From my mystery correspondent: Angie Academic is a constitutional law scholar at a state law school. She is also the temple preparation teacher in her ward. Angie wrote an academic paper, recently published in the Harvard Law Review, in which she takes the position that the constitutional and statutory protections of religion are too strong and that measures should be taken, including a constitutional amendment, if necessary, to allow the federal government to force churches to ordain women and otherwise enforce anti-discrimination measures against churches. In one section of her paper, she gives the example of the LDS church as one that would be improved by the forced ordination of women, stating that otherwise the “out-of-touch, gerentocratic nature of the church hierarchy” made it unlikely that that church would voluntarily extend the priesthood to women for another 50 years or so, which she viewed as “unacceptable.” She also stated that without the priesthood, LDS women were currently “second-class citizens in the church.”
Angie’s stake president reads the article and is concerned by it. He asks Angie for an interview, and she agrees. He tells her that in his view her paper constitutes apostasy, and invites her to recant and repent. She refuses to do so, and adds, “Legal scholarship is my job, and when I’m at work I call it like I see it. I can’t imagine that you’d like it if someone from church told you how to do your day job.”
The stake president then asks Angie if she has publicly taken the position espoused in her Harvard Law Review paper anywhere else. Angie says that she restated the main thesis of the paper, but omitting the specific example of the LDS Church for space concerns, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Further, she adds that just that morning she was offered $1,500 for the right to republish the piece in its entirety in an anthology, but that she had not yet made a commitment to the publisher. The stake president told her not to accept the offer. Angie then said that she intended to accept the offer, which she did the next day.
The stake president then convenes a disciplinary council. There are three charges of apostasy leveled against Angie, based on the following actions: 1) the publication of her paper in the Harvard Law Review ; 2) the publication of the New York Times op-ed; and 3) the republication of her paper in the anthology. Conviction on any one of the charges will result in her excommunication.
You are a high councilman serving on the disciplinary committee, and you are required to vote either “convict” or “acquit” on each of the three charges. How do you vote on each?