The dude ex'd 6 months before Priesthood ban was lifted

[LadyofRadiantJoy]

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find the news article that talked about a man being excommunicated for advocating for the priesthood ban. It was dated about 6 months before the the ban was lifted.

I saved it so I could have proof but I lost some data when a hard drive failed and I can't seem to locate it via Google search.

Blessings,
Ruth

[nibbler]

This may not be what you're looking for, but it could provide a lead or two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_peo ... d_policies

This claims to be a newspaper clipping from The Daily Reporter, 15 Oct 1977, Page 5:
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/4237266 ... _marchant/

And another article:
The Wilmington Star-News, 15 Oct 1977, Page 7A

They aren't your New York Post or the Washington Post, but they appear to be articles that were in a paper.

[nibbler]

Here's a blog entry by mormonheretic that includes comments from Byron Marchant and Doug Wallace, the actual people involved.

https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/10/ev ... evelation/

[LadyofRadiantJoy]

That newspaper clipping is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you so much. I greatly appreciate it. <3

[SilentDawning]

I have a question about this. What would have been the right thing for the church to do with the ex'd member who was only advocating what would become revelation 6 months later? Leave the guy ex'd? Go softer if he makes the first move back to church? Cancel the excommunication and restore full blessings immediately? It's fairness and kindness issues like these that get my goat sometimes. Again, we are divinely led organization, and the scripture says that not a sparrow falls without God knowing it and caring about. The key to the 99 sheep is your attitude toward the one that got lost, etcetera.

[On Own Now]

Another (long-ago) thread you might find interesting:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5475

[SilentDawning]

Thanks OON -- the thread was about a mormon (I think, an Academic) who questioned the apparent state where you can't speak out openly about vexing issues without being construed negatively. It doesn't really debate what is the right thing to do with a member who spoke out about a particular policy, was excommunicated, only to find the very thing for which they advocated become revelation shortly thereafter.

I would argue that proponents of the excommunication would say the penalty was for "kicking against the pricks" rather than the doctrinal position specifically. The person may have been rebellious in attitude or disposition, for example, and THAT is what the penalty was for.

Personally, I don't buy it....but interested in what others have to say.

[LadyofRadiantJoy]

My view is this. If you ex someone and later God tells you they were right and to implement "new policy" or whatever, the next step is to make amends by immediately storing full blessings with an apology.

But the thing is, excommunication is always seen as the last resort. I remember being a parent volunteer while my kid was grade school. I saw a kid whom I knew since Kindergarten, get constantly sent to the principal's office by this new teacher. If five kids were bebopping around he was the one who would get in trouble for bebopping around, but nothing would be said to the other four kids doing the same thing! And he would get sent to the office. Therefore, that kid was trouble and "had to be watched at all times" etc etc. When the principal found out that boy was coming to our house for a playdate I was warned all up and down about that kid and how troublesome he was. But thing of it is. He wasn't trouble. He was great, he listened, and was totally fine. I didn't have to "keep a stern eye on him" or anything. He wasn't a bad kid. He had a teacher who didn't know how to handle him. That reputation followed him into the upper years, even to the point where I would have to explicitly tell the teachers "I have no problem with Louis, he can be in my group on the field trip" to ensure he was included in the fieldtrips!

So, my thinking is that, anyone who gets ex'd gets the Louis treatment forever because we have this idea that getting ex'd is always the last resort and you have to be really bad in order to get ex'd therefore beware of that person forever until they fully behave in exactly the way we want.

We have a church culture that does not ever expect the church (tm) to be wrong because the closest thing we have to an apology was from Uchtdorf "mistakes have been made." That's it. No apologies, no dayum, we were wrong and weren't ready to hear what the Lord wanted us to do because we were too stiffnecked. Oh no. Can't have honest leaders like that, because that calls into question whether or not they are prophets, which I think is stupid since prophets are human. I respect religious and spiritual leaders more when they are able to apologize for any error on their part.

[Roy]

My view is this. If you ex someone and later God tells you they were right and to implement "new policy" or whatever, the next step is to make amends by immediately storing full blessings with an apology.

I think the closest thing the church does to this is restoration of blessings posthumously (often many years after the fact). One of my ponderings about the effectiveness of our ordinances goes thus: If it takes the mortal LDS church administration 100+ years to restore someone's blessings is that person literally stuck in a purgatory waiting room until the administrative action "unlocks the key" or are they able to progress normally since God knows what was in their heart. Thinking specifically of John D. Lee but there are other examples. Sometimes people get excommunicated, at least in part, due to political expediency.

[dande48]

I think the closest thing the church does to this is restoration of blessings posthumously (often many years after the fact). One of my ponderings about the effectiveness of our ordinances goes thus: If it takes the mortal LDS church administration 100+ years to restore someone's blessings is that person literally stuck in a purgatory waiting room until the administrative action "unlocks the key" or are they able to progress normally since God knows what was in their heart. Thinking specifically of John D. Lee but there are other examples. Sometimes people get excommunicated, at least in part, due to political expediency.

What is taught is meant to further earthly Church goals, rather than to benefit living members through "enlightenment". What actually happens after this life is... unconnected with what the Church teaches. You can't disprove it, so the Church can get away with saying things are however they'd like. That's what rubs me the wrong way about doctrines like this. It's not a reflection of how things are; it's a reflection of what is needed to be believed in order to obtained a desired effect.