any range of views, beliefs, may make claims about any number of other things, etc. Atheism itself isn’t a positive claim, it is by definition the rejection of the positive claim that a God exists. Logically thinking, the burden of proof is put on the positive claim being made (with exceptional claims requiring exceptional evidence). That’s just how we operate rationally, and logically. It isn’t a claim about reality, it is the rejection of a claim being made about reality (based on lack of verifiable/testable/falsifiable evidence so far to support that claim). Simply put it’s the default position. Much like the default position to people claiming Santa Clause, unicorns, or any number of fantastic claims being made exist is rejected (without proper evidence presented to support such claims). It only gets complicated when you start placing all manner of other things and unnecessary questions into the mix. You conflated the two together, which is “misleading” as you put it.
I have both heard and recognized the call.
But it did not come from church leaders.
My guess is the quote referred to Marion G Romney being told by Heber J Grant "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it". So if your conscience (the light of Christ) tells you not to do it but the prophet says you should, you should follow the prophet and you will be blessed. It is a little bit of an extrapolation. This quote can be found at https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng
I disagree with the quote. We are responsible for our actions. The prophet won't be at the judgement bar to defend us. I do lots of things I am asked to do that I don't enjoy because I feel it is my duty to support those in charge. They have a job I wouldn't want. But I have never been asked to do something that I felt was 'wrong', i.e immoral and would need more than the say so of a leader to do such a thing.