John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[ERayR]

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. 

 

Not answerable as a lot depends on who the SP is and the facts and circumstances.

[cursor]

There are no accidents -- Freud

 

...

Edited February 12, 2015 by cursor

[pogi]

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

 

I don't disagree.  But if you are right, that requires reading beyond what is written in the letter. 

[pogi]

There are no accidents -- Freud

 

A freudian slip perhaps?

 

I don't know if it was an accident or not, doubt it, but I don't tend to give Freud much credibility. 

 

He also said that adolescent girls have penis envy and that boys lust after their mothers and hate their fathers and all sorts of other weird stuff. 

Edited February 12, 2015 by pogi

[cursor]

There are no accidents -- Freud

 

You suggest that Freud's opinion carries some sort of absolute opinion ... one that trumps all others ... including mine. Hogwash, I say.

 

"Accidents" abound in life. What does the word mean, after all? "An event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause"

 

Personally I have seen a million and three in my lifetime ... and I'm just 62 years old. As time and culture "advances," I expect to see a great number more "accidents".

[VideoGameJunkie]

Who thinks he will one day down the line see the error of his ways, repent, and come back to the church? That would be an amazing story.

[USU78]

You suggest that Freud's opinion carries some sort of absolute opinion ... one that trumps all others ... including mine. Hogwash, I say.

 

"Accidents" abound in life. What does the word mean, after all? "An event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause"

 

Personally I have seen a million and three in my lifetime ... and I'm just 62 years old. As time and culture "advances," I expect to see a great number more "accidents".

 

Is it [y]our opinion that jd linked to his stake president's entry on a physician rating site was an oversight or accident?

Edited February 13, 2015 by USU78

[Hamba Tuhan]

Who thinks he will one day down the line see the error of his ways, repent, and come back to the church? That would be an amazing story.

 

It doesn't matter what one might think in these cases; it's what one hopes.

[Storm Rider]

Is it our opinion that jd linked to his stake president's entry on a physician rating site was an oversight or accident?

 

When there are five people there are five different opinions.  Who is included in your "our" opinion?  

 

I do not allow for a lot of flexibility with those who enjoy taking their situations, complaints, etc. to the mass media.  They choose the mass media for a reason and it is virtually impossible to link to a physicians rating site accidentally.  Choke on a fly and swallow a camel - this had to have been a conscious choice. 

[KevinG]

When there are five people there are five different opinions.  Who is included in your "our" opinion?  

 

I do not allow for a lot of flexibility with those who enjoy taking their situations, complaints, etc. to the mass media.  They choose the mass media for a reason and it is virtually impossible to link to a physicians rating site accidentally.  Choke on a fly and swallow a camel - this had to have been a conscious choice.

I suspect that was meant to be "your" not our. I also suspect USU is a victim of tablet or,phone spellcheck.

[USU78]

I suspect that was meant to be "your" not our. I also suspect USU is a victim of tablet or,phone spellcheck.

This

[carbon dioxide]

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. 

I don't even use Facebook.  I would find it very annoying if people came or wrote to me that I know saying "hey I saw what you wrote on blank".  I hate attention that comes to me whether praise or ridicule.  I like a space where I can be myself without any need of self censor.  I really would not even like my wife or kids to read even this post.   If the internet was to get to a point where my real name was posted in whatever I did, I would stop using the internet completely.  As long as I am just another grain of sand on a beach, I am happy.

[Tacenda]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2168707-156/letter-lds-church-can-do-better

 

A response to this article mentions John wanted to resign, but was told he cannot do that, I've heard this happening before, but didn't know it happened with John.  Any truth to the fact that he tried to resign, I'd never heard of him trying to do this.  

[Calm]

The guy has his facts wrong.  Read Dehlin's own press releases with the Stake Pres' letters.  After he asked for no contact from his ward for both himself and his family, he was asked if he wanted to resign and told if he didn't there could eventually be a council held for him.  Also that if he did resign, this would be made public. 

[USU78]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2168707-156/letter-lds-church-can-do-better

 

A response to this article mentions John wanted to resign, but was told he cannot do that, I've heard this happening before, but didn't know it happened with John.  Any truth to the fact that he tried to resign, I'd never heard of him trying to do this.  

 

He's feeding another subset of his flock here, T:  the part that believes unquestioningly that the Church won't let people go who want to resign.  They take inefficiency and ignorance in our all-volunteer priesthood as malice.

 

Of course, it's been asserted that, to an observer, the effects of inefficiency and actual malice are hard to distinguish.

[why me]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2168707-156/letter-lds-church-can-do-better

 

A response to this article mentions John wanted to resign, but was told he cannot do that, I've heard this happening before, but didn't know it happened with John.  Any truth to the fact that he tried to resign, I'd never heard of him trying to do this.  

I wouldn't believe what is in a comment section of an article. Some of the commentators wish to plant disinformation. This is the problem with the internet. Anyone can post anything they wish and have people read it regardless of its truthfulness. Also, sometimes it is good not to be negative toward the church when one reads such comments or even posts. One must search the heart to find peace of heart. If john attempted to resign and it was declined he would be the first to spill the beans.

[why me]

The guy has his facts wrong.  Read Dehlin's own press releases with the Stake Pres' letters.  After he asked for no contact from his ward for both himself and his family, he was asked if he wanted to resign and told if he didn't there could eventually be a council held for him.  Also that if he did resign, this would be made public.

Usually, someone in the public profile like john was does not want to relinguish power. They would much rather be forced out so that they could claim maximum benefit from it. Resigning would be an anticlimax and with it a loss of faith by his followers. Unless of course the resignation could get a money making spin.

[Tacenda]

Is it [y]our opinion that jd linked to his stake president's entry on a physician rating site was an oversight or accident?

It hit me today while c/p'g something for another thread that when you do that it includes highlighted links. IMO, this is what John might have done, but I'd have to see the statement, do you have it?

[Calm]

There is no reason he would have copy and pasted that section from someone else's article as it is specific to his announcement, to him writing it personally.  
 

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormon church), I have been summoned by my LDS Stake President,Dr. Bryan King, to appear before a disciplinary council to be held on January 25, 2015 at the North Logan Utah Stake Center, located 2750 North 800 East, North Logan, Utah beginning at 6 p.m.

 

 

The bold was the embedded link (I think that is the term)

Edited February 13, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2168707-156/letter-lds-church-can-do-better

 

A response to this article mentions John wanted to resign, but was told he cannot do that, I've heard this happening before, but didn't know it happened with John.  Any truth to the fact that he tried to resign, I'd never heard of him trying to do this.  

 

I give that absolutely no credibility.  If one wants to resign they simply write a letter and deliver it to ones bishop.

[rongo]

Even if priesthood leaders "wouldn't let someone resign" (by refusing to submit any paperwork), people can resign directly through Salt Lake. My one resignation from when I was a bishop was from a member (I didn't know I had) resigning through Salt Lake. I visited the member, confirmed her wish, and told her that she would get a letter from the Stake President in 30 days confirming that her name had been removed if he didn't hear otherwise from her. 

 

Done.

[ERayR]

Even if priesthood leaders "wouldn't let someone resign" (by refusing to submit any paperwork), people can resign directly through Salt Lake. My one resignation from when I was a bishop was from a member (I didn't know I had) resigning through Salt Lake. I visited the member, confirmed her wish, and told her that she would get a letter from the Stake President in 30 days confirming that her name had been removed if he didn't hear otherwise from her. 

 

Done.

 

I thought Bishops knew every single member of their ward.

[rongo]

Only the ones actually on the ward list . . .

 

This one wasn't, and nobody was aware of her existence. Her records were sent to the ward after her contact with Salt Lake, and the stake president was asked to send the bishop to acknowledge receipt and start the process. 

 

One record rescued from the oblivion of the Address Unknown file, only to be removed . . . 

[rockpond]

Yesterday I finished listening to Dehlin's interview with Terryl & Fiona Givens and James Patterson. It's a fascinating podcast, faith affirming, and shares a lot of insights about the Givens' new book: Crucible of Doubt. It is also very representative of the John Dehlin that I admire.

I also find it interesting that it was produced in August 2014... Around the same time the infamous President King interview happened.

Here's the link if you care to listen. I think it's worth the time for any member.

http://mormonstories.org/fiona-and-terryl-givens-and-the-crucible-of-doubt/

[Teancum]

Who thinks he will one day down the line see the error of his ways, repent, and come back to the church? That would be an amazing story.

 

 

Nope.  And it is an a priori assumption to think he is the absolute one in error.  Maybe, just maybe, just maybe a tinsie winsie chance that you might be in error?