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

[VideoGameJunkie]

If I was ever threatened with excommunication, I would try to cease whatever I was doing wrong. Do they not value their membership in the Lord's church?

[smac97]

Thanks for the answer. I can't help but notice it remains, at least to me, to be an announcement that revelation was had rather than the actual revelation received.

By that reasoning, we can reject the Pauline Epistles, as they were just "letters" about revelation. We'd also have to eject every single verse in the Standard Works that omit "Thus Saith The Lord."

Every revelation which is canonized is reduced to written form. In this case, we have the OD-2 as published in the Four Standard Works.

 

It explained part of the revelation received, but was not formed as "thus saith the Lord"

Is "thus saith the Lord" a necessary component of a revelation? CFR on that one. Seems kinda legalistic to me.

 

so it's hard to know if what is said in it is straight from the source or a helpful summary of what was contained in the revelation.

I think there are a lot of "revelations" which are not verbatim transcripts of the words which fell from God's lips to a prophet's listening ears/mind. But I don't think that having a verbatim transcript, replete with "thus saith the Lord" is a requirement for something to be considered "revelation" in the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 12, 2014 by smac97

[mormonnewb]

As one who has personally been the subject of a disciplinary court, I found it to be anything but and assault on me. Quite the contrary. I was called before the tribunal of love because, of the spiritual violence and assaults I had committed against myself, other members, and the Church.

I would have had to have been full of myself, blinded by pride, and swept up in cultural wave of unaccountability, to have seen it otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you saying that you used to be more prideful than you are now?

CFR

I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. You left yourself wide open for that one, pal

[ERayR]

John Dehlin says "This is a test about whether church members can openly express their doubts and concerns."

Uhmm... this would have been a good place for the Irony Police to make an arrest. Think about the events of 2012 and Greg's paper, which, as I recall expressed his doubts and concerns about Mormon Stories. John thought Greg's doubts and concerns should not be openly expressed and used all the levers of power at his disposal to make it so. And of course, after Daniel Peterson's dismissal, we saw John crowing that the events demonstrated that the Church was sending a message to annoying apologists everywhere. "Conform to the New World Order of Tolerance of everything except genuine belief and standards, or You Could be Next!"

And there was my own personal experience, offering to be interviewed, being told it was going to happen, and being put off, which of course is not at all like actual censorship. Nope. Not at all like having my comments on the Coe interview thread unceremoniously deleted from the threads. I'd expressed my doubts and concerns about a few technical points, and provided documentation for alternative views. Last time I looked you could still see comments of those who were ranting against me, and almost no other trace of what upset them so much. I don't recall asking John to silence them.

I'm not happy about the situation for Kate or John or anyone involved either personally, emotionally, or administratively. But the recent series of interviews with Sandra Tanner struck me as basically running up the Jolly Roger, as far as a demonstration of loyalties goes. And I suppose we can expect the promised Runnells interview shortly. Just for balance.

And for Kate, isn't there something off about publicly demanding a power and authority which is supposed to operate by kindness, gentleness, meekness, pure knowledge, persuasion, without compulsory means? Is there any sense that a power and authority obtained by means of public confrontation in sacred settings, protest, and non-negotiable demands would translate into the administration of that power via gentleness,meekness, persuasion and pure knowledge without compulsory means?

I don't have any problem with women and the priesthood. But an understanding of the priesthood as the power of God delegated to his servants to do his work, and not a socio-political prize, ought to dictate the mode of discussion, if that discussion is going lead anywhere worth going.

Silencing? When have the members or ex-members of this church ever demonstrated a capacity of being silent?

Well, the important thing to understand is that freedom of speech actually implies and requires freedom from the speech of others and freedom from consequence, and freedom from anyone one else grappling for control of the narrative.

I was sympathetic to John's ideals when he started, and we had some exchanges now and then over the years. I sent him a copy of the Perry Scheme email. He commented that it was "deep" and it made no other impact that I can see. I expressing my concerns on the key issue of inadequate teaching materials in Paradigms Crossed in RBBM 7/2. I've got no conceptual problem with women and the priesthood. I also remember talking to one of my young nephews about what to expect if you spend hours poking a stick at a rattlesnake, or shaking a bottle of nitrogylcerine over a hot summer, or if you stick your head and a lion's mouth and then criticize it's breath and general grooming for months and months and months, trusting that as a general principle, you have a right to be there, and if it gets annoyed or hungry, that has no implications for you to be concerned about. Freedom is the first and great commandment.

I'm LDS because I really believe. The social aspect is a side-effect of that belief, not the reason for it.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I was thinking that myself but didn't want to be the first to bring it up.  You have expressed it quite well.

[mormonnewb]

An excommunication is equivalent to the inquisition. Do you really think so?

The methods are different but we hope for the same result.

[Paloma]

I'm not sure how Dehlin can say that he accepts the central tenets of the church if he doesn't even believe that Jesus Christ and God exist.  I'm not saying that is ground for excommunication, but just commenting on the seeming contradiction in his own beliefs.

 

Hi Bluebell!

 

There have been a few mentions of this statement ("... if there is a God") that John made.

 

My own observation and experience is that some people are wired to simply "believe" and others are wired to question and doubt so that their faith is more like the fellow in Mark 9:24 who said, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief".

 

I'm a thinker, ponderer and doubter and I seem to have to turn over every stone.  And yet I believe.  My relationship with and love for God is so deep that I can't help but believe!

 

But I'm very comfortable with the language of doubt.  And there have been times when I've been counselling with people who either don't believe or who have doubts, that I've said ""... if God even exists!" because I've thought it could tap into their own openness and help them explore whether they can make a leap of faith, see God's goodness, and embrace God's existence. 

 

I'm not trying to second guess John here at all.  (Although I understand that he tries to help people who have doubts, and I tend to think he's a doubter himself.) 

 

I can appreciate the seeming oddity of John's words here, and the surprise engendered by this addition (  Only he knows why he added that - and almost as an afterthought.)  But expressions of doubts as to God's existence (even from believers!) don't alarm me.  And I think that God is more than able to understand where our doubts come from (He made us!) and to journey with us as we honestly acknowledge and confront our doubts and our belief.

 

 

Bluebell, as ever, I like your posts.  I'd love to live close and have face to face chats with you!

[Zakuska]

We should go back to excommunicating natural plagues...

 

 

In 1120 the Bishop of Laon excommunicated the caterpillars which were ravaging the diocese. This he did with the same as employed the the previous year by the Council of Rheims in cursing a priest who insisted on marrying. The Bishop of Laon was given money and offerings by the grateful peasants. (2) Similarly St. Bernard when preaching at Foigny, was interrupted by a swarm of most un-Christian flies. Losing his saintly patience, he excommunicated them. Next morning the flies were all found dead. He received offerings, which he gave to the nearest monastery. (3)

 

In 1451 William Saluces, Bishop of Lausanne, ordered the trial of multitudes of leeches which threatened the fish of Geneva. The leeches were ordered, under pain of excommunication, together in the given spot. The people concerned made abundant offerings to the Church. The ecclesiastical court of Autumn in 1480 excommunicated an army of caterpillars and ordered the priests of the region to repeat the anathema from the pulpit until the caterpillars had been exterminated.

 

The following year, 1481, and again in 1487, a most irreligious multitude of snails at Macon were duly excommunicated. In 1516 the clergy excommunicated the too numerous grasshoppers at Milliere, in Normandy. In 1587, at Valence, a formal trial was terminated with a sentence of banishment against another multitude of caterpillars. (4)

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

I plead with you to re-consider your position on this.  I know it can be hard to change a cherished position, but with respect I submit that the OD-2 is unmistakably a canonized revelation.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Tough to argue against it but people do because they think they know something that they really don't.

[ERayR]

The methods are different but we hope for the same result.

 

Did I miss something?  Are they moving the venue for these disciplinary councils to the torture chambers beneath the Church office building?  

[mormonnewb]

Did I miss something? Are they moving the venue for these disciplinary councils to the torture chambers beneath the Church office building?

Once again, different methods, same aim. Believe as we believe ... or else.

[Paloma]

She absolutely is, and i do not fault her one bit for the emotional toll that it must cause.

 

However, this, unlike a robbery, is not something that is being stolen from her.  If the disciplinary council happens, and if she is found 'guilty' (for lack of a better term), then she will only lose these dear and integral things if she chooses to.

 

What i mean by that is, the ray of hope in this whole situation is that if all that i said above comes to pass (and it's not a foregone conclusion yet i don't think), she will be asked to choose between her activities in regards to OW, and her church membership.  Not that such a choice would be easy for her, but if she truly believes that the LDS church is God's church, and that the ways of salvation are found only therein (as she has claimed, and there's no reason to doubt her on that), then she only need choose that over OW and nothing will be lost.

 

If she choses OW over her church membership, then that is her cross to bear and one of her own making (and i'm not saying that in an accusatory tone but just in recognition of the natural relationship between agency, choice, and consequence).  No doubt it would be devastating, but still completely within her control. 

 

I fully understand what you're saying here and can stand back and see this within the LDS context which is the reality for both the Church and for Kate as a member of the Church.

[Gray]

We don't just have to go by what happened in the NT though.  He also organized His church in 1830 and again, He excluded women from ordination.

 

Joseph Smith never recorded any revelation prohibiting women from ordination

 

And I don't think there is anyway to successfully argue that Christ succumbed to the traditions and culture of His time when He really wanted for women be ordained.  Her certainly didn't care about culture and tradition with any thing else so there is no precedent or evidence to support that idea.

 

Jesus partook in many of the traditions of his day.

 

And one more aside-is the culture of His area/time that much different than that of the OT, where you have argued that women were ordained?  If He could pull it off in the OT, why not the NT and the D&C?

 

There are 8 centuries difference between, for example, Isaiah and Jesus. 

[Gray]

But he did in the OD-2.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No. In fact all OD-2 does is establish that the answer from God to the question "Can black men be ordained to the priesthoood" was yes.

 

Unfortunately all we have to support the priesthood ban on women is tradition that we seem to have inherited from contemporary Christian culture. 

[wenglund]

There is no modern revelation that deals with the subject of ordination for women.

 

Folks, speaking from experience, there is no battering-ram of evidence strong enough to penetrate the dogmatically cemented wall of this mantra, so be forewarned against wasting your time.

 

Instead, beyond adhering to the 11th Article of Faith, simply be grateful that Gray is a good, decent, intelligent, and lovely human being with admirable online manners that aught to be an example to us all. [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gray]

As one who has personally been the subject of a disciplinary court, I found it to be anything but and assault on me. Quite the contrary. I was called before the tribunal of love because of the spiritual violence and assaults I had committed against myself, other members, and the Church.

 

I would have had to have been full of myself, blinded by pride, and swept up in cultural wave of unaccountability, to have seen it otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I suspect it depends on what we are being disciplined for. Being punished for one's sincere beliefs does feel like a slap in the face. The news of this felt like a slap in the face to me, and I'm not the subject of it. 

 

Thanks for sharing your experience Wade, and for your heartfelt expressions of humility. I am sure that in some cases discipline CAN be a positive experience. 

Edited June 12, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

By that reasoning, we can reject the Pauline Epistles, as they were just "letters" about revelation. We'd also have to eject every single verse in the Standard Works that omit "Thus Saith The Lord."

Every revelation which is canonized is reduced to written form. In this case, we have the OD-2 as published in the Four Standard Works.

 

Is "thus saith the Lord" a necessary component of a revelation? CFR on that one. Seems kinda legalistic to me.

 

I think there are a lot of "revelations" which are not verbatim transcripts of the words which fell from God's lips to a prophet's listening ears/mind. But I don't think that having a verbatim transcript, replete with "thus saith the Lord" is a requirement for something to be considered "revelation" in the LDS Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

We do reject parts of them

[busybee]

I don't have a reference. I do know of a returned (Elder) missionary whose duties included relief society president

Was hid duty to organise the RS in said area or was he CALLED and SUSTAINED as RS President. Two different things IMO

[Gray]

Folks, speaking from experience, there is no battering-ram of evidence strong enough to penetrate the dogmatically cemented wall of this mantra, so be forewarned against wasting your time.

 

Instead, beyond adhering to the 11th Article of Faith, simply be grateful that Gray is a good, decent, intelligent, and lovely human being with admirable online manners that aught to be an example to us all. [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'd accept a direct scriptural citation in lieu of a battering ram, but thanks for the kind words, Wade. Sincerely. 

[busybee]

Like i said earlier.  Im one of those returned missionaries.

 

Our main Goal though was to get a Female Member ready and trained to do the Job. Or,  If Sisters where transfered into the Area they automatically got the Job. 

Were you CALLED and SUSTAINED as RS Pres or were you asked to preside over the RS until a sister could be called to the position. There is a difference.

[Gray]

Were you CALLED and SUSTAINED as RS Pres or were you asked to preside over the RS until a sister could be called to the position. There is a difference.

 

It sounds like a distinction without a difference. 

[bluebell]

.

Agreed. Apostasy is just as primitive. The very worst horrors of the great Catholic Church involve just this issue. Someone had the temerity to BELIEVE differently than the majority. He must die! Now, fortunately, we won't drown and burn anyone at the stake. But we still think we can silence "falsehoods."

Did that EVER work for the Catholic Church? Did intimidating scientists into silence make the sun revolve around the earth? Of course not. Did burning priests at the stake (presidency) stop the Reformation? Of course not.

About the only thing more ridiculous than these excommunications is that I've WILLINGLY embroiled myself in a debate that should have been resolved FOUR centuries ago. I guess next week, I'll spend my time debating whether the earth is flat and which prophet was speaking "as a man" when he said it was actually triangular.

If Dehlin and Kelly are spreading false doctrine, it will be proven false in time. And if they are right, 15 million excommunications won't change that fact.

-- King Arthur

Excommunication from the church for apostasy is taught in the NT as well as in the BOM.

If a wolf is in sheep's clothing, the leaders have a scripturally mandated duty to remove him from the flock.

If someone joins your family, and then harms them, it is your duty to remove that person to protect the other members. You don't just sit back and think to yourself "if this person is really doing harm, my children will figure it out eventually in time. We'll wait and see what happens."

The church, in regards to apostasy, operates the same way you would in your home. It has a duty to protect the innocent and sometimes that means removing someone from a position where they have valididated access to those innocent people.

There may be disagreements on what apostasy is and who is guilty of it, but to suggest that it doesn't exist, or that if it does the church should let it stay in the fold among the sheep and let it do whatever it wants, doesn't make any sense.

[smac97]

I was thinking that myself but didn't want to be the first to bring it up.  You have expressed it quite well.

I also though Kevin expressed it well.

Let me present an analogous situation, which came to mind as I listened to Kate Kelly and John Dehlin talk about how "being Mormon" is in the "blood/DNA": I am an attorney licensed in the State of Utah. If someone were to say that I was "born" an attorney, or that being an attorney is "in my DNA," and that I am an attorney no matter what, and the Utah State Bar can't take away my attorneyness, then I would say "Um, no. I may have some of the attributes of an attorney, but I can only truly say I am an attorney if I meet certain requirements in terms of training/education/preparation and personal conduct. I am only an attorney so long as the Utah State Bar says I am an attorney. It has power over me insofar as I claim the status of "attorney." It can take away that status. It cannot do so arbitrarily or capriciously, but it can do it. There are procedures in place to address situations where an attorney licensed by the Bar engages in conduct which contravenes the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. In serious cases, that can mean disbarment. A disbarred attorney is no attorney at all. He cannot function as an attorney. He has none of the rights and privileges of that designation. He cannot go around and tell people that he is an attorney. He is ... something else.

I value my bar license. It allows me to do things which benefit my family and, to some extent, society in general. It would be very hard for me to lose my bar license. I would lose my livelihood. It would be embarrassing. There would be some social opprobrium. But if I steal money from a client, or lie to a judge, or do something else which constitutes a serious violation of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, then I might get disbarred. I can't thereafter blame the Utah State Bar for these adverse consequences flowing from my own actions. I also could not say "Eh, doesn't matter. I'm an attorney, and nothing the Utah State Bar does can take that away from me!"

This is somewhat comparable to membership in the Church. We choose to join it, stay in it, and adhere to a particular code of conduct. We receive blessings as part of that membership. But if we violate the code of conduct, if we defy the Church, if we disregard counsel and instruction, if we publicly agitate against and antagonize the Church, then we run the risk of losing that membership or having it restricted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

Here you go:

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

 

The First Presidency

 

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

 

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

 

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

 

I plead with you to re-consider your position on this.  I know it can be hard to change a cherished position, but with respect I submit that the OD-2 is unmistakably a canonized revelation.

 

 

I would have to disagree with your last statement.  OD-2 is NOT a revelation.  It is the announcement of a revelation having occurred.  It is the result of a revelation having occurred.  But it does not contain a revelation within it.  It is not God speaking to us but an announcement from the GA's that a revelation was received.  It is no more a revelation than the preface to the D&C is for stating that revelations were given or an article discussing the first vision in the Ensign.  It just refers to the occurrence, it is not the revelation received.

[wenglund]

Are you saying that you used to be more prideful than you are now?

CFR

I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself. You left yourself wide open for that one, pal

 

If I weren't so humble, I wouldn't have found that funny. As it is, I appreciate the hearty laugh. You got me good, my friend. [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

Well, the important thing to understand is that freedom of speech actually implies and requires freedom from the speech of others and freedom from consequence, and freedom from anyone one else grappling for control of the narrative.

I was sympathetic to John's ideals when he started, and we had some exchanges now and then over the years. I sent him a copy of the Perry Scheme email. He commented that it was "deep" and it made no other impact that I can see. I expressing my concerns on the key issue of inadequate teaching materials in Paradigms Crossed in RBBM 7/2. I've got no conceptual problem with women and the priesthood. I also remember talking to one of my young nephews about what to expect if you spend hours poking a stick at a rattlesnake, or shaking a bottle of nitrogylcerine over a hot summer, or if you stick your head and a lion's mouth and then criticize it's breath and general grooming for months and months and months, trusting that as a general principle, you have a right to be there, and if it gets annoyed or hungry, that has no implications for you to be concerned about. Freedom is the first and great commandment.

I'm LDS because I really believe. The social aspect is a side-effect of that belief, not the reason for it.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

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.