Mormon excommunicated for producing beefcake missionary calendar
flockwood
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SALT LAKE CITY - The creator of a calendar that featured shirtless Mormon missionaries was excommunicated Sunday after a disciplinary meeting with local church leaders in Las Vegas.
Chad Hardy said he bears no ill will toward the council of elders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“I felt like I spoke my truth,” the 31-year-old entertainment entrepreneur said. “Bottom-line, they still felt the calendar is inappropriate and not the image that the church wants to have.”
“Men on a Mission,” which has sold nearly 10,000 copies at $14.99 each, included pictures of 12 returned missionaries wearing black slacks, but not their trademark white shirts, in modest poses. The men also were photographed in traditional missionary garb and share their religious beliefs in biographical sketches.
Some of the 12 models have also been called to disciplinary meetings, but none were punished.
“I have no ill feelings toward any of those people,” Hardy said of the church council. “They did what they believed was right and I really do feel it was the best decision for both of us.”
Frank E. Davie, the senior leader over a group of Mormon congregations in the Las Vegas area, confirmed the 12-member council’s decision in a telephone call to The Associated Press. He declined further comment.
Hardy said the purpose of the 2008 calendar was not to tear down the church or its 13 million members.
“The project is about stepping outside the stereotypes and stepping outside of the image,” Hardy said. “Not everybody fits the image and I let them know we’re not trying to portray an image for the entire church.”
An excommunicated person is removed from official church rolls, but are still welcome at church services. Excommunicated members are prohibited from receiving the sacrament and can’t perform church callings such as teaching or preaching during meetings. They also cannot enter church temples.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’m sure there will be a few posts here, which is certainly fine. As someone who sits on these same disciplinary councils, I assure you the decision was not made lightly and there might be a little more to it than this article makes known, although I have no direct knowledge of the situation.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Did the Mormons ever think of trying to develop a sense of humor? I know it would be difficult, given their doctrine, but it would make life easier.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Actually, I think you’d find more humor in our meetings and “get togethers” than most other religious groups, but there is humor and then there is making light of sacred things. Like I said, I’m sure there was more too it than what the article says.
During our last general conference our church president, Thomas S. Monson, had us all in stitches while he told us of a boy who was mimicking him from the front row of a meeting; crossing one leg over another, switching when President Monson switched, making the same hand gestures…until President Monson stared the boy down and proceeded to wiggles his oversized ears, which the boy couldn’t do.
We love humor as much as the next group.
I, for one, do not have any problem with laughter even at my own expense, but I’m sure there are those in our church, just like in others, who take themselves too seriously.
Since we don’t know the whole story and won’t unless Mr. Hardy chooses to make it so, you just can’t assume it was because Mormons haven’t developed a sense of humor.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
No offense, David, but this is hardly the first example of Mormons not having much of a sense of humor about things. While wiggling ears is, no doubt, a neat party trick, a neater trick would be not labeling things “sacred” to avoid talking about them. I understand why you don’t people out there making beefcake calendars about Mormon missionaries, but don’t you think excommunication is a bit harsh of a remedy? I mean, no crime was committed, and my understanding is that all that was shown were topless males, which one can see in any issue of Sports Illustrated. And, I do think the incident is funny, just as the incidents in England (no doubt primarily among Anglicans) that started this trend were funny, too. Difference is that we didn’t excommunicate anyone and we did laugh about it.
July 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
After having done a little more reading about it, there was more to it than just the calendar. In our religion, when someone enters the temple they make sacred (yes, they are sacred) covenants, and it was obvious from other articles that the keeping or not keeping of those covenants had something to do with Mr. Hardy’ excommunication. As I’ve said three times now, there was more to it than just the calendar. It seems to me like Mr. Hardy wanted to part ways anyway.
Excommunication might seem harsh, but we view it in a little different light, probably. I’ve seen a few use it as a time and season to strengthen their faith and come back renewed and stronger in their faith. It is not exactly a punishment, but a time for repentence. Maybe Mr. Hardy will use it for that, maybe he won’t. That is entirely up to him.
As far as the labeling of sacred, that is a religious “tradition” from way back, my friend. There is nothing that we do not “talk about” in our church, but with whom we talk about them can be selective. Even the Lord himself did that.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
David, I don’t care if they excommunicate every Mormon in Utah. But let’s not lie about what they’re doing. They are punishing someone for a PR mistake. That’s fine; I’ve punished my share of people for PR mistakes, too, but I don’t ever remember it involving excommunication, and the resultant loss of one’s immortal soul. I always figured that monetary damages or loss of employment was sufficient to make the point.
The issue I see here is the secrecy inherent in the practices of the Mormon church, which are eerily similar to those of the Roman Catholic Church, which led to the sex abuse scandal. I’m not suggesting that there’s an unknown scandal among Mormons, but I am suggesting that if there were such a scandal, their history of secrecy would help them cover it up. I don’t like any more secrecy in anything than is absolutely necessary to run an organization. The Episcopal Church, for all its faults, and I’m the first to admit them, is at least open and honest about what it does, rather than operating in secret. When we excommunicate someone, which admittedly we don’t do very often, we do it only after a public trial governed by rules of procedure and evidence. No one would need to post a blog entry saying, “Well, uh, there’s more to it than that, but because I got it from the cousin of the guy’s roommate’s brother, I can’t tell it, and it might not be right . . . ” We just cite the transcript. The Catholic example should be enough to make any organization realize that openness is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary in today’s world.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
That bothers me a lot too. There really is no good apparent reason for such secrecy, and there’s a lot to say for openness. Just because a church holds itself accountable to God doesn’t mean that they have to keep everyone else cut out of the loop.
David’s defense of his church’s actions struch me as odd, with suggestions that “the church knows best and we can’t tell you why”. After the lessons of Guantanamo we should all realize that when it comes to matters of justice, assurances of authorities are no substitute for due process and open hearings.
The funny thing is that after reading the extra stuff about the case it appears that David is correct about the church’s decision being justifiable, based on Hardy’s voluntary withdrawal from Mormon church commitments. (The problem of half-clothed bodies versus sacred undergarments didn’t occur to me and many other non-Mormons.) But there is still no supportable rationale for the LDS church to operate so furtively, even if you believe that church leaders are divinely inspired and infallible. It just looks like they have something to hide.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Caleb,
You sure jump to a lot of conclusions without having any of the facts: “But let’s not lie about what they’re doing. They are punishing someone for a PR mistake.” You were not in the meeting that resulting in Mr. Hardy’s excommunication, thus you cannot come close to stating that with any conviction other than you have something against the LDS church.
Looking at your comments, I’m sure you read nothing more than the article that Frank reprinted here. For the fourth time now, THERE WAS MORE TO THE STORY. Mr. Hardy obviously broke some other covenants that our church considers sacred. As much as you would like to think so, we don’t excommunicate for PR’s sake. That wouldn’t even make sense. If we were that worried about PR, we’d change a lot of things to make our church more “popular” with the world; get rid of the Book of Mormon, stop stating we have living prophets, open up our temples to the world, etc.
And you can go on with the ““Well, uh, there’s more to it than that, but because I got it from the cousin of the guy’s roommate’s brother, I can’t tell it, and it might not be right . . . ” crap all you want, Caleb, but that is not what I did. I can’t state facts that I do not know, but I can go off of my experience. I’ve sat in on many of these “councils” and what I stated came from my own experience, which would be much greater than yours, thus more likely to be closer to the truth of what happened than something you might conjure up in your mind. That being said, I don’t live anywhere close to Mr. Hardy, I did not sit on the council that decided his excommunication, so I cannot tell you any details, nor should you expect that I could. Sorry, but I’m not that “high up.” If Mr. Hardy wants to spill the details, that’s up to him, and the church would do nothing to stop him, but the church is not going to do it because it’s none of your or my dang business, my friend, nor anyone elses, unless Mr. Hardy wishes to tell them. There is only one exception to the rule of the privacy of the disciplined member and that is if it the person is a general officer of the church. If a member of the twelve, or seventy even the president of the church himself were to receive church discipline, then it would be made public. Since that is the case, there goes both your’s and Jose’s worry that we have a massive cover up going on. When members of the seventy, Paul H. Dunn and George P. Lee were excommicated in the late 80s, it was made public. Mr. Hardy is not a church officer, so his was not. Like I said, it’s none of our business.
It seems to me that it shouldn’t be that big of a deal to you either. You state at the beginning, “…I don’t care if they excommunicate every Mormon in Utah…” If you didn’t care about that, then it logically follows that you wouldn’t care how it was carried out either or how “secretive” or open the church is about it.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
David, you’re right. I don’t care who the Mormons excommunicate. They no doubt would have excommunicated me long ago if I got near enough to them. And you’re also right that I don’t particularly care about the circumstances concerning this guy’s excommunication. I mean, duh, he should have known that twitting the Mormons, a group not known for their sense of humor, would get him in trouble and lead to something like this. So, no, I have no sympathy for him, either.
What I do care about is hypocrisy and a lack of openness in church organizations. You said in your earlier post that you’d looked into the matter and “knew” that something more than the beefcake calendar had occurred. Now you say you don’t know any facts, but are going on your general experience, and that you believe something else happened. Whatever. We shouldn’t have to speculate about something like that. My point is that this is hardly a matter of national security. As far as I’m concerned, the only justifiable reason to keep anything secret is for some type of security, economic, or business reason. I don’t see any of those here. If the Mormons had wanted to keep the whole thing secret, they didn’t have to excommunicate the guy. I doubt that their world would have fallen apart over a beefcake calendar.
Jose makes a good point. When has anything good ever come of secrecy? He cites Guantanamo Bay, and one could easily cite the Catholic sex abuse scandal as well. I have always held that the doctrine that caused the Catholics so much trouble wasn’t celibacy, but secrecy. Ditto some of the scandals in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other secretive churches. When it comes to interpersonal interactions, the only real cleanser is sunshine. Secrecy never works.
What you’re really saying through all your “you shouldn’t care about this” and “you shouldn’t care about that” statements is that I shouldn’t have the temerity to criticize the Mormons, a religion with which, you’re correct, I have no experience. I have nothing against the Mormons; I haven’t known many Mormons, but all of the ones I’ve known were nice people. What I have something against is hypocrisy, whether it comes from the Mormons, the Catholics, or my own church, of which I have also been critical. You can write any negative thing you want about any other church, such as mine, and no one complains. We understand that we’re fair game. But if someone writes a negative word about the Mormons, the scream can be heard from Salt Lake City to Lexington. Though your own posts, David, have shown great wit, most people who write in support of the Mormons appear to be a humorless lot, offended at every slight, and willing to devote reams of paper explaining exactly why the critism wasn’t justified. The Mormons, being arguably the worst PR practitioners in the world, just because of incidents like this, are going to have to get used to being criticized. They got a dose of it through the Mitt Romney candidacy, and as Mormons become more prominent in business and politics, they’re going to have lose this “I could tell you, but I’d have to kill you” mindset. Everyone else thinks it’s silly that you take this kind of attitude, and will lampoon you for it at every opportunity. Not to mention the whole underwear thing, which kind of creeps me out.
The Anglicans have done a lot of dumb things in their history, but we never got into this whole secrecy thing; we are out front and anyone who wants to throw brickbats at us is welcome to do so. Until the Mormons get into that place, they can expect this kind of embarrassment.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Caleb,
I’m going to quote from my own posts, just so we don’t get confused here.
“I assure you the decision was not made lightly and there might be a little more to it than this article makes known, although I HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION.”
“After having done a little more reading about it, there was more to it than just the calendar. In our religion, when someone enters the temple they make sacred (yes, they are sacred) covenants, and it was obvious from other articles that the keeping or not keeping of those covenants had something to do with Mr. Hardy’ excommunication.”
“I can’t state facts that I do not know, but I can go off of my experience. I’ve sat in on many of these “councils” and what I stated came from my own experience, which would be much greater than yours, thus more likely to be closer to the truth of what happened than something you might conjure up in your mind. That being said, I don’t live anywhere close to Mr. Hardy, I did not sit on the council that decided his excommunication, so I cannot tell you any details, nor should you expect that I could.”
Now, not one of these statements contradicts either of the other two. They are completely consistent.
I still have no direct knowledge of the situation, I wasn’t there. I read more on it and it was clear from the other articles that there were other issues besides the calendar. From my knowledge of how these things work, it would be consistent with that knowledge to say that even though I don’t have the complete details, there was probably more to it than just the calendar.
But, whatever. You just seem to have this thing about our “secrecy” which I cannot for my life understand. I’m going to be a little bold here, and I want you to know that I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but trying to make a point: What makes you think you have the right to know the details about Mr. Hardy’s excommunication? What makes you think you have the right to know the covenants we make in our temples? (Just another example of things that non-LDS call “secretive.”) Seriously. You call it “secrecy.” I call it a right to privacy. What makes your view the better one? You compare it to the Catholic priest scandal. I respond….WHAT? One has nothing to do with the other. In one, priests were abusing little children and they hid it for years. That is not even close to keeping private matters of one adult’s church discipline, especially (as I’ve said before)when the LDS church would never stop him from making the reasons public if HE CHOOSES TO DO SO. There is a huge difference between a cover up of enormous proportions as the Catholic Church had and our church choosing not to make public the material facts of one man’s personal affairs with the church. I’m assuming that you didn’t even bother to read what I said about our general authorities’ discipline always being made public.
And just so you know, I am never offended. Really, I’m not. If I see something that I think needs to be “corrected” (obviously that comes from perspective, what I think needs to be corrected might fair game to you…we each have our way of looking at things) then I’ll be pretty aggressive about it, but I can also see why you would see things like you do. It’s all perspective. If our beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny then they are not worth believing. So far in my almost 40 years, I’ve never found any of my beliefs that could not stand up to my own scrutiny. If they couldn’t, I wouldn’t be a member of the LDS faith.
Have a great day, my friend. I really enjoy reading what you write. It keeps me on my toes!
July 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Let me summarize, in my own George H.W. Bush simplicity: Secrecy bad. Openness good.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
David, we have no legal right to know the secrets of Mormonism, that is true. But “legal” is not the same as “moral”. Caleb and I are challenging the LDS church on its responsibility to be fair and consistent. In our experience, that ONLY comes with being open. Perhaps you believe the LDS church to be divinely immune from human foibles…I don’t know. What I do know is that secrecy and power are a bad mix, and that’s what the LDS leadership seem to enjoy. You are welcome to defend the policy of secrecy and authority on whatever grounds you wish, and we are sure to criticize it as unwise and ripe for abuse.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Let me summarize: I’m talking about an individual case where we have no business knowing why something happened. That is called the right of privacy of Mr. Hardy.
You guys are talking about secrecy on a grand scale. This cannot be proved by this individual case.
If you take the logical course of what you guys are saying, then what we should have is a direct audio/video feed from every high council room in every stake center of every LDS church when a disciplinary council is held….right? That sounds ludicris, but that’s exactly what you’re saying.
If you can think of anything we are hiding on a grand scale like the Catholic Church did, let me know, but I really thing you’re arguing a point that can’t be argued regarding this particular, individual case.
By the way, Caleb, I am having this flashback of Dana Carvey in makeup, speaking in front of the presidential seal….
July 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Jose,
OK, so there’s a difference between legal and moral. I think we can all agree on that. Now tell me, what MORAL right do you have to have the entire details of the reason a person, be it Mr. Hardy or any other, was excommunicated from ours our any other church?
You don’t.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
David, the fact that if I were Dana Carvey in makeup, I’d look better than the real me is a troubling fact. But to answer your question, I have no right to know anything about the Mormon church, period. My point is not about rights, but about public perception. You were quite right in an earlier post to suggest that if the Mormons really wanted to change their image and join the rest of the evangelical club, there are some fundamental things they’d have to do. And I don’t blame them for not wanting to do them. But one thing they could do is be more open about the process. Now I’m assuming, of course, that anyone in the Mormon church cares about public perception, and the only reason I make that assumption is because they always scream so loud when you criticize them.
The Mormon church is going through growing pains and perception pains right now. The fact is that all most non Mormons know or remember about the Mormons is their past of polygamy and racial issues. I know that they have abandoned both of those, but memory lives on. Now they appear to want to participate in the larger world as public figures. I have no problem with that. George Romney was probably the first living Mormon very many people outside the church had ever heard of, and I suspect most of them didn’t know he was a Mormon. Admittedly I was quite young when he ran for president, but I never knew he was a Mormon until this past election. His star fizzled out before his religion was scrutinized. His son Mitt was, in many ways, the JFK of Mormonism. He got enough public support that one could say that he broke a public relations barrier in a way no earlier Mormon had.
Just as Kennedy had to live with a religion that was frankly as foreign as the LDS church to most protestant Americans of the time (it still had a Latin mass at the time, and customs and rules that were far stricter than they are now), now Mormons are having the same experience. And if you look at it, they’re going through roughly the same process. The Catholic church has become so mainstream in the last forty years that no one blinked an eye when John Kerry, a lifelong Catholic, was nominated for President, and if anything, he was attacked for not being Catholic enough.
So, it’s all a process. And if the church wants to make it go faster, they’ll need to do some PR work, and losing some of the secrecy is a big part of that, even if the secrecy involves something that no one has a right to know. We don’t have a right to know a candidate’s religion, either, but none of us would be satisfied not knowing. Americans don’t trust secrecy, and rightly so.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
David, let’s set aside the hyperbole and exaggerations for a moment. It would be foolish for me to defend statments that I did not make or positions that I do not hold. Let me just agree that there is certainly a place for privacy in the larger balance of considerations.
Your question, “what MORAL right do you have to have the entire details” of the LDS proceedings against Mr. Hardy indicates where we are missing each other. You seem to look at this as an unwarranted invasion on the part of an outsider who has unmerited curiosity in sensational and tawdry scandals. But it’s not about me. It’s about Mr. Hardy and your church, not to mention other individuals and their churches. It’s about justice and accountability. It’s about the fact that secrecy is a natural obstacle to those values, and that openness is a remedy. An open exchange of information is no panacea, of course, and it carries its own costs. What I am asserting, though, is the notion that, generally speaking, being open is vastly preferable to being closed. There are examples too numerous to list, and I wish that you would acknowledge the dangers of secrecy, rather than portray the problem as a cartoonish choice between two outlandish extremes.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I agree with Jose’s post. But to backtrack a bit, David, you wrote: “If you can think of anything we are hiding on a grand scale like the Catholic Church did, let me know . . .”
Two points. First, prior to the breaking of the Boston Catholic cases in 2002 or so, no one outside the Catholic Church knew that a scandal was brewing there. Why? Because they kept it secret. And yes, they screamed like stuck pigs when someone suggested otherwise. I remember Cardinal Law, a man who would be indicted if he still lived in Massachussetts (they moved him to the Vatican to keep that from happening) calling down the “wrath of God” on the Boston Globe for reporting the story. So, no, I can’t tell you anything of that magnitude that the Mormons are covering up because if there is something, it’s been covered up.
Second, I bring this up only because you asked, and this is nowhere near as serious as the Catholic example, but there have been reports for years that the LDS church has been buying up and either destroying or hiding old manuscripts that cast doubt on the sacred origins of the Book of Mormon. There have also been reports for years that the LDS church leadership has silenced its internal critics, including suppressing the work of critics inside the church who have, through their own scholarly efforts, come to conclusions which differ from the party line.
Before you begin your thousand word refutation of this, I’ll answer your questions in advance. No, I don’t know any details. That may be because, if there is a coverup, it’s working. No, I’m not relying on any of the sensationalist books that have been published about various murders in Utah over the past few years. And, a big no, no, I have no right to know what manuscripts the LDS church has bought, destroyed, or hidden.
But you asked what kinds of things outsiders might think the LDS church was covering up, and this is the big one. And you can’t very well say that there is no coverup, because if they’re covering it up, they’re covering it up from you, not me. I always said that the reason the Catholics exerted so much secrecy over the sex scandal was not to prevent Protestants like me from knowing about it, but to keep their own people from knowing. They figure that most Protestants are already against them, but they don’t want to alienate their own people. At the height of the sex abuse scandal, regular offerings to local parishes in the Church fell 40% or more. And that’s from Catholics, not Protestants.
To be blunt about it, most non-Mormons already think that the Book of Mormon is a fake, and it’s unlikely that much is going to convince us otherwise. But the Mormons don’t believe that, and they would potentially be swayed by newly discovered evidence. So, if you want a potential scandal to conceal, there it is. And the Mormons have been so secretive about everything else that no one outside the church will ever believe that they aren’t covering up something here, too. Of course, the Catholics are subject to the same criticism; who knows what’s in the basement of the Vatican Library. Do you really want to take the Catholic Church as your example for openness?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Caleb and Jose,
Thanks for the posts. As always, they make me think. Let me assure you, there is not anything you have posted here; especially about coverups regarding the Book of Mormon, that I have not looked into. Like I said before, if my “truth” can’t stand up to scrutiny, then I won’t regard it is as truth. I’ve read the articles, on both sides, and I don’t see anything that shakes my faith.
And no Caleb, I certainly don’t want to use the Catholic Church as an example in this matter…no offense to any Catholics.
Thanks for your responses.
(Look that was much less than 1000 words!)
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Jose,
I read your post trying to put myself in your place. I can see why you say what you do. Believe me, I’m not trying to use exaggerated hyperbole. I can see exactly why you have the position you do and to be quite truthful, I think our church is quite open in the majority of things. There are thing we consider sacred, you call them secret, that we believe just shouldn’t be put out in the open. I hope you can see that it might be possible that some things don’t need to be out in open for all to see, when for the most part we are quite “out in the open.”
I appreciate your way of seeing things. It is always good to see how others view you, or your religion. Thank you for your response.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“There are thing we consider sacred, you call them secret, that we believe just shouldn’t be put out in the open.”
That’s certainly true. But no, I don’t agree with the following sentence. Sacred need not mean secret. A church may well decide to keep sacred rituals restricted to members (e.g. communion) or keep the details private (e.g. confessions). But in both examples, the procedure, intent, and underlying theology are all open for explanation and discussion. If the Catholics can admit their peculiar doctrines of transubstantiation and papal infallibility, why can’t the Mormons be open about their beliefs? I’m sure that the Mormons have a rationale for banning non-Mormons from wedding services, but I’m reasonable confident that an objective outsider would find it lacking.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Jose,
Perhaps that is true (the “objective outsider” part), but that isn’t what I’m concerned about, my friend. Rather than be concerned about what an objective outsider might think, I’m much more concerned about what the Ultimate Insider thinks.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Jose,
After reading your post again something struck me.
“A church may well decide to keep sacred rituals restricted to members (e.g. communion) or keep the details private (e.g. confessions). But in both examples, the procedure, intent, and underlying theology are all open for explanation and discussion.”
I cannot think of one example of our theology that is not open to explanation and discussion. Example: I’m sure you’re quite aware that what we do in our temples are ceremonies or “ordinances” which bind families here on earth and in the eternities. While we might not come out and give the exact wording of the ceremonies, we can certain discuss the “why” of the ordinances and even the procedure is nothing secret.
I just don’t think the whole “why can’t the Mormons be open about their beliefs?” argument holds any water, Jose, even when we’re talking about “Mormon marriages,” or anything else people think is secret.
We don’t hide the “why” behind anything we do. If we are so secretive, then why do you and Caleb seem to “know” so much about us and what we believe? That sounds sort of illogical to me. I’ve always thought it sort of funny that people want to talk about how “secretive” we are as a religion, yet they always seem to know more about our religion and our “secretive” beliefs than a card-carrying, former bicycle-riding-name-tag wearing missionary, 30-plus-time-Book of Mormon-reading, close-to-40-year-old lifetime member knows.
That makes very little sense to me and I would think a real “objective outsider” would definitely agree with that.
This is definitely getting off the subject, but if anyone wants to discuss the why of our theology, then I’m all for it. Neither I, nor my religion have anything to hide.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:56 am
The LDS church can have a strict policy of secrecy and work hard to enforce it, and yet some secrets can leak out. Those two facts are entirely consistent.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Getting back to the original piece, I think it commendable for the LDS church to keep mum about this particular individual. He has a certain amount of privacy due him, and if he wants to open his mouth and spill the beans-so to speak, then it becomes his right to do so.
As far as the whole excommunication , I never understood the big deal. If a church decides to oust me for my beliefs or actions, then I had better think about what it is that I am doing wrong or right. If they think that my salvation will be lost due to the excommunication then they need to get in line with God’s word; my salvation is dependant upon Jesus-not what some church states.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Peach,
Wow! Somebody actually agrees with me on the privacy issue. I appreciate that!
Regarding your last statement, you’re entirely correct. Jesus Christ is the one who will determine mine and your salvation. Like He said, “[He is] the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by [Him].”
He also stated, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Born of the water equals baptism, as I’m sure you know. Born of the spirit equals the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost. (See Acts 2:37-38) When one is excommunicated those blessings are removed as they were given, by one having authority (the priesthood). Obviously, those blessings can be returned upon conditions of repentance. We believe that all men will be resurrected by the gift and power of Christ, no matter what they believe. However, the church is a vessel or conduit by which the blessings of the priesthood can be given to those desiring them. So, yes, Peach, our salvation comes by Jesus alone, but blessings that are part of that salvation, greater blessings that just being “saved by resurrection”, come by way of the priesthood of which Jesus Christ himself was and is the great High Priest. As it states in Hebrews, “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.”
Jose,
What I’m talking about regarding our beliefs and theology did not “leak out.” We publish books and pamphlets and articles, hundreds of them, stating our beliefs. We publish a monthly magazine and every one of our leaders’ general conference talks are published for the world to see. You state, “The LDS church can have a strict policy of secrecy and work hard to enforce it, and yet some secrets can leak out,” but give no examples to back up the statement.
Many seem to think that we, the LDS church, have some great conspiracy to put ourselves out there like an ordinary Christian church and when we lure in the unsuspecting convert….”POW!”….we’ve got’em and then we unload all the great, dark secrets about what we “really believe!” Honestly, it’s enough to make me roll on the floor laughing. I’m sorry if that offends somebody, but really, how ridiculous is that? Like I said before, I have been a member for close to 40 years and no one has ever forced me to attend church, no one has forced me to pay tithes and no one has forced me to do anything. I’ve probably studied more than 98% of the members of the church regarding the theology of it and I’m still here. I realize that there are some out there that just think we’re all hypnotized zombies, but it just ain’t so, folks.
Tell me where we are so secretive in our theology, Jose? Give me a good example. Are you going to go with all of the so called history that we’ve tried to hide? Sorry, but I’ve read as much of that as possible and there’s nothing to hide unless you want to start speaking about revisionist “historians” (and I use the term loosely….). And, as a matter of fact, those examples have nothing to do with our theology. They usually are very tired attempts at throwing stones at the character of early church leaders.
Like I said, if you want to talk about our theology, fine, but let’s be honest about what we are really after. If you simply want to make general statements that you can’t back up because you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker all the ridiculous crap you’ve been fed by your various ministers regarding our church and how they know so much more about what I believe than I do, then don’t waste my time.
(Sorry if that offends anyone, but sometimes you just have to say it how it is.
)
July 26th, 2008 at 10:31 am
David, I think the consensus is, too much secrecy leads one to believe an almost cult like atmosphere exists. That is what I gather from the posts.