John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[thesometimesaint]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

If the Church excommunicated him 10 years ago. The Church is false because the Leadership didn't know the extent of his apostasy. That the Church waited those 10 years it is false because they should have known better.

 

Let's be fair.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Brian 2.0, on 10 Feb 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

It's obviously a matter of degrees of how much you are spreading your doubts, or "teaching" your disbeliefs, right?

I could post on Facebook that I don't believe in the BoM and that probably wouldn't result in any action.

So when does "public support" cross that line into teaching and leading people away?

There's plenty of blogs, sunstone articles, etc that had had equal amounts of apostaty as Dehlin. But is it because he has a bigger following and his effects are felt more?

There is simply too much inconsistency in administering discipline. Elder Oaks and Christofferson admitted as much in their TribTalk interview. Here are a few things that would add to greater consistency.

 

Define advocacy- At what point to sharing a personal opinion cross into advocacy and trying to "lead people astray"?

 

Define doctrine- Can someone share a statement of church doctrine which clearly demonstrates how members can uniformly determine what is and isn't official doctrine?

 

Canonize the new creed- Let members know which teachings they are required to believe and which they may have a little more lattitude with.

[Boanerges]

Please pass the cheese to go with my whine.

Also, as much as I don't want to admit this, I often wonder if MS's wasn't there, nor Stay LDS, if I'd have gone over the edge so to speak.

Those sites led me to unchartered waters, which also led me to Fair LDS, with a whole new ocean of topics I'd never heard of.

Not playing the blame game, just wondering if stopping John earlier would have helped. But maybe after ex'g the September Six etc the church is going slower on the uptake.

 

My own faith crisis was totally independent of Dehlin, I didn't hear of him for years after it started, and then only after I started to go to internet sites such as NOM. If not for StayLDS I would not be an active member today - I have no doubt about that. Dehlin was a founder of StayLDS but has never been an active participant. Since 2008 when the site started he has 159 posts there, the most recent of which was December. In comparison, the most active admin there has over 12,000 posts, and the other admins are all in the 3-4,000 range. As an active participant in StayLDS, I don't think anyone there can blame Dehlin for their disaffection - almost all were already disaffected. StayLDS can claim to complete it's mission for most - most who actively participate there also remain active in the church (at least at some level).

 

That said, I am not defending Dehlin in any way. I do believe he led people away from the church and I do believe that is a major reason for his excommunication. However, he disavowed the StayLDS model years ago. As one who has been significantly helped by that site, I resent that people vilify the site and connect it to Dehlin.

[rongo]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

You make a good point, I think, Tacenda. Definitely, some priesthood leaders are more active at confronting apostasy than others (what some call "leader roulette"). Me, I would have acted much sooner on both Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, myself. There is something to be said for long-suffering and patience, but it can cease to be a virtue, especially when others are being damaged by it. We had a member from our ward who moved and then left his wife for his 19 year-old cousin. Their stake president as a matter of policy does not excommunicate or disfellowship (and this man is still a member with no formal church discipline), and his ex-wife is outraged and hurt. But, that's how he approached church discipline. I actually think this "roulette" variation is a good thing, overall. Local units really are not dictated to by Salt Lake, and most leaders do an excellent job.

 

I knew John Dehlin for what he was *long* before any of this later stuff. I remember internal discussion about 10 years or so ago among the FAIR list as to whether or not to accept John as a member. He had popped up in the old FAIR message board, positioning himself sort of how Bill Reel does now (a striving doubter trying to help people navigate the Church mine field). I strongly advised against it, based on his message board behavior. Even then, I felt strongly that he wasn't a good fit with FAIR and that he had ulterior motives and agendas. He was very briefly accepted and then quickly left (I don't remember whether it was at his or FAIR's behest). Then, he started the whole Mormon Stories saga.

Edited February 11, 2015 by rongo

[Kevin Christensen]

There is simply too much inconsistency in administering discipline. Elder Oaks and Christofferson admitted as much in their TribTalk interview. Here are a few things that would add to greater consistency.

 

Define advocacy- At what point to sharing a personal opinion cross into advocacy and trying to "lead people astray"?

 

Define doctrine- Can someone share a statement of church doctrine which clearly demonstrates how members can uniformly determine what is and isn't official doctrine?

 

Canonize the new creed- Let members know which teachings they are required to believe and which they may have a little more lattitude with.

I commented here a while back that Dehlin's interview with Sandra Tanner amounted to running up the Jolly Roger, as far as a declaration of loyalties is concerned.

Doctrine is simple:

The word "doctrine" appears in the Book of Mormon twenty-four times, always with the narrow meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. McConkie and Millet are fascinated with what they call "the doctrines within the Book of Mormon" (2:xiii). In the two page preface to the second volume, they mention "doctrines" four different times. Clearly, they assume that the book is full of various "doctrines." But when the word "doctrine" is used affirmatively in the Book of Mormon, it is always singular, though there are "points of doctrine" (1 Nephi 15:14; Alma 41:9; Helaman 11:22-23; 3 Nephi 11:28; 21:6); when plural, the word identifies foolish, vain, and false teachings that deny the gospel--that Jesus is the Christ (see 2 Nephi 28:9, 15; Alma 1:16).

The "doctrine" of Jesus Christ is declared by him to consist of the following: "And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34). The Book of Mormon, of course, contains more information about both human and divine things than the fulness of the gospel, which is the doctrine of Jesus Christ. But the additional historical information, as well as the norms, descriptions, emblems, figures, images, tenets, categories, and instructions are never identified as "doctrine." That word is reserved for the core message that Jesus is the Christ--the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind. Everything else is strictly subordinated to the one "doctrine of Christ," by which we may "know how to come unto Christ and be saved" (see 1 Nephi 15:14), for it is the Redeemer who is the way of salvation, the way, truth, life, light, and so forth--that being the one and only doctrine identified as such in the Book of Mormon. What we need is a commentary on the Book of Mormon--one that begins with an examination of the conception of doctrine found in the text, and not a doctrinal or doctrinaire commentary. When we get clear on exactly what constitutes the doctrine of Jesus Christ, we are able to understand the term "anti-Christ," for they who teach false, vain or foolish "doctrines" are those who deny the doctrine that Jesus is the Christ.

"Doctrine" (usually in the singular, as opposed to the plural form, as in "false doctrines") identifies the gospel understood as faith, repentance, and baptism--how to come unto Christ to be saved. It does not identify the whole range or complex of opinions, speculation or beliefs about divine and human things, or the rites, practices, and traditions that go into the making of a contemporary Mormon; it is, instead, the most primary, elementary, plain teachings of Jesus Christ. Ironically, Doctrinal Commentary rests upon an understanding of doctrine which is foreign to the text upon which it comments. This is obviously innocent, and would be harmless except that the careless use of the word "doctrine" leads McConkie and Millet to pay inordinate attention to the details of beliefs as currently understood, beliefs they think of as crucial doctrines concerning which one must have the right opinion in order to be saved. On this matter it is instructive that after Jesus declared his doctrine to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11:31-39), he added that "whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it as my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them" (3 Nephi 11:40).

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1424&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

There is simply too much inconsistency in administering discipline. Elder Oaks and Christofferson admitted as much in their TribTalk interview. Here are a few things that would add to greater consistency.

 

Define advocacy- At what point to sharing a personal opinion cross into advocacy and trying to "lead people astray"?

 

Define doctrine- Can someone share a statement of church doctrine which clearly demonstrates how members can uniformly determine what is and isn't official doctrine?

 

Canonize the new creed- Let members know which teachings they are required to believe and which they may have a little more lattitude with.

I'm curious what is the inconsistency too. I'm sure there is some, but since I don't pay attention to many cases of discipline I wonder what is meant by inconsistency.

For instance, Dehlin was excommunicated because he created a public forum which he used to consistently argue against the core elements of the Church. Who else has done that and has not received discipline? What I'm concerned about from this is Dehlin has made people fear discipline. Normal members who support SSM, like me, don't need to worry that we're going to have the Danites come after us. But Dehlin tried real hard to make it seem like anyone who is a supporter of LGBT rights or womens issues need to worry. How did he do that? He forced his SP in August to respond to questions about these issues. These issues weren't brought to him, but he wanted them to be recorded as saying something about them, it seems.

I really don't know that consistency is a problem.

[stemelbow]

I think he is saying Kelly has been scornful to women like his wife…as you brought to his attention (her quotes condemning other feminists, etc)

That is what I had in mind. Thanks. I might have misremembered the particulars though, so I apologize to Juliann if I did.

[Tacenda]

My own faith crisis was totally independent of Dehlin, I didn't hear of him for years after it started, and then only after I started to go to internet sites such as NOM. If not for StayLDS I would not be an active member today - I have no doubt about that. Dehlin was a founder of StayLDS but has never been an active participant. Since 2008 when the site started he has 159 posts there, the most recent of which was December. In comparison, the most active admin there has over 12,000 posts, and the other admins are all in the 3-4,000 range. As an active participant in StayLDS, I don't think anyone there can blame Dehlin for their disaffection - almost all were already disaffected. StayLDS can claim to complete it's mission for most - most who actively participate there also remain active in the church (at least at some level).

That said, I am not defending Dehlin in any way. I do believe he led people away from the church and I do believe that is a major reason for his excommunication. However, he disavowed the StayLDS model years ago. As one who has been significantly helped by that site, I resent that people vilify the site and connect it to Dehlin.

I don't mean to vilify it. One thing that stands out though and it's since been taken down I believe, is their link about Joseph possibly using hallucinogens to get visions, it's on Mormon Think still I believe, but it could have been a nail to my coffin at one time. And wouldn't have seen it were it not on Stay LDS. I did ask Fair LDS about it afterwards. Maybe someone on here is one of the volunteers that helped me, through no fault of their own, they didn't have an answer, it was new to them.

So if a site is trying to help members stay why put that information out, when it's not proven?

Edited February 11, 2015 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

Oh my gosh- listen to yourself!!

 

"God's law doesn't change- Period" unless this, or that, or the other thing that we don't yet know about

 

That's like saying science doesn't change, we just learn more.   So there was no "change" from Newton to Einstein in your book- we just got to know more.

 

Now THAT is a very strange definition of "unchanging" if you ask me.  But if it floats your boat, fine.  Just don't expect others to know what you are talking about when you say that "God's law doesn't change".

 

I know, sometimes polygamy is right sometimes wrong, sometimes people of the wrong race hold the priesthood, sometimes not, sometimes Adam is God, sometimes not, but that is not "change".  It's learning MORE!

 

Yes, I think I am getting the hang of this already. 

 

  - I think I very clearly differentiated between continuing revelation providing further light and knowledge, and continuing revelation NOT changing God's eternal truths.

 

Just because you and your patented brand of mockery disagree (bet that came in handy as a Bishop) doesn't make my opinion or explanation any less valid.

 

God's law doesn't change.  Period.  This is my position.  God just changes how much he reveals to us.  He may reveal further information but the rulebook he is working from is eternal and unchanging.  As relates to this thread and my response to Mormonnewb, this means that SSM and OW may not be progression (further truth) but may instead violate the rulebook which means God simply can't ever authorize them.

 

Resume your mockery...

[stemelbow]

That doesn't make sense that the previous SP "couldn't approach" Dehlin. They met multiple times to discuss his issues. It was that previous SP who cleared John to baptize his son.

I don't know what doesn't make sense. Just because they talked doesn't mean he was willing and able to confront Dehlin about the things he has said and done. Apparently he didn't feel comfortable doing that.

I agree that Dehlin has greatly exaggerated SSM/OW advocacy as causes of his church discipline but we can't say they weren't on President King's mind as he did bring them up with respect to the DC (not referring to the Aug '14 transcript... Unfortunately I can't access the doc that mentions it due to MS.org being overloaded).

Anything could have been on his mind. It was tough reading the transcript in that Dehlin kept trying to make the discussion about something that King and Jensen were not interested in. They didn't have SSM and OW on their mind. Dehlin did. The sneaky thing was Dehlin was recording it all. They did not say discipline had anything to do with those issues. He wanted to record them saying something about those issues, though. It was terribly underhanded and it's terribly unfortunate to say something like, "well it could have been on their minds" when there is no reason to think that.

That said, that SSM/OW were on the SP's mind does NOT mean they were the reasons for Dehlin's excommunication. And Dehlin should be celebrating the fact that they weren't! And the fact that the Church keeps saying they weren't. He seems to be going a little off the rails. He's also ridiculously downplaying his public statements of non-belief and their role in his excommunication.

He's playing a game, it seems to me.

[Avatar4321]

Nope, but if they listened to Joseph Smith they would set them free.

 

 

 

So your advice to the German saints if you went back in time would be active opposition to the Nazi regime and get the Mormons added to those sent to the camps? I am not sure I would see this as a moral thing to do. I think the advice of the Priesthood leaders of the time was probably best, that is, to gather to Zion.

 

 

 

Nope, but the gospel already teaches charity and the like so it was already there.

 

 

 

And here we come to the crux of the matter. We know which side history is on. This is the way things are going. We will be reviled for our stance. It is amazing how many prophets with a sure word of prophecy we have in the world isn't it?

 

The people fighting to keep gays from getting dragged behind trucks were those practicing charity. Joining the marriage equality campaign is a cheap way of casting oneself as a hero. I have more respect for a guy collecting money for textbooks for underprivileged schools then I do a thousand people in favor of gay marriage. One is unsung discipleship. The other is joining a party movement and being lauded for almost no sacrifice.

 

"For they love the high seats"

particularly with number two, one of the commandments we have received is to obey the laws of the land. How does that play into it all?

if we are obeying the Lord and submitting to the Laws.of the land can we promote issurrection against tryanical governments?

[Avatar4321]

I can understand why you think I revel in our (relatively minor) public scorn.  After all, I predicted such and we all know how prideful I am and how much I like to be right (I'm certainly alone on this board in that capacity).

 

However, just to be clear, I do NOT revel in the thought of the conversations I will have with my liberal friends asking, "So why do you belong to such a backwards church?"  I'd much rather talk about a topic that is much more interesting (i.e., ME, my current business plans, my kids, and all other things Newb).  Instead, I'll be taking away valuable Newb-discussion time saying things like, "I know what it looks like, but trust me, on an individual basis, Mormons are kind-hearted, loving and generous Christians.  And yes, collectively, we're a little slow to come around to modern ways of thinking, but don't give up on us yet.  We'll get there!  Pray for us, Brother/Sister!"

 

Fortunately, this is a much bigger deal within Mormonism than without, so I don't expect to have this conversation more than a half-dozen times or so; that is, until we have our next heresy trial (which I predict will be sometime this summer).

why don't you use opportunities you at clearly given to invite your friends to read the Book of Mormon and meet with the missionaries to find out for themselves. Many of us would die for those missionary opportunities.

there is no need to be embarrassed about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 That word is reserved for the core message that Jesus is the Christ--the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind. Everything else is strictly subordinated to the one "doctrine of Christ," by which we may "know how to come unto Christ and be saved

So, according to this, the only doctrine is the divinity of Christ and taken just a little further the 4th article of faith; faith, repentance, baptism, gift of holy ghost.

 

If this is correct one could openly share opinions that the BoA & BoM are fiction (as JD was accused). One could be free not to believe the foundational events of the restoration (first vision, priesthood restoration etc) All that would be required is faith in Christ which could of course be found in numerous denonimations.

 

ETA- Kevin, your reference is from the Maxwell Institute. Is there anything official directly from the church or its leaders? We can find many opinions about what is and isn't doctrine but I've yet to see a working doctrine of doctrine from the church.

 

 

 

I'm curious what is the inconsistency too. I'm sure there is some, but since I don't pay attention to many cases of discipline I wonder what is meant by inconsistency.

 

There is incredible inconsistency if one dares to look. Inconsistency in when different leaders will hold DC's for various sins or what is considered apostacy. There are NUMEROUS  examples of individuals who openly advocate against official doctrines or openly mock leaders. Think of Feminist Mormon Housewives, Infants on Thrones podcast, Ordain Women board, LGBT activists. Many of these individuals are more strident than John. So what is the difference? The size of his following? Does his popularity make him more evil and worthy of eternal damnation? Or is it his tone? KK was exed and her tone was cited as one of the problems because she was strident in her activities and opinions. In many ways John is also being disciplined for his tone, but for the opposite reason. His tone is generally more mellow and welcoming to members. He's seen as more of a gateway into the challenging history of the church. Because he of his tone he was often considered "safe" by some members.

 

Apparently tone matters a lot. Don't be too strident in your tone (appear as a wolf) but also don't appear too welcoming (wolf in sheeps clothing),

Edited February 11, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Mystery Meat]

So, according to this, the only doctrine is the divinity of Christ and taken just a little further the 4th article of faith; faith, repentance, baptism, gift of holy ghost.

 

If this is correct one could openly share opinions that the BoA & BoM are fiction (as JD was accused). One could be free not to believe the foundational events of the restoration (first vision, priesthood restoration etc) All that would be required is faith in Christ which could of course be found in numerous denonimations.

 

There is incredible inconsistency if one dares to look. Inconsistency in when different leaders will hold DC's for various sins or what is considered apostacy. There are NUMEROUS  examples of individuals who openly advocate against official doctrines or openly mock leaders. Think of Feminist Mormon Housewives, Infants on Thrones podcast, Ordain Women board, LGBT activists. Many of these individuals are more strident than John. So what is the difference? The size of his following? Does his popularity make him more evil and worthy of eternal damnation? Or is it his tone? KK was exed and her tone was cited as one of the problems because she was strident in her activities and opinions. In many ways John is also being disciplined for his tone, but for the opposite reason. His tone is generally more mellow and welcoming to members. He's seen as more of a gateway into the challenging history of the church. Because he of his tone he was often considered "safe" by some members.

 

Apparently tone matters a lot. Don't be too strident in your tone (appear as a wolf) but also don't appear too welcoming (wolf in sheeps clothing),

 

This inconsistency is the beauty of the Gospel. Each of God's children are different. God, being perfect, can treat both you and me differently in virtually the same exact situation. If both me and you committed adultery, perhaps I would be excommunicated and you would not. I have no problem with that. What if the SP, moved upon by the Holy Spirit, knew that my repentance process would be best served with me out of the Church, and your SP, moved upon by the Holy Spirit, knew that keeping you in was the correct move? Can't both be right? The type of consistency you speak of seems so boring and quite frankly out of sync with a loving and perfect God who can help each of us individually return to Him. Of course, our leaders aren't perfect and will make mistakes, but I think they have earned the benefit of the doubt and get it right FAR, FAR, FAR more often than not on these types of things. 

[Avatar4321]

Well after reading most of this thread and other things out there all I can say is I am glad it is all over.

John made this a media circus. In that I am disappointed.

I am also disappointed that it seems clear doubts about the church's fundamental truth claims best not be broadcasted to publicly if one wants to maintain membership. This anonymity for some may still be a good thing if they seek to discuss such issues on a forum like this.

But mostly I am sick of it all. There are so much more important things that need addressing really. Again I am glad it is over and I am not surprised how it ended up.

I am glad it's over for now and I hope John eventually returns.

I do think it's less the case that he is sharing his doubts and more that he is encouraging others to doubt

[rockpond]

I don't know what doesn't make sense. Just because they talked doesn't mean he was willing and able to confront Dehlin about the things he has said and done. Apparently he didn't feel comfortable doing that.

Anything could have been on his mind. It was tough reading the transcript in that Dehlin kept trying to make the discussion about something that King and Jensen were not interested in. They didn't have SSM and OW on their mind. Dehlin did. The sneaky thing was Dehlin was recording it all. They did not say discipline had anything to do with those issues. He wanted to record them saying something about those issues, though. It was terribly underhanded and it's terribly unfortunate to say something like, "well it could have been on their minds" when there is no reason to think that.

He's playing a game, it seems to me.

 

It makes sense to me when you use "confront" instead of "approach".  Clearly the previous SP was able to approach Dehlin.  But I guess he felt too apprehensive about confronting him.  Which makes sense given the circumstances.

 

I don't know if it's a "game" or if he really thinks that he was excommunicated for his SSM/OW advocacy and his SP is just intentionally misleading everyone.  I suppose he's having a hard time looking at those among his supporters who were disciplined for those reasons and struggling to understand how it's not a part of his DC.

 

I really wish he'd celebrate the fact that both his local leaders and the church are insisting that he wasn't excommunicated for anything to do with SSM and OW.  He's an advocate for them... he should be happy about that.

[stemelbow]

There is incredible inconsistency if one dares to look. Inconsistency in when different leaders will hold DC's for various sins or what is considered apostacy. There are NUMEROUS  examples of individuals who openly advocate against official doctrines or openly mock leaders. Think of Feminist Mormon Housewives, Infants on Thrones podcast, Ordain Women board, LGBT activists.

Who are the individuals from these groups that local leaders could identify and call out? I read on FMH, I've listened to Infants on Thrones (a few of them), I've seen OW, I've interacted with LGBT activists. I don't know who would be a candidate of a member who is posing arguments against the core teachings of the Church. Not in any of them.

Many of these individuals are more strident than John. So what is the difference?

As far as I know, the Infants on Thrones crew aren't members anymore, for instance. They left themselves as I recall. OW had their leader and others go through discipline so that seems to support consistency. Who from FMH and LGBT activists do you have in mind which would demonstrate inconsistency?

The size of his following? Does his popularity make him more evil and worthy of eternal damnation?

To be fair nobody looks at ex-communication that way. It may be a wake up call. Nobody from what I've seen has called Dehlin evil or worthy of eternal damnation. But, I'm sure the size of the following has something to do with it. If the following is small local leaders won't, most like, even know about it.

Or is it his tone? KK was exed and her tone was cited as one of the problems because she was strident in her activities and opinions. In many ways John is also being disciplined for his tone, but for the opposite reason. His tone is generally more mellow and welcoming to members. He's seen as more of a gateway into the challenging history of the church. Because he of his tone he was often considered "safe" by some members.

I'm not sure tone has much to do with it regarding Dehlin, even if, as I recall, a Church spokesperson reference Kelly's tone as a problem, I'm not sure that was a factor in her ex'ing either.

 

Apparently tone matters a lot. Don't be too strident in your tone (appear as a wolf) but also don't appear too welcoming (wolf in sheeps clothing),

Tone is a problem to discussing issues and to presenting loyalties. I'm not sure it factors into the cause of excommunication.

[KevinG]

Happy... People are allowed to fill their cup as it were. We don't just unleash the harshest possible consequence the moment someone gets out of line. Even with Dehlin there is ample evidence he was given many chances to repent. I'm sure it was the same with others.

Are you truly trying to advocate for quicker discipline against those in error? That's what you sound like.

If not, beong slow to excommunicate a man intentionally pulling people away from the gospel is a pretty lame complaint about the whole situation.

The tone, as it were, is individual and handled confidentially with members who are struggling. The Bishops and Stake Presidents counseling with those individuals, and called and inspired by God, determine the best course o action to assist those Saints who will be saved. Consistency is not a benefit in that case. It would be tyranny.

Edited February 11, 2015 by KevinG

[stemelbow]

It makes sense to me when you use "confront" instead of "approach".  Clearly the previous SP was able to approach Dehlin.  But I guess he felt too apprehensive about confronting him.  Which makes sense given the circumstances.

Sure. Lacking courage was used as the reason to not confront or approach the topics taken up by King. he probably realized Dehlin would tell his followers, and his followers would hate him and denounce him. He probably didn't wan tto suffer the consequences that King's family suffered. Which Dehlin expressed sympathy for but then went ahead and posted the private conversation which added nothing for Dehlin but could only be seen as an attack on King--since King asked a couple of times not to record or repeat.

 

I don't know if it's a "game" or if he really thinks that he was excommunicated for his SSM/OW advocacy and his SP is just intentionally misleading everyone.

The excommunication was put in writing. The reason for the action was written down. Are you saying the president really wanted Dehlin out because he supported LBGT or women issues but never brought these issues up, until after Dehlin pressed him about these issues, and never included it as a reason to excommunicate?

 

I suppose he's having a hard time looking at those among his supporters who were disciplined for those reasons and struggling to understand how it's not a part of his DC.

 

So he adds it in as part of it? His whole point it seems to get anonymous stories, which no one can verify, was to show inconsistency among local leaders. It wouldn't make sense that he thought it should have been a part of his excommunication if he already felt there was inconsistency.

 

I really wish he'd celebrate the fact that both his local leaders and the church are insisting that he wasn't excommunicated for anything to do with SSM and OW.  He's an advocate for them... he should be happy about that.

he probably will when he realizes he's been caught. I think that's the game he'll play then he'll really push people in the Church to make loud stinks about certain things said by Church leaders or certain actions sanctioned by the Church. When individuals make a big enough stink, they too will probably get called in and questioned about their beliefs and some may be disciplined for apostasy (because they too will be, most likely, in opposition with the Church regarding it's core teachings). And he'll go back to promoting the Church will discipline you for following your conscience and for advocating for equal rights.

Edited February 11, 2015 by stemelbow

[Avatar4321]

Please pass the cheese to go with my whine.

Also, as much as I don't want to admit this, I often wonder if MS's wasn't there, nor Stay LDS, if I'd have gone over the edge so to speak.

Those sites led me to unchartered waters, which also led me to Fair LDS, with a whole new ocean of topics I'd never heard of.

Not playing the blame game, just wondering if stopping John earlier would have helped. But maybe after ex'g the September Six etc the church is going slower on the uptake.

well you may have gone over the edge but we have a rope over the side, well more an iron rod. I hope it helps you find your way back up

[rockpond]

The excommunication was put in writing. The reason for the action was written down. Are you saying the president really wanted Dehlin out because he supported LBGT or women issues but never brought these issues up, until after Dehlin pressed him about these issues, and never included it as a reason to excommunicate?

 

No... just trying to get into Dehlin's head a bit.  I suspect that the SP probably didn't like Dehlin's SSM/OW advocacy.  I know that my SP doesn't like it.  But I think that the SP excommunicated Dehlin for the reasons he gave.  Which, as I've stated, seem like solid reasons to me.

 

It wouldn't make sense that he thought it should have been a part of his excommunication if he already felt there was inconsistency.

 

I think Dehlin sees the inconsistency as still leaning toward the side where people get disciplined for SSM/OW advocacy.  I'm not saying I agree... I'm just saying what I think Dehlin sees/believes.  And I think that he wants to highlight that perceived problem.  But he isn't justified in the way that he is using his disciplinary process to do it.

[stemelbow]

No... just trying to get into Dehlin's head a bit.  I suspect that the SP probably didn't like Dehlin's SSM/OW advocacy.  I know that my SP doesn't like it.  But I think that the SP excommunicated Dehlin for the reasons he gave.  Which, as I've stated, seem like solid reasons to me.

 

 

I think Dehlin sees the inconsistency as still leaning toward the side where people get disciplined for SSM/OW advocacy.  I'm not saying I agree... I'm just saying what I think Dehlin sees/believes.  And I think that he wants to highlight that perceived problem.  But he isn't justified in the way that he is using his disciplinary process to do it.

And I guess that's the point. If he thinks he can feel that way, then the problem is his. Because it's obvious he has no grounding whatsoever to think he was disciplined for those reasons. The reasons are in writing. To pretend the reasons are something not written because he doesn't like King is just backwards and not justifiable.

[HappyJackWagon]

Who are the individuals from these groups that local leaders could identify and call out? I read on FMH, I've listened to Infants on Thrones (a few of them), I've seen OW, I've interacted with LGBT activists. I don't know who would be a candidate of a member who is posing arguments against the core teachings of the Church. Not in any of them.

As far as I know, the Infants on Thrones crew aren't members anymore, for instance. They left themselves as I recall. OW had their leader and others go through discipline so that seems to support consistency. Who from FMH and LGBT activists do you have in mind which would demonstrate inconsistency?

To be fair nobody looks at ex-communication that way. It may be a wake up call. Nobody from what I've seen has called Dehlin evil or worthy of eternal damnation. But, I'm sure the size of the following has something to do with it. If the following is small local leaders won't, most like, even know about it.

 

Many of the IoT group are still members and have never been called in for a DC. If you're not aware how their opinions differ from the church I'm not sure what you were listening to

 

The entire process of excommunication is a deliberate verdict of unworthiness. His baptism, priesthood, and eternal marriage have been stripped which damns him eternally, according to church teachings. If excommunication was only intended to remove a person from membership that would be a much different story. But having men pass judgement to remove ordinances like temple sealings (which they don't even have authority to grant in the first place) is going far beyond removal of membership.

[stemelbow]

Many of the IoT group are still members and have never been called in for a DC. If you're not aware how their opinions differ from the church I'm not sure what you were listening to

Ok. So I recall listening to an episode wherein they all pretty much said they weren't members anymore except one. But I could be mistaken. I confuse things all the time. If any were called in for a DC to be clear, they all believe similarly to Dehlin on the core elements of the Church. I'm not sure why this is listed as an inconsistency if as you say they have been called in and each one of them rejects many to most of the core teachings of the Church.

 

The entire process of excommunication is a deliberate verdict of unworthiness. His baptism, priesthood, and eternal marriage have been stripped which damns him eternally, according to church teachings. If excommunication was only intended to remove a person from membership that would be a much different story. But having men pass judgement to remove ordinances like temple sealings (which they don't even have authority to grant in the first place) is going far beyond removal of membership.

I know this. I'm just saying most see excommunication as necessary for people to straighten out their life. Most do not treat it as a means to cast people to eternal damnation because the excommunicated still can and quite often does repent and come back.

[HappyJackWagon]

This inconsistency is the beauty of the Gospel. Each of God's children are different. God, being perfect, can treat both you and me differently in virtually the same exact situation. If both me and you committed adultery, perhaps I would be excommunicated and you would not. I have no problem with that. What if the SP, moved upon by the Holy Spirit, knew that my repentance process would be best served with me out of the Church, and your SP, moved upon by the Holy Spirit, knew that keeping you in was the correct move? Can't both be right? The type of consistency you speak of seems so boring and quite frankly out of sync with a loving and perfect God who can help each of us individually return to Him. Of course, our leaders aren't perfect and will make mistakes, but I think they have earned the benefit of the doubt and get it right FAR, FAR, FAR more often than not on these types of things. 

I understand why you might think this but this kind of inconsistency creates uncertainty which causes stress and pain. I agree every situation is different and should not be treated with a one size fits all kind of approach, however, this method presupposes that each of these men passing judgement have accurate understanding of the gospel and the ramifications of their decision AND have inerrant revelation from God in every case. This is not the case.

 

This leaves us with the dquivalent potential of an innocent person being sent to death row. They are separated from their community and sometimes even their family and in some cases the only reason for this may be a leaders misunderstanding or misinterpretation of "apostacy". It is impossible to believe that every SP or Bishop always gets these judgements right and in TBM belief these decisions hold eternal ramifications, not to mention the stress and pain in this life. Too much error. Too much inconsistency.

 

I can think of 2 simple solutions.

 

1- Eliminate the DC process altogether.

2- Treat formal discipline as only an issue of membership in the church, and dispense with the eternal implications.