Recovery Board
: RfM
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:12AM by steve benson.
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Is it just a matter of happenstance that the Mormon Church has possibly moved the hearing date for Twede's beheading until after the presidential election to keep it out of national-election media coverage?
The five top media markets in swing-state Florida are Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa and West Palm Beach. Based on a review of political ad contracts in these markets, both camps are expending significant amounts of money to buy political face time (with Obama significantly out-pacing Romney).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/barack-obama-advertising_n_1913430.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
The Mormon Church understands media-ad buys and the power they wield in focusing attention, having been in the "Mormon Moment" promo business big-time.
Given the national focus on Orlando's pivotal swing-state role in the presidential race, why would the Mormon Church want to have David Twede's excommunication court taking place in the middle of a glaring national media spotlight? Such a mix would only bring further attention to the Romney-Mormon Church political connection--which is one of the reasons why Twede has been threatened with an ecclesiastical execution (since, one recalls, Twede posted about that political connection and quickly thereafter was targeted with a disciplinary court).
No proveable smoking gun at this point, but perhaps something to think about. After all, the Mormon Church is evil, but it ain't stupid.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:01AM by steve benson.
The five top media markets in swing-state Florida are Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa and West Palm Beach. Based on a review of political ad contracts in these markets, both camps are expending significant amounts of money to buy political face time (with Obama significantly out-pacing Romney).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/barack-obama-advertising_n_1913430.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
The Mormon Church understands media-ad buys and the power they wield in focusing attention, having been in the "Mormon Moment" promo business big-time.
Given the national focus on Orlando's pivotal swing-state role in the presidential race, why would the Mormon Church want to have David Twede's excommunication court taking place in the middle of a glaring national media spotlight? Such a mix would only bring further attention to the Romney-Mormon Church political connection--which is one of the reasons why Twede has been threatened with an ecclesiastical execution (since, one recalls, Twede posted about that political connection and quickly thereafter was targeted with a disciplinary court).
No proveable smoking gun at this point, but perhaps something to think about. After all, the Mormon Church is evil, but it ain't stupid.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:01AM by steve benson.
The power of the press compels you!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:12AM by steve benson.
Whether or not it all started for political reason (you know what I think about that) it most surely has been postponed for political reasons. I don't know what involvement HQ had to do with the initiation of the "disclipline" (obviously that putz from FAIR was involved) but I'm fairly certain the order for Pratt to cool his jets came from the COB.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:23AM by SLDrone.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:23AM by SLDrone.
To be sure, the Salt Lake City Mormon Church has a history of intervening in local excommunication hearings. I know, because Dallin H. Oaks privately told me of one notorious incident along those very lines--then lied about it publicly.
Here's what happened:
--The Public Denial, Preceded by the Private Admission
In an on-the-record interview with a newspaper reporter, Dallin H. Oaks blatantly misrepresented the truth about Boyd K. Packer's involvement in the excommunication of Salt Lake author, Paul Toscano--who had attracted scowling Church attention for, among other things, suggesting that members need not perpetuate a Cult of Personality by standing up when when General Authorities walked into the room.
Oaks had shared the details of Packer's involvement with me in a "confidential" meeting on 24 September 1993 (also attended by fellow apostle Neal] Maxwell. There, Oaks confessed that Packer had inappropriately injected himself into local Church action against Toscano, in the process violating Church disciplinary procedures and opening the Church up to a possible lawsuit from Toscano.
Referring to Packer as the source of these headaches, a frustrated Oaks told me, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear." When subsequently asked by the media about rumors that Packer had worked behind the scenes to get Toscano excommunicated, Oaks claimed ignorance and denied that Packer could ever do such a thing.
A question I had posed to Oaks and Maxwell in the 24 September 1993, meeting concerned reports that Apostle Boyd K. Packer had been behind the excommunication of Paul James Toscano, a local Salt Lake City attorney, author and outspoken advocate for women's rights.
To understand the context of the question, it is necessary to review events at the time, as reported in the press.
_____
--Additional Lies from Mormonism's Quorum of the Twelve (Meaning Packer) About Their Intervention in Local Ecclesiastical Punishment
Packer's suspected entanglement in the excommunication of Toscano became a subject of extensive media coverage in the fall of 1993. Toscano was excommunicated from the Mormon Church on 19 September 1993, "for writing and speaking publicly about church doctrine, feminism, the state of the faith's leadership and other issues."
At the stake high council disciplinary hearing that ultimately sealed his fate, attention was focused on a "Sunstone" symposium speech Toscano had recently delivered, entitled, "All Is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church," in which Toscano was alleged to have made derogatory comments . . . about General Authorities."
("LDS Apostle Denies Ordering Dissident's Excommunication," Associated Press, 11 October 1993, sec, D, p. 1ff; and "Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy," in "Sunstone," November 1993, p. 66).
With the Mormon Church having recently disciplined the infamous "September Six" for activities relating to scholarship and feminism, speculation was rampant that Packer had been "behind the Church's recent crackdown on dissidents."
That assessment proved to be well-founded. Five months earlier, Packer had warned a gathering of LDS bureaucrats that some Mormons "influenced by social and political unrest are being caught up and led away" by "the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement, as well as the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."
("Cartoonist Says Oaks Lied To Protect Fellow Apostle," by Vern Anderson, "Associated Press," in "Salt Lake Tribune," 12 October 1993, sec. B, p. 1ff; and Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," transcript, 18 May 1993, pp. 3, 4)
Packer, however, vehemently denied that he had been behind the banishment of Toscano. Specifically, he insisted he had not directed Toscano's stake president, Kerry Heinz, to convene a disciplinary council against him. While admitting to having met with Heinz to discuss Toscano, Packer assured the press, "We talked doctrine and philosophy. I absolutely did not instruct him to hold a disciplinary counsel and did not then, nor have I ever, directed any verdict. By Church policy, that is left entirely to local leaders. When he [Heinz] left, I did not know what he would do."
("Cracks in the temple: Mormon unity in peril," Paul Brinkley-Rogers, The Arizona Republic, 10 October 1993, sec. A, p 1ff)
Packer further revealed to the Church-owned "Deseret News" that his decision to meet with Heinz had been made through a lower-ranking Church middleman. Contrary to Oaks' claim to me in our September 24th meeting that Packer had independently strayed outside approved channels of authority, Packer insisted that, in fact, he had been advised by "the brethren" to meet with Toscano's stake president.
Said Packer, "Even though general authorities of the church are free to contact or respond to local leaders on any subject, I felt there may be some sensitivity about his request. The brethren felt I could not very well decline to see a stake president. I therefore consented."
("Packer Says He Was Concerned by Request for Meeting, But
Apostles Endorsed It," by "Associated Press," in "Salt Lake Tribune," 17 October 1993, sec. B, p. 1ff)
Toscano was not persuaded by Packer's explanations. Reacting to Packer's admission of meeting with Heinz, Toscano said, "I knew all along that Boyd Packer was behind it. He's behind all this."
("Grandson of President Asks To Be Removed From LDS Church Rolls," by Jennifer Skordas, "Salt Lake Tribune," 11 October 1993, sec. D, p. 1ff)
_____
--What Oaks Told Me in Person About Packer's Personal Involvement in Local Church Discipline Proceedings
In my meeting with Oaks and Maxwell, I specifically asked if Packer had, in fact, been involved behind the scenes in the excommunication process against Toscano.
Oaks confirmed that Packer had.
Oaks told me he was "distressed and astonished" over Packer's decision to meet with Heinz, even though he said Heinz was the one who had called Packer and asked "for the meeting." Oaks said it was "a mistake" on Packer's part to have agreed to meet with Heinz, the latter whom Oaks described as "an old seminary man." (Packer had come up with Heinz through the ranks of the Church education system).
Oaks told me that by meeting with Heinz, Packer had gone outside the bounds of his assigned responsibility. Oaks said one of his own areas of expertise was in legal affairs. Maxwell noted that one reason Oaks had been brought into the Quorum of the Twelve was to help rewrite the manual on Church disciplinary procedure. Oaks expressed concern that Packer's involvement with Heinz might lead Toscano "to sue the Church" over violation of his ecclesiastical procedural rights.
In the end, Oaks, with a note of resignation in his voice, said of Packer, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear."
_____
--Oaks Lies to a Reporter About What He Had Told Me in Private about Packer's Involvement in Local Church Discipline Matters
In early October, 1993, I accompanied "Arizona Republic" reporter Paul Brinkley-Rogers to Salt Lake City to assist him in making contacts with LDS leaders, spokesmen, educators and critics for a story on the recent purge of Church dissidents, notably, the "September Six."
On October 1, Brinkley-Rogers met for a pre-arranged, on-the-record, taped Q&A session with Oaks in his Salt Lake City Church office to discuss, among other things, recent Church action against the dissenters. I had not arranged the interview and did not join the reporter in it, as I did not think it would be appropriate for me to do so. Moreover, prior to the interview, IBenson] did not speak to Brinkley-Rogers about what Oaks and Maxwell had told me concerning the Packer/ Toscano matter in my meeting with them on September 24th.
At the conclusion of the interview, I picked Brinkley-Rogers up outside the Church Administration Building and asked how it went. He put the tape into the rental car cassette deck and pushed the "play" button. What I heard astounded--and angered--me.
Much of what Oaks had dished up for public consumption directly contradicted what he had told me in private. I was immediately aware of the bind that Oaks had put me in. He had lied to a reporter about events which he had described to [Benson] in much different terms. I had no choice but to tell the reporter at that point that Oaks was attempting to pull a fast one on him.
So, there in a rental car in Salt Lake City, for the first time, I revealed what Oaks had shared with me in our September 24th meeting, pointing out the contradictions to what I had just heard on the tape.
(see "Cracks in the temple: Mormon unity in peril," by Paul Brinkley-Rogers, "Arizona Republic," 11 October 1993, sec. A, p. 1ff)
During the next five days, I privately struggled with how to publicly deal with Oaks' blatant dishonesties. I was torn between remaining quiet (thereby preserving a confidentiality agreement) or setting the record straight (thereby exposing Oaks' act of calculated deception). I spoke at length with my then-wife, friends and colleagues--seeking advice and weighing [his] options.
I finally decided to follow my gut--and my conscience. Oaks' misrepresentations--indeed, his out-and-out lies--prompted me to fax him a letter a few days after the interview.
It read as follows:
"6 October 1993
Elder Dallin Oaks
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
"PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL"
"Dear Elder Oaks:
"I wish to share with you my concerns relative to our private conversation in the office of Elder Maxwell on September 24th, in relation to your subsequent comments to Arizona Republic reporter Paul Brinkley-Rogers on October 1st."
"In our September 24th meeting, I asked you if Kerry Heinz, Paul Toscano's stake president, had had any contact with, or received any instruction from, Elder Boyd K. Packer during the time leading up to Paul Toscano's excommunication. According to my notes taken during our discussion, you acknowledged that Elder Packer met with President Heinz prior to the rendering of judgment by the stake disciplinary council. You said that President Heinz was 'an old seminary man' and friend of Elder Packer during their days together in the church seminary system and that President Heinz 'called and asked for a meeting' with Elder Packer."
"You told me that you were 'distressed and astonished' that Elder Packer met with President Heinz. Referring to Elder Packer, you observed that 'you can't stage manage a grizzly bear.' You opined that 'it was a mistake for Packer to meet with Heinz and a mistake for Heinz to ask for the meeting."
"You further acknowledged that you later talked directly to Elder Packer and told him that you felt it was wrong and violated church disciplinary procedure for Elder Packer to have been in contact with President Heinz. You said that Elder Packer had no authority or responsibility to participate in such contact and you told me that you strongly urged Elder Packer not to engage in such contact in the future. You added that you fully expected Paul Toscano 'to sue' the church over this breach of procedural authority. "
"In contrast to what you told me in private, your public statements concerning the Toscano excommunication process and any participation of Elder Packer in it presented a far different picture. Mr. Brinkley-Rogers asked you: 'In the case of Toscano . . . do you have any evidence that Elder Packer [was] involved in any way in the decision-making process in the disciplining of [him]?"
"You responded: 'As for Elder Packer, Elder Packer does not have a specific responsibility for any area in the church . . . So, if Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz, it is outside the normal channel. That's all I can say. I have no knowledge of whether he did. But if he, and if he gave a directed verdict or anything like that, that is contrary to policy, it is irregular and it's contrary to what I know of Elder Packer and the way he operates. Elder Packer is not the least bit inclined to shrink from saying things like in the talk you saw [to the All-Church Coordinating Council, 18 May 1993]. He is a forthright, plain-spoken man, but Elder Packer is far too sophisticated and sensitive a man to call a stake president and tell him what he has to do in a Church discipline case. I just don't believe that. What's possible is that a stake president might think he had heard such a thing; nobody can dismiss that possibility . . . that kind of slippage happens in communication. But Elder Packer has no, Elder [Loren C.] Dunn has a natural communications link, though an outdated one; Elder Packer does not. So, that's all I know about that at this point."
"Frankly, I find the differences between what you told me and what you told the press to be irreconcilable and ethically troubling. First, by couching your answer to the question of Elder Packer's conversation with President Heinz in the hypothetical, you falsely imply, it seems to me, that you do not know whether he did talk with President Heinz. Second, contrary to what you told me, you explicitly said to the reporter that, in fact, you were not aware if any conversations took place between Elder Packer and President Heinz. Third, your assertion that for Elder Packer to have talked with President Heinz goes against your knowledge of Elder Packer's modus operandi is contradicted by your admission to me that you knew that Elder Packer had talked to him and that you later talked with Elder Packer about it. Fourth, your blanket denial of knowing anything beyond what you told the reporter is completely undermined, I feel, by what you told me."
"In other words, you have told the truth in private about the Packer-Heinz meeting, while denying the truth in public."
"When you asked that I keep our conversation confidential, I assumed that anything you might subsequently say for the record on the matter would be at least honest, if not complete. However, what you said in public varies significantly from the facts as you laid them out to me. It appears that you have asked me not to publicly divulge our conversation in your hope that my initial agreement to remain silent would keep the accuracy of your public utterances from being challenged."
"I have concluded that to remain silent is unacceptable. It would be a cowardly and dishonest act. It would be analogous to having an individual come to me and say, 'Just between us, I killed my wife,' then turn around and tell the press that the next-door neighbor did it. I would have the clear moral obligation to set the record straight, since refusal to act would do violence to the truth and make me an accessory to the crime."
"I will not be a party to a cover-up. Your request for confidentiality, I believe, has been superceded by the fact that you have lied in public, contrary to the facts as you know them, and that your hope of confidentiality rests on maintaining the deception. It has been observed that 'a lie is like a blanket of snow. It may cover unpleasantness for a time but, sooner or later, must melt, exposing that which was hidden."
"To participate in this fraud would only serve to erode trust and destroy relationships."
"I would hope that you would feel it right to publicly set the record straight. Mr. Brinkley-Rogers' phone number is 602-271-8137. If you choose not to do so within the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to undertake that obligation myself."
"Sincerely,
"Steve Benson"
_____
--Oaks' Response to Being Outed as a Liar in His Denials of High Church Involvement in Local Disciplinary Matters
Hell hath no fury like a cover blown.
Oaks responded quickly, calling my home the same afternoon he received the fax, in an attempt to reach me. My daughter, Audrey--six years old at the time--answered the phone, as my then-spouse simultaneously picked up the line on the other end and listened.
"Is your father there?" asked Oaks, in a stern, angry voice.
"No," Audrey replied meekly, "He's at work."
Oaks did not have my office phone number but he had the reporter's, since I had given it to him. (Oaks needed to do his explaining to the person he had lied to in the interview, not to me).
Oaks left a message with Brinkley-Rogers, who returned the call that evening, reaching Oaks at home through the Church switchboard operator (CSO).
Below is the full transcript of the ensuing conversation between Oaks (O) and Brinkley-Rogers (BR), taped by Brinkley-Rogers (which he later allowed me to audio-copy and which copy is in my possession. It is reported here with permission of Brinkley-Rogers.
CSO (choir music in the background): "LDS Church Offices."
BR: "Yes, good evening. Uh, this is Paul Brinkley-Rogers calling from Phoenix."
CSO: "Yes."
BR: "Concerning Dallin Oaks' call. He asked me to call the switchboard."
CSO: "Yes. Just a moment, please, while I"--
BR: "Thank you. Thanks a lot."
CSO: "Go ahead, please."
BR: "Thank you."
O: "Hello, Mr. Brinkley-Rogers."
BR: "Good evening, Mr. Oaks. How are you?"
O: "Thanks for calling back."
BR: "Well, thanks for calling me."
O: "Let me put the robe on and go in another room, where I can be comfortable."
BR: "OK, sure."
O: "Thank you for calling back."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "Somebody has called me a liar and I don't like to (inaudible) to that on a charge like that."
BR: "Oh, all right. How did that happen?"
O: "Uh, well, let me explain. I received a very disturbing letter from Steve Benson."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "He compares what I said to him in a confidential setting, relating to Church issues, with a transcript of the interview that I had with you"--
BR: "Yes."
O: --"and accused me of lying."
BR: "Hmm."
O: "And I'm a truthful man and I care for my integrity and, uh, and I, I take no, uh, no little, uh, concern for something like this."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "Before I talk with you about it, let me ask you a question"--
BR: "Sure."
O: --"so you'll understand why I need to ask that before I speak about this."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "What I would like to know is the relationship between you and Steve Benson in this matter. Specifically, was Steve on a reconnaissance for you when he asked about two weeks ago for a Church interview and came into an interview, in an ecclesiastical setting, which is the occasion of this comparison?"
BR: "No, I, I had no idea that he even did that."
O: "I didn't think so."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "Uh, let me ask a follow-up question."
BR: "Sure."
O: "Uh, is, are you involved in any kind of an effort that Steve is now making to extort information from me--and I use the word 'extort,' uh"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"advisedly."
BR: "Yeah."
O: --"to extort information from me in behalf of you?"
BR: "No. I'm not aware of any such thing."
O: "Now, he had, the reason I had to ask that is that he had the manuscript that was our interview."
BR: "Yeah."
O: "And he was comparing that with notes he'd made earlier when he had a conversation"--
BR: "Oh, I see. No, I played the tape for Steve of, uh, our interview, you know, after the interview and I noticed that he looked sort of surprised by it."
O: "OK, well, then, I, I take that at face value."
BR: "All right."
O: "And, and you, what I'm going to tell you why, I, uh, oh, why I was aroused by this."
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: "Now, I assume, as I told you at the time, that you're a professional journalist"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "I assume, I take The Arizona Republic at, at face value. Uh, uh, it seems to me like it's been very professional and, and I deal with you in that light."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "And I assume that neither you nor The Republic want to be used in Steve's grievances against, and controversies with, his Church"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"that are rather considerable, uh, uh, controversy with his Church."
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: "I was trying to do, to deal with that in having a confidential interview with him."
BR: "OK."
O: "And now he, he has drawn in this letter to me, he's drawn these two things together"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "And I'd rather deal with you separately"--
BR: "You mean this conversation with you, uh, compared"--
O: "His conversation with me"--
BR: --"compared with the tape?"
O: "Compared with the tape, and that's, uh, what I'd like to do, is deal separately with you."
BR: "OK."
O: "And I assume that you don't want to get involved with Steve's controversies with his Church."
BR: "No."
O: "I assume that that's part of your professional approach to this and if I, if I can deal separately with you, independent of Steve Benson"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"then it's, then it's much easier for me to (inaudible) my problems."
BR: "All right, so let's go ahead on that basis."
O: "OK, good. Now, when (cough) I received this letter from Steve, which was, uh, a very accusatory letter"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and, uh, I presume that you don't know about its contents"--
BR: "Right."
O: "But when I received this letter, which I did this afternoon about 5 o'clock"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"I got the transcript out and reviewed it very carefully, the transcript of my interview with you."
BR: "Yeah."
O: "When I did that, I saw one sentence in my interview with you--and only one sentence--that I would say overstated the truth."
BR: "OK."
O: "And that sentence I want to correct."
BR: "All right, sir. Fine."
O: "And I am sorry for it, but in a, in a, our, our interview was 60 minutes long and, you know, I was shooting from the hip (inaudible) along"--
BR: "Yeah."
O: --"and it was one of those things, which called to my attention, is inaccurate and I want to correct it."
BR: "All right."
O: "The, the, the only thing I can see that I want to correct."
BR: "OK, sir."
O: "And this is a, is a, uh, oh, about one-fourth of the circumstances that, uh, that, uh, Steve cites in his letter, because I looked, uh, I looked at the others and, and, uh, I think that, uh, I, I don't, uh, feel any necessity under my commitment to integrity to make any change in what I said."
BR: "OK."
O: "But in this one instance, I do."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "The sentence is, is toward the end of the interview."
BR: "Yeah."
O: "It is the, the last paragraph of the interview."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "I'm looking at the transcript that was made from the recording when made here."
BR: "Yup."
O: "It's, uh, it's in this talk about the Kerry Heinz matter"--
BR: "All right."
O: "And the sentence is this, about having a conversation: 'So, if Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz'"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"'it is outside the normal channel'"--
BR: "Yeah."
O: --"'that's all I can say. I have not'—"my transcript says that. It must be 'no'"—'I have no knowledge of whether he did.'"
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "That's the sentence that should be stricken."
BR: "OK."
O: "If you'd just strike out, 'I have no knowledge of whether he did'"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"then I'll stand by the transcript of things that I said to you, but that statement, 'I have no knowledge of whether he did'"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"was, uh, as I looked back on the transcript, I think that's inaccurate and I want to withdraw that."
BR: "All right. Now, um, I guess my question is, do, do you have knowledge that he did that, in that case?"
O: "Now"--
BR: "Is that what we're getting to here?"
O: "Let me just, uh, let me just say this"--
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "Uh (clears throat), when I met with Steve Benson"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"Uh, I was trying to help Steve Benson in a matter, a Church matter, that does not concern the subject of our interview."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "In the course of doing that, I spoke to him confidentially and in a privileged relationship"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and, uh, I think his letter and the things he says in his letter, abuse that privileged relationship, uh, in a really, uh, well, I'll stop there."
BR: "OK."
O: "And, and I, uh, [Steve] also says some things in his letter which he may share with you, I don't know"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "But he, he claims to have notes of things that I've said in the, in the conversation with him"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "I don't affirm his notes."
BR: "OK."
O: "If he shows you a copy of his letter"--
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: --"I certainly don't affirm his notes"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and I'm not either admitting or denying things that I, I was speaking there in a privileged relationship and I don't think that it's fair for Steve, uh, nor is it fair for me"--
BR: "Yup."
O: --"to go into a privileged relationship"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and for me to affirm or deny his notes, so I, I simply stand silent on what he claims took place"--
BR: "Right."
O: --"in a privileged conversation and, as a journalist, you'd understand the privilege."
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: "I think his notes are quite self-serving, but that's, that's simply my, my perspective."
BR: "OK."
O: "But what I am saying is that I just don't choose to go, uh, I don't choose to be—what's the word I'm looking for?—leveraged"--
BR: "Hmm."
O: --"into saying anything more than I said to you in the interview by Steve Benson's use of privileged information."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "So, to answer your question, I'd say that I just don't choose to affirm or deny."
BR: "OK."
O: "But I do wish to withdraw a sentence which, as I read it on the transcript, is inaccurate."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "So, I, if you will do me the favor of striking out that, you do whatever you want with what remains."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "And I'm glad to defend whatever remains, but I cannot defend that sentence."
BR: "All right. Well, it's clear to me."
O: "All right. And I appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak to you as a, on a professional basis and I, I must tell you that I make this phone call because it distresses me when somebody claims that I lie."
BR: "All right. Well, all right."
O: "Because I don't do that."
BR: "OK, sir."
O: "Well, I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and thank you for calling."
BR: "Thanks for calling me."
O: "OK."
BR: "Bye-bye."
O: "Bye-bye."
**********
If one insists that it is outside the realm of reasonable possibility that Salt Lake Mormon Church authorities were involved, through some kind of interventionist manner, in the not-so-unpredictable decision of David Twede's Orlando stake president to postpone/cancel Twede's excommunication hearing, then they're whistling, "Praise to the Man Who Doesn't Commune with the Locals."
There is historical precedent for this kind of back-channel modus operandi on the part of the Mormon Church's Salt Lake City High Command when it comes to inserting itself into local disciplinary matters--and then lying about it.
That has been indisputably proven, whether some want to believe it or not.
By the way, I have it on good authority that this episode was such an umitigated debacle for Oaks and the Mormon Church (given that the story got wide play in major media at the time) that Oaks offered to resign from the Quorum of the Twelve, but that Hinckley persuaded him not to.
Oh well, I tried. :)
Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 10:49AM by steve benson.
Here's what happened:
--The Public Denial, Preceded by the Private Admission
In an on-the-record interview with a newspaper reporter, Dallin H. Oaks blatantly misrepresented the truth about Boyd K. Packer's involvement in the excommunication of Salt Lake author, Paul Toscano--who had attracted scowling Church attention for, among other things, suggesting that members need not perpetuate a Cult of Personality by standing up when when General Authorities walked into the room.
Oaks had shared the details of Packer's involvement with me in a "confidential" meeting on 24 September 1993 (also attended by fellow apostle Neal] Maxwell. There, Oaks confessed that Packer had inappropriately injected himself into local Church action against Toscano, in the process violating Church disciplinary procedures and opening the Church up to a possible lawsuit from Toscano.
Referring to Packer as the source of these headaches, a frustrated Oaks told me, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear." When subsequently asked by the media about rumors that Packer had worked behind the scenes to get Toscano excommunicated, Oaks claimed ignorance and denied that Packer could ever do such a thing.
A question I had posed to Oaks and Maxwell in the 24 September 1993, meeting concerned reports that Apostle Boyd K. Packer had been behind the excommunication of Paul James Toscano, a local Salt Lake City attorney, author and outspoken advocate for women's rights.
To understand the context of the question, it is necessary to review events at the time, as reported in the press.
_____
--Additional Lies from Mormonism's Quorum of the Twelve (Meaning Packer) About Their Intervention in Local Ecclesiastical Punishment
Packer's suspected entanglement in the excommunication of Toscano became a subject of extensive media coverage in the fall of 1993. Toscano was excommunicated from the Mormon Church on 19 September 1993, "for writing and speaking publicly about church doctrine, feminism, the state of the faith's leadership and other issues."
At the stake high council disciplinary hearing that ultimately sealed his fate, attention was focused on a "Sunstone" symposium speech Toscano had recently delivered, entitled, "All Is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church," in which Toscano was alleged to have made derogatory comments . . . about General Authorities."
("LDS Apostle Denies Ordering Dissident's Excommunication," Associated Press, 11 October 1993, sec, D, p. 1ff; and "Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy," in "Sunstone," November 1993, p. 66).
With the Mormon Church having recently disciplined the infamous "September Six" for activities relating to scholarship and feminism, speculation was rampant that Packer had been "behind the Church's recent crackdown on dissidents."
That assessment proved to be well-founded. Five months earlier, Packer had warned a gathering of LDS bureaucrats that some Mormons "influenced by social and political unrest are being caught up and led away" by "the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement, as well as the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."
("Cartoonist Says Oaks Lied To Protect Fellow Apostle," by Vern Anderson, "Associated Press," in "Salt Lake Tribune," 12 October 1993, sec. B, p. 1ff; and Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," transcript, 18 May 1993, pp. 3, 4)
Packer, however, vehemently denied that he had been behind the banishment of Toscano. Specifically, he insisted he had not directed Toscano's stake president, Kerry Heinz, to convene a disciplinary council against him. While admitting to having met with Heinz to discuss Toscano, Packer assured the press, "We talked doctrine and philosophy. I absolutely did not instruct him to hold a disciplinary counsel and did not then, nor have I ever, directed any verdict. By Church policy, that is left entirely to local leaders. When he [Heinz] left, I did not know what he would do."
("Cracks in the temple: Mormon unity in peril," Paul Brinkley-Rogers, The Arizona Republic, 10 October 1993, sec. A, p 1ff)
Packer further revealed to the Church-owned "Deseret News" that his decision to meet with Heinz had been made through a lower-ranking Church middleman. Contrary to Oaks' claim to me in our September 24th meeting that Packer had independently strayed outside approved channels of authority, Packer insisted that, in fact, he had been advised by "the brethren" to meet with Toscano's stake president.
Said Packer, "Even though general authorities of the church are free to contact or respond to local leaders on any subject, I felt there may be some sensitivity about his request. The brethren felt I could not very well decline to see a stake president. I therefore consented."
("Packer Says He Was Concerned by Request for Meeting, But
Apostles Endorsed It," by "Associated Press," in "Salt Lake Tribune," 17 October 1993, sec. B, p. 1ff)
Toscano was not persuaded by Packer's explanations. Reacting to Packer's admission of meeting with Heinz, Toscano said, "I knew all along that Boyd Packer was behind it. He's behind all this."
("Grandson of President Asks To Be Removed From LDS Church Rolls," by Jennifer Skordas, "Salt Lake Tribune," 11 October 1993, sec. D, p. 1ff)
_____
--What Oaks Told Me in Person About Packer's Personal Involvement in Local Church Discipline Proceedings
In my meeting with Oaks and Maxwell, I specifically asked if Packer had, in fact, been involved behind the scenes in the excommunication process against Toscano.
Oaks confirmed that Packer had.
Oaks told me he was "distressed and astonished" over Packer's decision to meet with Heinz, even though he said Heinz was the one who had called Packer and asked "for the meeting." Oaks said it was "a mistake" on Packer's part to have agreed to meet with Heinz, the latter whom Oaks described as "an old seminary man." (Packer had come up with Heinz through the ranks of the Church education system).
Oaks told me that by meeting with Heinz, Packer had gone outside the bounds of his assigned responsibility. Oaks said one of his own areas of expertise was in legal affairs. Maxwell noted that one reason Oaks had been brought into the Quorum of the Twelve was to help rewrite the manual on Church disciplinary procedure. Oaks expressed concern that Packer's involvement with Heinz might lead Toscano "to sue the Church" over violation of his ecclesiastical procedural rights.
In the end, Oaks, with a note of resignation in his voice, said of Packer, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear."
_____
--Oaks Lies to a Reporter About What He Had Told Me in Private about Packer's Involvement in Local Church Discipline Matters
In early October, 1993, I accompanied "Arizona Republic" reporter Paul Brinkley-Rogers to Salt Lake City to assist him in making contacts with LDS leaders, spokesmen, educators and critics for a story on the recent purge of Church dissidents, notably, the "September Six."
On October 1, Brinkley-Rogers met for a pre-arranged, on-the-record, taped Q&A session with Oaks in his Salt Lake City Church office to discuss, among other things, recent Church action against the dissenters. I had not arranged the interview and did not join the reporter in it, as I did not think it would be appropriate for me to do so. Moreover, prior to the interview, IBenson] did not speak to Brinkley-Rogers about what Oaks and Maxwell had told me concerning the Packer/ Toscano matter in my meeting with them on September 24th.
At the conclusion of the interview, I picked Brinkley-Rogers up outside the Church Administration Building and asked how it went. He put the tape into the rental car cassette deck and pushed the "play" button. What I heard astounded--and angered--me.
Much of what Oaks had dished up for public consumption directly contradicted what he had told me in private. I was immediately aware of the bind that Oaks had put me in. He had lied to a reporter about events which he had described to [Benson] in much different terms. I had no choice but to tell the reporter at that point that Oaks was attempting to pull a fast one on him.
So, there in a rental car in Salt Lake City, for the first time, I revealed what Oaks had shared with me in our September 24th meeting, pointing out the contradictions to what I had just heard on the tape.
(see "Cracks in the temple: Mormon unity in peril," by Paul Brinkley-Rogers, "Arizona Republic," 11 October 1993, sec. A, p. 1ff)
During the next five days, I privately struggled with how to publicly deal with Oaks' blatant dishonesties. I was torn between remaining quiet (thereby preserving a confidentiality agreement) or setting the record straight (thereby exposing Oaks' act of calculated deception). I spoke at length with my then-wife, friends and colleagues--seeking advice and weighing [his] options.
I finally decided to follow my gut--and my conscience. Oaks' misrepresentations--indeed, his out-and-out lies--prompted me to fax him a letter a few days after the interview.
It read as follows:
"6 October 1993
Elder Dallin Oaks
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150
"PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL"
"Dear Elder Oaks:
"I wish to share with you my concerns relative to our private conversation in the office of Elder Maxwell on September 24th, in relation to your subsequent comments to Arizona Republic reporter Paul Brinkley-Rogers on October 1st."
"In our September 24th meeting, I asked you if Kerry Heinz, Paul Toscano's stake president, had had any contact with, or received any instruction from, Elder Boyd K. Packer during the time leading up to Paul Toscano's excommunication. According to my notes taken during our discussion, you acknowledged that Elder Packer met with President Heinz prior to the rendering of judgment by the stake disciplinary council. You said that President Heinz was 'an old seminary man' and friend of Elder Packer during their days together in the church seminary system and that President Heinz 'called and asked for a meeting' with Elder Packer."
"You told me that you were 'distressed and astonished' that Elder Packer met with President Heinz. Referring to Elder Packer, you observed that 'you can't stage manage a grizzly bear.' You opined that 'it was a mistake for Packer to meet with Heinz and a mistake for Heinz to ask for the meeting."
"You further acknowledged that you later talked directly to Elder Packer and told him that you felt it was wrong and violated church disciplinary procedure for Elder Packer to have been in contact with President Heinz. You said that Elder Packer had no authority or responsibility to participate in such contact and you told me that you strongly urged Elder Packer not to engage in such contact in the future. You added that you fully expected Paul Toscano 'to sue' the church over this breach of procedural authority. "
"In contrast to what you told me in private, your public statements concerning the Toscano excommunication process and any participation of Elder Packer in it presented a far different picture. Mr. Brinkley-Rogers asked you: 'In the case of Toscano . . . do you have any evidence that Elder Packer [was] involved in any way in the decision-making process in the disciplining of [him]?"
"You responded: 'As for Elder Packer, Elder Packer does not have a specific responsibility for any area in the church . . . So, if Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz, it is outside the normal channel. That's all I can say. I have no knowledge of whether he did. But if he, and if he gave a directed verdict or anything like that, that is contrary to policy, it is irregular and it's contrary to what I know of Elder Packer and the way he operates. Elder Packer is not the least bit inclined to shrink from saying things like in the talk you saw [to the All-Church Coordinating Council, 18 May 1993]. He is a forthright, plain-spoken man, but Elder Packer is far too sophisticated and sensitive a man to call a stake president and tell him what he has to do in a Church discipline case. I just don't believe that. What's possible is that a stake president might think he had heard such a thing; nobody can dismiss that possibility . . . that kind of slippage happens in communication. But Elder Packer has no, Elder [Loren C.] Dunn has a natural communications link, though an outdated one; Elder Packer does not. So, that's all I know about that at this point."
"Frankly, I find the differences between what you told me and what you told the press to be irreconcilable and ethically troubling. First, by couching your answer to the question of Elder Packer's conversation with President Heinz in the hypothetical, you falsely imply, it seems to me, that you do not know whether he did talk with President Heinz. Second, contrary to what you told me, you explicitly said to the reporter that, in fact, you were not aware if any conversations took place between Elder Packer and President Heinz. Third, your assertion that for Elder Packer to have talked with President Heinz goes against your knowledge of Elder Packer's modus operandi is contradicted by your admission to me that you knew that Elder Packer had talked to him and that you later talked with Elder Packer about it. Fourth, your blanket denial of knowing anything beyond what you told the reporter is completely undermined, I feel, by what you told me."
"In other words, you have told the truth in private about the Packer-Heinz meeting, while denying the truth in public."
"When you asked that I keep our conversation confidential, I assumed that anything you might subsequently say for the record on the matter would be at least honest, if not complete. However, what you said in public varies significantly from the facts as you laid them out to me. It appears that you have asked me not to publicly divulge our conversation in your hope that my initial agreement to remain silent would keep the accuracy of your public utterances from being challenged."
"I have concluded that to remain silent is unacceptable. It would be a cowardly and dishonest act. It would be analogous to having an individual come to me and say, 'Just between us, I killed my wife,' then turn around and tell the press that the next-door neighbor did it. I would have the clear moral obligation to set the record straight, since refusal to act would do violence to the truth and make me an accessory to the crime."
"I will not be a party to a cover-up. Your request for confidentiality, I believe, has been superceded by the fact that you have lied in public, contrary to the facts as you know them, and that your hope of confidentiality rests on maintaining the deception. It has been observed that 'a lie is like a blanket of snow. It may cover unpleasantness for a time but, sooner or later, must melt, exposing that which was hidden."
"To participate in this fraud would only serve to erode trust and destroy relationships."
"I would hope that you would feel it right to publicly set the record straight. Mr. Brinkley-Rogers' phone number is 602-271-8137. If you choose not to do so within the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to undertake that obligation myself."
"Sincerely,
"Steve Benson"
_____
--Oaks' Response to Being Outed as a Liar in His Denials of High Church Involvement in Local Disciplinary Matters
Hell hath no fury like a cover blown.
Oaks responded quickly, calling my home the same afternoon he received the fax, in an attempt to reach me. My daughter, Audrey--six years old at the time--answered the phone, as my then-spouse simultaneously picked up the line on the other end and listened.
"Is your father there?" asked Oaks, in a stern, angry voice.
"No," Audrey replied meekly, "He's at work."
Oaks did not have my office phone number but he had the reporter's, since I had given it to him. (Oaks needed to do his explaining to the person he had lied to in the interview, not to me).
Oaks left a message with Brinkley-Rogers, who returned the call that evening, reaching Oaks at home through the Church switchboard operator (CSO).
Below is the full transcript of the ensuing conversation between Oaks (O) and Brinkley-Rogers (BR), taped by Brinkley-Rogers (which he later allowed me to audio-copy and which copy is in my possession. It is reported here with permission of Brinkley-Rogers.
CSO (choir music in the background): "LDS Church Offices."
BR: "Yes, good evening. Uh, this is Paul Brinkley-Rogers calling from Phoenix."
CSO: "Yes."
BR: "Concerning Dallin Oaks' call. He asked me to call the switchboard."
CSO: "Yes. Just a moment, please, while I"--
BR: "Thank you. Thanks a lot."
CSO: "Go ahead, please."
BR: "Thank you."
O: "Hello, Mr. Brinkley-Rogers."
BR: "Good evening, Mr. Oaks. How are you?"
O: "Thanks for calling back."
BR: "Well, thanks for calling me."
O: "Let me put the robe on and go in another room, where I can be comfortable."
BR: "OK, sure."
O: "Thank you for calling back."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "Somebody has called me a liar and I don't like to (inaudible) to that on a charge like that."
BR: "Oh, all right. How did that happen?"
O: "Uh, well, let me explain. I received a very disturbing letter from Steve Benson."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "He compares what I said to him in a confidential setting, relating to Church issues, with a transcript of the interview that I had with you"--
BR: "Yes."
O: --"and accused me of lying."
BR: "Hmm."
O: "And I'm a truthful man and I care for my integrity and, uh, and I, I take no, uh, no little, uh, concern for something like this."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "Before I talk with you about it, let me ask you a question"--
BR: "Sure."
O: --"so you'll understand why I need to ask that before I speak about this."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "What I would like to know is the relationship between you and Steve Benson in this matter. Specifically, was Steve on a reconnaissance for you when he asked about two weeks ago for a Church interview and came into an interview, in an ecclesiastical setting, which is the occasion of this comparison?"
BR: "No, I, I had no idea that he even did that."
O: "I didn't think so."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "Uh, let me ask a follow-up question."
BR: "Sure."
O: "Uh, is, are you involved in any kind of an effort that Steve is now making to extort information from me--and I use the word 'extort,' uh"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"advisedly."
BR: "Yeah."
O: --"to extort information from me in behalf of you?"
BR: "No. I'm not aware of any such thing."
O: "Now, he had, the reason I had to ask that is that he had the manuscript that was our interview."
BR: "Yeah."
O: "And he was comparing that with notes he'd made earlier when he had a conversation"--
BR: "Oh, I see. No, I played the tape for Steve of, uh, our interview, you know, after the interview and I noticed that he looked sort of surprised by it."
O: "OK, well, then, I, I take that at face value."
BR: "All right."
O: "And, and you, what I'm going to tell you why, I, uh, oh, why I was aroused by this."
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: "Now, I assume, as I told you at the time, that you're a professional journalist"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "I assume, I take The Arizona Republic at, at face value. Uh, uh, it seems to me like it's been very professional and, and I deal with you in that light."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "And I assume that neither you nor The Republic want to be used in Steve's grievances against, and controversies with, his Church"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"that are rather considerable, uh, uh, controversy with his Church."
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: "I was trying to do, to deal with that in having a confidential interview with him."
BR: "OK."
O: "And now he, he has drawn in this letter to me, he's drawn these two things together"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "And I'd rather deal with you separately"--
BR: "You mean this conversation with you, uh, compared"--
O: "His conversation with me"--
BR: --"compared with the tape?"
O: "Compared with the tape, and that's, uh, what I'd like to do, is deal separately with you."
BR: "OK."
O: "And I assume that you don't want to get involved with Steve's controversies with his Church."
BR: "No."
O: "I assume that that's part of your professional approach to this and if I, if I can deal separately with you, independent of Steve Benson"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"then it's, then it's much easier for me to (inaudible) my problems."
BR: "All right, so let's go ahead on that basis."
O: "OK, good. Now, when (cough) I received this letter from Steve, which was, uh, a very accusatory letter"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and, uh, I presume that you don't know about its contents"--
BR: "Right."
O: "But when I received this letter, which I did this afternoon about 5 o'clock"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"I got the transcript out and reviewed it very carefully, the transcript of my interview with you."
BR: "Yeah."
O: "When I did that, I saw one sentence in my interview with you--and only one sentence--that I would say overstated the truth."
BR: "OK."
O: "And that sentence I want to correct."
BR: "All right, sir. Fine."
O: "And I am sorry for it, but in a, in a, our, our interview was 60 minutes long and, you know, I was shooting from the hip (inaudible) along"--
BR: "Yeah."
O: --"and it was one of those things, which called to my attention, is inaccurate and I want to correct it."
BR: "All right."
O: "The, the, the only thing I can see that I want to correct."
BR: "OK, sir."
O: "And this is a, is a, uh, oh, about one-fourth of the circumstances that, uh, that, uh, Steve cites in his letter, because I looked, uh, I looked at the others and, and, uh, I think that, uh, I, I don't, uh, feel any necessity under my commitment to integrity to make any change in what I said."
BR: "OK."
O: "But in this one instance, I do."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "The sentence is, is toward the end of the interview."
BR: "Yeah."
O: "It is the, the last paragraph of the interview."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "I'm looking at the transcript that was made from the recording when made here."
BR: "Yup."
O: "It's, uh, it's in this talk about the Kerry Heinz matter"--
BR: "All right."
O: "And the sentence is this, about having a conversation: 'So, if Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz'"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"'it is outside the normal channel'"--
BR: "Yeah."
O: --"'that's all I can say. I have not'—"my transcript says that. It must be 'no'"—'I have no knowledge of whether he did.'"
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "That's the sentence that should be stricken."
BR: "OK."
O: "If you'd just strike out, 'I have no knowledge of whether he did'"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"then I'll stand by the transcript of things that I said to you, but that statement, 'I have no knowledge of whether he did'"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"was, uh, as I looked back on the transcript, I think that's inaccurate and I want to withdraw that."
BR: "All right. Now, um, I guess my question is, do, do you have knowledge that he did that, in that case?"
O: "Now"--
BR: "Is that what we're getting to here?"
O: "Let me just, uh, let me just say this"--
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "Uh (clears throat), when I met with Steve Benson"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"Uh, I was trying to help Steve Benson in a matter, a Church matter, that does not concern the subject of our interview."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "In the course of doing that, I spoke to him confidentially and in a privileged relationship"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and, uh, I think his letter and the things he says in his letter, abuse that privileged relationship, uh, in a really, uh, well, I'll stop there."
BR: "OK."
O: "And, and I, uh, [Steve] also says some things in his letter which he may share with you, I don't know"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "But he, he claims to have notes of things that I've said in the, in the conversation with him"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "I don't affirm his notes."
BR: "OK."
O: "If he shows you a copy of his letter"--
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: --"I certainly don't affirm his notes"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and I'm not either admitting or denying things that I, I was speaking there in a privileged relationship and I don't think that it's fair for Steve, uh, nor is it fair for me"--
BR: "Yup."
O: --"to go into a privileged relationship"--
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: --"and for me to affirm or deny his notes, so I, I simply stand silent on what he claims took place"--
BR: "Right."
O: --"in a privileged conversation and, as a journalist, you'd understand the privilege."
BR: "Uh-huh."
O: "I think his notes are quite self-serving, but that's, that's simply my, my perspective."
BR: "OK."
O: "But what I am saying is that I just don't choose to go, uh, I don't choose to be—what's the word I'm looking for?—leveraged"--
BR: "Hmm."
O: --"into saying anything more than I said to you in the interview by Steve Benson's use of privileged information."
BR: "Hmm-mm."
O: "So, to answer your question, I'd say that I just don't choose to affirm or deny."
BR: "OK."
O: "But I do wish to withdraw a sentence which, as I read it on the transcript, is inaccurate."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "So, I, if you will do me the favor of striking out that, you do whatever you want with what remains."
BR: "All right, sir."
O: "And I'm glad to defend whatever remains, but I cannot defend that sentence."
BR: "All right. Well, it's clear to me."
O: "All right. And I appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak to you as a, on a professional basis and I, I must tell you that I make this phone call because it distresses me when somebody claims that I lie."
BR: "All right. Well, all right."
O: "Because I don't do that."
BR: "OK, sir."
O: "Well, I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and thank you for calling."
BR: "Thanks for calling me."
O: "OK."
BR: "Bye-bye."
O: "Bye-bye."
**********
If one insists that it is outside the realm of reasonable possibility that Salt Lake Mormon Church authorities were involved, through some kind of interventionist manner, in the not-so-unpredictable decision of David Twede's Orlando stake president to postpone/cancel Twede's excommunication hearing, then they're whistling, "Praise to the Man Who Doesn't Commune with the Locals."
There is historical precedent for this kind of back-channel modus operandi on the part of the Mormon Church's Salt Lake City High Command when it comes to inserting itself into local disciplinary matters--and then lying about it.
That has been indisputably proven, whether some want to believe it or not.
By the way, I have it on good authority that this episode was such an umitigated debacle for Oaks and the Mormon Church (given that the story got wide play in major media at the time) that Oaks offered to resign from the Quorum of the Twelve, but that Hinckley persuaded him not to.
Oh well, I tried. :)
Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 10:49AM by steve benson.
I believe the decision to postpone the meeting was absolutely directed from SLC. I also have no doubt that Twede's days as a mormon are numbered. I'd say somewhere around 41.
It did it through Oaks/Packer against Toscano--and it is doing it now against Twede through, in all probability, the Strengthening the Members Committee (HQed in the COB), with help from Church snitch Scott Gordon, president of FAIR.
Why you seem to want to give the prevaricating Mormon Cult the benefit of the doubt--when it has a demonstrable history of back-channel manuevering and on-the-record lying--is, frankly, beyond me.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 07:52AM by steve benson.
Why you seem to want to give the prevaricating Mormon Cult the benefit of the doubt--when it has a demonstrable history of back-channel manuevering and on-the-record lying--is, frankly, beyond me.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 07:52AM by steve benson.
Twede has asked if any people on this board wanna to go to church with him on Sunday. You can watch his bishop wet his pants. bring your cameras, popcorn, cold coffee and see the "I told you so, it was about Romney!!" moment
Here's a good Reuters story that emphasizes the political angle.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-mormon-disciplinebre88r040-20120927,0,62065.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-mormon-disciplinebre88r040-20120927,0,62065.story
They list Twede's published view about Romney as if they are on equal footing with revealing temple ordinances to the public. I realize that nevermos would not recognize the disparity in the laundry list, but certainly most of us should.
It's sort of like saying, "Man is being prosecuted for murder because he said Star Wars is better than Lord of the Rings, and oh ya ... he also killed a guy"
It's sort of like saying, "Man is being prosecuted for murder because he said Star Wars is better than Lord of the Rings, and oh ya ... he also killed a guy"
Revealing the temple ordinances is a bit passé these days, whereas the LDS Church is licking its lips at the possibility of having a man in the white house. I can see how they might overreact. Or is that what you were saying?
No, I am saying that I don't believe the Church would initiate action over political views. Having said that I think it's possible that the Stake President's decision to lash out might have been exacerbated but Twede's political writings, but I doubt in the extreme that it was the impetus.
Revealing Temple Ordinances might be passé to those not aware of the personal significance to Mormons, but it would not be seen as passé by the Stake President. I have a working theory that it was revealing temple ordinances (Masonic temple ordinances) that got ole Joe killed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:50AM by SLDrone.
Revealing Temple Ordinances might be passé to those not aware of the personal significance to Mormons, but it would not be seen as passé by the Stake President. I have a working theory that it was revealing temple ordinances (Masonic temple ordinances) that got ole Joe killed.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 12:50AM by SLDrone.
All I know is that these guys were writing for 8-10 years with nary a word from Mormon HQ, but now that we're close to the election, suddenly they want to excommunicate two MormonThink editors. I don't know what else it could be.
I think the website was for the most part flying under the radar for most of that time. What would be the political point of exing the guy, that obviously would not stop the website.
The fourth estate has jumped all over that angle because it's a boring story otherwise, but I don't really buy the political angle. I think it's a press hyped issue.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 01:00AM by SLDrone.
The fourth estate has jumped all over that angle because it's a boring story otherwise, but I don't really buy the political angle. I think it's a press hyped issue.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 01:00AM by SLDrone.
I don't think the LDS Church is all that rational. They're just an organization like anything else. I think they blew it. It happens.
religion has no hope of being rational
I just love it when armchair novices try to tell everyone else how the professional press supposedly operates in its investigative trenches.
The timing of the Church anvil drop on Twede--coming on the heels of his writings (which included details on Mormon political history and possible Romney-Church entanglements in a presumed Romney presidency)--was just coincidental?
Yeah, right.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 01:32AM by steve benson.
The timing of the Church anvil drop on Twede--coming on the heels of his writings (which included details on Mormon political history and possible Romney-Church entanglements in a presumed Romney presidency)--was just coincidental?
Yeah, right.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 01:32AM by steve benson.
I wonder if the Romney campaign got word of the scheduled Twede excommunication and persuaded church HQ to call it off. They would immediately see the political impact in Florida better than anyone.
First, the GA's tell us they never involve themselves in member excommunications, it's a local matter. But they break that rule all the time. What's next, an outside party can interfere in local matters as well?
First, the GA's tell us they never involve themselves in member excommunications, it's a local matter. But they break that rule all the time. What's next, an outside party can interfere in local matters as well?
Stopped reading at "has possibly."
And when he tells him (if he tells him), who would be surprised if he does so after having first consulted with Salt Lake City?
That said, it really doesn't matter at this point whether the Mormon Church moves to ex Twede before or after November 6th.
The Mormon Church has already been outed as wanting to silence Twede for his writings--which included his posted analysis on the Mormon Church's history of political involvement in matters of state, as well as his writings on the specter of possible Mormon Church influence on a Romney presidency through the LDS temple doctrines on God and obedience to religious authority. (All the Church hulabaloo about Twede having exposed its "sacred" Masonic-manufactured temple rituals is a deliberate misdirect. The secrets of the Mormon temple ceremony has been out on the Internet stage for years).
To deny the political overtones (mixed with the theological ones used as cover) of the Mormon Church's move against Twede is to deny the timing.
And to deny the timing is to deny reality.
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 08:05AM by steve benson.
That said, it really doesn't matter at this point whether the Mormon Church moves to ex Twede before or after November 6th.
The Mormon Church has already been outed as wanting to silence Twede for his writings--which included his posted analysis on the Mormon Church's history of political involvement in matters of state, as well as his writings on the specter of possible Mormon Church influence on a Romney presidency through the LDS temple doctrines on God and obedience to religious authority. (All the Church hulabaloo about Twede having exposed its "sacred" Masonic-manufactured temple rituals is a deliberate misdirect. The secrets of the Mormon temple ceremony has been out on the Internet stage for years).
To deny the political overtones (mixed with the theological ones used as cover) of the Mormon Church's move against Twede is to deny the timing.
And to deny the timing is to deny reality.
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 08:05AM by steve benson.