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
People submit to all sorts of things. Some religions are actually ABOUT submission. Others, not. But plenty of people without religion are also into submission, either by choice, or training, or some exquisite combination…it takes lots of energy to NOT submit, much of the time.
Zarathustra 1, September 27, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Or, as in the case of Catholics…. they’re sheep…..
=========================================
It doesn’t matter if they’re Catholics, Protestants, Jewish, Muslim, etc. They’re all sheep.
Or, as in the case of Catholics…. they’re sheep…..
Zarathustra 1, September 27, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Question….. Why would human beings with functioning brains submit to this????
============
They’re puppies.
LATTER_DAY_AIN’T 1, September 24, 2012 at 1:14 am
As a former member of the LDS church I can answer just how strictly LDS members pledge allegiance to Church Leadership on matters of doctrinal differences with church leadership. Church members are prohibited from speaking out “in any way against church leaders”. They are also prohibited from “teaching false doctrine”. These are wide nets and its up to the church leaders to determine if an offense constitutes church action. The action of speaking out against church leaders or teaching false doctrines is considered more “grievous” than sexual transgressions (adultery being the most “heinous” ) or any other type of sin and can get you excommunicated faster than getting drunk and fornicating with the Bishops wife.
“Church Action” means court. When a member is excommunicated a court is held at the local level (branch or stake) by local leaders, made up of a body of “High Priests” and Elders, the Stake or Branch president and his counselors. The local Bishop is usually not presiding but may be called as a witness for or against the accused. The accused is kept out of most of the “trial” and long discussions are held while the accused waits outside. Once called in the witness does have the opportunity to challenge the charges and provide testimony to refute them in some way. Usually its a done deal though once it gets this far and many members never attend their own excommunication trial.
As for what you can and cannot say, not voting for or speaking out against a political candidate, even if that candidate is LDS would not constitute grounds for church action. And no local Bishop or Stake President is going to be able to fly such charges past the higher authorities. A member can appeal their case to the higher authorities, going from the “Regional President” all the way to the “General Authorities. The General Authorities consist of the First and Second Quorums of the 70, along with the 12 Apostles and of course the Prophet\President (currently Thomas Monson, whom I’ve met several times) and any of them can overturn a local branch decision and reinstate a member in good standing.
So I doubt that these local leaders are coming after him over anything political dealing with Romney, at least on the surface. I’m sure they want to go after him over that, but their official charge must be tied to apostasy which consists of the two I mentioned above, either publicly countering church doctrine or publicly criticizing church leaders. That being said its possible they’re using the latter, criticizing church leaders as the basis for their charge but that would be a stretch and no doubt overturned by a General Authority since Romney isn’t currently a church leader but only served as one in the past (the church employs a lay clergy so its not unusual that Romney was a Bishop or Stake President). So its more likely there’s a doctrinal issue that this man touched upon, although I’ll have to read his blog to see what that might be. In order for them to get to this guy with a charge that sticks, they’ll need to prove he wrote something publicly that constitutes “false doctrine”. Otherwise it would be hard to prosecute such a case against him on anything higher than the local level. Especially with the case being so public. So I’m guessing something he wrote in that blog dealing with “Romney’s God” likely is going to be the focus of their charges against him. Of course I don’t doubt for a minute that the motivation behind the charges, whatever they end up being, are due to Mormons wanting Romney as president, so very very bad. After all, Joseph Smith predicted that in the “last days” the US Constitution would “Dangle by a thread” and that it would be under Mormon leadership that it would be saved and that the world would turn to. He also predicted a Mormon would be President. So you can bet that now is not a good time to be anything other than a republican in the Mormon church. At least at the local level. They want this bad. Real bad. And you can bet if you’re not a Romney voter and worse an Obama fan, that locally you’ll not be too welcome in the Ward or Stake house. Harry Reid’s in Nevada by the way and most members consider Nevada Mormons “Jack Mormons” due to the fact that the state makes its income on everything prohibited in the LDS rulebook, from gambling, to booze, to sex (Mustang ranch) to face cards (yes, face cards are evil, don’t ask me why).
Obedience to Church Leaders is not just mandatory, its the core of the religion. In fact if you look at church history you’ll see that most of the original leaders (and “Witnesses) of the Church were excommunicated at one time or another, and all for the same thing. “Speaking out against church leaders”. Martin Harris, the man who funded the original printing of the Book of Mormon was ex’d. So was Sidney Rigdon, another financier of the church. Even Oliver Cowerdry, the actual scribe of most of the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s right hand man was excommunicated for “disagreeing with the prophet”. Sometimes it was on very small things like land purchases or how to manage some project or task, but since the prophet was the voice of God on earth then even disagreeing with him in small matters could lead to being cut off. But today it usually has to be over something doctrinal or if they can show you are publicly (basically to anyone other than yourself) “criticizing church leaders”. Being as Romney’s not currently one I’d be looking for some doctrinal issue dealing with the nature of God or something along those lines. Otherwise they’ll be hard pressed to make anything stick.
============================================
One of the guys I knew in high school married a Mormon girl. After I got out of the Navy I talked to them. She was a waitress. He said he would never leave the Church, but he did. They got divorced, and he married a waitress from Denny’s.
This guy is a loser. He keeps talking about his grandpa who is deceased and used to own an auto dealership in a ship-sucking little town.
His first wife told me that her Mormon father tried to kill her by driving his car into a light pole (passenger side) while she was in the passenger seat. Story has it she’s been in rehab several times.
The woman’s first name is Lisa. The first name of the shithead she was first married to is Dan. He used to follow his grandpa around like a puppy.
Question….. Why would human beings with functioning brains submit to this????
Dottie–How about REID–his remarks were not favorable to Romney—Throw him out of the Mormon Church–also out of Washington.
Zarathustra, The LDS Church would have about as much control over Mitt Romney as it currently does over Harry Reid…
this story is fake. Brother Tweed was called in to his bishop’s office, but not because of his opinion on Romney. Brother Tweed admits as much. the church is politically neutral. If this story was real, this bishop would be acting contrary to church teaching.
Twede should tell them to go perform oral sex on each other, and on Youtube.
I think we might be missing the point here…. The real question, should the unthinkable happen, and Mitt Romney gets elected President is…. How much power & control will Mitt’s church then wield over him????? And how will that then effect the people of the United states and the rest of the World?????
RELIGION IS A BIG HOAX, THE LARGEST, MOST WIDE SPREAD FRAUD EVER CREATED, ALL TO PRODUCE, HATE, WAR AND THE CAUSE FOR POPULATION CONTROL. THE WEAK ARE PLUNDERED FINANCIAL ON A WISH, HOPE, AND PROMISE OF EVERLASTING SALVATION, OR 72 VIRGINS, OR ANYTHING ELSE THE MORTAL PREACHERS PROMISE THEM IN EXCHANGE FOR FINANCIAL DUPING THE NAIVE OUT OF THEIR RICHES. I LAUGH AT ALL THE MILLIONS OF STUPID PEOPLE, PRAYING AND WASTING THEIR TIME, AS IN THE END ALL YOU WILL EVER BECOME IS DUST, AND A MEMORY FOR THE REMAINING LIVING. I HOPE THE RELIGIOUS FREAKS ALL KILL EACH OTHER SOONER THAN LATER,. AS THE WORLD WILL BE BETTER OFF… BTW/ IN THE END, ONLY PREPPERS AND THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.
I believe the only current BYU professor at FAIR is Dan Peterson.
It is not surprising that the Church leaders would bristle at any critique that would strengthen the chances of our Nation’s first black president gaining re-election. Consider the following:
It is among the church Doctrine that black people were descended from Cain (see Joseph Smith Bible Translation and The Pearl Of Great Price, Moses:7:22). Indeed, in the Second Book of Nephi 5:21, the recalcitrant elder brothers, Laman and Lemuel and their families were also cursed with a skin of “blackness.” In explaining the dark skin of native Americans, Joseph Smith championed a “theory” of Semitic de-evolution, popular in his time. Furthermore, the church was conspicuously slow in reversing their policy against blacks holding the priesthood until 1978–a full ten years after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Church cannot quietly discard Harry Reid as they have threatened to do with David Twede. Senator Reid, like Governor Romney, is a high-visibility church member, and though most of Reid’s “brethren” openly express their hatred of him (I have heard several “Judges in Israel” denounce him as an apostate), it would put the LDS church in a most prickly situation to excommunicate a man of Harry Reid’s stature.
The Church has looked the other way while members persisted in the practice of polgyny, even when to do so allowed girls, not even of age at menarche to become victims of rape and incest. Yet it refuses to grant Mr. Twede the necessary latitude to answer questions from learned critics.
This event is quite telling as to the sort of bigotry and absolutism we can expect a “President” Romney to bring to the office, should the Church manage to bludgeon into silence, Romney’s critics, like David Twede
he few mainstream news media outfits that have touched this phony story have questioned the veracity of the story as presented by the Daily Beast. It is a lie that any person was disciplined or threatened with discipline for political reasons.
LatterDayAin’t:
Thank you for contributing your inforamtion. Intersting reading.
As a former member of the LDS church I can answer just how strictly LDS members pledge allegiance to Church Leadership on matters of doctrinal differences with church leadership. Church members are prohibited from speaking out “in any way against church leaders”. They are also prohibited from “teaching false doctrine”. These are wide nets and its up to the church leaders to determine if an offense constitutes church action. The action of speaking out against church leaders or teaching false doctrines is considered more “grievous” than sexual transgressions (adultery being the most “heinous” ) or any other type of sin and can get you excommunicated faster than getting drunk and fornicating with the Bishops wife.
“Church Action” means court. When a member is excommunicated a court is held at the local level (branch or stake) by local leaders, made up of a body of “High Priests” and Elders, the Stake or Branch president and his counselors. The local Bishop is usually not presiding but may be called as a witness for or against the accused. The accused is kept out of most of the “trial” and long discussions are held while the accused waits outside. Once called in the witness does have the opportunity to challenge the charges and provide testimony to refute them in some way. Usually its a done deal though once it gets this far and many members never attend their own excommunication trial.
As for what you can and cannot say, not voting for or speaking out against a political candidate, even if that candidate is LDS would not constitute grounds for church action. And no local Bishop or Stake President is going to be able to fly such charges past the higher authorities. A member can appeal their case to the higher authorities, going from the “Regional President” all the way to the “General Authorities. The General Authorities consist of the First and Second Quorums of the 70, along with the 12 Apostles and of course the Prophet\President (currently Thomas Monson, whom I’ve met several times) and any of them can overturn a local branch decision and reinstate a member in good standing.
So I doubt that these local leaders are coming after him over anything political dealing with Romney, at least on the surface. I’m sure they want to go after him over that, but their official charge must be tied to apostasy which consists of the two I mentioned above, either publicly countering church doctrine or publicly criticizing church leaders. That being said its possible they’re using the latter, criticizing church leaders as the basis for their charge but that would be a stretch and no doubt overturned by a General Authority since Romney isn’t currently a church leader but only served as one in the past (the church employs a lay clergy so its not unusual that Romney was a Bishop or Stake President). So its more likely there’s a doctrinal issue that this man touched upon, although I’ll have to read his blog to see what that might be. In order for them to get to this guy with a charge that sticks, they’ll need to prove he wrote something publicly that constitutes “false doctrine”. Otherwise it would be hard to prosecute such a case against him on anything higher than the local level. Especially with the case being so public. So I’m guessing something he wrote in that blog dealing with “Romney’s God” likely is going to be the focus of their charges against him. Of course I don’t doubt for a minute that the motivation behind the charges, whatever they end up being, are due to Mormons wanting Romney as president, so very very bad. After all, Joseph Smith predicted that in the “last days” the US Constitution would “Dangle by a thread” and that it would be under Mormon leadership that it would be saved and that the world would turn to. He also predicted a Mormon would be President. So you can bet that now is not a good time to be anything other than a republican in the Mormon church. At least at the local level. They want this bad. Real bad. And you can bet if you’re not a Romney voter and worse an Obama fan, that locally you’ll not be too welcome in the Ward or Stake house. Harry Reid’s in Nevada by the way and most members consider Nevada Mormons “Jack Mormons” due to the fact that the state makes its income on everything prohibited in the LDS rulebook, from gambling, to booze, to sex (Mustang ranch) to face cards (yes, face cards are evil, don’t ask me why).
Obedience to Church Leaders is not just mandatory, its the core of the religion. In fact if you look at church history you’ll see that most of the original leaders (and “Witnesses) of the Church were excommunicated at one time or another, and all for the same thing. “Speaking out against church leaders”. Martin Harris, the man who funded the original printing of the Book of Mormon was ex’d. So was Sidney Rigdon, another financier of the church. Even Oliver Cowerdry, the actual scribe of most of the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s right hand man was excommunicated for “disagreeing with the prophet”. Sometimes it was on very small things like land purchases or how to manage some project or task, but since the prophet was the voice of God on earth then even disagreeing with him in small matters could lead to being cut off. But today it usually has to be over something doctrinal or if they can show you are publicly (basically to anyone other than yourself) “criticizing church leaders”. Being as Romney’s not currently one I’d be looking for some doctrinal issue dealing with the nature of God or something along those lines. Otherwise they’ll be hard pressed to make anything stick.
Since this poor soul will lose all privileges to a Celestial existence, along with his own planet, maybe he should demand his tithing payments back.
You ask: what do I think? Among other things, I think that there are valid reasons for the rule against hearsay. You and the other commentators simply accepted as valid–and accurate–the claims and characterizations by such authoritative sources, such as the Huffington Post. When a reporter actually interviewed him, Twede confirmed that the threatened disciplinary action has nothing to do with any comments about Romney.
” But, Twede told The Salt Lake Tribune on Friday, his LDS leaders never brought up Romney, a Mormon, in their exchange with him. Though not supporting the Republican standard-bearer, Twede apologized to Romney, saying, “I didn’t mean for [the story] to go this way.”” http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54944698-78/church-lds-twede-romney.html.csp (Although the Tribune is published in Salt Lake City, it has never been viewed as a newspaper that is generally supportive of the LDS church.)
The LDS Church, also, was quick to address the political issue: “It is patently false for someone to suggest they face church discipline for having questions or for expressing a political view,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement. “The church is an advocate of individual choice. It is a core tenet of our faith.”” Id.
Despite these clarifications, people continue to excoriate the LDS Church. It is noteworthy that except for one regional reporter no one in the media has attempted to set the record straight.
How many gypsies are mormons. I did not say morons. Roma, Romani, Romanich, Romney. Google it. Look at his forehead. Especially look at the forehead of one of his kids. Of course they are gypsies.
Here’s a cross-post from the “popcorn lung” thread.
It is dead since long ago there, but there are three major points I make—especially in regard to out chase for justice and control of our government, ie forcing it to do what it says it is doing.
=================0
“idealist707
1, September 22, 2012 at 3:43 pm
No ones reading or responding anymore.
But I think we missed a two big points here.
One. Some feel that this is an example of the “tort” problem taxing America’s bla bla businesses. I don’t agree.
Two. It is an example of how we the people can be compensated for the mistreatment, etc. visited upon us by powers from which we otherwise may not expect compensation.
Further, I would like to see the day come when we see the responsible agencies, OSHA in this case, on the defendant list.
Again, as it will be the only way for us to effect those from whom we may not otherwise claim accountability.
I would enjoy seeing how this could be used as a steering instrument on agencies. Bureau chiefs are easily replaced, funding likewise. Bureaus have an enormous power to oppose reform.
CIA again is a excellent example. Even, in the CIA case, pouring billions on the problem (for ex post-9/11) does not effect ANY change.
I will cross post this in the hope of it reaching some eyes here at Turley’s.