[Letter to First Presidency]
In August 1992 I delivered a paper at the Sunstone
Symposium entitled "Toward a Mormon Theology of God the
Mother." I had been presenting papers at the symposium
since 1980 and had also published several articles in Sunstone
magazine. No Church leader had ever expressed any concern or
problem about my published articles or participation at the
symposium.
On 8 November 1992, President Bacon asked me and my
husband, David, to meet with him. He told us that he had
been contacted by Salt Lake [Malcolm Jeppson, our area
president] concerning a paper I had presented recently at
some conference in which I had advocated praying to the
Mother in Heaven. I assured President Bacon that I had not
advocated praying to God the Mother although my paper was
about her.
We had two other meetings concerning this paper, one in
December and the last on 27 January 1993. In this meeting,
President Bacon asked that I not speak publicly or publish
anything on God the Mother. I asked him who this [directive]
was from and he answered, "Me and the Lord." I
then asked if this was a request "forever," and he
said that it wasn't. I told President Bacon that I didn't
have any plans at that time to speak or publish anything on
that topic but I couldn't promise to never speak or write
about the Heavenly Mother again. However, I told him that I
would tell him if I ever decided to do so. President Bacon
said that this was acceptable to him. I told him that an
excerpt from my paper was published in a book that had just
come out, and he told me he already knew this.
In the summer of 1993, I learned that Dialogue, an
independent Mormon journal, was planning a women's issue.
One of the editors, a friend of mine, asked me if I had
anything they could use in it. I told her about my article
on the Mother in Heaven, and she asked me if I would submit
it. I deliberated for some time about whether I should do
this, and I also prayed about it. I finally decided to
submit the article. I knew that many Mormon women are
concerned about this topic. My paper is an attempt to put
the concept of the Mother God in a Christian context and
give it a scriptural foundation. I felt that Dialogue's
audience understands the premises of scholarship and
speculative theology and that readers would either find it
unpersuasive or helpful. Since the article is based on the
revelations in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants
and assumes that they are from God, I did not think it would
challenge anyone's faith. Indeed, I hoped it would
strengthen faith in the richness, complexity, and harmony of
these scriptures. I felt good about my decision and was
assured by the Spirit that God was pleased with my efforts
to serve him.
Because of the uncertainties of publishing and the
pressure of many responsibilities, I delayed informing
President Bacon of my decision. However, I did intend to
inform him before the issue of Dialogue in which it
was being published came out.
On 15 May 1994, I received a telephone call from Scott
Runia, my former bishop. The Edgemont Twentieth Ward, of
which I had been a member, had recently been divided and my
family was put in the new Edgewood Ward. Bishop Runia told
me that before the ward change he had been contacted by
President Bacon about an article I had written that was
going to be published. He asked me to meet with him and my
new bishop, Robert Hammond, the following Tuesday. I
realized that someone must have shown President Bacon the
page in the current Dialogue issue which listed
titles from the upcoming issue. I immediately sent him a
letter informing him of my decision to publish my paper on
God the Mother and apologizing for not having told him
sooner. Because of schedule conflicts, the meeting with
Bishops Runia and Hammond did not take place, but I talked
to Bishop Runia on the phone and he told me that President
Bacon had asked him to stop me from publishing my paper. I
told him that it was already at press; and even if I wanted
to, there was no way to stop publication.
On Sunday, 22 May 1994, David and I met with President
Bacon, Bishop Runia, and Bishop Hammond. There was some
disagreement about what had occurred in our earlier
meetings. President Bacon thought that I had agreed to not
publish my paper on God the Mother, and he felt that I had
disobeyed him by publishing the article. My understanding
was that I had agreed to not speak or write again on the
topic of God the Mother without first informing President
Bacon of what I would do. I felt I had kept my promise.
President Bacon agreed that I had done what I said I would
but he still felt I had disobeyed him because I had known
that he didn't want me to publish on that topic. During this
discussion, President Bacon told me for the first time that
he had been told "by Salt Lake City" that my
article was never to be published.
On the evening of 24 July 1994, I met with Bishop
Hammond; and he told me that he had received a copy of my
article from President Bacon and read it. He said that he
felt he must hold a disciplinary council on me. David, who
joined us later, asked if we could hold one more meeting
with President Bacon to see if I could possibly avoid a
disciplinary council. Bishop Hammond agreed to try to set up
a meeting, and I met with President Bacon, his two
counselors, Craig Hickman and James McDonald, and Bishop
Hammond on Sunday, 21 August 1994. They asked me to
prayerfully reconsider my views and actions, and I agreed to
do so. They told me that if I repented it would go better
with me.
On 15 September 1994, I again met with Bishop Hammond. He
asked me if I had done what they asked me to do. I said that
I had, but that my views had not changed and I did not think
I had done anything that warranted Church discipline. He
told me that he felt he must hold a disciplinary council.
On the evening of Thursday, 6 October, I met with
President Bacon and Bishop Hammond. At this meeting
President Bacon told me for the first time that the reason
he had forbidden publication of my article on the Mother in
Heaven was that it contained false doctrine. My
understanding had always been that the reason I had been
forbidden to publish it was because the General Authorities
did not want any discussion of this topic. This
interpretation was based on the fact that President Bacon's
initial directive to me had been that I was not to speak or
publish on the subject of the Mother in Heaven. We had had
at least one discussion in which President Bacon had told me
that it was Church policy not to allow any public discussion
of this topic. When I questioned him about how this could be
a Church policy when it had never been made public, he told
me that the Brethren had made it very clear to stake
presidents. We had also had a discussion in which I told him
that since I had never been given any reasons why speaking
about God the Mother would hurt people or the Church, I had
only my own thinking to take into consideration when I made
my decision to publish. He responded at length about how it
was necessary to trust the Brethren even when we were given
no reasons for a policy. He never once even hinted that the
problem he saw with the article was that it contained false
doctrine, although he certainly had many opportunities to do
so.
I will now attempt to answer the charges which I think
will be made against me.
• Am I disobedient? The main issue addressed by
President Bacon in our discussions about my publishing has
been the necessity of obedience to Church leaders, so the
first charge I will discuss is disobedience to Church
leaders, specifically President Bacon and whoever was
directing him to forbid me to publish my article.
First, it should be noted that disobedience to Church
leaders is not listed as a reason for Church discipline in
the bishop's handbook. The Church recognizes certain
transgressions as serious and requires local leaders to
discipline members who commit them; such transgressions
include murder, rape, adultery, robbery and others. This law
is known by, and binding upon, all Church members.
Bishops and stake presidents may counsel members
concerning their privates lives. Such counsel may be from
their own wisdom or it may be inspired by God. Members are
not obligated by Church law to follow the advice and counsel
of their leaders. They may accept it or reject it, and
leaders do not have the right to compel members to follow
their counsel by imposing some kind of Church discipline
upon them.
Section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants is very clear
on this point:
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained
by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by
long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love
unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly
enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile.
(D&C 121:41-42)
It is an abuse of priesthood power to "exercise
control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the
children of men."
Sometimes the Lord commands one of his servants to
deliver a specific commandment to a person, but the prophet
is never authorized to compel that person to obey the
commandment. The Lord reserves judgment and punishment to
himself:
Wherefore, I command you to repent and keep the
commandments which you have received by the hand of my
servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name;
And it is by my almighty power that you have received
them; Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I
smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and
by my anger. (D&C 19:13-15)
Although the commandments came through Joseph Smith, God
did not authorize Joseph Smith to judge and punish
offenders.
The Church may certainly punish those who transgress
certain commandments and do not repent, which it does, but
these commandments must be made known to the members along
with the consequences of disobeying them. Church members
have the right to accept or reject these laws by the
principle of common consent, and these laws must be
administered with justice and equity. In other words, Church
discipline must follow the rule of law and not be imposed
arbitrarily.
This is in accordance with the principle of free agency
which allows every person to freely choose. As President
Hunter recently said:
Our world cries out for more disciplined living of
the commandments of God. But the way we are to encourage
that, as the Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith in the
wintry depths of Liberty Jail, is "by persuasion,
by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and love
unfeigned; ... without hypocrisy, and without
guile." (D&C 121:41-42) (Ensign, July,
1994, pp. 4-5)
Let me review the pertinent aspects of my case. President
Bacon asked me not to speak publicly or publish on the topic
of the Mother of Heaven. I asked him who this directive came
from, and he answered, "Me and the Lord." I
interpreted this to mean that President Bacon had prayed
about what he should counsel me to do and that this was what
he felt inspired to ask of me. I accepted his statement as
counsel, which I ought to prayerfully consider, but I have
the responsibility to make my own decisions. I, not my
leaders, am accountable to God for what I do, and I must
seek my own inspiration from his Spirit and finally act on
what I believe is right. My answer to President Bacon
indicated that I intended to act on my own responsibility
and understanding, and he did not say that this was not
acceptable to him. He did not say that I would be subject to
any kind of discipline (punishment) if I did not follow his
counsel. Although President Bacon did tell me that he had
discussed the issue with two apostles, he did not tell me
that they had given him any specific instructions. What he
told me was that they were very concerned about this issue.
In our 22 May 1994 meeting, President Bacon told me that
"Salt Lake" had told him that my article was never
to be published. (This was the first that I had heard this,
and no reason was given why it was not to be published.)
Although he agreed that I had kept my word to him, he said
that I had known that he did not want me to publish and,
therefore, I had disobeyed him and should be punished.
In our 21 August 1994 meeting, I pointed out to him that
there was no Church law against speaking publicly or
publishing articles about God the Mother and so it was
unfair to punish me for something which is neither a Church
law nor a commandment of God. He told me that the Brethren
are very clear on this. He asked me if it would make any
difference to me if he told me which two apostles it came
from. I said that it wouldn't.
The reason that I said this was because the principle is
very clear to me that no priesthood leader, no matter how
great his authority, has the right to compel submission to
his own opinions and desires or even to the word of God. It
does not matter that some great and good men have done this.
It is still wrong: the Lord has declared it. If the General
Authorities have received a revelation from God forbidding
his people to discuss, ask questions about, or pray to God
the Mother, then they should publish it and allow the people
to exercise their God-given right to accept or reject it. If
the General Authorities have not, then they should stop the
persecution of those who are seeking more light and
knowledge concerning her and those who wish to share the
light and knowledge which they have received.
Therefore, I plead not guilty to the charge of
disobedience, because there is no Church law which requires
us to obey the counsel of our leaders or suffer Church
discipline. Such a law would be contrary to the revelations
of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
• Am I guilty of apostasy? The letter from
President Bacon informing me of the disciplinary council
said that I am "reported to be guilty of
apostasy." First, I will answer the charge generally
and then according to the definitions of apostasy given in
the handbook. The dictionary defines apostasy as "an
abandonment or falling away from what one believed in; as
apostasy from one's religion, creed, or politics." I
have not abandoned the beliefs which I have held since I was
baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints when I was eight years old. My religious beliefs have
changed, matured, and developed; and they are still
developing as I try to increase my understanding of God, the
gospel of Jesus Christ, and the scriptures and follow the
Savior and live as the Spirit directs me.
I believe in God the Eternal Father who created the earth
and sent us here to give us the opportunity to become like
him. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our
Savior and that through his atoning sacrifice we can be
saved from sins and death. I believe that the gospel of
Jesus Christ proclaims the way of salvation through faith in
Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy
Ghost. I believe that the scriptures contain the word of
God. I believe that the Book of Mormon is the record of an
ancient people that contains the fullness of the gospel of
Jesus Christ and the testimony of Jesus Christ recorded by
ancient prophets; I believe that it was translated by the
Prophet Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God. I believe
that Joseph Smith is a prophet who received the revelations
given in the Doctrine and Covenants and who was given the
power by Jesus Christ to establish his Church, the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe that Joseph
Smith was given priesthood powers and keys by angels sent
from God and that the priesthood and keys continue in the
Church today. I believe that Howard W. Hunter, now the
President of the Church, is also a prophet.
I love my Savior, Jesus Christ, and try to follow him by
seeking his Spirit to enlighten my understanding and give me
the power to keep his commandments. I have accepted every
call and assignment which I have received from my Church
leaders and done my best to fill it. I love the scriptures,
and I study them often; I have taught my children the gospel
by reading the scriptures to my children and discussing the
scriptures with them. I received my temple endowments in
1969, and I have held a temple recommend continuously since
then. I honor my temple covenants and strive to keep them. I
consider myself to be a follower and servant of Jesus Christ
and a faithful member of his Church.
One definition of apostates given in the handbook is
"members who ... persist in teaching as Church
doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being
corrected by their bishops or higher authority." I
assume that, if I am being charged with apostasy because of
the contents of my article, "Toward a Mormon Theology
of God the Mother," this definition of apostasy is
being used. However, I specifically state in my article that
the interpretation of the Godhead which I offer is not
Church doctrine. Therefore, I am not guilty of apostasy
according to this definition of apostasy.
However, some may still believe that espousing any ideas
which are not Church doctrine is apostasy, so I will briefly
address two important questions regarding this issue. The
first is "What is Church doctrine?" and the second
is "What liberties do Church members have in regard to
their religious beliefs?"
The first question, "What is Church doctrine?",
must be addressed both generally and specifically, that is
"How is Church doctrine defined?" and "Which
specific doctrines are Church doctrine?"
"How is Church doctrine defined?" is a very
difficult question. The LDS Church has never had an official
creed which members must believe to retain their membership.
Joseph Smith said:
I never thought it was right to call up a man and try
him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like
Methodism, and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodists
have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of
their Church. I want the liberty of believing as I
please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It don't
prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in
doctrine.37
One difficulty in defining doctrine is that the word is
used in different ways, sometimes broadly to mean any
religious truth and sometimes more narrowly to mean any
generally or officially accepted teaching of the Church. If
we use the broader definition, our focus will be on deciding
which religious ideas are true; if we use the narrower
definition we will focus on procedures for establishing what
is and what is not doctrine. When we focus on truth, we have
the problem of dealing with a wide range of opinions. When
we focus on procedure we can never be certain that the
established doctrines are true.
The Church does not have a procedure for establishing
doctrine, although we do have a loosely defined procedure
for canonizing scripture.
The Church accepts the scriptures, the Bible, the Book of
Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great
Price, as the word of God. The scriptures, however, are not
simply equal to doctrine. They contain much more than
doctrine, including such things as history, prophecy,
poetry, law, and philosophy. We also believe that the
scriptures contain errors. Moroni himself said that the Book
of Mormon contains imperfections but that these are the
faults of men. The Book of Mormon also says that the
scriptures do not contain all of the word of God. "And
because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that
I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished;
neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that
time henceforth and forever" (2 Ne. 29:9).
This doctrine of continuing revelation makes the whole
question of religious truth an open one. It is important to
note that the scriptural teachings on obtaining, learning,
and understanding the truth are addressed primarily to the
individual. The scriptures clearly teach that the spirit of
God is essential in the giving and receiving of truth.
Moroni says, "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may
know the truth of all things." Whatever is spoken by
the power of the Spirit is the mind of God. "And
whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy
Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the mind of the Lord,
shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the
Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (D&C
68:4).
Since the principal way the Holy Ghost speaks to us is in
our minds and hearts, this method of obtaining truth is very
subjective. The scriptural passages on truth, then,
emphasize the open, broader approach to doctrine by which
the individual pursues truth as he receives line upon line
and precept upon precept and grows and matures in his
understanding. However, in a Church context this individual
approach leads to a multiplicity of views, and the need is
felt for some procedure to establish doctrine.
If we study the history of doctrine in Christianity we
see a history of contention, with the Church marred by
schisms and oppression as the need of the individual to find
her own truth clashes with the need of the institution to
establish one doctrine.
Jesus addressed the problem of contention over doctrine
in his Church when he spoke to the Nephites after his
resurrection. He told them that there should be no
contention among them because the spirit of contention is
not from him but from the devil. What is the spirit of
contention? In the Book of Mormon, contention is always
about winning. The spirit of contention is of competition,
pride, and enmity. Jesus is telling us that this spirit is
never from him and that we should never have it, even when
we find ourselves in disagreements with others in our
pursuit of truth. It is possible to disagree with love and
without trying to impose our opinions upon others.
In speaking to the Nephites, one of the first things
Jesus did was to set forth his doctrine in a very simple
way. He said:
And this is my doctrine ... and I bear record that
the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and
believe in me.
And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same
shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the
kingdom of God ...
Verily, verily I say unto you, that this is my
doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and
whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and
unto him will the Father bear record of me; for he will
visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost. (3 Ne.
11:32-33, 35)
After declaring what the points of his doctrine are,
Jesus said, "And whoso shall declare more or less than
this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of
evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne 11:40).
He reiterated this message to the Nephites just before
leaving them:
Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me
and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by
the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand
spotless before me at the last day.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel... (3 Ne. 27:20-21)
Jesus told Joseph Smith in his First Vision that the
creeds of all the churches were an abomination in his sight
because they teach for doctrines the commandments of men.
In Doctrine and Covenants 10 the Lord again declares what
his doctrine is and tells us that the Church should not
establish more than this for his doctrine:
[They] shall bring to light the true points of my
doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.
And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that
there may not be so much contention;
Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery;
Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the
waters of life freely.
Behold this is my doctrine—Whosoever repenteth and
cometh unto me, the same is my Church.
Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same
is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of
my Church. (D&C 10:62, 68)
By having very few points of doctrine and giving space
for a wide range of interpretations within these doctrines,
Jesus establishes an inclusive church which allows many
beliefs. There are obviously many religious questions which
are not answered in the doctrine of Christ, and many
revelations have been given which touch upon these
questions. Church members can and should explore these
questions and ponder these revelations, but the Lord tells
us not to try to establish other truths as his doctrine
because this will inevitably lead to contention. Because
different people have different experiences, different
intellectual frameworks, and different gifts and are at
different stages in their spiritual journeys, their
understanding of the gospel and the scriptures, and their
interpretations of religious truth will certainly differ.
These different viewpoints need not lead to contention if
members understand what Jesus taught about the doctrine of
his Church.
My article, "Toward a Mormon Theology of God the
Mother," gives an interpretation of the Godhead based
on a detailed analysis of the Book of Mormon and the
Doctrine and Covenants. While this interpretation differs
from the official interpretation offered by the Church, it
does not in any way contradict any of the points of doctrine
which Jesus established in his Church. The standard which I
try to use for judging all religious ideas is the gospel of
Jesus Christ. If I believe that any idea is not consistent
with his gospel, then I reject it. Since my article is
firmly based on the scriptures and offers a possible,
well-supported interpretation of the nature of God which in
no way contradicts the doctrine of Christ, it is unfair and
incorrect to call it false doctrine. My ideas may be untrue,
but they fall within the range of possible interpretations
allowed by the scripture.
I will now address the question, "What liberties do
Church members have in regard to their beliefs?"
First, we should understand that freedom of belief cannot
be separated from freedom of speech, which includes the
freedom to read, write, publish, and meet with others to
discuss and exchange ideas. We do not form our beliefs in
isolation from others but in the dynamic experience of
interacting with others through reading, listening, talking,
and writing. We depend upon others to supply us with
information and share their interpretations and insights
with us. We also need to receive their responses to both our
ideas and experiences. We need criticism from others in
order to see the flaws in our reasoning, the gaps in our
knowledge, and different ways of looking at our experiences.
It is also necessary to understand that no one can
believe anything simply by an act of will. We believe what
we do because of a complicated and largely unknown process
in which our experiences, our way of thinking, our
knowledge, our feelings, our emotional needs, our language,
our culture and other unknown influences all play a part.
Thus, it is futile as well as wrong to try to coerce
belief, which is part of the meaning of Doctrine and
Covenants 121:41: "No power or influence can or ought
to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood but only by
persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness,
and by love unfeigned; by kindness and pure knowledge ...
"
These are the effective and righteous means to change or
influence beliefs.
Using discipline or coercion to compel belief also
encourages lying and discourages the free exercise of
thought and speech required for the pursuit of truth and
intellectual and spiritual development. If any form of
coercion or punishment is used to control belief, some
people will lie about their beliefs to avoid punishment for
having the wrong beliefs and to reap the rewards of holding
the correct beliefs.
Finally, as I have discussed, there is the problem of
determining what is and what is not true doctrine. To
assume, as the handbook does, that the bishop or stake
president is always right when there is a doctrinal
disagreement between a member and a leader is to show
contempt for truth and the processes for understanding it.
When the Church builds a building, it hires an architect and
professional contractors to build it. We do not have a
professional clergy, and even the most learned scriptorians
can disagree on doctrinal questions. So how do we decide?
Usually we do not need to, or rather everyone should decide
for himself. Only a person who teaches that there is no God
or denies that Jesus is our Savior or denies the principles
of his gospel should be considered an apostate because he
teaches false doctrine.
Joseph Smith declared:
We deem it a just principle ... that all men are
created equal, and that all have the privilege of
thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to
conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had
we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free
independence of mind which heaven has so graciously
bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest
gifts.38
Joseph Smith also taught that everyone has the right to
believe and teach false ideas as well as true ones:
if any man is authd. to take away my life who say i
am a false teacher so i shod. have the same right to all
false teacher & where wod. be the end of the blood
& there is no law in the heart of God that wod.
allow any one to interfere with the rights of man every
man has the right to be a false as well as a true
prophet—If I shew verily I have the truth of God &
shew that ninety nine of 100 are false prop. it wod.
deluge the whole world with blood."39
The way to deal with false doctrine is not to punish
those who believe it but to teach true doctrine. Joseph
Smith says: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall
I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own
way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I
will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by
the force of reasoning."40
• Some Other Issues. I will now address several
issues which have been brought up by President Bacon or
Bishop Hammond in our discussions.
They have claimed that my paper has caused and will cause
confusion and doubt in some people who read it or damage to
their testimonies. However, they have both said that the
paper did not have any such effect on themselves. If anyone
accuses me of damaging their faith, then I have a right to
confront them. If they are not willing to come forward, then
there is no evidence to support this claim. I do not have
the authority or influence that would encourage people to
accept what I have written unless they are genuinely
persuaded. People are perfectly free to reject my
interpretation, reasoning, and conclusions for any reason
they want. Many people who have written letters in support
of me have stated that they do not agree with my conclusions
but they support my right to publish them.
Mormon tells us how to judge good from evil: "For
everything which inviteth to do good and to persuade to
believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of
Christ, wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is
of God" (Moro. 7:16). By this criterion, I believe that
my paper is good because it persuades people to believe in
Christ.
President Bacon told me several things I could do to
avoid this court. One was to agree not to write on
controversial topics or teach false doctrine. This is
unacceptable to me for several reasons. Every topic is
potentially controversial, and I have no way of knowing
beforehand what topics my leaders will consider
controversial. There is no reason to write about something
that everyone already understands perfectly and agrees upon.
I love the truth and always try to write truthfully so, of
course, I try not to teach false doctrine, but I also make
mistakes and fall into errors. President Bacon has been
unwilling to engage in any discussion about why what I have
written is false doctrine. He has simply proclaimed it to be
such. Since I have no criteria to judge whether something I
write will be considered controversial or doctrinally false
by my leaders I feel it would be dishonest for me to make
such a promise. More important, however, is the fact that
such a demand is an infringement of my freedom of belief and
speech which I will not give up, not only for my own sake
but for the sake of others. For whenever this precious,
God-given right is trampled upon, everyone suffers.
President Bacon also told me that I must not write about
or discuss with anyone publicly or privately the false
doctrine contained in my article. He didn't, however, tell
me which parts he considers false. This article contains my
deepest beliefs about God and my testimony that Jesus is the
Christ, the Eternal God, as the title page of the Book of
Mormon declares. It also contains my belief that God is our
Mother as well as our Father. I cannot comply with President
Bacon's demand. To do so would require me to break my
baptismal covenant to be a witness of Jesus Christ at all
times and in all places and I will not do that. My testimony
of Christ may be different than yours, but it is mine and I
have a right to give it. I do try to be sensitive to what is
appropriate in what setting; and although I have held some
of these beliefs longer than fifteen years (but others for
only a few years), I have been able to express them in ways
that were considered acceptable in Church settings and I
hope to be able to continue to do so. The Sunstone Symposium
and Dialogue are public forums, not in any way
sponsored by the Church, which accept alternate
interpretations of doctrinal issues; and I considered them
appropriate settings in which to offer my interpretations of
the Godhead. The interpretation given in my article is not
in any way final. I still have questions which I hope to be
able to explore.
Another thing that President Bacon has said that I must
do is agree to the principle that I should do whatever my
leaders counsel me to do. I suppose he does not require me
to actually do it since he does not hold disciplinary
councils on those who view R-rated movies, or fail to keep
journals, or hold family home evenings on Monday night, or
mothers who work outside the home. However, I do not agree
with this principle because it is contrary to the gospel of
Jesus Christ which says that we are to have faith in him
and obey his commandments. Our primary connection to
him is by the Holy Spirit. Many scriptures testify of this:
For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will
enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will
show unto you all things what ye should do.
Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ. (2 Ne. 32:5,
6)
But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who
giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies
unto you even so I would that ye should do in all
holiness of heart. (D&C 46:7)
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said,
We ought to obey God rather than men. For we cannot, but
speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts
5:29; see also Acts 4:20)
O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in
thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of
flesh: for I know that cursed is he that putteth his
trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that
putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. (2 Ne.
4:34)
We are to trust in God instead of man. This "arm of
flesh" (man) is contrasted to the "arm of the
Lord" in the scriptures. "The arm of the
Lord" can be shown to mean the Spirit of God; thus we
are to follow the Spirit rather than any man.
I do acknowledge the principle that God speaks through
his servants and that, whenever one of them speaks by the
power of the Holy Ghost, we are to receive his words as if
they came from God himself. However, nowhere in the
scriptures does it say that everything which a Church leader
says or does in his official capacity should be accepted as
if it came from God. We can only know if something comes
from God by the witness of the Spirit to our own hearts and
minds. Therefore, because my faith is in Jesus Christ, I
must follow what the Spirit reveals to me. Of course,
because of weakness and uncertainty, I sometimes fail to do
what the Spirit directs me. I also recognize that I can be
mistaken about what the Spirit is revealing to me. But I
believe that, if I put my faith in Jesus Christ and remain
open to the criticism and counsel of others and am willing
to repent when I see my sins and errors, he will reveal them
to me. I believe that his grace is sufficient to save me.
I am not an apostate. I believe in Jesus Christ and his
doctrine. I have tried with all my heart to keep my
covenants. I have not broken any law of the Church but have
tried to do my duty and fulfill my callings.
If you use this council to punish me, you will punish an
innocent person.
If you punish me, it will be because I refused to lie.
If you punish me, it will be because I refused to let you
stand between me and God.
If you punish me, it will be because I refused to bow to
your authority by giving you my unconditional obedience.
If you punish me, it will be because I refused to give up
my freedom to believe, speak, and act according to my
conscience.
If you punish me, it will be because I refused to deny my
testimony of Jesus Christ.
I am not your judge, and I pray that God will be merciful
to you. But if you punish me, you will have to answer to him
for using your priesthood authority unrighteously.
[Letter to First Presidency]
I am submitting this document and some other materials
for the purpose of formally appealing the decision of the
disciplinary council held on 9 May 1995 by Bishop Robert
Hammond of Edgewood Ward, Edgemont Stake, in Provo, Utah.
The decision of this council was to excommunicate me from
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the
grounds of apostasy.
The additional documents I am submitting are:
1. "Defense of Janice M. Allred," the defense I
presented at the disciplinary council held by Bishop Robert
Hammond on 12 October 1994. [See Appendix
A.]
2. "An Open Letter to Bishop Hammond," in which
I discussed some objections I had to the decision of the
October council and the conditions imposed on me by Bishop
Hammond.41
3. The first letter informing me of the disciplinary
council to be held on 12 October 1994.
4. The second letter informing me of the change of venue
in the 12 October disciplinary council.
5. The letter informing me of the decision of the 12
October disciplinary council.
6. The conditions of my probation given to me by Bishop
Hammond on 22 October.
7. The letter informing me of the disciplinary council to
be held on 9 May 1995.
8. The letter informing me of the decision of the 9 May
disciplinary council.
9. Witness statement of [first witness].
10. Witness statement of [second witness].
11. Witness statement of [third witness].42
12. Witness statement of [fourth witness].
13. "Toward a Mormon Theology of God the
Mother."43
14. "Him Shall Ye Hear: Prophets and People in the
Church of Jesus Christ."
On 12 October 1994, a disciplinary council was held to
determine whether or not I was guilty of apostasy. My
"Defense of Janice M. Allred" (Doc. 1, pp. 1-3)
gives a summary of the events leading up to the council. I
pled not guilty to the charge of apostasy.
To substantiate the charge against me Bishop Hammond had
three letters read. They were from Bishop Robert Lowe,
Bishop Scott Runia, and President Craig Hickman. Bishop Lowe
was my bishop in November 1992 when President Bacon and I
first discussed my paper, "Toward a Mormon Theology of
God the Mother." Bishop Runia was my bishop until April
1994, and President Hickman is the first counselor in the
presidency of Edgemont Stake. Although I do not remember the
exact content of these letters, Bishop Hammond interpreted
them to mean that I had disobeyed three bishops and one
stake president in publishing my paper "Toward a Mormon
Theology of God the Mother." The third bishop was
himself. I told the council that, although Bishop Lowe had
been present at my first meeting with President Bacon, he
had not said anything and he had certainly never counseled
me to not publish my paper. Bishop Runia had been told by
President Bacon to stop me from publishing the paper, but he
himself had never counseled me not to. When he informed me
of President Bacon's request, I told him that the article
was already at press. Bishop Runia and Bishop Hammond were
present at the 22 May meeting in which President Bacon tried
to get me to stop the publication of my article, but neither
of them counseled me not to publish it. (See Doc. 1, p. 2.)
President Bacon had asked me not to speak or write on the
topic of the Heavenly Mother. I interpreted this as counsel
which I had the right to either accept or reject. He never
indicated that I would be punished if I did not follow his
advice. Later he did tell me that I would have to be
punished because I had disobeyed him. Bishop Hammond's
charge that I had disobeyed three bishops and one stake
president was simply false, implying as it did that they had
all independently commanded me to not publish my article.
Even President Bacon's counsel had not originated with him,
but had, he informed me, come from two apostles.
Bishop Hammond argued that since I had disobeyed my
Church leaders I was an apostate according to the first
definition of apostasy in the General Handbook of
Instructions, which defines apostasy as "repeatedly
act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to
the Church or its leaders." One can disagree with a
Church leader without being in opposition to him. (See
"Open Letter to Bishop Hammond," Doc. 2, p. 2, 2nd
paragraph.) I listened carefully to President Bacon's
advice, I prayed about it, and then I followed my own
conscience. If in doing so I had broken a law of the Church
I might deserve to be punished (depending on which law was
broken). But I did not disobey any Church law by publishing
my paper, and there is no Church law which requires us to
follow the directives of Church leaders or be punished. (See
Doc. 1, pp. 3-5 for a more detailed defense against the
charge of disobedience.)
The second reason given by Bishop Hammond for charging me
with apostasy was that I had taught false doctrine in my
paper "Toward a Mormon Theology of God the
Mother." I answer this charge in my defense. (See Doc.
1, pp. 6-10.)
Bishop Hammond and the other members of the council spent
a lot of time trying to get me to agree to the principle
that a Church member should obey his Church leaders
unconditionally. They also wanted me to repent of my
disobedience and show a willingness to accept their counsel.
I told them that I could not repent of something which I
felt was good; to do so would be a mockery of God and a lie.
I reminded Bishop Hammond that I had always been willing to
listen to his counsel and the counsel of President Bacon and
give it prayerful consideration, but that I believed I
should act according to my own spiritual feelings and best
judgment. I believe that this is in accordance with the
gospel of Jesus Christ which puts each of us in direct
contact with God through the Holy Spirit. We are responsible
for our own sins and also our own spiritual growth. I
recognize that I have made mistakes and will make mistakes;
but this is not fatal because, through faith in Jesus
Christ, I can repent when I discover my sins. Making
mistakes and learning from them is part of the process of
spiritual maturation. However, I do not believe I have
committed any sin which warrants Church discipline. I have
only exercised the freedom given us in the gospel of Jesus
Christ.
I give my testimony and explain my commitment and service
to the Church in my defense. (See Doc. 1, p. 5, paragraph 4;
p. 6, paragraph 1.) The witnesses I brought to the 12
October disciplinary council also made statements about my
character, commitment, and service. (See Docs. 9-12.)
The decision of the 12 October council was to place me on
formal probation. I was placed under the following
restrictions: I was not allowed to hold a temple recommend,
give a talk, offer a public prayer, or partake of the
sacrament. Bishop Hammond told me he would impose additional
restrictions and conditions on me. On 23 October, he gave me
the additional restrictions and conditions. They were: I was
not allowed to serve in a Church position, and I was asked
to stay in regular contact with my bishop, to not publish or
speak in opposition to the doctrine of the Church, and to
refrain from clear and open opposition and criticism of the
Church or its leaders. (See Doc. 6.)
I believed the decision of the October disciplinary
council to punish me was unjust. However, because I felt it
represented a decision by Bishop Hammond to continue to work
with me before making a final decision, I did not appeal it.
Instead I wrote an open letter to Bishop Hammond to inform
him of some objections I had to the action of the council
and to let him know what my intentions were in regard to the
restrictions and conditions imposed on me. (See Doc. 2.)
A second disciplinary council was held on 9 May 1995. The
charge was that I had failed to make the specified progress
and had broken the conditions of my probation. Bishop
Hammond read the conditions and a list of statements
interpreting the conditions, and then he asked me what my
response to the charge was. I said that the conditions
required interpretation and thus it was not simply a matter
of fact whether or not I had broken the conditions, but
something that required judgment to determine. Paul MacKay,
the second counselor, said that I had said I would not
comply with the conditions. He used my "Open Letter to
Bishop Hammond" and newspaper articles reporting that I
said I would not comply to substantiate his statement.
I replied that the newspaper statements and headlines
were interpretations and simplifications of what I had said.
What I had said in the letter was more complicated. In the
letter, I said that I would follow all the restrictions that
were placed on me, and I had done this. Bishop Hammond had
given me three additional conditions in writing. When he
gave them to me, he also read me a list of statements which
interpreted the conditions and gave some expectations he had
for me, but he did not give me a copy of this second list.
The first written condition said that I should stay in
regular contact and be willing to counsel with my bishop. In
my letter I stated that I would not take the responsibility
for initiating contact with my bishop, but I would be
willing to meet with him under certain conditions. In fact,
I met with him whenever he requested a meeting, and I
answered most of his questions.
In my letter, I said that I had no intention of breaking
the second and third conditions; but since judgment is
required to determine what Church doctrine is and what
constitutes clear and open opposition to the Church and
criticism of the Church and its leaders, I might not be able
to comply with these conditions to my bishop's satisfaction.
The only thing that I said that I refused to do was to
submit to any kind of censorship or supervision of my
writing and public speaking. This refusal did not violate
any of the conditions, but it did go against Bishop
Hammond's expectation that I should be willing to have my
work reviewed to make sure it did not violate the
conditions. I was unwilling to agree to such a process
because I felt that it would be both dishonest and
unrealistic for me to do so. While I am certainly willing to
have my ideas criticized, truth, not safety or
acceptability, is the prime consideration for me. I did not
think it would be honest to ask someone to review my work
for acceptability unless I intended to change it if they
found it unacceptable. I also felt it would be unrealistic
for me to agree to have my writing reviewed because I do not
have much time to write and I am usually working against a
deadline. Although I would like to be able to finish well
before the deadline, I know from experience that I will not
be able to. I refused to agree to meet this expectation of
Bishop Hammond because I did not want to make a promise I
couldn't keep and because I felt it violated my freedom of
speech, which is an integral part of free agency. (See Doc.
1, pp. 9-10.)
Keith Halls, who was acting as secretary, asked me
whether my response to the charge that I had broken the
conditions was "yes" or "no." I
responded that in my judgment I had not.
Bishop Hammond questioned me about four things which he
thought violated the conditions. The first was a speech I
gave at the Counterpoint Conference on 5 November 1994. In
this speech I told about my experiences in being disciplined
by the Church and discussed [some] issues which I think are
important for all Church members to consider. Although
Bishop Hammond had not heard the speech and had never read
it, he had read a newspaper report about it. He had asked me
for a copy, but I had refused to give him one. I had told
him my reasons: It contained some personal feelings which I
did not want to share with him, and I was afraid he would
use it against me. Bishop Hammond believed that my refusal
to give him a copy of the speech, along with what he had
read about it in the newspaper, was evidence that it
violated the conditions. I told him that in my judgment it
did not violate the conditions. Bishop Hammond said that it
violated his second list of conditions (the one I was never
given a copy of) which said that I should counsel with my
bishop in a relationship of love and trust. I told him that
I could not trust him to view my writing fairly because he
had never been willing to take my motives into
consideration, to discuss the issues I raised, or to concede
the possibility that there could be legitimate differences
of opinion about doctrinal matters. His main purpose in
looking at my papers seemed to be, not to understand what I
was saying, but to look for evidence of apostasy. Bishop
Hammond again asked me for a copy of the speech, and I
agreed to have my husband go get a copy and bring it to the
council. They did not read it while I was present. I do not
know whether or not the bishopric read it before making
their decision.
The second piece of evidence against me was a number of
newspaper articles about me. The bishopric felt I should
have kept the discipline taken against me confidential.
Bishop Hammond said that since [the bishopric] are required
to keep our meetings confidential, I should also keep them
confidential. I replied that the purpose of confidentiality
is to protect the privacy of the member. This is true of all
privileged relationships: therapist-client, doctor-patient,
attorney-client, and priest-penitent. The one rendering the
service is required to keep all communications confidential
because they are about the private life of the one receiving
the service. The client may speak about her own private life
if she wishes. I had not broken any legal or moral rule by
speaking about my situation. I reminded Bishop Hammond that
I had always been honest about my intention to talk about my
situation with others, including news reporters, and I had
also waived my right to confidentiality by giving him
permission to discuss my case if he wished.
Keith Halls expressed the opinion that the publicity
about disciplining scholars damaged the Church and that I
was opposing the Church by talking to news reporters. I
replied that my motive was not to damage the Church but to
call attention to some important issues that affected all
Church members. If the publicity makes the Church look bad,
maybe there is something bad about disciplining Church
members for the honest exploration of religious questions.
It will not damage the Church to admit its errors and
correct them. On the contrary, it would improve it, and all
people of good will would respect such an action. I told the
council that in talking with news reporters I had always
tried to be as accurate as possible and had never said
anything derogatory about any Church leader.
The third piece of evidence against me was a news article
which appeared in Sunstone reporting the disciplinary
action taken against me in October. This article quoted
extensively from my "Defense of Janice M. Allred"
and "An Open Letter to Bishop Hammond." Bishop
Hammond felt that I should not have allowed Sunstone
to use these documents. My reply was that Sunstone's
article about me was part of the news coverage which had
resulted from the October disciplinary council. I had made
the documents public, and I had no objection to their being
published. Certainly my willingness to talk to reporters was
a factor in this coverage, but there almost certainly would
have been some media attention given to this event even if I
had refused to talk to them. My defense of my willingness to
discuss my situation with reporters is given above.
The fourth piece of evidence presented by Bishop Hammond
was a copy of By Common Consent, the newsletter of
the Mormon Alliance. This newsletter reported my
participation on a panel sponsored by the Mormon Alliance.
Although Bishop Hammond had no report of what I had said on
the panel, he seemed to feel that my very participation
constituted opposition to the Church. There was also a short
article in this issue of By Common Consent defining
ecclesiastical or spiritual abuse. This article invited
people to contact the Mormon Alliance with their own stories
of spiritual abuse. My name was given as a person to
contact. Bishop Hammond thought that I had written the
article, although I hadn't. I explained that the Mormon
Alliance is not an apostate organization with the purpose to
harm or embarrass the Church in any way. Its purpose is to
define and identify spiritual abuse, to educate members
concerning their rights, and to collect stories of spiritual
abuse for the purpose of aiding the victims and calling
attention to the problem.
Bishop Hammond believes that the evidence he presented
shows that I repeatedly acted in clear, open and deliberate
public opposition to the Church or its leaders. I maintain
that none of my speeches or actions has been in opposition
to the Church or its leaders. To disagree with a person's
ideas or to refuse to follow his advice is not necessarily
to be in opposition to him, and to point out problems in an
institution is not necessarily to be in opposition to that
institution. To know whether or not a person's disagreement
or dissent or calling attention to problems in an
organization means she is in opposition to it, we need to
know what her motives are. If her motives are to engage in
open and honest discussion, to increase understanding, and
to help solve problems, she cannot be in opposition to the
organization. Only if her motives are to damage, destroy, or
subvert the mission of the organization is she in opposition
to it.
An apostate is like a traitor. He deliberately tries to
destroy the Church. A person cannot be a traitor without
intending to be one, and he cannot be an apostate without
knowing he is one. A general of an army might make some
foolish mistakes in a battle, thereby causing serious damage
to his country. We would not call him a traitor unless he
tried to lose the battle. He might be incompetent and he
might have helped the enemy, but we would not call him a
traitor unless he meant to help the enemy.
I pointed out to Bishop Hammond that in judging whether
or not I was guilty of apostasy he had to take my motives
into consideration. I had told him several times what my
motives were: to share ideas which had been helpful to me,
to increase my own and others' understanding of the gospel
and religious truth, and to help solve problems in
accordance with gospel principles. Of course, motives are
complex, but these were my intentions in writing and
speaking on religious topics. It is also possible that I
could lie about my motives, but there are many things about
me that attest to my sincerity. Bishop Hammond knows that I
believe in Jesus Christ and have a testimony of his gospel.
(See Doc. 1, p. 5 for my testimony.) One of the main
purposes of the two papers that Bishop Hammond claimed
taught false doctrine was to testify of Jesus Christ and
increase faith in him. He knows of my desire to follow
gospel principles and of my many years of service in the
Church. (See Docs. 9-11.) Would I pay tithing, attend Church
meetings and bring my children with me to Church, send my
children on missions, and serve faithfully in many callings
if I were in opposition to the Church? Do people give time
and money to something they want to destroy?
Bishop Hammond admitted that he believed my motives were
good and that I was sincere in what I said about my
intentions. He also acknowledged my good character and
service in the Church, but he said that these things were
irrelevant to whether or not I am an apostate. He said that
he had to look at the outcome of my actions. By
"outcome" he seemed to mean any damage my words or
actions caused the Church or any Church members. However,
this definition is not consistent with the definition of
apostasy given in the handbook, which says that opposition
must be deliberate. This means that it must be intended.
Not only was Bishop Hammond's interpretation of what
constitutes apostasy incorrect but he also did not have any
evidence to support his claim that my articles or actions
damaged the Church or its members. Although he has told me
that my articles have damaged people's testimonies, he has
never produced one witness against me. (See Doc. 1, p. 10.)
On the other hand, there are many people who have told me
that what I have written has helped them remain in the
Church. I could supply written testimonies from them upon
request. I also know of people who have left the Church
because of the actions of leaders in punishing people for
their writings and speeches. Will these leaders be brought
to trial for damaging these people's testimonies?
Perhaps Bishop Hammond feels that the publicity
surrounding my case has damaged the reputation of the
Church. If this is true, it is not what I have done but what
the Church has done that has caused the damage.
Bishop Hammond presented no evidence to show that I am an
apostate. His strategy was to show that I had broken the
conditions of my probation. The conditions essentially
redefined apostasy. (See Doc. 2, p. 2.) Bishop Hammond does
not have the right to give his own definition of apostasy;
he should use the definition given in the handbook. His
reasoning was that if I had broken the conditions of my
probation, I was guilty of apostasy. However, this
[assertion] even goes beyond what he claimed in setting up
the conditions. In the letter informing me of the decision
of the first disciplinary council, he stated, "We
consider the terms of this probation as sacred, the
violation of which will result in reconsideration by the
disciplinary council of this matter for further
action." This [declaration] merely states that the
violation of the conditions will lead to a reconsideration
of the question of whether or not I am an apostate, not that
breaking the conditions will be grounds for excommunication.
In calling the terms of the probation sacred, Bishop Hammond
was assuming that he had the authority to command me in the
name of God and put me under an obligation to obey his
commands. Church leaders have no such authority (it can only
be given by the Holy Spirit in a specific situation), and
they have no right to put members under any obligation
without their consent. Bishop Hammond's strategy assumes
that disobeying a leader is apostasy. But I have shown that
members are under no obligation to obey the counsel or
directives of their leaders. (See Doc. 1, pp. 3-5.)
At the beginning of the disciplinary council, Bishop
Hammond announced that he intended to focus on what I had
done since the October disciplinary council. His purpose was
to show that I had broken the conditions and was thus guilty
of apostasy and should be excommunicated. He did not allow
me to read the witness statements from the October council
which I had brought with me. He maintained that all evidence
about my belief in God and the scriptures, my character, my
motives, my life, my faithfulness in keeping the
commandments, and my service in the Church were irrelevant
to the question of whether or not I am an apostate. But what
could be more relevant to understanding the meaning of my
actions than my beliefs, my character, my motives, and my
life? Jesus said, "Judge not according to appearance,
but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). To judge
righteous judgment, we must judge as God judges. "For
the Lord seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."
(1 Sam. 16:7) Of course, as human beings we cannot judge
righteously because we cannot see another person's heart as
the Lord can. However, if we are called upon to judge
another person, we should at least try to see her heart and
we should certainly take her inner life into consideration.
Since Bishop Hammond said my heart was irrelevant, and not
only my heart but all other aspects of my life which might
reveal my heart, how could he possibly judge me righteously?
I am not an apostate. I believe in Jesus Christ and his
gospel. I try to keep my covenants and I have not broken any
law of the Church. In my speaking and writing, I have always
tried to make it clear that the ideas and interpretations I
express are my own. In calling attention to problems in the
Church, my purpose has been to help solve those problems,
not to defame or tear down the Church. While I recognize the
authority of Church leaders to carry out the duties of their
callings, I do not accept their authority over my own
spiritual feelings and judgment in making my personal
decisions. In my religious life, my relationship with Jesus
Christ is primary. Although I believe that the decision of
the disciplinary council to excommunicate me was unjust, I
do not bear any ill will to those who made it.
1. President Bacon and Bishop Hammond did not act
independently but were greatly influenced by what they
thought their priesthood leaders expected of them. My paper,
"Toward a Mormon Theology of God the Mother," was
originally brought to President Bacon's attention by the
area president. We had three separate interviews about it
because President Bacon wasn't sure what the area president
wanted him to do. He told me this himself. Later he told me
that "Salt Lake" had told him that my paper was
never to be published, and still later he said that this
[directive] had come from two apostles. In our last
interview, he told me that he could not remain stake
president one week if he did not do something about me.
Clearly he felt that he had instructions to control me, and
he believed that he must punish me if I disobeyed him.
Bishop Hammond consulted regularly with President Bacon
about my case. I know this because he often told me that he
couldn't make a certain decision without consulting
President Bacon. From my conversations with Bishop Hammond,
it was apparent to me that President Bacon would decide
whether or not there would be a disciplinary council held
and who would hold it.
Local leaders are given the responsibility of
disciplining their members because they know their character
and commitment to the Church. But when Church authorities
send local leaders material written by or about someone in
their ward or stake, these local leaders often believe that
they are being told to control or punish the member without
taking what they know about him into consideration. It is
hard for local leaders to consider their members' cases
fairly without prejudice when they believe they know what
their priesthood leaders want them to do.
2. The change of venue of the disciplinary council from a
stake council to a bishop's council shows that President
Bacon was directing Bishop Hammond. For some reason he
decided not to hold the council himself, so he turned it
over to Bishop Hammond. It was an inconvenient time for
Bishop Hammond as his first counselor and his executive
secretary were both out of town and his family was leaving
on a vacation early the next morning. He had only two days
to find two substitutes and prepare for the disciplinary
council. (See Docs. 3-4.)
3. In the letter informing me of the change of venue,
President Bacon stated his intention of supporting whatever
decision Bishop Hammond made. How then can I expect him to
consider my appeal impartially and fairly? (See Doc. 4.)
4. I was not allowed to have my sister present with me
during the council. At first President Bacon consented to my
request to allow my sister to be present during the council,
but Bishop Hammond decided that she could not be present. I
wanted her there to give me emotional support and to help me
prepare my record of the council by taking notes for me or
helping me to remember what took place if she was not
allowed to take notes. Since I do not have access to the
notes of the proceedings taken by the secretary and I am not
allowed to have someone take notes for me, I am hindered in
preparing my appeal and my personal record of this important
event in my life. It is also not fair to deny me the comfort
of my sister's presence during a very difficult and
stressful time.
5. An effort was made to trap me in a lie. At the
beginning of the disciplinary council, Bishop Hammond asked
me if I was taping the proceedings. I replied that I was
not. He then asked me if I had ever taped any of our
interviews, and I replied that I hadn't. The questions made
me feel somewhat uneasy. I wondered why Bishop Hammond had
asked them. Did he suspect me of secretly taping our
meetings? I had always been very honest with him and had
given him no reason to distrust me. A little after ten
o'clock, one of the hall monitors interrupted to say that
there was an urgent phone call for Bishop Hammond. When he
returned, he again asked me if I was taping the proceedings.
I again said that I was not. "Then I must tell you that
we were informed beforehand that you were planning on taping
these proceedings, so I must ask you again, Are you taping
these proceedings?" he said. Again I replied that I was
not. He then said, "Then I must tell you that I have
just received a message that Channel 13 has just announced
on their news that you are taping these proceedings. So I'll
ask you again. Are you taping these proceedings?"
"No, I am not," I said. I was stunned. I had done
an interview with Channel 13 just before the council, but I
had said nothing that could be construed as meaning that I
was planning to tape anything. However, I had discussed
taping the council with a friend so I decided to tell Bishop
Hammond what we had talked about. "I'll tell you what I
know about taping," I said. "A friend of mine
called me on Monday night and said that she'd been talking
to someone on Channel 2 to see if they might be interested
in secretly taping this meeting. He said they could do it.
She wanted to know if I'd be interested. I told her I'd have
to think about it and she should call me back. She called
back an hour later, and I told her that I didn't think it
was honest to tape someone without their knowledge and I
didn't want to do it. She said that was fine and Channel 2
didn't want to do it anyway because of legal reasons."
Bishop Hammond said that he believed me.
I later found out that nothing on the Channel 13 news
report about me even suggested that I was taping. Someone
had deliberately lied, thinking they could get me to admit I
was secretly taping if they seemed to have evidence that I
was. I am not accusing Bishop Hammond of lying. I do not
know whether or not he knew the telephone call was a lie. I
later discussed this situation with him, and he said that
someone at Channel 2 had overheard my friend's discussion
about taping and had passed the information on to someone in
our stake who had passed it on to him. When I asked him
about the telephone call, he said it was a misunderstanding.
I asked him to tell me who had made the call so that I could
resolve the matter with him. I did not see how what had
happened could have been caused by a misunderstanding. What
caused the confusion between Channel 13 and Channel 2? Did
the person say Channel 13 because he was afraid the council
would be over before Channel 2's late night news was over?
(Channel 13's news is an hour earlier.) Bishop Hammond
refused to tell me who had made the call. I feel that he
could have handled this situation better. Why didn't he ask
me before the council if I was planning on taping? Why
didn't he tell me that he had received information that I
was taping when he first asked me? It seems to me that he
was more interested in catching me doing something wrong
than in preventing me from taping.
1. I had less than thirty-six hours to prepare. Although
I was given only three days notice on the first disciplinary
council, I had known for some time that it was pending, and
Bishop Hammond had kept me informed about when it was likely
to occur. I was given no warning that Bishop Hammond was
planning to hold another disciplinary council. (Doc. 7.)
2. I was not told specifically what the charges were so I
did not know what to prepare for. (Doc. 7.)
3. Bishop Hammond made no attempt to ascertain whether or
not the date he chose for the disciplinary council was
convenient for me. My son was scheduled for surgery that
morning and I spent most of the day with him in the hospital
in Salt Lake. I myself was still recovering from surgery I
had had six weeks previously. Why did Bishop Hammond
suddenly find it so urgent to excommunicate me that he
didn't even try to find out my needs?
4. Bishop Hammond seemed to have decided that I was
guilty before the disciplinary council was held. The letter
stated that the council was being held because of my
"failure to make the specified progress and meet the
prescribed conditions of formal probation." (See Doc.
7.)
5. I was not allowed to have my husband with me during
the council for emotional support or to help me in preparing
my appeal or making a record of this event.
6. I was not allowed to bring witnesses. The letter
telling me of the disciplinary council did not invite me to
bring witnesses as it should have, and I was not given
enough time to ask anyone to appear in my behalf. I did
bring the witness statements which were made at the October
disciplinary council, and I asked if I could read them; but
Bishop Hammond said he didn't think it was necessary. I
didn't insist because I remembered that Bishop Hammond had
told one of the witnesses at the first council that her
testimony was essentially irrelevant because my character,
motives, and service were not in question. However, it seems
to me that it was wrong not to allow me to read the
witnesses' statements since they ought to have been
seriously considered, and especially since one of the
counselors was not present at the first council. (Doc. 7.)
7. Bishop Hammond held me responsible for keeping a list
of conditions which I never received in writing. He had
given me a written list of three conditions and then read me
a list of statements which interpreted the conditions and
gave some expectations which he had. Since he never gave me
this second list in writing, I did not remember everything
on it, yet he used this list in the disciplinary council to
show that I had broken the conditions.
Notes
37Andrew F.
Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, comps. and eds., Words of Joseph
Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
Religious Studies Monograph Series, Vol. 6 (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft/Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham
Young University, 1980), 183-84.
38Joseph
Fielding Smith, comp. and ed., TUI (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1968), 49.
39Ehat and
Cook, Words of Joseph Smith, 349.
40Smith, Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 313.
41Items 2-8 are
quoted in the text.
42Items 9-13
are not included to preserve the confidentiality of these
witnesses.
43Items 13-14
will be published in a collection of essays forthcoming from
Signature Books.
