Talk:September Six/Archive 1

Why were they excommunicated

Why were they excommunicated? This seems to be the very most basic question, and the whole article seems to skirt the issue by failing to provide specifics. I understand that it can only be speculated, but the article seems very vague on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinHowarth (talk • contribs)

The why is a question of POV. The church doesn't explain excommunications. And some participants choose not to disclose. In any case - it would probably be a he said-she said thing - and since we can't verify it, it can't be included in the article - verifiable speculation, otoh, can be :) --Trödel 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought some of the individuals held press conferences. Their reports should not be considered any less authentic than the church's undisclosed reports. I guess it's the section titled causes that gets me all fouled up as a reader. It keeps refering to the group as if they were all in it together, but most of them were not associated with each other until the press lumped them all together.--ErinHowarth 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - and some did hold press conference - but can't remember all the details and sltrib.com charges to view their archives. --Trödel 06:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that is a problem.--ErinHowarth 06:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Added possible reason for excommunication, that the church will not tolerate the publication or public espousal of unapproved doctrines, regardless of their merit. Doctrines are to be "top down", not "bottom up". (posted 13:53, 17 August 2007 by IP# 65.23.125.201)

Sounds rational, but I'm afraid it is an opinion unless we can find a source. Ideas? WBardwin 20:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems very familiar. Didn't someone say almost as much in the PBS documentary? Incidentally, other parts of this article seem WP:SYNthy. The Mother in Heaven dialog seems to more clearly belong in that article. A purportedly official recognition of the concept several years after 1993 seems to be off-topic unless another source has already commented on the excommunications in light of this ABC interview. There might be such commentary, but it looks like original synthesis as-is. Cool Hand Luke 08:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Causes and reactions sections are written badly, not well sourced and seem somewhat one-sided --Blue Tie 05:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

This article is a shining example of how to violate policies of No Original Research, No Synthesis, and Verifiability. With few exceptions, the entire thing is either unattributed or vaguely attributed to the PBS special, which program in fact does NOT support the assertions made in this article. At best it vaguely alludes to them, which allusions are treated here as open statements of theories the writer editor wishes to put forth. I've TIVO'ed the programs and reviewed them recently. They absolutely do not support the assertions made here and attributed to the program.

I propose to cut every assertion that is either uncited or that is attributed to the PBS Frontline special. If someone can find better attribution in the next 30 days, there'll be no need to cut. AuntieMormom (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is my practice, rather than "threatening" to cut material, to spend a little time doing my own research. Almost every good faith edit has some, albiet modest, value - and many erratic editors will not see your "threatened" deadline in time to defend their material. That said, I'm sure the article could be carefully trimmed. WBardwin (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Toscano's edits

Paul Toscano has recently been editing his section of this page. This, in itself, isn't against wikipedia's rules. However, I think the entry is overextended. Here's the full entry after Paul's edits; I'm going to pare down some of the text to things that are true, things that need fact tags, and things that aren't relevant to the article.

One entry I've removed is this quote: "the actual reason was Toscano's insubordination in refusing to curb his sharp criticism of LDS Church leaders' preference for legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that privilege the image of the corporate LDS Church above its commitment to its members, to the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith its founding Prophet, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ". I couldn't find support that Paul had written this or that it was true at the book ref link that was given immediately after the quote, so I've removed both. (the specified chapter of the book seems to be an essay, not specifically about the church or his excommunication). Tedder (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the reference. The "Sanctity of Dissent" article argues just that—it doesn't discuss the circumstances of his dissent. However, the summary does seem to be a fair capsule of his views conveyed in the Tribune, Sunstone, and elsewhere. It needs better sourcing, but I think it's essentially correct. I think the main problem is that it spoke about the "actual reason" for excommunication although the LDS Church doesn't comment on it—it's his view about the excommunication. It's not objectionable to include it, I think, but I'm having a hard time parsing the long sentence. Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is some raw material to rewrite this sentence:

Tensions exist within the church, too. Some Mormons find the rules hard to live by. Others find the hierarchy stultifying. Paul Toscano, a lawyer who was excommunicated for criticising church leaders, says that 19th-century Mormonism was to religion what Bach is to music: complex and rich. Now, he says, the church is run by corporate types, not theologians, and its teachings have become simple and bland, "like people dancing the polka". [1]

Paul James Toscano's only regret about being excommunicated for criticizing LDS general authorities was that his anger gave the church "an excuse to disregard criticism and tighten further the grip of oppression that manacles the church."
To him, Mormonism has become "an archconservative culture built on the sand of family and tribal values with respectability as its chief cornerstone. Its adherents are less like living stones in the mystical temple of God and more like living stiffs in a morgue of quiet conformity." [2]

Yet the number of believers swell, proving to the faithful that they are doing something right. And the church's critics are left out in the cold. Among them is 49-year-old lawyer Paul Toscano, excommunicated in 1993, along with four others, for urging a radical re-examination of current doctrine, particularly on the role of women.
Bitter at what happened to him and his family at the hands of what he calls "a bunch of real-estate agents who don't know the Father from the Son from the Holy Ghost," Mr. Toscano says, "you'd have to be blind not to see that there's a problem."
Its root, he says, is the need for power, and certainly there is no mistaking the church's pervasiveness in Salt Lake City's architecture, or in the makeup of the state government and the business elite.
"Power structures are always taken over by people who believe in power," Mr. Toscano says. "You don't get up there by being a nice guy, you get up there by being someone who knows how to play the game."
Mormonism's growing appeal, Mr. Toscano suggests, is its ordered solution to an increasingly chaotic world. "It's like Catholicism in the second century, and it's going to be the Catholic church of the Western Hemisphere. That's why it's picking up so many converts in Latin America - because it has the same kind of authoritarianism, but jettisons the class system." - MIDDLE KINGDOM Why a faith is on the move REACHING OUT / Conservative in doctrine, strict in its moral code, the Mormon Church uses a global satellite-TV network, multilingual publications and 50,000 missionaries to win converts worldwide. The Globe and Mail (Canada) February 10, 1995

Could find other sources. Cool Hand Luke 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Great quote, CHL. I've made a heavy-handed revert (again) because Paul put all the content back in. Information about his wife and her excommunication is completely irrelevant to this article, and his contributions come across as original research, spam/self-promotion, and conflict of interest. I tried to edit it very fairly. I appreciate your efforts in finding additional sources- I'm sure we can hammer out a good summary based on that quote. Tedder (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is irrelevant; Margaret's subsequent excommunication has been mentioned since the very first version of this article. This coverage is based on at least one reliable source, so is not WP:SYN, namely Peggy Fletcher Stack's ten-year retrospective for the Tribune, "Exiles in Zion." This article covers Margaret's excommunication in 2000. It relates because she was actually the first to be investigated in 1993 according to several accounts—but Paul was excommunicated instead. Cool Hand Luke 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied you were a spammer- that is not at all what I meant. I was trying to revert out Paul's edits and took yours along with them only because they seemed to simply be minor corrections to his. I didn't know Margaret's excommunication had anything to do with the September Six, I thought Paul was only including it because it's his wife. My apologies. Tedder (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem. You didn't imply it; I was too loose in my language.

Anyhow, there's nothing sacred about how the article was written before. It was originally written that way mostly because I was following Peggy Fletcher Stack's article. She certainly has her own biases, but she is an independent source who previously made the connection (and more than most reporters, she can be called an expert in the field). For that reason, Margaret has a legitimate place here, but the depth of coverage is an open question. Moreover, the connection should be clearer in the article. You're right that it was hard to see. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Text not supported by citations

I have removed the Reaction section (below, for your convenience), which has been tagged for months as not being supported by any citations. --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Reaction

Reaction

Reactions to the September Six event within mainstream Mormon circles ranged from apathy to approval to confusion to sympathy. Many LDS people were not even aware of the expulsions; the event was a sudden confrontation between the church leadership and a small scholarly subculture of which most Mormons were unaware. The event took many church members by surprise, and is still not well understood by mainstream Latter-day Saints.

However, the event had repercussions for liberal scholarship and feminism in the contemporary LDS community, greatly discouraging liberals, feminists and "critical" scholarship, while spurring conservative apologetics. Church leaders apparently viewed the disciplinary actions as an opportunity to maintain the doctrinal integrity of the Church and safeguard it from the infiltration of secular ideas or "apostasy."

The September Six event appeared to deliver a strong message that the LDS Church disapproved of members' secular work on Mormonism in the 1990s. Since that time, the LDS Church seems more comfortable with secular discussion of Mormonism. Observers of both trends wonder if the September Six and other casualties ironically helped acclimate the LDS Church to secular study of Mormonism.

Biased statement in introduction

I added the bias tag because this statement:

"This purge of intellectuals was referred to by critics of the LDS Church as an example of the anti-intellectual posture of the LDS leadership."

seems to state that there is an anti-intellectual posture of the LDS leaders. I am not really unbiased about this, and couldn't think of a better way to say this. If someone who is more or less unbiased about this thinks that that statement is OK, I would trust them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.123.112 (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that statement as being biased. It's just stating how one side felt, but the very next sentence states how church members feel. It seems pretty balanced and encyclopedic, but if you can suggest a better alternative, please suggest it here. --Eustress (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Avraham Gileadi

I have reverted edits by a user claiming to be Avraham Gileadi. This is identical to (a subset of) the discussions on the Avraham Gileadi page. Please see the discussion there if you don't like the old material (written by me) that I have reverted to. Carneadiiz (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I take part of that back. The removal of mention of Gileadi's two books is something that only happened to this article and not the biography article. I think that material too should remain, as it's interesting to know that after rebaptism he has continued his work on Isaiah. Carneadiiz (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"a third volume is scheduled for a 2008 publication by Signature Books"

The last time I checked it was 2010... 99.142.69.100 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the phrase. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Article in disrepair

Most of the sources here are broken links at http://signaturebooks.com. This needs to be fixed. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)