Letter to Bishop Requesting that He Set the Record Straight

Feb. 15, 2005

Bishop Logan Freeman
Eagle Mountain 1st Ward
1860 E. Juniper Dr.
Eagle Mountain, UT

Cc: President Draper
Cc: Area Authority, Quorum of the 70
Cc: President Boyd K. Packer
Cc: Detective Greg Knapp, Utah County Sheriff’s Office

Re: Public Defamation on Feb. 13

Dear Bishop Freeman,

Since the meeting last Sunday, 13 February 2005, (combined Priesthood, Relief Society, Young Men and Young Woman’s meeting between 1:10 and 2:20 pm mst in the Eagle Mountain, Utah, First Ward) at which I was the subject (concerning my status as an “apostate”) I have seriously reflected on what transpired there. As you know, I was not at liberty to speak for myself. I was not under the impression that there would be anything more than the typical announcement of my status in the Church and an invitation for those in our ward to reach out to me. However, what transpired there was nothing less than a public lambasting of my character and my family’s character which I find to be quite reprehensible.

My thoughts, beliefs, practices and other aspects of my person were seriously misrepresented several times during the meeting, which were tacitly endorsed by you and the stake president.

At times I have considered various options available to me for response, even considering such things as legal action. However, for now I am sending this letter in hopes that perhaps there is another way to set the record straight. Frankly, what has been publicly said cannot be undone except in a similar public venue. My first thought is that perhaps, coming Sunday, Feb. 20 at the same time and place, to the same group under your direction and with the Stake Presidency present, the record could be set straight. I formally request this to take place.

Prior to the Sunday Feb. 13th meeting I had requested to have an avenue whereby I could voice my defense in that meeting, in order to insure that my position was not misrepresented. I recommended this to be accomplished through the Elder’s Quorum president that would be sitting next to me, serving as an intermediary. You declined that request. Had you enabled this to take place, this follow-up would not be necessary.

As it is, I now make formal request of you to have a follow-up meeting to clear my name in the following points.

• Previous bishops have given me latitude of varying degrees, including allowing me to bear my testimony in Sacrament Meeting, making comments in Sunday School and Priesthood Meeting, playing the piano, participating in Ward and Stake choirs. In particular, my previous bishop, Ron Stevenson, allowed all these things. While I have admitted to you that I should have cleared with you before assuming such permission in your ward, and I did intend to do so but did not have opportunity prior to the first meeting we attended, and I evidenced my intentions by initiating an interview at first opportunity, the previous clearances set a precedent upon which I was acting in reasonably good faith. In other words, I was not blatantly defying known protocol. I requested that you make this point Sunday Feb. 13 in your public pronouncements regarding me, and you did not. The result is that people have the impression that I acted with no regard to Church policy, viewing me as a predator, which I am not. I therefore ask you to make it clear that you have spoken to me and told me your position as bishop, and that I immediately agreed to abide by your wishes. I do not think it would be a stretch for you to mention that, had we had our meeting prior to my first time to attend the ward meetings, then the problems would have been avoided.

• I own several websites, including professional business sites. These professional sites are NOT directly related to matters of doctrine for which the Church has right to advise its members in an ecclesiastical manner. Your statements Sunday could be construed as a blanket admonition against any and all sites which I administer. You knew that I have many sites, for I made that point known. Such portrayal is disingenuous; it is similar to admonishing people not to purchase anything at any store open on Sunday or that sells beer or cigarettes. Why not embrace the common ground, even if shunning that which is not common? Did the Savior simply avoid those deemed “unclean” altogether? I believe he actually visited “sinners” – for which he was condemned. But leaving things as they stand now has direct bearing on my professional career and impacts my ability to support my family. The sites are as follows: FreeEnergyNews.com; PureEnergySystems.com; PESWiki.com; JosephPrep.com; NovelTP.com. PES Network Inc. and JosephPrep LLC are bona fide businesses. I request that you specifically make reference to this fact and state that the Church takes no policy position for or against such matters. I request also an apology from you for having giving an impression that may have been construed as a blanket admonition against all of my websites.

• I also run several non-denominational, political websites that are marginally related to the LDS Church, which also fall outside the purview of ecclesiastical oversight. They are: RSICC.org (Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress); PatriotSaints.com; RemnantSaints.com. While my LDS Background and the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson in particular were largely responsible for spurring these sites, they are non-denominational and their participants include many who are of other religious persuasions. Though I personally believe that the LDS Church does have a right and obligation to instruct its members in proper principles of state governance, the LDS Church has in place a policy that it will not take a stance in regard to any particular political party. These sites set forth a particular partisan points of view and are professional organizations. In keeping with LDS policy, I request that you inform the members of this policy and state that it is not within your jurisdiction to advise regarding these political sites.

• Your unfavorable portrayal of GreaterThings.com and recommendation that the members not visit the site, backed by an endorsement of your recommendation by the Stake President, who gave no indication of having ever visited the site or knowing of its vast contents, was unfair inasmuch as there is a great deal of content there that is beneficial, including non-denominational political commentary, that does not impinge on LDS doctrine. While I can see why you would wish to caution the members about some of its content, and urge them to use discernment in where they go on the site, a blanket rejection of the entire site because of some of the content, disregarding the good, would be like urging your members to not use the Internet because of the bad things that can be found there. I dare say the proportion of good is far more preponderant on my site than on the Internet in general. It is a double standard for you to advise against my website but not advise against going to the Internet in general, considering this proportional principle.

• The Stake President’s analogy regarding a can of Copenhagen that members should shun was not clearly phrased and could be construed as a recommendation that the members have nothing to do with me, and hence with my family. Considering the LDS Church’s common interpretation of the Word of Wisdom in which chewing tobacco is taboo, the analogy portrays me as anathema. I wonder: exactly whom do you believe the Savior was talking about when he admonished the faithful to leave the ninety and nine and go after the lost sheep? In the analogy the stake president said members shun his son because he uses Copenhagen, and that the error is on the part of his son for not having the will power to stop. The extrapolation of that unfeeling and un-Christian principle would justify members in shunning me because of my Church-declared status as “apostate.” I request that the Stake President’s position be clarified so there is no misunderstanding, and that his position reflect the official policy of the LDS Church, and not the Stake President’s own position, presented as if it were official policy, as he is presented as a spokesman on behalf of the Church in that setting. At least, he should make it clear that it is his opinion that is being voiced, not the policy of the Church. The same goes regarding his advice to the members regarding what they should do to avoid being deceived, namely to only read the scriptures and general conference talks and nothing else. That is not Church policy, and he presented it as if it were, saying, “I promise,” using his mantle as Stake President to support the unfounded statement.

• In your pronouncements on Sunday, you read the definition of “apostate” from the LDS Church Leadership manual. In essence it is defined as (paraphrasing) “presenting as church doctrine that which is not church doctrine, and continuing to do so even after being informed.” In the context of discussing my status as having been excommunicated for apostasy, you implied that this definition fit me. It does not, and your saying it does is defamation of character and libel. I do not present what I teach as if it were official Church doctrine (you can easily verify this by visiting GreaterThings.com). You made reference to the fact that I make known on my site that I am excommunicated, but you did not explain that this nullifies the definition of “apostate” as given in the priesthood manual. While I don’t expect you to admit to the ward that the priesthood manual definition might need some work, I do expect you to clear my name so far as that definition is concerned. I do not present my material as if it was LDS official doctrine. I never have, though I do make reference to LDS official doctrine to the best of my understanding in the course of presenting material.

• In the course of the question/answer session, someone asked if I had a church and if I was seeking a following. Your answer did not satisfactorily address this question. I do not have an organized church, and as far as a “following” is concerned, I urge people to seek to have an independent relationship with the Lord, not to lean on an institution to arbitrate their salvation. I do promote what I term the “Church of the Firstborn,” which I define as an institution without walls comprised of individuals who have overcome and who walk independently with the Lord. I request that you answer this question more satisfactorily than you did. At least a simple “no,” would be adequate.

• Apparently some of the rumors circulated were that I was responsible for an entire ward or stake being excommunicated. Obviously that is false. I personally know about 100 people who were excommunicated for similar reasons to mine, but each of them were very independent individuals with a wide array of backgrounds and motivating factors. I happen to believe that most of the “apostasy” excommunications were unnecessary and unfortunate and that the LDS Church has lost a great vitality in removing these people from its ranks.

• Another subject that came up in the Q/A session was the American Study Group. You failed to mention that the American Study Group was exonerated in the first excommunication hearing that was held. It was founded based on an admonition from President Benson, and its purpose was kept within the scope of his admonition. I request that you make this clear. Just as incorrect things are taught in church sometimes, incorrect things may have been taught in the American Study Group at times, but the intent was generally sincere, and the purpose, very helpful.

• In regard to my wife, you recommended that the Relief Society extend a warm hand of fellowship to her because she is a member of the Church. The fact, of which you were informed on Thursday prior to the Sunday pronouncement by you, is that my wife is considering having her name removed from the membership rolls of the church, because she believes much as I do, and because she cannot abide to have her name and honor associated with a church that practices such hypocrisy as has been demonstrated to us since the time we have been married. I am cast as the apostates and yet our beliefs and desires are much more closely aligned to the spirit of the gospel and the kingdom of God than what is usually demonstrated within the Church. She does not wish to be the subject of a charity case and sympathy by the members of the ward. We request that you make this known as well. Since last Thursday, my wife is now considering even more strongly having her name removed, and may have officially commenced measures in this direction by next Sunday.

• In the Q/A, one lady asked something to the effect if it would appropriate for the church to request that I not speak to her children. Your response was appropriate in saying that that was a matter between her and me. However, what is unfortunate about this sentiment she voiced is that people would feel as though their children are threatened by what I teach. Truth is, my message is directed to the Remnant, which is comprised of a very small fraction of people who are waking up or who are already awake, and is an advanced message that requires a solid background in the gospel. Most all of my audience is well beyond their teen years. I would appreciate it if you would mention something to this effect, to put people at ease.

I made each of these points except for the one regarding the Stake President, to the Elders Quorum President sitting next to me, and he did not give voice publicly to make these sentiments known. Had you allowed me to have a defense there, this follow-up would not be necessary.

Bishop Freeman, in anticipating last Sunday’s meeting, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would do the right thing. I gave you all the necessarily information to make a decent presentation of the facts. While you might have quelled some of the horrible rumors, overall your portrayal of me and my wife was not accurate.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would set the record straight in the items listed above. If you chose not to, I do have legal, constitutional, and ethical recourses that I may evoke. I have other things to do with my time than to focus inordinate energy on clearing my name on this matter. Cases similar to this with the Church have been adjudicated and the victims have been vindicated. I do hope you will do the right thing and hold an additional meeting to clarify the above points. It could prevent a lot of anguish in the future both for you and for me, as well as help your ward family be true Christians.

At such time as the LDS Church apologizes to my wife and I for casting us as apostates, and acknowledges that we have much to offer it, the way we are, with the grace of God, we will consider re-entrance into the Church.

Sincerely,


Sterling D. Allan