Ny Times Article: Kate Kelly And John Dehlin Threatened With Excommunication

[MorningStar]

Story here. 

 

I'm not surprised by the church's actions. 

[David T]

September Six, Part 2: The June Two  

[omni]

September Six, Part 2: The June Two  

 

Come on David, that'll never stick unless you use a cute alliteration.

[David T]

Come on David, that'll never stick unless you use a cute alliteration.

Just call it the 6/2 - the Six[th Month] Two. September Six Part Two: The 6/2. [working too hard on this]

Edited June 11, 2014 by David T

[omni]

Just call it the 6/2 - the Six[th Month] Two. September Six Part Two: The 6/2. [working too hard on this]

 

Now I think you're getting somewhere.

[bluebell]

Interesting.

 

I really don't know how i feel about the discipline they are receiving.  I do think the fact that they almost immediately released the information to the press shows a bit where their priorities lie.

 

Even with their membership at stake, it seems like it's still about national attention and activism for their cause more than anything else.

 

I wonder, in the case of Kelly, whether or not this has anything to do with the new 6 discussions OW is pushing?

[Abulafia]

The other way to look at it, is the NYT picked it up because it 'IS' significant.   These are hot button issues for many faiths at the moment, not just Mormonism.

[Calm]

Given the way the OW discussions were pitched with suggesting the use of ward resources among other things, I am not surprised about that one.

With Dehlin I've been surprised it is taken this long, but his leaders know him better and perhaps they saw a greater appropriate desire towards staying connected than I do (he seemed to me to want to stay connected not because of belief but because he wanted to change things).

[bluebell]

The other way to look at it, is the NYT picked it up because it 'IS' significant.   These are hot button issues for many faiths at the moment, not just Mormonism.

 

The only way that the NYT could have known about it though, is if these two alerted them of it.  The church doesn't broadcast these kinds of proceedings and is very careful to keep things private.

 

It might be significant, but the NYT only knows about it because kate kelly and dehlin contacted them.

[bluebell]

Given the way the OW discussions were pitched with suggesting the use of ward resources among other things, I am not surprised about that one.

With Dehlin I've been surprised it is taken this long, but his leaders know him better and perhaps they saw a greater appropriate desire towards staying connected than I do (he seemed to me to want to stay connected not because of belief but because he wanted to change things).

 

I agree, i'm much more surprised by Kelly than Dehlin.  

[jkwilliams]

The only way that the NYT could have known about it though, is if these two alerted them of it.  The church doesn't broadcast these kinds of proceedings and is very careful to keep things private.

 

It might be significant, but the NYT only knows about it because kate kelly and dehlin contacted them.

Who knows? They are both fairly public figures, so I wouldn't blame them at all for letting people around them know what's going on. If they said anything on their Facebook pages, websites, or anywhere else, someone was bound to pick it up.

If nothing else, this sort of shows where the church draws the line between constructive criticism from the membership and apostasy.

[ksfisher]

Reading the news article made me think of this passage from an essay by Arthur Henry King:

 

"When we have laid down at Christ's feet all our scholarship, all our learning, all the tools of our trades, we discover that we may pick them all up again, clean them, adjust    them, and use them for the Church in the name of Christ and in the light of his countenance."

 

Both Kelly and Dehlin seem to be two very fine and talented people who have lost sight of what the church is and what it stands for, and how to be a follower of Christ.  I hope that I never find myself on a similar path.

[Palerider]

I used to listen to Dehlin back when I was first questioning the church's validity and wondered how he could know so much about the true history of the church and not come to the same conclusion I had.

 

I guess time solved that issue.

 

The church is doing itself no favors here. This will only re-enforce the idea that they don't have the intestinal fortitude to face the truth.

[bluebell]

Who knows? They are both fairly public figures, so I wouldn't blame them at all for letting people around them know what's going on. If they said anything on their Facebook pages, websites, or anywhere else, someone was bound to pick it up.

If nothing else, this sort of shows where the church draws the line between constructive criticism from the membership and apostasy.

 

I didn't say that I blamed them, only that it seems to show where their heads are and how they are approaching this.

[smac97]

From the article (speaking of Kate Kelly):

She said she told the stake president and bishop, “What you’re asking me to do is to live inauthentically, and that’s not something I’m willing to do. Because then I would have to go to church every week, but I would never be able to say what I really think.”

I don't accept this line of reasoning, as it is predicated on the assumption that what she "really think(s)" is correct in all respects. I think we all need to regularly assess what we believe/think and the basis for these beliefs/thoughts, and also keep ourselves open to the possibility that our beliefs/thoughts may be in error in one way or another. The same goes for our words and our actions.

I also reject this line of reasoning because Kate Kelly is suggesting that the discipline pertains to her thoughts, rather than to the public airing of those thoughts. I think there's a legitimate distinction there.

I can't say that I am surprised at this development. I am saddened by it, but it certainly appears to be within the parameters of an appropriate response to what Kate Kelly has been doing (associating with an excommunicated apostate, forming a group os mostly Mormons at which that apostate was welcomed and featured as an honored speaker, repeatedly disobeying reasonable instructions from the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, and so on) and saying (publicly demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will suffice," and so on).

May I suggest that we refrain from making predictions about what will happen to Bro. Dehlin and Sis. Kelly. Let us allow the process to run its course. Let us hope that those involved will seek and follow guidance from the Spirit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Interesting.

 

I really don't know how i feel about the discipline they are receiving.  I do think the fact that they almost immediately released the information to the press shows a bit where their priorities lie.

I am reminded of how Denver Snuffer tried to turn confidential disciplinary measures into a publicity circus.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

 

The church is doing itself no favors here. This will only re-enforce the idea that they don't have the intestinal fortitude to face the truth.

 

I'm sorry but this could be the dumbest thing i've read in a while.  I don't mean to be disrespectful but it's just a completely illogical statement.

 

Are you really saying that the church is doing itself no favors if it doesn't have the fortitude to face the fact that it's a false church with false doctrinal claims?  I'm hoping that i'm misunderstanding you.

[Calm]

I agree, i'm much more surprised by Kelly than Dehlin.

Me too. Dehlin seems to me to have done much more in affecting people's actual faith, presenting the Church in negative ways but his audience was limited to those who sought him out it would seem.

However, Kelly's organization is presenting itself as actively proselyting LDS members and not just waiting for them to become aware and join on their own. And that first discussion is a doozy, I can't see anyone not already deeply committed to their faith in the Church as God's authorised organization seeing the benefit of being a member outweighing the costs (if they accept the costs as presented by OW which are not accurate imo). I can see a leader wanting to convey a message quickly that such things are not permissible in order to prevent a spread of copycat proselyting organisations, each with their own agenda to change the Church in the future. Shutting the proselyting down before it is even fully presented sends a clearer message that such are not permissible.

[jkwilliams]

I didn't say that I blamed them, only that it seems to show where their heads are and how they are approaching this.

I didn't say you blamed them, either, but I don't think we can say they went out of their way to contact the New York Times. At least I don't know that they did or didn't.

To me, they seem to be approaching it as if the outcome were a foregone conclusion. If what Kate Kelly says accurately reflects her stake president's and her positions, I think it probably is.

[Calm]

May I suggest that we refrain from making predictions about what will happen to Bro. Dehlin and Sis. Kelly. Let us allow the process to run its course. Let us hope that those involved will seek and follow guidance from the Spirit.Thanks,-Smac

Amen

[Palerider]

I'm saying that by excommunicating those who study the true history of the church (not the whitewashed version) and come to the conclusion that it is full of holes, they don't do themselves any favors. Much better to just cut them off and go stick their collective heads in the ground and pretend that nothing is wrong.

 

There IS something wrong. There is a rotten spot in the organization and it needs to be rooted out.

[smac97]

I used to listen to Dehlin back when I was first questioning the church's validity and wondered how he could know so much about the true history of the church and not come to the same conclusion I had.

 

I guess time solved that issue.

Out of curiosity, have you also asked yourself this question in relation to Richard Turley? Daniel Peterson? John L. Sorenson? Hugh Nibley? Terryl Givens? Richard L. Bushman? David Bokovoy? Matthew Brown? Cal Robinson? Julianne Reynolds? Sheri Dew?

Is it possible, in your view, to be extremely well-informed about the history and doctrines of the LDS Church and retain faith in and devotion to it?

Or is your conclusion the inevitable one?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

I am not familiar with many cases of trial for apostasy. Has anyone ever been able to convince such a court that their views were not apostate or is pretty much the only recourse for those being tried to recant their views?

[Calm]

To me, they seem to be approaching it as if the outcome were a foregone conclusion.

I think they are most likely basing their assumptions on how they anticipate their own reactions, what they are willing and not willing to do.

[David T]

From Kate Kelly's website:

 

I was informed on June 8 that there will be a disciplinary council held in absentia by my former bishopric on June 22 to try me for “apostasy.” I have moved away from the Washington, DC area, and after I left my former Stake President sent me a letter outlining what he called “informal probation” after meeting with me one time, while I was packing to move.  The trial will be held in my former ward and I am not able to return.