Excommunicatin'

[mormonnewb]

I wasn't going to post this because I thought the other link was enough, but apparently not. From his stake president, from a letter JD apparently left out of the stuff he gave to the media:

https://seesangelsinthearchitecture.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/john-dehlin-and-media-manipulation/

It is not just podcasts, he has spoken about his beliefs on Facebook, at demonstrations, at various conferences, on message boards, on radio, in newspapers and practically every other form of media.

Not rhetorical but actual question: Must one believe all of these things to retain their membership in the Church? Or is it okay not to believe some of these things so long as one does not say so publicly?

By the way, is this an official Handbook list or something created by this particular local leader?

Edited January 18, 2015 by mormonnewb

[DBMormon]

If you substitute "any testimony of Christ" in place of the word Prophecy in the Scriptures, very few of those sentences make any sense any longer

consider

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophecy-prophesy

and substituting "any kind of testimony of Christ" in it's place

 

• Your sons and daughters shall "have any kind of testimony of Christ":Joel 2:28; ( Acts 2:17–18; )
• No"any kind of testimony of Christ" of the scripture is of any private interpretation:2 Pet. 1:20;
• The Nephites had many revelations and the spirit of "any kind of testimony of Christ":Jacob 4:6, 13;
• Alma and Amulek knew the intents of Zeezrom’s heart by the spirit of "any kind of testimony of Christ":Alma 12:7;
• Wo unto him who says the Lord no longer works by "any kind of testimony of Christ" 3 Ne. 29:6;
• Search the "testimonies of Christ" of Isaiah:Morm. 8:23;
• The "any kind of testimony of Christ" shall all be fulfilled:D&C 1:37–38;
• Man must be called of God by "any kind of testimony of Christ":A of F 1:5;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

It seems to me that in at least 90% of the wording that uses the word Prophecy, it is clear they are speaking of foretelling future events.  So yes I grant the Church has defined it one way, I simply think that based on Biblical scripture that definition doesn't hold much water.  I respect one's right to hold such view, I simply do not see it as defensible as one would like it to be.

Avatar, Found it odd there was no response.  I am curious if you agreed or had a valid argument to dispute this.  I have offered what I think is a valid counter argument... thoughts?

[Calm]

Not rhetorical but actual question: Must one believe all of these things to retain their membership in the Church? Or is it okay not to believe some of these things so long as one does not say so publicly?

By the way, is this an official Handbook list or something created by this particular local leader?

I don't make those kinds of judgments.

 

This list was created by the leader based on his discussions with Dehlin, what he had read of Dehlin's writings and what JD was questioning.

 

If you read the August 11th letter you will see the SP is focusing on not solely JD believing these things but actively teaching and promoting them (as well as creating a forum for criticizing the Church)

 

Have you read all the letters between JD and his SP?

Edited January 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

I don't think President Uchtdorf was proposing that local leaders should abdicate their responsibilities as judges in Israel and let apostasy run rampant and unchecked in the Church.  I think to suggest or imply otherwise is to wrest his words.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I just take him his words at face value.

[Teancum]

I regret that you have no good faith basis on which to claim to believe what you assert. I'm not attempting to "over ride" anything.President Uchtdorf talked about welcoming people regardless of the size of their testimony. That doesn't describe Mister Dehlin, whose "testimony" of his false doctrines is cyclopean in scale.I'm afraid Mister Dehlin's two-facedness is too well documented for you to sweep it under the rug.  Why are Greg Smith's articles "awful," T? Because they pull aside the sheepskin to show the wolf hair, and you can't refute them?Your mind-reading is faulty. Maybe you should try reading some sources instead.I don't "loathe" Mister Dehlin. I just acknowledge the plain facts about him.Regards,Pahoran

Very good Pahoran. You can have the last word. I now recall why I try to avoid interaction with you.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

The problem is that this can't be the "one true Church" AND the Church of the like-minded.  Many of HF's children are just like me -- contentious and contrarian (although very few combine it so well with wit, charm and good looks).  So what are we to do with the misfits like me?  Just leave us to "rot" in one of the abominable churches?  Or did I read something about patience and long-suffering somewhere?

 

.

 

On the other hand: 

 

The Lord called His people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them

 

 

It appears that, you, like me, tend to be “0 for 4“ on that one..  Maybe we have more in common than we realize.  (Hey, if we are serious about building Zion -- the ultimate “social justice community" --  we have to start somewhere.)

 

 

And finally, don't feel that all of your long-suffering is in vain.  Last week, we went round and round on this board about ETB being the subject of this year's teachings of the Presidents manual.  I was able to give voice to some of my frustrations, but then get some much needed perspective.  As a result, last Sunday, I give the most inspired lesson in the history of EQ ... and that's being modest (and it's not saying a whole lot).  But seriously, my participation on this board allows me to leave my natural contention here (amongst those who have volunteered for it) and to show up to the meetinghouse full of love and goodwill towards my fellow saints.

 

Would you rather that I do the opposite?  Or should I just go away to one of those "false" churches?  And if I did, who would you have to feel morally superior to around here?

 

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, "You want me on this board!  You need me on this board!"

 

IIRC, in the movie, that philosophy -- unconstrained by other principles -- destroyed him and his long time friend, coerced two other people into doing despicable things that they probably would not have done otherwise, and cost an innocent man his life.   

[carbon dioxide]

Good thing that isn't being contemplated, then.  Mister Dehlin has been using the Church membership as his mission field for his anti-Mormon proselytizing.  It is grotesquely disingenuous to describe that as merely "stating their beliefs."

 

Regards,

Pahoran

There are a lot of people in the Church who state their beliefs that are not always in 100% agreement with what the Church teaches.  Mr Dehilin is different because he has gone far beyond what everyone else is doing.  He has purposely made himself a target.  If someone purposely try to get the attention of a grizzly bear and and annoy it, what is the bear going to do?  John wanted to get noticed and he got is wish.  Now he has to be a man and own up the the consequences of it.

[Vanguard]

For those who take issue with the grounds for Bro. Dehlin's presumptive excommunication, what would you suggest the criteria be when considering such action for those who dissent? Or is anyone suggesting dissent in never grounds for excommunication?

[Stone holm]

Not hysterical, but hyperbolic.  No, there is no podcast ban for saints ... at least, not yet.  However, we should be clear that Dehlin is being ex'd for his actions SOLELY as they relate to his activities as a podcast host.

 

He is not being ex'd for creating a disturbance in real-life LDS meetings.  He isn't being ex'd for organizing the saints into protests and demonstrations against the Church.  He isn't being ex'd for trying to start his own church.  He's being ex'd for hosting a podcast that members can only hear by seeking it out on their own.

 

I believe we are breaking new ground here.  I'm not sure that ANY other church has punished one of their members for interviewing people with views contrary to the Church.  Actually, I take that back.  Recently, a Saudi man was sentenced to 10 years in prison (and I believe 10,000 lashes) for posting a website where OTHER people could be critical of Islam.

 

And yes, I will grant you that we would never lash a wayward saint.  That would be cruel.  We show our more evolved sensibilities by severing their ties to their loved ones ... and God almighty ... for all of eternity (or until, they have begged for forgiveness to the SP's satisfaction).

That is what is making some of these awkward as Saints are being called upon to shut down blogs, etc.

[Guest]

A friend of mine left the church recently and her hero is John Dehlin.  She points every member she can to him and mormon stories because she believes the mormon church is a huge fraud that is hurting people.

 

When a member is helping ex mormons feel good about leaving the church, and when ex mormons try to get people to talk to that member so they will also leave the church, that's probably a reasonable sign that the 'member' shouldn't be a member in good standing anymore.

The issue in most cases, is that the man or woman have already left the Church, and usually the body as well. In such cases excommunication is little more than a casual meeting of the minds all reach the common idea that the marriage and membership is dead. The final act, a quite wake. However there is the acausuual trown back, and pleading out of love, and great tears and hard on ALl involved. But not everything that is broke can be healed, sometimes (even more that one might think) the healing hands of the Savior is lain upon the hearts of all parties. When this happens it is a glorious homecoming, where both groups will fall upon th neck of the other and wet each other's shoulders.

When really bad t become something played out in public, followed by news shows, book deals, and the road back is not only damaged, it wall that has been built allows no free flowing traffic of love OR ideas.

[Jeanne]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this?  We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John.  A judgement of anykind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

No matter what happens here, the church will lose.  Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

[why me]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this?  We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John.  A judgement of anykind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

No matter what happens here, the church will lose.  Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

I think that in order for the savior to forgive one must ask for forgiveness. Has john done this? If not, what should jesus forgive? However, your post is filled with postmodern understandings. It goes like this: don't worry about what you do because jesus automatically forgives because jesus is love and nothing but love. So, do what you wish, be hostile toward your church...or be hostile toward people....sin away....it doesn't matter because god is love and he forgives even when forgiveness is never asked for.  However at the time of paul, there was excommunication among the early saints. What did jesus think of that?

 

However, when we look at the new testament, we read that after the birth of jesus, the king ordered that every child 2 and under should be killed and killed they were. How could god who is a god of love allow such a thing to happen to so many innocent children only because of the birth of his son? I see no postmodernism there at all. But I do see an exercise in free will. Or should we condemn jesus for the harshness or condemn heavenly father.

Edited January 18, 2015 by why me

[Vanguard]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this? We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John. A judgement of anykind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

No matter what happens here, the church will lose. Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

 

Are you suggesting there is never any grounds for an excommunication? "A judgment of any kind is arrogance..." seems to suggest so. If not, when is it appropriate to take such action?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Vanguard

[Pahoran]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this?  We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John.  A judgement of anykind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

Including the judgement you've just made here?

 

No matter what happens here, the church will lose.  Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

I realise that this is the faith of the Dehlinites. Needless to say, I don't agree.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this?  We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John.  A judgement of anykind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

No matter what happens here, the church will lose.  Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

 

In order for the Savior to forgive, He must first judge that someone has sinned.  So to say that the Savior wouldn't judge is not valid.  Of course the Savior judges, He doesn't always condemn, but the judgment still exists.

 

But besides that, excommunication is only ever used when someone won't repent (and therefore makes forgiveness of the church impossible) or needs excommunication to help them repent (so that forgiveness is possible).

 

Thus judging righteously IS very much something that Christ's church would do, and excommunication does not mean that a desire for forgiveness is lacking.

 

[Duncan]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this?  We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John.  A judgement of anykind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

No matter what happens here, the church will lose.  Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

 

 

In DC 109:50-Have mercy, O Lord, upon the wicked mob, who have driven thy people, that they may cease to spoil, that they may repent of their sins if repentance is to be found;

 

if they want forgiveness then they need to repent, if they don't think they need anything then they won't get anything, regardless of who it comes from. I gave a talk earlier today in ward that racism and mysogyny is a concern. Honestly, my talk was blasting those behaviours, my friends told me after that the people that needed to hear it would brush it off like "ah, I don't beat my wife" maybe, but you feel fine tying up a sister missionary and gagging her in gospel principles class or telling the missionaries when they bring someone to church from Pakistan to 'pat him down for Bombs'? even though I clearly addressed that kind of stuff, without specifically mentioning it. The message they needed to hear isn't what they would pick up on, they are somehow too pigheaded (total judgement), they need to hear some other way and another wake up call, maybe excommunication is JD's wake up call

Edited January 19, 2015 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this?  We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John.  A judgement of anykind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

No matter what happens here, the church will lose.  Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

Again, the mythical savior; this time the one who forgives the unrepentant.

Nice to see idolatry is still alive and kicking.

[Teancum]

Including the judgement you've just made here?

 

I realise that this is the faith of the Dehlinites. Needless to say, I don't agree.

Regards,

Pahoran

Dehlinits?

Really! Get a life dude,

[Pahoran]

Dehlinits?

Really! Get a life dude,

 

No, Dehlinites.

 

But I thought you weren't interacting with me any more, Teancum?

 

Why stop now, when it's doing me so much good?

 

But if you don't like "Dehlinites," how about "Dehlin apologists?"

 

I don't mind either way.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Svawd]

Whose expense was that funny poke at? As long as you feel better Nehor.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Svawd

[Teancum]

No, Dehlinites.

 

But I thought you weren't interacting with me any more, Teancum?

 

Why stop now, when it's doing me so much good?

 

But if you don't like "Dehlinites," how about "Dehlin apologists?"

 

I don't mind either way.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Yea I swore off you earlier but you are s I charming it is tough to stay away.

I can accept Dehilin apologists. Much better. You are making progress.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yea I swore off you earlier but you are s I charming it is tough to stay away.

I can accept Dehilin apologists. Much better. You are making progress.

Except that Dehlin habitually uses the word apologist as a pejorative. Having it applied to his followers, sympathizers and advocates is apt to make him uncomfortable.

 

How about Dehlin disciples or Dehlin minions?

 

Afterthought: We could combine the name and the word on that last one for a coinage: Dehlinions.

 

(Thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waiter.)

Edited January 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

I just take him his words at face value.

 

There is nothing in the "face value" of President Uchtdorf's words to support the proposition that he advocates that local leaders should abdicate their responsibilities as judges in Israel and let apostasy run rampant and unchecked in the Church. I think to suggest or imply otherwise is to wrest his words.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited January 19, 2015 by smac97

[Calm]

I just take him his words at face value.

"Face value" in my experience usually amounts to what our first impressions of words are….which may be much more about our own assumptions than the assumptions of the author in his choice of the words, which in my opinion is more likely to be come close to by the reader taking into account the author's/speaker's ongoing commentary on a subject and not just a sentence or two in one talk.

[smac97]

In reading all of this, I look at all the forgiveness that is in the heart of the Savior..the ONE who could/should judge in the end..what would he think of all of this?

A few thoughts:

1. I don't think Jesus Christ would propose that local leaders should abdicate their responsibilities as judges in Israel and let apostasy run rampant and unchecked in the Church.

2. The "Savior" to which you are referring to here taught forgiveness. But he also advocated many other things, including the things which Bro. Dehlin has been publicly rejecting, and he has also been attempting to persuade people to join him in these rejections.

3. Bro. Dehlin has publicly taught that "the probability that God exists is quite low." I think this contravenes the teachings of Christ.

4. Bro. Dehlin has publicly faulted God and Jesus Christ ("If God and Jesus really do exist . . . they have a lot of 'splaining to do."). This seems irreverent, disrespectful, prideful, arrogant, defiant, perhaps even blasphemous. I think Jesus Christ would not approve of such behavior.

5. Bro. Dehlin has publicly voiced skepticism that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He was resurrected, and that the atonement "doesn't make any sense at all." I think Jesus Christ would not approve of such behavior.

6. Bro. Dehlin has publicly expressed disbelief, and has actively taught against, the fundamental truth claims of the LDS Church (the Restoration, exclusive priesthood authority, the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith, etc.), and that he "would rather roll around in thumb tacks than ever teach or support" these claims. Jesus Christ has testified of these things, so I do not think He would approve of His professed followers contradicting Him about these issues and trying to persuaded others to join in that disbelief.

7. God Himself testified regarding The Book of Mormon being derived from ancient records which were "translated by the gift and power of God."  In contrast, Bro. Dehlin has taught that The Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction.  I do not believe that Jesus Christ would approve of one of his professed followers actively attempting to lead others away from the truth of that about which God Himself has testified.

 

8. Bro. Dehlin has publicly defied and spoken even of the Brethren.  I think Jesus Christ would not approve of such behavior.

 

We know not of all the good John may have done..we don't know John.

We know what John has publicly written and spoken.

A judgement of any kind is arrogance in the face of what we assume the Savior would do.

This statement does not make sense in an LDS paradigm. In that paradigm priesthood leaders are specifically tasked with adjudicative responsibilities. It is the responsibility of Bro. Dehlin's local priesthood leaders to do the very thing you are decrying as "arrogance."

No matter what happens here, the church will lose.  Not Jesus or his church..but the church that condemns on all or different levels.

With respect, I disagree. I think the Church will continue to grow and progress. Your "heads-Dehlin-wins,-tails-the-Church-loses" assessment is absurd on its face.

Thanks,

-Smac