I am still in Utah for a speech and I have spoken to many people here about the current presidential campaign. Many locals here have expressed dismay over the missteps of the Romney campaign. However, David Twede, 47, a scientist and managing editor of the online magazine MormonThink.com, says that his criticism of Mitt Romney has led to his being called to account — and possible excommunication — from the Church of Latter Day Saints. The fifth-generation Mormon says that Church elders demanded names of other Mormons with which he was working on the site. He says he was told “Cease and desist, Brother Twede.” The controversy has now been reported on the Washington Post, Huffington Post and a number of other sites – though primarily as a political story. From a legal standpoint, the case raises a classic conflict between free speech and free exercise that we have discussed in other areas.
I could not find any response to the allegation from the Church on the underlying factual allegations.
MormonThink.com is a site where Mormons engage in scholarly debate about the religion’s history and politics. Twede says that his bishop, “stake president” and two leading members called him to a meeting in a Florida Mormon church. He says that he was informed that he faced charges of “apostasy” for the writings on his blog. He says that he was fingered by a member of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, which includes many professors for Brigham Young University, over his blog. This case is being championed by Steve Benson, the Pulitzer Prize–winning cartoonist for The Arizona Republic and grandson of former secretary of agriculture and Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson. Benson left the Church in 1993 and has become a critic of the LDS.
Twede wrote an article about Romney last month titled “The God of Mitt Romney: Why Do Some Claim He’s Not Christian?” The leaders allegedly told him that they did not like to see a discussion of the church or its connection with Romney.
I have always found the LDS community to be very open to dialogue and discussion on controversial issues, including some of the recent stories related to Romney. After all, the Church has not excommunicated Harry Reid. Accordingly, I am a bit surprised by the allegations which raise very troubling questions, including the alleged role of academics at BYU who should be supportive of free speech values. While BYU is closely tied to the Church, it is viewed as the Notre Dame of the LDS — a university founded on church principles but committed to the academic enterprise. If this account is true, the intolerance of dissenting voices will only serve to marginalize the Church and its members. However, this may be an irreconcilable conflict between religious doctrine and free speech.
We have written repeatedly over the dangers of private censorship by companies and universities. Government censorship and harassment is largely deterred by the First Amendment, but the Bill of Rights does not protect people from private forms of retaliation. Yet, religious organizations are present a different question from other institutions in protecting their religious values. I have previously written how I believe free exercise rights and antidiscrimination laws are increasingly in conflict. I view the religious values as trumping such laws in many cases.
Clearly the Church as a right to enforce its religious edicts and values on all of its members. The LDS expects its members to adhere to standards of conduct in their private life and has long incorporated church members into a highly structured church organization that extend from Salt Lake City down to individual neighborhoods. That is part of its tradition and has a high degree of secrecy surrounding its rituals. Thus, LDS officials could argue that this type of feedback and corrective action is part of the Church’s tradition and faith structure. Accordingly, they could argue that, if Twede wishes to remain a Mormon, he must accept the guidance and directions of the Church. Most religious organizations have inviolate values that are the basis for good standing in the Church. It often raises difficult questions since free exercise protects the right of churches to maintain their core traditions and values. Churches are by definition bond in religious dogma and traditions. They are not generally debating clubs on core principles or practices — though some churches are more tolerant of such discussions than others. Individuals have the right to continue to speak but may have to leave such organizations if their views are inherently inconsistent with membership in the Church. While I find such threats to be intolerant and problematic from a free speech standpoint, I am not a member of the LDS and I am not sure of the extent to which LDS members pledge obedience to the church leadership on such questions. Catholic church and other churches have a history of taking measures against those who fail to adhere to church doctrine, including academics in some cases. What is intolerance to some is merely faith-based discipline to others. It is also not clear the extent to which the intervention was over the degree of discussion of internal Church matters that are viewed as inappropriate for public discussion. In my view, the greatest concern is the degree to which the action was taken as a response to the criticism of Romney which seems removed from any direct church doctrine or value. In the end, however, the church determines who may remain a member of good standing. I would hope however that one could remain a member of good standing as a Mormon and still be a critic of Romney.
What do you think?
Source: Daily Beast
Jill
Certainly the VA court ruling you presented should put an end to the attempts by religious organizations to reinstate school prayer, shouldn’t it?
Words you just don’t hear anymore: “Accordingly, three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Jehovah’s Witness schoolchildren to refuse to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because their religious beliefs forbade them to make pledges to symbols – even when the symbol is a treasured national symbol.
Justice Robert Jackson’s groundbreaking opinion made this point as eloquently as it has ever been made:
The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”
The Mormon Church is not a “religion”, no matter how vigorously they contend that they are. In order to gain more widespread acceptance by mainstream America they have dropped some of their most objectionable doctrine (i.e. polygamy) but the extent to which they intrude upon and regulate every aspect of their member’s lives is too extreme for them to be viewed as anything but a cult. As such, I expect that they will do anything to get Romney elected,expecting (rightly or not) that his obedience to the “faith” will supersede his allegiance to the law, including the Constitution of the United States.
“He says that he was informed that he faced charges of “apostasy” for the writings on his blog. He says that he was fingered by a member of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, which includes many professors for Brigham Young University, over his blog.”
***********************
Could we expect anything more form this cult?
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes
~Thomas Jefferson, Letter to von Humboldt (1813).
Pretty clairvoyant guy, that farmer from Albemarle County.
It will be interesting to see any bounceback from this”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-a-prince-phd/mitt-romney-is-not-the-face-of-mormonism_b_1897404.html
Twede isn’t under fire from the Church for criticizing Romney. There are plenty of Mormon Democrats who do the same. A large number of them just met in Washington for the DNC convention; the Daily Beast itself reported on it! (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/04/mormons-for-obama-lds-democrats-caucus-convenes-convention-event.html)
Twede is under fire for posing as an active Church member, when his agenda is to tear down the faith. Whether you agree with his agenda or not is irrelevant; he’s dishonest in how he goes about it: http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink
Two ladies; Malisha and Jill, left me no words to add.
Always opening up new vistas are you Malisha. And I don’t think Jill mentioned Obama a single time.
Sincerely, my compliments.
Malisha,
I think the thought police began early on in religion. Things has expanded out from there. Many people were brought up with the idea that questioning authority is wrong. People are taught to obey without thought. This religiosity (which takes place in mega and liberal places of worship) has undergirded what is now happening in politics.
I believe that political parties are somewhat (maybe for some people wholly) taking over prior functions of religion. It’s why candidates use religion so often in their self marketing. It is why people cannot see things clearly and refuse to question even the most heinous crimes by their “leader”.
Unquestioning obedience to authority runs deep in most of our society’s institutions. We see its results as our society crumbles before us.
Waldo, Harry Reid was “home teacher” to Mormon friends of mine. A home teacher is someone who comes to the home of the teachees and goes over religious issues with them. Any member of the Mormon Stake or Ward (I can’t remember which is which) who is assigned to any family does this; he was home teacher for folks who lived in his geographical area, so no particular political or socioeconomic similarities needed to exist before the match-up was made.
Reid always spoke up well and firmly about his politics and thus I think it was both impossible and quite obviously counter-productive for anyone in the Church to try to influence his POLITICS based on any religious positions. By his obvious imperviousness to such attempts, in my opinion, he signalled the fact that it should not happen and, as far as I know (not being a Mormon, I can’t state this definitively, of course) it did not happen.
It would surprise me if any less public, less “immune” individuals who were members of the Mormon Church were similarly insulated from pressure. It is a religion that does not refrain from adopting an autocratic position with rank and file members. I believe you can be kicked out of it, too — at least judging from the fact that you can be inducted INTO it post-mortem even without any indication that you would have accepted conversion, were you still alive.
(Wasn’t it Kerry that the Catholic church threatened with excommunication because of his pro choice stance?) This effort by Churches is nothing new and continues to beg the question of tax free status as long as they want to interject themselves into the political arena. (And is this because they talk about another member or because specifically he is running for pres?)
Does Romney face such disciplinary pressure from the LDS Church, or is he exempt? See, “Romney Win Predicted by Mormon “White Horse Prophecy” & Progressive Patriotism” (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/21/1134705/-Romney-Win-Predicted-in-Mormon-White-Horse-Prophecy-s-Progressive-Patriotism)
Before I went to college, I was a member of the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). Don’t drive a non-American made car into the parking lot. It might get turned over.
“I would hope however that one could remain a member of good standing as a Mormon and still be a critic of Romney.”
I think it’d be difficult to find a more prominent and vocal critic of Romney than Harry Ried. AFAIK, he remains a member in good standing with the LDS. Of course, perhaps he’s protected from this sort of response by his prominence. Or, perhaps this is just some local LDS officials acting on their own rather. Or, maybe there’s more to the story and the repercussions faced by this guy are not based on criticism of Romney. I’d want to know more before wholesale condemnation of the LDS.
We should add an additional political party to the mix: “Ladder” Day Saint Party, for those interesting in having the brethren run this country. Goodbye free speech, goodbye freedom, hello correlated brains and permanent smiles. Hello censored media and radio.
This is very disturbing in some ways that don’t really relate to the free speech issue as much as they relate to the issue of “what is politics in our culture right now?” We are now very much a political structure that, without shame or apology, makes it punishable to THINK wrong, SAY wrong things, BE wrong, etc. I mean, what is the meaning of naming a law the “Patriot Act”? Is a public official who opposes it “unpatriotic”? Look how the word “liberal” has been cast to mean “unAmerican” or “untrustworthy.” I remember a late night talk show host asking a guest to respond to the “charge” that he had been called “the most liberal member of Congress.” He denied it as if it were an allegation of sexual misconduct!
We’re turning a blind eye toward this kind of thinking in our own halls of government; how are we surprised at them in the halls of a church?
So, how exactly is it that Romney represents “Mormon values”? My friend was accosted in a church parking lot because he said he wouldn’t vote for Bush. Other pastors tell parishioners they are damned if they won’t vote Obama.
A church has a right to lay out its doctrine. It has a right to tell parishioners who to vote for. They also have the right to suppress dissent. That’s part of having a doctrine, in this case–you must obey your leaders’ orders to be silent and vote whom they tell you to vote for. Because of that alone, I would leave any church which claims this right.
It’s gutsy to make this BS public. But the Mormon church does say members must obey the elders. If the church does not allow discussion of their doctrine or dissent from it, then one ultimately needs to leave that church. They are asking for the suppression of one’s conscience. No one should willingly go along with that.
However, David Twede, 47, a scientist and managing editor of the online magazine MormonThink.com, says that his criticism of Mitt Romney has led to his being called to account — and possible excommunication — from the Church of Latter Day Saints. The fifth-generation Mormon says that Church elders demanded names of other Mormons with which he was working on the site. He says he was told “Cease and desist, Brother Twede.” The case raises a classic conflict between free speech and free exercise that we have discussed in other areas.
————————————————————
The Morman Missionaries offered me the Book more than once. I wouldn’t take it. I wouldn’t take it from the other religions either.
This soes not reflect well on the LDS church. One would think a church in general would want to stay out of anything that could be considered political campaigning and suffer the possible loss of their tax exempt status.
On a personal note, I don’t understand why people would voluntarily allow themselves to be subjected to an additional layer of bureaucracy and governance in their lives.
I consider myself to be a Christian but I parted ways with the United Methodist Church because I got tired of some of the politics and internal issues that were resident in our congregation. I noted the best time to be at church was when nobody else was there and I could wander around reading books and have time for quiet reflection. It was a peaceful place for me. But, after one too many incidents such as when a minister I thought very highly of was forced out for being critical of the status quo, I decided to just stop going.
Better to have it in your heart than submitting to arbitrary constructs of peoples’ opinions.
So, I guess the church is not in favor of Romney become President because they had to know that telling an academic and a journalist to shut up was going to come back and bite Romney in the backside. I think they did everyone a disservice by their attempt to control this. It will be turned on Romney and I think that’s a shame, even if I’m not voting for him.