Conference tecrus::mormonism

Folks,
    
    I heard this Sunday from friends at church who received phone
    from their families out West. I just picked this up off the net.
    Goes to show that even great men can fall......
    
    I hope that that we get some sort of confirmation on this.
    
    Kevin
    
    
Elder George P. Lee was excommunicated today for "apostasy and conduct
unbecoming a member".  He had been on probation for some time.

He said that he still believes that the church is true, but that the
current leadership is not leading the church properly (especially with
respect to the Lamanites), and that they have treated him badly.

This is from a phone conversation with my mother.  More complete news
when I can bring a paper in.


Someone at the Sunstone Symposium said that the GA's needed to have more
respect for and treat better the "loyal opposition".  My reply to this
is to be very careful because God doesn't have any "loyal opposition".

Remember Brother Lee in your prayers.

Brad Davis
"It's gotta be the last days."

                      (Thanks to Dave Pyle for sending this.)

	The following article appeared in the MESA TRIBUNE, Mesa Arizona, on 
	Saturday 2 September 1989 and is reprinted here in it's entirity.

	Headline:  MORMON CHURCH EXCOMMUNICATES 1st INDIAN ELDER

	Associated Press Writer  
	  SALT LAKE CITY - Elder George P. Lee, the first Indian ever appointed
	to the Mormon Church hierarchy, was excommunicated Friday after telling
	the leadership it is spiritually slaughtering his people.

	  The first excommunication of a Mormon general authority in 46 years 
	was announced in a terse, one-paragraph statement from church head
	-quarters in Salt Lake City.

	  "The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the 
	Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excommunicated Elder George
	P. Lee of the First Quorum of the Seventy for apostasy and other conduct
	unbecoming of a member of the church. This action was taken at a meeting
	at which George P. Lee was present on Friday morning, Sept. 1, 1989,"
	the statement said.

	  Church spokesman said he could not elaborate on the statement on the 
	instructions of church leaders.
	
	  But Lee said the action stemmed from basic doctrinal disagreements 
	with church leaders about the role of Indians in the religion and from 
	his contention the leadership is racist, materialistic, and bent on
	changing the meaning of Mormon Scripture.

	  "It got to the point where I had to follow them or Jesus Christ," Lee
	said in an interview Friday afternoon. "I told them they are the ones 
	that are apostatizing - teaching false doctrine."

	  Lee, 46, was sustained a member of the First Qourum of the Seventy on
	Oct. 3, 1975. The First Quorum of the Seventy is responsible for 
	administering the affairs of the 6.7 million-member church under the
	direction of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the governing First
	Presidency. Members of the three all-male bodies are known as General
	Authorities.

	  In an hour-long meeting with church President Ezra Taft Benson, 
	Benson's two counselors and the Twelve, Lee read a 23-page, handwritten
	letter in which he accused his fellow churchmen of distorting doctrine
	to satisfy there own racial bias, of relegating Indians to second-class
	status and denying them their rightful place in the faith's theology.

	  "You are slowly causing a subtle scriptural and spiritual slaughter of
	the Indians and other Lamanites. While physical extermination may have 
	been one of (the) federal governments policies long ago...your current
	scriptural and spiritual extermination...is the greater sin and great 
	shall be your condemnation for this," Lee wrote.

	  Lee's excommunication was particularly sensitive to a church that 
	believes Indians in the Americas are descendants of ancient peoples 
	described in the Book of Mormon, the faith's most cherished Scripture. 
	
 	  The Lamanites, as the Indian ancestors are known in the book, were
	themselves described as descendants of a prophet named Lehi who brought
	his family from Jerusalem to the New World about 600 B.C. Much of the
	volume deals with later wars between two peoples descended from Lehi's
	sons, the Nephites and Lamanites. The book details the destruction of
	the former by the latter in the 5th Century A.D.

	  The Book of Mormon was published in 1830 by church founder Joseph
	Smith, who said he translated the volume from gold plates give and all
	others as "gentiles," or "adopted Israel."

	  In recent years, Lee said, general authorities have been preaching 
	that non-Indian members are literal descendants of Ephraim, a grandson
	of Israel in the Old Testament, "thereby displacing the true seed of 
	Israel" and giving non-Indian Mormons an excuse to ignore their Indian
	brothers.

	  "This type of teaching encourages an attitude of superior race, white
	supremacy, racist attitude, pride, arrogance, love of power and no sense
	of obligation to the poor, needy and afflicted," Lee wrote.

	  He questioned whether other general authorities would remain committed
	to the church if they were not paid for their time and expenses by being
	given memberships on corporate boards, royalties from church books and
	gifts from well-to-do friends.

	  Lee, a Navajo and former president of the College of Ganado on the 
	Navajo Reservation, once served as president of the church's Arizona
	Holbrook Mission. He said the shift in church policy toward the Indians
	had occured after the death in 1985 of President Spencer W. Kimball, who
	Lee said had acknowledged that non-Indians were "adopted into the House
	of Israel."

	  Lee quoted Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Twelve as telling him: "I do 
	not want nor wish to be known as an apostle to the Lamanites as 
	President Kimball was." Packer was placed in charge of the faith's 
	Indian programs after Kimball's death, Lee said, and they have been
	shrinking ever since.

		I have a Navajo brother in my quorum that is going through
	the same type of crisis Brother Lee did.  I find it interesting
	that people will concern themselves so much with the things of the
	world and let it block the real understanding of what they are and
	what they can have.  In D&C 84:33-34, we find that accepting the
	Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood, and magnifying our callings in
	those priesthoods, that we become the seed of Abraham.  I personally
	do not require anything more, and I do not think of any other heritage
	than that promised to Abraham and his seed.

		The Navajo, as I might as well suppose any American Indian
	tribe, is very deeply steeped in tradition.  Herein lies the problem.
	We are told :

	D&C 74 : 4	And it came to pass that the children, being brought
	up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of
	their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they
	became unholy.

	D&C 93 : 39	And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and
	truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of
	the tradition of their fathers.

	Beyond what tradition can take away, the Lord has also counseled us
	on our attitudes of church authority :

	D&C 124:45	And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto
	the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, 
	behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their 
	place.

	For right now, Brother Lee has been moved out of his place.  He can
	still go through the process of repentance and return to full and
	active fellowship with the saints.  I just hope that he does not go
	the way of most apostates and find himself fighting against the church.
	He was the general authority at Stake Conference here around four
	years ago, and I enjoyed his spirit and testimony greatly.

    I detect an irony in the Church having over time been criticized for 
    promoting the cause of Blacks (early Church history and the slavery
    issue), of promoting the cause of Lamanites (Oliver Cowdery and
    others preaching to the Lamanites), not promoting Lamanites (now) and 
    not promoting Blacks (relatively recent history).  Yet, over history
    the Church has consistently maintained a position that we are all
    brothers and sisters having the same eternal potentials.
    
    One of the promptings I've gotten before has been that we need to leave
    somebody room to repent, a way to change without losing dignity.  
    Sometimes, because of the humiliation that one might fear as a result
    of doing an about-face, repentance is made harder.  I hope that we
    don't get a flurry of members that start attacking Brother Lee.  This 
    would not help him and would be contrary to Church teachings.

        
    Steve

    	re: 270.4
    
    	I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. Elder Lee appears
    	to be a man of deep feeling and conviction toward his people. He
    	wants to help them to grow and progress to their Father in Heaven.
    	The problem, as I see it, is that he's leaving the one place 
    	where he could have helped them the most. That is very sad! My
    	impressions on reading the article were ones of sadness for he 
    	and his people. His voice for them to the world is no longer 
    	where it could have been heard to the greatest degree. He, who
    	walked and talked with Prophets and Apostles, has turned away
    	from the iron rod. What a loss for the Lamanites! 
    
    	I'll leave judging him to the Lord. Let this PLEASE
    	be a lesson to all of us who hold the Priesthood. We must be
    	willing to follow and do as the Lord, or His servants, would
    	ask us to do. There can be no rebellion in our hearts but an
    	eye single to the glory of God! We would not presume to tell
    	Ken Olsen how to run this company, though we may not totally 
    	understand the wisdom of some of his decisions, so let's not 
    	presume to tell our Savior and Redeemer how to run HIS church 
    	even though we may not understand why we should do something.
        Passing the test comes in obedience, regardless of opinion. 
    	We will come to know of it in time.
    
    	I love my Savior and His church and I love George P. Lee. May
    	the Lord grant him the humility to see his mistake and rectify
    	it. God bless all of you! You are wonderful people that I do 
    	not know but whom I love as brothers & sisters. As President
    	Benson is fond of saying to his family, "When I get to the
    	Celestial Kingdom and look over my family I don't want to see
    	any empty chairs." Let's not sadden our Father in Heaven with
    	empty chairs when he looks for us.
    
    	Your brother,
    
    	Dave 
	(Job 19:23-27)

It seems easy for us to sit back and look at Brother Lee's situation and
understand where he went wrong.  However, I wonder if it would be as easy
for us to look at our own situations.

Here is a real situation that was told to me by a friend.  Pretend you are
the father of the friend.  By occupation you are the County Agent.  You are
in a Ward Priesthood Meeting.  The Bishop is describing a welfare project that
he would like the Ward to perform.  The project concerns fruit trees and
harvesting fruit, and the Bishop is pretty enthused and optimistic about the
project.

As you listen to the Bishop, doubts begin to enter your mind about the things
the Bishop is saying.  What would you do?

    
    As one who has a family who has fruit orchards and having worked them
    I can visualise some potential problems in this situation. I would
    hope to tell the Bishop of the problems, preferably privately, however
    since he has come out in the Ward Priesthood with this info I would
    voice my concerns in that forum and hope to convince him to defer
    the assignment to the priesthood until he had all the facts.
    
    We had a situation in our own Ward where our Bishop signed a contract
    for some audio-visual material for the primary-age children in our
    ward from a private company that specializes in such things. He brought
    it up in ward priesthood after the fact, for approval. The ward
    priesthood would not sustain him in his action and he had to cancel
    the contract with this company. 
    
    From this I saw that it wasn't wrong for the priesthood to fail to
    sustain the Bishop, given the circumstances and I believe that
    in the situation you describe here it wouldn't be wrong to disagree.
    
    The question we all need to ask is what was the circumstances that
    surround all these situations. Elder Lee's situation is undoubtably
    more complex than what is seen at first glance, and I, for one, want
    to understand the situation better. I pray that none of his charges 
    are true, and that he seeks the road to full repentance. If any of
    his charges are true we've got some serious problems. I, for one,
    am not going to judge him based on the sketchy info at hand. The
    message I'm making here is that our leaders are fallable and we should
    never forget it. If there's just one particle of truth to what his
    story is, then we as individuals, and collectively as a church,
    assess ourselves. 
    
    Kevin
    

How about this:

	The wrong way to disagree with leadership:  Abraham 3:27-28

	The right way to disagree with leadership:  Matthew 18:15-17

(Compare Matthew 18:17 with Romans 16:17-18 for some clarification.)

Steve

    
    Steve,
    
    I checked out the verses. Good references! It's always a delicate
    situation when one disagrees wtih leaders in some area, whatever it
    may be. I meet with the leader and express my concerns privately,
    as Matt. 18:15-17 describes. I don't think disagreement in of it-
    self con be construed as contention that will lead to apostasy It
    is that point where the holy spirit leaves a person where contention
    develops. We need to be mindful of the oath and covenant of the
    priesthood, and conduct ourselves in a manner pleasing to the Lord.
    As for leaders, they need to exercise their priesthood in a righteous
    manner and counsel in love. If we diagree with a Bishop or with
    our Stake President on some matter we can approach them privately
    and speak to them. A Gen. Authority is another matter...
    I suppose one could write to them... I believe that if one was out
    of harmony, then the 1st presidency and council of the Twelve could
    address it as in the case of Bro. Lee. he had been on probation
    for a year that I knew of. So there probably had been counseling over
    a period of time but the doctrinal disputes were not resolved.
    
    One tidbit of info. the publisher of Bro Lee's book, "Silent Courage",
    pulled the book off the distribution list within hours of the ex-
    communication order. It's either Deseret or Bookcraft. Anyhow, I called
    last night out west and the bookstores are out of stock and cannot
    get any more. How's that for immediate action. My source tells me
    that some of the Quorum of the Twelve are on the board of directors
    of these publishing companies. That would seem to answer the question
    on why it was pulled. 
    
    
    Kevin
     
    
    Hypothetical question. 

For those of you who are following our role-play of my friend's father
who disagreed with his Bishop.

The Bishop had created an atmosphere of open dialog, so my friend shared
his concerns as a technical specialist about the proposed project.  The
Bishopric respected his expertise, and I'm sure they gave honest consideration
to his views that the project would fail.  However, they decided to go ahead
with the project.

Those of you who are role-playing my friends father: Now, what do you do?

    >manner and counsel in love. If we diagree with a Bishop or with
    >our Stake President on some matter we can approach them privately
    >and speak to them. A Gen. Authority is another matter...
    
    Why is a general authority another matter?  Are they not human, too? 
    If I disagreed with a general authority, could I not approach them
    privately?  If not, why not?  I understand that they might be busy,
    aren't we all, but they are approachable.  I mean, granted they have a
    divine calling to administer to the affairs of the church, but they can
    fall too.  Witness the recent events regarding George P. Lee.
    
    I guess what I am trying to say in more words than needs to be used, is
    that just because someone is a general authority does not mean what
    they have to say is more important or more valid than coming from say
    a bishop.  If we have trouble with what a bishop says, then what
    difference does it make coming from a general authority.
    
    scott

    Let's see, if the Bishop and everyone else wants to try to do the
    project and I've voiced my (expert) opinion about how it will likely
    fail, I figure I've done as much as I should as far as voicing an
    opposing opinion.  At that point, I would have to decide how much
    of it is my problem and how much of it is theirs.  
    
    My problem involves my support of them as leadership, my ability
    to be obedient, humility and so forth.  I have supported them by voicing
    my opinion that the project will likely fail.  Now that they have
    made a decision, I have an obligation to support by trying to make
    the project a success by participating, by not grumbling about
    how I still think it will fail and so forth.  My next step would
    thus be to express (in word and action) a willingness to support the
    leadership.  In this example, there seems to be little moral dilemma
    with which I would have to struggle.

    Their problem is to make the project a success.  They are the ones
    who are ultimately responsible for the success or failure.  More
    than that, they are the ones who will judge as to whether it is
    a success or failure.  It could well be (and often is the case)
    that not all factors for the decision are made public.  There might,
    for example, be some brother that needs to work on some project
    with the other brethren so that he can experience more fellowship.

    Steve

		All leaders in the church should definitely be approachable
	if a person has some disagreement with them.  But I think that before
	one does so, they should look at why they are doing it.  Sonja Johnson
	disagrees because the church leadership is not keeping up with the
	rest of the world and it's thinking.  Now Brother Lee has the same
	type of feelings.  Do you not think that these two people are out of
	step with the scriptures?

		I think that what it all boils down to is a matter of 
	stewardship and the mantel placed upon that person by the Lord.
	We can be like Laman and Lemuel and oppose that person (Lehi), or
	we can be like Nephi and go inquire of the Lord.  We can also know
	the scriptures and other church doctrine to apply against whatever
	the Prophet, Bishop, Stack President, etc. is asking us to do or
	accept.  I like to take the position of "When the Prophet speaks,
	all discussion stops." attitude.  You can replace the word "Prophet"
	with any leader and, if they are acting within their stewardship,
	apply it the same way.

		As to anyone calling this blind obedience, I disagree.  I use
	my God given right of free agency to allow each person to stand in
	the stewardship the Lord has entrusted them with.  I also know enough
	of the scriptures and church doctrine to apply the proper tests.  If
	I don't know enough, then I go look it up and inquire of the Lord.

		There have been too many times in my position as Elders Quorum
	President that I have had to just go by how the spirit dictates.  In
	most cases I would have not done it that way by myself.  Therefore I
	allow others to have inspiration in their callings and if their 
	particular stewardship is over me, then I will definitely think, pray
	and meditate over anything I happen to disagree with before I approach
	them.

		Unfortunately, when we fight against those servants of God
	who have been placed in a position over us, we just end up fighting
	against God - and He never loses.

    Re: Note 270.12 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN

    Steve,
    
    Something you said struck a chord in me: 
    
>   It could well be (and often is the case)
>   that not all factors for the decision are made public.  There might,
>   for example, be some brother that needs to work on some project
>   with the other brethren so that he can experience more fellowship.

    This past weekend in Billings, where I live, we had the Montana
    Centennial Cattle Drive. It was a great time, and everybody had
    a lot of fun. Our ward combined with another ward to have a booth
    to offer breakfast to the spectators, as a fund raiser.
    
    For a number of reasons, including location, no coffee being served,
    and other reasons, the booth lost money. It was not successful in
    the accomlishing this purpose. But it was successful in building
    fellowship between the wards, it was fun for those of us that got
    up at 4am to man the booth, it was a great breakfast for $2 for
    those who patronized the booth, and it helped to build some good
    will in the community.
    
    Sometimes success is not what *we* think it is. Sometimes the Lord
    accomplishes His purposes even through our so called failures.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    re: 11
    
    I believe a Gen. Authority is a different matter in
    terms of accessability. That's what I meant.
    
    I believe that 99.9% of questions or disagreements would be handled
    or referred to the local priesthood authorities anyhow. As far as 
    disagreement, yes, there are times that I disagree, but in what case
    would they warrant going to a Gen. Authority? There are members who
    disagree with local priesthood authorities and write to the GA's,
    however I don't know of any instances of people writing to them,
    to disagree with them, on matters of doctrine. Say, I disagree with GA's 
    with some points of doctrine. Say I fly to SLC to speak to one.
    Will that really change things?  I happen to have a specific area of
    doctrinal disagreement and a GA is due in the area soon. I may have 
    the opportunity to talk to the GA about this. Who do you expect will
    be corrected?  
                  
    On a matter closer to home. I know of a member that had a serious
    problem concerning a leader some time back (years ago); that person made
    allegations that for whatever reasons were not investigated. The
    individual ultimately left the church. Now for the leader... There now
    are serious allegations concerning this person, and this person faces
    prosecution by the law. You know the point I'm driving at. Our Leaders are
    fallable; and in our zeal to sustain them we sometimes forget that.
    And in the process some people may get trampled on. I'm not a newcomer
    to the Gospel, I've seen alot of water go over the dam in my 20+ years
    in the church. I've seen many people leave because of various
    differences that ultimately weren't resolved. Yes, the gospel is
    perfect, yet we are imperfect men and women. That's why we need to have
    a realistic attitude about our leaders in what they do. We also need to 
    be realistic in what will be accomplished by speaking to them. 
    
    Kevin

>    I know of a member that had a serious
>    problem concerning a leader some time back (years ago); that person made
>    allegations that for whatever reasons were not investigated. The
>    individual ultimately left the church.

It's sad when people let problems with others affect their spiritual life.
Because the church has mortal people as leaders, there will always be leaders
who make mistakes.  There will always be leaders who hurt others (hopefully
unintentional).  These conditions are "normal" in the sense that they are
part of mortality.  The one thing that will carry us through these
disagreements and problems is our faith in Jesus Christ and our resulting
testimonies of the Gospel.  As we have conflicts with others, we need to
hang on to Christ and our testimonies and then forgive those who hurt us.
That's an easy statement to make but sometimes hard to do when we are the
ones being hurt.

Allen

    Allen,
    
    I agree, I sometimes feel that it may be likened to the "buffetings
    of Satan" when we find ourselves in some sort of turmoil or
    disagreement with a leader who we see as in error about something.
    When we publicly sustain our leaders we can refuse to sustain them,
    then discuss the issue with the appropriate priesthood leadership,
    understanding of course when that is appropriate, ie. transgressions
    or other things that might disqualify the leader from being sustained.
    I think it would take a fair bit of courage to do that. 
    
    Kevin
    

    Some time ago I had a disagreement about something with my Bishop.
    I voiced my skepticism with him in private.  As time went on, I
    voiced my skepticism at an appropriate time in public.  That is,
    I was invited to voice my skepticism.  It finally ended with my point
    of skepticism being proven before a gathering of Ward members with the 
    Bishop clearly wrong and me clearly right.  
    
    But, it was no big deal.  We have an excellent Bishop with a heart of 
    gold who, being human, sometimes makes mistakes.  My pride wasn't
    wrapped up in it and everyone knew I was skeptical.  It was important
    to me to make it clear to everyone that I had no intention of
    rebelling or stirring up trouble.  I made it clear that I supported
    and would continue to support the Bishop and other leaders.  There was 
    absolutely no enmity (never has been, probably never will be) involved 
    between the Bishop and me.  As a result, we all learned from the
    experience.

    One other thing, though my Bishop was maybe not inspired on that
    one point, I have experienced so many times when he truly acts as
    a tool in the Lord's hand.  There is no question in my mind that
    God asserts direct and loving influence upon the members through
    this humble and valiant servant.
    Steve

    For what it's worth, the 9/9/89 Church News has an article about George
    P. Lee's excommunication. I thought the tone of the article was pretty
    good. I was wondering just how the Church News would handle this story,
    and I think they did a pretty good job.
    
    Rich 

    Here are my 2Cents about supporting authorities:
    
    For about 5 years we shared a building with another ward in which we
    were the newly created ward.  Therefore preference was always given to
    the "original ward".  We always had to accommodate them.  In particular
    we "suffered" a late Sunday meeting schedule which was awful for young
    families (cranky kids, missed meals etc.) while the "original ward" was
    composed of older people.
    
    Finally we had been promised that in the new year we would get the
    early meeting schedule on Sunday and they would get the later schedule. 
    But the "original ward" refused.  So the Stake President told us we
    would have to stay on the late schedule.  Our ward was so angry, whole
    families said they would go to a nearby ward (Littleton) which had the
    early schedule.  The Stake President did not expect to meet such a
    reaction.  He held a meeting to discuss it and at that meeting ( I was
    there) the members did not hold back in telling him their feelings
    about his not holding to his promise and their resolve to no longer
    meet on a later schedule.  He was very concerned and listened.
    
    In this case I felt that what I witnessed was not confrontative, non
    support for a leader (for he was a truly wonderful leader whom we all
    respected), but rather non-support for a poorly-thought out decision.
    
    As luck would have it, a Protestant Church became available and the
    decision was to give us our own building rather than share.
    
    I learned that leaders are not infallible and there is a lot of room
    for dialogue and discussion at the local level.  I also learned that if
    you disagree with a decision it's OK not to support it (within reason). 
    OUr ward also had a bee keeping project, which I did not participate in
    because I did not want bee hives in my yard out of consideration of my
    neighbors and my own kids.
    
    In matters of doctrine and practice, however, that is another
    situation.
    
    Paul

Back to our role-play.

As I mentioned, the Bishop decided to go ahead with the project.  A few
weeks later when the ward met to perform the work, guess who was the
only person who showed up besides the Bishopric...  Right, my friends father!
Even know he felt the project would fail, he supported his Bishop.  The
project did fail, by the way.

The observation my friend and I drew from this is that

  o Hopefully Bishops will create an atmosphere of honest and open
    discussion about ward matters.

  o During the discussion phase of ward matters, members have the right
    and the need to be able to disagree with their leaders in an objective
    way.

  o Once the leaders have made their decision, the members should forget
    their differences and do all they can to make those decisions successful.

However, as Paul's example pointed out, sometimes there is a limit as to how
much suport members can give to decisions.  In his case, the ward members did
support the decision about meetinghouse schedules for quite a while, but
eventually the pressure built up and the members then talked to their Stake
President about it, and an acceptable solution was reached--a good example
of Joseph Smith's counsel to "teach principles of righteousness and then let
them govern themselves", i.e. work out the problems to the satisfaction of all.

Allen

    Thanks, Allen!  Good lessons ...
    
    Steve

As an outside observer, it never ceases to amaze me how man gets
    'sidetracked' from his God.  For whatever its worth:
    
     1.  First and foremost - never lose sight of our Savior Jesus Christ
     2.  Be aware of the hypocracy in your own life
     3.  Keep life simple:  Love God, love man
     4.  Self more often than not prevents us from leading God honoring
    	 lives
    
    Gal 1:6-9
    

RE -1

Well put!  Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

Allen