John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[carbon dioxide]

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.

 

The same exaltation that awaits the President of the Church if he is faithful is available for a faithful relief society president in a ward or a primary teacher.  All the Lord asks of us is to be faithful in the things he gives us to.  Even if women are ordained to the priesthood, their exaltation will be no different nor greater than faithful women who did not have the priesthood.  Some people are looking for the praise and honor of the world rather than being obedient to what is asked of us.  Those people are the last people on earth who should hold the priesthood. 

[mfbukowski]

 

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

He didn't even finish high school!

[Avatar4321]

He didn't even finish high school!

a good reason to trust him more than others. Especially those who finished law school.

[Duncan]

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?

 

 

I agree with that some people who should have been exed weren't and people who were maybe shouldn't have been, I can think of two people who fit those categories. As to your point #2 I don't want to judge the fella but I wonder is Dehlin 'Valiant in the Testimony Of Jesus? DC 76:79, if he isn't or doesn't become such will he make the Celestial Kingdom?

[juliann]

I so hope this was unintentional and is quickly fixed....Kelly also publicized her SP's work information. Only this is even worse.

 

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/john-dehlin-and-the-art-of-interpersonal-terrorism/
 

 

It is also seems clear in this passage that John knows that it would be wrong to share the Stake President’s information or encourage people to contact him or subject him to abuse. All of which makes what happens subsequently all the more despicable. Several commenters have mentioned to me that an early version of the press release post on Mormon Stories, posted January 15, 2015 contained a link to the Stake President’s healthgrades account, which is a service that allows people to anonymously rate physicians. I found this puzzling, and perhaps even apocryphal, but looking where they pointed it me, it was also, regrettably, absolutely true. If you want to see just go to the link in the middle of this paragraph and exam the embedded link in Bryan King’s name. I would ask you to please not attempt to manipulate it in any way. Opposing lies do not counterbalance each other, and rating a business that you have not patronized is dishonest regardless of which way you are voting.

 

[mfbukowski]

Just plain evil

[why me]

 

 

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.

They do. The fact is anyone can give a blessing for their children. No problem at all. Of course, in official blessings they are excluded. But in the home, no problem. Many do not have home teachers near by. So, these women give the blessing. Many have home teachers but they choose to give the blessing anyway. The narrative of the church is rather inclusive and not exclusive. However, the postmodernity of some of the members now, wish to puncture the narrative with OW and SSM as groups that should have individual rights to achieve what they claim would be full equality. However, there is still a problem. If these people do believe that the lds church is the church of chirst then they would accept that the church is in good hands. However, if they believe that the lds leaders are just people who have no authority, why still be a member? What would be the point? Better to be in the CoC where women and gays and lesbians seem to have their version of full equality.

 

John should know this very well. He does not believe in the church and he considers the church a false church in its claims. Thus, he sees it run by mere humans with no authority at all. So, there is nothing to stop lds leaders to change the course of direction inside the church. Likewise for many other people who wish to pressure the church through the media.

[Storm Rider]

I so hope this was unintentional and is quickly fixed....Kelly also publicized her SP's work information. Only this is even worse.

 

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/john-dehlin-and-the-art-of-interpersonal-terrorism/

 

 

A leopard cannot change his spots and a human will always show theirs if given enough rope.  It is always unfortunate when someone who has often played the innocent searcher for truth turns out to be very different from what they have tried everyone to think and/or believe.  

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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?

I doubt he does. But whether he believes the council that exommunicated him will be honored or sealed in heaven it doesn't change the fact that those who participated believed it would and yet passed that extremely harsh judgement anyway. That's why he uses language like "damaging" or "violent" in describing the attempt of the council to impact his eternal salvation.

 

 

I agree with that some people who should have been exed weren't and people who were maybe shouldn't have been, I can think of two people who fit those categories. As to your point #2 I don't want to judge the fella but I wonder is Dehlin 'Valiant in the Testimony Of Jesus? DC 76:79, if he isn't or doesn't become such will he make the Celestial Kingdom?

 

That's the thing. Should any earthly person pass a judgement on an individual that could have eternal consequences? Or should we leave that to God. It's really the flip side of the coin with the 2nd annointing. Why place the power in men to make eternal judgements when God is more capable.

[JLHPROF]

 

That's the thing. Should any earthly person pass a judgement on an individual that could have eternal consequences? Or should we leave that to God. It's really the flip side of the coin with the 2nd annointing. Why place the power in men to make eternal judgements when God is more capable.

 

Someone should have told Christ that when he set his 12 Apostles to judge the house of Israel and the 12 Nephite Apostles to judge their people.

This idea that we can and should be judged by God and God alone is not scriptural.

[rongo]

Christ also taught that the keys he gave Peter bind and loosen on heaven and earth. It's very non-PC to teach or believe that today, but historically this hasn't batted an eye. Only the Catholic and Mormon churches teach that now . . .

[Vanguard]

That's the thing. Should any earthly person pass a judgement on an individual that could have eternal consequences? Or should we leave that to God. It's really the flip side of the coin with the 2nd annointing. Why place the power in men to make eternal judgements when God is more capable.

 

That's the 64K question. IMO, no, they should not be about the business of making eternal judgments nor do I believe they did in this instance or at least not publicly. There is no commentary on Bro. Dehlin's eternal salvation that would not be a commentary on everyone's salvation, that is to say, there is nothing to say. The ultimate litmus is a man's heart and his God-given capacity to act on it. How could someone possibly know what that is?

Edited February 12, 2015 by Vanguard

[pogi]

I doubt he does. But whether he believes the council that exommunicated him will be honored or sealed in heaven it doesn't change the fact that those who participated believed it would and yet passed that extremely harsh judgement anyway. That's why he uses language like "damaging" or "violent" in describing the attempt of the council to impact his eternal salvation.

 

That's the thing. Should any earthly person pass a judgement on an individual that could have eternal consequences? Or should we leave that to God. It's really the flip side of the coin with the 2nd annointing. Why place the power in men to make eternal judgements when God is more capable.

One also has to consider the eternal consequences of not exing him. Think of all who have lost their way because of him. It's better that one man...

Everything we do has eternal consequences. Without wise judgement, where would we be?

[Rivers]

I am very saddened by this whole situation. Mormon Stories has been a blessing to me in a lot of ways. There are some great interviews on the website. But it is unfortunate that Bro. Dehlin(I am still calling him Bro. even though he's been exed) became so negative and critical.

[Tacenda]

River I am with you, I've loved so many Mormon Stories interviews, it's not always John doing the interview too.  I believe John wasn't always well read in the subject he was discussing, like someone here mentioned, when he interviewed Brant Gardner on the BoM translation.  That bothered me at first but then when I thought about it, didn't that make him someone that felt authentic, because maybe some of the ineptness put him where a lot of us (not you exactly) are? 

 

Maybe his testimony lied elsewhere, he often talked about growing up Mormon, the roadshows and youth activities etc.  Some people revel in that aspect of the Gospel, that's where their love lies.  I am the same way, my love was not in the past, say scripture or history of the church.  It was in the current social and spiritual aspects as far as Visiting Teaching, callings that bring out strengths I didn't know were there, etc. 

 

This church has something and that something is the people, and the ways they serve and love one another.  I think John will miss that aspect, I hope he'll be able to still partake, and come around to going back to church.  Maybe when the dust settles, he and his family will return to activity.  Or maybe he'll be like John Larsen and concentrate on healing those that are wounded or struggling with situations of unbelief, or the ostracisms they might feel.  And maybe he'll try to create a sense community that is loved in our church.  It failed with John Larsen (the community), but who knows maybe John Dehlin might make it work.  But I'm not very convinced it will happen.  Sometimes people need that extra nudge of being beholden to something before they conform.

 

I agree that John or as you put it Bro. Dehlin did become negative and it turned off a lot of the somewhat faithful LDS who struggle.  His interview with Sandra Tanner was pretty out there to say the least.  That is probably not the best example of helping people stay in the church.  Her interview was very insightful, but it was also very anti.     

 

Anyway, here's to a better future for everyone, hopefully where we can all get along and understand that not everyone must feel the same about everything.  I still love my country despite finding out warts, and I can still love the church.  And hopefully the church in it's teachings will help me to a better belief in God.  Which is one thing John struggles with now. 

[ERayR]

I doubt he does. But whether he believes the council that exommunicated him will be honored or sealed in heaven it doesn't change the fact that those who participated believed it would and yet passed that extremely harsh judgement anyway. That's why he uses language like "damaging" or "violent" in describing the attempt of the council to impact his eternal salvation.

 

That's the thing. Should any earthly person pass a judgement on an individual that could have eternal consequences? Or should we leave that to God. It's really the flip side of the coin with the 2nd annointing. Why place the power in men to make eternal judgements when God is more capable.

 

Whether John Dehlin ultimately reaches the Celestial Kingdom is solely up to Mr. Dehlin himself.  Those who judged him worthy of excommunication would have been negligent if they had not acted to protect the Churches name. 

 

Yes they should pass judgement as that is included as one of the responsibilities of their calling.  The judgement passed has absolutely nothing to do with the eternal consequences.  Those remain firmly with Mr. Dehlin.

[ERayR]

River I am with you, I've loved so many Mormon Stories interviews, it's not always John doing the interview too.  I believe John wasn't always well read in the subject he was discussing, like someone here mentioned, when he interviewed Brant Gardner on the BoM translation.  That bothered me at first but then when I thought about it, didn't that make him someone that felt authentic, because maybe some of the ineptness put him where a lot of us (not you exactly) are? 

 

Maybe his testimony lied elsewhere, he often talked about growing up Mormon, the roadshows and youth activities etc.  Some people revel in that aspect of the Gospel, that's where their love lies.  I am the same way, my love was not in the past, say scripture or history of the church.  It was in the current social and spiritual aspects as far as Visiting Teaching, callings that bring out strengths I didn't know were there, etc. 

 

This church has something and that something is the people, and the ways they serve and love one another.  I think John will miss that aspect, I hope he'll be able to still partake, and come around to going back to church.  Maybe when the dust settles, he and his family will return to activity.  Or maybe he'll be like John Larsen and concentrate on healing those that are wounded or struggling with situations of unbelief, or the ostracisms they might feel.  And maybe he'll try to create a sense community that is loved in our church.  It failed with John Larsen (the community), but who knows maybe John Dehlin might make it work.  But I'm not very convinced it will happen.  Sometimes people need that extra nudge of being beholden to something before they conform.

 

I agree that John or as you put it Bro. Dehlin did become negative and it turned off a lot of the somewhat faithful LDS who struggle.  His interview with Sandra Tanner was pretty out there to say the least.  That is probably not the best example of helping people stay in the church.  Her interview was very insightful, but it was also very anti.     

 

Anyway, here's to a better future for everyone, hopefully where we can all get along and understand that not everyone must feel the same about everything.  I still love my country despite finding out warts, and I can still love the church.  And hopefully the church in it's teachings will help me to a better belief in God.  Which is one thing John struggles with now. 

 

Would you listen to someone you didn't trust?  So your doubts were bolstered because of that trust.  I think if you would think about it a bit you can see he probably really wasn't really your friend.

[stemelbow]

Anyone see this TribTalk epsiode?

Trib Talk: Kate Kelly, Maxine Hanks, Paul Toscano on Mormon excommunication

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fklwmE1zWzY

I just listened. just more of the same. I think there are some interesting things discussed. I particularly like the idea of allowing for more open discussion in the Church. I thought Maxine was great overall, even if she trailed off a time or two. I do think, though, that this excommunication is going to continue to get used as a shame tactic against the Church and against members. Interestingly, though, it works for people. Maxine said she wouldn't change what happened and saw it as a big ol' positive. Kate seems to be coming around to that. Paul was ok, but comparing the Church to N Korea was just empty. Kate agreed, but it was just dumb.

[USU78]

I so hope this was unintentional and is quickly fixed....Kelly also publicized her SP's work information. Only this is even worse.

 

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/john-dehlin-and-the-art-of-interpersonal-terrorism/

 

 

There are no accidents -- Freud

[USU78]

That's the 64K question. IMO, no, they should not be about the business of making eternal judgments nor do I believe they did in this instance or at least not publicly. There is no commentary on Bro. Dehlin's eternal salvation that would not be a commentary on everyone's salvation, that is to say, there is nothing to say. The ultimate litmus is a man's heart and his God-given capacity to act on it. How could someone possibly know what that is?

 

Imagine being asked to do such a thing on a voluntary basis.

 

Makes one really appreciate those willing to step up and take on such unpleasant duties.

[USU78]

River I am with you, I've loved so many Mormon Stories interviews, it's not always John doing the interview too.  I believe John wasn't always well read in the subject he was discussing, like someone here mentioned, when he interviewed Brant Gardner on the BoM translation.  That bothered me at first but then when I thought about it, didn't that make him someone that felt authentic, because maybe some of the ineptness put him where a lot of us (not you exactly) are? 

 

Maybe his testimony lied elsewhere, he often talked about growing up Mormon, the roadshows and youth activities etc.  Some people revel in that aspect of the Gospel, that's where their love lies.  I am the same way, my love was not in the past, say scripture or history of the church.  It was in the current social and spiritual aspects as far as Visiting Teaching, callings that bring out strengths I didn't know were there, etc. 

 

This church has something and that something is the people, and the ways they serve and love one another.  I think John will miss that aspect, I hope he'll be able to still partake, and come around to going back to church.  Maybe when the dust settles, he and his family will return to activity.  Or maybe he'll be like John Larsen and concentrate on healing those that are wounded or struggling with situations of unbelief, or the ostracisms they might feel.  And maybe he'll try to create a sense community that is loved in our church.  It failed with John Larsen (the community), but who knows maybe John Dehlin might make it work.  But I'm not very convinced it will happen.  Sometimes people need that extra nudge of being beholden to something before they conform.

 

I agree that John or as you put it Bro. Dehlin did become negative and it turned off a lot of the somewhat faithful LDS who struggle.  His interview with Sandra Tanner was pretty out there to say the least.  That is probably not the best example of helping people stay in the church.  Her interview was very insightful, but it was also very anti.     

 

Anyway, here's to a better future for everyone, hopefully where we can all get along and understand that not everyone must feel the same about everything.  I still love my country despite finding out warts, and I can still love the church.  And hopefully the church in it's teachings will help me to a better belief in God.  Which is one thing John struggles with now. 

 

It's so very often the case that the crucible of life reveals unpleasant things about individuals tested therein.

 

Mister Dehlin has now been weighed, measured, and unlike so many far braver and more integrated others, found out.

[USU78]

I just listened. just more of the same. I think there are some interesting things discussed. I particularly like the idea of allowing for more open discussion in the Church. I thought Maxine was great overall, even if she trailed off a time or two. I do think, though, that this excommunication is going to continue to get used as a shame tactic against the Church and against members. Interestingly, though, it works for people. Maxine said she wouldn't change what happened and saw it as a big ol' positive. Kate seems to be coming around to that. Paul was ok, but comparing the Church to N Korea was just empty. Kate agreed, but it was just dumb.

 

Paul, if you recall, called on a convocation of the entire high priesthood of the Church as the only body capable of judging his case, basing his argument on Steve Benson's public allegations that ETB was non compos mentis, invalidating all callings and organizations made and founded during his time as Prophet.  His hyperbole is appropriately ignored.  Then and now.

[stemelbow]

I so hope this was unintentional and is quickly fixed....Kelly also publicized her SP's work information. Only this is even worse.

 

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/john-dehlin-and-the-art-of-interpersonal-terrorism/

Not sure why this makes it any worse. Anyone intent on harassing or otherwise contacting Pres King didn't need a link to this site. They already have his name, location, and occupation.

To me it's a shame he posted this conversation knowing that pres King was concerned about any impact this whole circus could have on his family. It makes JOhn's expressed sympathy for any impact on King's family ring hollow.

[USU78]

Not sure why this makes it any worse. Anyone intent on harassing or otherwise contacting Pres King didn't need a link to this site. They already have his name, location, and occupation.

To me it's a shame he posted this conversation knowing that pres King was concerned about any impact this whole circus could have on his family. It makes JOhn's expressed sympathy for any impact on King's family ring hollow.

 

It is the functional equivalent of French antisemites last week spraypainting "Juif!" and Hackenkreutze on "randon" people's cars.

[cursor]

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?

 

Dehlin, while probably "right" in his own mind, is a very poor evaluator (or at least "communicator") of virtually any subject (just listen to his podcasts). He's too sided, too jovial, and certainly too non-critical of interviewees and the connected subject matter.

 

Podcasts (particularly those non-[what should be smartly]-edited) tend to cause a listener's side-to-side head movements, combined with eye-rolling motions. That certainly characterizes my view of Dehlin.

 

On the other hand, there must be "an opposition in all things." So, what reign/rules?

 

History: Just a thought 

My dad (John L. Sorenson) gifted me a volume of "history" about LDS Saints where I grew up as a teenager, in Santa Barbara, CA. It was a very nicely hard-bound copy of the Saints from about 1950 through 1985. There was a certain class (apparently) of LDS folk who were included, while others were excluded. My family is not at all mentioned (I think that Dad very significantly taught Gospel Doctrine classes for every year that we lived there (through 1971).

 

History: Just another thought

Prior to publication of An Ancient American Setting of the Book of Mormon (1985), Dad was giving weekly classes to powers that be at Church headquarters (he was eight years younger than I am now). Elder Mark E. Peterson was a staunch resistor to Dad's informed theories/teachings. Dad patiently persisted over several years. The finally published volume, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon was finally published in 1985 ... one year after the passing of Elder Mark E. Peterson. Shortly following the publication, I asked my dad how he was able to push his work forward, given authoritative Church opposition ... he replied "I outlived/survived that opposition." Dad is now nearly 30 years past that. He'll be 91 in April ... and has since published Mormon's Codex.

 

So what is it that defines credibility? Certainly it involves responsible scholastic focus (which I truly think that Dehlin lacks).

 

So what is it that decides the very serious act of excommunication?

• What does that even mean ... seriously, and why?
• What are the very serious personal and psychological ... and spiritual  consequences for the honest-thinking person?
• Should we be scared to think for ourselves? Should we be scared to express ... in abstract ... in detail?
• What if our very carefully and meticulously constructed thoughts seem contrary to conventional Mormon thinking/teaching (as in the case of John L. Sorenson)?

I'm hardly suggesting that my father, in his quest for real truth, in any way compares to Dehlin and his departure ... but really, "truth and consequence"? In

reality (from my personal perception ... and given Dad's very radically expressed departure from the historic Mormon convention) could not my father have been considered a target for excommunication?

 

Perhaps ... but surely not.

 

That would, of course, be utter nonsense. Yet, something to consider (in view of how some other excommunications have been handed-out/executed/delivered).

Edited February 12, 2015 by cursor