Disciplining inactives
Jenna says:
I posted a simple question on another LDS blog. It was not posted, and I was subsequently banned.
My question is merely this:
Has the Church begun to seek inactives to “discipline”, and will they continue to do so in the manner that they are going after scholar Simon Southerton?
Brother Southerton has been inactive for seven years but is being called in on charges of adultery. He has since reconciled with his wife, and was separated at the time he was living with another woman.
If the Church went after every fornicator and adulterer, membership would dwindle to maybe one million, most of them children.
I think you overstate your case.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 22, 2005 @ 3:16 am
The posts that Southerton has made on the Recovery from Mormonism site indicate that he is diligently trying to get excommunicated. He’s just disappointed that the Church won’t do it for his reasons instead of its own. He would rather be ex’d for apostasy than adultery because it would sell more books. Too bad the Church won’t help him sell books that attempt to undermine its doctrines. So sad.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — July 22, 2005 @ 4:51 am
But aren’t other inactive members who don’t live the principles of the Gospel and Church “trying to get excommunicated?” Why single out Southerton?
He left the church, at least psychologically and behaviorally in 1998. Now they are coming after him with an adultery charge, even though he has already made up with his wife and now lives again with her.
The millions of LDS people who have sex before marriage, cheat on their spouses, are dishonest in their dealings, etc., don’t have church authorities sniffing around trying to discipline them.
I have never heard of the church calling a court on an inactive member.
Comment by Jenna — July 22, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
Jenna,
Sure, there are plenty of other innactive members who are going through the self-excommunication processes of getting their names off the Church records. But, Southerton’s goals, you must admit, appear at the very least to be disingenuous.
If he effectively left the Church in 1998, then why is he waiting until now to get his name off the Church’s records? The timing of the publication of his book is just too conincidental to overlook. The book isnt doing well, so he resorts to making a ruckus to bring attention to himself. Forgive me for being cynical, but the guy has had several years to get his name off the records, and hasnt tried until now. Kinda makes a cynic like me scratch my head and wonder why.
Comment by Kurt — July 22, 2005 @ 1:17 pm
I’m not talking about people who take their own names off the records. Many people don’t even know that it is an option, even though this option–thanks to a lawsuit–is now twenty years old.
I’m talking about people who do not go to church, many of whom even profess belief in the church to some degree (i.e. the “Jack Mormon”-type), live the way they like, and never get disciplined by the church for fornication, adultery, etc.
If Southerton is instigating this process (and I don’t know that he is), then why isn’t he getting called in for ***** apostasy******?
That is my question. It’s not whether he deserves to be disciplined that I question; it’s why he is being disciplined for adultery. And if he is, is this a precedent for the Church? Will they start actively going after inactive people and asking them to leave based on their sexual habits?
Comment by Jenna — July 22, 2005 @ 1:31 pm
I think it might be disingenuous on both Southerton’s and the Church’s parts. Southerton wants to be ex’ed for apostosy to sell more books, the Church wants to ex him because he makes them look bad but doesn’t want it to be for apostasy because it would lend validity to Southerton’s claims. The Church, it seems to me, has the convienent ’scapegoat’ of Southerton’s past indiscresions.
Looking at the Church’s patterns in ex’ing, it seems that they will keep members on the roll (inflates membership totals) unless the member becomes vocal/publically visibe, and then they will discipline.
So I don’t think the church will start going after inactives for their sexual habits.
Comment by Pris — July 22, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
Jenna,
There is nothing to suggest this is a precedent for the Church. Has anyone else besides him been pulled in and disciplined in the same manner? Not that I am aware of. Have innactive people in your ward been pulled in en masse before the Bishop or High Council? I doubt it. Nobody in my ward has been pulled in.
Comment by Kurt — July 22, 2005 @ 3:22 pm
Jenna,
Great post and glad to have you at Open Forum. No fear of banishment for your candor here. I already commented on the Southerton case over at Dave’s site (http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com) and it’s too bad it’s gotten to this point. I’m embarrassed for us, but I don’t see this leading to a witch hunt against Joe and Jane low profile inactives (although, isn’t “less active” the term we use now?). Here’s my take on Southerton: Both this dissident and the church are not acting in good faith. But the organizational conspiracy of our side is far worse than this guy’s individual apostasy and publication thereof.
John Mansfield had a comment at Dave’s w/ a link to a 2003 church press release that basically says that the BofM contains the account of a small group of ancient Hebrews and their entry into the Americas, blah, blah, blah and in no way excludes multiple human entries into the Americas. And the church has no argument with DNA evidence indicating that living indigenous Americans are largely, if not entirely, descended from Asiatic ancestors, although the church would not be surprised if later evidence found a remnant of other ancestry, blah, blah, blah. So if the church did the above board thing of notifying Mr. Southerton of the public clarification, inviting him back to church and asking him to cease preaching against a straw man that doesn’t exist, and he continued to so preach, then it would make sense to ex him on those grounds. But no, what does the church do? They go and dig up some past dirt on the guy and proceed on those grounds, for reasons that I can’t fathom.
We really need a mechanism for old apostles to retire so the church can be run by younger people with clarity of mind. The present situation is a theater of the absurd.
Comment by Steve EM — July 22, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
Steve,
How in the world do “old apostles” figure into this one? This is being driven by local Bishops, Stake Presidency, and High Council. Or, are you convinced the dreaded heavy hand of BKP is in on this one?
We have no idea why this guy is being charged with adultery. What if he was committing it when charged? We dont know. You are assuming its a smear campaign. Has this guy made the paper trail of the conclusions of his disciplinary council public? After the council, the subject of the council is to receive a paper copy of the conclusions. If its all over and done with, then let him scan it and post it.
Comment by Kurt — July 22, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
Kurt,
Good question. Let me say up front that we’re probably in agreement that Southerton has already ex’d himself and a church court would just be doing paperwork (although I think he should first be asked to cease his preaching against this straw man position he’s created).
To answer the question, we all know the real reason Southerton is facing a disciplinary council, and it isn’t adultery. We also know the apostles must be aware of the situation. If they’re idly sitting by while a rogue bishop and SP embarrass the church with these underhanded tactics, they’re derelict in their duties to not put a stop to it. If they’re involved via the “strengthening the members committee” or by other means that’s even worse. Either way, if the conspiracy is local or top down, by omission or commission, our top leaders are responsible for this mess. I have to believe that a younger group would have avoided this fiasco.
Comment by Steve EM — July 22, 2005 @ 7:42 pm
If the Church is going after heretics, it should try them for apostasy. If they want to go after adulterers, they should be HONEST IN ALL THEIR DEALINGS and go after everyone in a similar situation.
Comment by Lola — July 22, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
If his ‘imperfect’ wife can find heart to forgive him, I am sure Jesus, being perfect, would do so as well. But the church? Come on…
The church always tries to ex dissenters who bring publicity that shows the church to be less than it tries to portray itself to be.
In the information age, the church’s policy of putting forth a “faith promoting history” instead of its real history will be akin to punching itself in the face.
Comment by Herb — July 22, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
Lola, you assume it’s one or the other. Why can’t the church go after adulterers who publish antagonistic things about the church?
The church has the right to ex-communicate or not ex-communicate anyone they want. The primary reason for ex-communication at all is the protection of the name of the church. If they feel that an individual’s behavior is threatening, they can ex. It has nothing to do with honesty, every case is different.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 23, 2005 @ 3:44 am
So (in)famous adulterers get hounded and most likely exed, and other, run-of-the-mill Jack Mormon adulterers continue sinning at will without a glance.
If this were a club and excommunication were just striking someone off membership rolls, that would be one thing. But being “cut off” no shriving time allowed sounds like a serious thing to me, especially when he’s made up with his wife and seems to be penitent on the *adultery* charge.
Yes, you’re right. It has nothing to do with honesty. The church expects it and doesn’t dish it out. Talk about double standards!
Comment by Joan — July 23, 2005 @ 4:59 am
Yes, being famous has a lot to do with it. Famous people can damage the church in ways non-famous people can’t. And from what I’ve read, there’s no penitence coming from the person in question.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 23, 2005 @ 8:46 am
Look people, we dont know what Southerton’s status as an adulterer is. He could have been actively committing adultery at the time he was charged, and the whole “apostasy” thing could be a sham he is digging up so as to promote himself.
We just dont know, and lining up along political lines and making assumptions is pretty pointless.
Lets have Southerton release the paperwork regarding his disciplinary council and see what that says.
Comment by Kurt — July 23, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
The man has been inactive for seven years. This is the point. Why, then, is ADULTERY even in the picture? there are inactive members in this church of “ten million strong” who commit adultery every night of the week. Is the church going to be honest and go after them too? It should!
Comment by Joan — July 23, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
You’ve convinced me, people. The Church should just go ahead and excommunicate all of the unrepentant adulterers and fornicators. They can always be rebaptized later if they repent. In fact, there are passages in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that suggest that this is exactly what the Church should be doing.
It’s true that the Church would be much smaller, but is that necessarily bad? For the most part, the fornicators and adulterers aren’t paying any tithing, serving any missions, or serving in Church callings anyway. So what’s the loss?
Of course, if we want to follow the prophets… Maybe we should let the Lord do it the way it is being done. After all, it truly is Jesus Christ’s only authorized Church, the only one led by genuine prophets.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — July 24, 2005 @ 1:34 am
The Mormon organization is going after Simon Southerton for adultery because they are afraid to engage the tough issues. That is all that there is to it.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 24, 2005 @ 2:12 pm
John,
Wow, mass excommunications. I cannot even imagine what the social backlash of such a thing would be.
If people want to wallow in innactivity and are too lazy to get their names of the records themselves, then they can answer for that later. Actively going after all these people would consume an awful lot of time and resources that could be better spent helping people who really are interested in being helped. If a Bishop has 20-30 hours a week, having him spend it all ex’ing people would result in him spending no time on the active people. What, are we going to have a 3rd counsellor in the Bishoprick, in charge of ex’ing people? Oh, man, that would be the worst calling ever.
Hellmut,
This has nothing to do with tough issues, its has everything to do with a self-promoting jerk trying to sell a lousy book, and he doesnt care how he does it. If his book had any merit he wouldnt have to pander to anti-mormons to increase sales. He is trying to foment trouble and generate news, an attention whore. HEY HEY LOOK AT ME, I AM BEING PERSECUTED, BUY MY BOOK AND SEE WHY! And he’ll laugh all the way to the bank.
Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2005 @ 11:41 am
Wow. An “attention whore”? That’s kind of harsh, especially given the elaborate birthday party that was held for a humble old man this past weekend.
Any basis for your diatribe on Southerton? Seems to me he was perplexed about being called in on an adultery charge after being out of the church for seven years, and now reunited with his wife after the “event” occured five years ago. For a church to hound someone for a personal matter like that long after a member stopped attending is, well…creepy. I’d alert the media too!
Comment by OkeyDokey — July 25, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Okey Dokey,
Perplexed about why an organization you both simultaneously belong to and are actively attacking calls you to task for breaking rules that are well-known to all parties involved? Um, OK.
How can someone who presents themselves as so clever and scholarly be naive to the fact that the Church would respond to this kind of activity? They cannot, especially when they actively participate in anti-mormon forums. This guy didnt remove his name from the records. You going to tell me that after all his activity among the anti-mormons he doesnt know anything about having his records removed? Come on. It doesnt take a genius to figure out the guy was looking for some free advertising. HELP HELP I’M BEING OPPRESSED!
And youre going to fault the Church for having the nerve to point out the guy left not because of academic reasons over DNA, but because he was spreading his own DNA far afield of where it should be. This guy left the Church because he wasnt interested in living the Church’s lifestyle. Lamanite DNA? Whatever. The problem was Southerton DNA.
Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
There’s Hinckley DNA, Benson DNA, Smith and Young and any number of prominent Mormon surname DNA being spread all over the kingdom of God on earth by all kinds of baptized-at-eight members in name only, but the church is not going after them.
Millions of Mormons “aren’t living the church’s lifestyle” and yet they are not being called into courts over past indiscretions, sins, transgressions, etc. His own wife has taken him back. The church couldn’t find anything more recent on him, so they go after an old affair so they can pretend it’s not about his book.
Southerton could not pass a TR without repenting; that is true. But the Church holds itself to a different standard. It is not “honest in all its dealings.” And any fool can see that in this situation.
Comment by Okey Dokey — July 25, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
Okey Dokey,
And anyone can see youre just a troll.
Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
I can answer the original question. Yes, tscc is in fact going after inactives who have absolutely nothing to do with the church. I was recently excommunicated for apostacy and co-habitation. I do not know how the church found me, or why they even cared to excommunicate me, but they did.
Comment by Jason — July 25, 2005 @ 5:16 pm
Let me see if I can shed a little light on this topic. I have corresponded enough with Sotherton to say that I know him, and while I will not speak for him, I think it fair to infer some things from what I have heard him say and seen him do. Likewise, I have dealt with the LDS hierarchy while on my way out of Mormonism, and so have some first and reliable second hand information as to how they operate.
Sotherton is not trying to sell books. The amount of money one can reasonably expect to make selling books to the LDS market is not worth a tiny fraction of the effort the man had made to tell the DNA story in a responsible fashion. And lets not drift into an analysis of that. I recognize that there is more than one side to that story, understand how the limited geography theory works, and have heard some of the best LDS geneticists say that while the theory Sotherton puts forward is the most probable, the Mormon story is still possible. I agree with that. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.apologetic%20mind.pdf for a little history regarding that apologetic approach.
Many who read here no doubt have science related backgrounds. I am not a scientist, but enjoy reading it. Science is largely about identifying patterns in data, and then attempting to determine if a particular pattern tells us something about reality. Let me propose two patterns to explain people like Sotherton who have left Mormonism (and he really has at this point) but who “can’t leave it alone”.
The first pattern is one suggested by Joseph Smith. I will let him speak for himself.
“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn other, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. The principle is as correct as the one that Jesus put forth in saying that he who seeketh a sign is an adulterous person; and that principle is eternal, undeviating, and firm as the pillars of heaven; for whenever you see a man seeking after a sign, you may set it down that he is an adulterous man.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 156-157)
And I note that when Smith said this, there was a high probability that he was involved in secret sexual affairs that were adulterous in accordance with all law and community standards other than those Smith himself created, and he was deceiving the public and all but a few of the members of his church with regard to his conduct.
Here is the other pattern that could be used to explain the same behaviour. Many of us (including Sotherton) who believe that we have been duped by Mormon leaders (well intentioned or otherwise – it does not matter) will smart for the rest of our lives as result of what we have lost in that regard, and so are sounding an alarm. This is a kind of altruistic behaviour that has been extensively studied in human and other animal populations (See for example, the biologist David Sloan Wilson’s “Darwin’s Cathedral”).
Evolution seems to have bred into us a desire to warn our social group of danger, and we are often prepared to pay a cost to issue that warning that can only be justified by reference to the benefits that our warning is likely to confer on others. That is, we are prepared to suffer consequences that seem far greater than any benefit we might individually gain as result of issuing our warning. This is what causes the bird at the edge of the flock who happens to first spot the approaching, predatory hawk, and to instinctively call out a warning that will help his group, and by so doing attract the hawk’s special attention. Evolutionary theory says that groups comprised of individuals who behave in the manner just indicated will out compete other groups, and so this type of group tends to dominate the small herd animal populations.
Humans are a type of small herd animal. It is hence not surprising to find that studies within human populations as to how cheaters are punished show the pattern just noted. That is, the punishment meted out to a cheater will often cost the person who delivers it much more than he can expect to gain, but also warns others of the presence of a cheater which tends to make future cheating less likely and so provides benefits to the group as a whole.
Leaving aside the moment the issue of whether Mormon leaders are “cheaters” or not as a result of their teaching of “faithful” history etc., the fact that post Mormons sincerely believe them to be cheaters is enough to engage the mechanisms just noted.
It is my view that this pattern nicely explains Sotherton’s behaviour, as well as mine and that of many other post Mormons who, for a time at least, make their views with regard to Mormonism well known. I doubt that Sotherton will make more than a few thousand dollars, at most, from writing his book, and he has spent thousands of hours on this project. He would have been far better financially putting extra time into his career. The analysis in my case is similar. I have spent thousands of hours (but much less than Sotherton I would wager) writing essays etc. during the past three years when most of those hours could have been billed to willing clients at between $400 (Cdn.) and $600 dollars per hour.
What of glory and power? Not in this business. People like Sotherton are not seeking disciples. The difference between people like Sotherton and religious leaders of the Smith, Young genre is set out at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.religious%20faith%20-%20enlightening%20or%20blinding.pdf starting at page 85. And for an extended treatment of how “smart Mormons” are affected by the Mormon belief system, see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%20smart%20mormons%20make%20mormonism%20true.pdf
I suggest that all Sotherton is doing by publishing his book and talking about it is engaging in the “warning” behaviour noted above. And I am certain from my conversations with him that he is not opposed to leaving Mormonism, and that he is not being disingenuous about that. He expected to be called to a church court on charges of apostasy, and was ready to go, present his views, and be excommunicated on grounds that his scientific views are inconsistent with LDS dogma. Fair enough. His waiting for them to come to him and excommunicate him on this basis – as it their undeniable right – is simply part of his warning behaviour. He will make them throw him out, and stare the reality of why they are doing that in the eye (dogma overrides the views that science tells us have by far the greatest probability of reflecting reality).
So, I invite you to decide which of the patterns just suggested to explain Sotherton’s behaviour is likely the more accurate – that put forward by Smith and other Mormon leaders who have quoted him, or that put forward by the scientific community as noted above.
Here is another pattern that I think is interesting, and explanatory of Sotherton’s situation and others with which I am familiar.
When Mormons (or persons of any carefully engrained, extensive ideology) are confronted with disconfirming evidence, they tend to use ad hominem (personal) attack as a knee jerk reaction. Why? I suggest that this is the most effect means of discounting troubling information, whether it in the end turns out to be valid or not. Examples from many walks of life could be easily marshalled to make this point. Recent Mormon examples are Grant Palmer, savaged by the LDS apologetic community on a ad hominem basis, and Todd Compton who was attacked in a couple of FARMS reviews (as well as elsewhere) on that basis. I note that the FARMS reviews were eventually taken down. I also note that reading those FARMS reviews after coming to an appreciation of the overall qualify of Compton’s research was one of my “moments of truth”. Hilariously, a GA of whom I am aware (a lawyer who should know better) was passing information around to SPs who were being questioned about Compton’s book that included the gem that Compton had a history as a rock and roll drummer (I have no idea if that is true or not), implying that on that basis should be ignored.
My own case (which is insignificant compared to Sotherton or Palmer’s) is also telling. In our community the word was that I had engaged in an extra-marital affair and/or was “addicted to Internet porn”. Regrettably (or not, depending on your point of view) I was squeaky clean up to my resignation. My only “sin” was too much reading, thinking, praying, etc. This behaviour, and a lot of other behaviour within Mormonism and other close-knit ideological communities, is explained by cognitive dissonance research. See Aronson, The Social Animal, for a nice summary. This is one of the most widely used texts in this area. You can use the table of contents at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%20smart%20mormons%20make%20mormonism%20true.pdf to find an overview of some of this and related research.
For example, during the 1960s during the infamous Kent State University riots, four university students were shot and killed by members of the Ohio National Guard. In the immediate wake of that tragedy a number of rumours spread. Both of the women who were killed were rumoured to be pregnant and therefore by implication of low morals. The bodies of all four students were rumoured to have been crawling with lice and syphilis such that they would likely have been dead within a short time in any event. Those rumours were proven false. The students who were killed were clean, bright people. In fact, two of them were not even involved in the demonstrations that resulted in their death. Rather, they were simply walking across campus minding their own business. An analysis of why the good folk of Kent would have spread such rumours is enlightening.
It is fair to assume that the conservative residents of Kent, Ohio were offended by the radical student demonstration that rocked Kent State University. It is also fair to assume that many would have hoped that the students would get their comeuppance. However, death is a harsh punishment for demonstration. This could be expected to give rise to cognitive dissonance. One way to reduce that dissonance would be to demonize the students, thus justifying their deaths. This is likely the driving force behind the rumours just mentioned. Unfortunately, this theory cannot be proven because no attitudinal data was collected respecting Kent’s residents prior to and after the incident in question. However, other experiments have been done which support the conclusions just drawn. (See Aronson, pages 179-180)
I see in Sotherton’s case nothing more than this very human phenomenon at work. The faithful will find it easier to dismiss his work on the basis of adultery than scholarship, and this saves the LDS Church the discomfort of excommunicating someone on the basis of his scholarly work, which makes a lot of Mormons and other people squirm.
I hasten to note that the actions of community leaders such as Sotherton’s Bishop, SP and GAs (who are no doubt involved – see below) are not governed by conscious considerations. See again the essay linked above. These subconscious considerations, however, tend toward what works most efficiently to perpetuate the organization’s most important goals (see Swartz, “Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu”). This is one of the most fundamentally important rules sociology has equipped us with for use while attempting to understand human group behaviour. Social groups (human an other) are like organisms. They have values, goals, etc. and need resources to survive. They develop unconscious group mechanisms that operate in a fashion similar to that of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to help the group obtain the resources it needs to meet its goals in the most efficient manner possible. A great deal of fascinating research has been conducted along these lines by first determining organizational values and the resources they need, and then predicting organizational behavour on the basis of what would most efficiently achieve the organizations goal. While we can’t do that here with the LDS Church and Sotherton’s excommunication, bear this concept in mind as you read what follows.
Which form of excommunicating Simon Sotherton would work best to further the interests of the LDS Church? Let’s lay a little ground work before attempting to answer that question.
As a current member, former Bishop against whom no disciplinary action had been taken and respected scientist, Sotherton’s voice would have too much authority to be simply ignored. Hence, I think it fair to assume that significant LDS resources have been dedicated to Sotherton’s case. I am a much smaller fish than he is, and I have it on reliable authority that well known LDS apologists have traveled to Canada to “train” the local leaders here as to how people like me are best dealt with – that is, how to neuter my relatively small influence in the local LDS population. I also know as a result of being told so by my SP that he was in consultation with GAs both in Canada and SLC as he decided how to proceed in my case when he was deciding whether a court was necessary.
It is unusual (unheard of, actually, in my experience) to pursue a long inactive member on the basis of moral issues. This is because most inactive members don’t matter to the Mormon Church enough to merit the scarce leadership resources required to run a court. There is a negligible likelihood that a disciplinary hearing would motivate repentance; they are not harming the Mormon Church by their behavior; they are not a threat to currently active Mormons – so why bother? As noted above, Sotherton is no doubt perceived to be both harming the Mormon Church and a threat to current members, and so the leaders would feel that they must act. Having reached that conclusion, the question becomes how does it best suit their interest to act?
If Mormon leaders excommunicate Sotherton on grounds of apostasy, this will bring attention to his book and the science v. dogma debate in general. It is reasonable to presume that Mormon leaders are reluctant to seem to engage in academic bashing and so appear anti-scholar, book-burners, etc. I have no doubt that Sotherton’s local leaders thought long and hard over how to deal with him, and were in close consultation with GAs in Australia and SLC.
Now, consider the effect of excommunicating Sotherton on “moral” grounds. The common LDS belief is that those who have committed sin have lost the spirit and hence are impaired from a reasoning point of view. Teachings like that of Smith noted above are part of the foundation of this idea. But the idea can also be found in abundance in the Bible; sin darkens the mind in all kinds of ways, etc.
So, most active Mormons who hear of Sotherton adultery will dismiss him on that basis. The fact that he “sinned” after leaving active Mormonism will be missed by most. They will not make it past the word “adultery”. Those who do pick up the timing issue are likely to jump to the conclusion that he was sinning all along in some way, and that is why he came to his “looney” scientific conclusions. As noted above, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever people in my community variously assumed that I was having an affair, was addicted to Internet pornography, etc. and that fully explained my change of opinion regarding Mormonism. I was told of a Sunday School lesson in our area in which I was featured without needing to be named, with the point of the lesson being that if you fool around with moral sin, your mind will be darkened, even the “very elect” can be deceived, etc., so “be careful!”.
Hence, I suggest that the Mormon leadership may well have adopted its tactic toward Sotherton’s disciplinary council that will cut the legs out from under Sotherton’s scientific arguments within the Mormon community by attaching his morality. I also note that in cases such as yours, from what I can tell, the LDS leadership concern is far more directed toward how the existing membership will be affected than what the non-Mormon world may think.
Mormon leaders may be surprised by how much negative press (from their point of view) their inclusion of the sexual angle may create. But I doubt that. My dealings with the Mormon hierarchy indicate that they are well apprised of public relations issues related to what they do. I believe that they would have consciously traded the members’ tendency to assume that you were morally impaired and hence to be dismissed out of hand, for more press that the members would ignore and about which most non-Mormons would not care.
My experience also indicates that the local Mormon leaders, while not ordered from SLC as to how proceed they must proceed in disciplinary matters, are guided in many ways as to when and how to act against people like you. I am aware of three people in Canada who were issued gag orders similar to the one I received (“You can only remain a member if you agree not to speak to anyone outside your family about heterodox issues”), and as noted above, my SP told me that he was counselled both by the local GA and GAs in SLC. I also understand that they left the final decision as to how to proceed in my case to him, but were available to provide suggestions. Well, we all know how this works. To have been told what the “Brethren” think about an issue and what has been done elsewhere and seems to have worked and then to go off on a frolic of your own is very unusual Mormon leadership behavior. You become a SP by demonstrating several traits among which are: (1) A modicum of intelligence, teaching ability and administrative ability; (2) A willingness to spend a lot of time on the job; (3) An ability to get those below you to obey you and those above you; (4) A willingness to obey those above you. It would be a very rare SP who, once advised of “what the Brethren think” would do otherwise.
Best regards,
bob mccue
Comment by bob mccue — July 26, 2005 @ 4:59 pm
Bob,
Read your post, and then went and starting looking through some of the stuff on your website, and I see on page 68 (sixty eight!) of 75 in your “Coming Out Letter” that you say you are “starting to ramble a bit”. Starting?
So as for shedding light on the matter at hand, it is your opinion that Southerton is an altruist trying to warn us away from the pernicious untruths of the Mormon Church, which is deliberately and methodically acting in a self-defensive manner. Am I reading that correctly?
OK, first off, exactly how much correspondence have you had with Southerton, by what means, and exactly what were the subjects discussed? Please keep it down to a paragraph of 6-8 sentences.
Also, it wouldnt take a hard core cynic like me to conclude that a lot of the stuff you write above is intended to be self-promoting (e.g., the pedantic quotations, the way you talk about your exploits and how you suspect prominent Church apologists were sent to educate local leaders to neuter the impact your departure was having on the local Church, and how they had Sunday School lessons badmouthing you, and how this post was supposed to be about Southerton and was instead mostly about you). In your own defense, why shouldnt a hard core cynic like me read your post as nothing but an act of narcisism? You are holding your character up and acting as a character witness for Southerton, so your character is necessarily called into question. Being in the legal profession, you can appreciate that. Again, please limit your reponse to 6-8 sentences.
And finally, from your website, it appears your primary complaint against the Church is that it fails to teach the members about all of the minutiae of Church History, even the speculative bits, and especially the unflattering bits. Am I reading you right? Thats not the Church’s purpose. The purpose of the Church is to get people to repent and draw closer to Christ by having a godly walk. Thats the whole point of Christianity, to get people to change their ways for the better.
Comment by Kurt — July 26, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
Well Kurt, you’re not going to believe this, but I, yes I, Steve EM, think Bob is sad, soft headed and full of shit. To be fair to Bob (reminds me of those Enzyte commercials. Hey Bob, does it really make your wiener bigger?), he, like many LDS, didn’t question from the get go and thus lost his faith upon learning that prophets and apostles are fallible. So ironic that orthodoxy always leads to apostasy.
As far as his web site, I couldn’t get passed some of the straw men statements on page one:
“For example, Mormon theology holds that: Mary was a virgin in the sense that she did not have sexual relations with any mortal, but a physical, anthropomorphic God the Father caused her pregnancy………….” — Bob you know better. Yeah, some LDS teach that bull shit, including my first MP. So what? Our canonized scriptures say she was a virgin, period. Speculation into the mechanism of Jesus’ conception is just that, speculation.
“The Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri” — Bob, JS did say some silly stuff, as have all the prophets. Does that mean the rest of his teachings are bogus? Perhaps these was like the Zelph thing, a parable to convey a bigger point?
“God used skin color at least in the ancient Americas and perhaps elsewhere to designate the righteous from the wicked, with the wicked being cursed with a dark skin to make it easier for the righteous light skinned people to avoid interacting with potentially corrupting influences” — Bob, you know better than to spout that crap vs. modern LDS interpretation of the BofM. We’ve even changed some words to reflect our present understanding. And it’s been a generation since the church reformed BY’s Mark of Cain crap. Yeah, it’s unfortunate it took so long, but that reform is behind us.
“God was once a man as we are, and we can become gods just as He is” — Oh the old KFD. Now Bob, you know it was never canonized and that “doctrine” was already dead or dying before GBH hammered the nails in the coffin. Yeah, you’ll find Jeffery Gilliam and Geoff, J still preaching it, but they are hardly authorities of the church.
“Only those who accept the Mormon message and obey Mormon authority will be able to live with God in the highest realm of heaven, known as the Celestial Kingdom” — Bob, once again, you know better. Missionary work occurs in the sprit world just as it does here. And there is no Mormon church in heaven. When Christ returns the church is dissolved. He takes back the keys of authority and sets up His own government, chooses His own officers, etc.
“Marriage and family bonds will exist beyond death, but only for those who obey Mormon authority and so qualify to live with God in Celestial Kingdom” – Well Bob did you forget that w/o Jesus no one has a prayer of getting back to G-d, or was that conveniently omitted to make us appear unchristian?
“In the Celestial Kingdom, polygamy will the dominant if not only form of marriage since more women are likely to qualify for that exalted state than men” — Bob, why present speculation as an LDS doctrine?
Bob, even I, open minded, free thinking Mormon, Steve EM, think you and Southerton are full of shit. If you’re going to criticize the church, which I do frequently, be fair about it. And if church authorities respond to your criticism and reform accordingly, then be fair and don’t criticize them for the reform. And don’t set up bogus arguments against straw men and expect those of us in the know to have any sympathy for you.
Comment by Steve EM — July 26, 2005 @ 11:09 pm
Kurt and Steve:
Read the essay “Do Smart Mormons Make Mormonism True?” on my website and get back to me. There is lots of substance there.
All the best,
bob
Comment by bob mccue — July 27, 2005 @ 4:15 am
Steve,
Wow, vulgarity aside, you rather adroitly eviscerated Bob. Impressive.
Bob,
Dont you weasel out of my questions. I want to know how much contact you have had with Southerton. Admit it, you havent had any contact with him at all.
Comment by Kurt — July 27, 2005 @ 10:41 am
Bob,
Including me in your invitation to look further is rather insulting after I already said I couldn’t get past the bull shit on page one of your site. What do you think I am? Some pig who likes to wallow in it? I’ll tell you what, let me know when you’ve cleaned up page one and then invite me to look further. My time is valuable.
Comment by Steve EM — July 27, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
Steve, I disagree with you a lot. But I can’t agree more than I did with your first statement responding to the patron saint of RFM:)
Perhaps someone should write a response to “Do Smart Mormons Make Mormonism True?” entitled “Do Prolix Exmormons Make Mormonism False?”
Comment by Aaron — August 7, 2005 @ 11:15 pm
Yeah Aaron, as you know I’m normally very open to unconventional viewpoints and have no problem criticizing our church (more our culture than church). But Bob was dealing from the bottom of the deck with his deliberate deceit, and I just couldn’t stomach the guy. Then after I wrote I couldn’t get past the crap on page one of his site, he includes me in his invitation to read one of his essays. The guy’s got some balls, I’ll say that.
Oh, what does RFM stand for? I apologize if it’s on Bob’s site. I refuse to look any further until he says he’s cleaned that pig sty of page one.
Comment by Steve EM — August 8, 2005 @ 9:56 pm
How do we know that the sole reason for Southerton’s excommunication is the adultery charge? All we have to go on is what he says. The church doesn’t publicly comment on disciplinary actions.
Comment by Bookslinger — November 21, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
I have to agree with Herb.
Comment by DC — December 12, 2006 @ 4:22 pm