bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 .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.I agree. The LDS church believes a missionary can baptize, but not excommunicate. But the ability to do both comes from the same source. However, Jesus did give the leader of His church that power. Why is it arrogant to believe He would continue to do so?
strappinglad Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Even Christ got perturbed when He witnessed the nefarious dealings of the money changers in the temple. They were supposedly offering a needed service , but were following their own agenda. Maybe I missed the scriptures that told of the dozen times that He put His arm around the sinning moneychangers and encouraged them to cease their actions. Either that, or Christ's PR agent was home sick that day. 1
mormonnewb Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Even Christ got perturbed when He witnessed the nefarious dealings of the money changers in the temple. They were supposedly offering a needed service , but were following their own agenda. Maybe I missed the scriptures that told of the dozen times that He put His arm around the sinning moneychangers and encouraged them to cease their actions. Either that, or Christ's PR agent was home sick that day.Some of us believe that Church leaders are not Christ and therefore, He could do things that they can not do. I know. Heresy!
strappinglad Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Next time , instead of asking WWJD , I will ask WWMNBD.
Svawd Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Thanks for adding some salt to my sugar coated upbringing.
bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I'm not sure if this was in the OP but i just read in an article about this that Dehlin's support of gay marriage was not mentioned as a reason for the disciplinary court but that him being an ordained minister in another faith is one of the reasons. I had not heard of that before.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted January 16, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 16, 2015 I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that the church thinks this will work or that it actually might work. What I find most disturbing is that you apparently think these are the only two options. 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. I've been a participant in a number of disciplinary councils, and I've never once seen one that wasn't motivated almost entirely by a concern for the person's 'personal relationship with the Lord'. That you actually think otherwise may be even more disturbing. 10
bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Some of us believe that Church leaders are not Christ and therefore, He could do things that they can not do. I know. Heresy! I think you must have missed my question so i'll post it again. Given what the bible teaches about the authority that Jesus gave to Peter, what is arrogant about believing that Jesus would authorize someone on the earth today that could revoke blessings? 1
Buzzard Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I'm not sure if this was in the OP but i just read in an article about this that Dehlin's support of gay marriage was not mentioned as a reason for the disciplinary court but that him being an ordained minister in another faith is one of the reasons.I had not heard of that before.Wonder which church that is. 1
Ham Clam Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Wait, he is an ordained minister in another faith?
Avatar4321 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Some of us believe that Church leaders are not Christ and therefore, He could do things that they can not do. I know. Heresy!and some of us believe Christ is our perfect example and we should follow His lead.
Avatar4321 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Duplicate Edited January 16, 2015 by Avatar4321
Avatar4321 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I think you must have missed my question so i'll post it again. Given what the bible teaches about the authority that Jesus gave to Peter, what is arrogant about believing that Jesus would authorize someone on the earth today that could revoke blessings?the fact that he recognizes that the Baptists dont have the keys Peter did may be a good sign. 2
Calm Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) . 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.Dehlin has been preaching that one can be a member and hold beliefs contrary to our core doctrine, hold positions and publicly teach that leadership is in major error and quite a few other things.What changes with his status if he is excommunicated is that members will be aware that one can't publicly advocate against the Church and remain a member. Edited January 16, 2015 by calmoriah 1
Calm Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Wait, he is an ordained minister in another faith?Iirc, he got a license as an ordained minister in order to marry people. One of those online churches created solely for that reason. Edited January 16, 2015 by calmoriah
smac97 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 •My 10-year effort with Mormon Stories podcast (http://mormonstories.org), wherein difficult historical and cultural issues are discussed in an interview format.•My public support of same-sex marriage.•My public support of the Ordain Women movement.•My publicly expressed doubts regarding key elements of orthodox LDS theology.•My publicly expressed criticism of the church’s approach to LGBT members, feminists, intellectuals, as well as its lack of transparency regarding finances.Bullet #1 seems problematic. In the particulars, that is. Discussing "difficult historical and cultural issues" is not a problem per se. How that discussion is conducted, and the views/opinions expressed by Bro. Dehlin during those discussions (see Gregory Smith's piece on this). Bullet #2 does not seem inherently problematic. I'm not sure what he has said about SSM, but there seem to be plenty of LDS folks who have publicly supported SSM who have not faced discipline. Thus I suspect it's not the forest of ideas planted by Bro. Dehlin that is problematic, but rather some of the specific trees in that forest. Same goes with Bullet #3. Bullet #4 is fairly problematic. Having doubts is not a problem. I don't even think discussing those doubts is a problem. It's discussing them and advocating that others skew to his position and away from the Church's on matters of doctrine that is problematic. Bullet #5 is also probably fairly problematic. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 In all fairness, since kate was exed, john should have been exed along with her. With respect, I disagree. We don't do group/mass excommunications. Just because both attained some measure of notoriety around the same time does not make them similar in sentiment and circumstance. Plus the decision to discipline Bro. Dehlin belongs to his local leaders in Utah, and the decision to discipline Kate Kelly belonged to her local leaders in Virginia. There would be no reason for these local leaders to collude with each other or coordinate their efforts. It was unfair for her to be exed and not john. Well, if he had been excommunicated at the same time, then there would have been accusations of collusion, of kangaroo courts, of an excommunication hysteria, etc. No, I can't agree with you. Disciplinary proceedings should proceed according to the spiritual promptings and best efforts of local leaders, and should not be based on societal expectations or comparisons with other unrelated proceedings. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 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. So it's heads Dehlin wins, tails the Church loses. It's a rigged deck. Loaded dice. No matter what the Church does or doesn't do, John Dehlin is right and the Church is wrong. I'm not buying into that. And that would be the case no matter what church he had been ex'd from. I believe the LDS Church is unique. It is not just another church. It is not a social club. It makes truth claims that, if true, substantially differentiate it from other religious groups. So excommunication from the LDS Church is, in my view, a very different matter from excommunication/dissociation from other religious groups. 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 a dissenter's opinion is presumptively correct? Nope, not gonna buy that. 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 the LDS Church was just some sort of social club, your cynicism would be understandable, perhaps even justified. But it's not. Thanks, -Smac 2
Teancum Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Dehlin has been preaching that one can be a member and hold beliefs contrary to our core doctrine, hold positions and publicly teach that leadership is in major error and quite a few other things.What changes with his status if he is excommunicated is that members will be aware that one can't publicly advocate against the Church and remain a member.If these are your desires, then regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!Come, Join with UsPresident Uchdorf. http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng
Teancum Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Iirc, he got a license as an ordained minister in order to marry people. One of those online churches created solely for that reason.One marriage and he surrendered the license . Edited January 16, 2015 by Teancum 1
Teancum Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 So it's heads Dehlin wins, tails the Church loses. It's a rigged deck. Loaded dice. No matter what the Church does or doesn't do, John Dehlin is right and the Church is wrong.I'm not buying into that.I believe the LDS Church is unique. It is not just another church. It is not a social club. It makes truth claims that, if true, substantially differentiate it from other religious groups. So excommunication from the LDS Church is, in my view, a very different matter from excommunication/dissociation from other religious groups.So a dissenter's opinion is presumptively correct? Nope, not gonna buy that.If the LDS Church was just some sort of social club, your cynicism would be understandable, perhaps even justified. But it's not.Thanks,-Smac So you think say the Catholic Church, which tolerates dissent much more then the Mormon church is some sort of social club and that its leaders don't beleive their truth claims?Seems rather an arrogant position. Do you live in Utah! 1
smac97 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 It seems to me that the excommunication Is based on an assumption that Mormons lack critical thinking skills. Or it is based on his local leaders believing him to be in a state of apostasy. Nowhere do I see your proposed assumption in evidence. Therefore if the church can discredit Dehlin, That is not the purpose of objective of disciplinary proceedings. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the process. then any evidence that he presents against fundamental truth claims must be, by default, false. Oh, come on. He's not presenting "evidence." He's expressing opinions about truth claims that are predominantly subjective and spiritual. And the very fact that you admit he is presenting things that are "against" the Church's "fundamental truth claims" pretty much establishes that you think he is in a state of apostasy. Is that correct? I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that the church thinks this will work or that it actually might work. I think your premise (the assumption given above) and the conclusions drawn from it are uniformly flawed, wrongheaded, and unsubstantiated. Or perhaps the thought is that this will silence others. The only one making a public spectacle of all of this is John Dehlin. It reeks of bad faith to accuse the Church of the wrongdoing and impure motives of Bro. Dehlin. 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? Again, you fundamentally misunderstand and misconstrue the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 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. And thus we see the limited usefulness of comparing the LDS Church to other religious groups. In your view, utilization of priesthood authority and obedience to scriptural mandates regarding excommunication appears to amount to "arrogance." I don't agree with that. Thanks, -Smac 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I'm not sure if this was in the OP but i just read in an article about this that Dehlin's support of gay marriage was not mentioned as a reason for the disciplinary court but that him being an ordained minister in another faith is one of the reasons. I had not heard of that before.Hmmm. I don't doubt what you say about the article's contents, and maybe becoming an ordained minister is another matter, but I do know that, per the latest edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions, simply joining another church is not grounds for Church discipline.
smac97 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 .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.You are right. The power to grant blessings isn't always coupled with the power to revoke those blessings. But sometimes the power is so coupled. See Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, Helaman 10:7, D&C 128:8, 10, D&C 127:7, D&C 124:93, and so on. Unless, of course, we reject the truth claims of the LDS Church, in which case the Church is just a social club with expensive dues. Thanks, -Smac 1
Recommended Posts