John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[KevinG]

Cursor, from your description, your father counselled with the Brethren.  He did not presume to preach publicly that they were wrong, or he knew better than them.  He also avoided implying that the brethren tacitly supported him, while using his opinions to draw others out of the church.  He also supported the core doctrines of the church, while researching history that was not in and of itself in opposition to our doctrines, only our traditions and things external to the scriptures themselves.

 

For me those are the dividing lines between loyal questions, seeking, and apostasy.  This is also why your father was probably never in the arena of being considered for discipline because of his work.

 

Anyone who continues to characterize John Dehlin as an innocent questioner, or things he was treated differently than others, is just not paying attention to what Dehlin himself taught and acted upon.

[pogi]

One of the reasons for John's excommunication was his belief, or statements rather, that the Book of Mormon is fictional.  I know there have been several debates on here about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and whether it is important or not.  Does this give anybody pause, to perhaps reconsider their position on the matter?  

Edited February 12, 2015 by pogi

[KevinG]

One of the reasons for John's excommunication was his belief that the Book of Mormon is fictional.  I know there have been several debates on here about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and whether it is important or not.  Does this give anybody pause, to perhaps reconsider their position on the matter?  

 

You can think, discuss, ponder, propose, and debate the historicity of the book of Mormon all you want.  Even in Sunday School.

 

What will get you talked to by the Bishop or Stake President is imply the brethren support your position, criticize the church organization for teaching it as history, use your theories to help "transition" people away from the church, or claim the brethren are fallen prophets because of their beliefs.

 

What will get you excommunicated is when you asked by the Bishop or Stake President to stop doing it, and you refuse to repent and align your teachings and communications with church doctrines.  But by that time you have essentially removed yourself from the body of believers anyway.

 

Its not that vague a line despite the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth among Dehlin's followers.

[why me]

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. 

 

One can see the contradiction and yet, the relationship between your two paragaraphs. In my humble opinion, john added to your confusion with his podcasts. One reason for this was his flip flopping on his relationship with the church and how his podcasts reflected those flips and flops. And yet, your second paragraph is more down to earth, rooted in the organic nature of the church at its grass roots founded in its people. People who have been influenced by god's love and by their love of god. At the end of the day, this is what is important. If you concentrate on what you wrote in your second paragraph quoted above, you will do fine.

[pogi]

You can think, discuss, ponder, propose, and debate the historicity of the book of Mormon all you want.  Even in Sunday School.

 

What will get you talked to by the Bishop or Stake President is imply the brethren support your position, criticize the church organization for teaching it as history, use your theories to help "transition" people away from the church, or claim the brethren are fallen prophets because of their beliefs.

 

What will get you excommunicated is when you asked by the Bishop or Stake President to stop doing it, and you refuse to repent and align your teachings and communications with church doctrines.  But by that time you have essentially removed yourself from the body of believers anyway.

 

Its not that vague a line despite the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth among Dehlin's followers.

 

I tend to agree with you, however, the letter explaining the three reasons for his excommunication did not mention any of that.  It simply accused him of making "statements" that the BOM is fictional.   Is that the real reason, or is there more to it as you suggest?

Edited February 12, 2015 by pogi

[KevinG]

I tend to agree with you, however, the letter explaining the three reasons for his excommunication did not mention any of that.  It simply accused him of making "statements" that the BOM is fictional.   Is that the real reason, or is there more to it as you suggest?

 

There are many examples of people who have made statements to the effect of the Book of Mormon being something other than history, who never received such a letter.  Either that or a lot of people who think the Book of Mormon could be legend in part or whole have been very circumspect about their excommunication.

 

Parsimony suggests they weren't excommunicated and yet continue to wonder in class and on internet discussion boards.

[ERayR]

I tend to agree with you, however, the letter explaining the three reasons for his excommunication did not mention any of that.  It simply accused him of making "statements" that the BOM is fictional.   Is that the real reason, or is there more to it as you suggest?

Seeing as it is not given in the letter as the "real" reason I move that we take his SP at his word about the "real" reason.

[KevinG]

Seeing as it is not given in the letter as the "real" reason I move that we take his SP at his word about the "real" reason.

 

Where is the fun in that?  Refraining from unfounded accusations about the hidden motives of LDS authorities would sound the death knell of thousands of internet discussions.  Servers all along the Wasatch front would grind to a halt.

[KevinG]

...and focusing on the reason ignores the fact that there were reasons.

[pogi]

Seeing as it is not given in the letter as the "real" reason I move that we take his SP at his word about the "real" reason.

 

So, do you believe that there are grounds for excommunication for those who have made statements against the historicity of the BOM?  Several members on here would be in threat. 

Edited February 12, 2015 by pogi

[Bob Crockett]

One of the reasons for John's excommunication was his belief, or statements rather, that the Book of Mormon is fictional.  I know there have been several debates on here about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and whether it is important or not.  Does this give anybody pause, to perhaps reconsider their position on the matter?  

 

When you're anonymous on a board like this, you can be a complete hypocrite.  Nobody's gonna know you're expressing doubt about the Book of Mormon here when you're teaching the youth on Sunday.  So when you remark that this board frequently talks about doubters of the Books' historicity, you have to determine if the doubter is cowering behind an anonymous name.  To Dehlin's credit, he never did that.  To some extent, his integrity towers over the anonymous contributors to this board.   However, his disbelief moved more towards into mockery.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

There are no accidents -- Freud

EXACTLY!!!

[pogi]

When you're anonymous on a board like this, you can be a complete hypocrite.  Nobody's gonna know you're expressing doubt about the Book of Mormon here when you're teaching the youth on Sunday.  So when you remark that this board frequently talks about doubters of the Books' historicity, you have to determine if the doubter is cowering behind an anonymous name.  To Dehlin's credit, he never did that.  However, his disbelief moved more towards into mockery.

 

My question is, should these people reconsider their anonymous, though very real, positions based on this action taken?  Does it tell us that there IS an official position that we cannot non-anonymously make statements against?  Or, has the SP made a judgment based on his personal rather than official position on the matter?

Some on here are not anonymous. 

[rockpond]

When you're anonymous on a board like this, you can be a complete hypocrite.  Nobody's gonna know you're expressing doubt about the Book of Mormon here when you're teaching the youth on Sunday.

 

This is a good observation.  Do you think there is a takeaway for us in it?

[KevinG]

I struggle with the anonymity question on line.  I am not a published author or scholar so my name does not lend credibility to my positions.  On the other hand having opinions and musings on line with my real name could make me a target of identity theft, bullying, or other nefarious goings online.  The only place I use my real identity (full name - yes I really am a Kevin) is a private Facebook account where only family and friends I select know what I say.

 

The risks of someone abusing a public identity are too great.  My private and public opinions are pretty consistent however. 

[why me]

I tend to agree with you, however, the letter explaining the three reasons for his excommunication did not mention any of that.  It simply accused him of making "statements" that the BOM is fictional.   Is that the real reason, or is there more to it as you suggest?

More. But how much can be in a letter? It would take at least 30 pages. The problem dates back a few years. The letter could have mentioned john's MS chapters, MS conferences, his critical podcasts, his media persona, and his mockery of the lds church by flip flopping here and there on church issues influencing members along the way .The problem with john is john. He became too self important and perhaps he became too obessed with himself. Unfortunately, it had to end the way it did. He gave his local leaders no other choice. He became the church and the church became him, at least in his own mind.

Edited February 12, 2015 by why me

[pogi]

More. But how much can be in a letter? It would take at least 30 pages. The problem dates back a few years. The letter could have mentioned john's MS chapters, MS conferences, his critical podcasts, his media persona, and his mockery of the lds church by flip flopping here and there on church issues influencing members along the way .The problem with john is john. He became too self important and perhaps he became too obessed with himself. Unfortunately, it had to end the way it did. He gave his local leaders no other choice.

 

I don't disagree.  But the fact that it made it into the letter as one of three reasons does raise questions about the subject. 

[cursor]

Cursor, from your description, your father counselled with the Brethren.  He did not presume to preach publicly that they were wrong, or he knew better than them.  He also avoided implying that the brethren tacitly supported him, while using his opinions to draw others out of the church.  He also supported the core doctrines of the church, while researching history that was not in and of itself in opposition to our doctrines, only our traditions and things external to the scriptures themselves.

 

Certainly this is a primary reason why I suggest that:

• "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."

  ... and ...

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

[KevinG]

Intent counts here...  are those discussing the Book of Mormon as something other than historical attempting to understand it as literature or history, or are they using those questions to attempt to draw or convert believers away from the church?

 

This is one of the reasons that these proceedings must be done locally and individually.  A foolish consistency is the not only the hobgoblin of little minds, but could be tyranny of the worst kind if misapplied to everyone who ever questioned what was real.

[KevinG]

 

Certainly this is a primary reason why I suggest that:

• "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."

  ... and ...

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

 

 

I agree - and please don't take my musings for questioning that your father did anything wrong in his research either.  I happen to be an armchair fan - and I love even the plausible if not provable information he presents.

[cursor]

I am not a published author or scholar so my name does not lend credibility to my positions.

 

I was chatting with my dad on the phone the other day about another LDS person posting what I considered to be substantial opinion. His voice back to me was ... "He is not a real scholar. He never did get his PhD." What absolute nonsense, I say. We all have opinions ... some more solidly based than others. The value of those opinions cannot be adopted nor dismissed entirely as a function of formal scholastic degree(s). And after all, he was talking on the phone to ME ... who has no university experience. Gee, what does that say about my opinions?

 

Thanks for your voice informed voice, and your concerned input, Kevin.

Edited February 12, 2015 by cursor

[why me]

Intent counts here...  are those discussing the Book of Mormon as something other than historical attempting to understand it as literature or history, or are they using those questions to attempt to draw or convert believers away from the church?

 

This is one of the reasons that these proceedings must be done locally and individually.  A foolish consistency is the not only the hobgoblin of little minds, but could be tyranny of the worst kind if misapplied to everyone who ever questioned what was real.

I think that we are leaving something out here. Why would john begin to broadcast his disbelief and take such an active part in his own demise? If I no longer believed in the book of mormon, what value would I get from broadcasting it all over the media, do interviews whenever possible about why I no longer believe etc if not to influence others to follow my lead? And it is here where his own self importance took center stage. I think that john would do best to analyse himself in all this. There is certainly something psychological in all this fuss he has made of his own disbelief.

[KevinG]

I think that we are leaving something out here. Why would john begin to broadcast his disbelief and take such an active part in his own demise? If I no longer believed in the book of mormon, what value would I get from broadcasting it all over the media, do interviews whenever possible about why I no longer believe etc if not to influence others to follow my lead? And it is here where his own self importance took center stage. I think that john would do best to analyse himself in all this. There is certainly something psychological in all this fuss he has made of his own disbelief.

 

In that sense his struggle is much the same as all mortals.  We choose to align ourselves with a prevailing belief system.  If we are unable to sacrifice selfish wants we may harm ourselves in the long run by separating ourselves from our best path for eternal happiness.

 

In John's case his struggle played out very publicly - arguably by his own choice.  But there are many of us who can just as easily sever our relationship with God through more private acts, and yet outwardly appear to be faithful.

[pogi]

I think that we are leaving something out here. Why would john begin to broadcast his disbelief and take such an active part in his own demise? If I no longer believed in the book of mormon, what value would I get from broadcasting it all over the media, do interviews whenever possible about why I no longer believe etc if not to influence others to follow my lead? And it is here where his own self importance took center stage. I think that john would do best to analyse himself in all this. There is certainly something psychological in all this fuss he has made of his own disbelief.

 

By broadcasting his disbelief, I believe that he was attempting to make disbelief acceptable within the culture of the church, to make it a place more comfortable for him...and because disbelief sells better for someone like him.  

Edited February 12, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

So, do you believe that there are grounds for excommunication for those who have made statements against the historicity of the BOM?  Several members on here would be in threat. 

 

What I think is irrelevant to any specific case.  To answer your question yes and no.  It depends on the facts and circumstances.