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

[Mark Beesley]

I would support anyone's efforts to have open discussion about anything, regardless of what side I was on, if any. As for pressuring leaders to pray about things, I thought that was fundamentally how this church worked from the very beginning of the Restoration. Have the heavens been closed again or something? Granted, OW may not get what they want, but they should never be demonized for asking.

It is all about how you ask. Unfortunately for us, the explosion of mass media is just too big a temptation for many to resist. When you want to ask for change, you go to The Lord, or your local leaders, and make your petition. You can also write to Church Headquarters, but in all instances, I think you need to be humble, submissive, and ready to accept the response you had not hoped for. When, you contact media or resort to other methods of publicly airing your grivances, I think you have left humility behind and nothing good can follow.

[rpn]

Well, if you were JD's SP, would you have sent that letter without having ever met him?   And without stating something other than his belief as the problem?   Seems to me that the SP has a reason to back pedal on the procedure at least. 

[rongo]

I will say that there are some unforced errors/irregularities in how both sets of priesthood leaders have gone about this. When I was a bishop, no one was ever "shocked" to learn via letter that they were facing a disciplinary council --- because that fact been discussed by us, and a mutually beneficial time was agreed on. *Every* disciplinary council letter I ever delivered (with one of my counselors) was delivered the day before the scheduled council (as a handbook formality), but the date and time was already well-known.

 

Another oddity is that John Dehlin's letter invited him to resign in order to avoid a council. I'm worried that his stake president rescheduling for a chat on the 29th means that John Dehlin will ride again --- again. Why not contact him, postpone the disciplinary council, and ask that he meet with him on the 18th, when the original council was scheduled? Both schedules were going to be cleared then, right? And then, if that talk indicates that a council should be convened, one can be scheduled at that point. It's looking to me like deja vu all over again . . .

 

Similarly, if indeed nothing was ever said to Kelly by her bishop until this letter . . . Although, I don't believe her. She admits that her stake president put her on informal probation on May 5th, yet insists that her membership is fully intact until being "shocked" by the letter.

 

Holds on membership records happen for obvious reasons (people move in the middle of the process, or it makes much more sense to go through the process in one area instead of a new one), but it certainly would have been better to have done it prior to her moving.

[Storm Rider]

I will say that there are some unforced errors/irregularities in how both sets of priesthood leaders have gone about this. When I was a bishop, no one was ever "shocked" to learn via letter that they were facing a disciplinary council --- because that fact been discussed by us, and a mutually beneficial time was agreed on. *Every* disciplinary council letter I ever delivered (with one of my counselors) was delivered the day before the scheduled council (as a handbook formality), but the date and time was already well-known.

 

Another oddity is that John Dehlin's letter invited him to resign in order to avoid a council. I'm worried that his stake president rescheduling for a chat on the 29th means that John Dehlin will ride again --- again. Why not contact him, postpone the disciplinary council, and ask that he meet with him on the 18th, when the original council was scheduled? Both schedules were going to be cleared then, right? And then, if that talk indicates that a council should be convened, one can be scheduled at that point. It's looking to me like deja vu all over again . . .

 

Similarly, if indeed nothing was ever said to Kelly by her bishop until this letter . . . Although, I don't believe her. She admits that her stake president put her on informal probation on May 5th, yet insists that her membership is fully intact until being "shocked" by the letter.

 

Holds on membership records happen for obvious reasons (people move in the middle of the process, or it makes much more sense to go through the process in one area instead of a new one), but it certainly would have been better to have done it prior to her moving.

 

I have a very difficult time believing either story these two have given to the media.  I don't believe she could have been shocked and I would bet all the tea in China that she knew every step of the way how her actions were affecting her membership in the Church of Jesus Christ.  It would be interesting to know the actual story behind the timeline of the letter to her.  I don't think we know it yet.  Dehlin is another spin meister with whom I have a little confidence of honesty.  

 

First, having read the letter released to the media I did not think the SP was inviting Dehlin to resign; that is Dehlin's spin rather than what I understood.  It is obvious how effective his spin is in that others repeat that pseudo-context. Second, I agree with you and I am perplexed by such an action.  For sole reason of him using the media the court would have been moved up to today.  This twit, I mean brother, has had far too many opportunities and I get the impression that he plays the local leadership like an old violin.  Regardless, patience is the better path and no one, these two included, can run from judgment day.  

[Mystery Meat]

I had a thought about this as I was lying in bed last night that I have been thinking about since. I have read in multiple places (mostly from rabble rousers) that this is clearly a warning shot across the bow for "progressives" or that this is the Church saying progressives aren't welcome here. I just don't think this is the case.

 

In my correct opinion, you can be a progressive and a very good Mormon. I know conservatives on the board will hate it when I say this, but I have first hand knowledge that members of the twelve love Harry Reid...perhaps the most notable Mormon progressive. I think the problem arises, however, when we start treating the Church like a political action committee, an organization we can simply lobby, or a democracy. The Church is none of the above and does not operate in that way. 

 

I really don't think the Lord cares if we call ourselves progressives or conservatives. Liberals or libertarians. If you feel it is important to campaign for social justice I think that is great. If your political cause is fighting for equal rights for homosexuals then I say do it. If your thing is fighting for a lower tax rate then do it. But the second you start applying the tactics and methods usually associated with such political movements to "agitating" for change within the Kingdom...you are going to find yourself in trouble be you conservative or progressive.

 

So by all means, I hope progressives find a happy place in the Church now and forever. But if they expect the Church to resemble a 21st Century politically correct organization that can be lobbied, boycotted, and agitated into changing...they will be disappointed. Accept the fact that the Church is just different. It won't look like anything else. And that doesn't mean you are wrong to be a progressive when it comes to your political ideology, because comparing the US government (or any other government) to the Kingdom of God is just not fair. Out of necessity they just have to operate differently. The Church will do things the way the Lord ultimately wants. It may not embrace equality like the rest of the world will and that is okay.

 

My two cents. 

Edited June 14, 2014 by lvjd66

[Tiki]

I had a thought about this as I was lying in bed last night that I have been thinking about since. I have read in multiple places (mostly from rabble rousers) that this is clearly a warning shot across the bow for "progressives" or that this is the Church saying progressives aren't welcome here. I just don't think this is the case.

In my correct opinion, you can be a progressive and a very good Mormon. I know conservatives on the board will hate it when I say this, but I have first hand knowledge that members of the twelve love Harry Reid...perhaps the most notable Mormon progressive. I think the problem arises, however, when we start treating the Church like a political action committee, an organization we can simply lobby, or a democracy. The Church is none of the above and does not operate in that way.

I really don't think the Lord cares if we call ourselves progressives or conservatives. Liberals or libertarians. If you feel it is important to campaign for social justice I think that is great. If your political cause is fighting for equal rights for homosexuals then I say do it. If your thing is fighting for a lower tax rate then do it. But the second you start applying the tactics and methods usually associated with such political movements to "agitating" for change within the Kingdom...you are going to find yourself in trouble be you conservative or progressive.

So by all means, I hope progressives find a happy place in the Church now and forever. But if they expect the Church to resemble a 21st Century politically correct organization that can be lobbied, boycotted, and agitated into changing...they will be disappointed. Except the fact that the Church is just different. It won't look like anything else. And that doesn't mean you are wrong to be a progressive when it comes to your political ideology, because comparing the US government (or any other government) to the Kingdom of God is just not fair. Out of necessity they just have to operate differently. The Church will do things the way the Lord ultimately wants. It may not embrace equality like the rest of the world will and that is okay.

My two cents.

Since the Church is an International church, it would be difficult for it to be a PAC to all people. But if you would prefer the laws of your land to reflect as close as possible to the Gospel, then being a US Progressive wouldn't be my choice, no matter the love toward Brother Harry Reid. All this ordain women, same-sex marriage, etc. cast at Church Leadership is just a variation on the theme called the Equal Rights Amendment soundly rejected by Pres. Spencer W. Kimball. Kelly & Dehlin apparently aren't aware of it. Edited June 14, 2014 by Tiki

[Mystery Meat]

Since the Church is an International church, it would be difficult for it to be a PAC to all people. But if you would prefer the laws of your land to reflect as close as possible to the Gospel, then being a US Progressive wouldn't be my choice, no matter the love toward Brother Harry Reid. All this ordain women, same-sex marriage, etc. cast at Church Leadership is just a variation on the theme called the Equal Rights Amendment soundly rejected by Pres. Spencer W. Kimball. Kelly & Dehlin apparently aren't aware of it.

 

Thats fine. You are entitled to that. Just don't be so married to your politics that when the day comes (and it will) that you are asked to chose between them and the Gospel you lose sight of what is really important.

[Thinking]

It is all about how you ask. Unfortunately for us, the explosion of mass media is just too big a temptation for many to resist. When you want to ask for change, you go to The Lord, or your local leaders, and make your petition. You can also write to Church Headquarters, but in all instances, I think you need to be humble, submissive, and ready to accept the response you had not hoped for. When, you contact media or resort to other methods of publicly airing your grivances, I think you have left humility behind and nothing good can follow.

 

It's interesting that you write this since the LDS Church is headquartered in a country that rebelled against its sovereign country, and the founder of the LDS Church (Joseph Smith) rejected traditional Christianity. What if either had been humble, submissive, and ready to accept the response they had not hoped for?

Edited June 14, 2014 by Thinking

[juliann]

I was in California during the Prop 8 campaign, and that was my experience as well.

 

The Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and Mormon congregations all officially supported Prop 8 vigorously, but the LDS strictures were that no actual camapaign actions could take place on LDS property, and they did not.  It is one thing to read recommendations over the lectern, as all these churches did (according to the IRS, it is legal to recommend policies over the lectern, but not candidates).

 

Not all Mormons supported Prop 8, so it would have been inappropriate to have engaged in political activity on Church property.

 

The upshot of all this is that the Mormons cannot be accused of supporting polygyny, which will be made legal as a result of the current judicial tide in favor of non-traditional marriage.  How ironic!!

I do have to concede to Maxrep that a letter was read over the pulpit as are all announcements regarding church action, but that was it. There was such emphasis put on not talking about this inside the building that when I asked a question to a leader in the hall, the response was so curt that it seemed almost rude.

 

 

 

 

The sisters in a city I served in frequently had gullibility and naivety incidents. In one of these, a man invited them in (they technically should not have gone in), and he was wearing just a bathrobe. They all sat down, and he stood up and took off his robe (he was completely naked). They got up and said they needed to leave, and he apologized and put his robe back on. They all sat back down, and he got back up and took off his robe again. They quickly left.

 

This has to be the best object lesson story ever. LOL

[why me]

I would support anyone's efforts to have open discussion about anything, regardless of what side I was on, if any. As for pressuring leaders to pray about things, I thought that was fundamentally how this church worked from the very beginning of the Restoration. Have the heavens been closed again or something? Granted, OW may not get what they want, but they should never be demonized for asking.

I don't think that any church works on pressure through the media. Just the opposite. When one goes to the media with their cause it is to put pressure on the organization that is being protested. Why go to the media? It could be handled in a better way than through newspapers etc.

Edited June 14, 2014 by why me

[rongo]

Juliann:

That has to be the best object lesson story ever

 

I honestly feel like that's what it's like, with Dehlin going through his cycle. He proudly throws out the "three times in ten years, and still standing" meme these days as a badge of honor. I for one hope that his local leaders don't let him put the robe back on, only to have him yank it off yet again.

[why me]

And the yet the question still is whether either in question fit the awful boggie monster straw-man you paint for them above. Those who paint such an extreme are lying outright as well. While both may be in some state or element of apostasy both are a far cry from being enemies of the church or active proselytizing anti-Mornmons.

Well I am sorry to disappoint you and perhaps others here but for at least Dehiln the outcome is much less clear. Here is a recent post from John's Facebook page:

A quick update - My stake president has agreed to meet with me on June 29th, expressing a desire for de-escalation. The June 18th timeline has been suspended.

The outcome for John may still be the one you seem to be drooling over in glee but perhaps not. We will see. For Kelly my guess is her web site,discussions and protests may put her beyond the bounds of working put something less harsh.

John seems to be a nice guy but no one can read his loyalties and that is the problem. The church has bended much for him. A critical review of mormonstories was squashed because of his asking a church leader to put pressure on the writer and the publication that would print it....he came back to church activity with good acceptance from the members etc and yet, he went off the deep end again with his beliefs. I am not sure just how many chances one can get. I do know that if I were having sexual relations with a women outside of marriage and if I were giving a couple chances to mend my ways and didn't...I may be exed. How would this be different than john who seems to be hyper critical of the church when it comes to one's luck running out?

[why me]

Juliann:

 

 

I honestly feel like that's what it's like, with Dehlin going through his cycle. He proudly throws out the "three times in ten years, and still standing" meme these days as a badge of honor. I for one hope that his local leaders don't let him put the robe back on, only to have him yank it off yet again.

This is the problem. How many chances should he get? Soon he will be nicknamed The Teflon Man.

[JAHS]

Of course John goes straight to the media to let them know about the change. Or did they come to him? 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58068437-78/dehlin-kelly-disciplinary-lds.html.csp

[mormonnewb]

Yes, perhaps you can.After all, "we" is a first-person plural. You were including yourself in that set.Regards,Pahoran

Please clarify your problems with my use of the word "we." To my knowledge, there are no proceedings to have me ex-communicated. So unless you know about some irregularity in my baptism line of authority (or are my current stake president), I have as much right to claim this as MY church as you, my dear brother.

[mormonnewb]

How many times does Dehlin get to take off his robe and then apologize and put it back on and promise that it won't happen again?

Seventy times seven. -- Matthew 18:22

[why me]

Of course John goes straight to the media to let them know about the change. Or did they come to him? 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58068437-78/dehlin-kelly-disciplinary-lds.html.csp

A mixture of both. It seems that john depends on the media to save him which is why he goes to the media. And it seems to work.

[Tiki]

Thats fine. You are entitled to that. Just don't be so married to your politics that when the day comes (and it will) that you are asked to chose between them and the Gospel you lose sight of what is really important.

"Them and the Gospel"? Who is them?

I choose to follow my Priesthood Leaders which define the Gospel through revelation from the Leader of our Church who is Jesus Christ.

[Mystery Meat]

Please clarify your problems with my use of the word "we." To my knowledge, there are no proceedings to have me ex-communicated. So unless you know about some irregularity in my baptism line of authority (or are my current stake president), I have as much right to claim this as MY church as you, my dear brother.

 

No, you have no right to claim it as your church. I don't either. It's not our church. It's not President Monson's church. It's not Kate Kelly's church. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If it was our church we would have the right to petition, agitate, complain, etc. until we got our way on any number of testy issues. As it is, it is His Church. He sets the terms. He reveals what He wants to WHEN he wants to. 

 

If any of us sincerely don't believe that it is His Church...I think we would be best served to go find it. But it is not my church or your church and we have no right to call it such.

Edited June 14, 2014 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

"Them and the Gospel"? Who is them?

I choose to follow my Priesthood Leaders which define the Gospel through revelation from the Leader of our Church who is Jesus Christ.

 

Them is your politics.

[why me]

Seventy times seven. -- Matthew 18:22

I suppose that that would be great if I were a chronic philanderer with women. I would hope never to be excommunicated and  be forgiven. But it seems that the early church at the time of paul just may have excommunicated me. See 1st Cor. 5: 9-11 and 2 Thes: 3:14 Your equation was not working at the time of the early church. Why?

 

1 Corinthians 5:9-11

 

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

 

and

 

2 Thessalonians 3:14

 

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.

 

Edited June 14, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

Of course John goes straight to the media to let them know about the change. Or did they come to him? 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58068437-78/dehlin-kelly-disciplinary-lds.html.csp

 

When you read anything that John puts out in the press you have to laugh to imagine that Dehlin will do anything to allow a de-escalation of any kind UNLESS he thinks he can get mileage out of it.  

 

This is such a farce.  

[why me]

When you read anything that John puts out in the press you have to laugh to imagine that Dehlin will do anything to allow a de-escalation of any kind UNLESS he thinks he can get mileage out of it.  

 

This is such a farce.  

It is. But who's fault is that?

[JLHPROF]

I hope progressives find a happy place in the Church now and forever. But if they expect the Church to resemble a 21st Century politically correct organization that can be lobbied, boycotted, and agitated into changing...they will be disappointed. Accept the fact that the Church is just different. It won't look like anything else. And that doesn't mean you are wrong to be a progressive when it comes to your political ideology, because comparing the US government (or any other government) to the Kingdom of God is just not fair. Out of necessity they just have to operate differently. The Church will do things the way the Lord ultimately wants. It may not embrace equality like the rest of the world will and that is okay.

 

 

Since the beginning of time man has been trying to create God in his image.  Today is no different.

Joseph Smith taught:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire...."  (TPJS 256).

AND

"But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn­dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all." (TPJS 331) 

 

If we can ever get ourselves to accepting the Gospel and the word of God just exactly as he has delivered it and not always be trying to update, adjust, reinterpret, or explain away what he has said we will be in so much better a state.  We are all (and I include myself) so stuck on our own viewpoints.  Hopefully one day I will stop worrying about what I think and only worry about what God thinks.

It's no wonder that we will all have to be set in order before Christ returns, and that it will start on "his house".

Edited June 14, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Tiki]

Them is your politics.

So you object to using The Truth to define your personal political-beliefs?

Is a person to support the Ten Commandments on Sunday, then turn and vote on Tuesday for adulterous-conniving-treasury stealing politicians who use arguments of covetousness to attract their votes?

If you want to follow the likes of Kelly and Dehlin to influence your vote, then go at it. No one is stopping you. And the church also has every right to determine who is allowed to remain as its members.