Mormon Stories #077-#083: “Understanding the September Six” — Paul Toscano Parts 1 – 7
2007 October 31
When the history of 20th century Mormonism is written, Paul Toscano will likely go down as one of the most controversial and divisive figures of that era. Paul is the husband of Margaret Toscano, and was excommunicated (along with 4 others and 1 disfellowshipment) during the infamous “September Six” incident in September of 1993.
This is Paul’s story — as told in his own words.
I feel that interviews like this are essential within Mormonism for at least a few reasons:
- For those interested in Mormon intellectualism — the series of events leading up to the September Six excommunications are absolutely fundamental.
- History tends to repeat itself — and you never know if some from today’s bloggernacle risk a similar fate as the LDS intellectuals of the 1980s and 90s. Perhaps we can all learn some lessons from this interview, to help keep history from repeating itself yet again.
- In my limited experience, I have found most of the Mormon intellectuals of the 1980s and 1990s to be honest, thoughtful folk, who were mainly just trying to make sense of that which is very difficult to reconcile at times — namely thought and faith within Mormonism — and were often quite sincere (and even naive) in their desires for church improvement.
- I find these stories to be fascinating, and even inspiring, in their own right.
- Generally speaking, I worry that the LDS Church may have damaged itself through these excommunications — regardless of the mistakes made by the “Six.” I sincerely hope that we can learn from our past decisions, and seek to not repeat them
All audio and video files can be accessed through the podcast feed. All video can also be viewed on Youtube, beginning here with Episode 1.
I hope you enjoy. And a MAJOR thanks to Paul for taking the time to record his history.
Peepstone Joe,
In response to your post #48, though the church may teach that Jesus takes a principal role in the creation and is the savior of it, it also stresses that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and that Jesus, as the second person of the godhead, is subordinate to the Father. The church does not teach that Joseph Smikth revealed a number of different and even contradictory godhead concepts including the doctrine of Mosiah 15 that the Father and the Son are the same person, namely, Jesus Christ. These various godhead concepts rather than being left open to consideration and reflection have been discarded in the interest of closure and certainty (which I believe is unjustified) and replaced by the current dominant view of the godhead as a patriarchal hierarchy, which unfortunately can be and has been used to fortify authoritarianism.
Paul,
Thanks again for responding. I do understand what you’re saying. However, from your interview (and what you have written on this blog), it sounded like one of your chief complaints about Christ being regarded chiefly as “Son” (and “subordinate” to the Father – another point worth arguing about) was that He unfairly was required to lay down His life for the creation of another. This is simply untrue according to current mainstream orthodox LDS teachings. Christ willingly and voluntarily laid down His life for His creation. So what’s unfair about that?
Peepstone(I hope you don’t mind me calling you just Peepstone),
I understand that in Mormon theology, Jesus is said to have voluntarily made an infinite atonement. I am not saying he was forced to do this. I am saying what Abinadi said: that “God himself” would sacrifice himself to redeem his creation. Abinadi, specifically, and the Book of Mormon, generally, teach that the Being who made this sacrifice was the Supreme Being: Jesus Christ, the Father and the Son.
The reason I stress this point, is that it represents a model for us that put love above power. Out of love, God relinquished power to empower his creatures.
The other model (that God the Father did not sacrifice, but that God the Son, a separate and subordinate deity did sacrifice voluntarily) establishes a model that reinforces power over love. It implies that no sacrifice is required of the highest power to empower others. This is a very dangerous model that contradicts the teaching of Jesus that the greatest of all is the servant of all, and he that looseth his life shall find it.
For me, possibly the most attractive premise of Christianity is that God loved us so much that he did not insulate himself from the suffering of this world, but set aside his sovereignty and his glory to enter into his creation, assuming the aspect of his children and bearing in his own person the full weight of responsibility for the sins of the world such that, as Isaiah says, we are engraved on the palms of his hands and it is with his stripes that we are healed.
This teaching make sense to me only if it is the highest deity that descends below all things that he may be in and through all things.
I just want to convey an expression of kind wishes to Paul Toscano.
I listened, and watched, with great interest, Paul, to your seven part interview on the Mormon Stories podcast. I have fond memories of you when we served our missions at the same time in Italy. Although we were never companions and never had any personal interaction with one another that I can recall, I do however have vivid memories of your abilities as a wonderful speaker that conveyed a great love for the Prophet Joseph Smith and for our Savior Jesus Christ. I cannot speak for the Saviour Jesus the Christ, but I can speak for myself in the spirit of Christ and that spirit is, of course, the spirit of love. Whomever or Whatever God is, He is first and foremost ‘Love.’ Of course you know this, but I just want to share my feelings with you that whatever is or is not, or whatever is perceived as being in your life, either by yourself or others at this time, that our God, be it the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, or all three (who are really One in the way in which it really matters) love(s) you. I cannot help but feel that way towards you. Maybe there are real scoundrels, real deceivers who are really hell bent to destroy and cripple anything that is trying to stand for what is good, but that is not you. I would like to think that I know, or perceive something ‘of’ you, Paul. I hope this is not taken as a pretentious assessment, but rather one that is simply a sentiment of the heart.
I recall making the long journey to the Salt Lake temple a few months after returning home from my mission in Italy. I was so excited with the prospect of going again after an absence of almost three years. When I was in one part of the temple I approached a gentleman who was dressed in a white suit and who impressed me as someone who was an authority. I simply wanted to know what this or that meant, e.g., the epaulets on the robes, etc. and glancing briefly at the name displayed on his jacket referred to him as Brother Bell. As soon as I addressed him as such, a woman standing near by snapped at me with the most malevolent tone of voice, and glare exclaiming, “That’s PRESIDENT Bell!” I remember being taken aback and somewhat flustered and just stammered saying, “Oh,” or something similar, and I remember the smirk on the fellow’s face when she rebuked me. I was very dismayed over this, left the temple and didn’t go back again on that trip, feeling wounded and confused. But this is what I want to say. Some time later I thought that I should have stood my ground with that woman, and ‘President’ Bell, and stated very meekly in return, “Oh, now that he’s a president, does that mean he’s not my brother any more?” The point I want to make is that I have had many similar experiences, and even far worse than that one throughout my more than fifty years as a member of the LDS church (having been a Catholic as a young boy). I don’t know what sustained me all those years while undergoing these types of troubling experiences, but I know now, being older or ‘longer in the tooth,’ that my level of tolerance for this sort of nonsense has diminished, and the only thing that IS keeping me going at the present time is having a clearer, more mature Christian understanding or focus to love those who don’t love you or treat you as they themselves would perhaps like to be treated.
I trust, Paul, that in spite of this terrible experience of excommunication, which you have suffered, or are still suffering from, that you are up to the challenge to love those who have or still do denounce you as someone unworthy of your just rewards of having lived an honorable life. I have this strong conviction that God will assess the greatness of a man or woman based on the intentions of his or her heart more than any other factor. I have this conviction that many are called, but few are chosen, and those who think they are ‘in’ will one day be on the ‘out’ if they do not change their current thinking and ways. “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth.” It is far better to be a brother than a ‘president,’ and it seems as though being a ‘president’ in the LDS church is an impediment, or certainly presents itself as a great challenge to being a humble, loving person. You are still a ‘brother’ in Christ to everyone in the whole, wide world whether you, or they are a member of the LDS church, or not a member. God has not and never will ‘excommunicate’ you, Paul; only mere, misguided mortals do that. Only you can ‘excommunicate’ yourself from Christ’s true church — the one which resides in a person’s heart, which includes yours, I am sure.
Paul (of post #54):
Thanks for your kind words.
Paul (Toscano):
I’d be interested to know how you view:
A. The Godhead: do you view the Godhead as being composed of TWO persons (i.e. Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost), or do you not view the Holy Ghost as a person?
B. I’m sure you’ve read the 1916 First Presidency publication titled “The Father and the Son:
A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve.” What do you think of these explanations and reconciliations of Christ’s role as both Father and Son?
Peepstone,
I happen to be in the middle of a paper I’m preparing for Sunstone (Spring?) entitled “Of Gods and Monotheists,” in which I will address this problem. My belief is that Joseph Smith had a developing view of the godhead. It was progressive in that he was composing a picture of deity over the course of his life. I do not think he finished. I think, for the sake of simplicity and certainty, the Church had to bring closure to this compositional effort, thus the First Presidency 1916 statement, and the many conflicting statements from various general authorities over the years. I hope to propose an interpretation of the godhead that honors the various concepts introduced by Joseph Smith without discarding or diminishing the value of any. This has proved to be quite engageing, and I’m not sure that I will succeed.
Thanks for answering my questions. I look forward to reading your essay.
Out of curiosity, are you the Paul Toscano appears as a guest host on the Stockwell show on KTKK?
Dude,
Yes. I appear as a co-host on Jack Stockwell’s radio show nearly every Friday morning between 7 – 9 am. I will be unable to attend on December 7, because I am scheduled to argue a case before the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 10th Circuit.
After reading stuff you have written, I now understand better the background of some of the things you say on Jack’s show. Thanks.
Out of all of this bickering and misunderstanding over such a simple plan and such a simple doctrine. Men left to their own interpretations and I assume I could be “interpreting” incorrectly. For me it is as night and day. Joseph Smith saw GOD the FATHER and his SON JESUS CHRIST. Nothing more need to be argued on this point, the Holy Ghost has made this clear to me…so sad to see this distinct doctorine discussed as above. I cannot bring myself to believe in a monotheistic nature of God. For me the FATHER, SON relationship as it is here on earth is far to logical to follow other incorrect doctines…again I guess it could be perspective or it could be a man that has had the truth made known not by scholastics but by something far more powerful. I hope many of you learned men would kneel and ask.
I loved this interview. It was very human and humanizing.
Thanks to both of you, Paul and John.
I felt enlightened by Paul’s teachings
of Jesus and the Godhead. I am in absolute agreement with his views on the harmful outcome of only giving “milk” to the church. His warnings to the brethren were almost prophetic as we now see the numbers of members becoming disillusioned with the church today. It brought to my mind the warnings from David Whitmer on the Patriarchal hierarchy. It may be too late for the church to correct the damage done to my generation. It seems to be monthly that I hear from family or friends of another devout member leaving the church when they learn church history. Had my testimony been firmly grounded on the foundation of Jesus Christ as my God and Father, I believe I would have been better equipped to deal with the nadir of my spiritual journey.
The Godhead teachings in Mormonism never made sense from the time it was taught to me as a young child. I had what I considered to be “illuminations” in my life on the nature of God and they parallel Paul’s beliefs. He is the kind of Sunday School teacher and leader our church needed to prepare the LDS for what we are experiencing today. It’s a tragedy he was excommunicated.
Paul is bold and may be abrasive to some but what I loved was his authenticity. Some may call him arrogant for promoting truth, or his beliefs as an aberration. I only saw a
man who sincerely wanted to help the church focus on what is essential for our spiritual growth.
Those who believe faith is defined by certainty are the arrogant ones.
I hope to see more podcasts with Paul in the future. I had many questions that arose during the interview.
Like Paul, I didn’t become a Mormon to run across the cultural hall with a spoon and an egg in my mouth.