Excommunicatin'

[The Nehor]

"...took it as a joke..."; doesn't that kind of get to the heart of what I pointed out?  Why joke about someone losing their eternal standing?  At the very least is that not in bad taste?

We laugh to keep from crying.

He lost it some time ago. The church was just confirming it for him. Would I love for his to come back? Sure.

So, there's a range of compassion somehown embedded in the parable of the lost sheep?  I must have missed that nuance.

Yes, we show less compassion for the wolf dressed as a sheep. In that case we try to rip off the sheep costume which is what happened.

[ERayR]

Well, I really don't have an opinion on Dehlin's actions.  I've never found his drama interesting, to tell you the truth.  I just found it interesting that anyone would seem to find humor or joy in the demise of his membership, given certain fundamental doctrines.  That struck me as counterintuitive.  But, I could be wrong.  It's happened before...a few times today, even.

 

I have wondered at what some can find humor in also.  to me some jokes just are not funny.  However I must admit Nehor sometimes makes me smile.

Edited January 15, 2015 by ERayR

[cinepro]

My publicly expressed doubts regarding key elements of orthodox LDS theology.

If anyone wants to know how far off the reservation he is, I think that's the best example.

 

He thinks there are different flavors of "LDS Theology", and that while he may not be toeing the line on the particular flavor of "orthodox LDS theology" being taught by the Church today, he is a 100% faithful follower of another flavor of LDS theology that is just as valid.

He includes the modifier of "orthodox" because if he just said "My publicly expressed doubts regarding key elements of LDS theology", everyone would simply shrug their shoulders and say "Dude, that's the definition of apostasy."  So Dehlin's been pretending, and the Church has been pretending (or pretending to not know), and the Church is finally stopping the charade.   The only surprising thing to me is that it didn't happen long ago.

Edited January 15, 2015 by cinepro

[Spammer]

Last year, I came home to find my wife watching a couple of John's podcasts.  She thought what he was doing was great, thinks what he does is helping people with doubts and questions to still find a way to feel comfortable in church and want to go, and that if someone like John could still be in the church, so could I.  My wife is active and loves the church.  She thinks it's the best place to raise a family, but doesn't worry too much about such things as whether the Book of Mormon is literally, historically true or whether polygamy was ordained of God (she doesn't believe that at all).  She doesn't understand my position that you should only attend the church if you accept everything the church accepts as canonical, including the BoM's historicity and the divine origin of polygamy.  Her view is that the church is a good place, Joseph Smith was a prophet and restored the gospel, but maybe got some things wrong. Go to church anyway, contribute through service, and speak your mind about the things you think that need to change.  My response to her was that viewpoint is contrary to what the church stands for and one day John Dehlin would be ex'd.  She disagreed with my assessment about the church and what would happen to John and reasserted that what matters is being a good person and 'just go to church, it's a good place'.  She then said that if John was ex'd she'd leave the church.  I guess we'll see what happens on Jan. 25.  The church has every right to provide boundaries and definitions and censure those who would disrupt and compromise those boundaries.  This doesn't make me happy.  My wife loves the church.  I know this will upset her greatly. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by Spammer

[Ham Clam]

I don't know how to read John Dehlin. He has a polarizing image of being an angel or a devil. Maybe (not having watched the rise of Mormon Stories, ect) I don't want to do the work to do it.

From the current of disaffect that runs through Mormon Stories (and the way most of his comments are like F#@& the Church), I could see how he also be labeled an "exit counselor".

I know his sister is on the FAIRMormon team so this must be so hard for her.

[Ham Clam]

Last year, I came home to find my wife watching a couple of John's podcasts.  She thought what he was doing was great, thinks what he does is helping people with doubts and questions to still find a way to feel comfortable in church and want to go, and that if someone like John could still be in the church, so could I.  My wife is active and loves the church.  She thinks it's the best place to raise a family, but doesn't worry too much about such things as whether the Book of Mormon is literally, historically true or whether polygamy was ordained of God (she doesn't believe that at all).  She doesn't understand my position that you should only attend the church if you accept everything the church accepts as canonical, including the BoM's historicity and the divine origin of polygamy.  Her view is that the church is a good place, Joseph Smith was a prophet and restored the gospel, but maybe got some things wrong. Go to church anyway, contribute through service, and speak your mind about the things you think that need to change.  My response to her was that viewpoint is contrary to what the church stands for and one day John Dehlin would be ex'd.  She disagreed with my assessment about the church and what would happen to John and reasserted that what matters is being a good person and 'just go to church, it's a good place'.  She then said that if John was ex'd she'd leave the church.  I guess we'll see what happens on Jan. 25.  The church has every right to provide boundaries and definitions and censure those who would disrupt and compromise those boundaries.  This doesn't make me happy.  My wife loves the church.  I know this will upset her greatly. 

That is so painful to read. I hope your wife makes it through this okay.

[Tacenda]

I don't know how to read John Dehlin. He has a polarizing image of being an angel or a devil. Maybe (not having watched the rise of Mormon Stories, ect) I don't want to do the work to do it.

From the current of disaffect that runs through Mormon Stories (and the way most of his comments are like F#@& the Church), I could see how he also be labeled an "exit counselor".

I know his sister is on the FAIRMormon team so this must be so hard for her.

I didn't know his sister is at FAIRMormon. Wow, the irony!

[ERayR]

I didn't know his sister is at FAIRMormon. Wow, the irony!

 

Much indigestion at thanksgiving dinner I wager.

[sunstoned]

This is the part that I will NEVER understand. The fact that he is being ex'd by the Church only bolsters his credibility in my eyes. And that would be the case no matter what church he had been ex'd from.

For example, it never once occurred to me to discount Martin Luther's views because he was ex'd by the Catholic Church. It only adds to the narrative that the Catholic Church "was afraid of the truth."

So I guess the Church may be successful in quarantining the Dehlin "infection" within Team Never Had a Doubt, but I suspect that his excommunication will have just the opposite effect with questioning Mormons (and the other 99.9% of the world's inhabitants). But hey, life is full of trade-offs, right?

If John goes into a court of love he will be exed.  I know of no one who has been acquitted from a court.  The decision has already been made.

 

The PR damage from this will be much greater that if they would have just left John alone.

[ERayR]

If John goes into a court of love he will be exed.  I know of no one who has been acquitted from a court.  The decision has already been made.

 

The PR damage from this will be much greater that if they would have just left John alone.

 

Don't get around much do you?  I know of a couple of people who were not exed but were disfellowshipped for a time. 

[Duncan]

If John goes into a court of love he will be exed.  I know of no one who has been acquitted from a court.  The decision has already been made.

 

The PR damage from this will be much greater that if they would have just left John alone.

 

 

I know a guy who was acquitted from a court but I think the damage, if he is exed, will be local as I wonder who in India or South Korea will hear about John Dehlin? are his podcasts done in Korean or whatever language(s) they speak in India!

[mormonnewb]

It seems to me that the excommunication Is based on an assumption that Mormons lack critical thinking skills. Therefore if the church can discredit Dehlin, then any evidence that he presents against fundamental truth claims must be, by default, false. I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that the church thinks this will work or that it actually might work.

Or perhaps the thought is that this will silence others. Judging from the number of new posts on OW following Kelly's ex'ing, I doubt it. What I suspect will happen is that it will make even more members curious as to what this whole Mormon Stories thing was all about.

But hey, excommunication worked so well for the Catholic Church. So why wouldn't work for us?

[bluebell]

If John goes into a court of love he will be exed.  I know of no one who has been acquitted from a court.  The decision has already been made.

 

The PR damage from this will be much greater that if they would have just left John alone.

 

I don't understand people who feel like it would be a good thing for the church to use PR reaction to gauge whether or not to discipline someone.

 

If John has done the thing/s that require excommunication then the church should excommunicate him and not care at all about the PR damage.  It would be a lack of integrity on the church's end to do otherwise.

[Duncan]

It seems to me that the excommunication Is based on an assumption that Mormons lack critical thinking skills. Therefore if the church can discredit Dehlin, then any evidence that he presents against fundamental truth claims must be, by default, false. I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that the church thinks this will work or that it actually might work.

Or perhaps the thought is that this will silence others. Judging from the number of new posts on OW following Kelly's ex'ing, I doubt it. What I suspect will happen is that it will make even more members curious as to what this whole Mormon Stories thing was all about.

But hey, excommunication worked so well for the Catholic Church. So why wouldn't work for us?

 

 

I dunno, has the OW movement picked up steam since KK got exed? I think Dehlin will fade away and someone new will take his place, Grant Palmer's star has risen and fallen and he tried and failed with this GA supposed apostasy but he was misinformed or lied about that

[Avatar4321]

If John goes into a court of love he will be exed.  I know of no one who has been acquitted from a court.  The decision has already been made.

 

The PR damage from this will be much greater that if they would have just left John alone.

Seriously? You really think excommunication someone who is in apostasy is going to be a bad PR move? Most people out of the church will not care. I just don't see it having any impact

It will hurt JDs PR. As well it should

[bluebell]

It seems to me that the excommunication Is based on an assumption that Mormons lack critical thinking skills. Therefore if the church can discredit Dehlin, then any evidence that he presents against fundamental truth claims must be, by default, false. I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that the church thinks this will work or that it actually might work.

 

 

I think it would be helpful to present some evidence to support your accusation against the church (that they think members are stupid) before being disturbed by it.

[mormonnewb]

Lets not always be too negative. No church can tolerate someone who is encouraging people to leave the fold from within. If one does not believe in the faith, why remain a member? To help members do what that person can't do himself or herself? What would the baptist church do to a baptist who was encouraging members to leave by doing antibaptist podcasts? Would they give this persons hugs? John has been doing this for quite some time. Martin Luther was considered to be a heretic. And the lutheran church would not tolerate one of its own doing antilutheran podcasts to get members to leave the lutheran church. We need to see life with eyes wide open.

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/tn.discipline.query.1834.html

I disagree with your characterization that John is trying to get people to leave the church. However even working from that supposition, you must understand that the Baptist don't even have a mechanism for excommunication. And certainly no Baptist leader would ever be arrogant enough to assume that they have the power to negate someone's baptism or other personal relationship with the Lord.

[ERayR]

It seems to me that the excommunication Is based on an assumption that Mormons lack critical thinking skills. Therefore if the church can discredit Dehlin, then any evidence that he presents against fundamental truth claims must be, by default, false. I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that the church thinks this will work or that it actually might work.

Or perhaps the thought is that this will silence others. Judging from the number of new posts on OW following Kelly's ex'ing, I doubt it. What I suspect will happen is that it will make even more members curious as to what this whole Mormon Stories thing was all about.

But hey, excommunication worked so well for the Catholic Church. So why wouldn't work for us?

 

I don't know why you consider your critical thinking skills to be better than the majority of the members of the church.  Sounds like an ego problem and I don't mean for the general membership.

[Avatar4321]

Don't get around much do you?  I know of a couple of people who were not exed but were disfellowshipped for a time.

It helps if you hang out with people who are in the church and not just antagonistic ex members

[mormonnewb]

I think it would be helpful to present some evidence to support your accusation against the church (that they think members are stupid) before being disturbed by it.

That assertion has been made in a number of posts celebrating the excommunication. Repeatedly posters have said that John will no longer have any credibility with current members. And since the only thing that changes is John's status as a member of the church then apparently some members must judge truth by one's status in the church. I hope that this isn't true but I'm new around here so I have to take more seasoned members word for it.

[bluebell]

I disagree with your characterization that John is trying to get people to leave the church. However even working from that supposition, you must understand that the Baptist don't even have a mechanism for excommunication. And certainly no Baptist leader would ever be arrogant enough to assume that they have the power to negate someone's baptism or other personal relationship with the Lord.

 

Do they not believe they have the power to baptize?  It seems weird to say it's arrogant to think that the Lord has authorized you to revoke certain blessings but not arrogant to say that the Lord has authorized you to invoke certain blessings.  Where's that line.

 

Peter was given the power to bind on earth as well as unbind, but it's arrogant for anyone else to believe that?  Makes me wonder why Peter needed that power but no one else after him did.

[The Nehor]

It seems to me that the excommunication Is based on an assumption that Mormons lack critical thinking skills. Therefore if the church can discredit Dehlin, then any evidence that he presents against fundamental truth claims must be, by default, false. I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that the church thinks this will work or that it actually might work.

 

Well....that's insane.

[bluebell]

That assertion has been made in a number of posts celebrating the excommunication. Repeatedly posters have said that John will no longer have any credibility with current members. And since the only thing that changes is John's status as a member of the church then apparently some members must judge truth by one's status in the church. I hope that this isn't true but I'm new around here so I have to take more seasoned members word for it.

 

I think you've misunderstood what people have been saying.  If John has indeed been a wolf in sheep's clothing, then it's good for his sheep's clothing to be taken away from him.  

 

It's good because people judge another's intentions by who they present themselves to be.  If John wants people to leave the church (or adopt his personal beliefs about it) but people go to him wanting to stay (or retain their testimony of its truth claims), then surely you would admit that that's a problem the church has an interest in solving which has absolutely nothing to do with the church believing members are stupid.

[Tacenda]

I think John just wanted to have his kids be able to keep going to the LDS church and he and his wife also. He's talked about it being who he is and who he identifies with the best. Too bad he was so vocal. I think he just wanted the info out there so others wouldn't just stumble onto it, or let people know there is legit reasons for a faith crisis happening when many just don't know their history.

Is there anything John got wrong in info being put out? What grounds would there be, especially if the church put out the same info in their essays. Should the church be held at all responsible? I think so. They did withhold some things, and the essays are also not helping with some members now questioning because of them.

[mormonnewb]

Do they not believe they have the power to baptize? It seems weird to say it's arrogant to think that the Lord has authorized you to revoke certain blessings but not arrogant to say that the Lord has authorized you to invoke certain blessings. Where's that line.

Peter was given the power to bind on earth as well as unbind, but it's arrogant for anyone else to believe that? Makes me wonder why Peter needed that power but no one else after him did.

.

The power to grant blessings isnt always coupled with the power to revoke those blessings. For instance, my wife and I gave life to our children, but we have no right to revoke that action. And yes, the thought that we could would make us QUITE arrogant.