Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

“You’re driving down a winding, rain-slicked road on a dangerous, stormy night. You pass a bus stop where three people are waiting for the bus. One is an elderly woman who appears to be very ill. The second is someone you recognize as a friend who once saved your life. The third is someone who you, in hindsight, recognize you should have married years before. (They later revealed that given the opportunity, they would be now open to your entreaties.)  You have room in your sports car for only one other person. Which one would you offer a ride?”

Before clicking through, think about how you would answer this question.

In your answer, you could justifiably pick up the elderly lady since her condition is the most precarious. Or you could pay back the friend who saved your life. Or you could pick up your mate and live happily ever after. Each of these decisions might tell the interviewer something about your priorities.

The successful candidate, out of 200 who applied, indicated that you should give the car keys to the old friend and let him or her take the sick woman to the hospital, while you sit with the love of your life awaiting the bus. I loved that answer! It showed compassion, trust, and ardor, as well as a great deal of creativity. I believe that creativity is extremely important in exercising judgment.

One biblical illustration of this ability is the story of Solomon, when judging in his role as king. Two women came before him claiming the same child was theirs. After deliberating, he decreed that the infant be divided in two with a sword, with half given to one woman and half to the other. One of the women relented, and was willing to give up the baby so he would not be killed. By this Solomon knew that she was the true mother. Solomon’s wisdom and creativity in solving this and many other challenges became legendary. He became a powerful national ruler. Not only was he the administrator who oversaw the building of the First Temple in Jerusalem, he was also a noted lover and poet. King Solomon had 700 wives (and 300 concubines) and is the attributed author of “The Song of Songs.” It is the only book of the Bible that deals openly with sexual love, and which reputedly takes as its subject matter his intense affair with the Queen of Sheba. In apocryphal traditions, Solomon could communicate with both animals and demons. He is well known in the occultist field as one who could control spiritual forces, as attested by the Medival grimoires that bear his name as author, “The Key of Solomon” and “The Lesser Key of Solomon.”  By all accounts, he was an intelligent, passionate, many-faceted and creative leader.

Interestingly, Solomon is a Biblical character who was given two names by God.  When Solomon was born, the prophet Nathan received word from the Lord that this child is loved by God. Hence he named him Jedidiah (2 Sam 12:25), although this name is never again used.  Instead we know him by Solomon, an name given to him by his father, David. David explains that the word of the Lord came unto him, saying “Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon (Shlomo), and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.” (1 Chron 22:9) The Hebrew name Shlomo is taken from the same root as the word “shalom.” It means peace, or completeness.

The Savior showed the same qualities of creativity in judgment in several instances. When asked the hard questions, he often turned things around, as he did with the woman taken in adultery. Instead of either supporting the law of punishing an adulterer, or overturning that law, he asked the stone-throwers to look inside themselves and “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:1-11)

I think that one of the ways to achieve peace and completeness in our world and in our LDS wards is to cultivate creative judgment such as Solomon, Jesus, and our anonymous job applicant showed. In the 1970′s conflict resolution by win-win strategy became extremely popular. There was a proliferation of group-dynamic games emphasizing the importance of cooperation, fun, sharing, caring and overall group success in contrast to domination, egoistic behavior and personal gain. In these games all players are treated as equally important and valuable. The “I’m OK, You’re OK” model of transactional analysis helped thousands of people use creative ways of judgment which did not posit a loser and a winner. I would love to see some of these strategies brought back and used in the LDS “court of love” system. Too often, the accused member is brought before the tribunal in a “not OK” paradigm and either retained as a penitent or cut off without consideration of paths to peace and completeness for all concerned.

Creativity, empathy and the ability to envision different solutions are qualities that I value highly. In fact, because of his humor and out-of-the-box thinking, I might even give credence to the prospect who suggested this on his application:

“The driver should run over the elderly woman, put her out of her misery, fulfill any unrequited desires with the love of his life, and then drive off with the friend who saved his life for some strawberry margaritas at Pancho’s on the Strand!”

I enjoy watching people in Church, family, and work environments employ unusual win-win and I’m OK — You’re OK strategies for themselves and others to create peaceful and healing solutions to challenges they face.

Those who follow Mormonism and who worry about its treatment of dissidents might be excused for thinking that the LDS Church stands alone in its use of excommunication. I must admit I was one of them. I was wrong.

It seems that excommunication (sometimes known as “disfellowshipping”) is not unique to Mormonism.[1] This conclusion comes from American court opinions in which aggrieved former members from a variety of faiths challenged their harsh treatment at the hands of church officials. It seems that many major American religions have been sued for wrongful excommunication. From the early part of the 20th century to the present, the defendant churches have included the Baptists,[2] the Presbyterians,[3] the Catholics,[4] the Lutherans[5], the Congregationalists,[6] the Pentecostals,[7] the Hudderites,[8] and the Jews,[9] as well as some lesser known faiths.[10]

What about the Mormons? I found five cases – four of which were in the last 20 years – in which the LDS Church has been sued for its allegedly heavy-handed treatment in expelling its members.[11] How does this compare to other faiths? A few years ago, I spent some time analyzing how Muslims are treated in American law, and eventually published an article entitled “2007 Year In Review: Islam in the Courts,” which was picked up in a favorable piece by the New York Times.[12] As a result, I received some hostile comments, including one with described me as an “Islamophobe” and claimed that I would get the same results if I applied the same methodology to any religion.

To test this claim, I turned to Mormonism, which I know. I pulled every American court opinion, from any court, mentioning the LDS faith. To defend against accusations that any description of this body of law would be anecdotal, I did the same thing with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Christian Scientists.

From this survey, what can we conclude about the LDS Church’s use on the excommunication remedy when we look at its legal history compared with these three other faiths with which it is commonly confused?

It turns out that the Mormon Church is sued more for its excommunication decisions than either the Christian Scientists or the Seventh Day Adventists, but not as much as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For the Scientists and the Adventists, there were one (1) and three (3) cases, respectively, and for the Christian Scientists, we have to go back to 1955.[13] Meanwhile, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been sued 10 times.[14]

Is the LDS Church is good company? The Mormons and the Witnesses are similar, in that each suffered persecution at the hands of American authorities. For the Mormons, this was mainly in the 19th Century during the days of polygamy, whereas the high-point of persecution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was the 1940s, when they went to court over their aggressive proselytizing and their refusal to pledge allegiance to the flag and to serve in the U.S. military. Still, Mormons might be uneasy that they occupy a leading spot with the Witnesses in the frequency of lawsuits over their excommunication decisions. As one scholar described it:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves, of course, provide some of the greatest examples and perhaps disturbing ironies. By and large, freedom of expression and freedom of conscience were not hallmarks of the Witnesses’ own faith, which could be painfully repressive. Although they championed religious liberty and free expression when they campaigned in the courts in the mid-1940s, the Witnesses practices a rigid faith that left virtually no room for ideological flexibility or dissent. In fact, those Witnesses who openly questioned the tenets or practices of their faith often found themselves “disfellowshipped,” that is, excommunication, and spurned.[15]

What about the legal merits? Is wrongful excommunication judicially actionable in American law? These short answer is no, at least not yet.
In all of the Mormon/Adventist/Scientist/Witness cases challenging member expulsions, the churches prevailed, with some very minor exceptions. The stated reasons varied, but they come down to general judicial unease with getting into purely ecclesiastical matters. When presented with them, courts generally claim they lack jurisdiction.[16] In an old case involving the Catholics, the court refused to get involved, even where it appeared the discipline was the result of vindictiveness and hatred.[17]

This makes a certain amount of sense, even for people like me who worry about intra-religion repression. If there was a recognized tort of wrongful excommunication or clerical malpractice, defendant verdicts would look very much like as official ratification. It is one thing for your church to say you are somehow infirm in your faith or behavior. Imagine if your government agreed. A certain amount of religious autonomy is tolerable, even if individuals suffer due to the absence of judicial redress.

Of course, it may just be a matter of time before crafty lawyers succeed in chipping away at general judicial reluctance to recognize civil liability in ecclesiastic judgments. Thanks to the Mormon Church, religions are generally immune from liability for employment discrimination.[18] However, they are frequently brought to court on tort liability theories. Look at sexual abuse. The Mormon, Adventist, and Jehovah Witnesses churches have all been sued for negligence in permitting sexual abuse to occur within the religious settings.[19] They are also sued for more garden-variety torts, where the result is opinions without any legitimate discussion of ecclesiastic abstention.[20] Clearly, the religious autonomy doctrine is not an absolute bar to liability.

In between these outrageous facts of sexual abuse and regular torts, there may be a growing trend towards recognizing some civil review of how humanely churches treat their members. Lawyers are already starting to rely on strategic pleadings – challenging, for example, the way and how widely the excommunication decision was communicated – to take their cases outside of the realm of a purely ecclesiastical matter. Two illustrative cases involved the Mormon Church and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

A 1992 case out of Oklahoma involved two LDS sisters, Jeanne A. Hadnot and Suzette Renee Ellis. They were each notified of and asked to be present at a Church disciplinary hearing called to determine their membership status. Neither attended. Following the hearing both received letters from the Church. The letter addressed to Hadnot was placed in her mailbox. This letter, which was opened and read by her husband, informed her that the LDS Church court determined her membership should be terminated because of her alleged fornication. Ellis was personally handed a letter also signed by a lay leader, which informed her of the Church court’s decision to remove her from membership.

The sisters sued the Church. They alleged two causes of action, advancing three theories of liability in support of each. The first cause of action is for harm from wilful or grossly negligent delivery of the expulsion letters to parishioners. It is sought to be grounded on (a) libel, (b) intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress and (c) invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, and placing parishioners in a false light before the public). The second cause of action was for harm from communicating the letters’ contents to the public. It is sought to be rested on (a) slander, (b) intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress and (c) invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, and placing parishioners in a false light before the public).

During the discovery phase of the litigation, the Church claimed privilege for its internal communications, and it obtained a summary judgment, which the sisters appealed, claiming that it did not deal with all of their theories of relief. The appellate court agreed, writing:

At the point when the church-member relationship is severed through an affirmative act either of a parishioner’s withdrawal or of excommunication by the ecclesiastical body, a different situation arises. In the event of withdrawal or of post-excommunication activity unrelated to the church’s efforts at effectuation of valid judicature, the absolute privilege from tort liability no longer attaches. …On this record, we are unable to ascertain whether parishioners did seek discovery of post-expulsion communications or conduct that lie dehors the outer bounds of valid ecclesiastical judicature. … If parishioners can show good cause for discovery of post-expulsion communications or conduct unrelated to the Church’s efforts at effectuating its valid judicature, they should be allowed to proceed further.

Similarly, a 1986 Ohio case involved a Jehovah’s Witness who was expelled and sued both for wrongful excommunication and for slander. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the slander claim, writing:

Appellant has clearly set forth a legally recognized claim for relief. The claims of privilege as a defense are limited to those privileges which are recognized at law. These plus the other defenses may be determinable without having to resolve ecclesiastical questions. This will require some elements of evidence. Not knowing what, if anything, was said, the context in which it was spoken, or the degree of any ecclesiastical aspects thereof, dismissal of the slander claim was premature.[22]

To be sure, persons who attempt to get secular courts to review the relative arbitrariness of church disciplinary decision have a tough road. However, it may be a matter of time before this starts to change, and I would not underestimate the wherewithal of the plaintiff’s bar. Stay tuned ….
_________________________________________________

[1] I recognize that excommunication and disfellowshipping are two different level of discipline in the LDS Church. However, courts use the terms synonymously, as I do in this article.

[2] Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, 847 So.2d 331 (Ala. 2002); Devere Ganges v. New Central Baptist Church, 1989 WL 817108 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1989); Bowen v. Green, 275 S.C. 431, 272 S.E.2d 433 (S.C. 1980); Trett v. Lambeth, 195 S.W.2d 524 (Mo.App. 1946); Minton v. Leavell, 297 S.W. 615 (Tex.Civ.App. 1927).

[3] Korean Presbyterian Church of Seattle Normalization Committee v. Lee, 75 Wash.App. 833, 880 P.2d 565 (Wash.App. Div. 1,1994); Boyles v. Roberts, 222 Mo. 613, 121 S.W. 805 (Mo. 1909).

[4] Tran v. Fiorenza, 934 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 1996); O’Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 77 Hawai’i 383, 885 P.2d 361 (Hawai‘i,1994); Hynes v. Lillis, 183 Mo.App. 190, 170 S.W. 396 (Mo.App. 1914).

[5] Linderholm v. Kansas Conference of the Swedish Evangelical Lutheran, 97 Kan. 212, 155 P. 24 (Kan. 1916).

[6] Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, Inc., 124 Ohio App.3d 24, 705 N.E.2d 385
(Ohio App. 1 Dist. 1997).

[7] Glass v. First United Pentecostal Church of DeRidder, 676 So.2d 724 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1996); Joiner v. Weeks, 383 So.2d 101 (La.App. 1980).

[8] Decker ex rel. Decker v. Tschetter Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 594 N.W.2d 357 (S.D. 1999).

[9] Thomas v. Fuerst, 345 Ill.App.3d 929, 803 N.E.2d 619 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 2004).
[10] In re Godwin, — S.W.3d —-, 2009 WL 1616703 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2009); C.L. Westbrook, Jr. v. Penley, 231 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2007); Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc., Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL 1253953 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2005); Penley v. C.L. Westbrook, Jr.,146 S.W.3d 220 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004); Tubiolo v. Abundant Life Church, Inc.,167 N.C.App. 324, 605 S.E.2d 161 (N.C.App. 2004); McDaniel v. Phelps, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2003 WL 70599 (Ohio App. 1 Dist. 2003); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Marks v. Estate of Hartgerink, 528 N.W.2d 539 (Iowa 1995).

[11] Conover v. Intel, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 508311 (D.Or.,2006); Conover v. Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 174863 (D.Or.,2005); Franco v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 21 P.3d 198 (Utah 2001), Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okl. 1992); Linke v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 71 Cal.App.2d 667, 163 P.2d 44 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1945).

[12] Adam Liptak, “Impressions of Terrorism, Drawn from Court Files” NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 19, 2008.

[13] Ammons v. North Pacific Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist, 103 Wash.App. 1061, Not Reported in P.3d, 2000 WL 1879053 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2000); Knauss v. Seventh-Day Adventist Ass’n of Colo., 117 Colo. 540, 190 P.2d 590 (Colo. 1948); Swan v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass, 225 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1955).

[14] Cole v. Elder Body of Tualatin Kingdom Hall Jehovah’s Witnesses, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 229978 (D.Or.,2009); Anderson v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2007 WL 161035 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2007); Ferreira v. Harris, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1720546 (N.D.Okla. 2006); Abrams v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., 306 Ill.App.3d 1006, 715 N.E.2d 798 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.,1999); Vauls v. Lambros, 78 Md.App. 450, 553 A.2d 1285 (Md.App. 1989); Rasmussen v. Bennett, 228 Mont. 106, 741 P.2d 755 (Mont. 1987); Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 99th Cir. 1987); Deville v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Soc., Inc., 503 So.2d 705 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987); Bates v. Kingdom Hall of the Congregation, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1986 WL 2899 (Ohio App.1986); Tauvar v. Bar Harbor, Congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc., 633 F.Supp. 741 (D.Me. 1985).

[15] Shawn Francis Peters, Judging Jehovah’s Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution (Univ. of Kansas 2000) 17.

[16] See, e.g., Anderson v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2007 WL 161035 (Tenn.Ct.App.,2007(“In the case before us, the Church argued that the complaint asserted causes of action based on an intrachurch dispute that the courts had no authority to adjudicate….Based on the reasons set out, we reverse the trial court’s actions in denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the First Amendment’s protection of decision of church tribunals on religious questions. We hold that all of the plaintiffs’ claims, as alleged in the complaint, are barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Accordingly, the amended complaint is dismissed.”). The United States Supreme Court has addressed the review of church disciplinary matters in a hierarchical church and clearly adopted a hands-off policy when courts are asked to review such matters. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America and Canada v. Milivojevich (1976), 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976).

[17] Irvine v. Elliott, 206 Pa. 152, 55 A. 859 (Pa. 1903)(A priest of the Protestant Episcopal church cannot hold the bishop of his diocese and a member of his congregation liable in an action of trespass for an alleged wilful and malicious conspiracy, where it is shown that defendants combined to make charges against him for violation of church law, and for immorality and forgery, and supported these charges with evidence in a trial in an ecclesiastical court, which resulted in his degradation from the ministry, although it appears that defendants may have, to some extent, been influenced by vindictiveness and hatred.)

[18] Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos,483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987).

[19] The Mormon sexual abuse cases are: Flanigan v. McCrea, 93 Wash.App. 1085, Not Reported in P.2d, 1999 WL 58767 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1999); “Jane Doe” v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints, 122 Wash.App. 556, 90 P.3d 1147 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2004); Doe v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 98 P.3d 429 (Utah App. 2004); Fleming v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 691331 (W.D.Wash. 2006); Fleming v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 753234 (W.D.Wash. 2006); R.K. v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 2506413 (W.D.Wash. 2006); R.K. v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 2661055 (W.D.Wash. 2006); R.K. v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 2661059 (W.D.Wash. 2006); Doe v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 141 Wash.App. 407, 167 P.3d 1193 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2007); Olinger v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 521 F.Supp.2d 577 (E.D.Ky. 2007); Joseph v. Corporation of the President Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 282163 (D.S.D. 2008); Fleming v. Church of Latter Day Saints, 275 Fed.Appx. 626 (9th Cir. 2008); Jack Doe 1 v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4549075 (D.Or. 2008); Doe v. Corporation of The Ass’n of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2132722 (D.Or. 2009); Kathleen B. v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2009 WL 2438419 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2009). The Seventh Day Adventists ones are Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 565 N.E.2d 584 (Ohio 1991); Byrd v. Faber, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1992 WL 330189 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 1992); Hustwaite v. Montana Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 303 Mont. 539, 18 P.3d 1033 (Table)(Mont. 2000); Mills v. Deehr, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2004 WL 1047720 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2004); Doe v. Oregon Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 199 Or.App. 319, 111 P.3d 791 (Or.App. 2005). The Jehovah’s Witnesses cases are Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., 738 A.2d 839 (Me. 1999); Meyer v. Lindala, 675 N.W.2d 635 (Minn.App. 2004); Berry v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., 152 N.H. 407, 879 A.2d 1124 (N.H. 2005); Beal v. Broadard, 19 Mass.L.Rptr. 114, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2005 WL 1009632 (Mass.Super. 2005).

[20] See, e.g., Waite v. Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-Day Saints, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 951710 (E.D.Wash. 2007); Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002); Neilson v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 113 Wash.App. 1050, Not Reported in P.3d, 2002 WL 31188444 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2002); Turner v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 18 S.W.3d 877 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000); Robinson v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 740 P.2d 262 (Utah App. 1987); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 261, 714 P.2d 431 (Ariz.App. 1985).

[21] Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okl. 1992).

[22] Bates v. Kingdom Hall of the Congregation, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 1986 WL 2899 (Ohio App. 1986).

The reason I highlight this is because there are certain callings within the Church that make it impossible, or at least very unlikely, for you to have if you have been involved in certain activities.  I am sure that these people do not seek for these types of callings.  I highlight this as an apparent ‘inconsistency’ between scripture and practice.  For example, over the years there has been some flip-flopping on the issue of Divorce and being a Bishop.  It seems that with current levels of divorce so high that the Church can no longer not have those people as possible candidates, when in the past they have made that restriction.

Any records of Church disciplinary councils are kept at Church headquarters (they are destroyed after a short-time in the local areas) presumably so that callings that need to be ratified by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve can check to see if there are any issues.  Further if an individual commits some sins then these become annotated permantly on your membership record.  An example here is being involved in child abuse or pornography.  This means that you cannot have callings with children.

How far then does forgiveness go?

Are there cases when this type of policy is justifiable?  If so which?

If we believe in true repentance why does the Church need to check their past, presumably because they want to see if they are likely to do something again in the future?  Is this faulty reasoning?

The conversations were about being worthy, losing faith, and failing to do “all that we can do” to enact our own salvation.  I no longer agree with many traditional members’ views on life being the ultimate, high stakes pass/fail final exam.  So maybe that is why I was so intrigued by their focus on this topic.  In our religious mythology, we have 3 main kingdoms of glory.  These have nice tidy definitions and names.  Unlike many other Christian denominations who focus on just heaven versus hell, saving people from eternal damnation, we are focused on making sure we get the biggest prize.  After all, 2nd place is first loser right?

I think one part of the reason Sons of Perdition exist in our mythology is that the actual conditions of Celestial glory are not well defined.  Yes, we know we inherit all that God has, but what exactly is that?  We can’t comprehend this state of being.  We don’t know what the prize really is, except for vague ideas that it is the best we can get.  We become gods with the power of eternal lives, but we don’t know exactly what that means or how it happens.  This leaves a nebulous sort of feeling.

Another problem of life with such a risky, one-shot chance at the reward is perfection always seems to slip out of our grasp.  The root of the problem lies in the checklist. It is endless and overwhelming. There is always something you could have done just a little bit better, if only you had enough faith and willpower.  Even the most fundamental and literal member senses this deep down I think.  No matter how much they do, or how hard they try, it can’t all be done.  Satan is waiting for them to slip up and fail.  Did they maybe forget to read their scriptures this morning?  Did they only have a half-hearted family home evening last week? Did they not include the monetary value of company-paid benefits in their tithing calculations?  All of these are a lack of perfect obedience and effort.

Here is what I saw:  Sons of Perdition make a convenient floor, a lower boundary to our possible life results that we don’t really have to worry about crossing. We don’t know what it means to become a god. At least we can clearly define the worst-case scenario.  I might have an occasional immoral thought, skip a meeting at Church, or miss a home teaching family one month; but at least I know I won’t deny Christ and become a Son of Perdition.  They have to REALLY try hard to be evil.  I am doing the best I can, but I fail sometimes.  At least I am not THAT!

I think it might be a convenient way for people to compartmentalize their perceived risk.  Sons of Perdition are a tool of comfort in a way.  It helps us deal with processing the loss of a loved one who leaves the Church.  That is what I heard several times.  “Those people lost their faith and became apostates, but they didn’t know enough to become Sons of Perdition.”  If they knew better, they would come back.  They are safe though.  They won’t end up in the Celestial Kingdom, but they also won’t end up in Outer Darkness.  It’s going to be ok.

Just as an interesting tidbit of trivia, it was not always clear if there will be Daughters of Perdition or not.  Brigham Young in his classic style of being on the wrong side of modern sensibilities firmly declared that women were not capable of achieving perdition status.  Fortunately, this right was later restored to women by Wilford Woodruff.  So don’t worry about issues of equality in outer darkness   [Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Sin]

In corporate America, misconduct is often characterized as a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.  Whistle-blower protection is a serious concern as others inside an organization tend to “shoot the messenger” when it comes to whistle-blowers.  Major corporations are wise to provide options and multiple complaint mechanisms to handle internal complaints.  I work for one such organization.  There are many vehicles to handle internal complaints:  employee surveys, human resources groups (several different kinds), an ombuds office, online employee discussion forums that allow anonymous participation, and a very large compliance and legal department to proactively police regulatory issues.

In my experience, the vast majority of what gets reported as “misconduct” is really something else, such as:

• a complainant with hurt feelings
• the result of poor relationship or communication skills (either on the part of the complainant or a direct leader or some other third party); in some cases, this alleged misconduct is actual misconduct, but not always.
• a misunderstanding of what the laws and regulations are or what the supposed “misconduct” activity entailed
• an act of vengeance (e.g. the complainant hopes to exact revenge on another employee or leader using the complaint vehicle as a weapon)

That is not always the case, of course, which is why it’s worth it to sift through hundreds of complaints to find the one that is a real issue for the company and that requires intervention.  To the complainant, the complaint is very serious and needs to be resolved to their satisfaction.  In reality, it’s nearly impossible to separate the complaint from the complainant.  The more neutral the complainant, the more valuable the complaint.  Some of these factors make the complainant seem less neutral:

• The complainant wants something of personal benefit as a result of the complaint.
• The complainant is vengeful toward individuals they accuse of wrong-doing or there is a known personality conflict between them and an accused party.
• The complainant has a history of making complaints.
• If they no longer have any ties to the organization (an ex-insider), that complaint might also seem suspect to insiders, regardless of how neutrally the complaint is phrased.

So, when it comes to complaints within the organization of the church, how do we do?  Here are some areas where I think we do well:

• Complaints are handled at the lowest level possible.
• Complaints are generally handled in confidence (obviously, there are individuals who have blown this, but IME, local leaders tend to take confidentiality to extremes).
• There is a focus on accountability (LDS scriptures actually instruct members to handle personal conflicts between them and the other party).
• Actual misconduct complaints (e.g. fraud, legal, etc.) are generally taken very seriously and actions to remedy are easy to handle swiftly due to the lay clergy aspect of the church.

Where do we sometimes fall down?

• Females alleging sexual misconduct may find the process extra difficult due to the lack of female representation in church courts.  A female who already feels violated may have a difficult time in addressing an all-male leadership with painful details that are necessary to assess the situation.
• There is very little effective access to top levels of the organization.  This is really only an issue if the complaint is about local leadership or if the complaint has organizational implications.  We should bear in mind that this is how the Catholic church got into trouble over the priest molestation scandals–by pushing too much to local levels to handle and not realizing they had an institutional problem before it was too late.
• Organizations with deep pockets are often the target of spurious law suits which makes identifying the serious cases more difficult.
• Disclosures about financial and legal activities are either vague or considered confidential.  But again, this is often the case in a corporation as well.  While financial disclosure of a publicly-traded company is more open, airing dirty laundry over minor litigations is not.
• Local leaders may lack the skill to assess and deal with issues and may hold complainants at bay to cover their ineptitude.  They may use unrighteous dominion to punish the complainant.  And there is some open question about the church’s culpability when an untrained lay clergy makes a local error in judgment.
• Individuals feel guilty for complaining in a religious structure.  This is true of all churches, but added to it is our lay clergy.  It’s harder to complain about an unpaid volunteer.
• Whistle-blowers may not be taken seriously if they are not considered neutral or are frequent complainers.  But this is true in all human organizations, and is the basis for the age-old story The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  There’s sometimes a reason the messenger gets shot.

So, what do you think?  Do we do a good job dealing with complaints or not?  Do we do a better job with more severe complaints or minor issues?  What should we do to improve how we handle complaints or is the system working just fine?  Discuss.

1) Say what you do.

2) Do what you say.

3) Prove it.

This process highlights for a company its internal consistency and the comprehensiveness of its formal operating procedures.  Phrased a bit differently than my summary above, it can be stated as a series of questions:

1) Are you able to articulate exactly what you do – and exactly how you do it?

2) Do you actually do what you say you do – in the way that you say you do it?

3) Can you prove to others that you actually do what you have said you do?

That job was instructive to me, as one of my central roles in the process was to systematize all of the written records into a cohesive and simple format – including the creation of operational and training manuals that could be used to evaluate and address the performance of existing employees and train new employees.  It was important that all employees be held to objective standards – and that all employees be judged and rewarded according to the same standards.  It also highlighted something that came to be central to how I view all organizations, how they compete for business and how they are viewed from the outside by both consumers and competitors.

In the area of internal oversight of operations, there have been many programs over the years that have been created to focus on and increase a company’s standing as a “quality organization” (however that is defined).  Historically, these programs can be separated into two types of emphasis: 1) quality control; and 2)  quality assurance.  They are similar in many ways, but the key difference is in the focus on who is observing the company and making the judgment – and how that affects the internal operations of the organization.

With quality control, the effort is focused inward.  It is an attempt to “control” things internally so that mistakes are handled quickly and efficiently – in a way that will not derail the quality of the end product.  It is similar to “damage control”.  It is a natural fit for many companies who manufacture products – whose “business operations” are seen only as a function of the final product that is sold to consumers. In this sense, it looks for what has always worked and clings tightly to an established production system – or approaches change only in terms of how it will help produce the established product more cheaply (at a lower cost).  “Innovation” is a product of “streamlining” – determining what can be eliminated without harming the final product.

Quality assurance, on the other hand, is focused outward.  It is an attempt to “assure” consumers of the quality of something they have not purchased – and, often, that is more intangible in nature.  Companies that provide services fit this category, but so do companies whose products and services are more expensive than others in their field.  Of particular relevance are those companies that combine an expensive product with a service on which the success of that product depends – like software that requires extensive and complex training. Due to the more complex nature of the sales pitch, these companies are looking constantly for a new way to frame their company, making them less likely to rely on “tried and true” methodology and corporate philosophy and more on “innovation” and “evolving business practices” – which manifests itself in looking for things that will alter the final product in a significant way, even if that means adding cost to the production process.

Quality assurance is most relevant to companies who sell largely based on differentiated promised returns (providing either more or different results to the consumer), while quality control is perfectly fine for most simple commodities that will be used in the exact same way as those produced by competitors.  Quality assurance is important for companies making radical claims about their products and/or services; quality control is enough for those who simply are claiming to make the same finished product – and it is most effective when the company simply is selling the same product for a lower price.  (“This is cheaper, but the quality is just as good as the more expensive options.”) Quality control is much easier to manage, and much easier to implement, than quality assurance – but once you’ve seen the benefits of a personal trainer, it’s hard to go back to “just” free weights and sit-ups.

How does this relate to religions?

Within Christianity, there are two types of religions: 1) those that share a fundamental foundation and, therefore, don’t try much to distinguish “major” differences between themselves and other denominations; and 2) those that base their very identity on “major” differences.  This distinction affects how each type of denomination “views” and “markets” itself – and how each type views the purpose of its internal auditing, if you will.

The first type focuses primarily on an internal analysis of effectiveness – which translates into a firm and unyielding grasp on ideas that have worked in the past (on the unchanging and immutable).  Creedal denominations that cling tightly to the past can be viewed as commodity producers – organizations that are trying to reproduce something that has been produced for years, perhaps with a few unique bells and whistles but relatively indistinguishable from other creedal denominations.  They are focused on quality control – tightly managing the parameters of production and closed to “major change” in the process of that production, and, more importantly, to “major changes” to the product itself.  After all, if the finished product is perfect (and perfectly understood) already, why would the denomination even consider radical changes to it?

The second type, however, is based explicitly on its differences – differences that are harder to grasp and need to be introduced and explained (and justified) prior to “purchase”.  This type requires a higher level of investment (is more “expensive”) and, therefore, it must be more aware of “market trends” – be more flexible and adaptable and able to inspire a differentiating vision to justify the consumers’ investment. These religions are willing to make significant changes in how they view the end product – to produce a radically different product that will inspire potential consumers as times change.

Most interestingly, perhaps, is the relationship of these organizations historically.  Creedal religions in established areas tend to compete with other splinters for those that don’t possess the fundamental “commodity”, while non-creedal religions tend to compete for the attention of those who are not satisfied with commodities – whether or not they currently own the “commodity”.  Hence, the creedal religions tend to focus missionary outreach programs primarily on non-creedal populations, while non-creedal religions tend to focus missionary outreach programs on all – including creedal populations. This fundamental difference alone explains much of the tension when Mormonism sends missionaries door to door in areas where nearly everyone already “possesses” the fundamental commodity of Christianity.

Mormonism isn’t selling a commodity; it is selling a high-priced and unique “turn-key” system, and once a turn-key system is experienced it’s hard to go back to using a standard commodity – even if the turn-key system is discarded in search of another one.  Many people who invest great amounts of time, energy and money into a vision that is built on going beyond the common (“commodities”) aren’t satisfied anymore by the common (“commodities”), so if they can’t find an acceptable alternative turn-key system, all that is left is to obsess over the perceived deficiencies in one they left behind.

Discuss.

What are the hallmarks of a great novel?

• Plot.  There must be conflict.  There has to be a climax and a denouement.
• Character development.  Characters have to be full human beings, warts and all, with flaws and redeeming qualities.  Protagonists must change over the course of the novel.
• Themes.  A great novel will speak to the range of human experience through themes that transcend time and culture.
• Courage.  An author of a great novel has to be willing to speak unsavory truths, to look into the abyss, and to expose vulnerabilities (both his/her own and those of his/her subject).
• Novelty.  “There’s nothing new under the sun” as it says in Ecclesiastes, but a great novel has to feel fresh anyway.  It has to say something better than those who have said it before.

What prevents a novel from being great (aside from just bad writing)?

• Censorship.  The opposite of courage (in writing) is censorship, whether it is self-censorship or by others.  Having one eye on public relations creates a casualty of courage.  Without courage, topics like sexuality, violence, and even the topic of censorship itself can be omitted or glossed over.  This can result in a work that is toothless, gutless and crotchless.
• Superficiality.  Creating inauthentic or two-dimensional characters, or focusing solely on the characters or themes with weak plot development can result in a work that lacks depth.  Creating depth requires having depth; in some ways, Mormons spend our lives trying to avoid depth.  We know there is a “dark side” to humanity, and we stay as far away from it as we can.  Writers have to write about what they know, and if you don’t know the depths of your soul, it’s hard to write about that convincingly.

The ”great Mormon novel” has the added difficulty of subject matter.  If you are writing a Mormon novel (in the sense that Graham Greene wrote Catholic novels or Chaim Potok wrote Jewish novels), your novel will have Mormon themes.  If your novel is to have depth, it must cover the range of human experience, both the good and the bad.  And in so doing, there will likely be elements that are both loyal and disloyal to the church.  Those elements of disloyalty (even characters with internal conflict) can cause self-censorship as well as censorship (discouragement) by the group.

So, let’s talk about Twilight.  Twilight is an enormously popular book with a specific target audience.  It is a huge success by most measures.  I don’t think anyone would credibly argue it has a permanent place in the canon of literature, so it is not really up for consideration as “The Great Mormon Novel.”  But how Mormon is it?  This is a question being debated here.  A few opposing viewpoints that were shared (you can read the comments in their entirety in the link):

Andrew Oh-Willeke said:  “One way to read the story allegorically is that the Cullen’s (the good vampire family, if you weren’t paying attention) are the Mormons. They, given the free will to choose between right and wrong in this world have chosen virtue and abstinance despite temptation, in their diet, and in how they choose to love. . . There are also strong associations in the books between vampires and angels, mirroring the importance of angels in LDS scripture. The vampires are described as seraphic, and glimmer in the sun. They aren’t necessarily angels themselves, but are close to angels.  [I]t is a story full of LDS dog whistles.”

Mormon Soprano retorts:  “I submit to you that Meyer’s books are the antithesis of Mormon doctrine, and should be disturbing to any faithful active member. . . Just reading these books causes erotic thoughts and feelings because of what the characters are doing to and with each other. . .  Stephanie Meyer’s books are such a big hit with “the world” because they are titilating. . . The tragedy to me is that Meyer is continually referred to as “Mormon” and “LDS”, and her books have been given a free pass to sell at Deseret Book and Segull Book stores.  Please wake up out of your vampire trances my Twilight friends! There is nothing “lovely or praiseworthy or of good report” to be found in these books or movie. Faithful latter-day Saints need to send a message that lowered standards are never acceptable. My advice is to Stop buying these books, send a letter of complaint to LDS booksellers, and refuse to spend your money in support of this new movie!

These comments go to the heart of the difficulty for Mormon authors.  A Mormon’s work will be dissected for Mormon content and either praised or villified on that basis.  While Andrew’s argument states that the books are a Mormon allegory, Mormon Soprano finds the message in conflict with Mormon teachings.  So, what’s the answer?

Can LDS authors write books that contradict Mormon teachings?  Every Mormon author has to grapple with that question, and it is at heart a question of censorship, either by the group or by the author him/herself.  Authors who fear reprisal for their words, even their fictional words, will never write “The Great Mormon Novel.”

-Revelation Ch. 20 (vs. 12-15)

Love is a burning thing and it makes a fiery ring. Bound by wild desire, I fell into a ring of fire.

-Johnny Cash

In the LDS church, members are written into the book of life with their baptism and confirmation. For some, the love affair with the gospel can truly become a fiery passion. That passion produces its greatest defenders, but sometimes the fire consumes its lover. So the stage is set for the most intense crime of passion, the greatest act of violence… the blotting out of a name from the book of life.

Whether it is voluntary, through writing a letter of resignation, or involuntary, through excommunication, the removal of a name from membership is violence.

The voluntary resignation commits violence against the authority of the church, with the pen slashing and stabbing at the institution in the effort to eliminate its ability to exercise dominion and judgment. It challenges the veracity of the book of life itself. It comes from the place where the book has no power

The involuntary excommunication is the violence of corporal punishment. It is the parent who believes the only remaining path to teaching is to strike. The hope exists that the subject will make the correction in response to the intensity of the pain, and thus it becomes seen as an act of love. It is the great hammer of judgment and rejection that is meant to crush the pride out of them. The final and terrible weapon. It comes from the place where the book has complete power, because the veracity of the book of life is the very blade that cuts.

When a person has given up the desire to participate in the church community, technically they could go on living with at worst the inconvenience of having to explain that they aren’t interested each time they move, or when a new bishop or ward mission leader is called. They could pro-actively request to be marked as a “do not contact”, although that never completely stops the most zealous of missionaries. This path is not insufferable. So it makes me curious to know some of the reasons why someone removes their name from the records of the church. What made that necessary? Did it accomplish what you hoped?

When a church member has “qualified” for excommunication, and I am talking mostly about those who are moral people but whose philosophical positions are in opposition to the church, disfellowship basically accomplishes the most necessary functions to protect the church. The person is not able to participate in any public worship practices which would indicate endorsement or condoning of their positions, like holding callings, praying in meetings, or exercising priesthood. The only thing that excommunication does beyond that is the blotting out of their name from the book of life. It is an “eternity-level” punishment with no “temporal-level” impact above and beyond disfellowship. So why is such a measure necessary? Does this escalation produce more consistently desired results over disfellowship?

In a way, it almost seems like these acts of violence are like retaliatory interplay between rival gangs, as illustrated by this clip of Sean Connery explaining the escalating violence of “the Chicago way” from The Untouchables.

I have personally had my moments where I felt like participating at all was just no longer the path for me, and as I’ve tried to navigate the actions and causes which I feel inspired to take I have contemplated the possibility of church discipline. However, I’m just not sure I will ever see a need to resign my membership, and although I don’t really fear it, I do hope that I am never excommunicated. Its more about the gesture, than whether or not the book of life is efficacious. I don’t see the good I would accomplish in my own act of ultimate rejection, and I don’t want to look at (in the eyes of my local leaders) the church which means so much to my family and friends as it sets me aflame.

Could we live without this kind of violence? What would be the negative effect if tolerance, long-suffering, and real forgiveness were to trump whatever is the motivation to blot out our names?