John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[Jeanne]

Sean, on behalf of the many female friends and relatives still active in the LDS Church, I applaud and thank you for speaking out.  I should have had this kind of courage many years ago prior to 1978 to follow my gut feelings and my own conscience in what I believe what God really wanted in light of Priesthood ordination and the rights thereof.

 

Thank you,

 

Jeanne

[BlueDreams]

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.

......

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).

 

First off, it's nice to have a face to you....funny thing is that I remember briefly looking over your profile on OW a while back. Also don't let the hater get to you....you'd look just fine in a strapless dress.

 

Currently I'm reading through some of the correspondence with his SP that Dehlin posted and I'm just not impressed. In fact it's leaving me tense as heck from it and I honestly don't see even SOME evidence that his excommunication had anything to do with his positions on SSM or OW. I'm not saying that other's haven't been questioned or had some form of discipline come their way because of it, just that that's not what's seen in the actual dialogue....except what Dehlin tries to build.

 

An analogy (because I like them). Let's say a black guy walks into a store that specifically states no shoes, no shirt, no service...and he walks in with not shoes and no shirt. He walks around a bit and the cashier glances, is a little concerned, but decides to just let it slide for a bit. That is, until he starts chugging a carton of milk. The cashier stops him, asks him to pay for the milk and immediately leave. They man states that this is happening because he's black. The white cashier, flustered, insists that they have a policy to follow....the guy states that he'd been walking around other cashiers and stores without a problem...that that's not the real reason he's being stopped and removed. When he insists, the guy accuses him of being racist and belligerent of a paying customer. When the cashier points out he hasn't paid, the guy states that now he assumes he wouldn't pay and was a thief because of his race. He won't stand for this because of basic human dignities were being violated. Are there discrimination problems for minorities overall? Yes, of course. Is this case really one of them? The evidence points otherwise.

 

That's basically where I see Dehlin with what I've read so far. He's level-shifting all over the place, in the transcript, asking loaded questions, and than questioning the SP's character (in the first few pages Dehlin questioned how christ-like the SP actually is, his level of patience, and how well he's actually being long-suffering). He becomes easily defensive and offended, usually from conclusions that he came to about the SP....not what was actually stated. No wonder the SP was cautious. My only issue with the SP is that I that I may have answered this or that more assertively. But then again, maybe I wouldn't have....it's hard to think under pressure and where you know your words may be used against you at some given time in the future, I'd rather stick with the simple things.

 

Frankly I'm just not impressed with Dehlin's case in the matter. He was excommunicated for straight forward apostasy and he needs it to be something more....there's a lot of posturing to try and make it something more. The SP largely doesn't bite. So he'll insist till he's blue in the face that he is the martyr for the causes that have the better popular relevance. 

 

He just doesn't come off well in this to me. His character comes off terribly. I see a man that exhibits defensiveness, power-playing, level shifting, nit-picking, and overall a level of pride and refusal to actually see anything outside of his own developed view and methodology to promote or sustain said view. One that is in many ways conflicting with the church...not simply in belief but in actions. In the 20-30 pages that I read before calling it good....I found myself largely disgusted than anything else. I don't think Dehlin is evil ....I've seen people do similarly, and they're usually good people. But in this specific area, it just looks pretty bad to me.    

  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 11, 2015 by BlueDreams

[mormonnewb]

And yet, the southern baptists just recently allowed a woman to be ordained. And this was controversial for the baptists. Also, single 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. Quite an insurance policy if one believes in the church. And it seems that the answer is no to women ordination. 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.

 

Once again, you refuse to appreciate the difference between their ordination and our own.  The other branches don't ordain HALF of their adult members.  Furthermore, they separate the priesthood functions into those requiring ordination and those that EVERY member can exercise.

 

In a Baptist Church, no one (but the pastor) expects to baptize their child.  In our Church, it is just the opposite.  EVERY man expects to baptize his child and not being able to do so is a big deal.

 

Conversely, in a Baptist Church, EVERY member is presumed to be able to call down the power of heaven in, say, cases of emergency.  In our Church, only men can do so.  Every fourth Sunday, some sister in my ward gets up to express her thanks that the power of the priesthood operates in her home.  Three-quarters of American black women who would be baptized into our Church would NOT be able to say that.

 

In that way (and many others), these new sisters would feel like second-class citizens.  By the way, this is a sentiment that has been expressed by many (but certainly not ALL or even most) divorced and unmarried white sisters in the Church.  I've even heard many explain that they've felt "less Mormon" when sins or other transgressions have prevented them from participating in these sacred rituals.  So how do you think these "innocent" new sisters would feel being similarly left out?

 

Think of it this way.  You wouldn't expect many black American MEN to join this Church if the priesthood ban was still in place, right?  But why not?  They could still have the benefit of home teachers, right?  However, it wouldn't be the same and they would (rightly) feel like second-class citizens in their church.  Well, an unmarried black woman is in the same position in 2015 that a married black woman would have found herself in 1977.  Both have no priesthood power in their homes, despite the absence of any sin or transgression to justify the withdrawal of that power.  It would simply be so due to their gender.

 

Now, you can argue that HF wants it that way.  And while I disagree, I can't discount the chance that you are right.  However, neither can I even attempt to persuasively make the case that these precious sisters should trade in their current levels of priesthood power (even if completely counterfeit in our view) for NO priesthood power at all.  I don't think this is good theology, but I know it's not good math.

[juliann]

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. 

 

I think that the dependence of the church on priesthood holders will be what eventually brings about change, whether it means removing the priesthood restrictions from administrative duties...or allowing women to have full priesthood so they don't need a man to have a meeting.

 

 

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.

 

 

 Do not fall into the "no priesthood in the home" mantra! I used to have to listen to women crying and moaning through testimony meetings in the singles wards because they didn't have the "priesthood in the home."

 

It is a decidedly not feminist position. I do "have the priesthood in my home."  I can't remember who it was...but even a leader announced that women's faith was adequate for healings and such. I discovered this during my nonmember husband's illness. Now, that begs the question about the need for the priesthood at all...but that is a different topic.

 

Please don't ever present women as lacking access to Heavenly Parents because they don't have a set of male chromosomes in the immediate vicinity. There are larger issues that are raised because of the restrictions put on women, of course, but the ability to bring down blessings and healings should never be included in that.

[pogi]

There are a few things that I firmly believe a person should do when and if they believe contrary to a policy or teaching of the church.

 

1. Always put the mind and will of the Lord (I didn't say the church) above your own political, social, religious, or personal views. 

 

2. Be more afraid of offending the Lord then offending popular public opinion, congregation, your own pride, or pocket book.

 

3. Take no action until you have sincerely prayed/fasted/meditated on the issue with all humility and real intent.  Be open to the possibility that your fervently held beliefs might be in opposition to the Lords will.  Don’t be hasty.

 

4. If, after praying, you still feel to hold an opposing view, pray/fast/meditate again to know what to do about it.  Take no action until you have assurance that your desired course of action is not objectionable to the Lord.

 

If these steps were followed, would we have the KK's and JD's of the church (not of the church, rather)?

 

I posted this talk in another thread, but I think it is worthy of posting it here as well.  It is by Elder oaks about "alternative voices" given in 1989, but could be no more relevant for us today.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng

Edited February 11, 2015 by pogi

[juliann]

 

 

Conversely, in a Baptist Church, EVERY member is presumed to be able to call down the power of heaven in, say, cases of emergency.  In our Church, only men can do so. 

Not true!! 

 

Does anyone have the quote....was it from Oaks?

[Avatar4321]

Once again, you refuse to appreciate the difference between their ordination and our own.  The other branches don't ordain HALF of their adult members.  Furthermore, they separate the priesthood functions into those requiring ordination and those that EVERY member can exercise.

 

In a Baptist Church, no one (but the pastor) expects to baptize their child.  In our Church, it is just the opposite.  EVERY man expects to baptize his child and not being able to do so is a big deal.

 

Conversely, in a Baptist Church, EVERY member is presumed to be able to call down the power of heaven in, say, cases of emergency.  In our Church, only men can do so.  Every fourth Sunday, some sister in my ward gets up to express her thanks that the power of the priesthood operates in her home.  Three-quarters of American black women who would be baptized into our Church would NOT be able to say that.

 

In that way (and many others), these new sisters would feel like second-class citizens.  By the way, this is a sentiment that has been expressed by many (but certainly not ALL or even most) divorced and unmarried white sisters in the Church.  I've even heard many explain that they've felt "less Mormon" when sins or other transgressions have prevented them from participating in these sacred rituals.  So how do you think these "innocent" new sisters would feel being similarly left out?

 

Think of it this way.  You wouldn't expect many black American MEN to join this Church if the priesthood ban was still in place, right?  But why not?  They could still have the benefit of home teachers, right?  However, it wouldn't be the same and they would (rightly) feel like second-class citizens in their church.  Well, an unmarried black woman is in the same position in 2015 that a married black woman would have found herself in 1977.  Both have no priesthood power in their homes, despite the absence of any sin or transgression to justify the withdrawal of that power.  It would simply be so due to their gender.

 

Now, you can argue that HF wants it that way.  And while I disagree, I can't discount the chance that you are right.  However, neither can I even attempt to persuasively make the case that these precious sisters should trade in their current levels of priesthood power (even if completely counterfeit in our view) for NO priesthood power at all.  I don't think this is good theology, but I know it's not good math.

Only men can call down the power of heaven? Where did you come up with that false notion?

[Hamba Tuhan]

How does that sound to YOU?  Would you like to be without the power of the priesthood in your home?

 

For what it's worth, I as a single male am as 'without the priesthood in my home' as a single sister. If I'm sick, for example, I call for my home teachers and wait for them to come. No difference.

[mormonnewb]

Sean, on behalf of the many female friends and relatives still active in the LDS Church, I applaud and thank you for speaking out.  I should have had this kind of courage many years ago prior to 1978 to follow my gut feelings and my own conscience in what I believe what God really wanted in light of Priesthood ordination and the rights thereof.

 

Thank you,

 

Jeanne

 

Dear Sister, I've done nothing more than any other hero would have done.

 

No, seriously, I'm only taking this TINY stand because I have the benefit of seeing what others did in the past; and there is very little chance that someone is going to turn a dog or fire hose loose on me (although I might keep an eye out for the SP's Second Counselor).  Seriously, it is easy to do what you think is right when history seems to clearly indicate that you will be vindicated in short order.

 

Also, given my unique situation, I am obligated to "take one for the team."  I have so much less to lose than most of my sisters.  My wife won't divorce me if I am disciplined, or even excommunicated for that matter (after all, getting access to the priesthood was never part of our marital "deal").  My extended family would be somewhat thrilled if I was thrown out ("We told you that Mormons didn't like black people!").  And my business doesn't depend upon customers who would evaluate their patronage based upon my status in the Church.

 

So how could I not be willing to face these Nerf-like "slings and arrows" when people like Brother Robert Smith actually put his safety at risk to march for me in the 60s?  Also, I get the benefit of irking Why Me just that much more.  What hero would do any less?  

[Buzzard]

The only thing women can't do is anoint with oil and hold a few leadership positions. They may and certainly do call down the powers of heaven on their family.  Not to mention that having their Home Teachers, Husbands, Fathers, and faithful friends to call on blesses not just the member doing the asking but the member being asked. 

Interestingly, my daughter and I were talking about this on the way to work this morning (I drop her off).  At about the midpoint of her mission, she was really struggling. Companion issues, tough city, general discouragement, the works.  She was praying ardently morning and night, but nothing seemed to lift her.  Finally, in response to an impression, she asked the elders for a blessing. She told me that that 19 year old pimply-faced missionary served as a direct conduit for what God wanted her to know. By the end of the blessing, her, her companion, and both the elders were crying. It was one of the more powerful moments of her mission. 

She told me, if her companion had given her the blessing, it just wouldn't have been the same. Since then, she does not hesitate to ask for a priesthood blessing whenever she feels like she needs it. And, she has expressed gratitude that the men of the church hold the authority to bless her.  My often feminist daughter has no desire to hold the priesthood.  In her opinion, it just seems right to have that authority rest with the brethren. 

[juliann]

For what it's worth, I as a single male am as 'without the priesthood in my home' as a single sister. If I'm sick, for example, I call for my home teachers and wait for them to come. No difference.

Oops, I put like on that and didn't intend to....and this is why: it will never be the same for a woman because there is so much maleness inserted into priesthood.  I think that we are so used to male and priesthood being the same thing that women do think they aren't as powerful...or even as competent. We have been taught to sit back and "support."  So in theory, yes...you are in the same situation. But only in theory....no one would ever say you don't have the priesthood in your home.

[juliann]

The only thing women can't do is anoint with oil and hold a few leadership positions.

 

Do not minimize what women can't do. It goes far beyond annointing and positions. It is a trained mindset from childhood (the very fact that men are here speaking for women is part of that, BTW.) That is why there has been such an outcry. I think it is important that we recognize the full scope of the situation.

[pogi]

I'm only taking this TINY stand because I have the benefit of seeing what others did in the past; and there is very little chance that someone is going to turn a dog or fire hose loose on me (although I might keep an eye out for the SP's Second Counselor). 

 

As I have said elsewhere: Always take a knee before taking a stand (not accusing you of acting contrary, just passing on good advice).

[Hamba Tuhan]

So in theory, yes...you are in the same situation.

 

Actually, it is specifically in practice that I am in the same situation.

[Calm]

 

Please don't ever present women as lacking access to Heavenly Parents because they don't have a set of male chromosomes in the immediate vicinity. There are larger issues that are raised because of the restrictions put on women, of course, but the ability to bring down blessings and healings should never be included in that.

Amen.  I've been giving my kids blessings for a long time…the dog too when she was just a little thing almost dying from kennel cough.

[JLHPROF]

Amen.  I've been giving my kids blessings for a long time…the dog too when she was just a little thing almost dying from kennel cough.

 

Mary Fielding Smith would be proud!

[Calm]

Oops, I put like on that and didn't intend to....and this is why: it will never be the same for a woman because there is so much maleness inserted into priesthood.  I think that we are so used to male and priesthood being the same thing that women do think they aren't as powerful...or even as competent. We have been taught to sit back and "support."  So in theory, yes...you are in the same situation. But only in theory....no one would ever say you don't have the priesthood in your home.

I put a like on it as well and meant it but I also have some qualifications to add…for one, a man must call for blessings of himself, but he doesn't need to call for blessings of his children unless there is someone else involved in the anointing (but my understanding is that it is not necessary to have two people for an anointing, just preferred…can someone confirm or correct that please?) so while a single man may be in the same situation, a single mother is not in the same situation as a single father if he has the Priesthood.

 

The other is what Juliann pointed out….the attitude of teaching the Priesthood is something unique and special (which it is) often unfortunately amounts to a woman feeling her faith is not as powerful as what a man can access through his Priesthood.  When was the last time you heard of a woman being called in the middle of the night to come over to pray with someone?

 

I don't believe that women are any less powerful so I gave a rep point, I look on the Priesthood as a different tool for accessing the Spirit, but not one inherently more powerful or better than me going on my knees or simply speaking to God from my heart asking for his help.  And I believe that with faith I can command when necessary if God instructs me to do so.  But we need to do a better job, imo, of teaching women to have confidence in their own connection with God so that not only will they not see themselves as inherently less (for those that do, not all LDS women or even most are that way imo) but so that there will be a reason for women to work harder to develop that strong relationship with God instead of assuming that they shouldn't or don't need to bother because they need to depend on Priesthood holders anyway.

Edited February 11, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Mary Fielding Smith would be proud!

She made it through the night and is a very, very healthy dog now.

Edited February 11, 2015 by calmoriah

[juliann]

Actually, it is specifically in practice that I am in the same situation.

Just to be argumentative...as Cal pointed out, you aren't. You "have the priesthood in your home" just by sitting on the couch. And you can bless anyone else on that couch. Single women can't do that, it is not just about what you can do to yourself. So I still say theory.  

[mormonnewb]

Amen.  I've been giving my kids blessings for a long time…the dog too when she was just a little thing almost dying from kennel cough.

 

Fair enough, but that isn't the official according to Hoyle way of giving blessings, is it?  For instance, after being in the Church for a few months, my HTs asked if I wanted them to come by and give the kids their back to school blessings (I was an Aaronic priesthood holder at the time).  If they didn't perceive that there was something special about a "real" Melchizedek blessing, I don't imagine that they would have offered.

 

So while many women in the Church give blessings, I'm not sure they "count" in the Church's eyes any more than the blessings that Protestants give to their children.  The Church doesn't seem necessarily opposed to them (so long as you don't do them IN church), but it's still relegated to a second-class status blessing.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

 

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?

 

But if he really believes the church was wrong and he is “on the side of the angels,”  why would he believe that God would punish him for eternity?

 

IIRC,  aren’t excommunicated members eligible for vicarious baptisms, etc. after their deaths?   I cannot conceive of a just God who would punish an innocent person for eternity, simply because his stake president made a mistake.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[teddyaware]

Fair enough, but that isn't the official according to Hoyle way of giving blessings, is it?  For instance, after being in the Church for a few months, my HTs asked if I wanted them to come by and give the kids their back to school blessings (I was an Aaronic priesthood holder at the time).  If they didn't perceive that there was something special about a "real" Melchizedek blessing, I don't imagine that they would have offered.

 

So while many women in the Church give blessings, I'm not sure they "count" in the Church's eyes any more than the blessings that Protestants give to their children.  The Church doesn't seem necessarily opposed to them (so long as you don't do them IN church), but it's still relegated to a second-class status blessing.

 

I just don't understand why some members constantly fret about such things when it's made very clear in our temples that the women of the Church already possess all the power and authority necessary in order for them to receive full sanctification in this life and full exaltation in the world to come. What a waste of time and energy. And it also stumps me as to why in the world some members seem to constantly resort to using a corrupt and doomed world's measuring rod of what's right and wrong as something the Church needs to obey. 

 

The Lord's side is going to win, with or without its ark-steadiers in the ranks -- it's a fait accompli. We would all be much better off focusing in on the things we CAN change for the better: being better husbands and wives, better mothers and fathers, better home and visiting teachers, more diligent and inspired in our callings, and more faithful in our prayers and scripture study. In the eternal scheme of things, all the overwrought histrionics of the Church's ark-steadiers won't even amount to an anthill of beans. From the perspective of eternity, they'll look back and say to themselves, "how could I have been such a dufuss?"

 

Those who have genuine faith in the all-wise God don't spend their lives trying to tell the Lord and His prophets where they're going wrong because they know the Lord can do His own work perfectlt well without receiving counsel from the worldly-wise and self-important. Our job is to humbly go about the business of building the kingdom of God in our own divinely ordained spheres of influence, one small loving and inspired act at a time.

 

But on the positive side, the Lord's people do need to be tested in all things. So I guess for the sake of that testing the constant critics. naysayers, and ark-steadiers are needed for the testing to proceed. So, second thought, you just keep on doing what you're doing and ark-steady all you want. Even though it's messy, unrewarded and joyless work, somebody's got to do it. So go ahead and disregard the first three paragraphs of this post. 

Edited February 12, 2015 by teddyaware

[Nemesis]

We are going to close this thread if you all cannot keep it on topic. 

 

Nemesis

[teddyaware]

We are going to close this thread if you all cannot keep it on topic. 

 

Nemesis

 

I'm out of this thread. I've got to better learn how to rein in my frustration.

[Ham Clam]

Anyone see this TribTalk epsiode?


Trib Talk: Kate Kelly, Maxine Hanks, Paul Toscano on Mormon excommunication
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fklwmE1zWzY

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ham Clam