Excommunicatin'

[bluebell]

I'm not the one who created the I'm a Mormon campaign. Nor did I spend the fall trying to boost box office results for the Meet the Mormons movie. Those were efforts by our Church leaders, who are FAR more concerned with creating a "hip Church" than I ever could be (I didn't become a Mormon to improve my "street cred").

I don't know anyone who would characterize the I'm a Mormon or Meet the Mormons campaign as 'hip' but i don't really run in those circles myself so maybe i'm missing the boat on that.

 

I think you are forgetting though that there is a difference between wanting people to understand you and who you are accurately, and changing who you are and what you believe so that people will like you.  The church is very interested in the first, while you seem to be advocating for the second.

 

As for asking to the sacrifice of doctrine, which doctrine is that -- the doctrine of arbitrary and random church disciplinio? To my knowledge, there is no doctrine that REQUIRES his SP to ex him. It is purely a [bad] judgment call. Now, as for the Church's "unhip" stances on SSM and OW, you have a point. Those won't change until the boycotts against BYU come (my prophetic prediction is sometime around 2019).

 

 

Christ's doctrine as the LDS church understands it is that someone must be excommunicated for apostasy if they refuse to repent.  I have no doubt that sometimes how that doctrine is applied can be random or arbitrary (after all humans are carrying it out and none of us get everything right all the time), but that's different than stating that the mere existence of such doctrine is random and arbitrary.

 

And no, it's not a purely bad judgement call.  That is your opinion, not a fact.  

[Avatar4321]

If you or the Church believed that all PR is good PR, you wouldn't be so eager to get rid of him.

that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. PR has nothing to do with his excommunication or non excommunication. The welfare of his soul and the souls of those he can mislead is the point

[mormonnewb]

I'd like mormonewb to tell us how he knows this didn't happen since he is so quick to condemn the Church for not approaching Dehlin for input on the faith crisis issue among members, etc. Surely no one so concerned with his brother's welfare would make such an accusation without knowledge as that would be false witness surely.

Because there is one thing that we all agree about John the Behated -- he is not reticent to tell us about his conversations with Church leaders (in fact, there must be FIFTY comments on this thread alone criticizing him for doing just that). If such an event had occurred, then I KNOW he would have told us, especially had he been extended a church-wide "calling" ("Deacon of Disaffection" is really growing on me).

Think about it. For those who suspect that he has trading in his "Mormon cred," how much more credible would he have been as, say, "Apostle of Apostasy"?

And just for the record, the Church would have likely done the same. When the Brethren met with Obama, they took pictures and BOTH camps publicized the meeting. "Hey, World! Look at this! We like each other. We really, really like each other."

All of that being said, I do believe that SOMEONE in "management" reached out to John and he was even given an audience to present the findings of his study about why Mormons leave the Church (something that he told his listeners about). So there may have been some attempt at co-opting, but it certainly wasn't a very good one because it didn't work. So take your pick -- negligence or incompetence. Management either didn't attempt to co-opt Dehlin or they failed in the attempt.

Finally, as for the rapidity of my "condemnation," it has been a fraction of the condemnation brought down against a rank-in-file member of the Church. So I have no problem with expressing my doubts that 15 PROPHETS and thousands of paid employees could have handled the situation better. And I am much more willing to give a pass to the failings of one man trying to do what he thinks is right. And if that is bearing false witness, I am proudly guilty.

[Mars]

'take your pick -- negligence or incompetence'

 

...

 

I...

 

~sigh~

 

Me                          - -  -   -    -    W   I   D   E        C   H    A   S   M    -   -   -  - -                         mormonnewb

 

I...

 

~sigh...

[Mars]

That's a wide chasm of understanding of the whole thing with John Dehlin, his treatment on here, and Dehlin's own stated opinions and intentions.

[Mars]

See how wide it is?  It's huge.

 

I don't even know how to bridge that.  I've been trying.  This whole thread is like this entire board and my entire life of trying to talk to people who virulently disagree with me about Mormonism in microcosm.

 

We see things so differently.  We see the exact same things so differently, to boot.  Is it me?  Is it them?  Are one of us - or both - being purposefully obtuse in how we understand things?  Are we verbalizing the underlying suspicions, motivations, hopes, doubts, and desires that provide the framework for our opinion, or just the opinion itself?

 

These kinda threads baffle and sadden me.  They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  I disagree with that sentiment, though I get it.

 

To me, insanity is existing in the same plane and physical place as another person, observing the same events, possessing the same language, and having a starkly different take on the who, what, why, when, and where.  It causes me to question my skills as an observer and my critical thinking as I parse what I observe.

 

I...

 

~puts hands up in "what the hell do i know" gesture~

 

oy veh...

[Rain]

So I have no problem with expressing my doubts that 15 PROPHETS and thousands of paid employees could have handled the situation better.

I know this may be difficult, but assume for a moment that this court and possible excommunication are necessary for John's and others salvation* and are done out of love what would you do differently than has been done?

*Getting into the reasoning of that and going back and forth will distract from the question. Just assume the situation to be true for the sake of the question.

[DBMormon]

See how wide it is?  It's huge.

 

I don't even know how to bridge that.  I've been trying.  This whole thread is like this entire board and my entire life of trying to talk to people who virulently disagree with me about Mormonism in microcosm.

 

We see things so differently.  We see the exact same things so differently, to boot.  Is it me?  Is it them?  Are one of us - or both - being purposefully obtuse in how we understand things?  Are we verbalizing the underlying suspicions, motivations, hopes, doubts, and desires that provide the framework for our opinion, or just the opinion itself?

 

These kinda threads baffle and sadden me.  They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  I disagree with that sentiment, though I get it.

 

To me, insanity is existing in the same plane and physical place as another person, observing the same events, possessing the same language, and having a starkly different take on the who, what, why, when, and where.  It causes me to question my skills as an observer and my critical thinking as I parse what I observe.

 

I...

 

~puts hands up in "what the hell do i know" gesture~

 

oy veh...

 

Mars, I would love to talk to you person to person or voice to voice.  I agree there is a wide divide bewteen both views of the same info.  I would love to have that discussion.  I think it might be helpful to at least 2 people having a better feel for such things.  To hash out ideas here becomes a contest and neither side is really listening.  If your interested, email me as my info is below

Edited January 23, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

The real question is how much dissent or doubt is allowed to be shared.  It might add to the conversation to consider the Community of Christ (our cousins) they came up with a  Faithful Disagreement declaration .  While this letter in part is similar to how we frame this and it doesn't solve every problem, would a document in writing help members better navigate this issue?

 

Faithful Disagreement     World Church Leadership Council

 

Definition

Faithful disagreement is defined as actions and/or responses by a person holding a different view

about a specific policy, belief, principle, or other position of Community of Christ. This

disagreement with a Community of Christ position or direction is helpful, responsible, faithful,

and bounded by loyalty and commitment to the identity, mission, message, and beliefs of

Community of Christ. A person who faithfully disagrees is welcome to share about the church

position with which she or he disagrees. The intent of the sharing is to improve the overall

faithful response of the church to God’s intended direction without classifying others as

unfaithful.

Principles

 

1. Community of Christ’s Enduring Principles—Blessings of Community, Worth of All

Persons, Responsible Choices, and Unity in Diversity—allow for faithful disagreement.

 

2. The commitment, in general, to the overall identity, mission, message, and beliefs of

Community of Christ may serve to keep a person in the faith community even when that

person strongly disagrees with a particular position. One’s love for the faith community is

stronger than any particular disagreement.

 

3. Holding a differing view from the Community of Christ position on a specific matter does

not lessen in any way a person’s participation as a faithful, generous, committed, and

responsible disciple. Nor does having a differing view impact a person’s eligibility to hold a

priesthood office or partake in the sacraments.

 

4. A person with a differing viewpoint on a particular position is to be respected by the body.

She or he may share a viewpoint as a personal opinion during discussions, meetings, training,

and other conversations where it is suitable to share personal opinions.

 

5. A person is not to be excluded by a congregation or mission center because of holding a

differing viewpoint on a specific Community of Christ position.

 

6. A member or a priesthood member with a differing viewpoint is not to use public-ministry

opportunities to speak against the identity, mission, message, or beliefs of Community of

Christ. Nor should a member or priesthood member publicly criticize the Community of

Christ stance on the particular position with which the person disagrees. Public ministry must

focus on proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ in ways that align with Community of

Christ identity, mission, message, and beliefs. Faithful Disagreement March 2013

 

7. Agreeing with Community of Christ positions, official and unofficial, is not a test of faith for

priesthood, members, and friends.

 

8. A person cannot ignore policies because he or she disagrees with a particular policy.

Ethically, administrators must consistently apply the official policies and procedures of the

church.

 

9. At no time is any action that harms the body of the church considered in harmony with the

principles in this document.

10. In seeking to create genuine signal communities, we listen respectfully to one another’s

viewpoints. In addition, we try to see from each other’s perspective. We trust in each

person’s commitment to Christ and motivation to see the mission of Community of Christ

flourish. We seek to celebrate our unity while learning from our diversity.

 

11. As a community that embraces Continuing Revelation, we strive always to remain open to

the Holy Spirit. We understand that sometimes both individually and collectively we respond

wisely to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and sometimes we do not fully understand. Through our

vulnerability to the Holy Spirit, we trust God will continue to guide us in refining positions

held by Community of Christ.

 

12. Various legislative conferences and consent-building methods used by Community of Christ,

allow a person holding a differing viewpoint to continue to seek change to the position with

which she or he disagrees. 

[stemelbow]

Because there is one thing that we all agree about John the Behated -- he is not reticent to tell us about his conversations with Church leaders (in fact, there must be FIFTY comments on this thread alone criticizing him for doing just that). If such an event had occurred, then I KNOW he would have told us, especially had he been extended a church-wide "calling" ("Deacon of Disaffection" is really growing on me).

Nobody hates him. But it is true that some years ago he was invited to report to people at Church HQs on the reasons why people leave in an effort to say, "Brother Dehlin, we see that you have great connections within the NOM community, we'd like you to be our liaison. Bring us their concerns and let's work to resolve them where possible. In turn, we'd like you to, from time to time, help us communicate our desire to bring them back into the fold. Let's work TOGETHER to make this Church a place for ALL Mormons".

This did happen.

Think about it. For those who suspect that he has trading in his "Mormon cred," how much more credible would he have been as, say, "Apostle of Apostasy"?

He's touted that type of thing for a long time. That's why he talks about this study he did or promoted.

And just for the record, the Church would have likely done the same. When the Brethren met with Obama, they took pictures and BOTH camps publicized the meeting. "Hey, World! Look at this! We like each other. We really, really like each other."

It's true the Church did not promote it, but the Church did start to address the troubling issues. I don't know that that was a direct result of Dehlin's efforts, but it could have helped.

All of that being said, I do believe that SOMEONE in "management" reached out to John and he was even given an audience to present the findings of his study about why Mormons leave the Church (something that he told his listeners about). So there may have been some attempt at co-opting, but it certainly wasn't a very good one because it didn't work. So take your pick -- negligence or incompetence. Management either didn't attempt to co-opt Dehlin or they failed in the attempt.

Finally, as for the rapidity of my "condemnation," it has been a fraction of the condemnation brought down against a rank-in-file member of the Church. So I have no problem with expressing my doubts that 15 PROPHETS and thousands of paid employees could have handled the situation better. And I am much more willing to give a pass to the failings of one man trying to do what he thinks is right. And if that is bearing false witness, I am proudly guilty.

And no matter what you do the reasons why people leave will always be. You simply can't fix it. You can try to understand and try to mitigate, which I think has happened to some extent, but it won't be fixed.

[bluebell]

For one, let's be clear. I'm very glad that the Church did not attempt to co-opt my dear brother. And I strongly suspect that he would seem through the attempt. However, it would have been a good strategic move for the Church to try.

And that doesn't mean that you put Him in the 15 or make him a teacher in any way. You're right. That would be silly. However, it might have made good sense to say, "Brother Dehlin, we see that you have great connections within the NOM community, we'd like you to be our liaison. Bring us their concerns and let's work to resolve them where possible. In turn, we'd like you to, from time to time, help us communicate our desire to bring them back into the fold. Let's work TOGETHER to make this Church a place for ALL Mormons."

Have you considered that you are advocating a position inside the church that JD doesn't want?  

 

Dehlin has made it clear that he's not interested in helping the church.  His agenda and the church's are contradictory.  He has said in the past that he and his wife-"no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims [of the LDS Church]."

 

He has also said-"the StayLDS position is no longer something that I push...I now believe that people should follow their joy...period. In or out of the church. That said, I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet work -- and I'm perfectly happy if they're happy."

 

John doesn't want to help the church keep people in.  And how could the church partner with someone who refuses to appear as if he believes in the doctrines of the church and who does not encourage people to stay in the church?

 

Now, I know for some of you, this level of diplomacy is beneath your Prophet. He should speak and we should obey. But I think Christ once said something about being wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

 

 

Is it possible for you to discuss this without the 'witty' insults?  It doesn't help anything.

[stemelbow]

Have you considered that you are advocating a position inside the church that JD doesn't want?  

 

Dehlin has made it clear that he's not interested in helping the church.  His agenda and the church's are contradictory.  He has said in the past that he and his wife-"no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims [of the LDS Church]."

 

He has also said-"the StayLDS position is no longer something that I push...I now believe that people should follow their joy...period. In or out of the church. That said, I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet work -- and I'm perfectly happy if they're happy."

 

John doesn't want to help the church keep people in.  And how could the church partner with someone who refuses to appear as if he believes in the doctrines of the church and who does not encourage people to stay in the church?

 

 

Is it possible for you to discuss this without the 'witty' insults?  It doesn't help anything.

I gave you a rep point, which I do for good posts, but that didn't feel like it highlighted enough how much I agreed and am fond with this post. Thanks.

[bluebell]

I gave you a rep point, which I do for good posts, but that didn't feel like it highlighted enough how much I agreed and am fond with this post. Thanks.

 

[stemelbow]

The real question is how much dissent or doubt is allowed to be shared.  It might add to the conversation to consider the Community of Christ (our cousins) they came up with a  Faithful Disagreement declaration .  While this letter in part is similar to how we frame this and it doesn't solve every problem, would a document in writing help members better navigate this issue?

 

Faithful Disagreement     World Church Leadership Council

 

Definition

Faithful disagreement is defined as actions and/or responses by a person holding a different view

about a specific policy, belief, principle, or other position of Community of Christ. This

disagreement with a Community of Christ position or direction is helpful, responsible, faithful,

and bounded by loyalty and commitment to the identity, mission, message, and beliefs of

Community of Christ. A person who faithfully disagrees is welcome to share about the church

position with which she or he disagrees. The intent of the sharing is to improve the overall

faithful response of the church to God’s intended direction without classifying others as

unfaithful.

Principles

 

1. Community of Christ’s Enduring Principles—Blessings of Community, Worth of All

Persons, Responsible Choices, and Unity in Diversity—allow for faithful disagreement.

 

2. The commitment, in general, to the overall identity, mission, message, and beliefs of

Community of Christ may serve to keep a person in the faith community even when that

person strongly disagrees with a particular position. One’s love for the faith community is

stronger than any particular disagreement.

 

3. Holding a differing view from the Community of Christ position on a specific matter does

not lessen in any way a person’s participation as a faithful, generous, committed, and

responsible disciple. Nor does having a differing view impact a person’s eligibility to hold a

priesthood office or partake in the sacraments.

 

4. A person with a differing viewpoint on a particular position is to be respected by the body.

She or he may share a viewpoint as a personal opinion during discussions, meetings, training,

and other conversations where it is suitable to share personal opinions.

 

5. A person is not to be excluded by a congregation or mission center because of holding a

differing viewpoint on a specific Community of Christ position.

 

6. A member or a priesthood member with a differing viewpoint is not to use public-ministry

opportunities to speak against the identity, mission, message, or beliefs of Community of

Christ. Nor should a member or priesthood member publicly criticize the Community of

Christ stance on the particular position with which the person disagrees. Public ministry must

focus on proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ in ways that align with Community of

Christ identity, mission, message, and beliefs. Faithful Disagreement March 2013

 

7. Agreeing with Community of Christ positions, official and unofficial, is not a test of faith for

priesthood, members, and friends.

 

8. A person cannot ignore policies because he or she disagrees with a particular policy.

Ethically, administrators must consistently apply the official policies and procedures of the

church.

 

9. At no time is any action that harms the body of the church considered in harmony with the

principles in this document.

10. In seeking to create genuine signal communities, we listen respectfully to one another’s

viewpoints. In addition, we try to see from each other’s perspective. We trust in each

person’s commitment to Christ and motivation to see the mission of Community of Christ

flourish. We seek to celebrate our unity while learning from our diversity.

 

11. As a community that embraces Continuing Revelation, we strive always to remain open to

the Holy Spirit. We understand that sometimes both individually and collectively we respond

wisely to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and sometimes we do not fully understand. Through our

vulnerability to the Holy Spirit, we trust God will continue to guide us in refining positions

held by Community of Christ.

 

12. Various legislative conferences and consent-building methods used by Community of Christ,

allow a person holding a differing viewpoint to continue to seek change to the position with

which she or he disagrees.

I think getting a better idea what the Church considers appropriate and not for members could be a positive from all of this. John said yesterday that is what he wants--to help clarify what the Church wants in terms of belief and activity from it's members. I think it's always been a bit of subjectivity here. Local leaders are to trust the Spirit and all that, but it'd be nice to have it a little more clearly defined--not just for members, but perhaps for leaders. No doubt at some point some leader is going to go way overboard. It's just the nature of things.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is what I said about President Uchtdorf:

 

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.

Upon further review, I find that I am pretty darn comfortable with my position relative to Pres. Uchtdorf's comments. I don't think it's a "spin" on his words to state that he does not advocate that local leaders should abdicate their responsibilities as judges in Israel and let apostasy run rampant and unchecked in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Members of the First Presidency -- such as President Uchtdorf -- are routinely involved in the Church disciplinary process through such duties as approving restoration of blessings for individuals who are judged to have repented sufficiently. Members of the First Presidency are judges in Israel like the stake presidents and bishops who serve under their direction.

 

To state, imply or infer that a member of the First Presidency advocates that leaders abdicate their responsibilities as judges in Israel -- well, it's rank absurdity. It's fatuous reasoning.

[stemelbow]

I know this may be difficult, but assume for a moment that this court and possible excommunication are necessary for John's and others salvation* and are done out of love what would you do differently than has been done?

*Getting into the reasoning of that and going back and forth will distract from the question. Just assume the situation to be true for the sake of the question.

Excellent thought. We are so out of the minds of those involved. Is it more the spiritual impressions from the local leaders, like John's SP, that they want to help John see his potential? They could very well fear for him as much as he feels like he is helping. Perhaps they are seeing things that we do not--that he does not.

[Kenngo1969]

Have you considered that you are advocating a position inside the church that JD doesn't want?  

 

Dehlin has made it clear that he's not interested in helping the church.  His agenda and the church's are contradictory.  He has said in the past that he and his wife-"no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims [of the LDS Church]."

 

He has also said-"the StayLDS position is no longer something that I push...I now believe that people should follow their joy...period. In or out of the church. That said, I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet work -- and I'm perfectly happy if they're happy."

 

John doesn't want to help the church keep people in.  And how could the church partner with someone who refuses to appear as if he believes in the doctrines of the church and who does not encourage people to stay in the church?

 

 

Is it possible for you to discuss this without the 'witty' insults?  It doesn't help anything.

 

 

I gave you a rep point, which I do for good posts, but that didn't feel like it highlighted enough how much I agreed and am fond with this post. Thanks.

X 2.

[Calm]

Because there is one thing that we all agree about John the Behated -- he is not reticent to tell us about his conversations with Church leaders 

 

He did.  See his experience with the Church consulting him in regards to why people were leaving the faith.

 

All of that being said, I do believe that SOMEONE in "management" reached out to John and he was even given an audience to present the findings of his study about why Mormons leave the Church (something that he told his listeners about)

 

 

So you know of the Church talking to him, but you assume that it wasn't a good job by the Church because it apparently didn't lead to putting him front and center as some sort of poster boy instead of perhaps Dehlin not wanting to work with the Church or the Church not wanting to make it appear that Christ's Church was promoting holding beliefs that denied the likely existence of God.

 

Why does it have to be the Church that is making all the wrong moves in your view in this case and not Dehlin?

Edited January 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think getting a better idea what the Church considers appropriate and not for members could be a positive from all of this. John said yesterday that is what he wants--to help clarify what the Church wants in terms of belief and activity from it's members. I think it's always been a bit of subjectivity here. Local leaders are to trust the Spirit and all that, but it'd be nice to have it a little more clearly defined--not just for members, but perhaps for leaders. 

Apparently as part of his clarification he is asking people to solicit from their bishops and stake presidents how holding certain positions would affect their temple standing.

 

But he also added that only ten responses would accomplish what he intended (whatever that was).  I would really like to know how 10 responses comes close to saying anything in a church with 29,253 wards.

[Rob Osborn]

The real question is how much dissent or doubt is allowed to be shared.  It might add to the conversation to consider the Community of Christ (our cousins) they came up with a  Faithful Disagreement declaration .  While this letter in part is similar to how we frame this and it doesn't solve every problem, would a document in writing help members better navigate this issue?

 

Faithful Disagreement     World Church Leadership Council

 

Definition

Faithful disagreement is defined as actions and/or responses by a person holding a different view

about a specific policy, belief, principle, or other position of Community of Christ. This

disagreement with a Community of Christ position or direction is helpful, responsible, faithful,

and bounded by loyalty and commitment to the identity, mission, message, and beliefs of

Community of Christ. A person who faithfully disagrees is welcome to share about the church

position with which she or he disagrees. The intent of the sharing is to improve the overall

faithful response of the church to God’s intended direction without classifying others as

unfaithful.

Principles

 

1. Community of Christ’s Enduring Principles—Blessings of Community, Worth of All

Persons, Responsible Choices, and Unity in Diversity—allow for faithful disagreement.

 

2. The commitment, in general, to the overall identity, mission, message, and beliefs of

Community of Christ may serve to keep a person in the faith community even when that

person strongly disagrees with a particular position. One’s love for the faith community is

stronger than any particular disagreement.

 

3. Holding a differing view from the Community of Christ position on a specific matter does

not lessen in any way a person’s participation as a faithful, generous, committed, and

responsible disciple. Nor does having a differing view impact a person’s eligibility to hold a

priesthood office or partake in the sacraments.

 

4. A person with a differing viewpoint on a particular position is to be respected by the body.

She or he may share a viewpoint as a personal opinion during discussions, meetings, training,

and other conversations where it is suitable to share personal opinions.

 

5. A person is not to be excluded by a congregation or mission center because of holding a

differing viewpoint on a specific Community of Christ position.

 

6. A member or a priesthood member with a differing viewpoint is not to use public-ministry

opportunities to speak against the identity, mission, message, or beliefs of Community of

Christ. Nor should a member or priesthood member publicly criticize the Community of

Christ stance on the particular position with which the person disagrees. Public ministry must

focus on proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ in ways that align with Community of

Christ identity, mission, message, and beliefs. Faithful Disagreement March 2013

 

7. Agreeing with Community of Christ positions, official and unofficial, is not a test of faith for

priesthood, members, and friends.

 

8. A person cannot ignore policies because he or she disagrees with a particular policy.

Ethically, administrators must consistently apply the official policies and procedures of the

church.

 

9. At no time is any action that harms the body of the church considered in harmony with the

principles in this document.

10. In seeking to create genuine signal communities, we listen respectfully to one another’s

viewpoints. In addition, we try to see from each other’s perspective. We trust in each

person’s commitment to Christ and motivation to see the mission of Community of Christ

flourish. We seek to celebrate our unity while learning from our diversity.

 

11. As a community that embraces Continuing Revelation, we strive always to remain open to

the Holy Spirit. We understand that sometimes both individually and collectively we respond

wisely to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and sometimes we do not fully understand. Through our

vulnerability to the Holy Spirit, we trust God will continue to guide us in refining positions

held by Community of Christ.

 

12. Various legislative conferences and consent-building methods used by Community of Christ,

allow a person holding a differing viewpoint to continue to seek change to the position with

which she or he disagrees.

Well, if we are looking at examples, Dehlin's case is on the extreme side of what not to do.

[Rob Osborn]

I have many ancestors who came from england in the 1800's to come to Zion. Some of them died on the journey without ever reaching Zion. They made many great sacrifices. They rode for the brand so to speak. No one questioned their faith, their testimony, through many trials, etc. Then we have folks like Dehlin come through and unfaithfully discount the church and go to extreme ends to make sure his voice is heard as if he is right and the church in totality is wrong. Dehlin himself probably has a rich history too of faithful pioneers who made tremendous sacrifices and now what? All their great sacrifices mean nothing?

[Skylla]

This thread has gone on long enough.  Let's refrain from making judgments about Dehlin's eternal destination.

 

Skylla