Excommunicatin'

[smac97]

Some of us believe that Church leaders are not Christ and therefore, He could do things that they can not do. I know. Heresy!

 

The only thing approaching "heresy" I see here is the false implication that Latter-day Saints believe that Church leaders are Christ, or that they are on par with him.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Wait, he is an ordained minister in another faith?

 

Yep.

 

 

See also here (he signed up with the Universal Life Church to perform a friend's wedding which never materialized).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

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?

Nope.

Seems rather an arrogant position.

It's not mine. I have great respect for the Catholic Church.

Do you live in Utah!

Speaking of "an arrogant position"...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

...

 

[Y]ou fundamentally misunderstand and misconstrue the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Indeed.  As I said regarding the similar action taken against Sis. Kelly, Whether his excommunication is the final step out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the first step back into it is entirely up to Bro. Dehlin.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

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?

I have no problem with blessings being revoked ... With the consent of the revokee. For instance, Church leaders often revoke marriage sealings AT THE REQUEST of the couple. But for a Church leader to unilaterally decide that he is going to tear asunder what God has brought together is certainly not a position that I'd place myself in.

[why me]

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.

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

By not doing it at or around at the same time, the label of sexism was used. One can excommunicate a woman dissenter and yet, not a male dissenter. At the end of the day, john was tolerated for a long time and did more damage than kate. John still being a member is problematic because he could present himself as a member of the lds church and yet, hold views that could lead people away. And kate? She is a radical feminist who claimed that women must have the priesthood.

[smac97]

I have no problem with blessings being revoked ... With the consent of the revokee.

Could you explain this? I do not understand your reasoning. Also, any scriptures you could cite to support your position would be appreciated.

For instance, Church leaders often revoke marriage sealings AT THE REQUEST of the couple.

Sealings are cancelled, yes. But I do not understand what you mean about a church member under discipline having some sort of veto power over that discipline.

But for a Church leader to unilaterally decide that he is going to tear asunder what God has brought together is certainly not a position that I'd place myself in.

The key word there being "unilaterally."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mystery Meat]

I have no problem with blessings being revoked ... With the consent of the revokee. For instance, Church leaders often revoke marriage sealings AT THE REQUEST of the couple. But for a Church leader to unilaterally decide that he is going to tear asunder what God has brought together is certainly not a position that I'd place myself in.

 

So Christ was wrong then to give that authority to Peter in the new testament? And who says it is a unilateral decision? Dollars to donuts, the Lord is involved in the decision more often than not.

[why me]

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?

All churches excommunicate or disfellowship, including the baptist faith. The practice is in the bible:

 

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-5-1_5-13/

 

And then we have these:

 

Romans 16:17

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 

Matthew 18:15 - 18:20

. Matthew Chapter 18

¹⁵Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

¹⁶But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

¹⁷And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

¹⁸Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

¹⁹Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

²⁰For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

 

What I find amazing is how one can be critical of excommunication without realizing that NT verses are extremely harsh. But then again, the early saints were not living in postmodern times.

Edited January 16, 2015 by why me

[smac97]

By not doing it at or around at the same time, the label of sexism was used.

I recognize that. That doesn't make the accusation valid, or even coherent (Denver Snuffer was excommunicated before Kate Kelly, so where was the supposed sexism then?). We cannot let critics of our faith pick the tune and demand that we dance to it.

One can excommunicate a woman dissenter and yet, not a male dissenter.

And church leaders can excommunicate a male dissenter and yet, not a female dissenter. Gender is not a part of the equation. The September Six were 50/50 male/female. Denver Snuffer was excommunicated, and so was Kate Kelly. Apostasy is not restricted to one gender or the other. And each instance of church discipline should proceed according to the Spirit, not according to some schedule based on the expectations of society at large.

At the end of the day, john was tolerated for a long time and did more damage than kate.

Maybe. That's a very subjective claim. And it has no merit, anyway. Church discipline is not a race. Or a contest.

John still being a member is problematic because he could present himself as a member of the lds church and yet, hold views that could lead people away. And kate? She is a radical feminist who claimed that women must have the priesthood.

She also led people astray. I have a personal friend who has left the Church and taken her husband and daughter with her specifically because of the OW group's demand for female ordination. Kate Kelly has encouraged her followers to "raise hell" in the Church. And to some extent, those marching orders may end up being followed more and more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

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.

a copy of the letter is available at this link, see at the bottom for latest letters, it is a pdf and some isn't allowing me to copy and paste it.

 

http://ec.libsyn.com/p/a/a/e/aaed72a836f41a59/JohnDehlinDisciplinaryCouncilPressRelase-FinalV3.pdf?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06ca8634d9c158fe36&c_id=8199185

See the August 7th one, the latest doesn't go into detail. You are right, no mention of SSM but does mention being ordained a minister in another faith.

Edited January 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[why me]

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.

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

 

      "We therefore advise that no rule be adopted on this subject to be applied universally; but that it be left to the several churches to pursue such a course as the circumstances of each case may demand."

      "We deem it proper however, to say that excommunication dissolves entirely, all connection between the church, and the individual excommunicated. He is to them afterwards, "as a heathen man, and a publican." The church has no further claim whatever upon him, nor is there any relation subsisting between him and that, more than any other church. The usage generally established among us, of refusing an excommunicant from another church, until he has been reconciled to such church, has arisen wholly from courtesy�and while we hope that no necessity may ever require a departure from that usage, and unanimity, which have to long prevailed among the members of this body, yet equity it more than harmony�"the wisdom that it from above, it first pure, then peaceable"�and no fear of discord�no custom� no courtesy, can ever justify us in denying to the humblest individual those rights and those privileges, to which, by the Gospel, he is entitled. Among these rights and privileges, none are more sacred than to bear a name, and a place in God's house�to share the fellowship of Christ's disciples, and to partake in the ordinances of the sanctuary." �

Quoted from the minutes of Savannah River Association.

===========

[From The Baptist, February, 1836. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]

 

I don't know about that. Back in the day, baptists were excommunicating members. Here is a problem that needed to be resolved linked above.

[mormonnewb]

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.

Our way or the highway? Yep, sounds a lot like long suffering and gentle persuasion to me. And it worked so well for ... oops, no one.

[mormonnewb]

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

"We therefore advise that no rule be adopted on this subject to be applied universally; but that it be left to the several churches to pursue such a course as the circumstances of each case may demand."

"We deem it proper however, to say that excommunication dissolves entirely, all connection between the church, and the individual excommunicated. He is to them afterwards, "as a heathen man, and a publican." The church has no further claim whatever upon him, nor is there any relation subsisting between him and that, more than any other church. The usage generally established among us, of refusing an excommunicant from another church, until he has been reconciled to such church, has arisen wholly from courtesy�and while we hope that no necessity may ever require a departure from that usage, and unanimity, which have to long prevailed among the members of this body, yet equity it more than harmony�"the wisdom that it from above, it first pure, then peaceable"�and no fear of discord�no custom� no courtesy, can ever justify us in denying to the humblest individual those rights and those privileges, to which, by the Gospel, he is entitled. Among these rights and privileges, none are more sacred than to bear a name, and a place in God's house�to share the fellowship of Christ's disciples, and to partake in the ordinances of the sanctuary." �

Quoted from the minutes of Savannah River Association.

===========

[From The Baptist, February, 1836. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]

I don't know about that. Back in the day, baptists were excommunicating members. Here is a problem that needed to be resolved linked above.

This is a statement from 1836. Baptists had just stopped burning witches.

It's good to know that the Church of "continuing revelation" is working on the Baptist 1836 playbook.

So I guess we can hope that the LDS Church might move into the mid-19th century soon (not holding my breath).

 

You need to stop the inflammatory rhetoric if you want to stay in the thread.

[Coreyb]

The only beef I have with John Dehlin is that he created a community of whiners and know-it-alls who don't know-it-all because they get all they need to know from two hour podcasts instead of long well written/sourced books and journals.

[Ham Clam]

Yep.

 

 

See also here (he signed up with the Universal Life Church to perform a friend's wedding which never materialized).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

If he can drive to Vegas in the next 24 hours then I'll be set.

[Tacenda]

Yep.

See also here (he signed up with the Universal Life Church to perform a friend's wedding which never materialized).

Thanks,

-Smac

I have a friend that got his license online to perform his sister in law's marriage and he's as TBM as you can get. Though his dad wasn't all that excited about it.

[mormonnewb]

DELETED

Edited January 16, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Svawd]

Go ahead and take the Holy Ghost from him, 98 % of the world is just fine with the light of Christ.

[mormonnewb]

The only beef I have with John Dehlin is that he created a community of whiners and know-it-alls who don't know-it-all because they get all they need to know from two hour podcasts instead of long well written/sourced books and journals.

Where does this narrative come from -- that Dehlin CREATED a community of disbelievers? Do you really think that a bunch of TBMs were beguiled into trading in their firm testimonies for the silky sound of his voice?

The truth is that people on the verge of disaffection seek out his podcast as a way to avoid going insane. To stand in a room full of people declaring that they "know" something that seems blatantly false to you can be absolutely maddening. Trust me on this one.

The MS podcasts help people understand that they are not crazy; that a rational and sane person could come to the belief that the BOM is not a true history of the early Americas, etc.

What would a "good Mormon" have done? Leave those persons to drift in feelings of unrighteousness or that they were under Satan's power?

[Sky]

Dehlin has been doing this for ten (10) years, and has faced the possibility of Church discipline off and on during that time.  He has gone in and out (of the Church) and in and back out again, time and time again.  That tells me that the Church tried to be patient and allow him to do his thing, and maybe was fooled a time or two by his false starts and change of heart.  But they gave him many chances.  I'm also led to believe that the Church tried to avoid excommunication if at all possible, but there are times when it becomes necessary to draw a boundary, and if that boundary is crossed, this is not something we will continue to abide.  I've also noticed that John seems to revel in the media circus and the attention that he is getting.  He can do no wrong and is the "crusader for truth" against the big, bad, repressive, and secretive church.     

[Tacenda]

Where does this narrative come from -- that Dehlin CREATED a community of disbelievers? Do you really think that a bunch of TBMs were beguiled into trading in their firm testimonies for the silky sound of his voice?

The truth is that people on the verge of disaffection seek out his podcast as a way to avoid going insane. To stand in a room full of people declaring that they "know" something that seems blatantly false to you can be absolutely maddening. Trust me on this one.

The MS podcasts help people understand that they are not crazy; that a rational and sane person could come to the belief that the BOM is not a true history of the early Americas, etc.

What would a "good Mormon" have done? Leave those persons to drift in feelings of unrighteousness or that they were under Satan's power?

Wow, I can relate to this. If there weren't others like me I'd probably have come very close to ending it. And just reading the intros to some of these disaffected on discussion boards, they are alone and need to vent online in order to stay sane I guess.

[Rob Osborn]

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

[readstoomuch]

I have one child who left the church after getting hooked up with Dehlins stuff. I listen to his stuff to try and understand. He keeps pushing the Church. Sometimes he says 10-30 negative things or downright apostate. Then he blogs about all the details with his SP. Do I want him to leave? No. Am I tired if seeing people leave the Church because of him. Yes. I know ten who have left and zero who stayed because of him.

My own experience. One was my son and four of them I tried to meet with. I can't tell you how sick it makes me. The Church is damned no matter what they do with John,

[readstoomuch]

Dan Wotherspoon tries to help folks stay in. I get much different vibes from JD. He could choose to give people more tools to stay in. I usually get the opposite feeling from his podcasts,