Yesterday I read in the Salt Lake Tribune the sad story of Peter and Mary Danzig, a Utah couple who have resigned their membership in The Church of Jesus Christ rather than face Church discipline.
The Danzigs were both volunteer members of the Orchestra at Temple Square, a Church-operated orchestra that is the instrumental equivalent of the Tabernacle Choir. In June 2006 the Salt Lake Tribune published a letter from Peter Danzig opposing the Church’s effort to pass a federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Danzig’s letter also expressed support for Jeffrey Nielsen, a BYU adjunct professor whose contract had not been renewed after he had publicly opposed the Church’s support for the amendment. In his letter Danzig accused Church leaders of exercising “intellectual tyranny” in the Nielsen case, and called Church efforts an “injustice.”
Following the publication of his letter, Peter Danzig was suspended from his position in the Orchestra at Temple Square, apparently at the behest of Church leaders. Mary Danzig later resigned; the Tribune article says she “felt unwelcome in the orchestra.” Over the next year and a half the situation apparently rose to the level of local Church discipline. Rather than face that, the Danzigs resigned their membership in December 2007.
In the wake of this tragic event, I’d like to make a few comments about Church discipline and how stories like these are portrayed in the media.
1. Media reports are always one-sided. As the Tribune article notes, all the Church leaders involved declined to give any comments or written statements on the Danzigs’ case. The Church considers ecclesiastical discipline to be confidential, and does not comment on it. Because of this, reports in the media contain only one side of the issue — that of the disciplined member. Yesterday’s Tribune article tells the story from the Danzigs’ point of view. I am not accusing them of exaggerating or lying; I’m simply saying that there is another side to this story that we’re not hearing.
2. There is a difference between private disagreement with the Church and public criticism of the Church. Peter Danzig contends that there is “[no] room for personal conscience” in the Church, but he is simply mistaken. There are many Church members who disagree with the federal marriage amendment, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a convert and active Latter-day Saint. Senator Reid made public statements against the proposed amendment on the floor of the Senate, and voted against it. The difference between Harry Reid and Peter Danzig is that Danzig didn’t just argue the merits of the bill; he accused the Church of “intellectual tyranny,” requesting him to “violate [his] own conscience,” and supporting “injustice.” This clearly indicates that Danzig doesn’t just disagree with the Church, he believes Church leaders are acting in bad faith.
For what it’s worth, I think the marriage amendment is a very bad idea on Constitutional grounds. It takes power from the states and puts it in the hands of a centralized government, something the writers of the Constitution opposed. It takes away rights from people rather than guaranteeing rights (the only other amendment to do that was the Eighteenth, which prohibited production and sale of alcohol; it’s not insignificant that this is the only amendment that’s been repealed). It could open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences by making individual marriage cases the jurisdiction of federal courts. And it uses federal power to combat the supposed immorality of an unpopular minority group — exactly the same thing that was done to Mormons themselves in the late nineteenth century.
But make no mistake: My personal opposition to the federal marriage amendment does not include condemnation of Church leaders for supporting it. I support and sustain the leaders of the Church, and believe the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acted in good faith in this matter. From my personal interactions with the Brethren, I know of their love for all men and women, and their honest desire to strengthen marriage and help those who struggle with homosexual feelings.
3. A single incidence of criticism almost never leads to Church discipline. The Church Handbook of Instructions defines apostasy as repeated, clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. A single incident simply doesn’t bring down excommunication on an ordinary Church member — only acts continued after leaders have counseled with the member and asked him or her to refrain. The Salt Lake Tribune doesn’t go into what happened between the Danzigs and their local leaders during the year and a half after Peter’s letter was published, so we don’t know what interactions they had. But from my experience serving with three bishoprics, I know for a fact that a single letter to the editor doesn’t result in Church discipline.
4. There is a difference between being a member of the Church, and being an employee of the Church. Jeffrey Nielsen’s BYU contract was not renewed after he came out in opposition to the Church’s stance on the marriage amendment.* But as a Church employee, his actions are under greater scrutiny than the average Church member’s, and justifiably so.
I’m employed by a fairly large financial institution. I have at times disagreed with certain policies and practices of the organization, and have expressed disagreement at various meetings with its leaders. If I were to make one of my disagreements public in a letter to the local newspaper, my employers would be perfectly within their rights to fire me. But if a customer of our institution were to write a letter to a newspaper complaining or our products or policies, we would certainly not close their account.
There is a similar difference between Church employment and Church membership. Nielsen was an employee of the Church, and Danzig was a volunteer with a prominent organization within the Church. Both of them were under greater requirements to refrain from public criticism of the Church than they would have been as regular members.
The Danzigs’ experience is a tragic one — tragic for them as individuals and as a family, and tragic for the loss of their great talent that benefited the Church. But the Salt Lake Tribune article doesn’t tell us the whole story, and it’s doubtful that we’ll ever hear it.
# # #
* Note that the Tribune article says Nielsen “lost his job,” which is not technically accurate. He was adjunct faculty, whose contracts are renewed on term-by-term basis. His contract was not renewed, which is not the same thing as being fired or dismissed.
Update: In a comment on this post, Mike L. pointed out that the Church has issued a press release responding to the Tribune article. In it they give some details the Tribune article failed to mention or in which it was mistaken:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/care-for-the-flock
…the Salt Lake Tribune article doesn’t tell us the whole story, and it’s doubtful that we’ll ever hear it.
The online tribune article article contains a link to Peter Danzig’s complete account of his experience. According on his first-hand testimony, the ultimate impasse came down to the fact that Danzig failed to privately believe the same as Elder Oaks on the nature of homosexuality.
As I said in point #1, Steven, that is Peter Danzig’s side of the story.
I have a fair amount of experience in local Church leadership and discipline, and the contention that Danzig would be subject to Church discipline simply for believing something different about homosexuality is ludicrous. I strongly suspect there’s something else going on that we’re not being told, like repeatedly speaking about it in Church classes or privately gathering a circle of proselytes.
This sort of claim always kills me.
How on earth would leaders of the Church (or anyone else) know what private beliefs Danzig or I hold about any of a myriad issues?
Evil as some presume LDS leaders to be, I wasn’t aware they’d developed mind-reading technology.
One can believe whatever one wants. No one can stop us. When we start acting on those beliefs, and publicly expressing them, we’ve done more than just believe. We have taken a public action. Actions have consequences.
Danzig apparently needs to choose between his desire to be a practicing Latter-day Saint, and his desire to express his view that the Church is in error. He can’t have it both ways.
This is so elementary a principle, I’m amazed that people don’t see it.
You can think someone is dishonest and evil. Say so publicly, though, and you’re liable for a charge of slander or libel. One can believe anything. One can’t expect to say or do anything without consequence. It’s a lesson most of us learn as teenagers, at least–but, some seem to retain a blindspot about it with regards the Church.
The SLTrib is engaged in an active campaign to portray the Church in a negative light at every opportunity. True to their roots, I suppose, but I suspect their more recent motivation is to attract more readers with scurrilous yellow journalism in an attempt to save a failing newspaper venture. Peggy Fletcher Stack and other SLTrib columnists throw themselves into the task with enthusiasm.
An aspect of the story that bothered me from the start was the apparent incongruity between the story headline — “LDS Church disciplines…” and the reality — “…resigned their membership in December”. Of course, insinuating “ecclesiatical abuse” seems to be a popular approach to this sort of story.
Just wanted to point out that church has uncharacteristically decided to post it’s side of the story.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/care-for-the-flock
A very interesting discussion of what the church does and does not consider acceptable. And it leaves open the question of whether excommunication was ever really on the table in this case.
Greg is correct. The only “belief” tests we encounter in the Church involve the baptism interview, the temple recommend interview, and (informally) priesthood advancement interviews or those for important callings. And the worst that can happen is that we don’t get a recommend or get that calling.
There is nothing in the Church Handbook of Instructions that says anything about disciplinary action for failure to believe. It speaks of apostasy as rooted in action, not belief. The handbook even says that total inactivity in the Church
or attending or holding membership in another church(*) does not constitute apostasy.If Peter Danzig were truly facing formal Church discipline for failure to believe something (that isn’t even in any scriptures or handbooks!), I would have counseled him to go through with it and appeal to the stake president or First Presidency.
Like I said, it’s all but obvious that there’s something else going on here that wasn’t reported in the Tribune and that Danzig isn’t telling us.
Thanks for the pointer to the Church news article. Certainly a better editorial presentation of the story than Peggy’s.
Apparently SLTrib editors have no reluctance to embarrass themselves in pursuit of a non-story.
Thanks for the link, Mike L. I added a note at the bottom of my original post, and gave you due credit.
One can believe whatever one wants. No one can stop us. When we start acting on those beliefs, and publicly expressing them, we’ve done more than just believe. We have taken a public action. Actions have consequences.
That sounds more like a Stalinist regime, than a church. What you are in essence saying is that members of the LDS church should be dishonest with their fellow beings, by hiding their true feelings. That’s called deception, and it sure doesn’t come from any omniscient, perfect, righteous deity.
As for the LDS press release, it is remarkably deceptive and self-serving. Since when is political persecution of homosexuals through efforts to deny them equal civil rights a “doctrine of the [LDS] church?”
Further, while the infamous twice-read (unprecedented, I believe, in that alone) call to action technically urged U.S. members to “express themselves” in letters to their senators, the CONTEXT of that letter made it abundantly clear exactly what “view” the First Presidency wished members to express. Any claim that the First Presidency “did not request support or opposition to the amendment” is a statement that, in religious terms, can only be attributed to the “father of lies.”
Thanks for this informative post. I really appreciate getting some more light shed on the story. I’m a bit frustrated that I can’t get the church’s article to come up though.
I don’t like the church responding to this, and I don’t like the church coming down on people who disagree with its position on homosexual marriage. For goodness sake, this is the church that was ostracized for practicing polygamy. I don’t think we have any right to persecute people for their view of marriage after what people did to us back in the day. It’s hypocritical to say the least.
There must be something wrong with the coding on the church’s web site. I had to switch browsers to be able to read the story.
Here’s the most relevant portion:
Oh please, Nick. Pull the other one. Stalinist? That’s offensive to anyone who knows anything about what Stalin inflicted on people. This kind of rhetorical excess just seeks to hide with bluster what cannot be sustained with argument. (It’s somewhat akin to the also gay D. Michael Quinn’s claim that BYU was an “Auschwitz of the mind.” Right.)
No one is keeping anyone from expressing their feelings or deepest beliefs. But, I repeat–actions have consequences. You don’t get to advocate forced agricultural collectivization and be a member of the Republican party.
I might be intensely attracted to my neighbor’s wife. I may even think the Church is wrong to keep me from acting on my attraction. But, I have two choices:
* I can keep quiet about it, and keep my membership
* I can advocate adultery or free love, and probably get booted.
Actions have consequences.
It’s not called deception, it’s called picking your priorities.
Believe it or not, we do not have a need to express every thought that crosses our minds. If my daughter gives an excruciating violin performance, and if I tell her that she’s the least talented child up there, that might well be TRUE, and might well reflect what I THINK, but it hardly makes me a paragon of virtue if I decide to do so.
Since when is “marriage” a civil right? Marriage is a social institution, in which citizens as a group deem a relationship of sufficient importance to grant it protection and status under the law.
Nothing stops you from living with your gay lover. Nothing stops you from having a committed relationship. (Indeed, I would love to see data to suggest that most male gay relationships can persist long term and remain mutually monogamous, but that seems the exception rather than the rule, even when compared to heterosexual ‘common law’ couples.)
But, there’s no “right” requiring society to sanction a relationship and grant it privileges. If you aren’t being jailed or denied due process, or denied the right to private acts in your own home, or access to medical care, or somesuch, “civil rights” doesn’t enter into it.
You want society as a group to grant a priviledge to your particular social organization. Well, society gets a say in that.
It’s “coming down” on those that are publicly opposing the Church and its teachings despite being warned otherwise.
Again, that subtlety seems to be escaping some of us. 🙂
Should I really be able to advocate any stance, on anything, and remain a member of the Church? Name one other organization that operates under that method.
The problem was not the Church being “ostracized” for plural marriage. Mormons were ostracized for many other things long before plural marriage. There is no right not to be ostracized, and no right to societal approval or agreement.
You have a right to be an idiot, and I have a right to consider you an idiot, as it were. 🙂
The problem was what was a legislative assault on religious belief, driven by religious enemies using the law as a cover. It also included attacks on a variety of key US liberties, like right to trial by jury, right to presumption of innocence, right to vote, local government under federalism, etc.
There is a vast literature on this, but it is NOT analagous in any but the most crude way.
A marriage amendment prohibiting “gay marriage” no more prevents gays from having any committed relationship they want and calling it whatever they want. It just refuses to grant social sanction to the union.
Persecute? C’mon, pull the other one. When the Church starts sending paid informers into San Francisco, and jailing people who live in consensual gay relationships, then you may have a case that you can compare to plural marriage. When the US army marches out to suppress private gay acts in homes, call me. I’ll stand on the barricades with you.
Besides, any cursory review of the history of marriage in human history shows a rather wide divide from endorsing polygamy (which has been the default setting for human marriage) and “gay marriage.”
The only “belief” tests we encounter in the Church involve the baptism interview, the temple recommend interview . . . . And the worst that can happen is that we don’t get a recommend or get that calling.
As I read it, Danzig wanted to resolve the matter, which clearly would not be resolved if he was denied a temple recommend. And that is exactly what his bishop did–for not aligning his personal understanding of the nature of homosexuality with that of Elder Oaks.
But is this grounds for denial of a recommend?
One wouldn’t think so. Perhaps there is indeed more to the story. By the way, here is the link to Danzig’s account:
http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2008/01/update-more-on.html
I really appreciate this blog for its clear explanations of the relevant facts and arguments. Thank you Greg Smith and others. For me, the most difficult thing to understand about the Church is why someone who had been touched by the spirit and testimony would walk away. We all have to be careful about the consequences of pride. Everyone can be offended and have feelings hurt, from time to time. What really matters is how we reconcile those matters without letting them conquer our best self.
1. Media reports are always one-sided.
Sometimes, but certainly not always. In this instance, the reporter attempted to gain the Church’s side of the story, but the Church made a decision not to respond. So should the reporter have dropped the story? I don’t think so. If a reporter killed a story every time he or she got a “no comment” many crucial stories would go unpublished and the public would be greatly harmed.
This was a very interesting story to me and while I agree there is probably more going on here than meets the eye, I welcome the heads up from the Tribune and I will be watching this one closely. The fact that the Church responded with a press release after the fact intrigues me greatly. I really think the reporter sniffed out a valid story here.
While I don’t always agree with the Tribune’s coverage of Mormon issues, I value its efforts to keep me informed. Because I also take the Deseret News, I can seek additional information there. Between the two I think I stay informed.
… But the fact is that Danzig wasn’t disciplined, despite what the headline says. …
One wonders if Elder Cook’s recent statement on how the Church is not going to continue to sit on the sidelines while others define the issues may be at work here.
I doubt there’s any “sinister” story here. And, whether someone leaving a Church because they don’t like it’s teachings is newsworthy…well, only in Utah, and only when it can be spun to further an agenda, I suppose.
I mean, do we suppose for one minute that, say, a member of GLAAD in a publicly-visible position would last five minutes if they advocated that those with homosexual inclinations ought to not engage in gay sex?
Is this Stalinist? Oppressive? If you can’t be a GLAAD-ite and also preach abstinence from gay sex, does this mean GLAAD is advocating deception and dishonesty?
So, if the Church shouldn’t be allowed to discipline those who advocate against the Church’s doctrines on gay sex, what precisely is the Church allowed to discipline someone for?
* If someone wants to preach God doesn’t exist, do they still get to stay?
* How about admitting God exists but Jesus wasn’t the Christ?
* Can they deny Joseph Smith’s divine call? Is it OK to call him a charlatan, and still hold oneself out as a Church member?
* If I advocate HETEROSEXUAL sex outside of monogamous marriage, can I be disciplined?
What, pray tell, makes contradicting the Church’s doctrine on gay sex such a “sacred cow”?
This would be laughable, if so many people weren’t deadly serious that the Church has somehow overstepped some bounds.
The Church’s Thought Police didn’t exactly hack Danzig’s e-mail, or break the heart-shaped locket on his $2.99 Special Moments My Little Pony Dear Diary and read his thoughts about gay marriage. The dude wrote a letter to the editor, with the expectation (one presumes) that it can be published.
How long after I write my anti-gay sex letter to the New York Times and sign it as “GLAAD member” before GLAAD disavows me? And, wouldn’t they be right–and perfectly within their rights–to do so?
There are only a few issues of belief in the temple recommend interview:
1) Do you believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Ghost?
2) Do you believe Christ is Savior and Redeemer?
3) Do you believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
That’s it. Everything else is about behavior, not belief.
For example, you have to answer whether you sustain local and general leaders. The question is not whether you believe everything they say, or agree with them, or think they’ve got it all right. The question is about what you do.
And, writing letters to the editor criticizing the acts and teachings of leaders of the Church is hardly sustaining.
The irony, it seems to me, is that what so-called “gay rights” groups can’t stand above anything else is having someone tell them that their behavior is out of line.
But, this is what religions do–they preach appropriate and inappropriate behavior. They can’t–and shouldn’t–force anyone else to listen, or comply.
But, there’s likewise no mythical “right” to my vote in society’s approval of behavior I consider wrong. I can’t stop it, but I don’t have to give it my blessing.
So, it’s not surprising that “gay rights” advocates get offended when someone else suffers consequences for their actions. It’s the last thing that they want to hear, since if one person’s actions have legitimate consequences, then so do theirs.
And, that idea is strictly verbotten.
What does disciplined mean? Excommunicated? Disfellowshiped? Suspended? The story reports that Mr. Danzig was suspended from the orchestra. I don’t think the Tribune is being patently unfair in characterizing a suspension as discipline. And yes, the suspension was from the Orchestra at Temple Square and not the Church itself, but I think the two are sufficiently related in the public eye to be seen as essentially the same entity.
I don’t mean to derail a valuable conversation (and if I am, please toss my post aside and move on- it just seems like probably the right people to give me insight on a question are reading and commenting on this thread)
So a neighbor of mine catches her husband in a homosexual affair. He’s been active in the church ever since I remember- holding callings, teaching classes- even serving in two bishoprics.
He admits to her that he’s been involved with a dozen or so gay partners since his mission. She files for divorce. He presumably faced some kind of church discipline. This is about a year ago.
So the other day I’m at the temple, and who walks up to me in the celestial room and says hi but this guy. I can’t act like I know nothing because we knew each other well and our families were closer than most. But I don’t mention his ordeal and neither does he, and we leave it at that.
So I can’t help but wonder- what on earth happened? Because of my calling and my friendship with this guy, I’m pretty clear as to what he did. He’s extremely open about it.
What I’m not clear about is how he did what he did for decades and is in the celestial room a year after it comes to light. Was he not disciplined? Was he disciplined but not Ex-ed? Could he have somehow changed his orientation and found his way back to the church?
This I do know- he never criticized local or general church leaders, he never disavowed the church. And he apparently sustains church leaders now. Is that the difference?
Greg,
Believe it or not, we do not have a need to express every thought that crosses our minds. If my daughter gives an excruciating violin performance, and if I tell her that she’s the least talented child up there, that might well be TRUE, and might well reflect what I THINK, but it hardly makes me a paragon of virtue if I decide to do so.
Motivation certainly comes into play here, Greg. In your example, you are holding your tongue out of (a) love for your daughter, and (b) knowledge that praising her albeit limited success as a way of encouraging further progress. IMO, this is quite different from the example I pointed to.
(Indeed, I would love to see data to suggest that most male gay relationships can persist long term and remain mutually monogamous, but that seems the exception rather than the rule, even when compared to heterosexual ‘common law’ couples.)
Greg, the often-touted “statistics” which “prove” that gay relationships are short-lived come from a study which was limited to non-monogamous gay men under 30, living in Amsterdam. Those who were monogamously coupled were explicitly rejected. Those who were over the age of 30 were explicitly rejected. This alone heavily skewed the data.
If you aren’t being jailed or denied due process, or denied the right to private acts in your own home, or access to medical care, or somesuch, “civil rights” doesn’t enter into it.
Greg, the Government Accounting Office has identified over 1,100 federal legal rights and responsibilities which are directly attached to marriage. My own state has identifed over 400 state legal rights and responsibilities which are attached to marriage. Some of these really are “no-brainers,” such as the fact that my partner and I are unable to enjoy the tax benefits of marriage, not because we choose not to marry (as is the case with hetero cohabitating couples), but rather because we are prohibited. I am unable to receive health insurance for my partner, because I work for a government entity subject to DOMA, which effectively means I am paid less than my straight co-workers who are in comparable living arrangements. The issue is far more complex than just “societal recognition,” and by your own definition, does come into the realm of civil rights.
Darrel,
For me, the most difficult thing to understand about the Church is why someone who had been touched by the spirit and testimony would walk away. We all have to be careful about the consequences of pride. Everyone can be offended and have feelings hurt, from time to time. What really matters is how we reconcile those matters without letting them conquer our best self.
While I recognize the kind intent of your words, please consider that there is also a certain degree of pride in thinking that those who choose to leave the LDS church are acting out of pride, “hurt feelings,” or a “conquered best self.”
Back to Greg,
If you can’t be a GLAAD-ite and also preach abstinence from gay sex, does this mean GLAAD is advocating deception and dishonesty?
Greg, I think you miss the point. The LDS church is taking a stance that one may privately (i.e. secretly) think whatever they like, but the moment they honestly express those thoughts, they are subject to discipline. Mr. Danzig was pressured to conform his expressions to those expressed by the First Presidency and Oaks, even if they violated his own conscience. That’s wrong. If you worked for a company that expected you to act against your own conscience, the honorable thing for you to do would be to resign.
So, if the Church shouldn’t be allowed to discipline those who advocate against the Church’s doctrines on gay sex, what precisely is the Church allowed to discipline someone for?
Feel free to show me if I’m wrong, Greg, but I don’t see that Mr. Danzig ever “advocated against the [LDS] church’s doctrines on gay sex.” Rather, he opposed the First Presidency’s direction (at the very least implied) that members should take political action to support a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He opposed a political stance, not a “doctrine.”
Tossman,
The nature and extent of Church discipline depends a great deal on several key circumstances, including:
Based on the facts as you’ve described them, I’m surprised this individual has retained his membership and temple recommend.
However, there may be extenuating circumstances that you’re not aware of.
Or this individual may have an overly-generous stake president.
And, holding one’s tongue about gay mattes might represent love for the Lord, love for the leaders you believe He has called, and love for those of homosexual attraction, since if one truly believes the core doctrines of the Church,
All the examples you list are privileges or benefits, not “rights.” They are granted by society because society (presumably) has decided it has a vested interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage. Health insurance is not “a right” under the US Constitution. Tax breaks are not “a right.”
Actually, I wasn’t thinking about the Amsterdam data, with which I am not familiar. I was thinking (among other things) of The Gay Couple by, well, a Gay Couple. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison were the authors, and they could find no gay relationship in which mutual fidelity was maintained for more than 5 years: “the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together.”
One would think if anyone had a vested interest in finding that sort of data, it would be a gay couple writing about gay couples.
Not, as I say, that I wouldn’t be thrilled to see mutual monogamy among gays. But, my experience and much of the literature would seem to argue that it is very much the exception, and not the rule.
No, I am taking the position that one may not publicly advocate against the clear doctrines and standards of the Church and expect to remain a member. I find it astonishing that anyone would be surprised or upset about this.
Again, I ask–what doctrines of the Church IS someone allowed to be disciplined for if they violate them?
Oh, c’mon Nick, let’s not be that naive. Does gay marriage have nothing to do with gay sex? Are we really to believe that establishing gay marriage will suddenly make people LESS inclined to engage in gay sex, or that “gay marriages” will be all about tax breaks and insurance, and not about sex? Are these going to be celibate marriages? I must have missed that part of the brochure.
If you approve gay marriage, you are clearly endorsing homosexual behavior. And, homosexual behavior contradicts 2000 years of Christian doctrine (and Jewish doctrine before that) as well as the clearly stated stance of the Church on both chastity and the nature of God and man. Those are not trivial doctrines.
Danzig did far more than express a belief. He moved to advocacy, writing letters to the editor.
I ask again, since you dodged the issue. Can GLAAD control what those who hold itself out as it’s members do? If not, why not?
If so, why can’t the LDS Church?
Greg Smith said:
Just a small correction, Greg. The first three TR questions, which have to do with belief, are (paraphrasing):
1. Do you have a testimony of God, Jesus, and the HG?
2. Do you have a testimony of JC and his role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the Gospel in these the latter days?
There is no question about belief in the Book of Mormon (or, for that matter, any of the other standard works).
-Allen
Nick writes:
This is a clever distortion of the truth. As a member of the Church, I am free to think and say whatever I want. I only cross the boundaries if (a) I speak publicly and repeatedly in criticism of the Church or (b) I attempt to convert others to my personal beliefs. The Church has the right to expel those who are publicly critical of it, and the responsibility to protect other Church members from those who would turn them against the teachings of the Church.
As you can see in my original post, Nick, I have expressed my disagreement with the Church’s stance on the federal marriage amendment. But I did not criticize the brethren for acting in bad faith (Danzig did), and I am not trying to gain a band of followers.
Also note that Danzig was never once subjected to Church discipline. He was suspended from a Church orchestra (a volunteer position of privilege), and he voluntarily resigned his Church membership.
Which is exactly what Danzig did.
For what it’s worth, I wrote my senators during the federal marriage amendment debate and asked them to vote against it. I did exactly what the Brethren asked me to. And I haven’t been threatened with Church discipline or had my standing in the Church damaged in any way.
You seem unwilling or unable to see the difference between holding a different view than the Church leaders, and publicly criticizing Church leaders for their views. As Greg has pointed out, this one’s pretty obvious and straightforward.
Mike Parker said:
Being in the correcting mode, just figured you might want to know that the most recent GHBI was changed so that membership in another church does constitute apostasy. It is an offense for which Church discipline is mandated.
-Allen
That’s an interesting change, Allen. I always thought the handbook was being overly-lenient.
It is interesting that a church spokesman was interviewed and quoted for the story, but the church gripes after the fact that it was one-sided. And the church refused to comment (though given ample opportunity to do so) on the specifics for the story, but then gives its side in the form of a press release after the fact.
Ooops, sorry. How can you tell I’ve never done a recommend interview? 🙂
Long may I remain so ignorant! 🙂
The Church won’t comment on the disciplinary procedure(s), but will comment on errors of fact, it seems. It’s hard to do that before the fact, since you don’t know which errors of fact will be made.
If this is a new approach, it will be interesting to see how it evolves.
Did you read the press release, Equality?
Note the following paragraph:
Mike,
This is a clever distortion of the truth. As a member of the Church, I am free to think and say whatever I want. I only cross the boundaries if (a) I speak publicly and repeatedly in criticism of the Church or (b) I attempt to convert others to my personal beliefs.
First of all, Mike, by stating that I’ve made a “clever distortion of the truth,” you accuse me of wilful misrepresentation. I’m not sure if this was entirely your intent, but your language certainly makes it appear so. I have no interest in misrepresenting the LDS church, intentionally or not.
Now, you’ve made much of saying that you can express your disagreement, so long as you don’t criticize LDS leaders in the process. That really doesn’t escape the problem I pointed out. Let me explain.
I said:
The LDS church is taking a stance that one may privately (i.e. secretly) think whatever they like, but the moment they honestly express those thoughts, they are subject to discipline.
Suppose, Mike, that your private thoughts are specifically that the leadership of the LDS church is wrong in urging support of a constitutional amendment. If you express those private thoughts, you are subject to discipline, just as you have repeatedly pointed out. One ends up in the position of hiding one’s thoughts, and carrying on a deception by allowing (or even encouraging) others to think that you agree with and approve the leadership’s action.
Jim Cobabe: The SLTrib is engaged in an active campaign to portray the Church in a negative light at every opportunity. True to their roots, I suppose, but I suspect their more recent motivation is to attract more readers with scurrilous yellow journalism in an attempt to save a failing newspaper venture. Peggy Fletcher Stack and other SLTrib columnists throw themselves into the task with enthusiasm.
Do you know Peggy Fletcher Stack? I do. She’s an active Latter-day Saint. She’s also a good reporter. If you want to take issue with some aspect of her story, go right ahead. But conspiratorial comments about her enthusiastic complicity in some anti-Mormon smear campaign underminds your credibility.
Nick, you are a very intelligent fellow. This issue is so patently obvious that your line of argument appears to be distortion for polemical purposes. Your last paragraph is a perfect example:
No, that is not what I’ve said. I’ve said that publicly criticizing the Church is the issue here. (See my exact wording here.) As I’ve stated several times now, I’ve publicly expressed my private thoughts in opposition to the marriage amendment, and no Church discipline has been brought against me.
Which could be the case in any organization where one’s personal views go against the grain but one still wishes to maintain good standing within the group.
As a Freemason, you certainly couldn’t get up in a public meeting an state that you think Masonic ritual has close ties to Satan worship and still continue to maintain your lodge leadership position — or even membership.
This is really, really simple, Nick. You’re trying to turn it into something horrific when it’s not. Groups have the right and obligation to set standards of belief and practice among their members. If I publicly criticize my group’s leadership, I can’t honestly expect to stay in good graces within the group.
And you’re still ignoring the fact that no Church discipline was ever taken against Danzig.
FWIW, I agree with Chris Williams. Stack’s reporting smacks of desperation for a juicy story, not an agenda-driven attack.
First of all, I wasn’t ignoring the matter of the Trib’s inaccurate and misleading headline. It was wrong, since the Danzig’s had their names removed from the records of the LDS church before a disciplinary council was held. I didn’t address this because I thought others had already pointed that out rather clearly. FWIW, I understand the Trib has now changed the headline in the online version.
Mike, we seem to be talking past one another. I understand your point that an organization has the right to set requirements for membership. The LDS church could suddenly decide that all members must wear only purple shirts, and excommunicate anyone caught in a blue polo. Such would be their right as an organization. For that matter, the LDS church could excommunicate each and every member in a single stroke of the pen, and that would still be within the organization’s right.
What I am talking about isn’t a matter of the LDS church’s rights, Mike. I’m talking about personal integrity, and suggesting that when leaders require members to hide their personal thoughts, and either actively or passively deceive others in doing so, there’s a problem.
For some people, the solution is to bring your private thoughts in line with what the leadership has said (i.e., “you should think what they tell you to think,” or that odious phrase, “when the brethren have spoken, the thinking is done”). Honestly, this brings to mind the old saying, “a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” This “solution” requires an actual abrogation of one’s own freedom of thought, choosing to think whatever a respected authority says one should think.
For others, a conflict ensues. If the issue is of any importance (heck, most aren’t), the person is left in a position where silence in the face of perceived injustice feels like moral cowardice, if not outright deception. If that person chooses silence, that person will know in their heart that they are not acting with integrity. If that person chooses to speak publicly, that person will be seen as an “enemy of the LDS church,” no matter how “faithful” they may otherwise be. It’s a terrible bind, Mike.
Nick L. said:
And herein lies the rub… If I think that the Church leadership is wrong in supporting a constitutional amendment, I have two choices.
First, I can go on the public record saying that the Church leadership is wrong.
Second, I can go on the public record not supporting the constitutional amendment.
For the first choice I would be disciplined, or at least threatened with discipline (ala Danzig). For the second choice I would not be disciplined (ala Harry Reid).
I understand the choices, and so (I assume) do Danzig and Reid. Should the Church be criticized for their actions in regards to either of these individuals?
-Allen
Harry Reid is a somewhat inapt comparison, Allen, since the LDS church has basically carved out an exception for elected officials in their official capacity.
For “ordinary” members, I don’t think your choices as simple as you suggest. If an LDS member “goes on the public record” as opposing the proposed constitutional amendment, many LDS would consider that member to be acting in defiance to the First Presidency–in essence, saying that the First Presidency is wrong.
It’s clear that many LDS members in the bloggernacle have, in fact, “gone on the public record” in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment. While I don’t personally know of any of them being called in by local leaders for this, I’ve certainly seen other LDS bloggers condemn these individuals for “not following the prophet.” Local leaders can vary considerably in temperament and viewpoint. As a result, blog comments could certainly lead to an uncomfortable meeting with one’s bishop or stake president.
Nick,
If Danzig felt the First Presidency’s position was unjust, the proper action would have been to take it up with the First Presidency, either by letter or by requesting an audience. Instead, he chose to make a public statement — not just in disagreement with them, but critical of them. (Note his use of phrases like “intellectual tyranny.”)
At the time he was a member of a select group of musicians who represent the Church. He was suspended from that group until he could work out his issues. He was not excommunicated from the Church, and there are no grounds on which a disciplinary council could be called against him for his beliefs.
He does not have to “choose silence in the face of perceived injustice,” but if he chooses to make a spectacle of himself, he can’t expect to maintain a position where he represents the Church.
If one deeply feels the Church’s position is immoral and the leaders aren’t willing to change, one should resign from the Church. It’s that simple. Danzig ultimately made the choice that is in line with his conscience. So have you. More power to you.
Any personal discomfort you may have felt during the time you were deciding to leave the Church was simply cognitive dissonance. You resolved the dissonance by deciding the Church was wrong and you were right.
No one has ever asked me to “hide my personal thoughts,” and, as you can see from what I’ve written above, I haven’t. This equating of the Church with Orwell’s “Thought Police” is simply ridiculous.
If Danzig felt the First Presidency’s position was unjust, the proper action would have been to take it up with the First Presidency, either by letter or by requesting an audience.
“Proper” only in terms of LDS policy, you mean. I assume you are aware, by the way, that individuals’ letters to the First Presidency are routinely forwarded to that individual’s stake president, without a First Presidency reply. Writing, let alone “requesting an audience,” is thus not an effective way for individual members to bring their concerns to the attention of the First Presidency. In a church with several million active members, this is basically inevitable.
Of course, I won’t say that the First Presidency never responds or acts on such letters. I know of one case where a stake president was threatening a member with loss of a temple recommend for becoming a Freemason, and after that member wrote to President Hinckley, the stake president was corrected via an area authority.
Instead, he chose to make a public statement — not just in disagreement with them, but critical of them. (Note his use of phrases like “intellectual tyranny.”)
I can understand your point that the phrase in question was emotionally loaded, Mike. Suppose that Mr. Danzig had merely said, in relation to the matter, “I believe the First Presidency is wrong.” Would that have come under fire for being “critical” of the First Presidency?
Now, your point with regard to participation in the Tabernacle Orchestra has some validity. Assuming that participation in that group, like participation in the Tabernacle Choir, is considered a “missionary” calling, it may well have been appropriate to ask Mr. Danzig to leave the orchestra.
. . . and there are no grounds on which a disciplinary council could be called against him for his beliefs.
I agree. Evidently his local leaders did not agree, since he was being threatened with a disciplinary council, and only thereafter chose to have his name removed from the records of the LDS church.
If one deeply feels the Church’s position is immoral and the leaders aren’t willing to change, one should resign from the Church. It’s that simple. Danzig ultimately made the choice that is in line with his conscience. So have you. More power to you.
On that much, I agree with you, Mike. Unfortunately, you and I are in the minority, when compared with many LDS who believe the only proper answer is to conform your thoughts and feelings with the official positions of LDS leadership.
In any organization of substantial size there is going to be limited access to the top leadership and little chance to affect policy. In the absence of that, grandstanding or publicly criticizing the leadership isn’t likely to score any points. This is the point I keep coming back to — Danzig didn’t just voice his opposition to the marriage amendment, he attacked the Brethren.
Simply saying “I believe the First Presidency is wrong” is softer than accusing them of “intellectual tyranny” and “injustice.” Who knows what would have happened in that case? From my personal point of view, I believe the FP to have good intentions and to have well-considered their position re. the amendment. I came to a different conclusion than they did, but I don’t take their counsel lightly and I wouldn’t dare speak ill of them in public — I sustain them in their callings.
WRT to the actions of Danzig’s local leadership, we have only Danzig’s word on how they acted. It’s possible they threatened him with a DC for his beliefs, but I find it highly (HIGHLY) unlikely, based on my experiences. It seems more likely to me that it wasn’t just his letter and his private beliefs; he was making a repeated issue of it among members in his ward or stake, and that’s what made him a target. But since we don’t have both sides of the story, we’ll never know.
When one belongs to and believes in a church that claims to be the only true church, one that has leaders who receive revelation from God, that is an inevitable feeling that many will adopt. The alternative is to not believe it and leave, or temper that belief with understanding that the men who lead it are also men with imperfections and opinions, just like the rest of us. I see one of FAIR’s missions to be the tempering of a dogmatic approach to the gospel.
The Trib’s story gets rewritten in a Boston media blog.
-Allen
I’m not sure if anyone stated so here, but Mr. Danzig admitted that he had written three different letters to three different publications, all of which were apparently published. I’m not sure why the Salt Lake Tribune failed to mention that and failed to publish the other two letters he had written. This was not a one-off kind of thing. It was a calculated, letter-writing campaign against the Church leadership
His final letter seemed to indicate that he supported a group known as Affirmation and advocated that people send flowers to the First Presidency as a form of protest.
He also, apparently, refers to the Church as an abuser in the Bostom media block cited above.
So again, Nick–can I call GLAAD an abuser for encouraging “gay marriage” or gay sex, orchestrate a letter-writing campaign, and remain a member in good standing? Should I?
Thanks for the post. Very well stated.
I agree with Mike Parker on this. There is a difference between stating your disagreement with the First Presidency and what it appears Mr. Danzing did. Although I support a marriage amendment, I am sympothetic to those who don’t support it and recognize that they have valid arguments, and they also (contrary to what some people are saying here) are able to express that view and not be subject to church discipline, as evidenced by senators and others such as Mike Parker who have done so. I’m not an expert in church discipline, but my opinion is that Mr. Danzing would not have had so much trouble if he had left it at that and not questioned the First Presidency’s intentions and organized protests against them.
And I also think it’s very unfortunate that we are here discussing what should have been a private matter between Mr. Danzing, his church leaders, and God. None of us really have any business sticking our noses in this, but Mr. Danzing chose to go out with a bang and so here we are.
dpc: Do you happen to have links or sources of the other letters Mr. Danzig wrote? I’d like to read them if you have any information on where to find them.
Guy:
My information comes from Equality’s blog and questions that I asked directly to Peter and Mary (Paul not being available for comment). I also wrongly stated that Mr. Danzig was involved with Affirmation, when it appears he was sympathetic to LDS Safe Space. Here is the text of three letters, the name of the publication they were published in and the dates
First Letter:
Published in The Daily Herald on June 6, 2006
Congress is debating the federal marriage amendment.
If this amendment were passed it would restrict the right of a minority to set up a legally defined family with those they love.
From its conception our nation was founded on the idea that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
These rights were held in the first foundation document of our fledgling nation to be “self-evident.” Sadly, however, “we the people” have too often trampled on this fundamental principle.
Initially only white men were found to be created equal. It took courage and dedication to win those same rights, first for men of other races, and later for women. Indeed, the struggle to ensure that those rights are protected from infringement is ongoing.
How can we uphold that singular and profound purpose when we begin to restrict the rights of a minority out of fear or religious conviction that they do not share?
Support the principles that have guided our nation since its inception by opposing the amendment on marriage.
Second letter:
Published in the Salt Lake Tribune on June 14, 2006 and possibly reprinted in the Sanpete Messenger
As a member of the LDS church, returned missionary, and member of the Orchestra at Temple Square I am appalled at the intellectual tyranny that our leadership has exercised through the summary dismissal of Jeffery Nielson from his teaching position at BYU for speaking his mind in an op-ed published June 4 in the Tribune.
I was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the Gospel of Christ. I am even more discouraged to see how they deal with an honest difference of opinion.
I wish to express to Jeffery Nielson that I admire his courage and that I stand with him. I hope that rank and file members of the church as well as members of the lay clergy who also find this troubling will have the courage to step forward and let themselves be known. To do anything else would be to hide in the shadow of an injustice.
Third letter:
Published in the Deseret News on June 19, 2006.
The Safe Space Coalition (www.ldssafespace.org) is an initiative that “works to ensure safety and respect for gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints.” They have plans to send flowers and noncombative letters of support for the creation of more safe space in the LDS Church.
Stop by the Web site. Send a flower to a religious leader.
Thank you for posting those, dpc.
The first letter I find unproblematic.
The second attacks the Brethren from a position of representing the Church (via the Orchestra).
The third is disingenuous; if you look at the LDS Safe Space web site, it’s abundantly clear they want more than “safety and respect” — they want to the Church to sanction homosexual relationships.
And, no wonder the Orchestra became an issue: he MADE it an issue, and tried to use it as a pulpit or means to enhance his stature in an attack on the Church.
Again, this is a no-brainer. The impressive thing is that the local leaders worked with him for 18 months.
“As a member of the GLAAD orchestra, I just want to say that homosexual sex is a grave sin in the sight of God.”
“What??? I was just expressing my opinion.”
“As a member of the NAACP glee club, I just want to say that blacks are inherently inferior to whites.”
“What??? Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
dpc:
Yes, thanks for posting these and for the reference sources. Mr. Danzig is not the “gentle musician” portrayed by Peggy Fletcher Stack. He is very much the Mormon Activist he claimed all along not to be. How disappointing he can shield himself from the strict scrutiny he deserves while dragging the Church and its leadership through this recent nonsense in the media. He fools only himself.
I don’t know Fletcher Stack, but I did attend a fireside at the U of U a few years back where she was the speaker. At the time I had never heard of her, so I went in with no bias. I realize this is completely unfair of me, but I did come away with a- let’s say- “different” vibe than with other firesides. There was something kinda “sunstoney” about her. Didn’t think about it for a few years until I started reading the Trib more and got to wondering. Sure enough, I was right.
Anyway, I know this is unadulterated judging on my part, but if you didn’t know she was active LDS and had to guess based on her work in the Trib, you’d probably guess she was either a non-member or a former member. Just sayin’.
Tossman-
“Sunstoney”? That seems somehow like it was meant to be derogatory. I grow so weary of people saying that if people fall out of the accepted norms of the LDS church, they are either apostate or radicals. I think unless we know a person’s heart, it is not ours to judge. Therefore, I do not judge you for your comments, but urge caution.
Mike Parker said:
Mike, my experience in sitting on a number of different disciplinary councils is that it all depends on the attitude of the stake president. I have certainly seen members disciplined for what they believe. It was viewed as apostasy to not believe in the historicity of the BOM, and to doubt the official version of the First Vision, among other things. I don’t think it is common, but it certainly happens.
Jacob said “I do not judge you for your comments, but urge caution.”
Or what, I’ll face FAIR blog disciplinary action?
Seriously, what meant is that given my limited research into Sunstone and not knowing Ms./Mrs. Fletcher Stack’s prior affiliation with it, I was able to make the connection from her fireside talk. That’s all. I simply connected the dots. Get offended if you like.
How did the stake president know about these deviations in belief without the member doing something about it besides just (not) believing?
I gotta get me one of those stake president mind reading devices. 🙂
Greg is right on the money. Where people get in trouble for unorthodox beliefs is not in believing them, it’s in repeatedly teaching them.
The Church Handbook gives one definition of “apostasy” as continuing to teach something as Church doctrine after being corrected by Church authorities. There are some people who get on their hobby horse and ride it all the way to a disciplinary council.
The Church Handbook gives one definition of “apostasy” as continuing to teach something as Church doctrine after being corrected by Church authorities.
But we have no indication that Danzig did this, do we? He wrote three letters to newspapers, but those were within several days of each other. The subsequent 18 months were spent dealing with the fallout. On the surface, this does not appear to be a case of continuing to “teach” an unproved doctrine after being corrected, or continuing to speak out publicly. Rather, it appears to be the result of Danzig’s inability or unwillingness to align his personal beliefs and empirical observations regarding the nature of homosexuality with those of certain general authorities.
I had the honor of having my Institute teacher also be my stake president. He taught us many things about the inner workings of the “running” of the church including disciplinary councils. One of the things that I remember very distinctly that he talked about was that it isn’t always even about the specific actions that a person does but it is more about the attitude of the individual and how that behavior might harm others. I had always wondered why people could have children outside of marriage and not receive much discipline while others commit the same or a seemingly lesser sin and be immediately ex-communicated. When he taught us this principle of attitude he also referred to what we know about the things that happened in the pre-mortal life. We know that there were two plans presented and one was chosen. We know that those who chose to follow the plan even after it was not chosen were cast out from the presence of the Father. They had not, at that time, actually done anything more than have an attitude that was contrary to the will of the Father. Inherent in that is an assumption of pride, thinking that they know better than those who are in authority to speak on behalf of the Lord. While I feel that priesthood holders are mortal and make mistakes at times, that is why we have the spirit to confirm to us the things that are being said to us. We also have a hierarchy within the church to address concerns we have about any principle or stance of the church and it appears in this case that this individual chose not to use that to resolve his concerns.
I was also talking to a friend about this who reminded me that Jesus isn’t the “love all people regardless of anything” person that people like to think of Him. He set people right and corrected many things He saw that were being done incorrectly. There were many who took his words to be too harsh or not in line with the prevailing culture of the time. Many rejected his message but yet he continued to correct and preach. He loved all people but rejected actions and attitudes that were contrary to eternal truths. I think we would all be wise to remember these things.
Militant apostates often assert some right to remake the Church or its doctrines in their image. They assume, thereby, dictatorial powers they soon find impossible to exercise, primarily because so few agree with them. Typically, their next shrill pronouncement is that Church authorities practice tyranny.
The Church’s rightful director is, has always been, and will always be the Lord, Jesus Christ. We acknowledge as much, and make a conscious choice to unite ourselves with His Church, by professing belief in its doctrines and requesting baptism. Subsequent disbelief conveys no new right to direct or remake the Church or its doctrines.
It is both intellectually dishonest, and gratuitously insulting to believing Church members, for an apostate to presume that his/her newfound disbelief confers some right to demand that millions of believing Church members modify their prophetically-directed beliefs or practices. If such an apostate cannot summon the intellectual honesty to humbly seek the Lord’s will in these matters, he/she should at least abandon the transparent disingenuity of presuming to speak on my behalf.
Stephen B,
You’re right that we don’t know that he continued to teach his belief in the 18 months, but you seam to be equally willing to jump the opposite conclusion that he didn’t.
The fact is we have no idea what happened in the 18 months from when he wrote the letters to when he left the church, other than that he was kicked out of the orchestra and was meeting with his Bishop.
And let’s not forget that he was not excommunicated, he left the church. We don’t know for sure if excommunication was threatened, and we probably never will as Mr. Danzig says they did but the church denies it, so its his word against theirs. So it’s not consistent to use that as an argument that the church excommunicates people because of their belief.
So the bottom line is that there is a lot of conclusion jumping here on both sides of the debate. This is why, as I said before, this should have been a private matter and it’s unfortunate that it is now a public debate, since the public does not know all of the facts and is using this to forward their own opinions, for or against the church.
Did anyone notice the Church’s statement that the bishop and stake president worked with them on SGM and “other Church doctrines” – during that 18 months?
I don’t know what this means but it implies, at least, that there were other problems.
Dave’s Mormon Inquiry has a good post-fallout analysis of the matter:
I am not a regular commenter on the bloggernacle, although I frequently delve therein. I am commenting here for a very specific reason, and although discussion seems to have ended a couple of days ago, I do hope that this post will be read. I am posting it here and not on any other blogs. Should Peter Danzig read this post, he will know who I am by my username.
I feel the need to comment because I do know Peter Danzig. I served with him in the Germany Dresden Mission. I was not his companion, but I lived with him in same apartment in the city of Erfurt for a month–a month I considered to be the most fun and enjoyable of my entire mission, and he was largely the reason for this.
I only saw him a couple of times post-mission. One of those was in the lobby at a Utah Symphony concert. I am not going to post any opinion on the entire affair. But I wanted to provide a perspective from somebody who did know Peter, albeit 16 years ago. He WAS a very gentle, kind individual. He had an effervescent personality and the most winning smile you can imagine. I never recall hearing him express any dissent about church doctrine or policy in the mission field. In fact, he was a bright-eyed, very enthusiastic missionary. Perhaps I shouldn’t mention this, but I feel that I must to give you an insight into his personality. Before my arrival in the city, his previous companion had become involved in sexual immorality–sneaking out of the apartment while Peter slept–to rendezvous with a particularly attractive femail recent convert who had previously gained a reputation as a “missionary killer.” This affair came to the knowledge of the MP (a very stereotyipcal German general-type if ever there was one) while I was in Erfurt with Peter and two other missionaries, including my companion. This experience deeply affected Peter, and he blamed himself for his companion’s discretion (the companion was sent home, presumably for a disciplinary council), although he was blameless in the matter, and was a notoriously heavy sleeper. He felt genuine remorse about it–I can say that with conviction, and it was the only time I ever saw his cheery, positive disposition fall.
The Peter Danzig I knew seems incongruous with the individual who has sparked the bloggernacle this week. I remember a kind and fun-loving sould who loved to discuss classical music with me. We lived in a hole of an East German apartment that was infested with fungus, but we enjoyed ourselves immensely. There was a distinctive graffito across from our apartment that read “Killing the Nazi’s Pigs” (which of course implies the process of slaughtering the swine that are the property of a single Nazi). One of my favorite mission pictures is one of me and Peter and the other two missionaries posing next to this graffito. My memories of Peter have not changed, and I can honestly say that I loved him then. Without taking ANY position on this matter, I do have to at least testify with certainty that the adjective “gentle” as quoted in the Trib. story was most CERTAINLY applicaple to Peter Danzig as I knew him in the mission field in Erfurt, Germany in 1992.
I am an active member in good standing, and the choir director of the Boulder, Colorado ward.
MahlerFan,
Thank you for your perspective. I certainly don’t know Peter Danzig, and am not in a position to comment on his personality as you are.
I think it’s important to separate the issue of personality versus action. Peter Danzig may be the most gentle person on earth, but he could still do things that are defined as apostasy.
I appreciate you sharing your personal experiences with us. It puts a human face on what would otherwise be an academic discussion.
I don’t doubt the story that he has apostasized. Like I said, I only wanted to give someone I remember fondly, and whose story has saddened me, a human face so that he’s not just “that viola player who left the church and can’t leave it alone because he has bought into the gay agenda.”
One comment re: Peter Danzig “keeping quiet” about the September Six. This part of the Trib article is the most difficult for me to fathom because Peter would have returned home from Germany in September 1993 AT THE EARLIEST, and possibly would not have even been home yet at the time of the September Six affair–it would have coincided roughly with his return from his mission. Therefore, to say he “kept quiet” about the September Six when, at that time of his life, it was probably completely off his radar (considering what most returned missionaries are up to right as they return home), is really rather ludicrous and sensationalist, and only would have served to help sensationalize the story.
Great are the words of Isaiah except when we differ with him?
Both Jewish and Christian traditions state that the Prophet Isaiah was killed by being sawed in half * by people who were offended by his words of warning. Isaiah, one of the most political of the prophets, seemed to stick his nose into everything. He paid for his audacity.
Now comes, Peter Danzig and Dr. Neilsen who want it two ways. They want prophets when they like what they say and don’t want them as prophets when they don’t like what they say. Thus, they saw the prophet in two like Isaiah.
Great are the words of Isaiah except when we differ with him!
*Hebrews 11:37 (King James Version) They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword…