John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[Kevin Christensen]

Yup.

 

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

Yep.. and then for emphasis, he adds 10 hours with Brent Metcalfe, and then Jeremy Runnells.

If I were a Bishop or SP in that ward or Stake, I think I'd have at least raised an eyebrow, and felt justified in asking to talk.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Calm]

An interesting point of view, imo, sorry for not adding more commentary at this time….I am about to be taken over by a sneeze:

 

http://mormonmidrashim.blogspot.jp/2015/02/three-meditations-on-one-excommunication.html

[why me]

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?

I think that members can support same sex marriage but not in a mormon context. No one can take a personal opinion away from someone. However, if support for same sex marriage means advocating for the church and attempting to get people involved within the church to pressure the church over the policy, then, I think there would be a problem.

 

Members can also support women getting the priesthood someday. No problem. However, members can not claim that the church must change its position on women and priesthood publically through the media as a pressure valve in the church. I know members who support ssm and nothing happens to them because it is their own opinion and they do not attempt to change church doctrine.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

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

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks, Kevin. Classy response. This is a very hospitable board sometimes.

 

Yes, I saw the scripture reference but what I'm trying to get at is the idea that the church has a much more complex working definition of doctrine that isn't addressed by this one scripture quote. If the church were satisfied with that definition so would I but I don't think they would limit the concept of doctrine to just accepting Christ. In fact JD's excommunication letter stated additional areas of belief they took issue with and his apparant "teaching" of false doctrine. Of course he couldn't "teach" a false doctrine unless it was contrary to a doctrine. But if the church truly only cared about the divinity of Christ as the ONLY doctrine then they wouldn't be upset with JD for sharing his doubts about the restoration or criticisms of current leaders etc.

 

PS- I've heard JD share many opinions but I've never heard him "teach" anything.

[Mystery Meat]

An interesting point of view, imo, sorry for not adding more commentary at this time….I am about to be taken over by a sneeze:

 

http://mormonmidrashim.blogspot.jp/2015/02/three-meditations-on-one-excommunication.html

 

Great read. Valuable insight.

[mormonnewb]

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'm going to take the extraordinary step of trying to be reasonable.  In that vein, I will agree that Dehlin's rejection of fundamental truth claims was the primary reason for his excommunication.  However, that does not mean that it was the ONLY reason.  His advocacy for SSM and OW might have been contributing factors in his DC.  And, on a wider scale, they are certainly factors in disciplinary action currently being taken against others.

 

I have a testimony of this truth because, by pure coincidence, I was called into my bishop's office just last night to discuss my OW profile.  Because Why Me will invariably cry "Yeah, right!" I'm coming out of the OW closet (wearing a strapless evening gown at that).

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-sean/

 

While this profile has been online for months, it came to his attention because I reposted it on FB on MLK Day (it seemed strangely appropriate). My bishop asked if I would be making any more public statements in support of OW.  I explained that my conscious (well, and his inquiry) would necessitate further public statements on my part.  We then had a very nice chat in which he explained the position of the Church on the matter and bore his testimony that God was in charge of His church.  For my part, I explained that the very blessings that I enjoy today were made possible by people who spoke up for "right" regardless of the consequences and that, in keeping alive that tradition, I was more than happy to bear whatever consequences he deemed appropriate, but that I would continue to speak up for my sisters (just as I have so often wished that saints of the past would have spoken up for their black brothers).  He didn't seem particularly inclined to take action against me at present (he didn't strip me of my calling) and explained that consequences (if any) would be determined by leaders at the stake level and we pretty much left it at that.

 

So for Dehlin (or anyone else) to claim that local leaders are "concerned" about outspoken advocacy of SSM and OW and that they might take action on those grounds alone is not an entirely unreasonable position.  In my yet-to-be-determined case, it is the ONLY ground for disciplinary action.  I have not publicly disavowed the truth of our scriptures and believe firmly in the atonement of Christ.

 

As a result, I do believe that there is SOME evidence to support Dehlin's contention about the REAL reason for his excommunication.  However, in light of my vow of reasonableness, I will concede that this evidence is not conclusive and that I am willing to accept that the primary reason for Dehlin's excommunication was his rejection of fundamental truth claims.  And so while some can reasonably dispute Dehlin's claim of being a 

"martyr" for these causes, the Church has created such a martyr in Sister Kelly and seems intent on creating others (and no, not me, they have much bigger fishes to fry).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Oh burn, you got me.

 

Oh well.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

 

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.

 

Bingo!

 

I find this conversation fascinating in light of Margaret Barker's discussion of the tension that erupted in Judaism c. 700-600 BC: the literal and spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees championed law over prophecy because, to them, prophecy was too messy, too inconsistent.

 

Do those who keep complaining about 'leader roulette' and advocating that clear lines be drawn instead not comprehend that they are desiring an LDS equivalent of Sharia Law?

Edited February 11, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[juliann]

 

 

As a result, I do believe that there is SOME evidence to support Dehlin's contention about the REAL reason for his excommunication.  However, in light of my vow of reasonableness, I will concede that this evidence is not conclusive and that I am willing to accept that the primary reason for Dehlin's excommunication was his rejection of fundamental truth claims.  And so while some can reasonably dispute Dehlin's claim of being a 

"martyr" for these causes, the Church has created such a martyr in Sister Kelly and seems intent on creating others (and no, not me, they have much bigger fishes to fry).

He was not exed because of "truth claims." It was his anti-church activism. Utah is known as the scam capital...why? Because Mormons tend to trust each other.  Not only that, but he was always stressing about his high connections and inside knowledge.  The church took away his niche. He has just lost the majority of his market. That is why he is now trying so hard to become a spokesman for more universal topics like women and gays. But that field is crowded with much more capable spokespeople that remain in the church.

 

 

At any rate, this is the best blog I have seen on this tired topic because it addresses the underlying need if one is to make a living from being a critic. He is, in a sense, in a cage of his own making.

 

http://mormonmidrashim.blogspot.jp/2015/02/three-meditations-on-one-excommunication.html

 

People listened. And not only did they listen, but some began to identify strongly with his work. This would have been particularly true, if my observations of human nature are correct, in instances when the sense of contrast and conflict John presented between himself and the Church was at its highest. Just as conservative Americans who feel disenchanted with the federal government seem drawn to a media aesthetic of outrage, a core demographic of liberal Mormons and ex-Mormons who felt disenchanted with their Church seem to have rallied early around John Dehlin as a voice of their pain.

John was able to monetize his online presence and earn a living. As his audience grew larger and more invested in the identity he was coming to represent, bigger and bigger media outlets began to see him as a credible and compelling voice in their coverage of Mormonism.

But being a voice of pain comes at a cost. You are expected to live in a state of perpetual pain and discontent. The John Dehlin who had worked on his own to process troubling experiences had every reason to come to peace with his concerns and find a place of overall harmony with his Church, even with ongoing personal differences on certain issues. As a podcaster and public figure, though, John stood to lose a great deal if he ever did find harmony. People expected him to be ready at all times to give a critique of the Church on the issues that were important to them, to empathize with their sense of disenfranchisement, to help them feel affirmed in their own sense of indignation.

 

[why me]

I'm going to take the extraordinary step of trying to be reasonable.  In that vein, I will agree that Dehlin's rejection of fundamental truth claims was the primary reason for his excommunication.  However, that does not mean that it was the ONLY reason.  His advocacy for SSM and OW might have been contributing factors in his DC.  And, on a wider scale, they are certainly factors in disciplinary action currently being taken against others.

 

I have a testimony of this truth because, by pure coincidence, I was called into my bishop's office just last night to discuss my OW profile.  Because Why Me will invariably cry "Yeah, right!" I'm coming out of the OW closet (wearing a strapless evening gown at that).

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-sean/

 

While this profile has been online for months, it came to his attention because I reposted it on FB on MLK Day (it seemed strangely appropriate). My bishop asked if I would be making any more public statements in support of OW.  I explained that my conscious (well, and his inquiry) would necessitate further public statements on my part.  We then had a very nice chat in which he explained the position of the Church on the matter and bore his testimony that God was in charge of His church.  For my part, I explained that the very blessings that I enjoy today were made possible by people who spoke up for "right" regardless of the consequences and that, in keeping alive that tradition, I was more than happy to bear whatever consequences he deemed appropriate, but that I would continue to speak up for my sisters (just as I have so often wished that saints of the past would have spoken up for their black brothers).  He didn't seem particularly inclined to take action against me at present (he didn't strip me of my calling) and explained that consequences (if any) would be determined by leaders at the stake level and we pretty much left it at that.

 

So for Dehlin (or anyone else) to claim that local leaders are "concerned" about outspoken advocacy of SSM and OW and that they might take action on those grounds alone is not an entirely unreasonable position.  In my yet-to-be-determined case, it is the ONLY ground for disciplinary action.  I have not publicly disavowed the truth of our scriptures and believe firmly in the atonement of Christ.

 

As a result, I do believe that there is SOME evidence to support Dehlin's contention about the REAL reason for his excommunication.  However, in light of my vow of reasonableness, I will concede that this evidence is not conclusive and that I am willing to accept that the primary reason for Dehlin's excommunication was his rejection of fundamental truth claims.  And so while some can reasonably dispute Dehlin's claim of being a 

"martyr" for these causes, the Church has created such a martyr in Sister Kelly and seems intent on creating others (and no, not me, they have much bigger fishes to fry).

kate publically advocated that women must have the priesthood. She took no middle ground. She challenged the church leadership and formed groups of women to publically advocate for women holding the priesthood. But you still just don't get it. I can assure you that if the church would have granted the wish of a small group of women, many women would have left the church and many men too. Even the pope could not tolerate a priest advocating for women ordination into the priesthood of the catholic church. John was not a supporter for gay rights for very long. Some say that it was a distraction so that if he were excommunicated he could use it as an excuse. Likewise for his support for ordain women. However, since you have publically declared that you support OW and publically advocate their positioin on your facebook when you post about mormonism, yes, you may be disciplined. Like I said, everyone can have a personal opinion but when one come out publically attempting to pressure the church to change its doctrine, that person may be disciplined and rightly so.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm coming out of the OW closet (wearing a strapless evening gown at that).

 

Lovely family, Sean!

[stemelbow]

Lovely family, Sean!

And may I say awesome OW profile.

[bluebell]

I'm going to take the extraordinary step of trying to be reasonable.  In that vein, I will agree that Dehlin's rejection of fundamental truth claims was the primary reason for his excommunication.  However, that does not mean that it was the ONLY reason.  His advocacy for SSM and OW might have been contributing factors in his DC.  And, on a wider scale, they are certainly factors in disciplinary action currently being taken against others.

 

I have a testimony of this truth because, by pure coincidence, I was called into my bishop's office just last night to discuss my OW profile.  Because Why Me will invariably cry "Yeah, right!" I'm coming out of the OW closet (wearing a strapless evening gown at that).

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-sean/

 

While this profile has been online for months, it came to his attention because I reposted it on FB on MLK Day (it seemed strangely appropriate). My bishop asked if I would be making any more public statements in support of OW.  I explained that my conscious (well, and his inquiry) would necessitate further public statements on my part.  We then had a very nice chat in which he explained the position of the Church on the matter and bore his testimony that God was in charge of His church.  For my part, I explained that the very blessings that I enjoy today were made possible by people who spoke up for "right" regardless of the consequences and that, in keeping alive that tradition, I was more than happy to bear whatever consequences he deemed appropriate, but that I would continue to speak up for my sisters (just as I have so often wished that saints of the past would have spoken up for their black brothers).  He didn't seem particularly inclined to take action against me at present (he didn't strip me of my calling) and explained that consequences (if any) would be determined by leaders at the stake level and we pretty much left it at that.

 

So for Dehlin (or anyone else) to claim that local leaders are "concerned" about outspoken advocacy of SSM and OW and that they might take action on those grounds alone is not an entirely unreasonable position.  In my yet-to-be-determined case, it is the ONLY ground for disciplinary action.  I have not publicly disavowed the truth of our scriptures and believe firmly in the atonement of Christ.

 

As a result, I do believe that there is SOME evidence to support Dehlin's contention about the REAL reason for his excommunication.  However, in light of my vow of reasonableness, I will concede that this evidence is not conclusive and that I am willing to accept that the primary reason for Dehlin's excommunication was his rejection of fundamental truth claims.  And so while some can reasonably dispute Dehlin's claim of being a 

"martyr" for these causes, the Church has created such a martyr in Sister Kelly and seems intent on creating others (and no, not me, they have much bigger fishes to fry).

 

 

Such a beautiful family!

[cinepro]

I'm going to take the extraordinary step of trying to be reasonable.  In that vein, I will agree that Dehlin's rejection of fundamental truth claims was the primary reason for his excommunication.  However, that does not mean that it was the ONLY reason.  His advocacy for SSM and OW might have been contributing factors in his DC.  And, on a wider scale, they are certainly factors in disciplinary action currently being taken against others.

 

I have a testimony of this truth because, by pure coincidence, I was called into my bishop's office just last night to discuss my OW profile.  Because Why Me will invariably cry "Yeah, right!" I'm coming out of the OW closet (wearing a strapless evening gown at that).

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-sean/

 

While this profile has been online for months, it came to his attention because I reposted it on FB on MLK Day (it seemed strangely appropriate). My bishop asked if I would be making any more public statements in support of OW.  I explained that my conscious (well, and his inquiry) would necessitate further public statements on my part.  We then had a very nice chat in which he explained the position of the Church on the matter and bore his testimony that God was in charge of His church.  For my part, I explained that the very blessings that I enjoy today were made possible by people who spoke up for "right" regardless of the consequences and that, in keeping alive that tradition, I was more than happy to bear whatever consequences he deemed appropriate, but that I would continue to speak up for my sisters (just as I have so often wished that saints of the past would have spoken up for their black brothers).  He didn't seem particularly inclined to take action against me at present (he didn't strip me of my calling) and explained that consequences (if any) would be determined by leaders at the stake level and we pretty much left it at that.

 

So for Dehlin (or anyone else) to claim that local leaders are "concerned" about outspoken advocacy of SSM and OW and that they might take action on those grounds alone is not an entirely unreasonable position.  In my yet-to-be-determined case, it is the ONLY ground for disciplinary action.  I have not publicly disavowed the truth of our scriptures and believe firmly in the atonement of Christ.

 

As a result, I do believe that there is SOME evidence to support Dehlin's contention about the REAL reason for his excommunication.  However, in light of my vow of reasonableness, I will concede that this evidence is not conclusive and that I am willing to accept that the primary reason for Dehlin's excommunication was his rejection of fundamental truth claims.  And so while some can reasonably dispute Dehlin's claim of being a 

"martyr" for these causes, the Church has created such a martyr in Sister Kelly and seems intent on creating others (and no, not me, they have much bigger fishes to fry).

 

 

Maybe you should have worn a strapless evening gown to your meeting with the Bishop...

[rpn]

I believed that my excommunication was unfair and unjust.   But I had a firm testimony that He is in charge of the church and doesn't let listening leaders mess up.   So either it was His will, or He wanted it to go forward (perhaps so he could hold a leader accountable ala the BofM story); and whatever the reason, He thought I'd learn something from it that would help me and in the meantime I'd be okay.  

 

And I do know someone whose appeal was granted.   Not my story to tell though.

 

And I think it was the Tanner and Tom Phillips interviews that got him excommunicated.

Edited February 11, 2015 by rpn

[USU78]

Maybe you should have worn a strapless evening gown to your meeting with the Bishop...

 

I'm going to have to put out my own eyes to get that mental image out of my head.

[USU78]

I believed that my excommunication was unfair and unjust.   But I had a firm testimony that He is in charge of the church and doesn't let listening leaders mess up.   So either it was His will, or He wanted it to go forward (perhaps so he could hold a leader accountable ala the BofM story); and whatever the reason, He thought I'd learn something from it that would help me and in the meantime I'd be okay.  

 

And I do know someone whose appeal was granted.   Not my story to tell though.

 

Avraham Gileadi, one of the so-called September Six, appealed his excommunication and was reinstated with apologies.

 

It's rare but not unheard of.

[Guest]

Now we can have a thread with the following title:

 

"Any Word On The 11:00 Am Press Conference?"

I think this is what he wants anyway....and you are probably right.

[mormonnewb]

I am thinking of those that think that when a prophet or apostle releases official statements or proclamations about doctrine that they think that leaves wiggle room for the law of chastity to change because of other statements, not related to it, have changed in the past.

 

Other wise, if you are thinking that people who take the prophets and apostles at their word when such is released, I have no idea who you could conclude that they would think that  "Who cares what this Jesus guy said. Find me somebody who really knows what he's talking about.", that you would have them in mind.

 

Oh well.

 

We actually have words that many of us presume to be directly from the mouth of Christ as recorded in the New Testament.  I believe we even have a few such words in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon.  So I would (respectfully) point out that we don't have to rely solely on the official statements and proclamations of modern prophets to follow Christ.  Now, don't get me wrong.

 

To the extent that their counsel amplifies and clarifies the teachings of Christ, we should take heed.  However, I think we should also take heed to not conflate living prophets with Christ Himself.  I'm not suggesting that you are doing such a thing, but I think there might be a tendency among some saints to ignore the fact that these inspired and godly men are ... well, men.  And as a result, they do not have perfect insight into the mind of HF.  After all, I believe that scripture teachings us that His ways are far above our ways and that there might be things that finite and fallible people don't understand.

[Mystery Meat]

We actually have words that many of us presume to be directly from the mouth of Christ as recorded in the New Testament.  I believe we even have a few such words in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon.  So I would (respectfully) point out that we don't have to rely solely on the official statements and proclamations of modern prophets to follow Christ.  Now, don't get me wrong.

 

To the extent that their counsel amplifies and clarifies the teachings of Christ, we should take heed.  However, I think we should also take heed to not conflate living prophets with Christ Himself.  I'm not suggesting that you are doing such a thing, but I think there might be a tendency among some saints to ignore the fact that these inspired and godly men are ... well, men.  And as a result, they do not have perfect insight into the mind of HF.  After all, I believe that scripture teachings us that His ways are far above our ways and that there might be things that finite and fallible people don't understand.

 

I suppose this is the great struggle, isn't it? Determining which (any, all) of the prophet's counsel is from God and amplifies His teachings. I think we have all been polluted/prejudiced by temporal influences, including our politics, culture and friends. Sometimes seeing the mind and will of the Lord through those things is challenging. I think in the next life, once those obstacles to a more perfect faith have been removed, we will all have things that we were so sure about, where the Lord corrects our silly, mortal understandings.

 

Let's just hope that such correction relates to things of little, lasting importance. 

[why me]

We actually have words that many of us presume to be directly from the mouth of Christ as recorded in the New Testament.  I believe we even have a few such words in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon.  So I would (respectfully) point out that we don't have to rely solely on the official statements and proclamations of modern prophets to follow Christ.  Now, don't get me wrong.

 

To the extent that their counsel amplifies and clarifies the teachings of Christ, we should take heed.  However, I think we should also take heed to not conflate living prophets with Christ Himself.  I'm not suggesting that you are doing such a thing, but I think there might be a tendency among some saints to ignore the fact that these inspired and godly men are ... well, men.  And as a result, they do not have perfect insight into the mind of HF.  After all, I believe that scripture teachings us that His ways are far above our ways and that there might be things that finite and fallible people don't understand.

You do have a nice family and you have a great photo with a byu sign in the background. But it is all rather sad to see you take the positions that you have taken in your posts. And also your support for OW and your public support for it on their site will eventually get you another talk with the bishop or SP. And it is unfortunate. Your family could do wonderful work in the black community as I told you before. And you can still do so. But you are heading down the wrong path and the black community which does need some of the wisdom of mormon doctrine will miss out but you could have taught the community much wisdom.

 

The southeran baptist position:

 

http://www.baptist2baptist.net/printfriendly.asp?ID=58

 

But they did eventually allow an ordination of a woman pastor. However the three churches that claim to be the true church are hold outs: LDS, Catholic, Orthodox.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/history-harlem-eva-duzant-ordained-female-minister-90-year-history-southern-baptist-church-article-1.1034728

 

On your OW page you said that you joined because the people were nice.

 

Hi, I’m Sean. I am a recent convert to the Church. My wife and I were baptized in May of 2011. We were initially drawn to investigate the Church because of numerous positive interactions with the Saints. We felt that there must be “something” to a tradition that produced some of the most kind and loving people we had ever encountered; and we were right.

 

 

This doesn't seem like a testimony to me. One should not have a testimony because of nice people because nice people can be not nice at times. Do you have a testimony of the book of mormon?

 

Now I can understand why you can be so hostile to certain church policies. One should have a testimony of the book of mormon, joseph smith, church teachings etc. And hopefully, the testimony is based on a genuine spiritual experience.

Edited February 11, 2015 by why me

[readstoomuch]

I'm going to take the extraordinary step of trying to be reasonable.  In that vein, I will agree that Dehlin's rejection of fundamental truth claims was the primary reason for his excommunication.  However, that does not mean that it was the ONLY reason.  His advocacy for SSM and OW might have been contributing factors in his DC.  And, on a wider scale, they are certainly factors in disciplinary action currently being taken against others.

 

I have a testimony of this truth because, by pure coincidence, I was called into my bishop's office just last night to discuss my OW profile.  Because Why Me will invariably cry "Yeah, right!" I'm coming out of the OW closet (wearing a strapless evening gown at that).

 

http://ordainwomen.org/project/hi-im-sean/

 

While this profile has been online for months, it came to his attention because I reposted it on FB on MLK Day (it seemed strangely appropriate). My bishop asked if I would be making any more public statements in support of OW.  I explained that my conscious (well, and his inquiry) would necessitate further public statements on my part.  We then had a very nice chat in which he explained the position of the Church on the matter and bore his testimony that God was in charge of His church.  For my part, I explained that the very blessings that I enjoy today were made possible by people who spoke up for "right" regardless of the consequences and that, in keeping alive that tradition, I was more than happy to bear whatever consequences he deemed appropriate, but that I would continue to speak up for my sisters (just as I have so often wished that saints of the past would have spoken up for their black brothers).  He didn't seem particularly inclined to take action against me at present (he didn't strip me of my calling) and explained that consequences (if any) would be determined by leaders at the stake level and we pretty much left it at that.

 

So for Dehlin (or anyone else) to claim that local leaders are "concerned" about outspoken advocacy of SSM and OW and that they might take action on those grounds alone is not an entirely unreasonable position.  In my yet-to-be-determined case, it is the ONLY ground for disciplinary action.  I have not publicly disavowed the truth of our scriptures and believe firmly in the atonement of Christ.

 

As a result, I do believe that there is SOME evidence to support Dehlin's contention about the REAL reason for his excommunication.  However, in light of my vow of reasonableness, I will concede that this evidence is not conclusive and that I am willing to accept that the primary reason for Dehlin's excommunication was his rejection of fundamental truth claims.  And so while some can reasonably dispute Dehlin's claim of being a 

"martyr" for these causes, the Church has created such a martyr in Sister Kelly and seems intent on creating others (and no, not me, they have much bigger fishes to fry).

It was a brave profile. You join my daughter who has a profile also. I am not going to come out and I personally don't support them. Hopefully you can find a way to make this work for you. I think my daughter is finding her way back.

[mormonnewb]

Your family could do wonderful work in the black community as I told you before. And you can still do so. But you are heading down the wrong path and the black community which does need some of the wisdom of mormon doctrine will miss out but you could have taught the community much wisdom.

 

This is part of the reason that I support OW because, restricting the priesthood to men is yet another obstacle in attracting black Americans to join our church.  The sad fact is that, at present, the vast majority of black households are headed by a single woman.  And that fact doesn't change when someone is baptized into the Church.  Over time, these sisters may find worthy priesthood holders, but in the very beginning, they would be without the priesthood in their homes.  They would have to seek out relative strangers for blessings and healings.  In a sense, they would enter the Church as "second-class citizens" in their new church.

 

Interestingly, black churches are every bit as patriarchal as our church.  However, the big difference is that the formal power of the priesthood (i.e., the power to perform sacred ordinances) is restricted to a handful of men.  As a result, just about every member of the black church (man or woman) is in the same boat in terms of lacking formal priesthood power.  And as for informal priesthood power (e.g., blessings, healings, etc.), every member of the church shares in that power.  A black mother feels no less empowered to pray for her children as does a black father.  In fact, in many homes, it is acknowledged that the mother is the spiritual leader in the home.  For example, while I grew up with both parents in the home, my mother was the person who gave the prayer before meals.  She was simply far more eloquent and spiritually-attuned than my father.

 

So here's the "pitch" that the current LDS Church offers to the majority of black women: "Come join with us and live the restored gospel.  Our church has been ordained of God and is the only church with the power and authority to act for God here on earth.  Of course, YOU will not share in that power and authority.  You will continue to raise your children with the all of the struggles that entails, and in your case, without the benefit of a father in the home, but if you join with us, some complete stranger, who will rotate from time to time, will provide the personal blessings that you used to give to your children.  How does that sound?"

 

How does that sound to YOU?  Would you like to be without the power of the priesthood in your home?  Because that is what the Church offers to about 3/4 of the black community.

 

Now, as you have imagine, women find me quite charming, but even someone of my considerable wit, good looks and humility is not charming enough to make that sound attractive to my sisters.

[why me]

It was a brave profile. You join my daughter who has a profile also. I am not going to come out and I personally don't support them. Hopefully you can find a way to make this work for you. I think my daughter is finding her way back.

Interestingly, here is what one woman wrote on their profile page:

 

I desire for our prophet to seek revelation about female ordination because so many women endure inequality silently.

 

There is a contradiction in this sentence. The answer has been no. What now? Does heavenly father know something that this human being doesn't? Can she accept the no answer? And here is where john has a problem. Since the lds church depends on prayer and revelation, not much can be done if there is no answer or revelation. Or if the answer is a clear no.

[why me]

This is part of the reason that I support OW because, restricting the priesthood to men is yet another obstacle in attracting black Americans to join our church. 

And yet, the southern baptists just recently allowed a woman to be ordained. And this was controversial for the baptists. Also, women can receive answers to prayers on how to do life, for personal decisions etc. No problem at all for single moms to be in the church. And when in need she can rely on a vast priesthood to help her and a vast relief society to help her too. Why deny a single mom such help because of your own personal beliefs.  It is quite an insurance policy if one believes in the church for a single mom.

 

And it seems that the answer is no to women ordination because the answer was no. As I have said before, people who support ordain women or ssm in the church can pray to heavenly father in mass numbers for a change of heart. Nothing wrong in that as long as they do it privately and not for the media.

 

John could have done this also. Why go to the media for such issues when one could pray for a change.

Edited February 11, 2015 by why me