Jump to content

"no Decision On Mormon Gay-Rights Advocate Case"


JAHS

Recommended Posts

"No decision on Mormon gay-rights advocate case"

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58130301-78/case-church-dehlin-mormon.html.csp

 

"A Mormon man who’s well-known for advocating for gay rights and questioning some church policies says a Utah church leader is taking time to decide whether he’ll be excommunicated.
John Dehlin says the regional church leader told him Sunday in Logan, Utah, that he needs to think and pray about Dehlin’s case.
Dehlin says another meeting or deadline has not been set and that he agreed not to talk with the media any more about his case."

 

I wonder if he really is going to be able to resist talking to the media about this. Kate Kelly certainly wouldn't be able to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Going to be interesting.  If he stays, OW, fMH, yMf, and a host of other people and groups will try to reposition themselves from being agitators to pretending to be facilitators when facilitating people staying in the Church is not by any stretch of the imagination their main intent.

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the media focuses on the fact that he is a gay rights activist. I really don't think that has much to do with it. Or does it?

He has been focusing a lot of his attention on that lately and presenting himself as such, so it doesn't surprise me.

Link to comment

I find it interesting that the media focuses on the fact that he is a gay rights activist. I really don't think that has much to do with it. Or does it?

 

That's the big question... if he is going to be brought into a disciplinary council, what will the reason be?  Advocating for gay rights?  Professing a hope that the church will change its position on homosexuality?  Lack of belief in many of the Church's truth claims?  Or, producing interviews with people both in and out of the church?  Supporting OW, perhaps?

Link to comment

I wonder if he really is going to be able to resist talking to the media about this. Kate Kelly certainly wouldn't be able to do that.

 

On Sunday, Dehlin posted to his personal FB page (he also has a "public" page) that he had no news but would share updates when he received them.  He never mentioned it again since then.  My guess is that he is following the counsel of his SP to not discuss the matter publicly.  That also seems to speak to his commitment to remain a member of the church.

Link to comment

He has been focusing a lot of his attention on that lately and presenting himself as such, so it doesn't surprise me.

 

I agree.  When invited recently to give a TED talk he chose to speak on being an LGBT ally.  That seems to suggest it is a very important topic to him these days.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Maidservant
      My Mozilla Firefox suggests articles for me, and this one popped up today.  I should also say that I absolutely love Longreads--I prefer the long article pulse on news and society rather than main stream news 3 minute segments.
      I'm sharing it here in the name of noting how the "Mormonism" conversation is taking place in a larger context.
      MEET THE NEW MORMONS
      I'm ambivalent about the article itself.  I found it unsatisfying, but I'm still trying to put my finger on why.  I think in part that there are unsupported statements, that assume much from a supposed already-agreeing audience.  For example, she mentions twice about being people being called in to "discipline" for Facebook posts, but doesn't even give one example, much less showing an ongoing pattern.  Again--maybe readers should already know and be up on that, but I'm not, and I really don't think all readers will be, especially if the audience is mainly non-Mormon, as would be the case for Longreads.  Similarly there are statements like this: "But they [the Church] definitely don’t like everything that happens online. That’s why they excommunicated Kelly in 2014."  Again--wow--a lot that could benefit from unpacking there even if the conclusion remains the same.  She does not go through the Kelly case at all--just says only that.  So, again--an expectation that the reader already is following the entire matter and has background.
      What I liked best about the article was her personal story and struggles (and her Mom's).  I also can hardly disagree with the hope that there can be a greater atmosphere of talking about tough things without fear.
    • By kiwi57
      All communication depends upon a level of shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions. If the communication is verbal, then much of the shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions has to do with the meanings of words, their semantic ranges and how context influences those meanings. For example, when in the context of a Temple Recommend interview, the interviewer uses such words as "Testimony," "Saviour," "Word of Wisdom," "Law of Chastity" and suchlike, it is mutually understood that these terms take on specifically Mormon meanings, and that short "yes" or "no" answers convey the same information to the hearer as they do to the speaker.
      If a person is not familiar with Mormon terminology, those meanings will not be obvious. But if an interviewee is indeed familiar with them, but chooses instead to interpret those terms in alternative ways without informing the interviewer, - as advocated by Mister John Dehlin, Ph.D. - then s/he has deliberately set out to deceive the interviewer, and is engaging in what I call "lexical duplicity."
      None if this would be particularly controversial, were it not for the fact that there are in this forum one or two ideological friends of Mister Dr Dehlin who see nothing wrong with such behaviour, and flatly deny that any duplicity is involved.
      This raises a serious question, however. If those posters cannot see any problem with such behaviour in a Temple Recommend interview, in which the overriding principle is one of uberrimae fedei, then how can they balk at such things in this forum, where caveat lector so clearly applies? How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?
      To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.
    • By Daniel2
      While it’s content offers little or nothing that will strike most here as anything new, it’s worth noting anything like this that appears in the mainstream media.... I imagine it’s content WILL be new(s) to many of its non-LDS viewers, so it’s worth taking note if nothing else to stay informed as to what members of other Faiths (or of no Faith at all) are hearing about Mormonism. 
       
    • By Buckeye
      In a fairly new development, it appears that John Dehlin and Patrick Mason are collaborating on blog series at patheos: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormoninout/ The purpose of the series is to present a serious dialogue between a believer and a former believer. So far there are three posts, all of which are really good. John has asked pointed, but fair, questions. Patrick has done an admirable job in answering. Here's hoping that Patrick also asks John some difficult questions. 
      For my 2-cents, I believe that this blog series has the potential to be ground-breakingly good. I am hopeful that John and Patrick can bring to light many great insights. And perhaps more importantly, I am hopeful that by just trying, they are providing a needed example of how we LDS can productively dialogue with those of different beliefs (especially former believers).
       
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      In the recent TribTalk Elder Oaks reminded us that there is an appeals process for disciplinary decisions. My understanding is John Dehlin will not be appealing.
       
      I've never seen or heard of a successful disciplinary appeal where the First Presidency has overturned a stake decision. Has anyone ever heard, seen, experienced a successful DC appeal?
×
×
  • Create New...