Would it make a difference to the outcome if the evidence you present shows that your non-belief is supported by the truth? What if the evidence were all "church sanctioned" publications?

I'm wondering this because my bishop asked me not to be an "advocate" for my position. This was when I told him I didn't believe in it, hadn't believed in it for years, and wouldn't be attending church. My wife and kids still attend but I have had open, respectful conversations with them about my issues. Now neighbors and friends are cautiously inquiring about what issues I have, and I'm assuming that my "advocacy" could be brought up by leadership. I've always thought that I would just resign if they pressed the issue to the point of bringing me before a HC court, but now I'm not so sure.

What would be the best evidence to present?

I think it would be like the scene from the original Planet of the Apes movie, where Charlton Heston tries to present evidence at his 'trial.' As he's speaking, the presiding officials (the Orangetangs) are squirming in their seats, and eventually cover their eyes, ears, and mouth.... They don't want to see or hear anything that will challenge their preconceived ideas.

Ragnar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it would be like the scene from the
> original Planet of the Apes movie, where Charlton
> Heston tries to present evidence at his 'trial.'
> As he's speaking, the presiding officials (the
> Orangetangs) are squirming in their seats, and
> eventually cover their eyes, ears, and mouth....
> They don't want to see or hear anything that will
> challenge their preconceived ideas.


Very good analogy

Mormonism is a fraud.

Stop talking to the leaders, "your" bishop has no special inspiration.
The bishop represents the Mormon cult and as such will defend their faulty doctrine.

Of course they will try to silence you by threatening to X you.
They will also try to set your wife/family against you.

Your best bet is to resign, after which you can talk to your heart's content.

Most dissatisfied customers talk to at least 100 people when a product fails to deliver, so the morg is up sh*t creek.

The church claims you can bring evidence but from what I've seen and heard they often won't allow anything you have to be used against the church no matter what the source.

The Book of Abraham and the translations from Egyptologists would be my #1 but they will likely shut you down when you bring it out.

Church courts are not fair and they have no interest in displaying the truth if it harms the church.

That being said, you should probably still try as further evidence that the church is not fair in their courts. Would make for another good story like Lyndon Lamborn's or Grant Palmer's courts.

Would it make a difference in the outcome if your boss and human resources called you into a conference room regarding your poor performance ratings and you cited evidence that their business practices were immoral, the staff underpaid, the customers defrauded, and the leadership corrupt?

Yeah, I think it would make a difference. You'd be fired on the spot.

That's how it works in any corporation, even the ones masquerading as churches.

Excellent point. Thank you!

Those sitting in judgment of you are there to protect the church and it's interests, end of story.

Advocacy for your position is the very thing that gets you excommunicated in the LDS church. The problem is hardly one's disbelief. Shoot, probably more than half of all practicing Mormons either don't believe or have serious doubts. The real "sin" is speaking your mind about it, sometimes even in the form of innocent questions.

As far as presenting evidence, that depends. Your "Court of Love" is run completely at the whim of the stake presidency, is totally arbitrary, and often the outcome is known in advance. Moreover, they might dislike one "sin," but excommunicate you for another trumped-up sin in order to make life more miserable for you and embarrass you more. I mean, why excommunicate you for embarrassing questions regarding historicity of the Book of Mormon if they can make it appear to the membership that you were committing adultery? It seems appallingly unlikely, yet they did that very thing to Simon Southerton.

The purpose of the Court of Love is to discipline a person and to put him or her in line. It doesn't matter how they do it and what they base it on, so long as the purpose is met. A church court is often based on the flimsiest of circumstances, and there does not have to be any particular burden of proof. The person whose membership is being tried has the burden of proof, but is often not even allowed to present evidence. And the court is often based on hearsay by a third party who does not have any burden whatever and who may not even be challenged.

LDS church disciplinary councils are a kangaroo court, a cruel joke. If you feel one coming your way, it's best to cut them off at the pass by resigning.

1) Are you endowed? If you are endowed & male you are required to have a stake court for excommunication - although the bishop can hold a bishop's court to dis-fellowship you. Otherwise the bishop can hold a bishop's court to excommunicate you.

2) Assuming you are endowed then 1/2 of the high council is assigned to essentially act as your lawyers. Not lawyers in that they defend you or make a case for you, but in that you get the opportunity to be fairly represented and to stick up for your rights in the court.

Realistically I don't know that they really do anything to watch out for you but according to D&C 6 of them are assigned to watch out for you.

3) It's going to vary completely according to the stake president. One stake president may allow to you make your case and another may just railroad over you.

4) If I were going to a court (which I won't resigned and all) the case I would make is - are you disciplining me for speaking the truth about the church? Then I would quote several quotes of the brethren about how the church will always stand up to truth and how they invite it. Then I would request that they show anything I have said is a lie. At the very least I would except that would get a few of them thinking.

5) There is also a good chance the bishop would go to the stake president about this discipline and tell the bishop to settle down - that is isn't a good enough reason for a court - or he might not - "following the spirit" basically means that their is no consistency and they each do whatever the hell they want.

6) Have you seen this - it is a recording of an excommunication hearing similar to yours - note this is a little different because the person & the stake president had talked before and the guy had said he wanted to no longer be a member - so instead of just telling the guy to the resign the assholy stake president did the mock trial to excommunicate him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc0uzYXb998

Presenting evidence would probably be considered an act of apostasy. You're not supposed to look at evidence, you are only supposed to believe what you are told.

He attempted to speak not really in his defense but to clarify why he did something. They were not at all interested. He was given the option to either disavow what he had done and repent or be excommunicated. To his credit he chose excommunication.

By the way, what he did wasn't bad at all and it was something for which I will always be proud of him. Choosing getting exed just adds to my pride.

Mormonthinker,

On the MT website there is a quote from Encyclopaedia of Mormonism stating:-

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

“Members of the Church vary in their levels of participation or belief. Latter-day Saints who have seriously contravened or ignored cardinal Church teachings (publicly or privately) are considered apostates, whether or not they have officially left the Church or affiliated with another religion” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59).

According to this "a Latter-day Saint who seriously... ignores cardinal Church teachings...is an apostate."

So who are, by that definition, the real apostates?

Correct me if I am wrong but the last LDS prophet to be a stalwart defender and exponent of "cardinal Church teachings" was Joseph Fielding Smith (very literal translation of church doctrine and convinced that scientists were in league with the devil).

Harold B. Lee didn't say much in his short term.

Spencer W. Kimball certainly taught the "cardinal teaching" about the inhabitants of the American Continent and the Pacific Islands being Lamanites, cursed with a dark skin, but becoming lighter as they became more righteous.

Ezra Taft Benson and Howard W. Hunter both proclaimed the truth of the BoM.

I don't think the above were apostates under this definition. Now let's consider Gordon B. Hinckley :-

"I don't know that we teach that" - man can become a god is plainly taught in D&C 132 and is very much a "cardinal teaching"

"Polygamy is in the past, we no longer practise it" - except it is continuing with Elder Oaks and others and it has never been repealed in D&C 132.

The priesthood ban was just a mistaken policy - no, read the Book of Abraham and the Old Testament and the inspired words of past prophets from Brigham Young, John Taylor to Joseph Fielding Smith - it was doctrine and all of us older members (even though considerably younger than GBH) clearly understood the doctrine we were taught.

GBH ignored (or lied about) at least 3 important "cardinal teachings" and was, therefore, an apostate. Why was he not brought to account? His famous "new" revelation - women may only have one earing per ear!!!!!

I can't really comment on Thomas S. Monson because I cannot recall one statement he has made about any core doctrines.

Other apostates would include the following:-

The Mormon Apologists/BYU Professors at the Maxwell Institute who support the Limited Geography Theory, completely contradicting a "cardinal teaching" of the church. Also, their position on 'Lamanites' and the fact that the Book of Abraham is not a translation of the Michael Chandler papyri. Instead the papyri acted as a catalyst for a revelation about the writings of Abraham (what utter nonsense).

Daniel C.Peterson, Lou Midgley, Michael D. Rhodes, Michael Ash, Jeff Lindsay etc. etc. etc. are, by the Encylopaedia's definition apostates.

Contrast this with David Twede's situation. He was threatened with excommunication for posting truthful statements about church doctrine, extracted from official LDS sources and the FAIR website. He repeated "cardinal teachings" - remember it was never anything to do with statements about the one we cannot mention, the fulfilment of the white horse prophesy (believe that if you want).

David was not guilty of apostasy but his stake president may well be if he is,like GBH,denying "cardinal teachings"

I am unaware of anything on the MormonThink website which "contravenes or ignores cardinal Church teachings". Quite the opposite, Church scriptures and prophets have been quoted accurately and pro-Church sites such as FAIR are quoted verbatim. Serious and valid questions raised by critics and objective thinkers are also quoted and commented upon.

My verdict - MT is not guilty of apostasy (according to quoted definition) but FAIR and Mormon Interpreter etc. may well be guilty thereof.

What about the sin of lying publicly to church members and the world at large repeatedly? Would that be considered grounds for a DC? In which case Elder Jeffrey R. Holland should be summoned for his obvious lies in support of the Book of Mormon, delivered in his 2009 conference talk and oft repeated in the Ensign, on youtube and in his writings. But why pick on him, there is probably evidence of lies by other apostles, justified by Elder Oaks as 'Lying for the Lord'.

I think the stake presidents of the FP and Q of 12 should be busy interviewing these brethren to determine whether DCs need to be convened or it can all be handled by informal discipline.

Just my random thoughts,
Tom Phillips

My letter:

http://mormonthinkblog2012.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-letter.html

Stated that I could bring witnesses and other evidence "in your behalf". While I was in the interrogation, I asked about this. I will have to review the transcript I have of it, but memory serves up that the stake president said I would be able to defend against the charges with any records or notes or witnesses. He told me that there would be a determined time for me to do that. But that I wouldn't be given time to just criticize the church. I would have to address the charges directly and appropriately.

I asked him what the charges are, and he said that I was in apostasy. I asked what apostasy particularly, and was told for my writings. I asked what writings, and I never got a specific answer. The only writings they knew about were in my blog and at MT.

The stake leaders who hauled me in are all professionals. They knew that to say that they were disciplining me over politics would be appear improper. (However, I am still confused why they would feel disciplining me over any speech is proper.) They indicated discomfort with my recent writings as a whole, which included three blog entries and one MT article discussing Romney that were posted from Sept 11-15, 2012. While referring to my writings, the stake president did say about himself, "I'm not a political man..." It is unclear to me what he meant by this and why he interjected it. But it gave me a sense that there was something he was feeling regarding the politics involved, without ever saying it was a political move.

Later on, as I was reviewing the press clippings, I read that Scott Gordon, head Mormon apologist, told the NYtimes that he was behind turning me into the church authorities. One of his statements is very revealing about the reasons. Let me start with his particular quote from the NY Times:

“ It has nothing to do with Romney,” Mr. Gordon said. “I know members very high up in the church who are voting for Obama.”

“ It’s about him posting on a blog that he was actively in there trying to subvert people’s beliefs in the L.D.S. church,” Mr. Gordon said... "

If you've read my "The Mysteries of the Gospel" blog, you will know that the only case Gordon had against me was that I wrote about emailing with "Pat" who I indicated was a questioning member. I wrote:

" I decided to send Pat two links: The first link to Mormon Info Graphics on the Book of Abraham, and a second one to FAIR’s explanation of one of the facsimiles. "

Links included in this were:

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/search/label/Facsimile

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_3

The latter is directly from Scott Gordon's own group, FAIR. In other words, I gave someone information that FAIR wrote. I find it extremely unlikely that this is what got the LDS Salt Lake leaders' panties in a bunch. If that were true, Scott Gordon would also be called in for disciplinary court.

If I were to have included evidence in what would have been my excomm court, I would have included the above.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/09/2013 10:50AM by Jesus Smith.

I carefully typed out (before cut and paste were available) references to all the relevant doctrine, which caused them a bundle of pain --15 copies for the Stake High Council and 3 of the Stake Presidency. They said they would read them after the ""Court of Love"" (TM)

As I suspected, after the ""Court of Love"" (TM)-- The Stake Executive Secretary collected them up, and I found them in the chapel's dumpster at about 11pm the same evening.

""We cannot expose the membership to these Prophet's guessing at church doctrine --only the sayings of today's prophet counts.
WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE CHURCH, DON'T WE ??""
***Stake High Councillor to me***

JB

This is the sort of path I thought of - typing up valid references and discussing them. I'm not surprised they were all thrown away. I suppose to the HC you were looked at as somewhat "crazy" anyway who could just be ignored.

I should clarify that I am not facing any sort of impending court but am speculating about a fair path if it were to happen. If I were to face this, rather than resign, I would like to put up a fair fight and try to convice a few others.

It's an insult to evidence to present it in a forum that mocks evidence.
"Casting your pearls before swine" indeed.
Richard Dawkins stopped debating creationists because the very act of debating them implied they had an argument. They don't "debate" at all. Debate/argument has formal rules of premises/logic that they simply don't follow...indeed I've heard logic mocked by mormons as "of man" or "of the devil".
If you WIN an argument they say you had the power of the devil, they say you cheated somehow.
If you DON'T argue or you "LOSE" an argument (ie you can't answer their what-if questions, can't logically respond to an illogical proposition) they say they "confounded" you.
Their forum is utterly idiotic and beneath dignity.
Just resign.

I don't think I understand what you asking. Are you saying that if you were called to a Court of Love (TM), that you would present evidence of the falsehood of the church? In hopes of what? At best you would be providing evidence of your apostasy. Essentially, if it were a murder trial, you would be bringing the murder weapon, and pointing out to the court, how you used it.

Remember, the church would not be on trial, YOU would be and if you were to bring evidence that the church was a fake, you would only be proving their accusations.

Now, if for some reason you wanted to stay in the church and you wanted to provide evidence that you were not an apostate, you MIGHT be able to request some of your friends come to the trial and witness on your behalf stating that you weren't "advocating" your position, but that they requested information themselves, but that might just result in all of them ending up with their own court dates to attend, unless they could somehow argue that they were getting information to "help you".

No, I really don't think that there's anything you could do. If you wanted to attend just to see how it all works, and to say you've done it, that might be a reason, otherwise, just resign and then you don't have to deal with any of it.

No amount of evidence will accomplish anything. Think about what happened to Oliver Cowdery. He presented evidence of a dirty nasty filthy affair that Joseph Smith had with Fanny Alger. Oliver was then charged with falsely accusing Joseph of adultery and was excommunicated.

Why would you want to present evidence? Why would you go in the first place? Let 'em fire you. Then you're free of all that nonsense.

The church court isn't for you. It's for them. They need to feel justified in excommunicating you so they can continue to feel rightous after they do it. Unless you can convince god himself to show up on your behalf, nothing you can say will matter. Even if god did show up and testify on your bahalf, I doubt that many of them would listen to either him or to you. It's their private club and they won't be told what to do.