And he adds:First of all, let me make it plain that I’m saddened by excommunications — as, I’m confident, President Oaks is. I don’t, as one very small pod of my somewhat unhinged personal critics pretend to believe, rejoice when people are excommunicated. More precisely, though, I’m saddened by the acts of immorality, the abandonment of once-treasured covenants, the loss of spiritual confidence and trust, the angry rejection of Church leadership, the repudiation of central teachings of the Restoration, or whatever else it may be that has led to excommunication. What saddens me isn’t so much the excommunication itself, which, in important ways, merely acknowledges a defection from the Kingdom, as it is the original straying from fellowship.
Not at all surprising: this a prelude to his extended critique to a series of complaints about the modern versions of LDS excommunication. I don’t really have any issue with his response per se (and kudos to him for acknowledging that the practice can be “abusive”), but I do take issue with what appears to be a rather distorted account of his own attitude towards excommunication as evidenced by his own behavior and comments, and those of his Mopologetic colleagues.Rumors of my glee over excommunications have not only been greatly exaggerated, they’ve been invented out of whole cloth. As I’ve mentioned, similar things are currently being said about President Oaks. As I’ve also said, I’m sure that they’re equally untrue and unjust.
Simply put, while I don’t doubt that there were occasions when he *was* genuinely “saddened” by the process, the fact remains that he and his fellow Mopologists have, over the years, targeted multiple people with the obvious intention of getting them in trouble with their ecclesiastical authorities, and that they have even exulted when certain critics have gotten ex’ed.
Perhaps the most prominent example is John Dehlin. DCP, Greg Smith, Midgley, the Interpreter staff, and others worked collectively to get Dehlin ex’ed. Now, they will claim that all they were doing was collecting his writings and publishing them, but the problem here, of course, is that none of them was Dehlin’s stake president. And when Dehlin *was* finally ex’ed the giddy sense of “I told you so!” excitement on their part was palpable. They weren’t “saddened.” Or rather, they were saddened in the same way that BYU football fans are “saddened” when the Utes lose. If they were genuinely bummed out (despite all the smear pieces), then why didn’t they reach out a hand of fellowship in an effort to draw Dehlin back into the fold?
But Dehlin is not the only example. Murphy; David Wright; Jonathan Neville and the Hearttlanders: in various ways, the Mopologists could be seen to be working at deliberately trying to get these people punished. DCP himself admitted that he thought one of his BYU colleagues—presumably Wright—deserved to be ex’ed,and it is impossible to overlook the degree to which the Mopologists have milked excommunication as a means of discrediting people—Mike Quinn being a prime example. (And a perfect illustration of what I’m talking about: DCP has insinuated that Quinn was ex’ed for “gay stuff.” So was he ‘saddened’ that Quinn was gay? Or was he actually ‘saddened’ that Quinn wrote unapologetically honest history that didn’t always paint the Church in a positive light? And bear in mind that Quinn remained a believer to the end—*he* was not the one who chose to be disconnected from the community of Latter-day Saints.) Meanwhile, there are countless examples of Mopologists—such as Scott Gordon with David Twede—“ratting” people out. Is this merely “defending the Church”? Or is it hoping to get these people in trouble, in the maximum ecclesiastical way? I submit to you that this is a distinction without a difference.
So: “Saddened” by excommunication? Maybe in some instances. But there can be no question that the Mopologists have regarded the possibility of excommunication with enormous relish. They have actively worked to get people ex’ed, and have been positively exuberant when it has happened. In fact, check out this recent post from SeN”
Does this look like “sadness” to you? To me, it looks like an invitation to join in on the “disgust” that the author feels towards this apparently sub-human “shameless…ex-Mormon.”I have been vaguely aware of a fellow who calls himself “Nemo the Mormon” for quite a while now. But I’ve paid him no attention. Up until recently, in fact, I didn’t even know whether he was a committed, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or not….
I think that I thought of him as a rather liberal but active member and I dimly imagined that he lived in eastern Canada. In all of that, I now realize that I was completely and utterly wrong. If you have the appetite for a twelve-minute video about an especially shameless specimen of ex-Mormon pretense and play-acting, I can recommend “Nemo the Mormon: The Disingenuous Hero of Anti Mormonism.” It’s pretty disgusting — to me at least — although it’s been feted, praised, and lauded in certain circles.
I’m curious: what are others’ impressions of the Mopologists’ relationship with excommunication?
