New Press Release From John Dehlin

[KevinG]

As much as I like that quote, I don't see it offering a lot of clarity.  It is very nice to know that we can support groups like Affirmation and Ordain Women.  But I still think it's been left a bit fuzzy as to what is "attacking the church and leaders" or trying to draw away others.

 

Personally, I think the case for Dehlin's excommunication doesn't need to even bring in his advocacy for women's ordination or gay marriage.

 

Even an apostle would have a hard time creating a declarative statement that defines apostasy in all cases.  For me one distinguishing mark is if the individual involved holds these beliefs personally and shares them privately, vs taking a public stand against church leaders or pretends that they are teaching church doctrine when in fact they teach things opposed to church doctrine.

 

For example...  being an ally of LGBT persons, supporting their right to equal protection under the law in political cases.  Affirming their right to believe as they want.

 

vs

 

Preaching that the brethren are out of touch, or wrong when they insist that marriage is between a man and a woman (ala Proclamation for the Family).

 

Or another contemporary example:

 

I can believe women should be ordained.

 

vs.

 

I call the Salt Lake City press corps to witness my picketing of the priesthood session of General Conference.

 

Even then isolated instances of public disagreement are not going to get someone excommunicated.  It usually takes persistent and very pubic opposition, that results in harm to others testimonies of the church, before action is taken.

[smac97]

You'll note that I said "ask" not "dictate".

That's a fair point. He can ask for whatever he likes, I suppose. I just would like to see him ask in good faith. I don't see that here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Even an apostle would have a hard time creating a declarative statement that defines apostasy in all cases.  For me one distinguishing mark is if the individual involved holds these beliefs personally and shares them privately, vs taking a public stand against church leaders or pretends that they are teaching church doctrine when in fact they teach things opposed to church doctrine.

 

For example...  being an ally of LGBT persons, supporting their right to equal protection under the law in political cases.  Affirming their right to believe as they want.

 

vs

 

Preaching that the brethren are out of touch, or wrong when they insist that marriage is between a man and a woman (ala Proclamation for the Family).

 

Or another contemporary example:

 

I can believe women should be ordained.

 

vs.

 

I call the Salt Lake City press corps to witness my picketing of the priesthood session of General Conference.

 

Even then isolated instances of public disagreement are not going to get someone excommunicated.  It usually takes persistent and very pubic opposition, that results in harm to others testimonies of the church, before action is taken.

 

I agree that an apostle (especially in the interview context which we are looking at) would have a tough (impossible) time definitively answering what is and is not apostasy.  

 

Even in your example, there is grey area.  For example... as a LGBT ally, I share my views and beliefs on Facebook.  Some in my circles have interpreted that as me saying that the Brethren are wrong.  Am I apostate?  Some believe so.  I obviously don't. 

[KevinG]

I agree that an apostle (especially in the interview context which we are looking at) would have a tough (impossible) time definitively answering what is and is not apostasy.  

 

Even in your example, there is grey area.  For example... as a LGBT ally, I share my views and beliefs on Facebook.  Some in my circles have interpreted that as me saying that the Brethren are wrong.  Am I apostate?  Some believe so.  I obviously don't. 

 

I would worry much more about the judgments of the Lord and His called Apostles than Sister Nunya Bidness commenting on Facebook.

 

No you are not wrong in having differing views on what rights LGBT persons should derive from government, any more than Elder Oaks is wrong for seeking to insure the granting of those rights do not deprive us of our ability to define marriage as we see fit.

 

As far as I'm concerned your compassion and concern for the equal rights of LGBT persons reflects Christ's love for all of God's children.  And by stopping short of insisting the Brethren need to change the Temple worthiness criteria, or accusing them of not following Christ, you are well within your rights as a Saint to have your own opinion and inspiration.

 

We are not the Borg... despite the efforts of some of our more self-right brethren and sisters to prove our critics right in this accusation.

Edited February 5, 2015 by KevinG

[Robert F. Smith]

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/1/0/f10167781a4e4adf/John_Dehlin_Apostasy_Press_Release_2-4-2015.pdf?c_id=8303159&expiration=1423161253&hwt=1353a481a40ae43a177f9c657974f83b

 

I haven't read through this in it's entirety.  I did read the first part and then skipped to the end where there's a copy of what John's Stake President is asking anyone in attendance to sign:

 

Appendix D- Confidentiality Acknowledgement Sent to John by President Bryan King on February 5, 2015 CONFIDENTIALITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

1. I acknowledge that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers disciplinary councils to be sacred and confidential and that, therefore, participants are not allowed to make recordings of the proceedings.

 

2. I acknowledge that I have been asked not to make any form of electronic recording or transmission of the disciplinary council for John Dehlin and that I have assured Church officers that I will comply with this request.

 

3. Accordingly, I agree that I will not use any device to make an audio or video recording of the proceedings of the disciplinary council for John Dehlin.

 

4. I acknowledge and agree that my participation in the disciplinary council is conditioned on this Agreement and that I will not be allowed to be present at the council if I do not sign this Acknowledgment.

For RLDS Church (Community of Christ) courts, a certified court reporter is hired and records everything.  Afterward, anyone who wants a copy can obtain one at the usual cost of court transcripts.  I think that this can allay suspicion of mishandling, which is why the U. S. Constitution guarantees trials in open court (except in juvenile cases, which  must remain confidential and sealed).

 

Edited February 5, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

But but but...  the Apostles have his back.  Dr. Scratch assures us that they were behind the dePetersoning of the Maxwell institute.

But of course they did not. have his back, and they were not responsible in any way for the contretemps which took place at the Maxwell Institute.

 

Moreover, the shift was not so much a "dePetersoning" as a dropping of FARMS concerns and the adopting of secular religious studies, focused primarily on modern and 19th century literature and culture.  I have no objection to the latter, but I don't understand why FARMS needed to be destroyed in order to provide yet another venue (among many) for modern, secular religious studies.

 

The change was from a successful and collegial FARMS, directed by a board of ancient studies specialists, to a typical college dean in charge, with power to hire and fire at will.  Since the boss was not an ancient studies specialist, and had been trained in modern religious studies, he refashioned the organization to suit his own personal vision -- after a purging of all possible opponents.

[KevinG]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/

Read Greg's timeline to demonstrate how little Dehlin was involved in the firing of Dan and others as editors. Notice Dan had agreed to pull the article with no argument for one thing, it was a nonissue by then.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

If by scholarship you mean his study using around 3000 self selected self identified disbelieving respondents to his online survey to come up with the reasons why people leave the Church, I can't remember but the survey at best measures only what the self selected group states and not in any way can that be used for conclusions about amore global group of leave takers save they may be possibilities…which we knew before the survey was done.

 

Thank you.  That was some fascinating reading.  What a tangled web we weave... and all that.

[KevinG]

But of course they did not. have his back, and they were not responsible in any way for the contretemps which took place at the Maxwell Institute.

 

Moreover, the shift was not so much a "dePetersoning" as a dropping of FARMS concerns and the adopting of secular religious studies, focused primarily on modern and 19th century literature and culture.  I have no objection to the latter, but I don't understand why FARMS needed to be destroyed in order to provide yet another venue (among many) for modern, secular religious studies.

 

The change was from a successful and collegial FARMS, directed by a board of ancient studies specialists, to a typical college dean in charge, with power to hire and fire at will.  Since the boss was not an ancient studies specialist, and had been trained in modern religious studies, he refashioned the organization to suit his own personal vision -- after a purging of all possible opponents.

 

Agreed.  My sarcastic jibe aside.  I see it here at my university and its not pretty when someone decides to change direction without bothering to inform the "help". 

 

Of course the truth didn't stop Brother Dehlin from making it all about his crusade.

Edited February 5, 2015 by KevinG

[cinepro]

Did the full article that the Maxwell Institute pulled in the earlier Dehlin vs. Peterson debate ever get published?  Dehlin purported to have pull with a member of the Quorum of the 70 at the time.  Other than claims that he was influential in the removal of Dr. Peterson, what was the final result?

 

Supposedly the article was critical of Dehlin's scholarship in studying membership trends in the church.

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/

[Teancum]

After reading through Dehlin's press release I'm left wondering why he wants to be part of an organization whose doctrine is so distant from what Dehlin seems to believe.  It seems obvious that Dehin is headed one direction, while the church is headed in another.

 

 

People who may not fully believe the claims of an organization may have all sorts of reasons for wanting to remain... social, sense of community, hope to change or influence an organization in a different way, family, work issues and so on.

 

Other older religious traditions than the LDS Church have seemed to navigate this better. You can be a Catholic and believe little of it and ever be outspoken about some things quite vocally and still remain a member. Same for the various Jewish traditions.

 

Not so much though for the LDS Church.

[Robert F. Smith]

I do not believe that the following are actually the list of charges the LDS Church is bringing against Dehlin:

 

1) Dehlin’s public expression of questions or doubts regarding some LDS Church teachings (see Background below for details)

2) Dehlin’s unwillingness to censor the podcast he founded, Mormon Stories

3) Dehlin’s public advocacy for the ordination of women within the LDS Church, and his affiliation with the group Ordain Women

4) Dehlin’s public advocacy for civil same-sex marriage within the United States

5) Dehlin’s disagreements with church leaders regarding the civil rights of LGBTQ individuals, equal opportunity for women, tolerance for intellectuals, and the lack of historical and financial transparency within the church. Dehlin has also expressed concern about the church disciplining members for expressing doubts or disagreement, or for publicly supporting same-sex marriage or Ordain Women.

 

Dehilin has deliberately misstated LDS Church doctrine in claiming that LDS doctrine on race is that "dark skin is a curse from God."  He buttresses this lie with a misinterpretation of  the Book of Mormon as generally "teaching that dark skin is 'loathsome' and is a curse from God."  Furthermore, he falsely claims that "modern scientific evidence strongly suggests that" the Book of Mormon is a "19th century work of creative fiction."  Never, in any of his podcasts, has he ever evinced the slightest knowledge of modern science or familiarity with serious Book of Mormon research.  This may be Dehlin's version of "an atmosphere of charity, love, understanding, and acceptance," but others may have legitimate doubts.

 

Indeed, his so-called "press release" is designed as an open, vicious attack on the LDS Church, and he knows that it guarantees his excommunication -- having already stated publicly that he finds disassociating himself from the Church has been good for him and his family (they have ceased attending).  He is now in a propaganda war with the Church, which cannot of course respond in kind.

[ksfisher]

  Never, in any of his podcasts, has he ever evinced the slightest knowledge of modern science or familiarity with serious Book of Mormon research.  This may be Dehlin's version of "an atmosphere of charity, love, understanding, and acceptance," but others may have legitimate doubts.

 

 

 

The one podcast that I have listened to, that with Brandt Gardner, Dehlin didn't seem to be very familiar with Gardner's work on the Book of Mormon, or with the Book of Mormon itself.  

[KevinG]

He knows the result of the church disciplinary counsel before it begins, and knows what is contained in Greg Smiths paper before it is published. He must be a prophet.

[Hamba Tuhan]

He must be a prophet.

 

'But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet'.

[Stargazer]

There's also this:  Any 15 year old with the right software can doctor an audio or video file.

That is actually a reason for an official recording to be made and certified.

[ksfisher]

That is actually a reason for an official recording to be made and certified.

 

I'm sorry, but I see a number of problems with having recordings made of disciplinary councils.

 

Would the name of a child who was a victim, accessory, or participant of a sin be allowed to be mentioned?  Or would it need to be "stricken from the record" later?

 

Would the names of other innocent victims be part of the record?

 

If two people are involved in a sin, and one has repented, would that persons name be part of the record?

 

If the second person involved in the above sin repents later, would the name need to be removed at a later date?

 

If one of the purposes of a council is to "protect the innocent," would entering those persons name into a permanent record as part of the proceeding accomplish this purpose?

 

Who decides what does and does not become part of the record?  Is it the stake president or would another church official need to be involved or position created?

 

Would a high councilor, especially a younger one involved in a higher profile proceeding, feel inhibited from speaking if a record was being made?

 

If the sinner repents later and is brought back into full fellowship could he or she ask for the record of the council to be destroyed?  Or would it become part of a permanent church record?  If people knew that the proceedings of their council were to become part of a permanent record might this not inhibit some from confessing their sins in the first place?

 

If a record was to be made of disciplinary councils I think that all of these, and many more, questions would need to be answered before such a policy could be put in place.  I also think that the primary purpose of a council, as a place to begin to apply the atonement of Jesus Christ in the lives of sinners would be blurred as the councils would need to become more legalistic in nature.

Edited February 6, 2015 by ksfisher

[why me]

No matter what happens John will try to use it to his advantage. And certainly certain newspapers will be involved. And he will most likely give a summary of what happened. If the meeting was recorded, he just may post it on his mormonstories podcast. Publicity will be a top priority. So, it is no surprise that such a 'contract' is necessary.

 

We live in a media world and it is not in a church's interest to have such a preceeding on the web for eternity. Also, we need to remember that there could be other people in the meeting who may not want their voices recorded for a podcast.

Edited February 6, 2015 by why me

[USU78]

That is actually a reason for an official recording to be made and certified.

 

For use by whom?  How?  When?

[smac97]

For use by whom?  How?  When?

I echo these questions. What is the point and purpose of creating an "official recording" over and above what is already done (the stake executive secretary or stake clerk, I forget which, keeps a record of the proceedings)? This seems like a suggestion that is A) voyeuristic, and therefore very unseemly and inappropriate, or B) designed to allow the person discipline to turn the disciplinary council into platform/soapbox, which is also profane and unseemly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

the stake executive secretary or stake clerk, I forget which, keeps a record of the proceedings

 

 

The stake clerk (for the record).

[Calm]

Not bad money for a grad student:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2146441-155/mormon-facing-excommunication-makes-his-living?page=2

[KevinG]

Not bad money for a grad student:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2146441-155/mormon-facing-excommunication-makes-his-living?page=2

 

I didn't see any income numbers there.  Do podcasts really generate $?

 

The comments section is just idiotic.  

[Calm]

Page 1 has it

[KevinG]

$90,000.00 in one year.  Net $60k or $70k  Wow!

 

I read somewhere else that he pays himself a salary of $40,000.00 from the foundation.  So some of that money probably goes out to causes he supports or into administrative costs.

 

With the typical compensation of a counselor or social worker, he's better off staying in the religious commentary and interview business than he is finishing his degree.

[ERayR]

$90,000.00 in one year.  Net $60k or $70k  Wow!

 

I read somewhere else that he pays himself a salary of $40,000.00 from the foundation.  So some of that money probably goes out to causes he supports or into administrative costs.

 

With the typical compensation of a counselor or social worker, he's better off staying in the religious commentary and interview business than he is finishing his degree.

 

But he is in the process of possibly loosing his connection that gives him appeal.