New York Times Non Article

[Bibliotech]

I asked about your conduct not what someone else was doing.

If Dehlin and Kelly lacked in those areas, does that justify response that lacks in the same areas?

"Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy." - Wikipedia

[why me]

If the end goal is to protect the saints and promote faithfulness, one could argue that the cost/benefit of proceeding with excommunication on a high profile individual could end up being less beneficial to the church body as a whole, even though the individuals actions are excommunicatable.  

This is the problem the church is now facing. One cannot excommunicate only those who are low profile but leave the high profiled with NYtimes and SLT connections alone. The excommunication procedure would become a farse and it would be deemed laughable. I know that if I were excommunicated for apostacy and the high profiled weren't I would think that god was certainly a little strange since he fears the media. And my conclusion would be that the church is a man made entity.

 

And this is the second problem that the church faces. High profiled people who have led people out of the church and who have sowed disharmony among the saints because of their media antics should not be immune from excommunication. I know that if I led people out of the church because of my preaching or talks or if I were responsible for sowing disharmony in the ward, I would most likely be excommunicated. Would that be fair if the high profiled weren't.

 

What would that say about god?

Edited June 17, 2014 by why me

[Chaos]

Moderators do not take kindly to board nannies. Worry about you own behavior.  Nannies are going to be thread banned starting right now.

[Brian 2.0]

This is the problem the church is now facing. One cannot excommunicate only those who are low profile but leave the high profiled with NYtimes and SLT connections alone. The excommunication procedure would become a farse and it would be deemed laughable. I know that if I were excommunicated for apostacy and the high profiled weren't I would think that god was certainly a little strange since he fears the media. And my conclusion would be that the church is a man made entity.

 

And this is the second problem that the church faces. High profiled people who have led people out of the church and who have sowed disharmony among the saints because of their media antics should not be immune from excommunication. I know that if I led people out of the church because of my preaching or talks or if I were responsible for sowing disharmony in the ward, I would most likely be excommunicated. Would that be fair if the high profiled weren't.

 

What would that say about god?

 

I never said it would be fair.  Sometimes when trying to achieve a "greater good" or some other objective means actually not being "fair."

 

I don't actually know where I stand on this whole kerfuffle, but I can see a scenario where NOT acting in formal discipline against an offender is the better choice, given the ramifications of acting in formal discipline.

[Calm]

I agree regarding Kevin that's why I was surprised to see that OP by him.

Regarding Dehlin, I would exercise caution in the conclusions you've reached. He asked to have contact cut between he and the ward because they didn't want to deal with yet another investigation after having been through it one year prior (and exonerated).

I would not necessarily assume no obvious action being taken means he was "exonerated". I have never heard of another individual who has been investigated so many times over the years. It seems to leave open the possibility his leaders adopted not a 'you are above reproach' as he appears to be presenting it, but a 'wait and see, we will revisit it later to see where you've gone....' Edited June 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

I would not necessarily assume no obvious action being taken means he was "exonerated".

 

That was the word that Dehlin used.  And he was told that we could baptize and confirm his son... for whatever that is worth.

[joshrolph]

I've listened to a lot of Dehlin's podcasts and yes, his tone changes considerably between his interviews with believers vs unbelievers. This last one with Sandra Tanner has four parts. The first three he never takes an opportunity to challenge her, he simply nods and seems to take everything she says at face value. In part four, Dehlin finally challenges her in a few areas, but he doesn't seem to relish the argument as he does when interviewing believers. He gets most animated when questioning her belief in the Bible, God, Jesus... In fact, at the end of the interview he jokingly tries to lift her 115 lb block representing the gold plates, telling her how everyone in the church should heft them to challenge their belief that Moroni carried them around for years.

 

Dehlin laughs.

 

Fade to black.

 

If he has helped anyone stay in the church, it is by creating a forum that allows for more discussion for thinkers than is possible in the typical ward/stake. 

[Calm]

While I agree a disciplinary hearing in not automatic excommunication... calling a church court is definitely more than saying "Hey John, let's talk, what's going on here?"

 

I would assume that that conversation has already happened.  If it hadn't then it should have probably first before calling a church court.

Unless Dehlin has said no to such happening by his limitations for contact. I believe it was rock pond who says he didn't want to go through another investigation.

[rockpond]

Unless Dehlin has said no to such happening by his limitations for contact. I believe it was rock pond who says he didn't want to go through another investigation.

 

In some of his latest FB posts, Dehlin has said that he believes his SP may have jumped to the formal disciplinary council because he interpreted his desire for "no more investigations" as not being willing to talk to the SP.  He is grateful that the SP has now offered to meet with him (delaying indefinitely any disciplinary action).

[Calm]

That was the word that Dehlin used.

yes, I know. And given how I've seen him report things over the years I've had personal knowledge of, I don't trust him as someone who presents what happens to himself accurately. Edited June 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

I've listened to a lot of Dehlin's podcasts and yes, his tone changes considerably between his interviews with believers vs unbelievers. This last one with Sandra Tanner has four parts. The first three he never takes an opportunity to challenge her, he simply nods and seems to take everything she says at face value. In part four, Dehlin finally challenges her in a few areas, but he doesn't seem to relish the argument as he does when interviewing believers. He gets most animated when questioning her belief in the Bible, God, Jesus... In fact, at the end of the interview he jokingly tries to lift her 115 lb block representing the gold plates, telling her how everyone in the church should heft them to challenge their belief that Moroni carried them around for years.

 

Dehlin laughs.

 

Fade to black.

 

If he has helped anyone stay in the church, it is by creating a forum that allows for more discussion for thinkers than is possible in the typical ward/stake. 

 

It seems that you and Kevin both managed to listen to or read Sandra Tanner and maintain your faith.

[USU78]

No not saying that, and I get it that the church's definition of apostasy isn't non belief, but when one tries to get others to not believe also.  I was just interested that the concern wasn't as much about a non belief in God vs. a non belief in a religion. 

 

Don't you mean non-advocacy against the religion one is a nominal member?  Isn't that the issue?

[why me]

I think that it is obvious that the NYtimes articles is definitely not a non-article. John and Kate got the internet buzzing again with members agreeing and disagreeing about this or that. I remember years ago when a bishop or stake president were looked upon as acting as god's agents when it came to stake or ward affairs. What they said was hardly ever challenged by the members. Now, it is quite different. It seems that bishops, stake presidents and even GA decisions can be challenged by members. This is quite a new dynamic. Over on the askmormon girl site there is a petition about kate and john's case. I find it very interesting that two people have galvanized the lds internet discussions. As we can see from the petition, local leaders can now be challenged by members not to carry out something such as excommunication or reconsider decisions that have already been taken.  I do believe that kate and john (by their circumstances) are changing the old dynamic that bishops and SP are guided by god to now they can be challenged by the membership to change their decisions. We live in interesting times.

 

http://askmormongirl.com/

Edited June 17, 2014 by why me

[rockpond]

I think that it is obvious that the NYtimes articles is definitely not a non-article. John and Kate got the internet buzzing again with members agreeing and disagreeing about this or that. I remember years ago when a bishop or stake president were looked upon as acting as god's agents when it came to stake or ward affairs. What they said was hardly ever challenged by the members. Now, it is quite different. It seems that bishops, stake presidents and even GA decisions can be challenged by members. This is quite a new dynamic. Over on the askmormon girl site there is a petition about kate and john's case. I find it very interesting that two people have galvanized the lds internet discussions. As we can see from the petition, local leaders can now be challenged by members not to carry out something such as excommunication or reconsider decisions that have already been taken.  I do believe that kate and john (by their circumstances) are changing the old dynamic that bishops and SP are guided by god to now they can be challenged by the membership to change their decisions. We live in interesting times.

 

http://askmormongirl.com/

 

Does guided by God mean that they do not make mistakes?  Or that we should keep quiet if we believe mistakes are being made?

 

Regarding that letter on askmormongirl.com, it seems worth noting that many of the bloggers who signed the letter could be at risk of disciplinary action on the same grounds as Kelly & Dehlin.  Does this process stop here or will there be more efforts to discipline members who are seen is encouraging doubt or questioning leaders?

[why me]

Does guided by God mean that they do not make mistakes?  Or that we should keep quiet if we believe mistakes are being made?

 

Regarding that letter on askmormongirl.com, it seems worth noting that many of the bloggers who signed the letter could be at risk of disciplinary action on the same grounds as Kelly & Dehlin.  Does this process stop here or will there be more efforts to discipline members who are seen is encouraging doubt or questioning leaders?

I think that you bring up interesting points and I can't answer them. I can just see a trend that it now happening. In the past, I don't think that members would think that a bishop or SP would make a mistake about decisions for individuals, wards and Stakes. This is why I see a change in the dynamics. I suppose that if members believe that a bishop, SP or GA have made a mistake, they can sign a petition. But I don't remember this happening in the past to my recollection.

[Tacenda]

I think that you bring up interesting points and I can't answer them. I can just see a trend that it now happening. In the past, I don't think that members would think that a bishop or SP would make a mistake about decisions for individuals, wards and Stakes. This is why I see a change in the dynamics. I suppose that if members believe that a bishop, SP or GA have made a mistake, they can sign a petition. But I don't remember this happening in the past to my recollection.

I don't think this will faze most members, IMO. I just read a post by my niece who is TBM, she posted some quotes from the Mormon Women Stand group. I read all the comments, I think they're going to dig their heels in good when they see people openly go against the church's leaders or doctrines. Edited June 18, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I think that you bring up interesting points and I can't answer them. I can just see a trend that it now happening. In the past, I don't think that members would think that a bishop or SP would make a mistake about decisions for individuals, wards and Stakes.

I know numerous members who in the past (60, 70, 80s) who were perfectly willing to express doubt about bishops or SPs decisions. They just didn't feel the need to take their criticism to the media.

[Mystery Meat]

Does guided by God mean that they do not make mistakes?  Or that we should keep quiet if we believe mistakes are being made?

 

Regarding that letter on askmormongirl.com, it seems worth noting that many of the bloggers who signed the letter could be at risk of disciplinary action on the same grounds as Kelly & Dehlin.  Does this process stop here or will there be more efforts to discipline members who are seen is encouraging doubt or questioning leaders?

 

I think keeping quiet is essential. Not a popular notion these days. But if the Lord trusted the leaders he called to get the important things right so should we. 

[Mystery Meat]

I think keeping quiet is essential. Not a popular notion these days. But if the Lord trusted the leaders he called to get the important things right so should we. 

 

I mean there are several issues that I strongly disagree with not only bishops and SPs on but also the brethren. So its not like I don't know how it feels to disagree or that I espouse some kind of blind faith (whatever that means). Again, the Church is not a democracy. Ark steadying has no place.

[why me]

I know numerous members who in the past (60, 70, 80s) who were perfectly willing to express doubt about bishops or SPs decisions. They just didn't feel the need to take their criticism to the media.

It would be interesting if these doubts were over disciplinary procedures against members. Or if these doubts were whispered in the foyer. My own daughter is an example of someone who does not like her bishop because of the interview that he gave her because she attends her boyfriend's ward.. Now she can't stand to look at this bishop if she does attend that ward. I do remember such dislike in the past based on interview processes etc and personalities.

 

But I also think that you are right. There must have been doubt expressed about a bishop's or stake president's decision. But I suppose that since these doubts are being made much more public because of the internet or other aspects of the media, it will be interesting to see just how the church will cope with such public outbursts that seem to unify many people. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I mean there are several issues that I strongly disagree with not only bishops and SPs on but also the brethren. So its not like I don't know how it feels to disagree or that I espouse some kind of blind faith (whatever that means). Again, the Church is not a democracy. Ark steadying has no place.

 

When I have a disagreement with a leader, I share my concerns, but I do it in a way that (a) respects the office of the leader and (b) respects the reality that the Kingdom of God on Earth is governed by revelation. Consequently, my sharing of concerns has never been a problem for either me or my leaders. About four years ago, I had a rather significant disagreement with my stake president. He was certain that I was wrong. I wasn't so certain, to be honest, but I felt strongly about the matter, so the agreement we reached was to go away for a week and both seek further clarification. At the end of my week, I was in the temple, and the Spirit clearly told me to stick to my original point. I was worried that that would lead to a genuine conflict. But when I met with the stake president early the next morning, he thanked me for giving him an opportunity to seek for and receive revelation, and what I had asked for as a compromise was readily granted to me.

 

Overwhelmingly this is how it happens when one really trusts in revelation and respects those who hold the keys to its receipt. Had the outcome been different, however, I never would have let an unresolved disagreement estrange me from either my stake president, who was a devout servant of God, or from the Lord's Church.

[rockpond]

When I have a disagreement with a leader, I share my concerns, but I do it in a way that (a) respects the office of the leader and (b) respects the reality that the Kingdom of God on Earth is governed by revelation. Consequently, my sharing of concerns has never been a problem for either me or my leaders. About four years ago, I had a rather significant disagreement with my stake president. He was certain that I was wrong. I wasn't so certain, to be honest, but I felt strongly about the matter, so the agreement we reached was to go away for a week and both seek further clarification. At the end of my week, I was in the temple, and the Spirit clearly told me to stick to my original point. I was worried that that would lead to a genuine conflict. But when I met with the stake president early the next morning, he thanked me for giving him an opportunity to seek for and receive revelation, and what I had asked for as a compromise was readily granted to me.

 

Overwhelmingly this is how it happens when one really trusts in revelation and respects those who hold the keys to its receipt. Had the outcome been different, however, I never would have let an unresolved disagreement estrange me from either my stake president, who was a devout servant of God, or from the Lord's Church.

 

I think this is a great example of how the process can work in the church.  And I can think of similar examples including one very personal and spiritual experience when the husband of a ware leader came to me with his feelings about his wife's pending release.  His discussion with me prompted further reflection and prayer which changed our course of action to what I believe was more in line with the Lord's will.

 

If we apply this to OW, however, I feel like they tried but were never given the opportunity to correspond or dialogue with those who have the stewardship to seek revelation on this matter.

[why me]

If we apply this to OW, however, I feel like they tried but were never given the opportunity to correspond or dialogue with those who have the stewardship to seek revelation on this matter.

I don't think that it would be easy to dialogue with an organization with members who have different objectives inside the organization. However, it would have been much more simple if individual members would have written to church headquarters with their requests for prayer about the issue. And of course, what would OW do if the GAs did pray and the answer was a no from god? Would the organization disband or ask again months later? Or would more pressure be put on the leadership of the lds church?  But to dialogue with an organization is very difficult. And when thinks about such a meeting between OW and the GAs, who would be represented by OW besides Kate Kelly? And what would such a meeting mean for the general membership? I have no answers to my questions, but I do have the questions.

[rockpond]

I don't think that it would be easy to dialogue with an organization with members who have different objectives inside the organization. However, it would have been much more simple if individual members would have written to church headquarters with their requests for prayer about the issue. And of course, what would OW do if the GAs did pray and the answer was a no from god? Would the organization disband or ask again months later? Or would more pressure be put on the leadership of the lds church?  But to dialogue with an organization is very difficult. And when thinks about such a meeting between OW and the GAs, who would be represented by OW besides Kate Kelly? And what would such a meeting mean for the general membership? I have no answers to my questions, but I do have the questions.

 

Members have been told not to write to church headquarters.  So that isn't really an option.

 

It seems that we will likely never know what OW would have done if the GA's had ever responded to them directly.  And now it appears that Elder Clayton has said that public advocacy of ordination is an act of apostasy (source: KUTV story).

[CV75]

If we apply this to OW, however, I feel like they tried but were never given the opportunity to correspond or dialogue with those who have the stewardship to seek revelation on this matter.

 

I don't think that it would be easy to dialogue with an organization with members who have different objectives inside the organization. ...But to dialogue with an organization is very difficult. And when thinks about such a meeting between OW and the GAs, who would be represented by OW besides Kate Kelly? And what would such a meeting mean for the general membership? I have no answers to my questions, but I do have the questions.

I think these two articles speak to the degree of success an organization will have in approaching the Church in representing the interests and needs of its members:

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Societies_and_Organizations

“The vitality and relevance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have spawned the formation of a wide assortment of unofficial organizations serving various Church-related interests and needs. Because the Church encompasses a comprehensive belief system about deity and the purpose of life, some members feel an intense need for outlets that allow them to share their personal insights, question ideas, and apply religious beliefs to daily living.”

 

“Unofficial organizations and their publications may serve at least six important functions for Church members and/or the Church…

 

…for members who feel a need to promote change, publications of such organizations provide a forum where they can take an advocacy position. The targets of change have included the elimination of racism and sexism, the acceptance of altered social practices (such as birth control, dress, and grooming standards), and interpretation of the scriptures or historical events.”

 

http://www.millennialstar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Context-Missing-From-Womens-Discussion-May-29-2014.pdf

“Yet there are a few people with whom Public Affairs and General Authorities do not engage, such as individuals or groups who make non-negotiable demands for doctrinal changes that the Church can’t possibly accept. No matter what the intent, such demands come across as divisive and suggestive of apostasy rather than encouraging conversation through love and inclusion. Ultimately, those kinds of actions can only result in disappointment and heartache for those involved.”

 

“…agitation from a few Church members is hindering the broader and more productive conversation about the voice, value and visibility of women in the Church that has been going on for years”