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

[mormonnewb]

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.

If someone HARMS my family, then being ex'd is the LEAST of their problems. However, I don't see expressing different viewpoints as doing HARM.

For example, if one of my children thought Brian Regan was funny, I wouldn't throw them out on the streets for being wrong. He could even buy one of Regan's dreadful CDs. He could even go so far as suggest we watch one of his shows as part of FHE. It wouldn't happen, but it isn't a crime in my home to have bad taste (or in this case, none).

More pertinently, if I had a 16-yo daughter who "demanded" her own car, it wouldn't cause me to sever our relationship. This is true even if she asked me every six months. Or if she tried to get her siblings to picket me in the front yard holding up signs reading, "Daddy is cheap!" She could even take her complaints to the NYT. Now, if she tried to light the house on fire (or worse, invite Brian Regan to perform at our house), then she'd have to go.

But in MY house, you are free to be wrong. It's kind of our "thang" around here.

[ERayR]

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

 

Maybe, and I repeat it is only speculation, they have realized that as nice of a guy as he is he has gone too far.

[ERayR]

However, I don't see expressing different viewpoints as doing HARM.

                                     

 

The viewpoint is not the problem.  Its what you do with it that becomes a problem.

[ERayR]

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

 

You mean the one Dehlin pulled strings to have quashed?

[smac97]

If someone HARMS my family, then being ex'd is the LEAST of their problems. However, I don't see expressing different viewpoints as doing HARM.

First, please reconsider your statement about excommunication being "the least" of a person's problems. I think you improperly diminish the significance of excommunication, and perhaps do not fully understand its significance (that is not to in any way diminish the other, more immediate and apparent consequences accruing against someone who harms your family).

Second, I think you seriously and profoundly distort the situation when you describe what Kate Kelly and John Dehlin have done as merely "expressing different viewpoints." They are not charged with spiritual jaywalking.

Third, words can cause harm, both spiritual and temporal. Take a look at Korihor and ask yourself if he was just "expressing different viewpoints."

Thanks,

-Smac

[mormonnewb]

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"): 

This headline alone should be reason enough for the Church to reconsider this whole concept of ferreting out apostasy. It's such an outdated concept that it just seems, for lack of a better word, backwards. And given our current stands on gays and bare shoulders, we might want to try to appear "progressive" in at least ONE respect.

[smac97]

You mean the one Dehlin pulled strings to have quashed?

Yep. That's the one.

Golly, I wonder if there's a bit of discomfort going on at BYU right now amongst the folks who collaborated with John Dehlin to suppress Smith's article and oust Daniel Peterson.

Awkwaaaaard...

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

If someone HARMS my family, then being ex'd is the LEAST of their problems. However, I don't see expressing different viewpoints as doing HARM.

For example, if one of my children thought Brian Regan was funny, I wouldn't throw them out on the streets for being wrong. He could even buy one of Regan's dreadful CDs. He could even go so far as suggest we watch one of his shows as part of FHE. It wouldn't happen, but it isn't a crime in my home to have bad taste (or in this case, none).

More pertinently, if I had a 16-yo daughter who "demanded" her own car, it wouldn't cause me to sever our relationship. This is true even if she asked me every six months. Or if she tried to get her siblings to picket me in the front yard holding up signs reading, "Daddy is cheap!" She could even take her complaints to the NYT. Now, if she tried to light the house on fire (or worse, invite Brian Regan to perform at our house), then she'd have to go.

But in MY house, you are free to be wrong. It's kind of our "thang" around here.

 

It is not a matter of "Bad Taste". If that were the criteria we'd all be in trouble.

 

It is as if your 16 year old daughter attacked you with butcher knife, demanded her freedom from all family rules, and still demanded you to give her your car. Then claimed mistreatment when you said no.

[ERayR]

This headline alone should be reason enough for the Church to reconsider this whole concept of ferreting out apostasy. It's such an outdated concept that it just seems, for lack of a better word, backwards. And given our current stands on gays and bare shoulders, we might want to try to appear "progressive" in at least ONE respect.

 

Do you really think we ought to become an anything goes church? 

[Zakuska]

Do you really think we ought to become an anything goes church? 

 

I think we where one of those type churchs to begin with.  11th article of faith and all,

[Calm]

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.

I won't speak for Dan, but my opinion is that while no one's testimony or faith should depend on another's action, unfortunately there are people who allow this to happen to themselves or who are not yet at a stage where they are beyond this type of influence (especially youth).  We need to care for tender faiths as much as we can.

 

OTOH, I would assume that anyone capable of writing coherent discussions about faith on the board has enough of an informed faith and a strong enough personality that they wouldn't be swayed unless they let themselves be.  I don't agree with the actions of those who create an environment that might lead someone to think "why would I want to be a Mormon" but I would hope that of the usual posters on the board, none of them are so susceptible to hurt feelings that it would actually cause a change in their faith.  If they feel it would, it seems to me it would be wisdom for them to seek to strengthen their foundation before spending more time here.  And if you can choose to be here, you can choose not to be here.

 

I see it in much the same way as I see modesty.  If you have a hard time controlling your thoughts, you shouldn't go to beaches where it is mostly skin (male or female) or watch movies with explicit sex scenes.

Edited June 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I think we where one of those type churchs to begin with.  11th article of faith and all,

 

Yet there were limits hence the excommunication of many in Josephs time.

[Calm]

I think we where one of those type churchs to begin with.  11th article of faith and all,

You should go check the number of excommunications that happened in the early days of the Church.

[Duncan]

This headline alone should be reason enough for the Church to reconsider this whole concept of ferreting out apostasy. It's such an outdated concept that it just seems, for lack of a better word, backwards. And given our current stands on gays and bare shoulders, we might want to try to appear "progressive" in at least ONE respect.

 

of curse it's a goofy headline and it\s not even what is going on in reality, according to the letters that have been put up by the people in question

 

if they love the Church so much and are such wonderful members of it, they can always come back 

[smac97]

This headline alone should be reason enough for the Church to reconsider this whole concept of ferreting out apostasy.

So the Church should disregard revealed doctrines and commandments about dealing with apostasy out of fear of news articles with disparaging titles?

My friend, where are your priorities?

 

It's such an outdated concept that it just seems, for lack of a better word, backwards.

It is neither outdated nor backwards. It makes perfect sense. Every organization or relationship between parties which coheres around a particular core function must maintain its connections to that core function. Professional organizations oust members who fail to adhere to its requirements (doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, etc.). Countries prosecute citizens who act in traitorous ways. A landlord will evict a tenant who fails to pay rent. Employers fire employees who misbehave or fail to properly function in their responsibilities. The examples are endless.

It is a bit mind-blowing that you think a community of faith taking steps to maintain and protect that community is acting in "backward" fasion.

 

And given our current stands on gays and bare shoulders, we might want to try to appear "progressive" in at least ONE respect.

I can't help but think that we should be focused less on "appearances" and more on what is right, on whether we are discerning and following the will of God.  I am reminded of 1 Nephi 8:

 

19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.

20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.

21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.

22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.

23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.

24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, aclinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.

26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the cair, high above the earth.

27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father.

30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.

31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.

32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.

33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.

In times like this, I find it useful to review this chapter and evaluate myself.  If I were in Lehi's dream, where would I be?  In the mist but clinging to the rod, or in the mist and wandering "in strange roads?"  At the tree, eating the fruit and rejoicing in it, or eating it and "cast(ing) (my) eyes about as if (I) were ashamed?"  Enduring the mockery of those in the Great and Spacious Building, or entering into it and joining in the mockery?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[why me]

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?

 

 

 

The attention that they receive will not be much outside the mormon church. No one actually cares what the lds church does. People are just trying to survive these days and most people understand that churches do have their disciplines if one strays too far. It just goes with the turf. Both have pushed the limits. If something was not done, it would send a bad signal to the membership that they can do whatever they want and nothing will happen. If they are not excommunicated for apostacy who would be? And if not, why have excommunication at all if it is not enforced?

[why me]

You should go check the number of excommunications that happened in the early days of the Church.

This is true. These days the church has become a little too  soft. It is not good for the body of the church.

[Zakuska]

Yet there were limits hence the excommunication of many in Josephs time.

 

Yes there were. I like how Joseph Questioned the excommunication of Sydney,

[cinepro]

I don't know if this is relevant, but about 100 years ago the Church actually filmed an excommunication, and it's since been colorized and had sound added to it.  This historical record might not pertain to what is done today, but it I think it serves to show how the process has evolved.  It also explains why Dehlin was asked to bring a "bowler hat" and "umbrella" to his council.

 

Link to film of excommunication

 

The film shows President Joseph F. Smith, his son Joseph Fielding Smith, and counselors Anthon Lund and John Henry Smith.  The trial was held for Elder George Banks regarding his misappropriation of church funds, with an additional charge of "impertinence".

Edited June 13, 2014 by cinepro

[mormonnewb]

First, please reconsider your statement about excommunication being "the least" of a person's problems. I think you improperly diminish the significance of excommunication, and perhaps do not fully understand its significance (that is not to in any way diminish the other, more immediate and apparent consequences accruing against someone who harms your family).Second, I think you seriously and profoundly distort the situation when you describe what Kate Kelly and John Dehlin have done as merely "expressing different viewpoints." They are not charged with spiritual jaywalking.Third, words can cause harm, both spiritual and temporal. Take a look at Korihor and ask yourself if he was just "expressing different viewpoints."Thanks,-Smac

We're now comparing John & Kate to Korihor? I am a HUGE fan of hyperbole, but that might be a little much for even me. Which of them have ridiculed Christ, the Atonement, and the spirit of prophecy?

Also, I find it interesting that during Korihor's Court of Love, Alma didn't just declare that his doctrine was correct by fiat, but actually gave a sign from God that PROVED he was right. This let Korihor, and more importantly, his many followers KNOW that they had been deceived. This would seem a lot more convincing than "Because we said so."

[Zakuska]

We're now comparing John & Kate to Korihor? I am a HUGE fan of hyperbole, but that might be a little much for even me. Which of them have ridiculed Christ, the Atonement, and the spirit of prophecy?

Also, I find it interesting that during Korihor's Court of Love, Alma didn't just declare that his doctrine was correct by fiat, but actually gave a sign from God that PROVED he was right. This let Korihor, and more importantly, his many followers KNOW that they had been deceived. This would seem a lot more convincing than "Because we said so."

In the Interview John seemed to hint at his uncertainty in the existence of God and Christ.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Zakuska

[mormonnewb]

It is not a matter of "Bad Taste". If that were the criteria we'd all be in trouble.

 

It is as if your 16 year old daughter attacked you with butcher knife, demanded her freedom from all family rules, and still demanded you to give her your car. Then claimed mistreatment when you said no.

No, my analogy is far more accurate. Kelly demanded something of the Brethren -- the priesthood, They said, "No!" She kept asking. I don't equate a peaceful protest at the Priesthood meeting with attacking anyone with a butcher knife. She didnt demand freedom from all the family rules (eg, paying tithing, the WoW, etc.). She just wanted an additional chore to perform.

[ERayR]

This headline alone should be reason enough for the Church to reconsider this whole concept of ferreting out apostasy. It's such an outdated concept that it just seems, for lack of a better word, backwards. And given our current stands on gays and bare shoulders, we might want to try to appear "progressive" in at least ONE respect.

 

Insert something here now, about a great and spacious building.

[bluebell]

If someone HARMS my family, then being ex'd is the LEAST of their problems. However, I don't see expressing different viewpoints as doing HARM.

For example, if one of my children thought Brian Regan was funny, I wouldn't throw them out on the streets for being wrong. He could even buy one of Regan's dreadful CDs. He could even go so far as suggest we watch one of his shows as part of FHE. It wouldn't happen, but it isn't a crime in my home to have bad taste (or in this case, none).

More pertinently, if I had a 16-yo daughter who "demanded" her own car, it wouldn't cause me to sever our relationship. This is true even if she asked me every six months. Or if she tried to get her siblings to picket me in the front yard holding up signs reading, "Daddy is cheap!" She could even take her complaints to the NYT. Now, if she tried to light the house on fire (or worse, invite Brian Regan to perform at our house), then she'd have to go.

But in MY house, you are free to be wrong. It's kind of our "thang" around here.

 

You aren't really using 'harm' in the way that i am though.

 

You listed a whole bunch of things that you didn't think were harmful-that's obviously not what I'm talking about. The issue is things that you do absolutely believe to be harmful and what you would do to protect your family from that kind of harm.  When church leaders try to decide whether or not someone should be excommunicated for apostasy, they are doing it because they sincerely believe the person is causing real harm. To understand apostasy as it is used in the church, you have to compare apples to apples.  

 

This isn't about disagreeing with each other or thinking someone in the family is wrong (anyone who thinks that's the issue has no real understanding of what's actually going on).  

 

It's more like having someone in the family who you believe is teaching your kids that doing drugs is o.k.,  or that disobeying you and doing dangerous things is really the better option than whatever you are teaching, and then actively trying to get other family members to follow them instead of you behind your back.  You've told this person numerous times to quit but they won't, and they are even using your relationship with them to legitimize what they are teaching the other kids.

 

I'm guessing that even in your 'free to be wrong' home, you draw the line somewhere, even with family members that you dearly love.  

 

That's what excommunication for apostasy is, it's acknowledging that the line exists and that if it's crossed, the person doing it has to either quit, or leave.  

 

Like i said before, there is certainly room to debate where the line is, or whether someone has crossed it.  But to suggest that the line should not exist makes no sense.    

[ksfisher]

I think we where one of those type churchs to begin with.  11th article of faith and all,

 

The 11th Article of Faith is a general statement about religious freedom. It has nothing to do with conditions for being a member of the church.