Tom Phillips ( )

Date: January 17, 2013 03:14PM Posted by:Date: January 17, 2013 03:14PM

A great deal of media exposure was given to the threatened excommunication of David Twede, my predecessor as managing editor of MormonThink.



The charge? Apostasy. The evidence? His writings on the mormonthink website (not, apparently, about his writings on Mitt Romney). His accuser? Scott Gordon, President of FAIR, but officially it was David's stake president in Orlando, Florida.



Bear with me and let's consider whether David or Scott are at all 'guilty' of apostasy according to the rules of the Church and common sense.



The current Church rules on this matter are secret as they are only given to certain church leaders. However, wikipedia has an article on the subject of Church Discipline, based on the Church's 2006 handbook. So I will quote from the wiki article.



Firstly the purpose of Church discipline:-



According to the LDS Church, the purposes of its disciplinary councils are to:

1. save the souls of the transgressors;

2. protect the innocent; and

3. safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church



Secondly, it is mandatory to convene a disciplinary council in specified circumstances, one of which is "apostasy". Again, quoting wiki who are quoting the 2006 handbook:-



"The LDS Church has instructed leaders that a disciplinary council is mandatory when evidence suggests that a member of the church may have committed any of the following offences against the standards of the church:



Apostasy : refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy."



Let's now consider whether David or Scott contravene any of these transgressions.



Firstly, the purpose of a DC



1. save the souls of the transgressors;

What transgression has David committed? None that we know of. The only purported charge is 'apostasy' which we'll look at below. Scott, however, has probably committed the transgression of promoting falsehoods, lying perhaps. That is certainly a 'sin' but would not usually justify excommunication or even a DC.



2. protect the innocent;

Who are the innocents to whom David is a danger - seekers of truth? Not guilty. Scott, however, is a danger to innocent children and those with cognitive dissonance who believe FAIR's misrepresentations.



3. safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church

David promotes the truth about the Church's doctrines and history, whereas FAIR changes the doctrines and history. David is, therefore, the defender of the purity and integrity of the Church. As to its good name, that would depend on the Church being honest, which it is not. Therefore the Church has already despoiled its own good name. David has tried his best to redeem its integrity. Scott has done his best, through FAIR, to continue an obvious deception.



From the above, I would conclude there is no purpose in taking action against David but Scott should be questioned thoroughly by his bishop. I do not think a DC is necessary unless, over time, he cannot repent of his misrepresentations.



Now let's consider apostasy the only charge against David.



Apostasy : refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders"

When did David do this and when was he warned not to do it? What actually did he do other than publish truthful articles about the Church, taken from Church scriptures and quotes from FAIR itself?



and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine

When did David do this? To my knowledge he has only presented official Church doctrine. Scott, however, has denied doctrines such as 'no death before the fall of Adam' has denied the global flood and promotes the limited geography theory and the two Palmyra theory - all of which contradict official Church doctrine.



"and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church."

David does not follow the likes of the FLDS and he has not formally joined another church. He is guilty of wearing a paisley shirt to church but if



"Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy." I cannot see how a paisley shirt would render him guilty.



My summary would be there is no reason to call a DC because David is clearly not guilty of misrepresenting Church doctrine and he is not a threat to innocents, only to those who refuse to accept truth. There is no way his writing about the truths of Church doctrine and history can harm the 'good name' of the Church that is, if it warrants a good name.



Scott Gordon, however, should be charged with apostasy for the reasons stated above (denying church doctrines) and others. Also, to protect the innocent (young or gullible). According to the 2006 handbook (it may have since been changed) a DC is mandatory for apostasy. Therefore, by their own rules they have to convene a DC for Scott Gordon to determine what action to take.



How many others warrant a DC under these rules? Lou Midgley, Daniel Peterson, John Welch? It's probably too late to excommunicate Gordon B. Hinckley who did so much harm to the good name of the Church by lying to the media and denying precious doctrines such as man becoming a God (D&C 132, King Follet discourse etc,), the curse of Cain (PofGP and many prophets), the important eternal significance of plural marriage.