Excommunicatin'

[DBMormon]

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.

Cinepro - I usually agree with you but here let me play devil's advocate.

 

The definition of Orthodox = (of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

 

Mormonism has a lot of incorrect traditional views

- White shirts are the "uniform of the Priesthood"

- traditional stories of translation

- The creation is traditionally understood to be literal

 

Much of our tradition leaves room for alternative views and often the facts as we have them support non traditional views over traditional.

 

Now I agree that John had publicly expressed doubt over the most basic truth claims and that likely combined with his assisting others out be enough to consider Church discipline.

 

But I also must add we have very few creeds and very few points one must hold a traditional Orthodox view of.  Hence to a T almost every person on this board is unorthodox in some way.  Orthoprax is another conversation 

 

Orthoprax = Correct in practice (though not necessarily in opinion or belief); practically right, doing the right actions.

 

While fewer of us here are Un-orthoprax I would also guess many here fall into this.  For instance I wear colored shirts and hence I violate the traditional standard.  I pay tithing on Surplus and hence I violate the traditional standard.  I disagree and openly state so when talking about the Follow a prophet even when they are wrong and hence I am not orthoprax in that traditional belief.

 

What John said in the sentence you quoted is not wrong and is what many of us could say about ourselves.  The trouble is in denouncing the very basic claims which is the problem area and the helping others move away from faith or stating publicly that the Church is absolutely wrong on it's doctrine will always be risky and Church discipline is a viable route at that point

Edited January 16, 2015 by DBMormon

[mormonnewb]

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

Did JD call this court of "love"? Will he render the final "verdict" on his excommunication?

One might argue that JD left the SP no other CHOICE, but the SP is the one taking action. As the NRA would say, "Members don't excommunicate themselves, Church leaders do."

[DBMormon]

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

As a former Bishop, Several people went through Church courts without any formal discipline

[Mars]

I'm bemused that people see this is big bad monolithic, cold, calculating, shrewd, and PR driven Church playing up to the goodie two shoes' in their midst and attempting to quash John Dehlin for the sake of the holy and protected flock.

 

John Dehlin created a blog and podcast.  He created a FB page.  He created a brand and a following.  None of that is wrong or anything of the sort.

 

He then used that following as a platform to decry Church belief and practice, and he did so using his identity and label as a 'member.'  Why did he use that status?  If he did it because he wished to lend a sense of credence or veracity to his followers that an insider no longer believes and that the beliefs are not worthy of faithful retention, then I believe the conditions are set for his dismissal from the fold.  When you try to get people to stop believing the truth claims of the Church, how is it not ok for the Church to remove you from their membership? 

 

The Church hasn't filed motions to shut down his podcast.  No slander or libel suits have been brought forth.  There is no attempt to silence him or shut him down.  He can go on doing anything he likes, he just can't do it while being a member.

 

What am I missing?  How do these events tell any other story than that?

 

Did the Church actually take any measures to silence him?

 

The Church doesn't make any public mention of ex-communications or disciplinary councils.  We know about all this through Dehlin, don't we?  So how can the accusation that the Church is trying to discredit Dehlin in any way through the (supposed) ex-communication stick?

 

Seriously - what am I missing?

[bluebell]

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.

 

Interesting.

 

So in Matt. 18:18 where it says-

 

Verily 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.

 

it's referring to freeing someone (both on earth and in heaven) from forces that prevented them from being in the church?  Since the term 'loose' is used to connote the opposite of being bound, what is it Peter is binding on earth and in heaven?

[Mystery Meat]

 

Interesting.

 

So in Matt. 18:18 where it says-

 

Verily 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.

 

it's referring to freeing someone (both on earth and in heaven) from forces that prevented them from being in the church?  Since the term 'loose' is used to connote the opposite of being bound, what is it Peter is binding on earth and in heaven?

 

And people accuse TBMs of mental gymnastics....

[carbon dioxide]

The same standards required to be baptized into the Church apply to members post baptism.  It not like converts can start saying no to those basic questions 5 minutes after they are baptized.  They are standard required throughout ones life. Some of the questions needed to be baptized so that one can be a member include

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

So if John can't say yes to this, he should lose his membership.   It not a question of whether he agrees with every policy or doctrine of the Church but he does not even seem to fit the minimum requirements.  What makes John different to the investigator of the Church who says no to those questions?  John is no more entitled to remain a member as the investigator is entitled to still be baptized even though says no the required questions to be baptized.

Edited January 16, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[DBMormon]

The same standards required to be baptized into the Church apply to members post baptism.  It not like converts can start saying no to those basic questions 5 minutes after they are baptized.  They are standard required throughout ones life. Some of the questions needed to be baptized so that one can be a member include

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

So if John can't say yes to this, he should lose his membership.   It not a question of whether he agrees with every policy or doctrine of the Church but he does not even seem to fit the minimum requirements.  What makes John different to the investigator of the Church who says no to those questions? 

1.) What if one doesn't know but has faith in this

2.) What about one who doesn't have faith ("As not all have faith") but only believes

3.) What about one who doesn't believe but hopes?

4.) What about one is is in their mind 99.9 % the church isn't true but their heart still holds out hope?

 

Which of these if any should be excommunicated

Edited January 16, 2015 by DBMormon

[rockpond]

Excommunicating seems like a done deal for one John Dehlin. Even the Times from New York City has a little summary of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/john-dehlin-mormon-critic-facing-excommunication.html?_r=0

I recall John himself declaring that he went to the Times along with Kate Kelly last year. So I guess he went back when he got his notice from his SP.

Quoeth the trib:

Says Mr. Dehlin himself,

I better fix up bullet points two and five above myself, lest I suffer the same fate. Although I have no interest to get all public about my views-I guess I'd have to take "public" out of those bullet points for me to qualify. I'm hoping.

 

I overlap with John on a number of those bullet points identified by his SP.  But I guess I'm not as public about them (my close friends & family as well as some of my priesthood leaders know).

 

John, however, is much less of a believer than I am.

[Mars]

1.) What if one doesn't know but has faith in this

2.) What about one who doesn't have faith ("As not all have faith") but only believes

3.) What about one who doesn't believe but hopes?

4.) What about one is is in their mind 99.9 % the church isn't true but their heart still holds out hope?

 

Which of these if any should be excommunicated

 

It depends on how they handle it.

 

Talking in earnest to home teachers, close friends and family, priesthood holders, and always desirous to resolve the lack of belief by supplanting it with belief?  I'll move over so you can sit by.

 

Trying to get me to see it your way?  Begging the question and trying to undermine faith and confidence in the claims of the Church?  Please take your services elsewhere...

 

and btw, humans have disconnects about what they say want and what they actually want all. the. time.  Every night I have to put my 4 year old to bed - and your avatar tells me you have had this same experience a million times over - I get a baloney story about how they're not tired while they're yawning and kvetching and belly aching and moaning.  The claims about not being hungry at dinner time while Minecraft awaits are equally bulldink.  I'm sure adults do it all the time with respect to the Gospel and the Church: "No no, I'm not saying I don't believe, I just don't see how it's possible to believe."  (Not saying you say this, mind you.)

[ERayR]

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

 

Thus the mantra that his excommunication will hurt the Church is anti-Mormon wishful thinking.

[Boanerges]

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

 

I have not polled my ward, but I'm pretty confident almost none of them know who John Dehlin is - or care for that matter.

[carbon dioxide]

1.) What if one doesn't know but has faith in this

2.) What about one who doesn't have faith ("As not all have faith") but only believes

3.) What about one who doesn't believe but hopes?

4.) What about one is is in their mind 99.9 % the church isn't true but their heart still holds out hope?

 

Which of these if any should be excommunicated

Would the Church baptize someone who does not believe but hopes?  Does it baptize someone who in their mind says 99.9% of the church is not true holds out hope that it is true?  Whatever is true for an investigator should be true for a member.  Maybe it does now.  All I know is when I was a missionary 20 years ago, in our mission that would not have been allowed.  It not an issue of somebody struggling with an issue here and there or having faith issues.  We all go through them from time to time but John has gone far beyond that. 

[Boanerges]

The same standards required to be baptized into the Church apply to members post baptism.  It not like converts can start saying no to those basic questions 5 minutes after they are baptized.  They are standard required throughout ones life. Some of the questions needed to be baptized so that one can be a member include

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

So if John can't say yes to this, he should lose his membership.   It not a question of whether he agrees with every policy or doctrine of the Church but he does not even seem to fit the minimum requirements.  What makes John different to the investigator of the Church who says no to those questions?  John is no more entitled to remain a member as the investigator is entitled to still be baptized even though says no the required questions to be baptized.

 

Your point is valid to an extent - we are taught that we make covenants when we are baptized. BUT we are not necessarily ever asked those questions in that way after baptism. The temple recommend questions are a bit different from those above and people are only asked them if they desire a recommend. Even so, I believe in God the Father, and in his Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe in them exactly the same way you do. My view of the Father leans very much Deist, for instance. I do believe in Him and I do believe He is the Creator.  Likewise, the second quetsion above is different in the recommend interview. Do I believe the Gospel has been restored? Sure. Do I sustain Pres. Monson? Yes. Is my view of these things likely more like yours or John Dehlin's? Undoubtedly Dehlin's. Do I hold a recommend and have a substantial calling? Yes.

[Mars]

Your point is valid to an extent - we are taught that we make covenants when we are baptized. BUT we are not necessarily ever asked those questions in that way after baptism. The temple recommend questions are a bit different from those above and people are only asked them if they desire a recommend. Even so, I believe in God the Father, and in his Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe in them exactly the same way you do. My view of the Father leans very much Deist, for instance. I do believe in Him and I do believe He is the Creator.  Likewise, the second quetsion above is different in the recommend interview. Do I believe the Gospel has been restored? Sure. Do I sustain Pres. Monson? Yes. Is my view of these things likely more like yours or John Dehlin's? Undoubtedly Dehlin's. Do I hold a recommend and have a substantial calling? Yes.

 

We aren't sat down with a missionary or other authority figure and whatnot, but I'm pretty sure we are clear that the Sacrament is a continual renewal of baptismal covenants.  It seems logical to me, at least, that by extension the things you did at baptism are are all repeated in ritual and metaphor each week.

[Boanerges]

Would the Church baptize someone who does not believe but hopes?  Does it baptize someone who in their mind says 99.9% of the church is not true holds out hope that it is true?  Whatever is true for an investigator should be true for a member.  Maybe it does now.  All I know is when I was a missionary 20 years ago, in our mission that would not have been allowed.  It not an issue of somebody struggling with an issue here and there or having faith issues.  We all go through them from time to time but John has gone far beyond that. 

 

Dieter F. Uchtdorf: "The Church is a home for all to come together, regardless of the depth or the height of our testimony. I know of no sign on the doors of our meetinghouses that says, 'Your testimony must be this tall to enter'"

[carbon dioxide]

Thus the mantra that his excommunication will hurt the Church is anti-Mormon wishful thinking.

The vast majority of LDS are busy with their own lives to worry about want is happening with this guy.  I would be shocked if even 25% of the people in my ward are paying any attention to this at all.  Just because something is on the internet does not mean people are paying attention to it. 

[ERayR]

The vast majority of LDS are busy with their own lives to worry about want is happening with this guy.  I would be shocked if even 25% of the people in my ward are paying any attention to this at all.  Just because something is on the internet does not mean people are paying attention to it. 

 

I would guess that number is generous.

[carbon dioxide]

Your point is valid to an extent - we are taught that we make covenants when we are baptized. BUT we are not necessarily ever asked those questions in that way after baptism. The temple recommend questions are a bit different from those above and people are only asked them if they desire a recommend. Even so, I believe in God the Father, and in his Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe in them exactly the same way you do. My view of the Father leans very much Deist, for instance. I do believe in Him and I do believe He is the Creator.  Likewise, the second quetsion above is different in the recommend interview. Do I believe the Gospel has been restored? Sure. Do I sustain Pres. Monson? Yes. Is my view of these things likely more like yours or John Dehlin's? Undoubtedly Dehlin's. Do I hold a recommend and have a substantial calling? Yes.

The standards to enter the temple should be a little higher than being just a member and there probably is no reason to ask the questions after baptism as it is assumed that one complies with those minimum standards.  But if a member wants to come out and show the church he does not hold to those basic standards anymore he is free to do so. And at that point, the Church might have to decide to remove his membership.  There are certain things that all members need to have in common and bind us together.  If people can believe or not believe anything they want, membership in the Church is meaningless.  I really do not see John to be as much different than if a member was to come out and declare that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and Mohammad as God true prophet. 

[DBMormon]

Dieter F. Uchtdorf: "The Church is a home for all to come together, regardless of the depth or the height of our testimony. I know of no sign on the doors of our meetinghouses that says, 'Your testimony must be this tall to enter'"

This is the quote that I use to support my view as well.   That to me is very different from what some are saying.

[carbon dioxide]

Dieter F. Uchtdorf: "The Church is a home for all to come together, regardless of the depth or the height of our testimony. I know of no sign on the doors of our meetinghouses that says, 'Your testimony must be this tall to enter'"

But to be a member, we should have a testimony at some level. I don't interpret those words to mean, come to church and believe what you want.  Truth is whatever you want it to be.  You want to believe that Mohammad is God prophet, you are free to declare that. 

[DBMormon]

But to be a member, we should have a testimony at some level. I don't interpret those words to mean, come to church and believe what you want.  Truth is whatever you want it to be.  You want to believe that Mohammad is God prophet, you are free to declare that. 

Actually LDS leaders have made comments regarding the ability to see Mohammed as one of God's prophets

 

Ex:

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

 

1978 1st presidency letter

 

Also

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

 

Also

Daniel Peterson isn't sure either

http://blog.mrm.org/2010/11/daniel-peterson-isnt-sure-if-mohammed-was-a-prophet/

[Boanerges]

But to be a member, we should have a testimony at some level. I don't interpret those words to mean, come to church and believe what you want.  Truth is whatever you want it to be.  You want to believe that Mohammad is God prophet, you are free to declare that. 

 So I have a testimony that Jesus Christ is my Savior. In reality that is the closest thing I can come close to saying "I know" (but I don't know - I strongly believe it, I have faith in it, I hope for it, but I don't actually know it.) This is the Church of Jesus Christ, is it not? Is my testimony of Christ not enough? Is that not tall enough to enter, even if I have doubts about the Book of Abraham? I think Pres. Uchtdorf meant exactly what he said.

[ERayR]

Actually LDS leaders have made comments regarding the ability to see Mohammed as one of God's prophets

 

 

I have not heard any of them advocating accepting and changing Mormonism into Islaam.

[ERayR]

 So I have a testimony that Jesus Christ is my Savior. In reality that is the closest thing I can come close to saying "I know" (but I don't know - I strongly believe it, I have faith in it, I hope for it, but I don't actually know it.) This is the Church of Jesus Christ, is it not? Is my testimony of Christ not enough? Is that not tall enough to enter, even if I have doubts about the Book of Abraham? I think Pres. Uchtdorf meant exactly what he said.

 

There is a difference between what you come in the door with and what is expected that you advance to.