East Valley Tribune - Metro Phoenix's East Valley region

Metro Phoenix's East Valley region

Saturday, Nov 21, 2009| 2:37 pm

Search:

Publish your Stuff

Log in| Become a member| Help

Cop Shop| Chandler| Gilbert| Mesa| Queen Creek| VarsityXtra| Education| Dining| Valley| Nation & World| Get Out| Multimedia| Special Reports| Coupons Veterans Day| Senior Life| Celebrities| Games| Weather| Traffic| Info Center| Crosswords| Comics| Weird| Find a rack location| Send feedback| Help Desk

Faith, conflict and excommunication

Lawn Griffiths, Tribune Columnist

October 5, 2007 - 10:46PM , updated: November 7, 2007 - 9:29PM

Digg| Save| License| Print| E-mail| Decrease text size Reset text size Increase text size

Mormons have called themselves “a peculiar people,” a group set apart and forged by the adversity of the church’s history and grounded by its distinct teachings.

Read Lawn Griffiths' Blog 'Beyond Belief'

Known for wholesome family life, close-knit support of each other, a model welfare system and detailed order in all they do, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also have a natural desire to be accepted and to belong. The church works hard for legitimacy as a bona fide Christian faith. But detractors pore through the church’s considerable writings and cannot reconcile their findings with “accepted” or orthodox Christian tenets and practices.

Church leaders say they don’t need others to give them a Christian seal of approval.

The made-in-America church can’t seem to fully shake its polygamist past, and it raises eyebrows about secret temple rites and afterlife attainment of “exaltation” and “godhood” through full obedience on earth.

“The Excommunication of Lyndon Lamborn” could be the title of a movie coming soon to a theater near you.

The critics of Tribune articles about the Mesa man going public with his ouster from the church for apostasy have dismissed them as a gimmick to sell newspapers — and dismissed Lamborn as one isolated, disgruntled member out of 13 million Mormons. From the moment I first read Lamborn’s e-mails and then sat down and interviewed him, I recognized him as a highly educated, articulate and sincere man who had put his 49 years of life into trying to live the Mormon way. His church assignments across 30 years are unimpeachable, as a missionary, Boy Scout leader, teacher and more. The engineer and father of three doesn’t come across as strident or a publicity seeker, nor someone vindictive. He says he wanted to leave the church quietly through the stroke of authorities’ pens.

Unlike so many people who come to me dissatisfied with their own church, Lamborn, a fourth-generation Mormon, arrived equipped with a large body of written work, references for his investigation, and a solid narrative of his quest to find truth. He believes that claims of the church are refuted by evidence.

Lamborn’s stake president wrote him Sept. 2 that he intended to have bishops in the wards (eight in all) announce his excommunication for apostasy on Sept. 23. Lamborn believed that rare step was planned because, during a disciplinary council on Aug. 19 with 15 church leaders, “I was pretty much in your face with the brethren. ... I wouldn’t consent to any rules.” He was informed that even with excommunication, he could attend regular meetings and services, but could not “give a talk” and “offer a public prayer.” Lamborn said it made no sense that he couldn’t pray for his friends inside a chapel. He even suggested they could get a court injunction to “prevent me from coming because you have no authority over me.”

Those announcements to priesthood and Relief Society groups in wards were never made. I spoke with stake President R. James Molina two days before the scheduled announcement and told him that Lamborn had contacted the Tribune and was furious over the plan to make his excommunication public. That Sunday, Lamborn said he asked Molina about the change of plan. Molina told him he had been undecided all along about having the announcement read and that, with the Tribune article Sept. 23, any announcement was unnecessary because word would surely get around.

Molina chose not to tell the Tribune why he canceled, or delayed, the announcement.

So many of the more than 1,400 online comments made on two articles I wrote about Lamborn revolved around whether Mormons are able to freely investigate the church’s history and teachings and how much pressure there is to be loyal or unquestioning. Some wrote of being disciplined, of being warned against sharing concerns and doubts about the church with others, and of being excommunicated themselves. But a great many defended the church. An example is “James,” who said the Book of Mormon is “the plainest and purest message of the gospel of Jesus Christ ever written.” Unlike the Old and New Testaments, “there is something sweeter about the Book of Mormon,” he said. “As I have read it over the last 40 years, my life has been filled with joy because of it.”

Other said that true faith can remove all doubt. Other said Lamborn fell victim to the influence of heretical materials.

Lamborn said he believes that the church went into “damage control” when he first shared his doubts with his bishop and stake president. He revealed he had discussed those same concerns about church teachings with his five brothers, all of whom had gone on two-year church missions and were active in their wards. “The following week, all the bishops of my brothers had received a phone call, and each of my brothers got a visit from the 'men in black’ over the next 30 days,” he said. “They were each questioned about their beliefs.”

Many Mormons say that Lamborn could not have been easily sheltered about the church’s polygamist history as he had claimed.

“Polygamy is not hidden. ... Polygamy is discussed openly in the church, and it is in all of our history books,” wrote Jean White of Maricopa. “Many members can trace their heritage to polygamist homes.” She said during the early years of the church, a time of persecution, “there were many parentless children and widows who had lost children and mates. We were a hunted people at times.”

“We are not ashamed of our history,” White said. “When the government said it was outlawed, it was discontinued.”

Most of Lamborn’s friendships are with church members, relationships he wants to keep. “They know me and trust me and are tolerant of the fact that I may not believe the way they do and vice versa,” he said. He talks about “recovery from Mormonism” but says he has no immediate plans to embrace any other religion.

“I am sure the correct path will present itself to me in time,” he said.

Comments

Reader comments: This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Responsibility lies solely with the comment author.

Please add your comments, but follow these guidelines to keep this a safe, credible place for discussing the news:

  • Stay on topic.
  • No personal attacks, racial slurs or insults; no vulgar, lewd or threatening comments.
  • Report abusive comments.

Reader comments (64)

This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Responsibility lies solely with the comment author.

My comment disappeared! What's going on?


View more comments:  1|  2|  3|  4|  5|  6|  7

GG

Real Motives,
Are you sure that you are not James? I remember the same kind of "it is the parents responsibility to teach children about the REAL history" comment by James on the first articles comment section.

That is one comment that I can't forget because it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My parents didn't know of JS 33 wives. There was no internet back then. It wasn't taught in SS or sacrament meeting. Quit trying to put the blame on others for what is the fault of the Church.

Suggest removal of this comment
October 7, 2007

READ THE ARTICLE!

The article quotes an interview, where it is acknowledged that all children are taught.

You are funny, haha...

The best part is, now there is ANOTHER LDS EXPLANTION FOR POLYGAMY!

The article now claims the Mormons were "hunted." Because of this there were many widows and children.

So, there really wasn't any polygamy going on by choice, just a whole bunch of widows and children, and the men were oh so generous to marry and care for them!

How many stories will the LDS come up with to cover their ancestors abuse of women and children?

Answer: As many as it takes.

Romney said they had to, becaue there were not enough men to go around, and as stated before, the census is in complete diagreement with this false statement.

FYI: The MORMONS were HUNTED because they were breaking the law by practicing polygamy!

The LDS took far more lives moving across the United States than were taken of theirs!

Lady, (in the article), you are either a typical MORMON LIAR, or SUPER DUMB,

How many stories do we need to be fed by these jokers.

I do have a really hard time believing Lamborn did not know about the number of wives! But I do love that this story was done, so that a few of us could give a little back to the local LDS "Danites" for all that they have given the Gentiles over the years.

Here's to yah' boys and girls! Suggest removal of this comment
October 7, 2007

Real Motives

GG

I did see James' post in the other forum. and did comment that he made an important point about Lyndon's parents.

The Church's Proclamation the Family states:

"Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations."

Doctrine and Covenants 68 also say that parents must teach their children the gospel or the sin is upon the parents if they don't.

The duty to teach children is the responsibility of the parents.

I assume that Doctrines and Covenants 132 is the most important part of LDS church history in regard to plural marriage that was always available to Lyndon. The Bible was also available to Lyndon that teaches of polygamists prophets therein.

This is not to diminish the fact that the Church doesn't emphasize plural marriage in its manuals today - indeed it should not as this is not the practice. Bu the history of it is as plain as day in Doctrine and Covenants 132.

True, DC 132 does not tell about the number of wives Joseph Smith had or that three of them were 14, 17, 17. But how is the number of wives or their ages material to whether or not plural marriage is a biblical principle or authorized by God? That's not material.

I read somewhere that Lyndon was an Elder's quorum president 4 times. In all of those years he never read DC 132?

If that is true, doesn't Lyndon bare some of the burden here for not knowing?

The Church teaches that every member must read the scriptures. It would seem that Lyndon did not do that.

In DC 132 the following disclosures are made:

* Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and others had many wives.
* The princijple of plural marriage is explained
* God gave David many wives through his prophet Nathan (he didn't sin until Bathseeba)
* If a man marries many wives according to the preiesthood sealing powe, he does not committ adultery as Abraham, Jacob Moses, and others did not committ adultery when authorized by God.

Like I said, if he wants to leave, I am fine with that. No problem. But let's place some of the burden back where it belongs; on Lyndon and his parents since much disclosure was in Lyndon's hands for nearly 35 years.

Suggest removal of this comment
October 7, 2007

Langer

Great Aunt (born of Mormon polygamy) said that the men were encouraged to take as many wives as they could take care of.
She failed to mention that all the wives (of her father, as well as her sisters who were taken in polygamy) worked!
I guess some folks will buy any excuse. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Bushman

To Lincoln...

Your post was very interesting. Before I go any further, I want to explain that I am a relocated Arizona Bushman, although did live there most of my life. I have been following this new blog and the other one with some interest. Suffice it to say that I think both sides have valid arguments and people should understand that posting hateful or vindictive remarks serve no point here. I wish people could post things without the added emotions that have accompanied most comments.
That being said, I have grown up LDS and am currently a very strong member. I had no desire to study history of the Church, as my testimony was based on my own faith promoting experiences, based on the lives of those I surrounded myself with, and based on the feelings and promptings I myself experienced while serving others, or serving my mission, or studying gospel principles. The historical part of the Church didn't have that much of an impact on my life because I had received confirmation myself of the truthfulness. As a missionary, did I try to convince people about the truths I had learned? Of course, but not because I got any worldly gain or recognition. I had experienced a "mighty change in my heart" and wanted others to feel that same feeling. If they wanted to study history, or dig into early church history, who was I to stop them? Do I think that early members made some mistakes? Of course I do. I feel that even today, members make mistakes. I heard somewhere, and I probably couldn't verify it, but someone once said that the members aren't always true, but the Church itself if true. I believe that. I am entitled to my opinion and belief. I haven't forced that belief onto anyone else. People who ask me about being a member of the LDS Church get my testimony. They can judge through my testimony and the life I live if the church is worth looking into further.
Being a Bushman, I have never, EVER had discouraging words or actions mentioned about my ancestors. If anything, I have been told over and over again how much they worked, sacrificed, and loved serving others. I have seen these same characteristics in my current relatives and family. Have I dug deep into their heritage? No, I haven't had the desire to do so. Does that make me less of a person? No, it doesn't. It simply means that I am satisfied with my testimony, with my heritage, and with the life I am leading. My children are growing up in the church and are strong, good kids. They live lives of honesty, goodness, friendship, virtue, and will be productive members of society. Have they each gained their own strong testimony of the gospel? Not all of them, but they are working on it. When they come to me with questions, we answer them together, understanding things together. If they come to me with the desire to dig deep into Mormon History, I will do it with them to help them learn. I won't force any perceived evidence on them.
I promise that I am not attacking you or anyone else on these posts. That is not my nature. Each is entitled to their opinion and I have stated mine. My testimony grows each day that I read the scriptures, apply their t eachings to my life, serve willingly in the Church, and be the best husband and father I can be. Those out there who constantly attack the LDS faith remember this...the Church is either True or it Isn't. If it is, then everyone should get on board. If it isn't, then what harm is it in allowing us to practice how we feel, because it ultimately makes us better people. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Lincoln

Real Motives:

You make it sound as if Doctrine and Covenant Section 132 tells someone all they need to know about Mormon polygamy. It doesnt! And you know it. You are just another Mormon amateur apologist, who doesn't know the full story yet. You will learn the full story, if you have an honest heart. Here's some reading material for you to learn the full story:
-In Sacred Loneliness, Todd Compton
-Wife No. 19-Ann Eliza Webb Young
-Mormon Polygamy-Richard Van Wagoner
-Emma Hale Smith Mormon Enigma-Newell & Avery
-The Polygamists: A History of Colorado City- Benjamin Bistline
-Predators, Prey, and other Kinfolk, Growing up in Polygamy- Dorothy Allred Solomon
-Doing the Works of Abraham-B. Carmon Hardy
-Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism- Brian C. Hales
-Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society- Irwin Altman
-Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage- B. Carmon Hardy
-The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict- Sarah Barringer Gordon
-Prisoner for Polygamy, Stan Larson

After you have read a number of these books, you will understand what everybody is talking about. D&C 132 is just the tip of the iceberg my friend.
Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Err

Read The Article : "FYI: The MORMONS were HUNTED because they were breaking the law by practicing polygamy!"



Uh, no. If anything they were chased from community to community for various scams (Kirtland Anti Banking society is a good example) and declaring that non-Mormon communities didn't have rights to their own property shortly after the LDS moved into said communities.

Heck, they did everything but declare war on gentile communities at one point.

The polygamy was a reason in some instances. For example, Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered for attempting to secure an underage bride. They don't teach *that* in Sunday school. In Sunday School he was persecuted simply for being different.

However, most events of early Mormons being chased out of communities can be summed up into them simply being bad neighbors. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Lincoln

Bushman:

I don't know if you are related to Richard Bushman, the Mormon historian. If you are, then I completely understand your liberal Sunstone approach to Mormonism and your ability to view Mormonism through positive eyes, as Richard Bushman does. His book Rough Stone Rolling has caused my wife to doubt the very foundations of Mormonism. She has never read any other literature than Church approved literature. Richard Bushman's book introduced her to a myriad of concepts that she had never heard of before. Spiritual wives, seer stones, Zelph the white Lamanite, the copying of masonic rituals in the temple ceremony were all introduced to her by Rough Stone Rolling. Not surprizingly she went from having a strong testimony and being a fully active member, to having a weak testimony and being semi-active, and not really wanting to go anymore. You may say that the Lord is just sifting the wheat from the tares, and that only the creme rises to the top. My point is that she was the cream. She has served in many presidencies her whole life, but she became disillusioned and shocked at all the deceptions perpetrated by Mormonism. I had already reached similar conclusions before reading Rough Stone Rolling. Richard Bushman himself admitted that there has been a whitewash in Mormonism, on the John Dehlin Mormonstories podcast. If you haven't listened to those, you should. My question is if this Church is so wonderful and true, then why does it continue to lie about its history? Every conference we hear the leaders tell the congregation that polygamy officially ended in 1890. Then why was there a second Manifesto in 1904? Students of the gospel know that it didn't officially end until well after 1900. Even Richard Bushman knows that. Then why do the Brethren continue to lie about it? This constant changing and deception is confusing to many members such as myself and my wife, who have believed all of our lives in the truthfulness of Mormonism. You sound like many people I have talked to that say that the history does not matter, and that the Church is a good organization. That may be true about many parts of the organization. But if the organization is founded on lies, how good can it really be? And why would I want to defend an organization that continues to deceive its membership? Why doesn't that organization apologize for its mistakes of the past?

It had the perfect opportunity to do so at the 150th Anniversary of the Mountain Meadows massacre. But no. Instead, the Church clarified that it did NOT apologize, but that it only expressed deep regret. It had the perfect opportunity to put Brigham Young's doctrine of Blood Atonement to rest, once and for all. But it chose the low road. More denial and obfuscation. Do I want to be a part of an organization that chooses the low road or the high road. Full disclosure is a beautiful concept, it obviously has not become part of the agenda for Mormonism.

You have your free agency to dismiss true history and keep your family in Mormonism, and I have my free agency to study true Church history and slowly disengage myself and my family from a very harmful religion, in my opinion. I should know, I've been a part of the religion all of my life. I feel like my children have a right to know the truth. Don't you feel guilty hiding the truth about the Church from your kids? I do, and I won't allow the whitewash to continue, at least in my own home. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Bushman

Lincoln:

I am sure that I am related somewhere, but family history and where everyone fits in is not one of my strengths. I suppose that when I get older, I will delve more into that aspect of my life. For now, I have heard of Richard Bushman, have not read his book Rough Stone Rolling, but plan to. I spent 2 minutes researching him and found this article you may find interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28religion.html

I respect your views and your knowledge. I can't compare mine to yours at all, as I am far weaker in those areas. But I also respect your desire to teach your children what you believe, as I will continue to teach mine. I probably won't continue to post on here, but I'll keep looking for you after I have read the book. I may have some questions and be able to provide a little more discussion. Although, my goal is not to change your mind, or to change mine either. It is to gain more education, so that I can be a more well rounded person.
By the way, it is interesting to note in that article I sent you that:
1. Richard is still a practicing, devote member of the Church.
2. “He never follows things to their final conclusions to say this did or didn’t happen. He simply tells the story the way that Joseph Smith and his family and followers tell the story.”
Thanks for the thoughts. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007

Spencer

More Mormon news, please!
Perhaps the Trib can add a Mormon community tab on its website with a PayPal tithing link. Suggest removal of this comment
October 8, 2007
View more comments:  1|  2|  3|  4|  5|  6|  7


More blogs

Publish your photos

Phoenix Light Rail Debut Phoenix Light Rail Debut
By Desertdawg from Ahwatukee

Vigilantes Kill 5 Vigilantes Kill 5
By BigAve from Gilbert AZ

Dinosaur Tracks Dinosaur Tracks
By BigAve from Gilbert AZ

Abby comes home Abby comes home
By Desertdawg from Ahwatukee

Publish your videos

More forums

Here's your chance to brag about an achievement for you or someone you know.

Publish your honors

Read the latest print edition

The e-Trib is an interactive online representation of the printed paper. Editions can be searched back to 2002.

Launch the e-Trib viewer

Already a member? Sign in here
Publish your stuff
Welcome, Please Log In
To login please enter your username and password in the form below and click on the login button.
Remember me
Retrieve Password
Resend Email
Enter the username and email address for your account to resend you your confirmation email: