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

[smac97]

How about this? If I can convince KK to pay a $75 fine, can we PLEASE get past this whole trespassing offense?

Let me lay it out a bit: When A) a group of Latter-day Saints B) trespasses on sacred ground C) to protest on sacred ground D) during a sacred convocation E) in direct and public defiance of the Church's instructions to the contrary, I think that is a big deal.

Generally, not even the most virulent of anti-Mormon protesters go so far as to break the laws of the land and violate the Church's basic property rights when they do what they do. But Kate Kelly and her group did. And they did it because they knew that they were putting the Church in a no-win situation. The Church could either A) have the protesters forcibly excluded or removed from Temple Square, or B) allow a protest on sacred ground. Of the two options, the latter was the less disruptive and more tolerant. Plus, I can't help but think of the stink the OW group would have made if they had been arrested.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 14, 2014 by smac97

[mormonnewb]

I think that john's problem can be put in a nutshell. When Greg wrote his piece about mormonstories and it was squashed because of interference by a church leader at john's request and john came back to church activity shortly after - Then, john became a critic of the church again. This probably put the church leader in a place where he would not want to be. You go to bat for someone by having the piece about mormonstores squashed and see john return to activity but suddenly do an about face and become a critic again. What to do with john? What should be done if he continues to lead people out of the church? If one no longer believes in it and advocates such disbelief, what whould be done?

That is the question: How do you solve a problem like Dehlia? (For you Sound of Music fans)

My first question is 'How much of a problem is he?" Is he seeking out people who have firm testimonies and trying to weaken them or is he reaching people who are already undergoing a faith crisis? In my case, it was the latter. I didn't get spam e-mail or a cold cll fom the Mormon Stories staff inviting me to learn all about the Book of Abraham. I was reading all of these various tidbits of information from various evangelical sites and wanted to get a more "faithful" perspective. I tried FAIR/FARMS but the apologist style isn't going to be effective with a natural skeptic like me. I needed to hear from someone who could acknowledge difficulties and then try to come back to a place of "hopeful faith" anyway. Until recently, Dehlin really did a good job of walking this tightrope (perhaps, being injected to three previous "inquiries" has made him a bit salty). In my rather unique case, I JOINED the Church while listening to his podcasts. I could see the good in the community through my local ward and through podcasts (and message boards), I could create a framework that allowed me to put some of my doubts ON THE SHELF. I've heard similar accounts from many others.

The second question is "If he is a problem, what's the best way to deal with it?" I go back to Gandhi -- "First, they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win." An insurgency is least dangerous when you can ignore it. Every escalation in you battle against them brings them closer to victory. This week, some (probably small) number of saints learned about Mormon Stories for the first time. If Dehlin's views are contagious, the news coverage has just exposed some saints to the "apostasy virus." Furthermore, the coverage has galvanized the Dehlinites and OW supporters. My wife just told me that there were 3 new OW profiles posted in the last HOUR. There is nothing like a good martyr story to spur on the faithful.

Time will tell but, at present, it doesn't look good for the home team.

[mormonnewb]

Let me lay it out a bit: When A) a group of Latter-day Saints B) trespasses on sacred ground C) to protest on sacred ground D) during a sacred convocation E) in direct and public defiance of the Church's instructions to the contrary, I think that is a big deal.Generally, not even the most virulent of anti-Mormon protesters go so far as to break the laws of the land and violate the Church's basic property rights when they do what they do. But Kate Kelly and her group did. And they did it because they knew that they were putting the Church in a no-win situation. The Church could either A) have the protesters forcibly excluded or removed from Temple Square, or B) allow a protest on sacred ground. Of the two options, the latter was the less disruptive and more tolerant. Plus, I can't help but think of the stink the OW group would have made if they had been arrested.Thanks,-Smac

I forgot we were talking about sacred "property rights." I stand corrected.

In tht vein, is trespass is now the sin next to murder? I hope so because I'm more than willing to give us trespass if I can go back to the previous "sin next to murder"?

[rongo]

why me:

. . . and John came back to activity shortly after --- then, John became a critic of the Church again. This probably put the Church leader in a place where he would not want to be.

 

His "good behavior" also coincided with "getting worthy" to baptize his son, and his resumed "bad behavior" continued again after he no longer needed this priesthood clearance. Many priesthood leaders experience this with people (trying to get a recommend for a sealing, wanting to perform ordinances, etc.), and it is irritating. This may hopefully factor in with priesthood leaders' evaluations of his sincerity and motives now if he "suddenly" sees the light again and wants to be good now --- now that he's on the brink of excommunication.

 

His value and the interest in him is vastly diminished if he can't claim "member in good standing --- worthy to baptize my son, no less! --- despite rejecting foundational truth claims." He then becomes another run-of-the-mill "rejecting foundational truth claims" critic.

[BCSpace]

Looks like Dehlin's meeting has been delayed to June 29th.

 

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

[mormonnewb]

Well, of course the Church leaders could be wrong. They absolutely could be wrong. They've been wrong before.

But when they are wrong it is the place of God to set them in order. If they are doing ANYTHING wrong today, they will eventually be set in order. Setting in order is ALWAYS top down.

There is an order to God's kingdom.

Unless I suppose people like steadying arks....yeah, that always works out well.

Let's clear up this ark steadying thing once and for all. Uzzah was NOT punished for noticing that the ark was unsteady. Nor would he have been punished if he simply shouted out, "Hey guys! You need to lift higher on your end!" He was punished for TOUCHING something he was not authorized to touch.

It is NOT ark steadying to notice that something in the Church is out of balance. It is NOT ark steadying to shout out, "Hey, Brethren! Watch out!" It IS ark steadying to exceed one's authority and TOUCH something one has no right to.

For example, it is NOT ark steadying to notice that the Church's current stand on SSM leaves us on the wrong side of history and to shout out to the Brethren, "Watch out!" What would be ark steadying would be to take matters in my own hand and begin sealing gay couples in the temple. See the difference?

Edited June 14, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Tacenda]

why me:

His "good behavior" also coincided with "getting worthy" to baptize his son, and his resumed "bad behavior" continued again after he no longer needed this priesthood clearance. Many priesthood leaders experience this with people (trying to get a recommend for a sealing, wanting to perform ordinances, etc.), and it is irritating. This may hopefully factor in with priesthood leaders' evaluations of his sincerity and motives now if he "suddenly" sees the light again and wants to be good now --- now that he's on the brink of excommunication.

His value and the interest in him is vastly diminished if he can't claim "member in good standing --- worthy to baptize my son, no less! --- despite rejecting foundational truth claims." He then becomes another run-of-the-mill "rejecting foundational truth claims" critic.

It might just go to show you he isn't as anti as he's being portrayed, if he wants to help with getting his son baptised.

Also, he only wants the leaders to be open to discuss freely in the church, about controversial topics. Or it makes me think of when B.H. Roberts went to the Quorum of the 12 about BoM issues and he had the same issues with the BoM. Or when Mcmurrin was going to get ex'd possibly and Pres. McKay was willing to be a witness for him, according to Bonner Ritchie, a proponet of things being open in the church and places like Sunstone.

It just seems like the church is clamping down somewhat, or making an example of John. The TBM's will entrench together even more and I see more families broken up because of their spouses disbelief. Because they see what happens to people like John. And take it to mean they are on the dark side or in cahoots with it.

[mfbukowski]

Let's clear up this ark steadying thing once and for all. Uzzah was NOT punished for noticing that the ark was unsteady. Nor would he have been punished if he simply shouted out, "Hey guys! You need to lift higher on your end!" He was punished for TOUCHING something he was not authorized to touch.

It is NOT ark steadying to notice that something in the Church is out of balance. It is NOT ark steadying to shout out, "Hey, Brethren! Watch out!" It IS ark steadying to exceed one's authority and TOUCH something one has no right to.

For example, it is NOT ark steadying to notice that the Church's current stand on SSM leaves us on the wrong side of history and to shout out to the Brethren, "Watch out!" What would be ark steadying would be to take matters in my own hand and begin sealing gay couples in the temple. See the difference?

I think you are exactly right in defining the difference.

But the point is that the church already knows it is on "the wrong side of history" because that is right side to be on, or at least the church thinks so.

Sodom and Gomorrah, in the story, were on the side of recent history as well, and for some reason the church thinks that is not a good side to be on. Go figure.

[Teancum]

Duncan claims you only forgive if someone repents. Duncan is in error. Many passages state we were to forgive everyone. The Lord says He forgives whom he will. You and me have to forgive all people.

[Duncan]

It might just go to show you he isn't as anti as he's being portrayed, if he wants to help with getting his son baptised.

Also, he only wants the leaders to be open to discuss freely in the church, about controversial topics. Or it makes me think of when B.H. Roberts went to the Quorum of the 12 about BoM issues and he had the same issues with the BoM. Or when Mcmurrin was going to get ex'd possibly and Pres. McKay was willing to be a witness for him, according to Bonner Ritchie, a proponet of things being open in the church and places like Sunstone.

It just seems like the church is clamping down somewhat, or making an example of John. The TBM's will entrench together even more and I see more families broken up because of their spouses disbelief. Because they see what happens to people like John. And take it to mean they are on the dark side or in cahoots with it.

 

 

I think the Church is open to discussing ideas in Church, it depends on who is doing the discussing!! Are we to believe the 'central tenets' of the Book of Mormon are that God curses people with Black skin? The Church and Society today isn't what it was 80 years ago when B.H. Roberts was around. I don't see Elder Roberts airing his views on the Book of Mormon to the New York Times or organizing people to change anything. He was given the assignment to write it by Pres. Grant and Elder Talmage and even when he wrote it he said it didn't have any 'conclusions of mine' 

 

Were Dehlin and Kelly asked by the brethren to do anything of this?, no, Runnells was by a CES guy but he isn't in any disciplinary council hot water

 

people were disbelieving before Dehlin and families were breaking up

Edited June 15, 2014 by Duncan

[mnn727]

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.

For asking? No

For marching on Gen Conf, for publishing '6 lessons" slanted their way for the sole purpose of leading others away from doctrine, for encouraging others to get and teach those lessons to others - YES!! 

[Mark Beesley]

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?

Your first example/comparison doesn't really fit, does it? The American Revolutionary rebels were not seeking a change in an institution that purports to be led by divinity. As for Joseph Smith, I believe his life is a testimony to being humble and submissive. He was not agitating for change within any existing church. He just wanted to know which church to join. But, he accepted the answer he got, though it wasn't the one he was seeking. Furthermore, I believe there are examples in his life where he was not as humble and submissive as he should have been, and the results were not good. 116 pages lost. Threatened by an angel for delaying his accceptance of the doctrine of plural marriage. And so on, and so forth.

[mnn727]

Seventy times seven. -- Matthew 18:22

If he ever stopped in between, but he did not.

[ERayR]

How about this? If I can convince KK to pay a $75 fine, can we PLEASE get past this whole trespassing offense?

I could be wrong, but wasn't JS technically trespassing on the Hill Culmorah when he found the plates? Once again, I could be wrong. Perhaps the Smith family owned that land as well. But if not, I strongly suspect that HF has forgiven that trespass. Perhaps, we could let this one slide as well.

 

I forgot we were talking about sacred "property rights." I stand corrected.

In tht vein, is trespass is now the sin next to murder? I hope so because I'm more than willing to give us trespass if I can go back to the previous "sin next to murder"?

 

You certainly have a flair for the inane.

[mormonnewb]

I think you are exactly right in defining the difference.

But the point is that the church already knows it is on "the wrong side of history" because that is right side to be on, or at least the church thinks so.

Sodom and Gomorrah, in the story, were on the side of recent history as well, and for some reason the church thinks that is not a good side to be on. Go figure.

Agreed. And let's be clear. While I'm constantly harping on the POSSIBILITY that the Brethren could be wrong, it should be pointed out that I am CERTAINLY wrong far more often.

[mormonnewb]

You certainly have a flair for the inane.

You want to throw someone out of the Lord's church for trespassing, and I'm the one with the flair for the inane?

[mnn727]

From the OW website:

 

Thank you so much to everyone who donated to our very successful fundraiser to help women travel to this last General Conference action. Many are flew or drove in who had never been to a live session of conference before. We raised over $11,000 and were able to give financial assistance to 23 women.

 

 

And they can't raise enough money to buy her a round trip plane ticket?

Or perhaps it does not suit their agenda?

 

Heck, I'll make the offer now, I'll help pay for her plane ticket.Anyone else willing to assist?

Edited June 15, 2014 by mnn727

[ERayR]

Agreed. And let's be clear. While I'm constantly harping on the POSSIBILITY that the Brethren could be wrong, it should be pointed out that I am CERTAINLY wrong far more often.

 

Ah, then you would be open to consider you are wrong in this case?

[ERayR]

You want to throw someone out of the Lord's church for trespassing, and I'm the one with the flair for the inane?

 

I am tempted to SHOUT at you but I am sure you can hear well enough.  It is not for having an opinion, it is not for voicing that opinion, it is not for trespass.  Go back and read the dozen or so posts that have explained that to you.

[mormonnewb]

I am tempted to SHOUT at you but I am sure you can hear well enough. It is not for having an opinion, it is not for voicing that opinion, it is not for trespass. Go back and read the dozen or so posts that have explained that to you.

I know it is for all three combined ... and Heaven forbid, during GC weekend.

Oh yeah, and wanting to use church resources for the OW "discussions." (But not even ONCE doing so)

Have I missed something?

[mormonnewb]

Ah, then you would be open to consider you are wrong in this case?

Wrong about what? Whether Dehlin and Kelly should be excommunicated on grounds of apostasy in the 21st century? Yes, I could be wrong. It might also be the case that there are actually witches amongst us and leeching is the most effective cure for a fever. I'd rank the probabilities about equally

[ERayR]

Wrong about what? Whether Dehlin and Kelly should be excommunicated on grounds of apostasy in the 21st century? Yes, I could be wrong. It might also be the case that there are actually witches amongst us and leeching is the most effective cure for a fever. I'd rank the probabilities about equally

 

Bye.

[rodheadlee]

Have I missed something?

Yes, It's not your decision to make. It's not the Church of Mormonnewb or the Church of KK or of John Dehlin. It's not your place to call out those in authority above you. you have not been called as an Apostle or the Prophet or even President of your Stake, nor Bishop of your Ward.

[smac97]

I forgot we were talking about sacred "property rights." I stand corrected.

It is clear that you are not interested in having a good faith discussion. So I will withdraw from further efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cdowis]

Let's clear up this ark steadying thing once and for all. Uzzah was NOT punished for noticing that the ark was unsteady. Nor would he have been punished if he simply shouted out, "Hey guys! You need to lift higher on your end!" He was punished for TOUCHING something he was not authorized to touch.

It is NOT ark steadying to notice that something in the Church is out of balance. It is NOT ark steadying to shout out, "Hey, Brethren! Watch out!" It IS ark steadying to exceed one's authority and TOUCH something one has no right to.

For example, it is NOT ark steadying to notice that the Church's current stand on SSM leaves us on the wrong side of history and to shout out to the Brethren, "Watch out!" What would be ark steadying would be to take matters in my own hand and begin sealing gay couples in the temple. See the difference?

 

Shouting out to the brethren that they are wrong is exceeding your calling and authority -- you are TOUCHING the sacred object.  Privately expressing your personal opinion among close associates is merely inadvisable.

 

But I leave that up as something between you and the Lord, and let Him explain it to you.

Edited June 15, 2014 by cdowis