Bruce R. McConkie & Apostasy

[Moksha]

I'd be interested to see the source material of your claim that he was "rejected" because of writing about inconvenient history.

You just read it. It was my own observation. Not everyone rejects his writings, but it seems that on many LDS forums he is spoken of disparagingly rather than, oh that is nice but it is inconvenient.

[Snow]

You just read it. It was my own observation. Not everyone rejects his writings, but it seems that on many LDS forums he is spoken of disparagingly rather than, oh that is nice but it is inconvenient.

The point is that he wasn't ex'd because he wrote about inconvenient history. While only those privy to the actual proceedings understand the whole story, those close to the situation inform us that he was excommunicated for insubordination, which is a nice way to say apostasy.

[Elphaba]

As for the Mighty Quinn, my understanding is he lost his membership due to changes in his lifestyle.

No he did not.

In September 1993, according to his biographer Lavina Fielding Anderson, his insubordination directed toward the Church authorities who had counseled him not to publish his work resulted in his excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The work he published was about the Church's continued practice of marrying/sealing people into polygamous relationships. These marriages were performed after the 1890 Manifesto.

Sadly, there is no dispute about this amongst historians today. But in the '90s, it was practically sacrilege.

Quinn‘s refusal to not publish his work was based on his belief that historical truths were of the utmost importance. To demonstrate how important this was, he wrote an article called, “On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath)."

Personally, I believe this article is brilliant, especially when applied to academia. Quinn recognizes it is more important to tell the truth about Mormonism’s past rather than faith-promoting articles that always put the Church’s history in a good light. Here is an excerpt from his speech:

“The Accommodation History advocated by Elders Benson and Packer and actually practiced by some LDS writers is intended to protect the Saints, but actually disillusions them and makes them vulnerable. . . . The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials... A so called "faith promoting" Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of the Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problem from other sources... Historians have not created the problem areas of the Mormon past; they are trying to respond to them. Believing Mormon historians like myself seek to write candid Church history in a context of perspective in order to inoculate the Saints against the historical disease germs that apostates and anti-Mormons might thrust upon them.”

Those knuckleheads that insist that the September Six were all innocent and pure followers of the LDS Church and that offered up flowers to bring both sides together, really do not understand the Lord's Church.

What knuckleheads are you talking about?

There are standards. This includes both commandments and doctrines.

The authorities who insisted on Quinn's excommunication would agree with you. However, there is a strong and significant faction of Latter-day Saints who do not agree with Quinn's excommunication. I think, especially given Bushman's biography of Joseph, this is fueled by many of the historical accuracies detailed in Quinn's book.

While Quinn was often controversial in his writings, I believe that he fell due to commandments.

I don't know if you mean he fell when he was excommunicated, or afterwards. I've explained why he was excommunicated, and you can determine if that applies to your comments here.

There were others that fell due to the pride they had in their own teachings, such as praying to Mother in Heaven; but I don't think he was one of them. As I understand it, he still believes in the Church, even though he does not follow all its commandments or precepts.

He was one of the "September Six.“ However, at the time of his excommunication, he said "he affirms that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was God's prophet of the Restoration and that Ezra Taft Benson is the prophet, seer and revelator on the Earth today." (He said this in the ‘80s.)

How strong is his faith today? I do not know, but he still belives the Book of Mormon is true, and in the Restoration of the gospel. However, there are those who dispute this, and say he no longer has a testimony. I believe he still does, as he has never publicly claimed otherwise.

If I'm wrong in this, please, someone, correct me.

Done.

Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

No he did not.

In September 1993, according to his biographer Lavina Fielding Anderson, his insubordination directed toward the Church authorities who had counseled him not to publish his work resulted in his excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The work he published was about the Church's continued practice of marrying/sealing people into polygamous relationships. These marriages were performed after the 1890 Manifesto.

Sadly, there is no dispute about this amongst historians today. But in the '90s, it was practically sacrilege.

Quinn‘s refusal to not publish his work was based on his belief that historical truths were of the utmost importance. To demonstrate how important this was, he wrote an article called, “On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath)."

Personally, I believe this article is brilliant, especially when applied to academia. Quinn recognizes it is more important to tell the truth about Mormonism’s past rather than faith-promoting articles that always put the Church’s history in a good light. Here is an excerpt from his speech:

“The Accommodation History advocated by Elders Benson and Packer and actually practiced by some LDS writers is intended to protect the Saints, but actually disillusions them and makes them vulnerable. . . . The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials... A so called "faith promoting" Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of the Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problem from other sources... Historians have not created the problem areas of the Mormon past; they are trying to respond to them. Believing Mormon historians like myself seek to write candid Church history in a context of perspective in order to inoculate the Saints against the historical disease germs that apostates and anti-Mormons might thrust upon them.”

What knuckleheads are you talking about?

The authorities who insisted on Quinn's excommunication would agree with you. However, there is a strong and significant faction of Latter-day Saints who do not agree with Quinn's excommunication. I think, especially given Bushman's biography of Joseph, this is fueled by many of the historical accuracies detailed in Quinn's book.

I don't know if you mean he fell when he was excommunicated, or afterwards. I've explained why he was excommunicated, and you can determine if that applies to your comments here.

He was one of the "September Six.“ However, at the time of his excommunication, he said "he affirms that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was God's prophet of the Restoration and that Ezra Taft Benson is the prophet, seer and revelator on the Earth today." (He said this in the ‘80s.)

How strong is his faith today? I do not know, but he still belives the Book of Mormon is true, and in the Restoration of the gospel. However, there are those who dispute this, and say he no longer has a testimony. I believe he still does, as he has never publicly claimed otherwise.

Done.

Elphaba

You've corrected NOTHING...only furthered the Apostate Codswallop of the so called September Six...

[Guest User-Removed]

I made no claim. I stated that it was my understanding, but I also stated I could be wrong on what happened almost 20 years ago. I bear no burden of proof, because I registered an opinion, not a statement. As it is, Quinn has written some very good stuff, and some not so good things (I'm skeptical about his Jupiter-talisman claims, for example). But then, I could say the same thing about JFS' "historical" writings that make Joseph Smith and his successors seem like they could do no wrong.

And as I stated, Quinn still professes belief in the gospel, though he is not obliged to live it right now. To me, it is immaterial what he was excommunicated for, as I was not in the counsel that did it. If he publishes quality stuff, I'll use it; and if he writes trash, I won't.

You notice, the most ardent defenders of D. Michael Quinn don't comment on his book(s) promoting LDS Homosexuality...

This is from the SAME wikipedia "article that elphaba "quoted" from...

"Quinn has publicly argued that homosexual relationships, between both men and women, were quietly accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leadership up until the 1940s. This theme has arisen in Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power and is the central topic of Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. Several LDS scholars have disputed Quinn's work, calling it a distortion of LDS history and saying he completely misrepresented the facts. They deny any acceptance from previous leaders of homosexuality, suggesting that Quinn conflated an absence of early Church proscriptions of homosexuality with tacit acceptance of same, and state the current leadership of the church “is entirely consistent with the teachings of past leaders and with the scriptures"

Now, I know that there are many on here who find succor in the words of wikipedia, because as we know...anyone can create an "article" on wikipedia....BUT...Let's see what the Maxwell Institute has to say...

D. Michael Quinn is a former Mormon historian now turned homosexual apologist.2 His Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example appears to be, among other things, another attempt to generate tolerance and perhaps even acceptance for the notion of a special homosexual identity. This highly controversial book also seems to be Quinn's attempt to talk Latter-day Saints into ceasing to view homosexual acts as immoral. It follows that if there is a homosexual identity, either genetically grounded or socially constructed—he seems to want to have it both ways—then apparently he thinks Latter-day Saints should cease being what he considers homophobic and make a place for homoerotic behavior within the church.

A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion ofLatter-day Saint History - FARMS Review

Frankly...I agree with Ira Fulton when he was quoted in the WSJ as calling Quinn a "Nothing Person."

Whatever good works Quinn ever did, and his bio on J. Reuben Clark is still one of the best, has been overshadowed by his purient lifestyle...

[Guest lauracooke78]

Whatever good works Quinn ever did, and his bio on J. Reuben Clark is still one of the best, has been overshadowed by his purient lifestyle...

I agree with your comment Dog, and I assume this man is a topic of conversation on this thread as we are referring to Bruce's original quote of "leaving the church because of sin". This man is an example of just that. It doesn't matter what good works or things he accomplished, it was overshadowed by the fact that he was living in sin and his perception of good and truth could not have been clear. For as we know "wickedness never was happiness" and we lose the companionship of the Holy Ghost when we sin, especially grevious moral sins.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

The whole Quinn thing is the very reason why I love men like Elder McConkie. He speaks doctrine, is an apostle, very spiritual, and does not mince words. It is so interesting to see the sway that fallen men have on the lukewarm saints. There should be no question who one pulls to. If its between President Packer and a lowly scholar, I will not apostatize, meaning I will follow President Packer. Why people even leave that up as a question is beyond me.

There should be no sympathy for apostates. They choose to rebel against God. They choose to deny the truth. They choose to enlist in the army of the devil. They choose to leave the Church. They choose to fall. They choose.

The words of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives." (Teachings p. 156)

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I might also add, that my view on the no sympathy is my own opinion. However, I think that we should feel a sense of sadness for the person for their choice to leave. But that does not equate the sympathy of defending their choice.

[Snow]

I agree with your comment Dog, and I assume this man is a topic of conversation on this thread as we are referring to Bruce's original quote of "leaving the church because of sin". This man is an example of just that. It doesn't matter what good works or things he accomplished, it was overshadowed by the fact that he was living in sin and his perception of good and truth could not have been clear. For as we know "wickedness never was happiness" and we lose the companionship of the Holy Ghost when we sin, especially grevious moral sins.

Great - the holier-than-thous that worry about what other people do in the bedroon are out again tonight.

Let's talk about your personal sexual morality, shall we?

[Moksha]

You've corrected NOTHING...only furthered the Apostate Codswallop of the so called September Six...

She has related an inconvenient history?

[Guest lauracooke78]

No, sorry Snow. Just like McConkie, I was looking at the situation (as it has been explained in this thread) and talking about it objectively. My first post ever on this thread explains that I have known personally people who have apostisied (other than recent converts which I put in a different catagory most of the time) and they have nearly all had moral issues as the base of their demise. This man just fits the explanation of what Elder McConkie was talking about and also what I have seen evident in persons lives around me.

I am interested for someone to do a study into people who are members of the church who go astray because on the surface they say they are feminists/communists/socialists/liberalists etc and to see the relationship of this excuse and what it has to do with their moral lives. In my personaly experience once again, I have ALWAYS found that people (in my personal life circle at church) grasp at the ideals of social inclusion/social justice and the likes as an ideal that can accomodate their personal sins and then try to somehow have the gospel ideals accomodate social inclusion/social justice and the likes. But the gospel is found wanting in accomodating those ideals and so they leave the church.

[Snow]

No, sorry Snow. Just like McConkie, I was looking at the situation (as it has been explained in this thread) and talking about it objectively. My first post ever on this thread explains that I have known personally people who have apostisied (other than recent converts which I put in a different catagory most of the time) and they have nearly all had moral issues as the base of their demise. This man just fits the explanation of what Elder McConkie was talking about and also what I have seen evident in persons lives around me.

I am interested for someone to do a study into people who are members of the church who go astray because on the surface they say they are feminists/communists/socialists/liberalists etc and to see the relationship of this excuse and what it has to do with their moral lives. In my personaly experience once again, I have ALWAYS found that people (in my personal life circle at church) grasp at the ideals of social inclusion/social justice and the likes as an ideal that can accomodate their personal sins and then try to somehow have the gospel ideals accomodate social inclusion/social justice and the likes. But the gospel is found wanting in accomodating those ideals and so they leave the church.

You are hardly looking at it objectively. You are condemning a specific individual for his morality when you yourself are a sinner. You aren't speaking generically about sin, you are worrying about one particular person does in his bedroom - in short, being a sinner, you are judging unrighteously.

I'd bet that you can't point to one serious bit of evidence that Dr. Quinn's - who I am pretty sure you don't know personally and know very little about - morality had anything to do with his "apostasy" or whatever more accurately stated circumstances led to his excommunication, but apparently that doesn't prevent you and others from gossiping about it.

It saddens me that members of the Church, those of whom we should expect the most, are obsessed with other's personal sexual practices.

[Guest lauracooke78]

You are hardly looking at it objectively. You are condemning a specific individual for his morality when you yourself are a sinner. You aren't speaking generically about sin, you are worrying about one particular person does in his bedroom - in short, being a sinner, you are judging unrighteously.

I'd bet that you can't point to one serious bit of evidence that Dr. Quinn's - who I am pretty sure you don't know personally and know very little about - morality had anything to do with his "apostasy" or whatever more accurately stated circumstances led to his excommunication, but apparently that doesn't prevent you and others from gossiping about it.

It saddens me that members of the Church, those of whom we should expect the most, are obsessed with other's personal sexual practices.

Sounds like you are defending sexual sin. I don't know, but it sounds suss, your angle. Thank-you for attacking me because you would rather me say that sexual sin is ok. Come on now. I am agreeing with Elder McConkies words. I have seen evidence of it in my life. That is what I am saying. I don't care to condem anyone, people condem themselves with their actions. And I am mearly seeing a link between moral sins and apostacy. Sorry if you are insulted by that.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Quinn's apostasy arose from disobedience of the Leaders of the Church.

There is no getting around that. He fell. He chose it. He rejected the truth.

I don't know him personally nor the details of the circumstances, however his current stance that he considers himself a member of the Church is evidence that says he does not uphold the decisions of Church Authority. Apostasy.

I do not think lauracooke78 was saying anything against Quinn. She was speaking against immorality in general. As was the original intent of Elder McConkie's words, apostasy lies in sin. Immorality being the most grievous(of common sins).

[Snow]

Sounds like you are defending sexual sin. I don't know, but it sounds suss, your angle. Thank-you for attacking me because you would rather me say that sexual sin is ok. Come on now. I am agreeing with Elder McConkies words. I have seen evidence of it in my life. That is what I am saying. I don't care to condem anyone, people condem themselves with their actions. And I am mearly seeing a link between moral sins and apostacy. Sorry if you are insulted by that.

You, obviously, have no clue about what you are talking about. My point was quite explicit, namely, that moral sinners worrying about what other people do in their bedroom is hypocritical and sad. Add to that your deliberate misstatement of my position.

[Guest lauracooke78]

You, obviously, have no clue about what you are talking about. My point was quite explicit, namely, that moral sinners worrying about what other people do in their bedroom is hypocritical and sad. Add to that your deliberate misstatement of my position.

When I say moral sin, I am talking of sexual sin Snow. So are you accusing me of moral sin? No it is not hypocritical, if I don't commit it myself. Christ said, he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Meaning he who has no sin (which is none of us of course) should condem someone to death (or in other words partial-finite judgement). I am not doing that. I am saying people's actions condem themselves and that sexual impurity leads one to apostacy. Do you see how the person we were mentioning does not appear as this conversation between us continues. Because me mentioning him was not me condeming him, but me making a point that seems to be proven over and over again. As this conversation continues, you are the one who keeps bringing the individual up so as to continue to try and call me "judgemental".

Try to explain to me about my main point, that moral sin leads to apostacy (or in essence is apostacy).

And just as you have accused me of judging the person for "what they do in their bedroom". I have questioned whether you from my point of view are upholding sexual sin as ok.

[Snow]

When I say moral sin, I am talking of sexual sin Snow. So are you accusing me of moral sin? No it is not hypocritical, if I don't commit it myself. Christ said, he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Great - now we have the first ever morally perfect human. You just go right ahead and worry about what Dr. Quinn and all the rest of us sinful humans are doing in our bedrooms.

Meaning he who has no sin (which is none of us of course) should condem someone to death (or in other words partial-finite judgement). I am not doing that. I am saying people's actions condem themselves and that sexual impurity leads one to apostacy. Do you see how the person we were mentioning does not appear as this conversation between us continues. Because me mentioning him was not me condeming him, but me making a point that seems to be proven over and over again. As this conversation continues, you are the one who keeps bringing the individual up so as to continue to try and call me "judgemental".

As you seem for have forgotten what you said:

"I agree with your comment Dog, and I assume this man is a topic of conversation on this thread as we are referring to Bruce's original quote of "leaving the church because of sin". This man is an example of just that. It doesn't matter what good works or things he accomplished, it was overshadowed by the fact that he was living in sin and his perception of good and truth could not have been clear. For as we know "wickedness never was happiness" and we lose the companionship of the Holy Ghost when we sin, especially grevious moral sins."

Please get off your high horse, or try to explain to me about my main point, that moral sin leads to apostacy (or in essence is apostacy).

The first time you misstated my position it may have been because you failed to comprehend my post. However, I corrected you so this time you have no excuse.

Do not misstate my position. Dishonesty is also a moral sin.

[Elphaba]

You've corrected NOTHING...

Yes I did..

This is from the SAME wikipedia "article that elphaba "quoted" from…

The only information I got from wiki were the dates, as I was not sure of them, plus a link to his article. Oh yeah, I did quote wiki where it mentioned Lavina Fielding Anderson was his biographer, as I was not aware of that.

You notice, the most ardent defenders of D. Michael Quinn don't comment on his book(s) promoting LDS Homosexuality…

Oh wah.

I also did not comment on Early Mormonism and the Magic Word View, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and Extensions of Power, J. Reuben Clark, or his various Dialogue, Sunstone and BYU Studies articles, not to mention his essays in a number of scholarly journals devoted to history.

And the fact that you did not mention these either is telling.

Additionally, when is the last time you submitted an essay to anything? And no, posts written in bolded red 48-point type on a message board are not acceptable.

Frankly...I agree with Ira Fulton when he was quoted in the WSJ as calling Quinn a "Nothing Person."

Fulton was not talking about Quinn in the context you seem to think he was.

BUT...Let's see what the Maxwell Institute has to say…

The Maxwell Institute? You can’t be serious. Quinn could write the historian equivalent of the theory of relativity, and the MI would never give him a positive review.

Let’s see what objective sources have to say: He has won the Samuel F. Bemis, the George W. Egleston, and the Frederick W. Beinecke prizes; the prestigious Herbert Feis award; Best Book and Best Article awards from the Mormon History Association; and "Outstanding Teacher" by vote of graduating BYU seniors.

His research honorariums include grants from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Henry E. Huntington Library, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, Yale University, and others.

But, of course, none of that really matters, does it? He is a homosexual, and that is all he'll ever be to the likes of you and Laura and others who seem to think you are entitled to demonize a decent human being, someone you have never met and know absolutely nothing about, except what you've heard in the pathetic rumor mills you frequent.

Elphaba

[Guest lauracooke78]

Great - now we have the first ever morally perfect human. You just go right ahead and worry about what Dr. Quinn and all the rest of us sinful humans are doing in our bedrooms. The first time you misstated my position it may have been because you failed to comprehend my post. However, I corrected you so this time you have no excuse. Do not misstate my position. Dishonesty is also a moral sin.

I'm sorry Snow but you have lost me. The only thing that I understand from your post is that you comprehend moral sin to be all sin, and I use "moral sin" in the context of sexual sin. And so we would only be playing semantics which gets no one anywhere. Other than that, you have still not stated your position. I have stated mine many times even in these quotes that you have quoted me. When you quoted me as talking about this man, that was the first time I talked about him, and would have been the last time, had you not brought him up so much. And then you apparently equate him to yourself by saying I worry about what "all you sinners do in your bedroom". Which I explained as well. You seem to be very sentimental about this whole conversation, and I am still wondering why. My main point still stands as my observation. And please don't misquote me, saying I am morally perfect. As according to your definition of "morally perfect" i would have to be without sin, come on now.

[Guest User-Removed]

She has related an inconvenient history?

Well put!!!!!!

[Guest User-Removed]

Since we're discussing history and a historian....I decided to look back to history for a response to you...this is what I found. I've taken excepts, but the link to the entire speech is listed below....

"Senator, you won't need anything in the record when I finish telling you this. Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness."

Like Welch's view of the junior Senator from Wisconsin, until I read your response to this sister from Austrailia, I never had a handle on your level of cruelty. If I responded to a certain supporter of yours on this thread, the way you responded to Laura Cook...I'd find myself banned faster than I could spell the word.

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Snow, from this moment on...I will NEVER again respond to ANYTHING you post. You have attacked me, you have called me a liar repeatedly, you and your coven have made spurious comments about me and my opinions. Well no more...For you to question the sexual morality of a young sister, in light of what is PUBLICALLY known about the sexual immorality of an excommunicated Professor at the Y....well....

Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.

American Rhetoric: McCarthy-Welch Exchange During the Army-McCarthy Hearings

[Guest User-Removed]

My first post ever on this thread explains that I have known personally people who have apostisied (other than recent converts which I put in a different catagory most of the time) and they have nearly all had moral issues as the base of their demise. This man just fits the explanation of what Elder McConkie was talking about and also what I have seen evident in persons lives around me.

I am interested for someone to do a study into people who are members of the church who go astray because on the surface they say they are feminists/communists/socialists/liberalists etc and to see the relationship of this excuse and what it has to do with their moral lives. In my personaly experience once again, I have ALWAYS found that people (in my personal life circle at church) grasp at the ideals of social inclusion/social justice and the likes as an ideal that can accomodate their personal sins and then try to somehow have the gospel ideals accomodate social inclusion/social justice and the likes. But the gospel is found wanting in accomodating those ideals and so they leave the church.

I'm going to leave you with a couple of paragraphs from a talk give my the now President of the Quorum of the 12. He delievered this talk in 1993...

It is so easy to be turned about without realizing that it has happened to us. There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right.

The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals. Our local leaders must deal with all three of them with ever-increasing frequency. In each case, the members who are hurting have the conviction that the Church somehow is doing something wrong to members or that the Church is not doing enough for them.

Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council

By Elder Boyd K. Packer

May 18, 1993

[rameumptom]

No he did not.

In September 1993, according to his biographer Lavina Fielding Anderson, his insubordination directed toward the Church authorities who had counseled him not to publish his work resulted in his excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Done.

Elphaba

Thanks for the correction. I know it was a tough time for both sides of the aisle in 1993 when these things were occurring. While I understand, from your explanation on Quinn's view to publish regardless the cost, I'm a strong believer in following my Church leaders and letting God handle their mistakes and bad judgments.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that the Church is not a social club. The Church leaders, under God's guidance, make up the rules, whether we always agree with them or not. It is our choice to humbly submit or to reject their counsel. Either way, there are consequences we have to deal with.

I do think it is sad that had he waited a decade, his book possibly would not have come under so much fire. Still, his current lifestyle would prevent his membership.

[rameumptom]

You are hardly looking at it objectively. You are condemning a specific individual for his morality when you yourself are a sinner. You aren't speaking generically about sin, you are worrying about one particular person does in his bedroom - in short, being a sinner, you are judging unrighteously.

I'd bet that you can't point to one serious bit of evidence that Dr. Quinn's - who I am pretty sure you don't know personally and know very little about - morality had anything to do with his "apostasy" or whatever more accurately stated circumstances led to his excommunication, but apparently that doesn't prevent you and others from gossiping about it.

It saddens me that members of the Church, those of whom we should expect the most, are obsessed with other's personal sexual practices.

Actually, we have no idea what Michael Quinn is doing in his bedroom. And it is not my concern.

What we can discuss, however, is his public statements and writings. Those can be objectively discussed in relation to the gospel and commandments. If Quinn writes a book suggesting some early 20th century Church Leaders were not heterosexual and we should allow the same, do we not have the right to disagree and condemn his views from an LDS viewpoint? After all, just what 20th century LDS writings promote any other lifestyle outside of traditional marriage? I don't see it in LDS scripture, either. Seems to me that the Proclamation on the Family does not invent new doctrine, but only clarifies it and brings it all together into one place for easier reading and understanding.

No one asked Quinn to write a book on alternative lifestyles. Nor did anyone ask Quinn to announce his preferences. Those were things he did himself in a public setting. If there is discussion, it is because he placed it in the public discourse.

You'll notice no one on this list, that I'm aware of, has asked anyone else what their lifestyle preference is. Personally, I don't want to know. However, if someone were to announce it on a public forum, wouldn't that seem to be an open invitation into that person's personal life (and bedroom)?

[VisionOfLehi]

I just moderated this thread, and it's not the first time someone has had to do so.

Please, keep comments respectful, review rules 3 & 4, and follow them.

If it needs to be moderated again it most likely will be to close the thread.