quote: Palmer, a longtime Mormon educator, was asked to defend himself on charges of apostasy stemming from his 2002 book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which challenged traditional beliefs about the church's history.
I'm sorry -- but I guess I just don't fully understand this. They have the right to throw him out because he wrote a book they didn't agree with?? So he can have absolutely NO contact with any of his LDS friends or family? That just seems a little harsh......
Farmgirl
edit: Edited to note that Kat correct my interpretation of the word "disfellowship" further down this thread. What I posted in this post was too harsh.
quote:The all-male priesthood leaders in his Willow Creek Sandy LDS stake could have excommunicated the 64-year-old author, but chose instead a lesser punishment - to "disfellowship" him - which means he may not enter the temple, serve in a church position, give a talk, partake of the weekly sacrament or offer a public prayer. This typically lasts about a year, but the length will be determined by his LDS stake president, Keith Adams, who may also spell out more conditions of the suspension in a letter sometime later this week. Palmer has the right to appeal the decision to higher church authorities.
That doesn't really sound too bad at all.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, I don't know much about LDS, but it seems to me that if I were a part of a religion, being banned from that religion's place of worship would be pretty bad.
Edit: Ok, what's the difference between temple and church?
posted
This is what I find so problematic about exclusionary churches like the Mormons and the Catholics. The idea that only certain people are good enough to worship fully and that doing something the church doesn't like can result in being shunned and/or rejected by the church is almost directly contradicting the message of Christ. This is a guy who preached to the lowly and to the sinners, against the norms of the religious officials of the day.
One thing I like about the church I go to is that before communion the pastor always makes a particular point to mention that God's table is open to everyone, regardless of beliefs, sins, etc. You should not be prevented from worshipping fully just because you've done something the higher-ups in the church don't like.
quote:Excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion -- exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. (emphasis added)
posted
Ah -- I apologize for misunderstanding the depth of the term "disfellowshipped" in the LDS church. Apparently it is not as bad as I feared. I basically read the term, and associated it with my already-preconcieved ideas of what disfellowshipping is.
::has to remember to not read when busy and in a hurry:
posted
In our church, if someone was engaging in unrepentant sin, they could eventually be asked to leave our fellowship, which means their membership in the church would be terminated. They would still be able to come to church, of course - our doors are open to any and all, but they could not hold an office or vote in congregational meetings.
It's never happened, but it's in our bylaws.
It's not for me to judge what the mormon church authority does, but I agree that forbidding someone from worship does seem very harsh, for something like a different view of the church's history. Then again, I'm not familiar enough with the differentiation between church and temple to really know what it all means. Plus it's temporary, which definitely makes it an easier pill to swallow.
But, does he have to change his view on the origins of the church in order to be allowed back in? And what types of differences of opinion on things like church history are tolerated?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll say it before Dag has a chance to. Tres, you don't understand what you're talking about. The motive that you're ascribing, while perhaps valid in some cases, has nothing to do with the theoretical justifications for the exclusionary actions. You have to realize that these religions believe in the actual reality of both their authority strutures and their rituals. Their processes of exclusion are not (theoretically) intended as a punishment. If they are used as such, it is actually against their real purpose, which is more a recognition that the person is not in a state harmonious with the practice of the religion, generally with the ideas that the real nature of the rituals are not then available to the person and as a means to put them on notice to this.
When you start off with the basic, close-minded assumption that a religion's rituals and authority structure don't have any validity, then, yeah, you're going to have problems when people treat these things as if they are important. But all you've presented is that assumption, which may seem very clear to you, but is disputed by people who are at least as smart and well-informed about it than you are. So what did you really say besides "I personally think these religions are wrong."?
edit: Darn it Dag, why you gotta pre-empt my pre-emption?
posted
Zalmoxis, I don't think Christ could be described as one-dimensional at all, but I do think he had certain points he was very outspoken and clear about.
Mr. Squicky, The churches may be attempting to help those by excluding them from certain worshipping, but I still don't think that makes it consistent with Christ's teaching, because he seemed to reject that strategy. Definitely, if the churches have the authority they say they do, then they are right... I'm just saying I think this is a good reason to think they don't have that authority.
posted
It's not exclusionary to "kick someone out" for saying your organization is founded on lies. Any organization has the right to do so. Had the church seized his property or banished him from the state, then they would be treading on civil rights and would be in the wrong. As it is, they are not allowing him to take part in leadership roles in the church, which is rather appropriate for someone who's been claiming that the line of authority stretches back to a liar.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I dislike the slant in that article. Every time they mention an "intellectual," it is in the context of someone being punished by the church. The church does not disapprove of or punish intellectuals. It does disapprove of and punish anyone who is teaching false doctrine.
I hate it when efforts are made to paint the church as an incubator of ignorance - there is nothing so blatantly false. In fact, out of studies that followed college students from various religious backgrounds, the LDS church was number two in the percentage of members who remained with their parents' religion after receiving a college education.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did he say anywhere that what he was writing was/should be doctrine?
He's teaching something that suggests doctrine is untrue, perhaps, but not teaching false doctrine (as that would require him not only to argue it, but to argue it from a supposed position of religious authority).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The church absolutely has the 'right' to do this, however this makes the LDS church look bad. It makes the church look like it can't take criticism or brook dissent from within its ranks.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Darn it Dag, why you gotta pre-empt my pre-emption?
. I like your response. I purposely chose not to respond in my own word, but rather to provide information to contrast Xap's characterization of it.
Frankly, his opinion on this matter means absolutely nothing to me. There are so many things we likely disagree about in spiritual matters that are far more fundamental than this. Lacking agreement on those, there's no point in arguing about this. Similarly with his comments on making sacraments available to non-believers. Since we likely disagree on the number of sacraments, why have the discussion at all.
As to the LDS actions in this instance, the church has a duty to make it clear when people are saying things that might be attributed to the church that don't coincide with their beliefs. I just wish Christian churches in general (including the Catholic Church) would be more outspoken about some of the more hateful messages, rather than just the doctrinal ones.
quote:he church absolutely has the 'right' to do this, however this makes the LDS church look bad. It makes the church look like it can't take criticism or brook dissent from within its ranks.
I think the only people this looks bad to are those who don't share the same starting principles, so likely they flat out don't care how this looks outside the church.
quote: For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Corinthians 11:29
This was the verse my church referenced when deciding who they would allow to take communion. I don't think that's inappropriate.
Also, keep in mind that most churches don't just take the 4 Gospels as canon, they take the Bible as a whole. So the doctrine taught by St. Paul has equal authority with that taught in the Gospels. Both are considered to be the Word of God, one doesn't supercede the other.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the only people this looks bad to are those who don't share the same starting principles, so likely they flat out don't care how this looks outside the church.
I seriously doubt that the LDS church doesn't care about its reputation, how it appears to those outside the church. The Mormons on this board certainly seem to care about it.
Given that one of the church's primary missions is to evangelize and bring more members into the church, anything that threatens that mission should be considered of the highest importance. I daresay that a longtime Mormon being, for all intents and purposes, punished for publishing a book that doesn't fit with accepted truth inside the church, isn't going to win a lot of fans to the church in the U.S., and isn't going to go very far towards countering the 'cult' accusations that Mormons have to face from time to time.
It would have been much better had the church staged open debates with this guy, showing that it isn't afraid of argument and showing the world that the facts are on its side.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it cares about its reputation. But it cares more about carrying out its mission, which includes preserving its central doctrine from dilution.
If a questioner believes the basic tenets of the faith as explained by a missionary, which justify the decision, they won't decide not to convert because of this decision. If they don't accept those tenets, they won't convert anyway.
I'd bet a lot of money they went to great pains NOT to take into consideration what others would think of the decision.
posted
But he disbelieves in one of the basic tenets of our church. He shouldn't be taking the sacrament if he doesn't believe. That's just not how it works.
posted
Even setting aside the fact that the LDS leaders are acting in accordance with scripture and the commandments of the Lord, diluting doctrine to avoid offending people is a losing proposition for a system of belief. If the doctrine matters so little that it's possible to be a member and advocate against it, then what's the point of being part of it at all? Sociality can be found at the country club (or online); the idea of defending the faith is only ornerous if you don't believe there is anything worth defending.
posted
Dag, While I started out with showing the mistatement of the religion, my main point was the last sentence. I think Tres made a functionally empty argument with no other point than to say that he didn't agree with these religions.
---
Considering this does bring up something that's been sort of floating around in ym head for a bit. Religions that put an emphasis on authority and authority structures appear to me to be a great deal more concerned with doctrinal orthodoxy in what I would view as an insecure manner. That is, as in this case, the response isn't to basically shrug off the false doctrine, but instead to try to prevent it from spreading as it could harm the faith of others. The powers of the religion don't seem to want what they consider false doctrine to enter into the marketplace of ideas.
This is just an interesting phenomenom for me because looking at it from the perspective of a belief that ruth comes at least partially from non-universal authority it makes a sense, but it looks a lot more objectional from an outside perspective, especially one informed by Enlightenment philosophy. So, my first response to this, which I'm willing to bet is shared by many people), was to think "Why don't they just let the obviously false stuff out there where, if they have faith in their truth, it will be seen as false." However, if it can only (or largely) been seen as false from an authoritative standpoint, then those with this autority should try to keep it away from the public who have not been granted the authority to see it's falseness. It's a very different way of looking at things, but as I come to understand it, both as a potentially valid way of seeing things and as an authentic historical way of thinking, it opens up some interesting perspectives.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A consistent assumption I am feeling in reading this post is that the church's view of history is true and this book is false (I am not saying peopel here on Hatrack hold that assumption--I simply don't know). The church, since it knows the truth, should have open debates and let falsehood be exposed.
My questions are:
Has anyone here read the book?
Is there anyone versed enough in LDS history enough to say this book is spreading false ideas?
Is it possible that the book is honest and truthful?
I would like to hear from both Mormons and a non Mormons who have read the book.
Are these questions in church history legitimate in member’s eyes?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the guy said in his book, or how it contradicted doctrine or, you know, excatly what LDS doctrine consists of But I do want to point out one thing. Katie said:
quote: diluting doctrine to avoid offending people is a losing proposition for a system of belief
I agree with that, but if the doctrine doesn't hold up under scientific examination of known facts, then defending the doctrine is also a losing proposition. Look what Copernicus and Gallileo did to Catholic Doctrine, and what the Church did to THEM. I don't know that the situation is analogous; It probably isn't, but I think that's where the uneasiness of the non-LDS members on this board has it's roots.
I mean, not knowing the particulars, it does seem similar. Knowing the particulars would probably change that.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I've no indication that this is actually the case. If his book follows the normal way of doing things here, he's not claiming to be absolutely currect, he's advancing a proposition and reviewing the evidence for this proposition. From my academic/Enlightenment propsective, the proper rsponse to this is to answer with the competing held proposition and an analysis of why the facts he talked about really don't support his proposition or are contervened by other facts, not through authoritative condemnation.
As one of the LDS leadership's primary complaints is that this book could "damage other people's faith", I think that it's reasonable to suggest that they are in fact taking steps to try to keep it out of public consumption or at least severly discourage people from reading it, which would be a likely result of their actions of disfellowshipping it's author.
posted
I find this to be a difficult issue for me. I believe in general that the proper response to "bad" speech is more speech. I'm rabidly free-speech when it comes to government interference or censorship, so the acceptance of such things on the religious side is a little strange.
Here's how I look at it from within my Catholic beliefs. The Church is charged with preserving the elements of Christianity here on earth. Part of the harm of sin is that it can lead others to act the same way. This tendency is especially pronounced when an incorrect doctrine is being promulgated. In these cases, inducing others to sin is the desired result, although the person doing the promulgating does not see the desired beliefs as sin.
Public censure of public sin is required when it must be made clear that the promulgated doctrine is not in conformity with Church teachings. This is at least one of the purposes of excommunication or denying Eucharist to someone. I'm glad the days of book and heretic burning are behind us. But the authority to be able to state doctrine must carry with a power to somehow censure false statements about that doctrine.
Note that in these cases, a substantive response to the problematic statements is always issued as well. The Church doesn't ignore it's duty to refute heresy by simply punishing it.
Even less authoritarian denominations take steps to maintain a certain level of consistency within those who teach their doctrines. Witness the recent "trials" within the Methodist faith.
posted
No one is advocating burning the book or shutting him up or forcing him to recant. He can say whatever he wants. He just can't say it as a member in full faith with the church.
I think I understand the Copernican uneasiness, but nothing like what was done to Copernicus has been advocated.
If he doesn't believe it, why would he want to be part of the church anyway? Why would he want to be part of something that he doesn't believe in? The Book of Mormon is not a minor footnote - it's scripture and the keystone of religion. Tearing at that IS tearing at the foundations of the church. The church is under no moral obligation imaginable to support what this man is saying.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article I read stated that the author says he doesn't believe that Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon by divine gift, but that he wrote it.
That is violating one of the basic tenets of our religion.
And no, I'm not going to read it, because I do believe that would give Satan an "in" into my mind.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, great posts. Just out of curiousity, do you have a link to that study about people who stay with their parents' religions after college? I thought that was really interesting.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if anything, the publicity surrounding this case (which LDS Church authorities had to know was going to happen) is going to foment interest in Palmer's book.
If they had really wanted to discourage people from reading it, they would have ignored him.
Which suggests, not that I expect anyone not LDS to buy this argument, that perhaps the action taken was in part for the benefit of clarifying for the church and for Palmer himself his relationship with the church.
----- Olvietta:
Oh, of course we understand that. But at the same time, I think that secular-ists (and I have more secular leanings than most Mormons) tend to be oversensitive to anything that even remotley smacks of 'censorship' -- just as religious orthodox-ites tend to be oversensitive about anything they see as 'critical.'
In short, there's a huge difference between the science practiced by Galileo and Copernicus, and the soft social science arguments that Palmer employs -- and perhaps employs without the full rigor one would expect from a published, peer-reviewed scholar.
For a brief perspective on Palmer's book see this round up of reviews. FULL DISCLOSURE: I post this link only to show that there are multiple sides to the issue. I'm not a huge fan of apologetics and don't endorse the tone and don't necessarily agree with the substance of the site. I haven't read Palmer's book -- mainly because it sounds like he's trotting out many of the same arguments that those who've looked for a naturlistic explanation to the work and life of Joseph Smith have used for decades.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember sitting outside a Gospel of Matthew class, waiting to speak to the professor, who was my New Testament Greek professor.
He had assigned several readings for the class, outside of the scripture itself, mostly the writings of theologians with opposing interpretations of the Greek. He meant to inspire discussion. One fellow was intensely pissed off about it, confronting the professor about forcing them to read 'that trash'.
Dr. Blue, who I will remember to the day I die as a righteous and fiercely intelligent man, calmly replied that if the student's faith was so weak that he could not bear to hear an opposing viewpoint and address it in the light of reason, then perhaps he should not be in a pre-ministry program.
C.S. Lewis said essentially the same thing - that God gave us reason as a tool to discover Him, and that embracing logic would not separate us from Him because he is not irrational.
Sounds like what he suggests in the book is not provable or disprovable, but it could be refuted, point for point if you were willing to do so. Though I have no problem with the church deciding to restrict his fellowship, I wonder if any good will really come of it. Not my business, really, but it seems sad all the way around.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which suggests, not that I expect anyone not LDS to buy this argument, that perhaps the action taken was in part for the benefit of clarifying for the church and for Palmer himself his relationship with the church.
Exactly what I was trying to get at, although I think there's likely an element of clarifying the relationship for non-members as well.
So it's not just LDS that might buy that argument, even though they'd disagree with the specific objections to the book.
posted
If any good will come of it, it will probably be for Palmer. Whether it does or not is largely up to him.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does he say in it that is considered apostasy?
With my limited understanding of LDS, I'd say it would be similar to someone saying the Apostles got together and made up the story of Jesus (or added elements to the story such as the Ressurection) in order to teach some moral lesson.
Essentially equating that which should be taken as fact with fable.
posted
Disfellowshipping and excommunication are among those things that I have always heard are truly for the benefit of the person they most effect, but my secular and cynical side always thought that was way too good to be true.
I suspect it may be, though. The publicity DOES bring more attention to the book than it would otherwise, and the church doesn't usually comment either way on all the anti materials out there. What this guy is advocating is at variance with what the church teaches. Perhaps this will get his attention - he has to pick a side. You can't be a member in full faith and advocate that it's all untrue.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I dated a Mormon guy for awhile, so attended an LDS church for a few months several years ago, and am familiar in that way with a few of their beliefs (and I still have some Mormon friends) but personally, no...we are not LDS.
posted
Miro: I believe that I have enough temptation in my life without deliberately exposing myself to books with false, though "logical" beliefs about doctrine in them, and I don't need to give Satan an opportunity for more temptation. That's all.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Church is acting to do anything to or about the book at all. Instead they're acting exactly as they said they would, and have acted when confronted with someone who is activley trying to tear down the Church (like claim that the Book of Mormon wasn't inspired). It has nothing to do with getting the book to go away, or in my opinion, remove some sort of Church approval from the book that comes by him being a member. The book started this because it should his leaders that he was not only falling away from the faith, but doing so in such a way as to attack the foundations of the Church.
If someone came into Church talking about how one of the cornerstone scriptures that that Church held as holy was in fact false, and not inspired, would you really be critical of the Church refusing to put him into a position, like a speaker or giving prayers, in which he could spread that belief? Does the fact that he published a book instead of ranting and raving about it on Sundays really change what type of doctrine and falsehoods he would spread should he be given the chance to?
No one's telling him he can't question the Church, or disbelieve whatever he wants, the Church is just saying that while he attacks the foundations, he can't praticipate as a full member in what he's attempting to tear down.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. I like your response. I purposely chose not to respond in my own word, but rather to provide information to contrast Xap's characterization of it.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I do want to point out one thing. Katie said:![[Smile]](smile.gif)
