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

[ERayR]

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.

 

Oh you forgot the part where she wrote or was writing the six lessons and was organizing study groups to teach them.  She simply demanded that revealed doctrine be ignored.

[ERayR]

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."

 

Are you really advocating calling down a Korihor judgement on them?  Better be careful.

[bluebell]

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 It's such an outdated concept that it just seems, for lack of a better word, backwards.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

 

If the church's biggest concern becomes being 'progressive' than it has become a dead church and there is nothing left here for anyone.  And if the church ever let news headlines dictate it's actions then shame on it because it is not Christ's church. 

[Calm]

Oh you forgot the part where she wrote or was writing the six lessons and was organizing study groups to teach them.  She simply demanded that revealed doctrine be ignored.

And suggesting they use ward resources to spread the word, a big big do not go there for any reason.

[Storm Rider]

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 It's such an outdated concept that it just seems, for lack of a better word, backwards.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

 

I think you are missing the point and ignoring the mountain of evidence against what you are proclaiming.  First, the church does not seek to excommunicate those in apostasy; never has and never will.  The evidence that this is true is that so few, as in I have never heard of one, where a member was in a state of apostasy and was excommunicated solely for that position.  Neither of these individuals are being "pursued" for apostasy.  Second, those who use the media consistently to attack the church and its leaders go too far and that is the line that has been crossed.  Their actions demonstrate their objective is to lead away others into apostasy.  Third, this entire episode was kept private by the Church; the only ones that used the media is, wait for it, yes, those same two involved who desire anything but to be obedient or humble.  

 

Excommunication is not backward; it is a biblical teaching that is used to assist those involved to reconsider their ways and to repent.  I for one would like to see it used more often for a broader range of sins.  I would also shorten the time it takes to be brought back into the fold, but that is a different conversation. 

[mormonnewb]

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.

 

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.

We disagree on two points.

1). I don't think that you "protect" the community by trying to silence opposing points of view. To be clear, I appreciate that the Church wouldn't allow someone to teach "falsehoods" in church. But to say that one can't voice a dissenting opinion OUTSIDE of Church goes too far.

2). I am not the only one concerned with appearances around here. I wasn't the one who spent tons of money on the "I'm a Mormon" campaign trying to show people how "hip" and "diverse" we are. Perhaps, next year, we can run a "I'm an Excommunicated Mormon" campaign.

[Calm]

Don't you think it makes a difference if someone is using their church position or membership to give credibility to what they are promoting?

Would you be okay with someone using his position as Elder Quorum's President to promote his business of childern's videos of the scriptures or a food storage/emergency prep business? What about someone who went around and gave meetings in homes after sending out invitations through the Ward Bulletin/email/newsletter that promoted people joining a movement to start their own community based on a particular conservative political interpretation of the gospel in Southern Utah? To promote their favourite local politician? To teach members they could reach a state where they were so spiritually in tune they could move beyond the need for the Church itself? Or taught other members they should go off into the woods and fast until they were visited by God? (all of which I am aware of happening and needing local leaders to step in to inform members these were not church approved activities, the last case unfortunately resulted in the death of the one woman he still managed to convince to follow him at which point he snuck back into town and went about his business until her body was found much later).

Edited June 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

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.

I see your point and it dovetails into a common theme on this board -- inoculation. If the only way to keep my kids free from drugs is to make sure that they never come in contact with someone who is pro-drug, we're in trouble. I need to teach them enough "truth" so that they can still say "No" if they find themselves in a crack house.

In a spiritual context, crack is EVERYWHERE, especially in the Internet age. Even the most sincere Google search will turn up some "anti-Mormon" hits. My kids have to be able to retain their faith even if they hear something that the Brethren disagree with. And as for having these people in my home, as a convert, I can't avoid it. My ENTIRE family disagrees with our fundamental truth claims.

In truth, they don't really care enough to argue about it, but if my children are at, say, Grandma's house, they might hear a TV preacher expounding on the truth of the trinity. I'm not ex'ing my momma because she has exposed them to "apostasy." Now, if she offered them crack cocaine, that would be another story because, on a fixed income, she really should be spending her money more wisely

Yes, you're right. There is a limit as to what kind of behavior I will allow my children to be around. I just don't see someone who disagrees with the Brethren in the class of drug dealers, killers and Brian Regan.

[mormonnewb]

Oh you forgot the part where she wrote or was writing the six lessons and was organizing study groups to teach them.  She simply demanded that revealed doctrine be ignored.

So that is the part like stabbing Pres. Monson with a butcher knife?

[Gray]

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

 

Uncertainty isn't a sin

[mormonnewb]

And suggesting they use ward resources to spread the word, a big big do not go there for any reason.

Agreed. They overstepped their bounds. And when my children do that, I simply say, "No!" Court of Love adjourned!

[Zakuska]

Uncertainty isn't a sin

Never said it was.

[halconero]

A big issue, newb, is the use of Church membership and resources in the cause. In Sister Kelly's case, her discussions included the use of ward resources to advocate her position.

In John Dehlin's case, he's unofficially cut himself from being a member, yet continues to to present himself as an involved, active, member to his listeners.

[Buzzard]

I posted this back at the start of the thread, so excuse my repetition. But there has always been a line. You can question, you can post, you can express uncertainty, and the church will leave you alone. But when you go after the brethren, that's the line, because what makes our religion different is the 15 men of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 that we sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. I didn't follow Dehlen enough to say where he crossed the line, but with Sister Kelly, it was obvious. Six discussions, and in the first you play "Patriarchy Bingo"? Here is a copy of their first discussion, by the way:

http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OrdainWomen6DiscussionsSeetheSymptoms.pdf

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get a sense that they are asking for greater input, they are storming the gates, and you better get out of their way. There are sure a lot of pejorative comments about a religion they profess to love. And yes, IMHO, it goes over the line from questioning to challenging those who lead the church. YMMV, of course. 

[rockpond]

In John Dehlin's case, he's unofficially cut himself from being a member, yet continues to to present himself as an involved, active, member to his listeners.

 

You might be interested in reading the following.  This was written by John Dehlin for a reporter and then he also posted it to Facebook in response to questions about the Stake President Letter (7-June-2014).  It gives a better idea of what the Stake President was referring to and provides Dehlin's point of view.  He didn't "cut himself from being a member".  (Note:  He did not include the email to the Bishop in his Facebook post, it is referred to here because he gave it to the report who he originally wrote this for.  And the Stake President letter is easily found online so I won't bother to post another link here.

 

"A quick clarification about the stuff in my stake president's letter about my bishop.

 

"I've been investigated by the church at least three times in the past 10 years. Every time I have complied willingly, meeting for HOURS with my leaders trying to help them understand what I'm doing with Mormon Stories. This includes a period two years ago where I met weekly for an hour and a half each week with my stake president for over a year's time. It was an incredibly heavy investment of time and energy -- and again, I was exonerated. These processes are always emotionally draining for me, but in the past, I have been willing to engage in them out of respect for the church and out of a desire to build understanding.

 

"When my bishop called me into his office in February, he told me that he was going to begin yet another investigation, and used very offensive language (to me) during that interview (suggesting that I might be a wolf in sheep's clothing."

 

"He read Alma 5:59-60 out loud to me, which reads:

 

"59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

60 And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed."

 

"He then told me that he I should expect to hear from him soon for the beginning of (yet) another round of investigatory meetings.

One thing that was SUPER hard for me about this was that my beliefs had not changed a stitch from the previous year, when I ended things on what I believed were good terms with my stake president....when he let me baptize and confirm my son.

 

"I came home immediately and spoke with my wife (Margi), and she told me that she felt as though we had been through far too many of these investigations in the past (always to be exonerated at the end), that the process had become demeaning (in her eyes), and that as my wife, she asked me to please not drag the family through this process again. Consequently, I sent the email pasted below to Bishop Hunt (my bishop).

 

"To be clear - I never indicated a desire to have my membership revoked or rescinded. This was our way of asking the bishop to please leave us alone (which he has thankfully done). We have continued to attend church over the past five months, our daughter currently is serving in a leadership capacity in the church, and both of our other daughters have spoken in church over the past year (if my memory serves me).

 

"Frankly, we were simply insulted by the Bishop's communications with us, and tired/no longer willing to participate an any more investigations.

I hope this makes sense."

 

I'm posting this for everyone's information only.  I am not interested in debating the content and I don't have the time to get involved in this very active thread again.  If you have a question you can send a private message.  I just thought that this was useful information.  And I apologize if someone else already posted it.

Edited June 13, 2014 by rockpond

[bluebell]

I see your point and it dovetails into a common theme on this board -- inoculation. If the only way to keep my kids free from drugs is to make sure that they never come in contact with someone who is pro-drug, we're in trouble. I need to teach them enough "truth" so that they can still say "No" if they find themselves in a crack house.

In a spiritual context, crack is EVERYWHERE, especially in the Internet age. Even the most sincere Google search will turn up some "anti-Mormon" hits. My kids have to be able to retain their faith even if they hear something that the Brethren disagree with. And as for having these people in my home, as a convert, I can't avoid it. My ENTIRE family disagrees with our fundamental truth claims.

 

Again, this isn't about disagreeing.   No one has ever been excommunicated for disagreeing.  I don't think you'll really be able to understand where the church is coming from until you can understand that.

 

As for excommunication in general, the Savior Himself advocated the need to sometimes forcibly remove people from the flock when they became dangerous to it.  They are still invited to mingle with the sheep but they are not 'members' any longer.  This was for the protection of the other sheep.

 

And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he turned his eyes again upon the disciples whom he had chosen, and said unto them:

 27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me.

 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

 29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

 30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

 31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

 32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

[toon]

A big issue, newb, is the use of Church membership and resources in the cause. In Sister Kelly's case, her discussions included the use of ward resources to advocate her position.

In John Dehlin's case, he's unofficially cut himself from being a member, yet continues to to present himself as an involved, active, member to his listeners.

 

 

I've only skimmed through on of her discussions and don't remember seeing anything where using ward resources were used, so I'm curious about this.  We actual resources used, was there a sincere effort to advocate the use of resources, or was this more of a rhetorical device?

[why me]

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.

Actually she was demanding more than the priesthood. The point is rather simple: no choice can remain intact if a few thousand members start to make their own demands and threats. What kelly did was to demand the priesthood. She made sure that the press was informed and she made sure that she was out there in the papers and on video chats. And john was no different. One is not excommunicated for not paying tithing, if that were the case, I would have been excommunicated years ago. One is not excommunicated for not obeying family rules either. However, I could be excommunicated if I began to publically preach that tithing is wrong and so is the word of wisdom and begin to lead other members away from such things.

[why me]

A big issue, newb, is the use of Church membership and resources in the cause. In Sister Kelly's case, her discussions included the use of ward resources to advocate her position.

In John Dehlin's case, he's unofficially cut himself from being a member, yet continues to to present himself as an involved, active, member to his listeners.

I have this feeling that both were sort of hoping for such a happening as is now happening. But I could be wrong. John's problem is simple: he came back to the church, portrayed himself as active to his former followers and then suddenly began to speak against the doctrine and the truth of the lds church. He swayed back and forth and I think that he swayed too far this time.

[mormonnewb]

A big issue, newb, is the use of Church membership and resources in the cause. In Sister Kelly's case, her discussions included the use of ward resources to advocate her position.

 

To quote Nancy Reagan, "Just say no."

In John Dehlin's case, he's unofficially cut himself from being a member, yet continues to to present himself as an involved, active, member to his listeners.

 

​That's an issue between Dehlin and his podcast listeners.  So long as Dehlin isn't falsely claiming that he REPRESENTS or SPEAKS FOR the Church, why should it care?  For example, if I gave a television interview claiming that I am weekly church attender, should the Church immediately contact the station to let them know that I, in fact, missed three Sundays in 2012?

[Calm]

Agreed. They overstepped their bounds. And when my children do that, I simply say, "No!" Court of Love adjourned!

And if they don't stop?

[ERayR]

Agreed. They overstepped their bounds. And when my children do that, I simply say, "No!" Court of Love adjourned!

 

That was done and she came back and pushed over the boundaries again, literally.  She brought her demonstration onto church grounds.  Kind of like telling your child No and then they tell you to kiss off.

[Calm]

In truth, they don't really care enough to argue about it, but if my children are at, say, Grandma's house, they might hear a TV preacher expounding on the truth of the trinity. I'm not ex'ing my momma because she has exposed them to "apostasy." Now, if she offered them crack cocaine, that would be another story because, on a fixed income, she really should be spending her money more wisely

Yes, you're right. There is a limit as to what kind of behavior I will allow my children to be around. I just don't see someone who disagrees with the Brethren in the class of drug dealers, killers and Brian Regan.

But is your mother a Mormon and telling them this is the true doctrine that faithful Mormon believe?

This is not about shutting down people who disagree. This is about making clear what position people are talking from. If they want to represent themselves as representatives of the faithful LDS doctrine, they they need to teach that and not their pet hobbies...no matter what that is. If they feel it is more important to share their message, then that is fine, they just need to do it honestly as something that is outside of what is current LDS doctrine.

Edited June 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

 

Again, this isn't about disagreeing.   No one has ever been excommunicated for disagreeing.  I don't think you'll really be able to understand where the church is coming from until you can understand that.

 

 

That has been stated two or three times before.  He seems either unable or unwilling to accept that.

[mormonnewb]

 

Again, this isn't about disagreeing.   No one has ever been excommunicated for disagreeing.  I don't think you'll really be able to understand where the church is coming from until you can understand that.

 

As for excommunication in general, the Savior Himself advocated the need to sometimes forcibly remove people from the flock when they became dangerous to it.  They are still invited to mingle with the sheep but they are not 'members' any longer.  This was for the protection of the other sheep.

 

And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he turned his eyes again upon the disciples whom he had chosen, and said unto them:

 27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my Father that I may fulfil other commandments which he hath given me.

 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

 29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

 30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

 31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

 32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

 

This is ALL about disagreeing; at least, publicly.  If Dehlin or Kelly had taken ACTIONS that were in violation of the Church's doctrine, I could see your point.  For example, if Kelly had started using her "priesthood" to baptize members into the Church, then the Church MUST take action to stop her.  Likewise, if Dehlin had used his priesthood to perform gay dealings in the temple, the Church would have to take action.

 

The "harm" being done here is that the fear of an "intellectual contagion."  That members will spread their "apostasy" to others.  That's why I come back to inoculation.  If church members can't handle a "wayward" member who has the temerity to "demand" ordination of women, how are we supposed to handle an entire Internet full of evidence attacking JS, the BoM, the Pearl of Great Price, MMM, etc.?

 

Even more, I have no problem with local leaders stripping them from teaching callings, particularly if they were to insist on teaching "falsehoods."  I firmly believe that those called upon BY the Church should teach the doctrines of the Church while in Church.  I think we both agree that falls under the category of "Duh!"  However, this seems to go further than that, unless someone is claiming that Dehlin is playing his Mormon Stories podcast in EQ.

 

And where does this end?  Do we excommunicate Harry Reid for being pro-choice?  What about Barb Young for being pro-SSM? They are ... gasp ... disagreeing with the Brethren in public?  Is that a danger to the rest of the flock?