Dehlin's In The News? What?

[rockpond]

Wouldn't it be a shock if John isn't ex'd, then what would the game plan be?

Either way, we as a church will still be facing the same difficult issues. And either way, MS/OSF will keep producing podcasts.

[mormonnewb]

I've known several members who lost their testimonies, and were happy to tell you if you asked. One, a close family member and RM, lived with a series of women before finding his current wife, a nice Atheist gal who was raised Catholic. He's never been asked to appear in front of a church court. The difference is that it's private. If he decided to come back, then he might be accountable for his wild times, but right now neither his past behaviors nor current lack of belief are if concern to the church. Now, if he was posting YouTube videos and running seminars about how to leave the church or cohabitate without your bishop finding out, that situation might change.

Both John D. and Kate K. got themselves in trouble for public advocacy, not private questions.

Agreed. Had John or Kate been inarticulate or completely ineffective in their criticisms, they'd be members in good standing today. But is that the level of membership that the Church is hoping to retain? Only those of us who are either too cowed to publicly express our criticisms or too ineffective to get anyone else to listen can stay?

Or as a Church of "modern" revelation, perhaps we could take the approach of the other churches in the 21st century and allow even vocal/effective criticism within our ranks.

After all, are you suggesting that people with the media savvy and PR skills of Dehlin and Kelly couldn't be of SOME use to this church?

[Hamba Tuhan]

After all, are you suggesting that people with the media savvy and PR skills of Dehlin and Kelly couldn't be of SOME use to this church?

 

They could be of more than 'some use', and not just because of their particular skill sets. At one point they covenanted to sacrifice their personal ambitions in order to sustain and defend the Church, as did I. That means we can all be of rather significant use ... if we choose to be!

[Calm]

Only those of us who are either too cowed to publicly express our criticisms or too ineffective to get anyone else to listen can stay?

 

How about those who honestly and sincerely believe and support the church leadership in how the Church is currently structured, including the programs they have in place for needed change?

 

Or do you think none of those kind exist?

[Ham Clam]

Uggg, I know the theme of the papers at Sunstone this year ...

[mormonnewb]

How about those who honestly and sincerely believe and support the church leadership in how the Church is currently structured, including the programs they have in place for needed change?

Or do you think none of those kind exist?

Of course, you folks get to stay but you are not the people who need the Church most. You're the physicians in the hospital that is supposed to be the Church. But without those of us who are weak and infirmed, there really isn't much of a point to having a hospital/church. Edited February 10, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Duncan]

Of course, you folks get to stay but you are not the people who need the Church most. You're the physicians in the hospital that is supposed to be the Church. But without those of us who are weak and infirmed, there really isn't much of a point to having a hospital/church.

 

 

sometimes people are strong and sometimes those same people are weak as per Matthew 13, Christ is the "Great Physician" Matt 9:12 and who among us doesn't need his help?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Of course, you folks get to stay but you are not the people who need the Church most. You're the physicians in the hospital that is supposed to be the Church.

 

Clearly you don't know me very well!

[BlueDreams]

Of course, you folks get to stay but you are not the people who need the Church most. You're the physicians in the hospital that is supposed to be the Church. But without those of us who are weak and infirmed, there really isn't much of a point to having a hospital/church.

 

So how does that work when some of the "weak and infirmed" prop themselves up and state that they are actually physicians or experts of the illness (because they're sick with it) and begin helping the other weak and infirmed by asserting alternative 'medications' as better or more holistic ways of healing? Some of which are better outside the hospital altogether and found in some local herb garden.

 

Overall I don't know how I feel about Dehlin. I've only listened to a select few of his podcasts (the ones of personal interest) and though I found some of the material interesting, I find his bias is pretty glaring and persistent. It gives a heavy critical eye to anything erring on the side of faithful and heavy leeway and at times approval to all things critical. And though, I think he's probably aware of his bias, I don't know how much he is aware of what that bias actually does to some of the other "weak and infirmed" or how much he even sees himself as weak or infirmed. It just doesn't feel right, even if it comes from generally an earnest place. Earnestness does not equal goodness or correct path.  

 

Also, there's very few days that I think of myself as a physician. It seems that even the parts that I feel I have a good grasp on and can share some knowledge with another, the true Physician uses it in a way to indicate further, more specific treatments of my own illnesses and weakness.

 

With luv,

BD

[why me]

Yes, one person will make your claim (that the purpose of Church discipline is "love") while another will state that Dehlin's membership is problematic because it gives him credibility with members.  As a result, they enthusiastically support his excommunication as they believe it will make other saints less likely to listen to him.

 

Now, I will grant you that both forces could be at work at the same time.  His local leaders could be truly hoping for his repentance, while at the same time, attempting to diminish his influence amongst other saints in the event that he doesn't repent.  Yet, I don't think we have to ignore the fact that discrediting him amongst the saints is at least a PART of the reason being his excommunication.

No church can allow one of their priesthood holders to be critical of core doctrine in their faith. Try to imagine a catholic priest advocating abortion or contraception or women shoud have priesthood publically to their parish. The vatican would immediately step in and excommuncate that priest. Likewise for a bishop. This would be the same for any pastor who is responsible for the well being of their flock. John has the priesthood and he is publically siding against the church. Thus, he is leading members away from the church. No church can allow that to happen.

 

No church is a democracy where members can believe what they wish and publically express that belief regardless if it contradicts the core beliefs of that faith. And I think that in your heart you know this too.

[why me]

How much would charge to take me off limited?

I had the same reaction. Of course if we were paying the senior adminstrator per post, I do think that he would take us off limited.   As I also said on the thread, 90k is quite a sum to be making off the church. It is a great business. I truly believe that john sees dollar signs no matter what happens. The skies the limited although I do believe that if he breaks the 100k mark, even his best supporters may be a little uneasy with such a sum.

Edited February 10, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Of course, you folks get to stay but you are not the people who need the Church most. You're the physicians in the hospital that is supposed to be the Church. But without those of us who are weak and infirmed, there really isn't much of a point to having a hospital/church.

Of course, john does need the church. However, it is a little suspect because he does make a nice sum from mormonism. So, it is quite difficult. Here we have a member who doesn't believe in the church but wishes to remain in the church...who basically is making 90k a year from mormonism by exclaiming his unbelief and his podcasts and other mormon related endeavors that the church does not approve of. . Something is not right if I am correct in my previous statement. But of course, if one is crtical of church policy and is still a member, john may be their man. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wonder if he's paying tithing on that 90K.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I wonder if he's paying tithing on that 90K.

 

I don't.

[Brian 2.0]

As I also said on the thread, 90k is quite a sum to be making off the church. It is a great business. I truly believe that john sees dollar signs no matter what happens. The skies the limited although I do believe that if he breaks the 100k mark, even his best supporters may be a little uneasy with such a sum.

But is someone faithful, like Gerald Lund, makes that kind of money it's cool, right?

[mormonnewb]

No church can allow one of their priesthood holders to be critical of core doctrine in their faith. Try to imagine a catholic priest advocating abortion or contraception or women shoud have priesthood publically to their parish. The vatican would immediately step in and excommuncate that priest. Likewise for a bishop.

Not true. The Catholic Church MIGHT take away such person's parish or demote them in some way, but it usually doesn't excommunicate its members for dissent, even public dissent.

Rev. Andrew Greeley

Here's how the LA Times described him in his obituary:

"Maverick priest Andrew M. Greeley was a noted sociologist, prolific writer and vocal critic of the Roman Catholic Church's policies on issues such as birth control, divorce and sexual abuse."

http://articles.lati...reeley-20130531

Due to being so outspoken, he appears to have been denied his own parish, but he wasn't excommunicated.

Cardinal Raymond Burke

Burke was the highest ranking American catholic official, but was recently demoted for his outspoken criticism against Pope Francis (once again, demoted but not excommunicated).

http://www.breakingn...-critic-of-pop/

[why me]

Not true. The Catholic Church MIGHT take away such person's parish or demote them in some way, but it usually doesn't excommunicate its members for dissent, even public dissent.

Rev. Andrew Greeley

Here's how the LA Times described him in his obituary:

"Maverick priest Andrew M. Greeley was a noted sociologist, prolific writer and vocal critic of the Roman Catholic Church's policies on issues such as birth control, divorce and sexual abuse."

http://articles.lati...reeley-20130531

Due to being so outspoken, he appears to have been denied his own parish, but he wasn't excommunicated.

Cardinal Raymond Burke

Burke was the highest ranking American catholic official, but was recently demoted for his outspoken criticism against Pope Francis (once again, demoted but not excommunicated).

http://www.breakingn...-critic-of-pop/

Actually, it will be difficult to support oneself without a parish to work in. So, in a way, he was excommunicated. However, we do have this from pope francis:

 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/27/pope-francis-excommunicates-australian-priest/

 

Australian priest had continued to act publicly as a priest after having priestly facilities removed

An Australian priest who supports the ordination of women has been excommunicated by Pope Francis.

 

In the first such excommunication since the new pontiff took office Fr Greg Reynolds was dismissed in a letter from the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, which stated that “the decision by Pope Francis to dismiss Fr Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare his automatic excommunication has been made because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest.”

Archbishop Hart also told other priests in the archdiocese by letter that Fr Reynolds’s excommunication was “because of his public teaching on the ordination of women”, which are grounds for automatic excommunication.

 

Fr Reynolds is also a supporter of same-sex marriage and has attended rallies in favour of changing the definition of marriage. He has even reportedly presided at same-sex ceremonies.

He told National Catholic Reporter: “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done.”

In August 2011 Fr Reynolds resigned his position as a priest at two rural parishes and, after Archbishop Hart removed his priestly faculties, he founded Inclusive Catholics, a pro-female ordination and gay marriage group.

Australian media also reported that in August 2012 he was present at a Mass where a dog had received Communion, which Fr Reynolds said he was not aware of until after the incident.

That month Archbishop Hart wrote to him warning that if he continued to act publicly as a priest he would “be forced to take further canonical action for the good of the Church”

 

Any comments? Where is the public outcry against this excommunication? It seems that it is the mormons that come under media scrutiny about this issue. Of course, it has to do with the media liking the pope that this excommunication went unnoticed. What excuse can active members-- who are critical of church policy in these regards-- give when they are critical of the lds church in such matters? But like I said, no church can allow its priesthood holders or pastors to have an open microphone.

Edited February 10, 2015 by why me

[why me]

The latest from John: I am being exed for my support for equality:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/speaking-out-for-equality-396390979751

 

My gosh, what hogwash. But from an uncritical media who needs to find such victims, well....what more can be said? I think that this video should get a separate thread for discussion. Unfortunately, being on limited, I cannot start a new thread. Please feel free do so if necessary.

Edited February 10, 2015 by why me

[teddyaware]

 

That much? Really? Then I must be a very bad boy . But I think you know I'm not that bad a boy and that any continued decision by the moderators to keep me on limited status is unneeded and unnecessary. But I'm not gonna hold my breath because it's not likely I'll get much compassion from Mike Myers' 'Doctor Evil.'

[ERayR]

Of course, you folks get to stay but you are not the people who need the Church most. You're the physicians in the hospital that is supposed to be the Church. But without those of us who are weak and infirmed, there really isn't much of a point to having a hospital/church.

 

Condescending, Very much.

[mormonnewb]

Actually, it will be difficult to support oneself without a parish to work in. So, in a way, he was excommunicated. However, we do have this from pope francis:

 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/27/pope-francis-excommunicates-australian-priest/

 

Australian priest had continued to act publicly as a priest after having priestly facilities removed

An Australian priest who supports the ordination of women has been excommunicated by Pope Francis.

 

In the first such excommunication since the new pontiff took office Fr Greg Reynolds was dismissed in a letter from the Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, which stated that “the decision by Pope Francis to dismiss Fr Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare his automatic excommunication has been made because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest.”

Archbishop Hart also told other priests in the archdiocese by letter that Fr Reynolds’s excommunication was “because of his public teaching on the ordination of women”, which are grounds for automatic excommunication.

 

Fr Reynolds is also a supporter of same-sex marriage and has attended rallies in favour of changing the definition of marriage. He has even reportedly presided at same-sex ceremonies.

He told National Catholic Reporter: “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done.”

In August 2011 Fr Reynolds resigned his position as a priest at two rural parishes and, after Archbishop Hart removed his priestly faculties, he founded Inclusive Catholics, a pro-female ordination and gay marriage group.

Australian media also reported that in August 2012 he was present at a Mass where a dog had received Communion, which Fr Reynolds said he was not aware of until after the incident.

That month Archbishop Hart wrote to him warning that if he continued to act publicly as a priest he would “be forced to take further canonical action for the good of the Church”

 

Any comments? Where is the public outcry against this excommunication? It seems that it is the mormons that come under media scrutiny about this issue. Of course, it has to do with the media liking the pope that this excommunication went unnoticed. What excuse can active members-- who are critical of church policy in these regards-- give when they are critical of the lds church in such matters? But like I said, no church can allow its priesthood holders or pastors to have an open microphone.

 

The false equivalency here rests in treating a Catholic priest like a Mormon priesthood holder.  They are NOT the same thing.  Just about every Mormon male above the age of 12 is a priesthood holder while only, say, 1 in a 1,000 Catholics are priests.  A more apt comparison would be to compare a Catholic priest to a Mormon BISHOP.  In that case, I would wholeheartedly agree that a Mormon bishop should have to step down from his post for public opposition to the Church's stance.

 

Interestingly, I submit that this was the Catholic Church's initial response to this priest's apostasy.  However, since the priest refused to step down and continued exercise his [no longer valid] authority, the church took the next step and excommunicated him.

 

To compare apples to apples, can you find a lay Catholic who has been excommunicated in the last, say, 200 years for public opposition to the Vatican's position on anything?

[ERayR]

Not true. The Catholic Church MIGHT take away such person's parish or demote them in some way, but it usually doesn't excommunicate its members for dissent, even public dissent.

 

So???

[juliann]

I found this perspective respectful and enlightening for someone like myself who knows next to nothing about non profits or tax law.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/02/09/does-open-stories-foundation-qualify-as-tax-exempt/

 

That explains it better than I have although for a different reason.... that is, it is his narrative that is the problem not the dollar figures. Does this make it more clear, Rockpond?

 

 

Also weighing against OSF’s claim to be a tax-exempt organization: it seems to have been formed for the purpose of supporting Dehlin. The Tribune article quotes Dehlin as he’s forming the tax-exempt organization as essentially selling OSF as a way to support him in exchange for his producing Mormon Stories:

 

The problem with this: supporting Dehlin—or any other individual—is not a charitable endeavor, and does not qualify for deductible donations. Section 501©(3) was designed with public, not private, good in mind.

 

Two things to keep in mind here: first, there is no legal problem with donating to somebody to support that person. That’s the basic design behind Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and dozens of other crowdfunding sites. The difference is, funding somebody (or somebody’s project) on those sites doesn’t allow donors to deduct their donations. The anti-private inurement rules kick in solely as a result of exemption from taxation.

 

[ksfisher]

The false equivalency here rests in treating a Catholic priest like a Mormon priesthood holder.  They are NOT the same thing.  Just about every Mormon male above the age of 12 is a priesthood holder while only, say, 1 in a 1,000 Catholics are priests.  A more apt comparison would be to compare a Catholic priest to a Mormon BISHOP.  In that case, I would wholeheartedly agree that a Mormon bishop should have to step down from his post for public opposition to the Church's stance.

 

Interestingly, I submit that this was the Catholic Church's initial response to this priest's apostasy.  However, since the priest refused to step down and continued exercise his [no longer valid] authority, the church took the next step and excommunicated him.

 

To compare apples to apples, can you find a lay Catholic who has been excommunicated in the last, say, 200 years for public opposition to the Vatican's position on anything?

 

Why are you wanting/expecting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to behave in the same manner as the Catholic Church?

[KevinG]

That explains it better than I have although for a different reason.... that is, it is his narrative that is the problem not the dollar figures. Does this make it more clear, Rockpond?

 

 

Imagine the outrage if I started a non-profit counselling center to assist Anti-Mormons from the grip of the MSM and similar cults.