Excommunicatin'

Avatar4321 · January 17, 2015

You are free to believe Jesus as you want. I prefer to believe Him as He is

mormonnewb · January 17, 2015

If someone enters my house and stinks up the place by passing gas and has bad BO, I may not throw a party if he leaves but I will be happy that he does. If it gets bad enough, I may have to ask or throw him out. So if John is stinking up the Church and he is causing problems, then yes excommunication is a good thing.

.

Strangely, I agree. If JD was "stinking up" his local meeting house or stake center, I'd be the first to say, "You are the stinkiest link. Goodbye!" If removing one stinker from the services makes it more pleasant for the remaining members, then great.

But that isn't the case here. Ex'ing JD from the Church will not make his podcast smell any better to members. Unless, of course, we think that members will automatically stay out of nostril range of a "certified" apostate. I tend to doubt it.

Most faithful members wouldn't go near MS podcast with a 10-foot nose. Those of us who do aren't going to be dissuaded now that JD has earned the Scarlet A.

And certainly, the rest of the world (that the Church devotes 80,000 missionaries to convince that we're actually Christians) isn't going to be repelled by his Scarlet A. In fact, for the very few outsiders who care, the Church has managed to turn JD into the modern-day equivalent of Martin Luther, Sir Thomas More, Kate Kelly, etc. He is now someone whose "truth-telling has earned him the ire and scorn of a fundamentalist religion." (NYT, feel free to use this verbiage in your next "Mormons are so backwards" piece).

In short, ex'ing JD doesn't protect the Church by insulating him from the 15 million. It hurts the Church by casting it as a medieval institution. To many, we are just Amish with iPads. Go Team Buggy!

Edited January 17, 2015 by mormonnewb

ERayR · January 17, 2015

YOU all hope to attend a Church where men have such power, but that is not MY hope. I tend to like my Jesus straight up (not diluted through the arbitrary power of men).
I can't imagine that HF would ever abdicate His glory (to bring about the immortality of man) to ANYONE. For instance, in my kingdom (my home), NO ONE has the right to excommunicate anyone but me. And if my 20 yo were to tell my 10 yo that he had decided that the 10 yo were no longer a Newb, the 10 yo would literally laugh in the face of his older brother. Because, even at 10 yo, he knows that daddy's love for him is not determined by his big brother. And therefore, big brother can NEVER write little brother out of daddy's will or take away any other blessings that daddy has to bestow upon him.
Why would any of you hope for a situation where your big brother had that type of power over you? Because in that case, you'd be much wiser to stop worshipping your father and start worshipping big brother, as apparently he holds the keys to the kingdom.
As for me and my newbs, we shall worship the LORD (not His servants).

Red herring - It is not about Jesus love or Gods love.Its about actions and consequences.

bluebell · January 17, 2015

YOU all hope to attend a Church where men have such power, but that is not MY hope. I tend to like my Jesus straight up (not diluted through the arbitrary power of men).
I can't imagine that HF would ever abdicate His glory (to bring about the immortality of man) to ANYONE. For instance, in my kingdom (my home), NO ONE has the right to excommunicate anyone but me. And if my 20 yo were to tell my 10 yo that he had decided that the 10 yo were no longer a Newb, the 10 yo would literally laugh in the face of his older brother. Because, even at 10 yo, he knows that daddy's love for him is not determined by his big brother. And therefore, big brother can NEVER write little brother out of daddy's will or take away any other blessings that daddy has to bestow upon him.
Why would any of you hope for a situation where your big brother had that type of power over you? Because in that case, you'd be much wiser to stop worshipping your father and start worshipping big brother, as apparently he holds the keys to the kingdom.
As for me and my newbs, we shall worship the LORD (not His servants).

I'm really surprised by this post.

After all the nice things you've said about the mormons that you know, you would actual go behind their backs and say that they worship His servants instead of the Lord because they believe that when Jesus gave Peter (and those who would later do the same job Peter did) His authority to do things in His name it was a good and necessary thing? Do you honestly think so little of them?

I do find your question a little interesting, given that you know LDS believe that Jesus is the Son of God and in a very real sense our big brother as well as our Savior. We obviously don't believe God is less of a God because He gave His Son power and authority over His other children.

And likewise we obviously don't believe that Jesus is diluted in any way when He allows us on the earth to do things in His name. In my belief, He's more 'straight up' when He grants men the privilege to do things in His name and with His authority-I love that He's not just about following Him in my religion, but that He's all about doing what ever He can to help us be like Him.

Edited January 17, 2015 by bluebell

bluebell · January 17, 2015

YOU all hope to attend a Church where men have such power, but that is not MY hope. I tend to like my Jesus straight up (not diluted through the arbitrary power of men).
I can't imagine that HF would ever abdicate His glory (to bring about the immortality of man) to ANYONE. For instance, in my kingdom (my home), NO ONE has the right to excommunicate anyone but me. And if my 20 yo were to tell my 10 yo that he had decided that the 10 yo were no longer a Newb, the 10 yo would literally laugh in the face of his older brother. Because, even at 10 yo, he knows that daddy's love for him is not determined by his big brother. And therefore, big brother can NEVER write little brother out of daddy's will or take away any other blessings that daddy has to bestow upon him.
Why would any of you hope for a situation where your big brother had that type of power over you? Because in that case, you'd be much wiser to stop worshipping your father and start worshipping big brother, as apparently he holds the keys to the kingdom.
As for me and my newbs, we shall worship the LORD (not His servants).

And still you have not said what it is that Peter binds???

mormonnewb · January 17, 2015

I'm really surprised by this post.
After all the nice things you've said about the mormons that you know, you would actual go behind their backs and say that they worship His servants instead of the Lord because they believe that when Jesus gave Peter (and those who would later do the same job Peter did) His authority to do things in His name it was a good and necessary thing? Do you honestly think so little of them?
I do find your question a little interesting, given that you know LDS believe that Jesus is the Son of God and in a very real sense our big brother as well as our Savior. We obviously don't believe God is less of a God because He gave His Son power and authority over His other children.
And likewise we obviously don't believe that Jesus is diluted in any way when He allows us on the earth to do things in His name. In my belief, He's more 'straight up' when He grants men the privilege to do things in His name and with His authority-I love that He's not just about following Him in my religion, but that He's all about doing what ever He can to help us be like Him.

I don't doubt that HF allows us to do things in His name. I allow my eldest son to do things in my name all the time. In 10 minutes, he's going to pick up a pizza in my name. He has the power to bind me to paying for that pizza.

Likewise, if he gets there and say, the pizza isn't ready or Heaven forbid, has anchovies, he can "loose" us from that order.

But that is far different than saying that he gets to determine who gets to be a Newb.

Edited January 17, 2015 by mormonnewb

Rob Osborn · January 17, 2015

.
Strangely, I agree. If JD was "stinking up" his local meeting house or stake center, I'd be the first to say, "You are the stinkiest link. Goodbye!" If removing one stinker from the services makes it more pleasant for the remaining members, then great.
But that isn't the case here. Ex'ing JD from the Church will not make his podcast smell any better to members. Unless, of course, we think that members will automatically stay out of nostril range of a "certified" apostate. I tend to doubt it.
Most faithful members wouldn't go near MS podcast with a 10-foot nose. Those of us who do aren't going to be dissuaded now that JD has earned the Scarlet A.
And certainly, the rest of the world (that the Church devotes 80,000 missionaries to convince that we're actually Christians) isn't going to be repelled by his Scarlet A. In fact, for the very few outsiders who care, the Church has managed to turn JD into the modern-day equivalent of Martin Luther, Sir Thomas More, Kate Kelly, etc. He is now someone whose "truth-telling has earned him the ire and scorn of a fundamentalist religion." (NYT, feel free to use this verbiage in your next "Mormons are so backwards" piece).
In short, ex'ing JD doesn't protect the Church by insulating him from the 15 million. It hurts the Church by casting it as a medieval institution. To many, we are just Amish with iPads. Go Team Buggy!

So wrong. I dont want anyone thinking the church is doing some great medieval thing by excommunicating JD. JD is bad bad news for the church and everything to do with it including those few who visit and believe his satire. He wants to be a martyr in a world of politically correct policemen. He has already joined the world and is sadly part of its horrible disease of lies, discontent, immorality and faithless humanism.

mormonnewb · January 17, 2015

So wrong. I dont want anyone thinking the church is doing some great medieval thing by excommunicating JD. JD is bad bad news for the church and everything to do with it including those few who visit and believe his satire. He wants to be a martyr in a world of politically correct policemen. He has already joined the world and is sadly part of its horrible disease of lies, discontent, immorality and faithless humanism.

But don't you see how ex'ing him adds to the martyr narrative?

What benefit does the Church get by ex'ing him?

Rob Osborn · January 17, 2015

But don't you see how ex'ing him adds to the martyr narrative?
What benefit does the Church get by ex'ing him?

The benefit of not having a wolf go through slaughtering the innocent sheep of Christ's fold.

mormonnewb · January 17, 2015

The benefit of not having a wolf go through slaughtering the innocent sheep of Christ's fold.

How does ex'ing him accomplish this goal? Will members only listen to him if he is an active member of the Church?

ERayR · January 17, 2015

But don't you see how ex'ing him adds to the martyr narrative?
What benefit does the Church get by ex'ing him?

Who cares?

mormonnewb · January 17, 2015

Who cares?

So you just want your pound of flesh, huh? Throw the bum out! He has offended our sensibilities and must pay the price! Eternal damnation to the infidel!

Believe it or not, this actually makes more sense than any other argument that I've heard in support of excommunication.

bluebell · January 17, 2015

I don't doubt that HF allows us to do things in His name. I allow my eldest son to do things in my name all the time. In 10 minutes, he's going to pick up a pizza in my name. He has the power to bind me to paying for that pizza.
Likewise, if he gets there and say, the pizza isn't ready or Heaven forbid, has anchovies, he can "loose" us from that order.
But that is far different than saying that he gets to determine who gets to be a Newb.

So Peter had the power to bind pizza orders in Heaven and on earth, but nothing of greater spiritual worth than that?

I'm not trying to be snarky, i just honestly have no idea how to apply what you've said to the scripture we've been talking about.

Edit to add-i'm really fine if you want to believe that God would never, under any circumstances ever ever to infinity, give His prophets the authority to revoke the baptismal blessings of those members who apostatize or negate their covenants thru very serious sin.

But why is it arrogant to believe that God would, under certain circumstances, authorize His prophet to do such?

Edited January 17, 2015 by bluebell

Hamba Tuhan · January 17, 2015

What benefit does the Church get by ex'ing him?

Why have you assumed that the motivation here is to benefit the Church?

By the way, I don't for one second believe that you genuinely believe that excommunication would cut John off from God, nor do I for one second believe that John worries about that either, so why all the pretend anxiety and hand-wringing over supposedly terrible spiritual consequences you don't actually accept as real?

Edited January 17, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

bluebell · January 17, 2015

So you just want your pound of flesh, huh? Throw the bum out! He has offended our sensibilities and must pay the price! Eternal damnation to the infidel!
Believe it or not, this actually makes more sense than any other argument that I've heard in support of excommunication.

All hail the king of the makers of straw men!!

(or in other words, i don't think that's what ERayR meant)

Calm · January 17, 2015

How does ex'ing him accomplish this goal? Will members only listen to him if he is an active member of the Church?

He was at times saying one could and should be a member and do things contrary to church standards (such as being disingenous about a temple recommend) and still remain a member.

Some people believed him because he was doing those things and still was a member. This demonstrates that being part of the community is more than just claiming the name. That there are certain actions not acceptable in someone desiring to be a Saint and that they need to be repented of or one will lose official membership in the community.

edited to keep to one topic at a time

Edited January 17, 2015 by calmoriah

juliann · January 17, 2015

I was on the Mormon Feminist Housewives FB where I got that response. I challenged someone about John Dehlin's excommunication being about the podcast talking about historical issues.

You are right. Until everyone in Sunstone, Dialogue, MHA, the Bloggernacle and on and on are told to stop it is not convincing to make this all about "asking questions" and the other things that go on nonstop that are being presented as the problem.

Calm · January 17, 2015

But why is it arrogant to believe that God would, under certain circumstances, authorize His prophet to do such?

It seems strange to me to believe that God would give authority to his prophet, etc. to choose who is authorized to be baptized or not in the first place based on worthiness and commitment standards, but not allow for the baptism to be dissolved as well for the same reasons.

Edited January 17, 2015 by calmoriah

Duncan · January 17, 2015

How does ex'ing him accomplish this goal? Will members only listen to him if he is an active member of the Church?

no, but it will show he doesn't have the support of the Church and maybe be careful of what he says. He isn't exed yet and maybe never will.

there was lady in our stake in the 90's that joined the Church, did something got exed, moved to Utah joined with that Ed Decker fella and he apparently told her to re-join again and get the Temple ceremony taped(I don't know what happened with that as 90's tech as we all know would not have been conducive for such a recording) anyways she got back in the church and then went on this speaking tour and came here and our stake president who is now a prof. at BYU in the Church History Dept. attended and he knew all about her and she tried to debate him in public about Church history and he creamed her and she drifted away, don't know whatever became of her

Edited January 17, 2015 by Duncan

Avatar4321 · January 17, 2015

So Peter had the power to bind pizza orders in Heaven and on earth, but nothing of greater spiritual worth than that?

I'm not trying to be snarky, i just honestly have no idea how to apply what you've said to the scripture we've been talking about.

Edit to add-i'm really fine if you want to believe that God would never, under any circumstances ever ever to infinity, give His prophets the authority to revoke the baptismal blessings of those members who apostatize or negate their covenants thru very serious sin.

But why is it arrogant to believe that God would, under certain circumstances, authorize His prophet to do such?

especially when the scriptures specifically mention several places where this power to man

Rob Osborn · January 17, 2015

How does ex'ing him accomplish this goal? Will members only listen to him if he is an active member of the Church?

Let me give this analogy- My wife works at Wal-Mart.Suppose one day that she started picketing out front with a large sign telling people not to shop there because it supports child labor in China. Then, suppose she was to continue this everyday for months and months and then still go in and expect the benefits as an employee (getting paid, discounts, etc)? Should Wal-Mart keep her on as an employee? Absolutely not. So it is the same with Dehlin. He actively protests pretty much everything about Mormonism and still expects to be welcomed in and treated as other good standing members. Sorry but No No. People in the church and outside the church do in fact look at "membership" to judge somebody's words and beliefs. JD is more than welcome to continue his work, research and podcasts, just not as a so called "disciple" of the Lord in His church. Lucifer lost his placement in heaven for the same exact reason.

mormonnewb · January 17, 2015

Why have you assumed that the motivation here is to benefit the Church?
By the way, I don't for one second believe that you genuinely believe that excommunication would cut John off from God, nor do I for one second believe that John worries about that either, so why all the pretend anxiety and hand-wringing over supposedly terrible spiritual consequences you don't actually accept as real?

You're absolutely correct. I'm not the least bit worried for JD's eternal soul as a result of being ex'd from this Church. I strongly believe that his excommunication has about as much eternal effect as the rule requiring one to wait 30 minutes after eating before getting back in the pool.

My handwringing comes from the fact that I will be the one answering for this silliness. You BICers get a pass on stuff like this as people just assume that you've never known anything better. But as a convert, someone is going to ask ME, "So, let me get this straight. You're a well-educated man who converted to a church that is excommunicating people in the 21st century? What's wrong? Would the Amish not return your texts?"

I've just gotten used to answering for the priesthood ban, so I'm not looking forward to answering for the podcast ban as well.

Edited January 17, 2015 by mormonnewb

Calm · January 17, 2015

My handwringing comes from the fact that I will be the one answering for this silliness. You BICers get a pass on stuff like this as people just assume that you've never known anything better. But as a convert, someone is going to ask ME, "So, let me get this straight. You're a well-educated man who converted to a church that is excommunicating people in the 21st century? What's wrong? Would the Amish not return your texts?"
I've just gotten used to answering for the priesthood ban, so I'm not looking forward to answering for the podcast ban as well.

So your concern about Dehlin is really just a self centered dislike of being thought strange or something?

(this is not a rhetorical question, this appears to be how you are describing it yourself and it is surprising to me so I am asking for clarification, my apologies if it comes across as a veiled insult as there is no intent to be one as I am expecting you to correct that impression)

Edited January 17, 2015 by calmoriah

Avatar4321 · January 17, 2015

You're absolutely correct. I'm not the least bit worried for JD's eternal soul as a result of being ex'd from this Church. I strongly believe that his excommunication has about as much eternal effect as the rule requiring one to wait 30 minutes after eating before getting back in the pool.
My handwringing comes from the fact that I will be the one answering for this silliness. You BICers get a pass on stuff like this as people just assume that you've never known anything better. But as a convert, someone is going to ask ME, "So, let me get this straight. You're a well-educated man who converted to a church that is excommunicating people in the 21st century? What's wrong? Would the Amish not return your texts?"
I've just gotten used to answering for the priesthood ban, so I'm not looking forward to answering for the podcast ban as well.

so we should ignore scripture because you don't want your pride hurt?

did you learn nothing from the vision of the tree of life?

Teancum · January 17, 2015

John Dehlin is not supportive of LDS leadership and should not be a member at this time.

You are a hardliner. You are dogmatic. Maybe you should not be a member at this time either.

Okay tongue is firmly planted in cheek.

But who the heck are YOU to make such a conclusion ?

Sign In

Excommunicatin'

Recommended Posts

Avatar4321

mormonnewb

ERayR

bluebell

bluebell

mormonnewb

Rob Osborn

mormonnewb

Rob Osborn

mormonnewb

ERayR

mormonnewb

bluebell

Hamba Tuhan

bluebell

Calm

juliann

Calm

Duncan

Avatar4321

Rob Osborn

mormonnewb

Calm

Avatar4321

Teancum

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse