Excommunicatin'

[Tacenda]

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,

Believe it or not, I semi agree with you also. John should probably have handled things a little differently on many levels. I think maybe just go along like the rest of the world and have faith in the one above and go to the church that helps that faith along I guess. I wonder if he ever feels tremendous guilt for leading alot of people out, of course it was their choice, and some people like me, rode on others' coattails as far as a testimony. So maybe people need to find one of their own after a faith crisis.

[Stone holm]

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

Do you mean the word sustaining? Is it a condition of membership that we support everything the leadership does?

[carbon dioxide]

One issue I have with the church is that it worries too much about numbers.  How many converts in a given year or how many in the world.  It really does not matter.  Our salvation is not dependent on whether the Church has 5, 10, 15, or 25 million members or whatever the number.  People like John need to to leave the Church.  If the Church loses more members because of this that is good.   The Church might be like a 400 pound man that needs to lose some weight.  Perhaps losing some weak members will be a good thing.  Lose the fat and gain some muscle.  A leaner more committed church membership might more desirable than a church filled with fence sitters who I guess Christ would consider lukewarm who Christ will spew out of his mouth at some point in the future anyway.

Edited January 16, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Calm]

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.

Feel free to create strawmen....

In my experience there are a huge number of ways that are allowed in the Church...look how long Dehlin stuck around even when he was content that his efforts were drawing more people out of the Church than allegedly staying in.

It is not just "one way" in the Church allowed, but when it becomes obvious that one's intent is to weaken people's faith in the Gospel, then I believe the stewards of the church need to comfort and protect and help those who are troubled and mourn the loss of their family and loved ones who took the path offered them by Dehlin to leave the Church and to sustain and support other saints so they will not succumb to the spiritual destruction. Seeking the one does not mean leaving behind the 99 exposed and unprotected. Everyone is a "one" in God's eyes and those hurting from the actions of Dehlin deserve as much love and compassion and protection as Dehlin does.

And if one believes that the LDS faith teaches the revealed gospel even if in an imperfect form, then no one is doing JD any favour by acting as if there are no consequences to his behaviours....either for him or those he has encouraged to join him in doubts and disbeliefs or even helped to go further and completely reject God and his Son and the blessings that come through seeking them.

And this is not some random idea of what he might have done, I have seen the evidence of this in a multitude of heartbroken letters from families who has a member who sees in Dehlin one to follow as well as observing attacks on the faith of others...and more than the faith, on the confidence and self esteem by those who thank Dehlin for showing them the reality of the fraud of not Bly the LDS faith, but of God.

You should check out the history of how Dehlin got along with those he worked with and how many he "excommunicated" over the years (not my word, the word of one of his associates). I saw a lot of evidence he was much more my way or the highway kind of guy then his own leaders.

Edited January 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

One issue I have with the church is that it worries too much about numbers.  How many converts in a given year or how many in the world.  It really does not matter.  Our salvation is not dependent on whether the Church has 5, 10, 15, or 25 million members or whatever the number.  People like John need to to leave the Church.  If the Church loses more members because of this that is good.   The Church might be like a 400 pound man that needs to lose some weight.  Perhaps losing some weak members will be a good thing.  Lose the fat and gain some muscle.  A leaner more committed church membership might more desirable than a church filled with fence sitters who I guess Christ would consider lukewarm who Christ will spew out of his mouth at some point in the future anyway.

We are called to minister unto the weak. And the heartbreak of families that have been torn apart...I see no reason to take satisfaction in that.

[Calm]

"Where does this narrative come from -- that Dehlin CREATED a community of disbelievers?"

At least in part from people who I have seen describe it as happening to them and who celebrate the fact.

Edited January 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

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.

We have very different definitions of the term "loosen." When Christ told the men LOOSE Lazarus and let him go, Christ wasn't telling them to revoke his blessings and throw him out of the Church. He instructed the men to remove the impediments that prevented Lazarus from being in full fellowship with his brethren. I read the same thing when Peter is told that he has the power to loose on earth as well as in heaven. Namely, that whatever demons, sins, infirmities, etc. that Peter removes from someone in the earthly realm will not creep up to become impediments to that person in the hereafter. After all, if we read "loose" as the power to revoke God's blessings than it becomes irrevocable (whomsoever you shall excommunicate on earth shall be excommunicated in heaven).

I really don't think that's what God had in mind for Church leaders -- a veto power exceeding that of the atonement.

Edited January 16, 2015 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

Feel free to create strawmen....

In my experience there are a huge number of ways that are allowed in the Church...look how long Dehlin stuck around even when he was content that his efforts were drawing more people out of the Church than allegedly staying in.

It is not just "one way" in the Church allowed, but when it becomes obvious that one's intent is to weaken people's faith in the Gospel, then I believe the stewards of the church need to comfort and protect and help those who are troubled and mourn the loss of their family and loved ones who took the path offered them by Dehlin to leave the Church and to sustain and support other saints so they will not succumb to the spiritual destruction. Seeking the one does not mean leaving behind the 99 exposed and unprotected. Everyone is a "one" in God's eyes and those hurting from the actions of Dehlin deserve as much love and compassion and protection as Dehlin does.

And if one believes that the LDS faith teaches the revealed gospel even if in an imperfect form, then no one is doing JD any favour by acting as if there are no consequences to his behaviours....either for him or those he has encouraged to join him in doubts and disbeliefs or even helped to go further and completely reject God and his Son and the blessings that come through seeking them.

And this is not some random idea of what he might have done, I have seen the evidence of this in a multitude of heartbroken letters from families who has a member who sees in Dehlin one to follow as well as observing attacks on the faith of others...and more than the faith, on the confidence and self esteem by those who thank Dehlin for showing them the reality of the fraud of not Bly the LDS faith, but of God.

You should check out the history of how Dehlin got along with those he worked with and how many he "excommunicated" over the years (not my word, the word of one of his associates). I saw a lot of evidence he was much more my way or the highway kind of guy then his own leaders.

Let's assume that Dehlin is the anti-Smith and that he has the magical ability to lead otherwise faithful members out of the Church. How does ex'ing him protect the flock? The MS podcast will still be as assessable as ever (maybe slightly more so with latest NYT excommunication coverage). Furthermore, I can only guess that his tone will be even less charitable towards Church leadership. So how will those who come across his podcast be protected by his excommunication?

Is it because members will simply tune him out once they see the "Scarlet E'" on his sweater? Will they say, "You know, I found these critiques of the BoA quite credible coming from a noted Egyptologist interviewed on the podcast, but since the questioner has been ex'd, then it must be completely false. I know the BoA is true"? Or is it more likely they will say, "So this is what the Church is trying to hide?"

I'm choosing Door #2, Monty!

[why me]

We have very different definitions of the term "loosen." When Christ told the men LOOSE Lazarus and let him go, Christ wasn't telling them to revoke his blessings and throw him out of the Church. He instructed the men to remove the impediments that prevented Lazarus from being in full fellowship with his brethren. I read the same thing when Peter is told that he has the power to loose on earth as well as in heaven. Namely, that whatever demons, sins, infirmities, etc. that Peter removes from someone in the earthly realm will not creep up to become impediments to that person in the hereafter. After all, if we read "loose" as the power to revoke God's blessings than it becomes irrevocable (whomsoever you shall excommunicate on earth shall be excommunicated in heaven).

I really don't think that's what God had in mind for Church leaders -- a veto power exceeding that of the atonement.

However, your comment doesn't address the NT which I linked to on a previous page about excommunication. It was harsh back in the day. And the verses are rather clear.

Romans 16:17English Standard Version (ESV) ¹⁷ I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

 

Matthew 18:17English Standard Version (ESV)

¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

Seems very clear if we put John in such verses. But again it wasn't a postmodern world back then. Much more to the point. We cant escape what the bible teaches. It is my understanding that baptists are very bible based as is the lds church.

Edited January 16, 2015 by why me

[Pahoran]

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.

 

That's false.  From end to end.

 

There are no foregone conclusions at a Disciplinary council.  You are parrotting apostate propaganda.

 

That said, in Mister Dehlin's case, an excommunication would simply rubber-stamp a pre-existing reality.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

Let's assume that Dehlin is the anti-Smith and that he has the magical ability to lead otherwise faithful members out of the Church. How does ex'ing him protect the flock? The MS podcast will still be as assessable as ever (maybe slightly more so with latest NYT excommunication coverage). Furthermore, I can only guess that his tone will be even less charitable towards Church leadership. So how will those who come across his podcast be protected by his excommunication?

Is it because members will simply tune him out once they see the "Scarlet E'" on his sweater? Will they say, "You know, I found these critiques of the BoA quite credible coming from a noted Egyptologist interviewed on the podcast, but since the questioner has been ex'd, then it must be completely false. I know the BoA is true"? Or is it more likely they will say, "So this is what the Church is trying to hide?"

I'm choosing Door #2, Monty!

One can not have such divsions in the church. The bible is very clear about being of one mind. John challenges the truth claims of the lds church. Of course we can make the lds church into a debating arena with opposing sides taking stands. But it can only harm the church. Here is what the bible says about being of one mind,. You do support the bible right?

 

Philippians 2:2

Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

 

What does this verse mean to you? I know that there may be very little that you agree with when it comes to the lds church but what about the bible? I think that this part of the letter gives sound advice to a church that was at risk of being divided.

 

Do you think that one can learn something from this verse? Is it good to constantly contradict, disagree, debate, and negate church teachings? Now this does not mean not to question. But it does reflect tone.

 

So, monty, I choose the door of harmony and not discord. And I say monty because of your previous post which stated: 

I'm choosing Door #2, Monty!

Edited January 16, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Of course, one can argue that the internet and the podcasts of john has sown discord in the lds church. The internet certainly hasn't brought peace to the church. Strange, how members can get caught up in someone elses discord and become a part of it. And some members love to create such active discord, even on these boards. I have to wonder what forces are behind such contant discord now. Any ideas?

Edited January 16, 2015 by why me

[Pahoran]

Let's assume that Dehlin is the anti-Smith and that he has the magical ability to lead otherwise faithful members out of the Church. How does ex'ing him protect the flock? The MS podcast will still be as assessable as ever (maybe slightly more so with latest NYT excommunication coverage). Furthermore, I can only guess that his tone will be even less charitable towards Church leadership. So how will those who come across his podcast be protected by his excommunication?

Is it because members will simply tune him out once they see the "Scarlet E'" on his sweater? Will they say, "You know, I found these critiques of the BoA quite credible coming from a noted Egyptologist interviewed on the podcast, but since the questioner has been ex'd, then it must be completely false. I know the BoA is true"? Or is it more likely they will say, "So this is what the Church is trying to hide?"

I'm choosing Door #2, Monty!

 

That's a false dichotomy.

 

The Church is not "trying to hide" anything.  The excommunication of a vocal, self-serving, publicity-hungry anti-Mormon, should it happen, will not serve to "hide" anything.  Mister Dehlin will be just as free to peddle his propaganda as he has ever been.

 

This "The Church must be trying to hide something" narrative is so obviously, glaringly false, that I cannot accept that any person of normal intelligence could actually believe it.

 

And, make no mistake: a vocal, self-serving, publicity-hungry anti-Mormon is exactly what Mister Dehlin is; and, as far as I can tell, exactly what he has always been.

 

But the fact remains that the Church is, at the very least, a community of shared belief.  Mister Dehlin rejects and even ridicules many of the core beliefs of the Church, and ALL of its defining truth claims.  He is not a "new order Mormon," as he tries to describe himself, but an old order apostate.

 

He has even gone so far as to assert that anyone who claims to believe in those truth claims is only doing so because of some ulterior motive.  That is, he does not believe that anyone can be disinterestedly convinced of the Church's core doctrines.

 

Which is pretty strong evidence, if not outright proof, that he has no actual experience of disinterested conviction himself.

 

As others have already observed, Mister Dehlin is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  That he objects to removing the sheepskin proves beyond doubt that it is he, and not the Church, who has something to hide.

 

But if he is excommunicated, as some expect, it will certainly make it harder for him to represent himself as a voice from the "inside" of the Church; and perhaps it will make his apologists work just a bit harder too.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited January 16, 2015 by Pahoran

[Hamba Tuhan]

The MS podcast will still be as assessable as ever (maybe slightly more so with latest NYT excommunication coverage).

 

Which is fine. I understand that, as a Protestant, you are predisposed to see an Inquisitor under every bed, but the Church of Jesus Christ isn't mediaeval Catholicism. So contrary to narratives popular with certain would-be martyrs, the Church isn't actually driven by the need to silence people.

 

Furthermore, I can only guess that his tone will be even less charitable towards Church leadership.

 

Do you mean to suggest that the (dis)cord may sound less flaxen?

Edited January 16, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Coreyb]

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?

I didn't say disbelievers, I said whiners and know-it-alls. I have no problem with well informed mature disbelievers Edited January 16, 2015 by Coreyb

[Rain]

One issue I have with the church is that it worries too much about numbers. How many converts in a given year or how many in the world. It really does not matter. Our salvation is not dependent on whether the Church has 5, 10, 15, or 25 million members or whatever the number. People like John need to to leave the Church. If the Church loses more members because of this that is good. The Church might be like a 400 pound man that needs to lose some weight. Perhaps losing some weak members will be a good thing. Lose the fat and gain some muscle. A leaner more committed church membership might more desirable than a church filled with fence sitters who I guess Christ would consider lukewarm who Christ will spew out of his mouth at some point in the future anyway.

Numbers are only a problem when people don't realize they represent children of God. Numbers help people recognize patterns. If they are used only to brag then we have a major problem. If we recognize a pattern in them and then ask for God's help to bring his Children back to Him they are a good thing.

JD hasn't stayed in the church to keep the church's numbers higher. If we are only talking about numbers than that is a pretty ineffective way to use them especially when you talk about all the "numbers" that MAY be involved like recommend holders, sacrament meeting attendance, home teaching done. But when you look at the numbers as representative of people you do all you can to go after the one including JD.

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

it isn't up to the leader but up to the member to 'tear asunder' it's their doing, not some leader. The Church doesn't randomly select people for church discipline, you choose yourself, as my Grade 8 Math teacher said I don't fail you you fail yourself

[bluebell]

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 you don't believe Christ gave that power to Peter?

[DBMormon]

In all fairness, since kate was exed, john should have been exed along with her. It was unfair for her to be exed and not john. I think that when he left the church again, his so called protector (if he existed) in the GAs must have bailed on him. Too many flip flops. Greg's piece seems right on target.

A faith crisis and hence cognitive dissonance is in and of itself flip flopping.

[DBMormon]

So I was riding in the passenger seat the other day with my bishop (now I can't remember if I told this story here or not...oh well). He says to me, "we're trying to buy out a guy in our company. so work has been pretty busy lately".

"too bad", says I. "must be tough".

"well ya see, he's been a huge problem and no one likes him. He's a d-bag" Bishop says in confidence.

"oh yeah, that sounds rough. so it is a hostile situation? I mean is this some takeover that'll hurt feelings?"

"ah no...he's aware of it already and has agreed to all the terms. But we're worried he's going to back out, last second"

blah blah blah, goes the talk. Then he divulged.

"well he's done some pretty inappropriate things. He had some guys from the company over, all LDS and invited that Mormonstories guy as a surprise. He left the Church, you see. A few years ago he started getting all caught up in pornography, cheated on his wife and left her. That Mormonstories guy was there to drop some bombs on the company guys concerning their faith."

"sounds incredibly inappropriate", I inserted.

Anyway, I figure if my bishop's rendition of what happened in that inappropriate work event is at all accurate, this story hopefully aligns with and supports your contribution.

Or this story could be complete hearsay and false and not worth repeating.

[bluebell]

I just read a copy of the letter sent to dehlin last year explaining exactly which teachings he needed to stop teaching to avoid discipline.

They were that it's highly unlikely God or Christ exist, highly unlikely the resurrection ever happened, that the idea of the need for an Atonement bothers him greatly, and that he would rather roll around in thumb tacks than support the idea that the LDS church is the one true church.

There were other things as well but these were the issues that stood out to me because I wasn't aware john was teaching them.

[DBMormon]

There were two issues at play. First was the quashing of article about mormonstories. It was done. Then his return to the fold and the good wishes that he received from the members on the internet. Then, he left the church again and continued with his mormonstories. I think that his ward, bishop, SP have lost patience. The SP had to know of him...he is all over on mormonstories. One must live in a lds bubble not know of john. It is not a matter of knowing him but rather about knowing his work.

No one in my ward knows him except me, my wife and one other person.  The bubble is pretty big.

[mormonnewb]

However, your comment doesn't address the NT which I linked to on a previous page about excommunication. It was harsh back in the day. And the verses are rather clear.

Romans 16:17English Standard Version (ESV) ¹⁷ I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

Matthew 18:17English Standard Version (ESV)

¹⁷ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Seems very clear if we put John in such verses. But again it wasn't a postmodern world back then. Much more to the point. We cant escape what the bible teaches. It is my understanding that baptists are very bible based as is the lds church.

Agree with your interpretation that it says, "Throw the bum out!" But it doesn't say, "Cancel his baptism and sever his ties with the Lord and his sealings with his family." It simply says that you should remove those who disrupt the Church.

Also, I find it interesting, LDS excommunication practices might violate this very passage. Do we treat an excommunicated member as a Gentile or tax collector? We still allow them to come to Church. We even encourage it. We probably even still home teach them and their families, right?

[Duncan]

Agree with your interpretation that it says, "Throw the bum out!" But it doesn't say, "Cancel his baptism and sever his ties with the Lord and his sealings with his family." It simply says that you should remove those who disrupt the Church.

Also, I find it interesting, LDS excommunication practices might violate this very passage. Do we treat an excommunicated member as a Gentile or tax collector? We still allow them to come to Church. We even encourage it. We probably even still home teach them and their families, right?

 

 

I think it says in the BOM 'ye shall continue to minister" does that happen? it probably varies from stake to stake. Last year and previous we were working with an exed lady and let me tellya myself and the missionaries tried to do all we could to get her to come to church and get back into the church but she refused and now she moved so who knows what

[mormonnewb]

So you don't believe Christ gave that power to Peter?

I don't see the power to "loose" as the power to revoke one's baptism and cancel one's eternal sealings. In the context of the NT, the term referred to freeing someone from the hold of forces that prevented them from being in the Church, not to "loose" them FROM the Church.

Edited January 16, 2015 by mormonnewb