Dubbs wrote:Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
You are splitting hairs, Jaye.
It does not matter what we think today about whether it was doctrinal then. The Mormon leadership under Young considered it doctrine, which is all that matters.
Yes? Isn't that pretty much what I've been saying?
This is where Wren's logic get's really far off, just as we have logical thinking Mormons in our day, I'm sure not "all" mormons took Brighams words as scripture, as they weren't in scripture. As my great grandfather questioned certain doctrine taught by Brigham in his journal, I'm sure he wasn't the only one.It is very unlikely that your ancestor publicly questioned or disagreed with Brigham's doctrines.
Otherwise...he might have found himself in a bit of a tight spot.
And that would apply to anyone else who presumed to publicly question or disagree with Brigham Young's teachings.
Because one thing has been constant in the LDS Church...and that is that public disagreement or dissenting of the Church, it's doctrines, or it's leaders...is considered to be apostasy and grounds for disciplinary measures.
In an interview with Elder Oaks:
"HW: Dissent in the Church. You mentioned in your interview with Newsweek, you said, âYou know, I find myself constantly policing the perimeters.â
DHO: You know, I didnât know that I had said that. I read that in some notes about questions Iâd be likely to be asked and I thought, âMy, thatâs a nice phrase.â I didnât know that I ever did say it! [Laughter.]
HW: You did! And by the way, every religion has to establish its own values and make those difficult decisions. Sometimes the question is raised about the intensity of that within the Mormon Church. So just tell me a little of what you meant by that phrase that you apparently donât remember you said! [Laughter.]
DHO: The words âpolicing the perimetersâ of legitimacy or orthodoxy carry the implication that weâre constantly âon the prowl,â that there are police out there running a circle like guards around the ground. That is not the sense in which I speak of policing the perimeter. Policing is the word that carries the defective connotation. Its defining the perimeters, really. We constantly have to be thinking about how to define the perimeters of orthodoxy and the perimeters of permissible action within it. And Iâm constantly thinking about that and worrying about that, but I have no sense when I hear a report of something irregular â I have no sense that I am responsible to go out and look after that, determine the facts or whatever. Thatâs really the role of the local bishop. My role is to attempt to define as best one can define in principle what one tolerates, and what one seeks to change by counsel, and what one must challenge with discipline.
HW: Is there a general overview you could give to me about when dissent moves into excommunicable offense?
DHO: We have the concept of apostasy. It is grounds for Church discipline. It is far less frequently grounds for Church discipline than immoral behavior. I think if you had 100 Church excommunications, 98 of them would be for immoral behavior. Two of them, perhaps, or one of a hundred, would be for apostasy.
Apostasy, being rare, has to be carefully defined. We have three definitions of apostasy: one is open, public and repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders. Open, public, repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders â Iâll come back to that in a moment. A second one is to teach as doctrine something that is not Church doctrine after one has been advised by appropriate authority that thatâs false doctrine. In other words, just teaching false doctrine is not apostasy, but [it is] teaching persistently after youâve been warned. For example, if one were to teach that the Lord requires you to practice plural marriage in this day, it would be apostasy. And the third point would be to affiliate and belong to apostate sects, such as those that preach or practice polygamy.
So take Church discipline on that basis. There is quite a wide range of academic freedom in the Church, and [some] people hold positions different from the Churchâs official positions. When they begin to publicly question the core truths, it poses a greater danger."
So there you have it.
The only difference being this...under Brigham Young's leadership...open dissension, or repeated opposition to the Church, or doctrine, or what the leader or the Church had to say might lead to a completely DIFFERENT kind of 'discipline'.
