Recording of an excommunication
 

Failure to inoculate strikes again.

One thing that I noticed (and this is assuming this is an actual true recording and not a fraud) is that absolutely none of Lamborn's complaints are given any credence. Instead, the stake president, when he speaks, argues with him.

It seems terribly unproductive to argue. Maybe the Stake President was more concerned about defending the church in front of the other men.

Clearly, Lamborn wants to be excommunicated, I'm not arguing about that.

There was no arguing in that clip.

maybe it was in the 2nd and 3rd:

So what's your opinion of someone secretly recording a disciplinary council and then posting it on the internet?

I assume this violates protocol.

I think I can understand the desire to document the process and have an ace in the hole should a public dispute arise.

I think publishing it is an indication of his antipathy for the church. Or rather, a measure of his conviction as to the wrongness and corruption of the church.

Here's a bit more info about his excommunication:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/98421

My thoughts here are the disciplinary council should have hearkened back to their missionary days where they were advised not to Bible bash.

This fellow obviously no longer believes in the church. He got to have his say.

I would have said, brother we can still be friends. I have many friends who are non-LDS. I am not here to try to convince you you are wrong nor are you going to convince me I am wrong.

I am convinced you no longer believe in the church, quite the contrary you have strong feelings against the church. Hopefully we can both agree it is best for you to be express these views as a non-member of the church.

As friends we won't be discussing this anymore but can discuss things like BYU football. If you want to convince me your beliefs are correct and mine are wrong, you are welcome to come and knock on my door as a missionary for whatever church you end up in. I won't promise you I will let you in though in that capacity.

So was that guy ex'ed because he was telling other Church members facts about Church history?

I just got a kick out of how Lyndon attempted to describe a spiritual witness, which somehow (in a way only known to him) was different than how he was told a spiritual witness was to feel.

It sounded to me like he was calling the church a corrupt organization and that he denied the church was true and denied that the Book of Mormon was the word of God. It went beyond simply being an alternative history teacher.

In any event, he was "exhilarated" not to be a member anymore, so it wasn't like he left the church kicking and screaming. The result he got was exactly what he wanted.

Sounds like it. He probably wasn't doing it discretely.

You know how you are not supposed to bring up controversial things in sunday school? Like recently when my teacher said that the BoM was translated by the Urim and Thummim, and avoided any mention of peep stones and hats. Anyway, I bet her violated that.

Is that reason to excommunicate though?

I don't think that is enough to get you exed. It is enough to deny you a temple recommend however and maybe a calling.

Lyndon seemed to think so.

I'm watching the YouTube clips now. In the 2nd video the Stake President said, "I've never heard the Church teach anything but the scriptures,..."

Exactly. They did what he wanted.

His free speech argument was ridiculous. Does he work for Boeing? I wonder how he can possibly continue his employment there given Boeing's decisons to keep information out of the public realm.

He seemed very happy to finally be able to tell people "no" when asked if he was LDS. Then he runs out to tell people his isn't LDS.

I question the morality of taping someone secretly then making it public. I could see it if there had been some type of violation of protocal or abuse of some kind.

If you believe like this guy does, what is the point of staying a member.

The only reason I can think of is for social reasons. OK, if you belong to a social organization, you have to live by that social organizations rules.

I know a guy at our Country Club who got kicked out because he got extrememly pissed and was screaming the F word around women and children. Heck what about free speech. A social organization can set rules.

I just don't get it. If you no longer believe in the church to the point you want to convince others to get out, get out yourself first so you don't mislead anyone as to your motives.

Again, Bishops and SP's are human beings. You have to laugh sometimes at what they say. Why was the SP or anyone arguing with this guy. Let him go.

I don't think we will see lesson manuals mention JS's polyandry anytime soon. We will probably unofficially deny it happened for another two decades. Then there will be a tacit admission, but still kept under wraps.

Unfortunately there will be a few members who will feel they were lied to. Or rather, they will be lied to, but get upset about it. Many of us realize we have been deceived in many respects, but we give the deceivers the benefit of the doubt. Like parents, they protected us from the grimy things of the world, which would come soon enough.

I thought the SP was very respectful and allowed Lyndon to say his peace. He challenged him on a couple of items, but allowed Lyndon to respond.

Another thing I found funny was Lyndon leaving behind charts for the disciplinary council as he left the building.

Because it's clear that Lyndon intended to record and disseminate this hearing, I'm curious how he would have really conducted himself in absence of a recording. It's obvious he's trying to protray himself as the kind, almost respectful conscientious objector.

Perhaps you are the most qualified here to relate the motivations behind Lamborn's yearning for the spotlight? He blankets the Net with videos of his anti-LDS rhetoric and employs the media to spread his word. Perish the thought one could walk away with their dignity intact.

Did anyone else laugh out loud when he referenced Nickelback?

There's something we're missing in this story. Something about exactly how he was going around and spreading his "message". If he's just bringing up polyandry to fellow ward members, that can't be an excommunication worthy offense can it? I've never heard of somebody being exed because they lost a testimony, or doubted the historicity of the BoM.

Kept under wraps? You think the church has this info monopolized and buried in the Granite Vault?

I think the church has pushed back against honest historians. I don't think an honest observer can dispute this.

I also think that history in the curricula is shown through a highly distorted lens. yes, there is a camera with a lens there, but it is a tilt lens. taking many things out of focus to obscure them, while allowing just the chosen bits to be examined.

Gosh, tilt lens is a brilliant metaphor for what the church does. "We didn't hide that, see it's right there in the picture in that orange smudge".

That's when the cracks really began to show: his bizarre rant against spiritual witnesses and his pathetic attempt to provide an alternative description.

I was groaning when he started with kraukauer.

Yea, I didn't see the SP being particulary bad in anyway. I am only saying, what was the point. Why challenge him on anything. The fact they exed him would have been a clear message they challenged his thinking and actions.

The need to be overly fair in my humble opinion is an admission that the system isn't all that fair or spiritual in nature. I often laugh when people refer to excommunication procedures as "spiritual". Spiritual for who. They are organizational function in order to kick someone out.

Nickelback did him in. He was exed at Nickelback and everyone in the room knew it.

Yes, this didn't strike me as very spiritual, nor very loving. Merely courteous and formal, and frankly lacking any depth on a spirtual or intellectual level.

Has the church ever officially denied JS's polyandry? I know they like to avoid the topic, but have they ever claimed it didn't happen?

My point is why pretend there is going to be an intellectual or spiritual event in these things.

Did Lamborn think he was going to intellectually convince these men to also condemn Joseph Smith and the church. Did the SP think all of a sudden the spirit would enter the room, brother Lamborn would start weeping and thank these brethern for saving his sole.

I know it is serious to these parties, but as an observer I thought you Tube was good place for it. It was comical.

Lyndon wanted this to happen, and that was probably known by all parties from the outset, so this particular disciplinary council was really a formality and that's evident from the recordings.

I didn't think that rant was bizarre, he sounded exactly like my agnostic friends who love to tell me why a spiritual witness is worthless in a search for truth. His alternative description was indeed poor, but seemed to me to be evidence of his no longer finding any value in such a witness. I can't tell if he's moving on toward agnosticism or evangelicism as adherents of either find our spiritual witnesses to be of little worth.

Yes. In fact a prophet denied it. Joseph Smith.

Probably true.

That was all I needed to hear. They could have brought him in just for that and I'd have voted to ex him.

I have to agree here. In fact I have to wonder if he didn't initiate the council himself. With the info we have, which obviously isn't everything, I don't know how he would have gotten there otherwise.

In the 3rd clip he mentions he knows he wouldn't be able to keep from speaking up in church, and that it's a question of can they welcome him as a brother, or get a court order to keep him from going to church. Could the Church get such a court order?

I didn't detect a problem with anything I heard there. I didn't hear the SP attacking. I thought they were conversing as much as anything, and the SP actually gave him a lot of leeway to say he peace, which was apparently appreciated.

I don't see why this guy felt the need to get himself exed. My guess is that the church is full of people who think exactly as he does but aren't so proud as to presume to stand on a soap box and bash everyone with it. I thought the SP made a good point when he requested that this man show the same respect as if he had walked into the service of another faith.

I get reflexively irritated by the accusation that someone was looking for the door or an excuse to sin when someone shares unorthodox or apostate beliefs. That said, this guy was looking for the door. I would have had much more respect for him had he resigned his membership. Instead, he placed his leaders in a position that he knew was untenable. You can't show up at church every week and tell people the BOM is not true. It just isn't appropriate. If those are your convictions, fine. Take them and leave us in peace.

Can you really ask to be excommunicated? I know you can ask to no longer be a member.

That made me LOL.