The Trial of the French Mission

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by All-American

Didn't you focus on a particular aspect of the story, too? Maybe there are lessons to be learned on both sides of the story.

I think there are lessons to be learned from all aspects of the story, yes.

And from what I read, Harvey was not railroaded into being excommunicated. He chose his path knowingly and had several chances to discuss his misgivings that he refused.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I think there are lessons to be learned from all aspects of the story, yes.

And from what I read, Harvey was not railroaded into being excommunicated. He chose his path knowingly and had several chances to discuss his misgivings that he refused.

Those are correct observations from the data supplied. It appears he made mistakes of judgment which ultimately led to his excommunication. Have you no compassion at all for him and his family? You always sound like, "oh he got what he deserved, and I wish he'd get more."

It appears you have never suffered wrongfully at the hands of anyone to have no compassion for anyone. One might suppose your inexperience in bad things is good, but a complete lack of compassion makes you sound completely inhuman.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Those are correct observations from the data supplied. It appears he made mistakes of judgment which ultimately led to his excommunication. Have you no compassion at all for him and his family? You always sound like, "oh he got what he deserved, and I wish he'd get more."

It appears you have never suffered wrongfully at the hands of anyone to have no compassion for anyone. One might suppose your inexperience in bad things is good, but a complete lack of compassion makes you sound completely inhuman.

I have compassion for him and his family. I think Harvey is/was a good person who made a couple mistakes that had a horrible effect on his life and his family's.

You just made it sound like he was railroaded. I refuted that. There are aspects of both in this story.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

I have compassion for him and his family. I think Harvey is/was a good person who made a couple mistakes that had a horrible effect on his life and his family's.

You just made it sound like he was railroaded. I refuted that. There are aspects of both in this story.

He wasn't railroaded, but an innocent mistake in language cascaded into a big effect.

As a leader, a person must be more efficient and better than the people he administers. It is not always possible and mistakes will be made. Elder Harvey made some horrible, at first innocent mistakes. He was the young elder though, learning and looking to his leaders. Both failed each other in this instance, if the facts were as reported. Short comments here are never meant to reflect my entire thoughts or feelings about anything.

[Tex]

An interesting lesson in the path to apostasy. In some ways it's too bad we'll never hear the General Authorities' side to the incident--nearly all the source information came from only one side, did it not?

And congrats to Arch for being consistent in roundly criticizing church leaders in whichever way he can. Never misses an opportunity to push an agenda, that one.

[MikeWaters]

We can't criticize the G.A.s in this case because they were led by our hero Hugh B. Brown.

[BYU71]

I guess the English language has a different meaning for you and I.

Are you of the opinion they never make mistakes or we should never mention it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

An interesting lesson in the path to apostasy. In some ways it's too bad we'll never hear the General Authorities' side to the incident--nearly all the source information came from only one side, did it not?

And congrats to Arch for being consistent in roundly criticizing church leaders in whichever way he can. Never misses an opportunity to push an agenda, that one.

I love Hugh B. Brown, and as the story goes, he did a great job welcoming the Elder back. Your idea of significant criticism is different than mine. My observation was obviously nitpicky, but that's what I gleaned is that details in language can matter.

[SeattleUte]

It would be great sport to defend someone in one of these courts charged with purveying false doctrine. I'd put each of the Fifteen on the stand and ask questions about key doctrinal points (invoking the witness exclusion rule as to any not presenlty testifying) and get multiple divergent and contradictory answers. I'd ask for sources and no one would know. I'd demonstrate what a farce it is charging any Mormon with false doctrine when there is no agreed comprehinsive and coherent doctrine.

The foregoing is meant primarily to illustrate the truly bizarre aspect of these excomunication trials. All of the trappings of the judicial system are invoked or alluded to, but there aren't really trials. If you've ever tried a case as a lawyer, or been a party or an interested witness, you know trials are necessarily emotionally traumatizing, even brutal at times. The search for truth, with cross-examintation, counsel's argument, etc. is not a gentle, loving thing. It's not supposed to be. It's called the adversary system, and it works because of the conflct. Someone said their excomunication "trial" seemed violent. That in a metaphysical sense would describe a well tried case in parts. My strategy for cross-examining the Fifteen would indeed be traumatizing, wouldn't it?

The notion of a religion using a trial aping the civil or criminal trials in our civic spere to decide if someone should be excomunicated seems to me extremely ridiculous. The conundrum is that if they are not kangaroo trials they are indeed an unseemly spectacle for a religion to engage in, particularly if they are really fair trials.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I guess the English language has a different meaning for you and I.

Are you of the opinion they never make mistakes or we should never mention it.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I love Hugh B. Brown, and as the story goes, he did a great job welcoming the Elder back. Your idea of significant criticism is different than mine. My observation was obviously nitpicky, but that's what I gleaned is that details in language can matter.

Setting aside the difficulty that without the GA's own statements on the matter we're really laboring under multiple perspectives on the same view of the story, I think we ought to be extremely careful in publicly (does a message board count?) criticizing our leaders' decisions.

I happen to think the Lord will be very merciful in his judgments when the day comes: both of the mistakes made by men he anointed to lead his church, and of the mistakes made by apostates in their misguided paths. We ought not to blithely insert our own judgment for His.