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

[Thinking]

There is no demonstrable linkage. It's merely a matter of one thing happening prior to another. To state or imply otherwise is the classic post hoc fallacy.

 

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.

 

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!

[Daniel Peterson]

I've posted another entry on my blog regarding the Kate Kelly / John Dehlin matter:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/kelly-and-dehlin-further-observations.html

 

Or, as sethpayne would say, ka-ching!

[Tsuzuki]

I get what you are saying.

 

I'm just not sure i get what John is saying.

 

First, he stated that he believes the main tenets of the LDS church.  (One of the main tenets of the LDS church is that God the Father and Jesus Christ exist.)

 

Second, he stated that he doesn't know if God or Jesus exist.

 

Those two statements seem to be mutually exclusive.  You can believe one or the other, but it's not possible to claim both.  That's why i'm confused that he is claiming that he both does believe that God and Jesus exist, while at the same time saying he doesn't know if they exist.

 

"Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge." - Alma 32:26

[Teancum]

I'm afraid that we disagree, as we generally do.

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. I no longer see the LDS church as the only true and living church on the earth. I beleive it certainly has much good and even truth but it also I believe contains many errors. I think its leaders try to do a good job and are sometimes inspired but I also believe they are as flawed as you and I and get much wrong and I believe the history of the church bears that out and continues to do so. But I do not believe there is any such thing as a one true church.

I could be wrong and beleive it or not I hold myself open to that. I think your views are the very contrary to what I said above and that you view the Church most certainly to be what is claims. Both view are going to persuade how we view thsee issues.

For example, on the subject of church discipline there was a time I argued in favor to it similar to how you did on your second blog post on the Kelly and Dehlin issues. Now I view that same argument as one born out of a necessity to defend a practice thqt seems punitive, antiquated, as well as placing the institution of the Church between God and the sinner. And extra layer so to speak. It seems to me to be there to control and to instigate fear and retribution as well as the potential for ostracism. I made the argument that you make I beleive because my belief that the church could not be wrong caused me to buy into arguments for a bad practice. I see that practice a lot by defenders. Even things that are not worth defense are defended at all costs. No organization is that perfect.

Now that said I still see how excommunication may rarely have a place and perhaps it is most appropriate in the cases being discussed here though I see it more so for Kelly than I do Dehlin since Kelly is openly and loudly opposing what is being claimed as a doctrinal practice of the church. I don't think the Catholic Church excommunicates often anymore. But a few years ago in my area there was a priest thqt was excommunicated for attempting to give too much authority to a woman in his congregation.

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.

[Teancum]

So you are familiar with disciplinary councils, but like I said, don't understand their purpose.  Nor do you seem to understand how the mercy of Christ is applied in such a council.

No ksfisher, I totally understand the arguments for the purpose of a DC that you and the church use to justify them. I have used the same argument. I no longer buy them. I have plenty of direct experience with them have convened more than one and sat in on many others. I just find the justification for them mostly specious and heavy handed. I think they put an institution between a person and the mercy of Christ which does not need a council of men to be applied. I think they create a child parent relationship between member and the Church institution and stifle spiritual maturity. I think they should not be used except for perhaps rare cases of open rebellion and apostasy.

I am sure most here disagree. You do. That is fine, but your argument against my comments are incorrect.

[Teancum]

I have judged Kate Kelly based on her public actions. There is no ambiguity, no "other side of the story" to the behaviors I have criticized. On the other hand, Kate Kelly is publicly insulting her ecclesiastical leader. There is plenty of ambiguity about what her bishop has done. We know virtually nothing about the circumstances behind his decision.Huh? What's "cowardly" about it? Would the bishop be "brave" if he had sent the letter a few weeks earlier?Out of curiosity, may I ask why you are proposing this? Is it simply a matter of propriety? Or are you concerned about the sufficiency of her current bishop's "spiritual" jurisdiction and authority? Or is it something else?Thanks,-Smac

To answer your last question I believe the policy of the church is for the former bishop to consult with the new bishop and follow the best agreed upon course of action. Yes convening a council before she moved would have been better. Perhaps cowardly is to strong so I will retract that.

[Teancum]

I'd never head of Waterman until you brought him up. but a glance at his website indicates that he is accusing today's prophets and apostles of teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. In effect, he is accusing them of apostasy. In so doing, it seems to me, he is the one in apostasy and is actively promulgating his apostate ideas, an offense potentially warranting excommunication.

Who knows Waterman could be right though I am sure it would be tough for you to get your head around that. I know the leaders themselves teach they can never lead the church astray. But that seems just so self serving.

[frank_jessop]

smac was there (past tense) and is there (present tense) anything improper or untrue with Kate Kelly "bolstered her position by claiming she is an active and faithful Latter-day Saint"?

do you have proof that she is/or was not active?

do you have proof that she is/or was faithful Saint?

just wondering why you would make a point of it.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

There is no way for you or anyone else to know that Marchant's actions had any influence whatsoever on the action of the Brethren. You certainly haven't demonstrated any. All you've done is given us your own supposition, insinuation and coy denial of insinuation. The correlation-equals-causation notion has no probative value. In fact, it is a fallacy: the post hoc fallacy.

 

If anything, all things weighed in the balance, Marchant's hostile antics might have served to dissuade the Brethren from rescinding the policy just then, just to demonstrate that they would not be swayed by pressure from apostates. Of course, there's no way to know that either, but the thought has just as much viability as your own unsubstantiated supposition.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who knows Waterman could be right though I am sure it would be tough for you to get your head around that. I know the leaders themselves teach they can never lead the church astray. But that seems just so self serving.

It's not surprising that it would seem so to one who, by his own admission, has lost his belief in the fundamental truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

But it also should not be surprising that one who is proclaiming -- as Waterman is doing -- that the Church leaders are drawing the people into error should find his Church membership in jeopardy. Not a few apostate, schismatic, break-away groups from the Church of Jesus Christ have been founded on that pretext.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I've posted another entry on my blog regarding the Kate Kelly / John Dehlin matter:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/kelly-and-dehlin-further-observations.html

 

Or, as sethpayne would say, ka-ching!

I learned some things from that blog posting, namely that Dehlin has ordered his bishopric not to regard him a part of their ward and that the ward not have any more contact with him -- home teachers, visiting teachers or anyone else.

 

From this, it's hard to conceive how he remains a Church member in any meaningful sense, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that he has effectively cut himself off from the Church.

 

One wonders, then, why he wants to retain nominal membership other than to give him influence among his own following.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

There is no way for you or anyone else to know that Marchant's actions had any influence whatsoever on the action of the Brethren. You certainly haven't demonstrated any. All you've done is given us your own supposition, insinuation and coy denial of insinuation. The correlation-equals-causation notion has no probative value. In fact, it is a fallacy: the post hoc fallacy.

 

If anything, all things weighed in the balance, Marchant's hostile antics might have served to dissuade the Brethren from rescinding the policy just then, just to demonstrate that they would not be swayed by pressure from apostates. Of course, there's no way to know that either, but the thought has just as much viability as your own unsubstantiated supposition.

His 1974 involvement with the NCAAP's action against the Church over Boy Scout leaders would be the most likely thing that might have impacted leaders' decisions, but given that he was unhappy with the result that the NCAAP agreed with the leadership, I would not be surprised if after that the leaders knew whatever they did it wouldn;t be enough for him (save perhaps admitting the Church is a fraud, JS and other prophets criminals and disbanding the Church).

 

I highly doubt Kelly would be happy to have her name appear in any association with his given she proclaims herself of strong, committed faith and he claims he is an atheist and Christ never existed.

[Duncan]

Here are my notes (I logged on about 16 minutes into it, and my notes are far from complete):

 

A lot to think about, eh? (John's comments in #19 were really odd.)

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

I hope they can live with themselves

 

FYI Our ward and Stake has been volunteering at a soup Kitchen for years now and I just got back from serving there. Our Stake also does a food drive in July to help the city's less fortunate

[juliann]

 

 

I agree that there are ways the Church can improve.  But we don't make improvements by resenting each other, or by demeaning each other, by claiming one gender is better than the other, or that one works harder than the other, or that the we are all feet or all eyeballs (see above).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Agreed, I am now going to play my piano for you.

[Teancum]

It's not surprising that it would seem so to one who, by his own admission, has lost his belief in the fundamental truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But it also should not be surprising that one who is proclaiming -- as Waterman is doing -- that the Church leaders are drawing the people into error should find his Church membership in jeopardy. Not a few apostate, schismatic, break-away groups from the Church of Jesus Christ have been founded on that pretext.

Sure. And it is not surprising that one who is a total believer buys into such a self serving and even manipulative position that the leaders cannot lead someone astray. You would never accept such nonsense from anyone else. And yea Waterman is putting his membership neck on the line. He knows the authoritarian organization he is part of well enough to understand that. Edited June 13, 2014 by Teancum

[Teancum]

I learned some things from that blog posting, namely that Dehlin has ordered his bishopric not to regard him a part of their ward and that the ward not have any more contact with him -- home teachers, visiting teachers or anyone else.

 

From this, it's hard to conceive how he remains a Church member in any meaningful sense, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that he has effectively cut himself off from the Church.

 

One wonders, then, why he wants to retain nominal membership other than to give him influence among his own following.

One wonders how Dan is privy to such allegedly private details.

[eddie]

One wonders how Dan is privy to such allegedly private details.

Because it was posted on Dehlin's public blog, that's how.

[Scott Lloyd]

One wonders how Dan is privy to such allegedly private details.

He probably read the letter at the same source I just did: the Salt Lake Tribune website.

 

Edited to add:

 

 

Or on Dehlin's public blog (thanks, eddie).

Edited June 13, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

Because it was posted on Dehlin's public blog, that's how.

Got it. Sorry.

[Teancum]

He probably read the letter at the same source I just did: the Salt Lake Tribune website.

 

Edited to add:

 

 

Or on Dehlin's public blog (thanks, eddie).

Thanks for another source.

[smac97]

smac was there (past tense) and is there (present tense) anything improper or untrue with Kate Kelly "bolstered her position by claiming she is an active and faithful Latter-day Saint"?

Nope. (Edit: "Faithful" is a rather subjective term, so I tend to give people a fair bit of latitude in using it. However, there are some things which Kate Kelly has done which appear problematic for someone claiming to be "faithful," such as aligning herself and her group with an excommunicated apostate, publicly declaring that she "admires" this apostate, defying the Church's instructions regarding protesting on Temple Square, actually trespassing and protesting on Temple Square, etc.)

 

do you have proof that she is/or was not active?

do you have proof that she is/or was faithful Saint?

Nope and nope

 

just wondering why you would make a point of it.

We were talking about why her bishop or stake president might, if disciplinary action is taken against, need to provide some measure of notice to the ward or stake (at which point her claim about being "faithful" becomes less accurate).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 13, 2014 by smac97

[Hamba Tuhan]

It makes me think that our two very different experiences are merely a sign of the types of people we are friends with on facebook (neither type being better than the other), and not of anything farther reaching. 

 

Indeed. My 319 Facebook friends are predominantly Church members scattered across Indonesia, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several Pacific Island nations. Total comments in my feed so far: nil. Likelihood of my making any kind of post on this topic: also nil.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Thinking]

There is no way for you or anyone else to know that Marchant's actions had any influence whatsoever on the action of the Brethren.

 

Didn't I just say that?

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.

 

You introduced the word linkage into the discussion. I do not think it means what you think it means. Linkage does not mean causation. It is more closely associated with correlation, which I have already admitted does not mean causation. There is no fallacy if a claim of causation is not made. All I did in my original post was point out a correlation.

 

Perhaps Kate Kelly is hoping that her efforts will precede a change in doctrine/procedure like Byron Marchant's opposition did in 1977 & 1978. Marchant opposed the denial of priesthood to those of African descent and cast an opposing vote against Spencer W. Kimball at the October 1977 general conference. He was excommunicated shortly after that. In the April 1978 conference he organized a protest on Temple Square, was arrested, but promised to organize another one at the October 1978 conference. The revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males was received on June 8, 1978.

[BlueDreams]

Indeed. My 319 Facebook friends are predominantly Church members scattered across Indonesia, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several Pacific Island nations. Total comments in my feed so far: nil.

 

3 for me. One pretty critical (no surprise, my Aunt's nuts and dramatic) And two supportive of them, if not agreeing with either of their position. But I did have a conversation about it in a meeting I had today. The person who brought it up was not LDS (though very very warm to the church in many ways). Besides him, only I had even heard about it. And only one other person knew who Dehlin was in the room (all, I think, had heard at least of OW). The general consensus was that it was sad, but at least half weren't exactly surprised. But I can't say it won't become more heard, maybe...considering this came out in the middle of the week. But I doubt it'll make nearly as much waves offline than on. 

 

This was an interesting thread to read so far. I don't know exactly how I feel about it. I'm sad for both of them. I'm not 100% surprised about either one at the same time. And I'm not entirely impressed by either one's presentation after the fact. I wouldn't expect either one, considering their personalities and usual tech savvy openness, to have kept it quiet....it's not their thang. But the information they've given from the interview to me seems quite a leap in assumptions and use of available information to get to their shown points. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[sethpayne]

I've posted another entry on my blog regarding the Kate Kelly / John Dehlin matter:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2014/06/kelly-and-dehlin-further-observations.html

 

Or, as sethpayne would say, ka-ching!

 

Priestcraft.  Pure and simple.  

 

I may have to start calling you Nehor.