Why We Don't Sign
Our Names To These Pages
The reason we don't make ourselves known is simple - Many LDS will
consider our opposition to the current policy as being disloyal to
the Church. This isn't a valid or reasonable assumption, however.
Journalist Edward R. Murrow, in his broadcast critique of Senator
Joseph McCarthy's campaign against "The Red Menace", stated,
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Dwight D.
Eisenhower in a speech at Columbia University in 1954 agreed saying,
"May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Joseph Smith said, "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I
bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too,
if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to
compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning,
for truth will cut its own way."
(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 313.)
President Hugh B. Brown, in his book,
"An Abundant Life", gives a number of quotes regarding the
free exchange of thoughts and ideas, free from threats or
interference. Consider these three -
"Even in our own church men and women take issue with one another
and contend for their own interpretations. This free exchange of
ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble
and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion
should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church.
People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid
to think without fear of ill consequences." (at p.138)
"I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who
are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should,
of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be
unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions
compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition
truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression."
(at p.137)
"I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity
of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think
and express our opinions in the church. Fear will not stifle
thought. God himself refuses to trammel free agency even though its
exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science
and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in
the climate of freedom." (at p.137)
Despite the above, many will want us subjected to "Church Discipline"
possibly facing being either disfellowshiped or excommunicated.
Edward R. Murrow, in that same speech, stated further,
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that
conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law."
Punishing people must be based on facts rather than mere accusations
of apostasy by those in authority. We welcome those who disagree
with us to examine our evidence, quotes, scriptures, etc...and to
offer evidence of our alleged error. We will gladly recant any
position which can be shown to be in error. We hope to have civil
and reasoned exchanges with those whose views differ from our own.
Despite dissent not being disloyalty nor accusations being proof of
wrong doing, Church disciplinary councils have a much lower "burden
of proof" in finding someone guilty of apostasy. The "Church Handbook of Instruction" policy manual discusses charges warranting "Church Discipline" (punishments).
On page 95, it defines "Apostasy" as follows -
"Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:
1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition
to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not
Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or
higher authority
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those
that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop
or higher authority.
In such cases, excommunication may be necessary if repentance is not
evident after counseling and encouragement. "
Please note that presenting evidence of the Church not being in
compliance with the scriptures
is NOT a defense against the charge of apostasy per #1 above. Being
doctrinally correct doesn't matter. One can be excommunicated for
apostasy even if they are objectively telling the truth if that
truth is contrary to any given Church policy or position.
The Book of Mormon gives an example of, and model for, our position
of anonymity -
In Mosiah 17:2,
Alma defends Abinadi against unrighteous charges. Alma's unpopular
position caused the leaders to desire to persecute him and he fled
and hid (v3-4).
Alma went and taught his positions privately, rather than openly,
in order to avoid being persecuted by the king
(Mosiah 18:3). The king heard about Alma's success and those
siding with the king, rather than the truth, helped him find Alma
so that Alma could be persecuted more
(v31-34).
We too are teaching an unpopular, yet scripturally sound, position.
Those of us who have spoken openly have been persecuted in various
ways such as having been released from callings of responsibility
and even having temple recommends revoked. Look
here for a number of examples. Continuing to speak out publicly
will lead to more severe forms of "Church Discipline" such as
disfellowshipment or excommunication. We, like Alma, choose to
teach privately, rather than openly, to avoid this.
If we are correct, yet excommunicated, it allows other faithful LDS
to dismiss our claims without feeling the need to examine our
evidence. Many feel that people are wrong by definition if they
have been excommunicated for apostasy. We are disloyal.
Being excommunicated if one is right is a classic example of "
unrighteous dominion" if the leaders fail to examine the evidence
or dismiss it as wrong simply because the Brethren say it is wrong. "
Unrighteous dominion" occurs when leaders try to "exercise
control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of
men, in any degree of unrighteousness". Knowingly punishing people
for telling the truth is, by definition, unrighteous.
D&C 121:41 says, "No power or influence can or ought to be
maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-
suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;"
If leaders feel that we are wrong, we invite them to "reason together"
with us and using "gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned"
objectively show us the error of our ways.
We LDS have a hymn, Oh Say, What Is Truth?, which has the
following line -
"Yes, say, what is truth? 'Tis the brightest prize To which mortals
or Gods can aspire..."
Truth reigns supreme. It is not to be ignored if it
conflicts with the personal opinions of anyone, even the Church's
leadership.
Because we hold the truth to be supreme, we will gladly recant our
position. Because we are devout LDS, we are grieved and saddened to
feel that our leaders don't share our view of the
scriptures, freedom, and equality in this regard. We would be
grateful to be objectively shown the error of our ways and how our
logic and scriptural interpretation is faulty. We would gladly
recant our position and support the Church's efforts in this area.
Unfortunately, we don't expect thoughtful and reasoned responses
from those in authority. We fully expect to be ignored and to get
hate mail from the rank and file LDS filled with name calling yet
precious little reasoned debate. We pray that we are wrong in these
assumptions.
