Recording of an excommunication

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

Isn't arguing with him a form of inoculation for the other Brethren on the court?

Regardless, I wouldn't have argued with him. Further, sometimes I think my worlds and others are enormously different. I genuinely don't understand how this guy was as old as he was and not aware of Joseph's polygamy. I can give him polyandry as I was older when I became aware of that, but I don't blame the Church for him not being properly inoculated. I think the Church has some culpability as it has clearly fostered a culture of defense and while I don't believe the Church has suppressed information, it certainly isn't exaclty forthright and there is little question that it has historically preferred that certain things not be well promulgated. My world ain't so binary that open sharing instantly equates to suppression. However, I think the blame for Lyndon's ignorance rests upon Lyndon and perhaps his parents as much as the Church. The guy has no interest in independent thought until his 30's or 40's until he is shaken a bit, and then suddenly he then begins to question Nephi's steel bow or Mahonrimoreancumr's glass stones. Part of my "judgemental nature" of him, admittedly spawning from my innate desire to defend the Church, is that he is a little embarassed that he never questioned such historical inconsistencies for so long so he is lashing out and blaming the Church for keeping him ignorant. All those example that he quoted are conclusions he could have come to on his own throughout his life. The Church didn't keep him ignorant about steel or glass during his 1st-4th campaigns as an EQP.

I do think that some inoculation would help, but I am not convinced it would have the impact some of you do. I am a bit of mullah at heart, but I am totally convinced that the only thing that works is spiritual experiences. I don't know what Lyndon felt with his burning in the bosom and tingling experiences, but I do know what I have personally felt. No amount of inoculation will compensate for consistent spiritual experiences, and I think the Church is correct to put more emphasis on having spiritual experiences.

All in all, it is a sad event for many I am sure. I wish Lyndon all the luck in the world.

[bigpiney]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I was groaning when he started with kraukauer.

That is what I was thinking. He thinks krakauer is good literature and then nickelback, we don't want this guy affiliated with the church in any way, shape or form.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

That was exactly my thoughts on it.

When you know you are the one recording it and no one else knows, you are going to try to portray yourself as being the mild, meek, gee whiz kind of person.

Krakauers portrayal in the book was stupid at best, his smear campaign was so full of holes it was like reading a book made from swiss cheese.

I know the person who took the court depositions of the parties involved with the Lafferty killings, he still maintains copies of those, and he read the book and laughed at Krak's attempts to fill in the blanks with heresay and innuendo. When you go to such great lengths to fill in your book with half turths and innuendo on court proceedings, well, what does this do to the other parts of your book?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

Good one.

But once the church "came out of the closet" regarding polygamy, there was a battle between the LDS and RLDS folks over whether JS sanctioned polygamy. The LDS folks had all of JS's former wives swear out affidavits to prove that JS was in fact the one who instigated polygamy, not BY.

So my question is, has the modern church ever tried to deny this?

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

I have absolutly no problem with it. The potential was there for him to be unfairly dealt with and he took along the means to verify the facts of the meeting. Very smart in my opinion.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

That made me LOL.

Well, the spirit has born witness to me more than once that the Carpenters are true, particularly when they sing Superstar. But Nickleback? Damn.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

If you're referring to his cocaine dealers analogy, then I agree that was bizarre, but his point is legit in my opinion. He first explained how he felt that spiritual witnesses/feelings are found in all things, i.e., not reserved only for things Mormon. Then I think he used the drug dealer example (poor example maybe) to bring up a conflict of interest, so to speak, going on with Moroni's promise -- of course Moroni or Joseph Smith is going to tell you that if you have a good feeling about the BOM that that's God telling you it's true.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I have absolutly no problem with it. The potential was there for him to be unfairly dealt with and he took along the means to verify the facts of the meeting. Very smart in my opinion.

C'mon, look at his motivations. Was he dealt with unfairly? Obviously not. Hence no more need for the recording, and certainly no need to publish it, other than to stroke his own ego and get more gigs on the Asshaf "How to Witness to Mormons" speaker circuit. Whatever sells books.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by scottie

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?

That was the strongest evidence that he was, as UtahDan said, looking for the door.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by T Blue

That was exactly my thoughts on it.

When you know you are the one recording it and no one else knows, you are going to try to portray yourself as being the mild, meek, gee whiz kind of person.

Krakauers portrayal in the book was stupid at best, his smear campaign was so full of holes it was like reading a book made from swiss cheese.

I know the person who took the court depositions of the parties involved with the Lafferty killings, he still maintains copies of those, and he read the book and laughed at Krak's attempts to fill in the blanks with heresay and innuendo. When you go to such great lengths to fill in your book with half turths and innuendo on court proceedings, well, what does this do to the other parts of your book?

I read about 80% of "Under the Banner of Heaven." I think the best explanation for it is from Non-Sequitar who explained it as a book about religious extremism through a mormon. I don't think I was offended by it, but I found it disjointed. I never felt like he tied the events and beliefs together very well to support whatever his point was. It seemed more like a freshman history final where a young student just starts throwing information down on paper without any scholarly thought. I guess it highlights to me the difference between research and scholarship. Krakauer had some facts and done some research but I never followed his common thread if you will.

But I did think Deloy Bateman was cool and I would like to invite him to join creekster, BYU71 and myself for a cold one at a Hurricane watering hole if the opportunity presents itself.