John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[CMZ]

This is false. kate was advocating for women to hold the priesthood by saying that they must have it to achieve any form of equality.

 

Which I always thought was her fundamental error, assuming that receiving priesthood ordination would elevate women to the level of men when equality was already in place.

[stemelbow]

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.

What about appeals? Anyone wrongfully ex'd can appeal.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

 

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.

1- It's inconsistent because people with the same or even harsher views don't face the same punishments, in many cases simply because of their leader's personal views.

 

2- Maybe they should view it this way because this is the practical impact within church teachings. Sure the person could repent, but in the mean time they have had their baptism revoked (they cannot enter the kingdom of God) and have their sealings cancelled (cannot be with family for eternity). These are some pretty harsh punishments for running a podcast that discusses problems with church history/doctrine/culture, don't you think?

[rockpond]

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.

 

I don't think it's that he doesn't like King.  I think it's that he sees Kelly as having been ex'd for her OW advocacy, he knows other people who claim to have been disciplined for SSM advocacy, and it's like he feels those *have* to be at least part of the reason for his DC.

 

Please don't read that as me defending his position.  Just trying to understand it.

[HappyJackWagon]

What about appeals? Anyone wrongfully ex'd can appeal.

I'd be REALLY curious if anyone is aware of an appeal working in favor of the person convicted in the DC. There are many present/former bishopric & SP members on this board. Is anyone aware of an appeal working? I'm not.

[mfbukowski]

  - 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...

I sincerely apologize for our misunderstanding, it was not at all my intent to mock you or anything else.  There is no place for that kind of behavior among church members, and I hope you can forgive me.

 

I won't respond to you any longer because we misunderstand each other so badly.  I wish you well, and again apologize deeply that I have offended you- that was not my intent.

[stemelbow]

1- It's inconsistent because people with the same or even harsher views don't face the same punishments, in many cases simply because of their leader's personal views.

But Dehlin wasn't ex'd only for his views, but that he preached those views in an effort to undermine the Church. Most often people with different views aren't ex'd from the Church, as I've seen. They are treated kindly in hopes they come around. I was hoping to see an example of inconsistency since it is so prominent. But I don't see any inconsistency in the examples you've given. I only see consistency.

 

2- Maybe they should view it this way because this is the practical impact within church teachings. Sure the person could repent, but in the mean time they have had their baptism revoked (they cannot enter the kingdom of God) and have their sealings cancelled (cannot be with family for eternity). These are some pretty harsh punishments for running a podcast that discusses problems with church history/doctrine/culture, don't you think?

I'm not really into excommunication so my views probably differ from the norm. If it was a wrongful action by his SP, then let God judge, I say. If he was wrongfully stripped of eternal blessing, God will reconcile.

[Boanerges]

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?

 

Things end up on StayLDS the same way they do here - someone posts something, usually a question or a "Hey, look what I found, what do you think?"  Frankly I've never heard the hallucinogen thing, but it doesn't bother me because I'm at peace where I am with Joseph Smith. I don't see that things like the use of hallucinogens are generally posted on the home page of StayLDS (which doesn't appear to have changed in a few years, actually) and the main part of StayLDS is the forum. I could see Dehlin or someone else posting something like that on his own page and it being discussed on StayLDS or any number of other sites, including this one (which is more open and less moderated than StayLDS). You could just as well have seen that here or even on the LDS.net forum or somewhere else on this marvelous internet. You're saying something along the lines of "If my kid didn't hang out with so-and-so down the street he'd never would have learned about pre-marital sex." That's not true - he would have learned it anyway, you can't blame the kid down the street. Put another way, what if it was the church essays on polygamy that knocked you off balance? They certainly did throw some people for a loop. Is the church's website therefore bad because that's where you saw it? StayLDS is not the enemy, they are not evil, and they don't do as Dehlin did and lead people away from the church.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Boanerges

[CMZ]

 

I'm not really into excommunication so my views probably differ from the norm. If it was a wrongful action by his SP, then let God judge, I say. If he was wrongfully stripped of eternal blessing, God will reconcile.

 

Which still leaves me wondering why he wants to be in the Church if he doesn't believe in it.

[Boanerges]

I'd be REALLY curious if anyone is aware of an appeal working in favor of the person convicted in the DC. There are many present/former bishopric & SP members on this board. Is anyone aware of an appeal working? I'm not.

 I'm not either, and I was shocked when Oaks and Christofferson mentioned there were some in the Trib Talk. (former bishopric twice, current HC)

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

 

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.

SNIP

Perhaps you did not notice who Midgley was quoting in order to define what doctrine really is:

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).

Jesus seems to be quite clear on the topic, and he strikes me as somone well placed to speak with authority. Even if he is quoted in full by someone from the Maxwell Institute, it is, after all, a direct quote.

Also, notice this from Hugh Nibley's relevant talk "Criticizing the Brethren"

Excommunication was the limit of their authority and is the only power to punish which the Church has ever had. It is not the same power of excommunication claimed by the Roman church, where excommunication means the same as damnation. It is for God alone to judge and pronounce a sentence of eternal salvation or damnation, and that only when the time comes, as the Lord told the disciples at Capernaum (cf. Mark 3:28—29). The Lord told Alma that after being cut off from the Church, any who confessed and repented were to be forgiven out of hand, even as often as they repented (Mosiah 26:30—31). After that they were not to be judged or criticized by other members of the Church for what they had done.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1094&index=18

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[The Nehor]

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?

The order to obey the law of the land is obviously meant to be limited.

While that command was in force by great-great grandfather was burning federal army supply wagons as part of the Utah War under orders from the Prophet. I generally obey the laws of the land as long as they do not conflict with the laws and commands of God. I still speed though.

[USU78]

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.

 

Yup.

 

That's when it became crystal clear where he was and what he wanted.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps you did not notice who Midgley was quoting in order to define what doctrine really is:

Jesus seems to be quite clear on the topic, and he strikes me as somone well placed to speak with authority. Even if he is quoted in full by someone from the Maxwell Institute, it is, after all, a direct quote.

 

 

Who cares what this Jesus guy said. Find me somebody who really knows what he's talking about.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Who cares what this Jesus guy said. Find me somebody who really knows what he's talking about.

Though it is funny there are those in the very thread that have that mentality.

[CMZ]

I still speed though.

 

Not a problem if you're driving safely. And less of a problem if there's no people/cars around to potentially hurt.

[Calm]

I don't think it's that he doesn't like King. I think it's that he sees Kelly as having been ex'd for her OW advocacy, he knows other people who claim to have been disciplined for SSM advocacy, and it's like he feels those *have* to be at least part of the reason for his DC.

Please don't read that as me defending his position. Just trying to understand it.

I think it is more likely he has been trying to position himself as a leading advocate for LBGT and Women's rights and needs to be excommunicated for those reasons to add credibility to that positioning. As such an advocate even as a nonmember he could retain relevance for the media and others, as a nonmember who is pushing for greater transparency in the Church's teachings and finances---his former main talking points imo---not so much.

That is why he keeps insisting it is for those reasons inspite of the evidence.

Edited February 11, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Though it is funny there are those in the very thread that have that mentality.

'Twould be funnier if it weren't so exasperating.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm still wondering how his whole family feels about this whole situation and if they will go inactive. I would feel embarrassed if this was my dad.

[rockpond]

I think it is more likely he has been trying to position himself as a leading advocate for LBGT and Women's rights and needs to be excommunicated for those reasons to add credibility to that positioning. As such an advocate even as a nonmember he could retain relevance for the media and others, as a nonmember who is pushing for greater transparency in the Church's teachings and finances---his former main talking points imo---not so much.

That is why he keeps insisting it is for those reasons inspite of the evidence.

 

I agree.  And I don't see what you said and what I said as mutually exclusive.

[rockpond]

I'm still wondering how his whole family feels about this whole situation and if they will go inactive. I would feel embarrassed if this was my dad.

 

If by "whole family" you refer to his wife and kids, they are already inactive.

[Tacenda]

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.

This makes me wonder how many TBM's are as out there as JD, and if there is a significant difference. I do know of a few actually, people like Carol Lynn Pearson, Barbara Young (Steve's wife) to name a few. I do remember Bishop Kloosterman advocating for the LGBT issues, who was TBM. Is he still a faithful mormon, or has he been disciplined.

I do know TR's have been taken for supporting OW or SSM. So it does vary from SP to SP. I listened to RadioWest with John Dehlin, and he brings that issue up that there isn't consistency in the church. Would this be a viable argument that the church needs to draw more lines?

[Buckeye]

I'm still wondering how his whole family feels about this whole situation and if they will go inactive. I would feel embarrassed if this was my dad.

 

His wife seemed to fully support him on Sunday. I don't know the family at all, but most kids look up to their parents. I assume his do as well.

[Buckeye]

This makes me wonder how many TBM's are as out there as JD, and if there is a significant difference. I do know of a few actually, people like Carol Lynn Pearson, Barbara Young (Steve's wife) to name a few. I do remember Bishop Kloosterman advocating for the LGBT issues, who was TBM. Is he still a faithful mormon, or has he been disciplined.

I do know TR's have been taken for supporting OW or SSM. So it does vary from SP to SP. I listened to RadioWest with John Dehlin, and he brings that issue up that there isn't consistency in the church. Would this be a viable argument that the church needs to draw more lines?

 

Last I heard, Kloosterman was active but had had his TR taken away for public support of SSM. Perhaps that will change in light of Elder Christofferson's remarks.

[mormonnewb]

Though it is funny there are those in the very thread that have that mentality.

 

That is one point on which we agree.  I just suspect that we are thinking about very different people.