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

[BlueDreams]

Priestcraft.  Pure and simple.  

 

I may have to start calling you Nehor.

 

Oh come on, give him credit...at least give him the credit of korihor

[Pahoran]

Yes there is. Marchant was calling for the leaders of the church to reverse the policy on denying the priesthood to those with African lineage. The policy was changed 2 months after his protest on temple square (8 months after he openly cast an opposing vote against SWK in conference). Of course there is no way to know how much of an effect Marchant's actions had on the brethren, but there is definite linkage.

In which case, you are using "linkage" in a way that conveys no information.

 

The following is what I would classify as no linkage.

 

The day after the LDS Church announced that the priesthood would be given to all worthy male members, the Los Angeles Dodgers went on a 7-game winning streak and turned their season around. They ended up winning the division and played in the World Series. Coincidence? I think not!

The "linkage" is identical. Both are textbook examples of the post hoc fallacy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

Like others i've seen this quotation in connection to Jon and Kate plus 8

 

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

-- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

 

Joseph Smith also said this at the beginning of the Relief Society as reported by Eliza R. Snow

 

"He [Joseph Smith] said if one member becomes corrupt and you know it; you must immediately put it away. The sympathies of the heads of the church have induc'd them to bear with those that were corrupt; in consequence of which all become contaminated--you must put down iniquity and by your good example provoke the Elders to good works--if you do right, no danger of going too fast: he said he did not care how fast we run in the path of virtue.”

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=35#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=35

[Pahoran]

Can you elaborate on what it means to keep one's covenants because my understanding was that we ALL fell short in meeting the Lord's standards?  So is "true" church membership reserved for those who reach a certain percentage of compliance, say 80%?  And if so, is that judged on an aggregate or individual basis?  In other words, must I keep, say, the WoW 80% of the time or must I be in 80% compliance of ALL of the rules combined?  And are there certain rules that count double or even triple?

 

Seriously, I'm really interested in this concept of being a "true member" of the true church.

A few thoughts on this question:

1) There are those (remarkably simple-minded souls that they are) who errantly suppose that whenever they see "true" as a qualifier, it automatically means the speaker is indulging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. This, of course, is not true. (NPI.) "No True Scotsman" is a species of the fallacy of begging the question. The fact is that "true" as a qualifier is perfectly valid, provided its parameters are evident, and it is not merely an ad hoc construction.

2) The primary meaning of "true" is not "real," but "faithful" or "loyal." For example, Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian. Indeed, he was a "real" Norwegian -- born in Norway, spoke Norwegian, even served in the Norwegian government. But is anyone prepared to argue that he was, in any meaningful way, a true Norwegian? Somehow I don't think so.

So why can we not apply parallel criteria to public figures who trade on their status as Mormons? Some people, such as Mister Dehlin, try to assure us that they are speaking as Mormons when they attack the Church's truth claims or try to undermine the moral authority of its leaders. They attempt to leverage their "Mormon" status as a rhetorical ploy to give their attacks more weight. But if their "Mormon" status is purely a function of their names being held on the Church's membership records, then why should that somehow lend legitimacy to their attacks?

It is a positive service to the Latter-day Saints, and especially to those who may be taken in by the "I'm such a good Mormon" posturing of such people, to question their "Mormon" bona fides every single time they try to trade on it.

If we apply the "duck test" to Mister Dehlin, we find that he walks like an anti-Mormon, quacks like an anti-Mormon, swims like an anti-Mormon and associates with anti-Mormons. What conclusion is available on that evidence?

As for Ms Kelly: I know far less about her. What I know is that her OW "movement" has brazenly defied a direct request to avoid turning General Conference into an "It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEE!" moment for themselves. They do not sustain the leaders of the Church. Their doctrinal position is wrong and their public grievance-airing is shameful. Does that mean they are not "true Mormons?" What do you think? There's a lot more to being a Latter-day Saint than being right all the time; but actively proselyting for a heterodox position is unmistakably apostate behaviour.

It has been that since a very long time before you decided to "come lately," and it hasn't changed.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Absent a means of piercing the veil and taking a looksee at the Judgment Bar, I don't think you should expect see a "spiritual impact."

But if you mean an impact on a person while they are still on the earth, then your observations are limited. I have personally spoken with people who have been excommunicated who have been spiritually affected by excommunication.

And I know many who have been excommunicated for various reasons who hold firm testimonies of the Church, believe in the Gospel and are quite at peace with their spiritual position.  They even continue to function as fully in the gospel as they can.  Don't assume your experiences are the only valid ones.  Others have observed more than you may have.

But you were the one who said that you hadn't seen any "spiritual impact" coming from excommunication. Seeing people who are coping doesn't mean that everyone copes the same way. I once met someone who was recovering successfully from a head injury. Does that somehow cast doubt on the claim that head injuries can be debilitating or even life threatening? The issue isn't what you have observed, but what you haven't. Perhaps you shouldn't assume that your experiences are the only valid ones.

 

All of a sudden just because some dude dunks you under water you are "baptized?" Just because an old guy recites a few lines in the temple you are "sealed?"

 

I do not now nor have I ever believed that the physical actions of an ordinance are merely symbolic.  If it were so, sprinkling would be as valid as immersion, priesthood would not be necessary, and God wouldn't have to reveal eternal ordinances from heaven if they just represent spiritual things.  Ordinances were established before the foundation of the earth and there is real power in the action beyond representing the spiritual.

See, you think you understand these matters, but the things you say tend to show gaps in your understanding. To say that baptism is symbolic -- which, of course, it is -- does not entail or imply that it is "merely" symbolic.

 

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work on spiritual things. Baptism is symbolic. The sealing ordinance is symbolic. But they have real, actual, spiritual consequences. But just as the priesthood gives its holders power to "bind" (baptism, sealing, etc.), it also gives them power to loose (excommunication).

Excommunication is more than paperwork, just like baptism is more than taking a quick dip at the stake center.

 

The sealing ordinance is not symbolic.  Before it is performed you are not sealed to your spouse.  After it is performed you are sealed to your spouse.  Baptism is not just symbolic - before it is performed you are not in a covenant with Christ, after it is performed you are in a covenant with Christ.  These do have spiritual consequences but those are actual things, not symbols.

Your view of these matters is altogether too binary. All ordinances are symbolic; and they all have actual consequences. The one does not automatically rule out the other.

 

And yes, the Priesthood has power to loose, just as it has power to bind.  How does it bind?  By ordinance or blessing?  How does it loose?  In the same manner and no other way.

Why? Because you say so?

So what would make it valid in your eyes? An excommunication ceremony with bell, book and candle?

When a sixteen-year-old priest baptises his 8-y-o brother, what are the elements that make that baptism valid? There is the Priesthood, the water, the prayer, complete immersion, the witnesses, the recording of the ordinance, and the fact that it was done under the direction of the one who holds the keys of that ordinance; namely, the bishop.

The bishop holds the keys of baptism in his ward. He also holds the complementary keys, namely of excommunication.

That means that when someone is excommunicated, it is by the same authority under which they were baptised.

And when someone is excommunicated, their baptism is revoked; and with it, all other covenants and blessings pertaining to their membership in the Church.

 

Wow. Perhaps you should study these matters more. You apparently lack familiarity with even the most basic components of the topics under discussion. I don't say that as a dig. Honest. I just think you are not approaching this issue as well as you could if you were more conversant about the doctrines and concepts underlying it. Just food for thought.

 

Oh, you absolutely meant that as a dig.  I am very conversant in the doctrines of priesthood sealings and Church policy, whether I see it the same way you do or not.

You say that, but your posts don't support it.

And if Smac says he didn't mean it as a dig, he didn't. It is rude for you to substitute your opinion for his definitive pronouncement on a subject on which he is the sole world authority.

 

I recommend you read and study D&C 128 and Matthew 16. A lot. Pay attention to the word "whatsoever."

 

Whatsover, yep, anything.  I am familiar with these scriptures.  And I still maintain that the same significant acts required to bind are required to loose.

And you are maintaining that position in ignorance.

 

Again, you appear to have not given this matter much study or consideration. I strongly recommend you do so, as I think earnest study and pondering will expand your horizons quite a bit.

 

Wow, condescending.  Perhaps with a bit more study you may come to recognize that the spiritual world is more than just symbolic and the elements of the ordinances are required and established by God for a reason.  Disciplinary councils have a spiritual function, but a removal of Church membership is not the same as a removal of blessings.

Yes it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited June 13, 2014 by Pahoran

[awyatt]

Heresy is just another word for apostasy-they are synonyms. 

 

They are not synonyms. Heresy is the holding of beliefs considered antithetical to the professed faith. Apostasy is the open endorsement, teaching, or advocacy of such beliefs. One involves action; one does not.

 

The Church only disciplines on unrepentant behavior. It does not discipline on thought or belief alone.

 

-Allen

[Daniel Peterson]

Hmmmm you think we generally disagree? I have usually been a vocal supporter of you against some of your most vocal and viscious critics. However perhaps we have and are growing apart more and more. 

Well I am sure you will hardly agree with what I have posted above. By the way ypur second blog on this issue was much better than the first.

 

I don't know your views on politics, music, or a host of other things, but, yes, based on what I see you post here -- I'm not always looking, and I may have missed lots of things -- we seem to disagree about religious matters far more than we agree.  Whether the gap is widening or not, I don't know.

 

We certainly disagree about Church disciplinary councils and about the overall status of the Church.  And those -- especially the latter -- are substantial things.

 

I'm grateful for your defending me against my more vituperative critics.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

FWIW, there'a a lot of believing members on this board that are activity leading me away from the church.  

 

Nobody's faith should depend on the good or bad behavior of any other mortal.

 

 

 

But I hope that compassion will also be felt, and prayers also offered, for those whose testimonies have been destroyed ... as a direct result of the activities of John Dehlin and (to a far lesser degree) of Kate Kelly.  I know quite a few of them, and I’m aware of many more.

 

 

 

I'm having trouble reconciling these two quotes from Dan. On the one hand it seems John Dehlin is on the hook for destroying testimonies, but on the other hand over zealous church members are not. I'm probably missing something but I can't quite put my finger on it.

[Kevin Christensen]

If I'm reading this right, the Church is the metaphorical "rattlesnake," "bottle of nitroglycerine," and hungry "lion."  Given the rising tide of complaints that the Church is acting with "violence" in this matter, I don't think these metaphorical comparisons serve your argument very well.

Which institution most typifies real violence in their policies and actions towards persons who disagree with them, Boko Haram or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Explain your answer.

I used those metaphors because none of them represent notable threats in daily existence in modern society. You have to both seek them out, and then behave with irrational recklessness in order to hurt yourself.

Jesus used metaphors involving burglary, and of vultures circling a carcass. That doesn't mean he was advocating burglary as a way of life or was comparing the gathered saints to carrion birds, or Zion as rotting meat.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[bluebell]

They are not synonyms. Heresy is the holding of beliefs considered antithetical to the professed faith. Apostasy is the open endorsement, teaching, or advocacy of such beliefs. One involves action; one does not.

The Church only disciplines on unrepentant behavior. It does not discipline on thought or belief alone.

-Allen

I was simply repeating what the thesaurus says about them.

They are listed as synonyms.

[rpn]

In the Trib Talk interview John Dehlin said that a bishop called him in for investigation for the 4th time in 10 years --- the three earlier times being cleared of any wrongdoing.   He said as his beliefs nor his actions have changed since the last investigation, he could not see himself participating again in draining discussions with the bishop about his life and perspectives, so he declined to go in.  He said that is when he said he didn't want to have HTers and VTers or be part of the ward and wanted to have no more callings (after also writing all of the above apparently).

 

I see his SP letter as one of trying to figure out where he is in his membership.  But it seems quite weird if what SP is saying is that JD's refusal to come in and talk to his bishop means he has to hold a DC for him?   Now the Phillips (never published) and Tanner interviews --- associating with those who oppose the church in ways that give great comfort to those who oppose the church, would be a problem for a TR, I'd think.  

[CA Steve]

Two more media outlets reporting on the Church's actions against Dehlin and Kelly.

 

Good Morning America report this morning here.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/church-day-saints-mormons-threatened-excommunication-24121034  Good Morning America report.

 

And from Buzz Feed

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-mormon-moment-is-finally-really-over

[smac97]

In the Trib Talk interview John Dehlin said that a bishop called him in for investigation for the 4th time in 10 years --- the three earlier times being cleared of any wrongdoing.   He said as his beliefs nor his actions have changed since the last investigation, he could not see himself participating again in draining discussions with the bishop about his life and perspectives, so he declined to go in.  He said that is when he said he didn't want to have HTers and VTers or be part of the ward and wanted to have no more callings (after also writing all of the above apparently).

So on the one hand he is refusing to meet with Church leaders, refusing to have a calling, refusing to accept visits from Home Teachers and Visiting Teachers, but on the other hand he is representing himself to the media like this (in an article helpfully titled: "Excommunication With a Smile: Mormon Activists Face Kangaroo Courts"):

 

Kate Kelly and John Dehlin both openly profess their love for the Church of Latter-Day Saints and their fellow Mormons. They are both deeply invested in their wards (local congregations) and committed to their faith. But in the past week, both were notified that they are on the verge of being ex-communicated.

 

...

 

Dehlin was similarly blindsided by the threat of ex-communication. “There were no hints,” he told The Daily Beast. On June 9, he received the notice by mail that was dated June 7 and sent by a “relatively new” stake president. Dehlin says he actually had a close and good relationship with his former stake president. “It was very surprising after a year of meeting weekly with my stake president,” he said. “The conclusion was I was worthy to be a member in good standing.”

 

Dehlin said he has been investigated by LDS leaders at least three times in the past 10 years, but explained, “Every time I have complied willingly with my leaders. It was an incredibly heavy investment of time and energy, and again, I was exonerated.” When his bishop wanted him to go through yet another investigation in January, his wife asked him “to please not drag the family through this process again.”

 

...

 

Kelly and Dehlin do not see themselves as rebels trying to challenge the church. In fact, both are committed members who are actively trying to work within its doctrinal and institutional framework.

 

"Committed" but refusing to meet with Church leaders. "Blindsided" despite meeting with priesthood leaders and being "investigated" repeatedly.

 

I see his SP letter as one of trying to figure out where he is in his membership.  But it seems quite weird if what SP is saying is that JD's refusal to come in and talk to his bishop means he has to hold a DC for him?   Now the Phillips (never published) and Tanner interviews --- associating with those who oppose the church in ways that give great comfort to those who oppose the church, would be a problem for a TR, I'd think.

I don't know that interviewing or having discussions with opponents of the Church would be, in and of itself, a problem for an observant Latter-day Saint. The question goes more to the nature of those communications. Does John Dehlin merely interview these folks? Or does he join with them in their criticisms of the Church? To some extent I admire what John Dehlin has tried to do, but unfortunately such a project would seem to require a very strong testimony in order to cross the line from mere inquiry into how "the other side" thinks to actually joining them in their views about the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

 

Actually, every revelation he received on the priesthood focused on gender-the male gender.  

 

No. Masculine pronouns are commonly used to refer to both genders - especially so in the past. At best you can say it represents cultural assumptions in the language of the revelations

 

I don't think it falls apart. Black men were still male.

And boys are still male.

 

My point was that obviously it shouldn't be necessary to point out which specific ethnicities and genders are eligible. The default position should be that all are eligible. 

 

 

Just the fact that He never did it, or taught anyone else to do it.  

 

And i love the fact that the first witness to his resurrection was a woman.  It just has absolutely nothing to do with Christ's will on female ordination.

 

A major role of modern apostles is to be "special witnesses of the resurrection of Christ"

Edited June 13, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

There are many unpleasant experiences that might feel like an assault to those involved. Some things that come to mind: being laid off from work; being sued; being served with divorce papers; receiving a failing grade in school; being told that your car needs repairs costing several hundred dollars; learning that you must replace your home computers because Microsoft will no longer support or give security updates to the XP operating system. (That last one happened to me just recently.)

 

None of these would I put in the category of the infliction of violence.

 

The bolded ones would certainly feel like an assault. That's not to say they are violent assaults. But feeling assaulted is a natural reaction to something like that. 

[Gray]

I know ~14 million people, and 1 God who disagree with you. The blessings that the Church bestows may also be removed by that Church.

 

There are billions of people and also 1 God who I think would disagree with that. 

 

Matthew 5:45

King James Version (KJV)

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

[Tacenda]

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_11929.shtml

 

Here a local news station has interviewed John.  I wonder what will happen to John and Kate, it's hard to believe that it was his SP deciding this matter vs. the leaders at the top.  In the interview he mentions that thousands have told him that if it weren't for Mormon Stories they wouldn't be in the church.  That made me wonder if I would have left without the podcast.  Maybe, maybe not.  I tend to give this board most of the credit, since I've been able to discuss vs. go insane.     

[Gray]

Who said their is gender equality in the Church?

 

Why would we, as a church, seek for something as inane and counter-intuitive as gender equality?

 

You evidently have the Church confused with the religion of pop culture. The gospel isn't about equality, but about coming to Christ and becoming like him.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them allto come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he deniethnone that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

[Zakuska]

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them allto come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he deniethnone that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

 

 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

[USU78]

If the linkage is there and I point it out, people can infer what they want.

 

And li'l ol' demure yet blushing Thinking has nothing in particular on his mind when forging the chain?

[Duncan]

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_11929.shtml

 

Here a local news station has interviewed John.  I wonder what will happen to John and Kate, it's hard to believe that it was his SP deciding this matter vs. the leaders at the top.  In the interview he mentions that thousands have told him that if it weren't for Mormon Stories they wouldn't be in the church.  That made me wonder if I would have left without the podcast.  Maybe, maybe not.  I tend to give this board most of the credit, since I've been able to discuss vs. go insane.     

 

 

dehlin says he has GA friends, I wonder why he doesn't get them involved? 

[Tacenda]

dehlin says he has GA friends, I wonder why he doesn't get them involved? 

 

I wish everyone could come to the table, say who they are, be who they are.  Who the heck are these GA friends in the first place?!?!

[smac97]

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_11929.shtml

 

Here a local news station has interviewed John.  I wonder what will happen to John and Kate, it's hard to believe that it was his SP deciding this matter vs. the leaders at the top.  In the interview he mentions that thousands have told him that if it weren't for Mormon Stories they wouldn't be in the church.  That made me wonder if I would have left without the podcast.  Maybe, maybe not.  I tend to give this board most of the credit, since I've been able to discuss vs. go insane.

I think we should also keep in mind this point made by Daniel Peterson: "I hope that compassion will also be felt, and prayers also offered, for those whose testimonies have been destroyed and whose families have been grievously wounded over the past several years — often, in my judgment and in that of many families and many who claim to have benefited, as a direct result of the activities of John Dehlin and (to a far lesser degree) of Kate Kelly. I know quite a few of them, and I’m aware of many more."

 

I think there are quite a few people who fit this description, but who are not banded together, and therefore are not making public pronouncements about what the adverse effects of John Dehlin. 

 

I also think anyone interested in this issue should read Gregory Smith's essays about John Dehlin's Mormon Stories project.  Smith's assessment is that "Dehlin’s on-line endeavors endorse skepticism about LDS truth claims, oppose the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on some matters of sexual morality, and seek to form a network of 'uncorrelated Mormons.'"

 

My sense is that John Dehlin wants to be seen as a fairminded and objective bystander.  But a review of his various projects do not support this claim, and instead pints to an agenda that is inimical to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

So folks, before you accept the narrative currently being peddled in the media about John Dehlin, give Smith's essay's a read and see if you can perhaps understand how his actions have led to the current circumstances.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited June 13, 2014 by smac97

[Storm Rider]

I wish everyone could come to the table, say who they are, be who they are.  Who the heck are these GA friends in the first place?!?!

 

Our brother John has evolved into a master of spin, innuendo, subterfuge.  Although I have listened to a few of his programs, it was not something that I found edifying and rather quickly never thought about listening again. Regardless, I have a knee-jerk response to anything that comes close to spinning the story for one's self-aggrandizement.  

 

It is too easy to be honest and present facts without any spin.  Too many of our national organizations, beginning with government/politics, have learned this distasteful art.  I want no part of it and not of those that use it so consistently.  

 

I agree with you completely; either put up or shut-up.  It is that easy.  

[Duncan]

I wish everyone could come to the table, say who they are, be who they are.  Who the heck are these GA friends in the first place?!?!

 

seriously!!!! hhahahahaha!