Behind the Excommunications

The Face of Dogmatic in the LDS church. 

The extremely strange events of June 2014 beg a few questions and speculation.

This event on the surface makes no sense. I have seen some speculation as to why, but no one has really had any sort of sensible answer, but I have yet to read any decent explanation.

The church has been more open and less likely to excommunicate ever since the September six as the church has realized the public backlash that comes from excommunicating “thought criminals” in particular very public and even well-liked thought criminals, such as John Dehlin, and Kate Kelly.

That was one of the lessons of the September six, the other lesson which I thought the church had learned was that they end up excommunicating those who are in the best position to help the church. There is no other person who could have helped the church more during these years of increased historical visibility than D. Michael Quinn. Think about it, he is Gay, he knows all the issues better than most anyone, and he believes. What better mark of openness and understanding for the church to point to than that. He could have been a great asset. He would have been as good or better than Richard Bushman at handling the Swedish issue, and would have been able to address the issue of the historical “essays” much better as well. But the church excommunicated him. Excommunicated the person who could have been their best ally during the internet years. This is one of the many signs the church is not run by Prophets, Seers, or Revelators. 

D. Michael Quinn: the man who could have saved Mormonism.

The church apparently has not learned its lesson that the liberal elements in the church can be its savior. John Dehlin in particular has made enormous effort to help those stay in the church that desire to and who have had faith crises and would have otherwise left. He has been one of the church’s biggest advocates and has done more than anyone to try in some way resolve the historical mess the church has created by being dishonest about its history.

On every level, the excommunication makes no sense. Excommunicating the guy who started stayLDS.org? Can there be more irony than this?

Could it be that this is a local issue? Did two local leaders just feel (were inspired?) to get rid of these two troublemakers? This is the theory the church has claimed. This cannot be true. This had to be organized by Salt Lake, because in the LDS church everything is ordered by Salt Lake. Bishop’s are pawns of the Stake President and the Stake presidents of the General Authorities. Obedience is the first law of the LDS Church, to paraphrase LDS scripture.

First off, the chance that two completely independent excommunication letters were sent within a day of each other is essentially zero. Next, any church leader has to know that taking action against someone as public as John Dehlin or Kate Kelly is going to cause a huge public out roar. If they did not know this they would have to have an IQ of 27, have never used the internet, and require help to tie their own shoes. Honestly, would any leader bring that much public criticism to the church without first questioning Salt Lake?

When I went to the national Scout Jamboree with a refugee troop in my Salt Lake City ward, we were interviewed by the local press. They wanted to interview the Stake President. Before being interviewed he said he needed to call headquarters and ask. He did, they said he could not be interviewed. He was in a suit and tie and it was for something completely positive about the church. Is it possible to imagine that a  Stake President would do something that would draw loads of press and attention to themselves and the church without first consulting Salt Lake? I think not. These leaders almost for sure were under pressure from someone “higher up” whether this was officially, or more interestingly, some apostle or GA was informally pressuring them, but the chance that they acted alone is about as likely as me throwing skittles into a pond and having rainbows and unicorns come out.

Who is behind it?

Obviously I don’t know. But it might be helpful to look to the September Six. The September Six happened because the Prophet was incapacitated and so Boyd K. Packer exerted more influence in the quorum of the Twelve. Packer had to know that once Hinckley was at the helm, this was not going to happen. So he acted and acted fast. I see no reason to believe that this is any different. I do not know the health status of the Prophet, but I have heard he is having difficulties. It is not hard to imagine that the situation is much as it was in 1993. Packer also knows his days are numbered and needs to act. I don’t know. Could it also be Oaks? Maybe.

One thing is clear, there is a faction within the quorum of the twelve that is very conservative. There is a lack of love in the quorum. There was heated disagreement about whether to release the historical essays. Some of the conservative factions were less than excited. It is easy to imagine that faction being the one taking control of a somewhat unhealthy prophet and exercising “unrighteous dominion" (to say the least).

Ever more intriguing is the possibility that an apostle simply decided to do this on his own. What stake President or Bishop would say no to a call from Boyd K. Packer or Dallin H. Oaks? Seriously. If you are in power in the church, that word has real meaning, they do have power over people, particularly apostles over Stake Presidents and Bishops.

This was centrally organized because the church is centrally organized, and as much as they try to deflect the blame to local leaders, they know, and we all know that they control the local leaders.

Obviously the church has not learned the lessons from the September Six, in particular the “conservative” apostles, if they are behind this, have not learned the lesson. This is because those men must be so prideful and arrogant and disconnected from reality that they literally look at the blue sky, call it magenta, and think that it is so.

This will of course backfire on the church (the more liberal apostles already know this but as Oaks said about Packer at one time, "you don't stage manage a grizzly bear"). The flight from the church will only accelerate.