PDA

View Full Version : September Six-ex'ing or disfellowshipping of Authors


silverfox
6th March 2005, 07:33 AM
We touched base on this topic in another thread. Mary, following is a link summarizing the "September Six" excommunications. Named as such because six prominent scholars were all excommunicated or disfellowshipped. I want to note that MANY members are "punished" in the same way but because these were well known scholars, the church's actions against them were made very public.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtml

Excerpt from the link above:

1/ D.Michael Quinn -

Historian, and Former B.Y.U. Professor. He has written at least six articles for the "Ensign", and many for the Church owned journal - "B.Y.U. Studies". He is most well known for his extremely competent articles on Church sanctioned plural marriages after the manifesto of 1890.

- EXCOMMUNICATED.

2/ (person who asked to have their name removed from this page) -

Scholar. Noted for his excellent books on Isaiah and the last days.

- EXCOMMUNICATED.

3/ Paul Toscano -

Salt Lake Attorney. Also writer, together with his wife Margaret, of many articles, and a book entitled - "Strangers in Paradox." He spoke at the 1993 Sunstone Symposium and entitled his talk "All is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church."

- EXCOMMUNICATED.

4/ Lavina Fielding Anderson -

Editor and writer of the Church published "Ensign"

magazine from 1973 - 1981, prolific author, and compiler of recent events in the Church that she calls "spiritual abuse".

- EXCOMMUNICATED.

5/ Maxine Hanks -

Ardent feminist and editor of a book called "Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism". She has written and spoken extensively on the subject of Heavenly Mother.

- EXCOMMUNICATED.

6/ Lynne Kanavel Whitesides -

President of the Mormon Women's Forum.

- DISFELLOWSHIPPED.

The writer has had an opportunity to talk to Margaret Toscano twice (the most recent being 28th March 1994) since these disciplinary councils took place, and reports now on the situation as it now stands.

Three of the above group felt it necessary to appeal their cases to a higher ecclesiastical court (council). These were: Lavina Fielding Anderson, Paul Toscano and Lynne Whitesides.

Lavina's appeal was unsuccessful; her Stake President visited her and informed her that he had received a letter from the Brethren stating as such, but the letter had instructed him that he wasn't to show Lavina the letter or allow her to have a copy.

Lavina is still attending Church regularly each week and is trying hard to be as active as she is allowed. She is currently writing two books, one being a background and history to the events described above, the other being a list of "case reports" of what she terms "ecclesiastical or spiritual abuse".

Lynne Whitesides appeal was also unsuccessful, (she was disfellowshipped for "conduct unbecoming the laws of the Church") and since her appeal she has been given a list of areas in which the Church feels she needs to repent and change her ways. Two of these rules are that she must agree not to discuss nor talk about Heavenly Mother, and also she must agree not to associate with any others who hold similar views to her own.

Paul Toscano felt strongly that there was legal and ecclesiastical prejudice concerning his Stake Disciplinary Council, as he was informed that Gordon B. Hinckley was involved in arranging that court and having him disciplined. Paul felt therefore unable to appeal to the Quorum of the Twelve, of which Brother Hinckley is a member, and also felt unable to appeal to the First Presidency for the same reason, in addition to knowing that President Benson is unable to physically or mentally understand the intricacies of the situation.

Paul therefore decided to take the advice of the Lord given in the Doctrine and Covenants and to appeal to the General Assembly. Needless to say, his appeal was unsuccessful and was told such by his Stake President. His reply, signed by President Hinckley, was similar to Lavina's, although his Stake President, against the wishes of the letter, decided to let Paul see the reply. The letter said that the Brethren have prayerfully considered his appeal, and have decided to uphold the decision of the Stake Court. They also hoped that he would repent and return to full fellowship, and also asked that he should not be shown the letter, nor be given a copy of it.

The Toscano's are currently not attending meetings at Church, but are strongly involved in a group called the "Mormon Alliance" and are as active as they can be. The are currently asking the Lord to reveal to them what they should do with their lives.

I am not sure what Maxine Hanks is doing at the moment.

Michael Quinn decided that it wasn't worth appealing and so has decided not to. He did not feel a desire even to attend his Disciplinary Council, but wrote a defense instead. In that defense he wrote:-

"I vowed I would never again participate in a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."

But he did reaffirm his faith that:-

"Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was God's prophet of the Restoration and that Ezra Taft Benson is the prophet, seer and revelator on the Earth today."

Michael is not attending meetings with the main body of the Church, but is still actively engaged in talking at group meetings outside the Church, and historical research.

And an excerpt from a site discussing Grant Palmer's recent disciplinary action:

http://www.tungate.com/Grant_Palmer.htm

More recent excommunications over intellectual issues include David Wright (1994, for not believing in a literal Noah and for articles about Biblical events that were viewed as questioning the historicity of the Book of Mormon), Michael Barrett (1994, for writing letters to correct news stories about Mormonism), Brent Metcalfe (1994, for the anthology "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon"), Janice Allred (1997, for submitting theological papers to a Sunstone symposium), Margaret Toscano (2000, for writing on feminist issues - but really for being Paul's wife).

Forum members, please add any additional links.

miss taken
6th March 2005, 07:45 AM
Has Van Wagoner been excommunicated for his book on Mormon Polygamy?

It was the book that I purchased from an LDS symposium, and what I read was SO DIFFERENT from the standard accounts of church history that I found it quite shocking..

What happened to him???

Are all the GA's who have written in a racist manner been ex'd, surely that is also not in keeping with Gods laws and commandments???

I don't get it!!

Mary

silverfox
6th March 2005, 07:54 AM
I always found it very interesting that the church didn't follow through with threat of disciplinary action against Thomas Murphy. (Murphy challenged the church's belief that American Indians are descendants of ancient Israel using DNA evidence)

The last I heard on this case was that his court of luv was postponed when protesters congregated around the temple grounds in support of Murphy. His stake prez decided he would get to know Murphy first.

I haven't heard anything more but I haven't researched it either. Is it because the church wants to keep it low profile because they can't argue against Murphy's DNA evidence?

I am glad no action was taken against Murphy - I just find it odd that so many have been and are ex'd or disfellowshipped. It was Murphy's DNA research that really helped me let go of the church. (thank you, Mr. Murphy!)

Edited to add this link regarding Murphy's research:

http://www.tungate.com/sinskinseed5.pdf#search='thomas%20w.%20murphy%20re search%20dna'

noodle
6th March 2005, 07:56 AM
Thanks for pulling this stuff together, Silverfox. I think it is interesting that Palmer's book was available through Deseret Book initially:

Palmer's book has been sold through the Church's publishing arm, Deseret Book, for over two years from its publication in October 2002. The book was pulled from the Deseret Book shelves and their online website on December 11, 2004.

Now, after reading through the info and links provided, I'm trying to figure out whether I am a heretic or an apostate. I'm leaning toward heretic. What is everybody else?

mamajama

Jeff_Ricks
6th March 2005, 09:42 AM
Paul therefore decided to take the advice of the Lord given in the Doctrine and Covenants and to appeal to the General Assembly. Needless to say, his appeal was unsuccessful and was told such by his Stake President. His reply, signed by President Hinckley, was similar to Lavina's, although his Stake President, against the wishes of the letter, decided to let Paul see the reply. The letter said that the Brethren have prayerfully considered his appeal, and have decided to uphold the decision of the Stake Court. They also hoped that he would repent and return to full fellowship, and also asked that he should not be shown the letter, nor be given a copy of it.



Don't let him see the letter? What spineless sniveling cowards! I commend the Stake president for going against Hinckley’s signed letter but shouldn’t he now be excommunicated too? ;)

Jeff

miss taken
6th March 2005, 09:49 AM
Quote taken from the link Silverfox gives at the top of this thread......

'whether you agree or disagree with Quinn's sentiments it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that he should have the right to express them. Remember what Joseph Smith said when somebody was being tried at a Church Court for their beliefs:-

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their Church. I WANT THE LIBERTY OF THINKING AND BELIEVING AS I PLEASE. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (History of the Church 5:340)'

I'm sorry, but sometimes, I find JS's opinions a lot more palatable than more recent overtures by authorities on the subject of matters of doctrine.

JS may have been a thoroughly complex individual, with his own sets of weaknesses and strengths, (and for sure he had as many strengths as he had weaknesses - don't we all), but on some issues he seems to be very Kosher.

I like the Article of Faith that says we need to (as Paul admonishes) seek good in all things. So unlike, the very many times I heard certain LDS people say that we shouldn't be reading non-church publications (I.e. C.S. Lewis) because they 'give 9 errors for 1 truth' and are therefore of the devil...

Another question.... Didn't it all start with the LDS church Historian who was excomunicated for his beliefs on the Book of Mormon (I can't remember his name) back pre-1950's? only to be posthumously un'ex'd???

Forgive me if I am wrong, it is in my brainbox somewhere??!!!!

Has anyone ever done a history of latter-day saint dissenters (as in, on points of doctrine/history of church) by the way???? From the beginning?

lsands
6th March 2005, 12:32 PM
Sunstone symposium did a retrospective in 2003; here's a link to the articles in the magazine. http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/index/mag_details.asp?MagID=130

Oops; they're unavailable online, but the cartoons are good! Here's another link to an article in the SL Tribune about it: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon116.html

I love Paul Toscano's comments here; I think they're worthy of a thread all their own!

BTW, silverfox, I understand your decision to remove the name of the person who requested you to, however, the events you refer to are a matter of public record. And, as far as I know, he is the only one who returned to "full fellowship" in the church, as they say.

Laraine

silverfox
6th March 2005, 03:12 PM
Sunstone symposium did a retrospective in 2003; here's a link to the articles in the magazine. http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/index/mag_details.asp?MagID=130

Oops; they're unavailable online, but the cartoons are good! Here's another link to an article in the SL Tribune about it: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon116.html

I love Paul Toscano's comments here; I think they're worthy of a thread all their own!

BTW, silverfox, I understand your decision to remove the name of the person who requested you to, however, the events you refer to are a matter of public record. And, as far as I know, he is the only one who returned to "full fellowship" in the church, as they say.

Laraine

I didn't remove the name - that's how it appeared in the excerpt from the website. The owner of the website must have been asked to remove it. It's public knowledge so I don't think it's any big deal.