THOU SHALL OBEY!
Anti-Mormon
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/24/2008 11:31:49 AM MST
Posted: 10:23 AM- ROSE PARK -- Peter Danzig did not set out to be a
Mormon activist.
The gentle musician spent his life serving the church he loved. He
went on a mission, married in the temple, composed pieces for Mormon
pageants, and taught hymns to children. He and his wife, Mary, also a
returned missionary, were raising their three daughters in Levan, but
driving to Salt Lake City each week to play in the LDS Orchestra at
Temple Square - he on viola, she, the violin. Both believed their
music was their gift to God.
Danzig said nothing in 1993 when church officials charged six well-
known Mormon scholars and intellectuals with apostasy for their
writings or issues. He kept quiet when Brigham Young University fired
history professor Steven Epperson, a member of Danzig's Mormon
congregation, for serving the homeless rather than attending church.
But in 2006, Danzig finally felt compelled to protest. BYU adjunct
professor Jeffrey Nielsen lost his job for arguing in a The Salt Lake
Tribune column that the LDS Church was wrong to oppose gay marriage
and to enlist Mormon support for a constitutional amendment against
it.
The dismissal appalled Danzig, who had explored the questions of
homosexuality while pursuing a graduate degree in clinical social
work.
"I wish to express to Jeffery Nielson that I
admire his courage and that I stand with him," Danzig wrote in a
letter The Tribune published on June 14, 2006. "I was troubled that my
church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an
amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of
Christ."
What happened next is disheartening to many who believe the church
should allow its members to express divergent political and personal
views. While others wrote letters in support of
Nielsen withoutfacing discipline, Danzig endured months of grueling
attacks on his motives and membership.
"There is room in the [LDS] Church for honest disagreement
regarding church positions," LDS Spokesman Scott Trotter said.
"Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member
acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders."
Deciding when a person is in "open opposition" varies among Mormon
bishops and stake presidents. Clearly, someone at the top thought
Danzig had crossed that line.
In his Tribune letter, Danzig mentioned he played in the
orchestra, which is open to Mormons in good standing. He wanted to
make it clear he was not a church opponent.
Within a week, LDS officials contacted Danzig with concerns about
the letter. They suspended him from the orchestra and for the next
year, he and, ultimately his wife, defended their loyalty, faith and
actions. No amount of persuasion or pleading could convince these
ecclesiastical leaders they meant well.
Ultimately, the Danzigs moved out of their Levan house and, in
December, resigned their membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints rather than face excommunication.
"Part of the reason for writing the letter was to find out if
there was room for personal conscience in this church. I was very
hopeful," Peter Danzig said. "But now I know there is none. This has
been a painful journey for me."
Set in motion: It began with a call from Michael Watson, secretary
to the church's governing First Presidency, to Barry Anderson,
orchestra administrator, and Mac Christensen, president of the
Tabernacle Choir, which is associated with the orchestra. Danzig said
Anderson told him Watson wondered whether "an enemy had infiltrated
the orchestra."
Eventually, the Danzigs' bishop and stake president in Levan got
involved.
All of the leaders declined to comment or offer any written
accounts of their actions.
"Communications of this nature between church leaders and members
are considered confidential," Trotter said.
Danzig wrote an outline of his version of events and sent it to
several of the leaders, offering to correct anything they thought was
inaccurate. He received no reply from the orchestra or choir reps, but
local leaders said if he published any part of his outline, they would
hold a disciplinary hearing.
"In hindsight I could have used some different language, but what
I wrote expressed the feelings of my heart," he said. "I have seen the
church abuse too many, including my family, without anyone daring to
speak out. It is important to me that the silence about this abuse
end."
Initially, Mary Danzig thought it was all a big misunderstanding.
But soon, her own devotion to the church came into question. She, too,
felt unwelcome in the orchestra. Her parents wrote letters to church
authorities, begging for an audience or at least some understanding.
They were unsuccessful.
"I felt like my world had come crashing down when Peter told me he
might be excommunicated," said Mary Danzig, at the time a member of
the Primary Presidency in her ward. "What would happen to my family in
the eternities, in our community, in our extended family? I found
myself coming completely unglued every Sunday. I spent a great deal of
time hiding in the bathroom crying with my little girls."
Shifting approaches: Between June 2006 and December 2007, the LDS
Church came out with several statements acknowledging homosexuality
may be inborn and difficult to change, even with much effort and
prayer. It was exactly the position Danzig had been defending.
Many committed Mormons, including philosophers, psychologists and
some politicians, disagree with the church on the Federal Marriage
Amendment, said Nielsen, who now teaches at Utah Valley State College
and Westminster College. Several members wrote letters to The Tribune
defending Nielsen and sharing his view. He is unaware of disciplinary
action taken against any of those letter writers.
Nielsen could no longer teach "gospel doctrine" in adult Sunday
school and has not been called to any other position in his Orem ward,
but has suffered no other ecclesiastical consequences.
Bill Bradshaw, a recently retired BYU professor of microbiology,
has given several public addresses about the science of homosexuality,
detailing published evidence that argues strongly for a biological
origin. He is also the chairman, with his wife, Marge Bradshaw, of
Family Fellowship, a support group for the LDS families with gay and
lesbian children.
After a relative complained to their bishop, the man invited the
Bradshaws in for a discussion.
"Our bishop responded very favorably to the conversation,"
Bradshaw said. "He was very sympathetic."
Bradshaw doesn't entirely blame the Mormon leaders for what
happened to the Danzigs. Human interactions like this are too
complicated.
But he does feel an overwhelming sadness.
"Now I can't sit in church next to Peter and Mary and their kids
and I can't sit next to gay members of the church, whom they were
defending," Bradshaw said. "The bottom line is I don't have the
fellowship of loving people and that's a hurt for me."
Peter Danzig's letter to the editor of The Tribune published June 14,
2006:
As a member of the LDS Church, returned missionary and member of
the Orchestra at Temple Square, I am appalled at the intellectual
tyranny that our leadership has exercised through the summary
dismissal of Jeffrey Nielsen from his teaching position at Brigham
Young University for speaking his mind in an op-ed published June 4 in
The Tribune. I was troubled that my church requested that I violate my
own conscience to write in support of an amendment (marriage) I feel
is contrary to the Constitution and to the gospel of Christ.
I am even more discouraged to see how they deal with an honest
difference of opinion.
I wish to express to Jeffrey Nielsen that I admire his courage and
that I stand with him. I hope that rank-and-file members of the church
as well as members of the lay clergy who also find this troubling will
have the courage to step forward and let themselves be known. To do
anything else would be to hide in the shadow of an injustice.
John
> LDS Church disciplines musician
> By Peggy Fletcher Stack
> The Salt Lake Tribune
> Article Last Updated: 02/24/2008 11:31:49 AM MST
>
> Posted: 10:23 AM- ROSE PARK -- Peter Danzig did not set out to be a
> Mormon activist.
And we will never know the truth, because of this:
"All of the leaders declined to comment or offer any written
accounts of their actions.
"Communications of this nature between church leaders and members
are considered confidential," Trotter said. "
Given that policy, which is easy to understand and defend, all we will
ever hear, are the whining and the moaning of the one party.
Since we cannot know the facts from both sides, its hard to determine
if Mr Danzig is speaking all the truth. odds are, he has left out some
important details.
And personally, I don't see why anyone would bother with a church that
doesn't teach what you want to be taught. If you are in favor of gays
and women holding the priesthood, why are you LDS? Go be a
presbyterian, and get the gospel that best fits your personal desires
and opinions.
Every latter day saint is aware of how things work, and what is done
in the church. If you object to it, leave.
Just James
> On Feb 25, 8:41 am, Anti-Mormon <summeroverwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> LDS Church disciplines musician
>> By Peggy Fletcher Stack
>> The Salt Lake Tribune
>> Article Last Updated: 02/24/2008 11:31:49 AM MST
>>
>> Posted: 10:23 AM- ROSE PARK -- Peter Danzig did not set out to be a
>> Mormon activist.
>
> And we will never know the truth, because of this:
>
> "All of the leaders declined to comment or offer any written
> accounts of their actions.
> "Communications of this nature between church leaders and members
> are considered confidential," Trotter said. "
>
> Given that policy, which is easy to understand and defend, all we will
> ever hear, are the whining and the moaning of the one party.
Not true. Mr. Danzig sent an outline of events to the authorities in
question. If they felt like he had misrepresented them, they could
speak up. It's called a "negative confirmation" in audit speak. IT is
weaker than the positive, which is a direct statement of what occurred.
> Since we cannot know the facts from both sides, its hard to determine
> if Mr Danzig is speaking all the truth. odds are, he has left out some
> important details.
Why are those "the odds" here? If a person has an honest disagreement,
why should they be singled out? There were many others who did not, why
would the church feel it necessary to hide the facts?
> And personally, I don't see why anyone would bother with a church that
> doesn't teach what you want to be taught. If you are in favor of gays
> and women holding the priesthood, why are you LDS? Go be a
> presbyterian, and get the gospel that best fits your personal desires
> and opinions.
Really? Do you attend church regularly, take the sacrament and go to
the temple? These people seem to agree with some of the core doctrines
such as JSjr, BoM, Temples, etc. but disagree on social issues. In
fact, the article points out that the church now has a more moderate
view, which was inline with Mr. Danzig's criticism.
> Every latter day saint is aware of how things work, and what is done
> in the church. If you object to it, leave.
Which is what they had to do in order to avoid being Exed. It is clear
the church demands strict obedience and it is difficult for many to
subjugate their own consciences just because a "prophet" says something
is true. My problem with the church is the same as with all religion,
but I empathize with those who wish to believe in the BoM but not the
harsh totalitarian leadership currently in place.
--
Just James
"A man is accepted into church for what he believes--and turned out for
what he knows."
-Mark Twain
John
> John wrote:
>
> > And we will never know the truth, because of this:
>
> > "All of the leaders declined to comment or offer any written
> > accounts of their actions.
> > "Communications of this nature between church leaders and members
> > are considered confidential," Trotter said. "
>
> > Given that policy, which is easy to understand and defend, all we will
> > ever hear, are the whining and the moaning of the one party.
>
> Not true. Mr. Danzig sent an outline of events to the authorities in
> question. If they felt like he had misrepresented them, they could
> speak up.
No. The church does not discuss such issues with the public. If Mr
Danzig was lying, or leaving something out, the church will never
bring those things to light. Its private, as far as they are
concerned.
Besides, why would anyone want to belong to a church that didn't
believe the way that they do, anyway? You didn't care for the way the
church was run, and what it taught, so you quit. People who are
members, but want things to be their way, rather than the Lord's way,
should do what you did, and quit. It makes no sense to try to force
the church to change its ways. Members believe that the Lord is in
charge and yet the think that they can set the rules. There are plenty
of churches out there for people who want to find one that matches
their opinion of who God is.
I have no sympathy for those who go against the leadership, and end up
no longer a member. Its stupid, and a waste of time, to belong to a
church you don't believe in.
John
Just James
> On Feb 25, 11:20 am, Just James <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> And we will never know the truth, because of this:
>>> "All of the leaders declined to comment or offer any written
>>> accounts of their actions.
>>> "Communications of this nature between church leaders and members
>>> are considered confidential," Trotter said. "
>>> Given that policy, which is easy to understand and defend, all we will
>>> ever hear, are the whining and the moaning of the one party.
>> Not true. Mr. Danzig sent an outline of events to the authorities in
>> question. If they felt like he had misrepresented them, they could
>> speak up.
>
> No. The church does not discuss such issues with the public. If Mr
> Danzig was lying, or leaving something out, the church will never
> bring those things to light. Its private, as far as they are
> concerned.
It is still negative confirmation.
> Besides, why would anyone want to belong to a church that didn't
> believe the way that they do, anyway? You didn't care for the way the
> church was run, and what it taught, so you quit. People who are
> members, but want things to be their way, rather than the Lord's way,
> should do what you did, and quit. It makes no sense to try to force
> the church to change its ways. Members believe that the Lord is in
> charge and yet the think that they can set the rules. There are plenty
> of churches out there for people who want to find one that matches
> their opinion of who God is.
It is called cognitive dissonance. Most people get a certain set of
beliefs and stick to it no matter what. When things begin to disagree
with their beliefs, dissonance occurs. So these people are able to hold
to equal yet opposing viewpoints. At some point, one will give.
> I have no sympathy for those who go against the leadership, and end up
> no longer a member. Its stupid, and a waste of time, to belong to a
> church you don't believe in.
Really? Do you attend church regularly, take the sacrament and go to
the temple? These people seem to agree with some of the core doctrines
such as JSjr, BoM, Temples, etc. but disagree on social issues. In
fact, the article points out that the church now has a more moderate
view, which was inline with Mr. Danzig's criticism.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
Thou "shalt" obey. If you're going to use the archaic form, at least
conjugate the verbs correctly.
bestRegards, Guy.
John
>
> Really? Do you attend church regularly, take the sacrament and go to
> the temple? These people seem to agree with some of the core doctrines
> such as JSjr, BoM, Temples, etc. but disagree on social issues. In
> fact, the article points out that the church now has a more moderate
> view, which was inline with Mr. Danzig's criticism.
The CORE doctrine of the LDS church, is that the Lord is in charge.
This ain't methodists, or baptists who vote on what they want the Lord
to think. The LDS church exists because it is the restored church,
headed by the Lord Jesus Christ. That is its claim.
You cannot believe in the core value of the church, and then wander
off and demand that men make changes to the Lord's will and His word.
Its either the Church Of Jesus Christ, or its not, and if it is, then
the Lord is running it as He sees fit.
And again, we only have one side of the story, so there can be no
conclusions without speculation, which leads to nowhere.
Just James
> On Feb 25, 12:05 pm, Just James <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Really? Do you attend church regularly, take the sacrament and go to
>> the temple? These people seem to agree with some of the core doctrines
>> such as JSjr, BoM, Temples, etc. but disagree on social issues. In
>> fact, the article points out that the church now has a more moderate
>> view, which was inline with Mr. Danzig's criticism.
>
>
> The CORE doctrine of the LDS church, is that the Lord is in charge.
> This ain't methodists, or baptists who vote on what they want the Lord
> to think. The LDS church exists because it is the restored church,
> headed by the Lord Jesus Christ. That is its claim.
In these cases, it does not appear that is the case.
> You cannot believe in the core value of the church, and then wander
> off and demand that men make changes to the Lord's will and His word.
> Its either the Church Of Jesus Christ, or its not, and if it is, then
> the Lord is running it as He sees fit.
And yet, the church has.
> And again, we only have one side of the story, so there can be no
> conclusions without speculation, which leads to nowhere.
I'm inclined to agree. The trouble is that these people are going
public with their "private" matter. The church only has an obligation
to keep silent when the person involved does not want it to go public.
In these cases, the matter is very public and the church only hurts its
image by keeping silent.
John
> I'm inclined to agree. The trouble is that these people are going
> public with their "private" matter. The church only has an obligation
> to keep silent when the person involved does not want it to go public.
> In these cases, the matter is very public and the church only hurts its
> image by keeping silent.
That would imply that you think the church should "go after" the
offender in the court of public opinion, and make an effort to defame
him and his family, in the event that there are more details than have
been revealed by the one side?
I think the church does the right thing in all these cases. Handle it
internally, keep the personal and private issues out of the public
eye, and if the individual feels the need to whine to the media and
those that can't stand the church, that is their choice. Stooping to
their level avails nothing. People who stand in opposition to the
church will stand in opposition, even if a train with the Lord as the
engineer, runs right over them.
Those who want the sordid personal details call it 'hiding"
I call it it responsible, and a class way to handle things.
John
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Feb 25, 3:03 pm, Just James <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm inclined to agree. The trouble is that these people are going
> > public with their "private" matter. The church only has an obligation
> > to keep silent when the person involved does not want it to go public.
> > In these cases, the matter is very public and the church only hurts its
> > image by keeping silent.
>
> That would imply that you think the church should "go after" the
> offender in the court of public opinion, and make an effort to defame
> him and his family, in the event that there are more details than have
> been revealed by the one side?
To see some examples of how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (LDS or Mormon) uses excommunication see the following link:
http://mormonalliance.org/casereports/volume3/part1/v3p1c05.htm
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Just James
> On Feb 25, 3:03 pm, Just James <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm inclined to agree. The trouble is that these people are going
>> public with their "private" matter. The church only has an obligation
>> to keep silent when the person involved does not want it to go public.
>> In these cases, the matter is very public and the church only hurts its
>> image by keeping silent.
>
> That would imply that you think the church should "go after" the
> offender in the court of public opinion, and make an effort to defame
> him and his family, in the event that there are more details than have
> been revealed by the one side?
That is a huge leap. One can defend one's self without defaming
another. If "facts" are presented, the other party can simply state
their own version of the facts and let the public decide. Why on earth
would the church need to "go after" anyone? If they had valid reasons,
they can be stated.
> I think the church does the right thing in all these cases. Handle it
> internally, keep the personal and private issues out of the public
> eye, and if the individual feels the need to whine to the media and
> those that can't stand the church, that is their choice. Stooping to
> their level avails nothing.
It should e noted though that the church does "go after" individuals
privately. The problem is that the organization is so close knit, that
the "private" matter quickly becomes public knowledge to their very
small band. Since it is assumed the church would not go after someone
without good reason, many would assume that the person is guilty of the
rumored offense.
> People who stand in opposition to the
> church will stand in opposition, even if a train with the Lord as the
> engineer, runs right over them.
Quite an apt analogy. I'm sure your god has no problem running people
over. The OT is full of examples.
> Those who want the sordid personal details call it 'hiding"
>
> I call it it responsible, and a class way to handle things.
>
> John
You have a strange sense of "class".
Duwaynea Anderson
> John wrote:
<snip>
> > I think the church does the right thing in all these cases. Handle it
> > internally, keep the personal and private issues out of the public
> > eye, and if the individual feels the need to whine to the media and
> > those that can't stand the church, that is their choice. Stooping to
> > their level avails nothing.
>
> It should e noted though that the church does "go after" individuals
> privately. The problem is that the organization is so close knit, that
> the "private" matter quickly becomes public knowledge to their very
> small band. Since it is assumed the church would not go after someone
> without good reason, many would assume that the person is guilty of the
> rumored offense.
Back in the 60s, and before, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints practiced public excommunication. The announcements were made
in Priesthood Meeting and involved a member of the Bishopric standing
up and explaining that so-and-so had been excommunicated for adultery,
or fornication, or apostasy, etc. The priesthood holders were then
told the terms of the excommunication.
"Apostasy" was a catch-all phrase that could include just about
anything.
The process was clearly meant to be intimidating and punitive. Just
as bad, if a person simply wanted to resign their membership the
bishop would call a "church court" and drum up charges for
excommunicating them instead (this was where the general "apostasy"
charges often came in handy).
I was a young kid when they were doing this crap, but remember it
well. I don't know all the particulars, but apparently they tried
publicly excommunicating one particularly brave fellow who turned
around and sued the bastards in court -- prompting a change in
policy.
The policy has been changed/modified since then, also in response to
legal action.
John Manning
The Third Reich was discreet and 'classy' in handling the 'disobedient'.
The 'one true church' even buddied up with them. Authoritarian regimes
all operate in a similar way in demanding submission, loyalty and
obedience - or else.
Just James
The rumor mill is a much better way to go if you are trying to
intimidate. As noted, most LdS are unlikely to think the Church made a
mistake and more inclined to believe the person has committed a sin.
the less specific, the more can be filled in with gossip. So, even
those these people may still believe in many of the core values of the
Church, they are unlikely to continue membership considering their name
would be tainted.