Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I started a thread on FB so I could sort out my feelings about Mormon Stories.Some people are trying to connect his talking about historical issues with his excommunication threat. I think this is over-blown with the amount of LDS scholars contributing to LDS History. They point to September Six and censorship (?) at BYU to try to make their point.What do you all think of this?Someone also said he and his family has stop attending Church a couple of weeks ago.As I have learned many a time- be careful where and how you get information and especially be careful how you use that information. It is true that the church has some bad baggage in its history. But so does every other church- the people are not perfect and will make mistakes. In Dehlins case, he has come outright in displeasure against the church and leadership. He has made attacks on the very fundamental beliefs of our church. His Mormon stories podcasts are and always have been bad news.
Mars Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Why is it that black and white why can't mohammed be a prophet and we DONT have to change to islam. Isaiah is a prophet and you haven't left mormonism for Judaism Could you better explain the parallel? So far you've linked to a DCP article about Mohammed, a claim by the Church that Mohammed may have been an inspired man, but neither of the two claim that Mohammed testified of Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of God. Isaiah did. I think your comparison is not apt.
DBMormon Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Could you better explain the parallel? So far you've linked to a DCP article about Mohammed, a claim by the Church that Mohammed may have been an inspired man, but neither of the two claim that Mohammed testified of Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of God. Isaiah did. I think your comparison is not apt.Does every Old Testament prophet testify of Christ? And if not does that mean he is not a prophet?
DBMormon Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Could you better explain the parallel? So far you've linked to a DCP article about Mohammed, a claim by the Church that Mohammed may have been an inspired man, but neither of the two claim that Mohammed testified of Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of God. Isaiah did. I think your comparison is not apt.Also could you find me a place where a LDS leader says he was not? My point is there seems to be room to believe such and still be a faithful member in good standing. I was combating the post I responded too which indicated the Church does not allow one to proclaim Mohammed a prophet and still be in good standing.
Ham Clam Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I think that's a long stretch, Ham Clam. If you go about trying to convince people that the truth claims of the Church are false, and you are a member of the Church, the conditions and criteria for convening a disciplinary council are met. Dehlin didn't seem to be just exploring and publishing his findings in sticky issues in Mormon history.I was on the Mormon Feminist Housewives FB where I got that response. I challenged someone about John Dehlin's excommunication being about the podcast talking about historical issues. Edited January 16, 2015 by Ham Clam
Mars Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Also could you find me a place where a LDS leader says he was not? My point is there seems to be room to believe such and still be a faithful member in good standing. I was combating the post I responded too which indicated the Church does not allow one to proclaim Mohammed a prophet and still be in good standing. OK - I gotta start over. ******** I frequently get surprised at the definitions you operate with. I think I had a hangup with the way you used 'prophet,' and that it was different from mine. In the interest of making sure I'm understood: "Prophet" = Speaker for God Muhammad may have qualified. "Prophet" = Speaker for God who got people to increase in righteousness, whatever their milieu Muhammad may have qualified. (I certainly think so, but that's me.) "Prophet" = Speaker for God who got people to increase in righteousness, whatever their milieu, who used the idea that God has a Son who died for us and tried to teach us things about that Son so that we could recognize that Son - either physically or metaphorically - and draw near to that Son in order to repent and prepare oneself to return to Son's Father Muhammad does not qualify, imo. "Prophet" = Speaker for God who got people to increase in righteousness, whatever their milieu, who taught that God does not have a Son, who taught that redemption is not necessary through an intermediary Given what I know of Islam and Muhammad, this is what he was. Embracing him in this final definition is contradictory to the teachings of the Gospel, unless you make the case that his teachings were misunderstood and that he really qualifies as some other kind of prophet. I don't mind referring to the man Muhammad of Medina as a Prophet, as the context of how he is followed by 1.6 billion people may apply. I reserve the 3rd iteration for OT, NT, Book of Mormon, and Latter-day prophets, fwiw. Edited January 16, 2015 by Mars
bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 I was on the Mormon Feminist Housewives FB where I got that response. I challenged someone about John Dehlin's excommunication being about the podcast talking about historical issues. The letters sent to him by his stake president have been published. It would probably be easiest just to point people to those when discussing why he's facing discipline.
BCSpace 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. 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 about "if it works", but the only thing that matters is if the Church is right. Since JD is so wrong on so many issues, it's quite likely the Church will be right to ex him. 1
DBMormon Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) OK - I gotta start over. ******** I frequently get surprised at the definitions you operate with. I think I had a hangup with the way you used 'prophet,' and that it was different from mine. In the interest of making sure I'm understood: "Prophet" = Speaker for God Muhammad may have qualified. "Prophet" = Speaker for God who got people to increase in righteousness, whatever their milieu Muhammad may have qualified. (I certainly think so, but that's me.) "Prophet" = Speaker for God who got people to increase in righteousness, whatever their milieu, who used the idea that God has a Son who died for us and tried to teach us things about that Son so that we could recognize that Son - either physically or metaphorically - and draw near to that Son in order to repent and prepare oneself to return to Son's Father Muhammad does not qualify, imo. "Prophet" = Speaker for God who got people to increase in righteousness, whatever their milieu, who taught that God does not have a Son, who taught that redemption is not necessary through an intermediary Given what I know of Islam and Muhammad, this is what he was. Embracing him in this final definition is contradictory to the teachings of the Gospel, unless you make the case that his teachings were misunderstood and that he really qualifies as some other kind of prophet. I don't mind referring to the man Muhammad of Medina as a Prophet, as the context of how he is followed by 1.6 billion people may apply. I reserve the 3rd iteration for OT, NT, Book of Mormon, and Latter-day prophets, fwiw.We likely agree Edited to add: I am completely open as you mention to his followers misinterpreting and misunderstanding what he taught or said. Edited January 16, 2015 by DBMormon
Jeanne Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Thanks for clarifying, though I thought you left the church? Yes I did in 2008. I did hurt people by MY choice but with careful understanding and love for family members, in time I have reeped their support and maintaining my integrity. After talking to John, Stake President and 2 Bishops, the choice was mine..the middle way was not for me. With no concrete answers and doctrine changes, I don't mind being on outside looking in..I see things in my own reality while letting others own their own.
carbon dioxide Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Inactive members and those who are excommunicated and those who just leave the church can't seem to leave the church alone. I know a few members locally that left the church and then complain and complain about how damaging the church was and on and on and on. Usually, its one or two things that another church member said and they use that as an excuse to blame the entire church. Then, in the end, they end up being the only ones spreading ill will.Misery loves company.
carbon dioxide Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Does every Old Testament prophet testify of Christ? And if not does that mean he is not a prophet?By their fruits ye shall know them. What teachings in Islam or Mohammad that has brought people to Christ? If Mohammad is an inspired prophet of God, then it really begs the question does God know what he is doing? Seems light the right and left hand are doing two different things. No wonder there is such confusion in the world. In this viewpoint, I can picture God telling the Christians the New Testament is true, telling the Muslims the New testament is false then sitting back and waiting to see the people start killing each other over it.
Boanerges Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Inactive members and those who are excommunicated and those who just leave the church can't seem to leave the church alone. I know a few members locally that left the church and then complain and complain about how damaging the church was and on and on and on. Usually, its one or two things that another church member said and they use that as an excuse to blame the entire church. Then, in the end, they end up being the only ones spreading ill will.This is certainly not true of all inactives and excommunicants. Admittedly it might be the case with a (vocal) minority, but clearly 65% of the church membership is not complaining about "how damaging the church was."
mormonnewb Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 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?The problem with your interpretation is that it means that whomsoever Peter shall excommunicate (loose) on earth shall be excommunicated in heaven. That's a lot of power for little old Pete. And certainly, a lot of power for a local bishop or SP.
Avatar4321 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Does every Old Testament prophet testify of Christ? And if not does that mean he is not a prophet?they did. The definition of a prophet is one who has the spirit of prophesy. And the spirit of prophesy is a testimony of Jesus Christ. in fact Jacob and many others in the Book of Mormon have confirmed that all the Holy Prophets have testified of Christ.as for Mohammad, I think it's quite possible hr was a prophet. After all there were variants of the Qur'an until the current one was compiled by one of the caliphs. It's quite possible that the original looked quite different.
Avatar4321 Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 The problem with your interpretation is that it means that whomsoever Peter shall excommunicate (loose) on earth shall be excommunicated in heaven. That's a lot of power for little old Pete. And certainly, a lot of power for a local bishop or SP.well you at certainly free to go to a church where the power of God is not among men, but I don't see much point to it. 3
ERayR Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 The problem with your interpretation is that it means that whomsoever Peter shall excommunicate (loose) on earth shall be excommunicated in heaven. That's a lot of power for little old Pete. And certainly, a lot of power for a local bishop or SP. Yep
bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) The problem with your interpretation is that it means that whomsoever Peter shall excommunicate (loose) on earth shall be excommunicated in heaven. That's a lot of power for little old Pete. And certainly, a lot of power for a local bishop or SP. That's true. It is a lot of power. But Jesus did not seem to think it was too much power to give to a man, which is an important thing to consider. The power of God is serious stuff, but I think we all hope that the church we attend has access to that power in a very real and tangible way. Obviously it can't be wielded in unrighteousness (and no one has said otherwise), but that's different than your argument which is that it can't be wielded at all, and to even think it can be is arrogant. And you never did tell me, in your interpretation, what Peter is binding on earth and in heaven? Edited January 16, 2015 by bluebell 3
bluebell Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Can someone post a link to JD's SP letter? I'll see if i can find the article again.
Danzo Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 It seems some people (in this thread) are celebrating the possibility (probability?) of his excommunication. Something about the one and the ninety-and-nine comes to mind.You think excommunication is a bad thing?
carbon dioxide Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 You think excommunication is a bad thing?If someone enters my house and stinks up the place by passing gas and has bad BO, I may not throw a party if he leaves but I will be happy that he does. If it gets bad enough, I may have to ask or throw him out. So if John is stinking up the Church and he is causing problems, then yes excommunication is a good thing.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 John's narrative of Church history is even more off then even the most naive members of the Church.How exactly?
The Nehor Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 How exactly?Did all the trolls make a New Year's resolution to spend more time here? 1
mormonnewb Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 That's true. It is a lot of power. But Jesus did not seem to think it was too much power to give to a man, which is an important thing to consider. The power of God is serious stuff, but I think we all hope that the church we attend has access to that power in a very real and tangible way. Obviously it can't be wielded in unrighteousness (and no one has said otherwise), but that's different than your argument which is that it can't be wielded at all, and to even think it can be is arrogant.And you never did tell me, in your interpretation, what Peter is binding on earth and in heaven?YOU all hope to attend a Church where men have such power, but that is not MY hope. I tend to like my Jesus straight up (not diluted through the arbitrary power of men).I can't imagine that HF would ever abdicate His glory (to bring about the immortality of man) to ANYONE. For instance, in my kingdom (my home), NO ONE has the right to excommunicate anyone but me. And if my 20 yo were to tell my 10 yo that he had decided that the 10 yo were no longer a Newb, the 10 yo would literally laugh in the face of his older brother. Because, even at 10 yo, he knows that daddy's love for him is not determined by his big brother. And therefore, big brother can NEVER write little brother out of daddy's will or take away any other blessings that daddy has to bestow upon him.Why would any of you hope for a situation where your big brother had that type of power over you? Because in that case, you'd be much wiser to stop worshipping your father and start worshipping big brother, as apparently he holds the keys to the kingdom.As for me and my newbs, we shall worship the LORD (not His servants). 1
Recommended Posts