I love Peggy Fletcher Stack, one of the Salt Lake Tribune’s best writers. Really, I do. Well, let me clarify. I love her articles–I really do. Peggy (if I may be so informal–she calls me Guy–probably among lots of other things too 
) anyway, Peggy has written some of the best articles about the LDS Church both from a mainstream point of view, and also from a less traditional point of view. On some things we see eye to eye–other times not. Peggy has a pretty good article in today’s Salt Lake Tribune, entitled Dissident Mormons. I encourage you to read the whole thing. I’ve been told that writers don’t usually come up with the titles to their articles, and I don’t know who came up with this one–but I like it. I must confess; however, I have no idea just what a dissident Mormon is. She references a couple of individuals in her article, so I’m going to assume–unless corrected by someone–that Peggy must mean these two individuals as part of the gang of 50 who carried those cards, letters and petitions to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve offices:
A group of dissident Mormons on Friday presented to LDS Church officials about 300 letters and a petition opposing the church’s efforts on behalf of a California amendment to thwart gay marriage.
About 50 people carried 15 stacks of personal letters wrapped in pink ribbons to the north entrance of the LDS Church headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City while singing the Mormon hymn “As I Have Loved You, Love One Another.” Organizers asked that each stack be given to a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ three-man First Presidency and 12 apostles.
So, just who are these dissident Mormons. One of the gang leaders, doesn’t even appear to be Mormon at all: Peter Danzig. Remember Peter? He was that gentle musician compelled to turn religious activist over the “gay rights” issue. He and his wife, pictured below are a very good looking couple, who apparently are no longer members of the Church–so does that make him a dissident Mormon, or not a Mormon at all?
What about another of the dissident gang leaders? Peggy identifies him as Andrew D. Callahan, an LDS high priest:
“We urge LDS leaders to read these letters and listen to their words,” said Andrew D. Callahan, an LDS high priest in Nebraska, who organized an Internet petition drive for Mormons who oppose the amendment known as Proposition 8. For many people, Callahan said, LDS support the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, “is a crisis of conscience. They have loved ones who are gay and feel their civil rights are being taken away from them.”
Andrew is another interesting case study.
According to his own website Signing for Something, Andrew describes himself as a High Priest. Yet, on that same site he provides a link which indicates he is in the process of ex-communication from the Church, which is not a total surprise, given the content of his website. So, I am left wondering is he a dissident Mormon, a High Priest in good standing, or an excommunicated member of the Church?
Kim Farah, an LDS Church Public Affairs spokesperson reiterated the Church’s absolute Constitutional right to speak out on moral issues:
Kim Farah of the LDS Public Affairs Office received the bundles, entered the headquarters lobby and said, “The church has always recognized that some members would feel differently about this issue. It affects people deeply.” But Farah defended the LDS Church’s right to oppose same-sex marriage. “It is our obligation to speak out on moral issues,” she said, then thanked the hundreds of thousands of California Mormons who have unified in support of Proposition 8.
A couple of other quick observations on Peggy’s article. The “dissidents” paraded up to Church headquarters singing As I have Loved You. I’m not certain what inference to draw. Does that mean we more mainstream Mormons–not the enlightened dissidents–somehow don’t love those of our gay/lesbian brothers and sisters? Nothing the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or the First Presidency has ever written or preached from the pulpit has been anything but understanding, love, and compassion for these our gay/lesbian brothers and sisters.
The other troubling part of the article was:
The group also delivered bunches of carnations representing people they say have lost their lives in the gay marriage debate. They were referring to suicides by gay Mormons.
What are we to conclude from these two sentences? Is the Church, or by extension any of its members responsible for suicides by gay Mormons? How so? How does one lose their life in the gay marriage debate? As tragic as these stories are of those individuals whose souls were so troubled, I’m not sure it’s really fair to imply that somehow the Church, its teachings or members were responsible for those suicides.
So, after considering the content of Peggy’s latest article, I’m not certain how we can conclude the folks described as marchers on the Church Office Building were really dissident Mormons–or even Mormons at all. At best they appear to be former Mormons or those on their way out because they have let their lives become consumed and defined by this one issue. It’s sad, actually.
October 18, 2008 at 1:29 pm
At best they appear to be former Mormons or those on their way out because they have let their lives become consumed and defined by this one issue.
You’re basing this conclusion on the fact that the Danzigs and Andrew Callahan were among the group. Do you know anything about the rest of the group? Or are you implying that any Mormon that opposes Prop 8 is undeserving of that very title?
October 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I cetainly believe any Mormon that opposes Prop8 is deserving of the title of dissident Mormon, and we should show them the door.
Goodbye, apostates.
October 18, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Steve, the article does say that by a show of hands, only ONE of the group claimed to be an active Mormon. That’s pretty supportive of the statement that you challenge.
October 18, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Exactly, LS. That’s why I believe the church has been in apostasy ever since it failed to hold mass excommunications after Utah repealed Prohibition. Summary justice is the heart of the great Plan of Happiness.
October 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Andrew Callahan has not, as you seem to suggest, been excommunicated. A disciplinary council was scheduled, and he was charged with conduct unbecoming a member of the [LDS] church. Andrew made this news public, which generated a fair amount of publicity at the time. On the morning of the impending disciplinary council, a member of Andrew’s stake presidency e-mailed him to advise that “We have decided to defer your disciplinary council to a later date given
this politically charged election season. We feel that a more measured and
considered discussion can be held at a date sometime in November.” Andrew was invited instead to meet individually with the stake president at the scheduled time. I’ve no idea whether or not he did so.
This whole post, of course, hinges on what it means to be “a Mormon.” For some, that term embraces those from a variety of religious groups which stem from the teachings of Joseph Smith. For others, that term is absolutely and irrevocably reserved for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For a handful of extremists (I can say that, because I used to be one of them!), the term seems to be further restricted to those who are, at any given moment, in line with whatever aspect of the LDS church’s doctrine or policy is being emphasized by the individual making the judgement. Hence the recent BYU Daily Universe editorial, which stated that no person who opposed Proposition 8 could be considered an “active member of the [LDS] church.”
October 18, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Perhaps the bigger question is who will you consider “Mormon” on November 5th. If Proposition 8 fails, will those LDS members who opposed it be scapegoated by some for having interfering with the perceived “work of deity?” If Proposition 8 passes, will it give some LDS who supported the initiative an impetus to prideful disdain toward those who, in their view, “failed the test” of faithfulness? Whether the initiative passes or fails, will LDS who opposed Prop 8 forever see its most ardent supporters as heartless bigots?
I truly hope none of these things happen. Regardless of the outcome, I hope that people will seek to heal their divisions with the same zeal that has characterized the conflict itself.
October 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Nick, I’m with you. I’ve stopped blogging about Prop 8 until the elections are over because it seems to bring out so much contention on both sides. Most people have made up their minds long ago. I agree, let’s see past this troublesome time to the days and weeks following the elections. May the rifts dissolve and the hurt feelings healed.
October 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm
pogrom! Pogrom! POGROM!
October 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm
If a dissident is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine; then they are dissidents. This includes churches as well as individuals. If God says it is an abomination and you say it is perfectly acceptable you are a dissident of God.
October 18, 2008 at 2:35 pm
John
Did you know pogrom is a transvestive noun?
October 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm
If the Church wanted to purge its rolls of inactive members it certainly could. Anyone still on those rolls is a Mormon in the formal sense of the term.
In addition, there is a selection bias here – whatever the sentiment among active members is they have a lot more to lose by marching on Temple Square. I wouldn’t make any hasty generalizations.
October 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Steve M #1
Well, as Ardis points out, the article did conclude by self identification only one person considered themselves “active” Mormons. I’m really just trying to get my mind wrapped around just what a dissident Mormon might be. Hence-the post.
Ardis #3
Agreed. Thanks for stopping by–nice to see you again.
John C #4: I hadn’t really considered that view–clever–I like it.
Nick #5:
It wasn’t what I suggested–I only referred to his own statement on his own website. I don’t know the guy–other than he has a pretty serious beard going on there.
Dissident Mormon actually. Look, I don’t really care what folks want to call themselves. You can say–Hey, I’m a good Mormon–a High Priest in good standing–and be on the verge of a disciplinary council. But, if that is what floats your boat–well then God bless. I was just curious about the article’s characterization of dissident Mormons. If ex-communicated Mormons like Bro. Danzig want to consider himself that–OK. We’ll just have a difference of opinion I guess.
So . . . you’ve renounced extremism, Nick?
Nick #6
Not sure that’s really an election issue–but hey–whatever.
Tim #7
And, that’s OK too.
KingofTexas #9
Sounds reasonable to me.
Mark D #11
I’m not sure how many “active members” whatever you interpret that to mean would have cause to march on Temple Square–besides I think it was actually the COB here.
Are you suggesting Peggy is hastily generalizing here?
October 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm
So . . . you’ve renounced extremism, Nick?
Unnecessarily snide implications aside, Guy, yes, I have. Of course, your definition of “extremism” may vary from that recognized in the English language. I don’t believe it’s generally recognized that “you disagree with me” means “you’re an extremist.”
Not sure that’s really an election issue–but hey–whatever.
Then you must have stopped reading at that sentence, rather than see that the remainder was a clear call to both sides to reach out to one another after the Prop 8 dispute has been decided, rather than to impugn one another’s religious bona fides long into the future.
October 18, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Interesting discussion of what a dissident Mormon is and who can be allowed to have the title. One possibility from the OP and seconded by Ardis is that Mormon = Active Mormon (inactive need not apply) and starting there leads to the a definite conclusion that an excommunicated Mormon = not Mormon. LiberalSlayer takes it even further suggesting that dissidents = apostates = not Mormons. Mark D. has a fairly straightforward definition that anyone with their names on church rolls = Mormon Mark’s makes it easier to allow for the existence of dissidents than the other suggested definitions.
Personally, I see the title Mormon having a much broader umbrella than “active Mormon” and a bit more nuanced than Mark D.’s. I would suggest that anyone who considers themselves Mormon, whether active, inactive, cultural, or excommunicated are Mormon. I don’t think it would be difficult for any of us to grant the title of Catholic to someone no longer attending mass or even excommunicated for dissenting a particular policy of the Vatican if he still considers himself Catholic. If the Danzigs consider themselves Mormon, who are we to say they are not? (FWIW, they were active Mormons by any definition except LiberalSlayer’s when they wrote their initial letter of dissent).
October 18, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Guy,
I don’t really have time or inclination to go marching around Temple Square, though it might be fun to get involved in such a rally.
When protesters do their business primarily through the news media, I figure they are just tantrum-throwing on a greater scale, and they can’t dominate your attention any other way. To my way of thinking, they do damage to the credibility of their own case, resorting to such tricks. I’d rather not pay them much attention, since that plays right into their game.
October 19, 2008 at 1:11 am
Huh?
I don’t have a problem with most of what you say, and I don’t support these “dissidents” or whatever they are, but about this I think you are just wrong. It is only in the last few years that anything approaching understanding or compassion has been preached about this issue. The older talks by SWK or BKP are anything but understanding, and don’t seem very compassionate either. I’m very happy to see that the church is coming around.
October 19, 2008 at 7:35 am
I’m off to Church in a few minutes, and I strongly disagree with the Church’s participation and conduct in the Prop 8 campaign. I expect the Church to take a position on the issue of gay marriage, but the half truths and fearmongering that Church leaders have encouraged in support of their position on gay marriage are reprehensible.
October 19, 2008 at 8:31 am
I cetainly believe any Mormon that opposes Prop8 is deserving of the title of dissident Mormon, and we should show them the door.
Goodbye, apostates.
It should be well noted that this sentiment which was expressed in comment # 2 by someone whose handle is too ridiculous for me to reproduce here, is in direct opposition to the sentiments and policies of the First Presidency and Twelve. By expressing it in this forum, he has publicly advocated a position which places him at odds with church leadership. That is the textbook definition of apostasy.
October 19, 2008 at 2:30 pm
#17 and #18 Exactly.
The fear mongering has certainly brought out the worst side of some of the LDS members I interact with daily. Just look at comment #2 to see that.
The first presidency is respectful to dissidents even if they are being ex’d that should be guidance to us all.
October 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Dissidents defined as anyone inactive and then purging them would be catastrophic to the church. So many families have an inactive member that many more would leave.
We could also label anyone with a tattoo, improperly pierced ears, facial hair, and especially those crazy loons in blue shirts as dissidents. Perhaps those with small enough families that they can still fit in a minivan.
Seriously though, the church does seem to be a little more actively pursuing those that put themselves out there publicly critiquing or representing themselves to be LDS and are outside of the traditional norm.
October 20, 2008 at 2:59 am
Labeling is usually misguided to start with. But I understand Guy’s dilemma. If Mormon = someone who believes in the Restoration and that we have living prophets, then a person publicly campaigning against those prophets are possibly not Mormon at all.
Since I am a convert, I of course have this view, because I think my Mormonhood is purely by choice. If you have pioneer ancestry, but have trouble believing in the Church, I guess you might still be Mormon, if only a “lapsed” one.
“Dissident”, IMO, is a label that should be reserved to people that defy totalitarian governments – *literally* laying their lives on the line. To use the label to describe people who take stances out of (in)convenience is to cheapen the sacrifices made by the real dissidents.
Then, again, if you go by dictionary definitions, then “dissident” is anyone who disagrees with anything. So “dissident Mormon” is anyone in disagreement with what would generally be a Mormon view. If pro-Prop8 is the general stance, then anti-Prop8 is dissident.
Does that answer the question of definitions at all?
Oh, and my facial hair certainly doesn’t make me dissident!
October 20, 2008 at 5:00 am
Steve, the article does say that by a show of hands, only ONE of the group claimed to be an active Mormon. That’s pretty supportive of the statement that you challenge.
How so? Are less active Mormons assumed to be essentially “former Mormons or those on their way out”? If so, then someone had better let President Monson know, so he can stop giving talks on reactivation. I mean, what’s the point, if less actives aren’t really Mormon anyway? Are inactives less a part of our faith community, or less entitled to a voice in the affairs of the Church? Are they less entitled to the title of “Mormon” (even if qualified by “dissident”)?
October 20, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I haven’t seen any fear-mongering in my ward or stake. If you mean the consequences touted by the pro prop-8 campaign, I guess I can see your point. I don’t think it’s fear-mongering as much as it is a warning that these things could happen. They definitely won’t happen overnight, but it would only be a matter of time, and with the wedding field trip in San Francisco, we have even seen some of that stuff come to pass.
October 20, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Interesting, the only negativity that I have seen has come in the cowardly means of vandalizing free speech displays and stealing of Yes on 8 signs placed by me along the highway, often soon followed by No on 8 signs. Their signs are like rabbits, mutiplying, while mine disappear with the life expectancy of a gnat.
Pressure by the Church? As in all things, invitations to accept the guidance of the Prophet and Apostles is made. No one is commanded or demanded. The church has invited us to serve with our time and moneys. Invited. We have repeatedly announced in meetings, as emphasized in the latest broadcast, to love everyone for they are all our brothers and sisters. That announcement is made more often than any other invite. We have members who are taking time off till after the elections because they have a loved one who has differing leanings. I can appreciate that and we will hug again after the election and join together in pursuit of the gospel no matter what the outcome. They have made their choices, and I mine. I cannot judge for I walk not in their shoes. But I will continue to stand firm for what I believe is best for my family, my children and my grandchild, and I will try, in my human frailties, to follow the Brethren.
As for the so called “fears”, today, fear has truly become reality.
October 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm
[...] Dissident Mormons? Messenger and Advocate – October 18, 2008 [...]
October 23, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Steve
Being an inactive Mormon As I am doesn’t make you a bad Mormon. It makes you more susceptible to sin. President Monson getting me reactivated would be to my benefit. That isn’t bad is it?
Oh and as far as “less entitled to a voice in the affairs of the Church?” You wouldn’t tell a pilot how he should fly. Even if you knew how to fly you wouldn’t tell the pilot where he should go unless you are the pilot. Wait you aren’t President Steve are you? It has been a while since I have been to church.
I’m sorry Steve; I shouldn’t have been a Black-n-Decker (tool)
November 2, 2008 at 10:13 am
This has been really informative to me. Let’s have love for one another while standing for what we profess. I hope to have the charity to be kind and understanding of all people, especially those I disagree with. We, as members, have great potential to let this issue (first a state issue, now a Church & national issue) be a building block in the path to establish Zion and build the kingdom of God.