John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[Stone holm]

And you know this how?

Common sense no Stake President is going to take on someone that high profile for apostasy without a candid conversation with someone in a higher position. You just don't set off a potential public relations powder keg like that without some form of counsel from SL. To deny it is just not credible.

[KevinG]

Let me get this straight...

 

So John Dehlin after several discussions with his Bishop and Stake President over his public statements denying the divinity of Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was actually excommunicated over support same sex marriage and women in the priesthood, after local authorities counseled with higher ups in Salt Lake City.

 

Is that the narrative?

[mormonnewb]

Let me get this straight...

 

So John Dehlin after several discussions with his Bishop and Stake President over his public statements denying the divinity of Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was actually excommunicated over support same sex marriage and women in the priesthood, after local authorities counseled with higher ups in Salt Lake City.

 

Is that the narrative?

That doesn't seem to be Stone Helm's point AT ALL. He is simply stating that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that a SP would take on a high-profile excommunication without first receiving approval from SLC.

As for YOUR suggestion that the SP's reasons for excommunication were crafted in conjunction with the Church, I agree wholeheartedly. Otherwise, how was the Church able to make a public statement on the matter within an hour of Dehlin announcing his excommunication? Are you really suggesting that the Church had no idea of how everything was proceeding, read the letter on the Internet, and then immediately issued its own statement?

For the Church to have been uninvolved in a matter that went international is not only implausible, but it would have been irresponsible. Just last year, the Church spent millions to build its brand. Would it just let any random SP "trash" that brand without saying a word about it? (And no, I don't think that Dehlin's ex'ing trashed the brand)

[ERayR]

Common sense no Stake President is going to take on someone that high profile for apostasy without a candid conversation with someone in a higher position. You just don't set off a potential public relations powder keg like that without some form of counsel from SL. To deny it is just not credible.

I agree, that's why they have that phone number.  I just wondered if you had something other than supposition.  However, I don't think it was a GA who made the call.  My guess is that they offered support in how to proceed with the process.

Edited February 16, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

That doesn't seem to be Stone Helm's point AT ALL. He is simply stating that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that a SP would take on a high-profile excommunication without first receiving approval from SLC.

As for YOUR suggestion that the SP's reasons for excommunication were crafted in conjunction with the Church, I agree wholeheartedly. Otherwise, how was the Church able to make a public statement on the matter within an hour of Dehlin announcing his excommunication? Are you really suggesting that the Church had no idea of how everything was proceeding, read the letter on the Internet, and then immediately issued its own statement?

For the Church to have been uninvolved in a matter that went international is not only implausible, but it would have been irresponsible. Just last year, the Church spent millions to build its brand. Would it just let any random SP "trash" that brand without saying a word about it? (And no, I don't think that Dehlin's ex'ing trashed the brand)

 

Internationally is a bit of hyperbole for something that barely made ripples outside Utah and certain parts of the internet.

[why me]

That doesn't seem to be Stone Helm's point AT ALL. He is simply stating that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that a SP would take on a high-profile excommunication without first receiving approval from SLC.

As for YOUR suggestion that the SP's reasons for excommunication were crafted in conjunction with the Church, I agree wholeheartedly. Otherwise, how was the Church able to make a public statement on the matter within an hour of Dehlin announcing his excommunication? Are you really suggesting that the Church had no idea of how everything was proceeding, read the letter on the Internet, and then immediately issued its own statement?

For the Church to have been uninvolved in a matter that went international is not only implausible, but it would have been irresponsible. Just last year, the Church spent millions build its brand. Would it just let any random SP "trash" that brand without saying a word about it? (And no, I don't think that Dehlin's ex'ing trashed the brand)

This event did not go international. In fact most members abroad never even heard of john. And the ones that did, I believe many were disappointed with his salary. Of course, he may have been known with the younger internet crowd who may have knowledge of the english language but for the most part, john is an unknown. And the international media avoided such a news story. So, you used a hyperbole in this regard. I don't think that salt lake had much say in the matter since it was a local event. I am sure that because john was a utah media sensation they probably took an interest in his case, especially the GA who he was in touch with. But beyond that, I don't think that much interest was there. 

 

And what is the lds brand? I see the church attempting to educate americans just what the mormons are but I don't see a brand at all. And what trashed the 'brand'? John's excommunication? Hardly. No one gives an owl's hoot that  the church exes someone for apostacy since john did state that he no longer believes.. I think that you are trying to find a negative where no negative exists. Did the exing of kate trash the 'brand' as perhaps you stated when that happened. Hardly.

 

And why dehumanize the members or the church with the brand angle?

Edited February 16, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

Internationally is a bit of hyperbole for something that barely made ripples outside Utah and certain parts of the internet.

The Guardian covered Dehlin's excommunication in four different stories in 2015. And when it was announced (alongside KK's ex'ing) last August, the story hit papers in probably a dozen different countries.

All of that being said, I will grant that it wasn't a BIG international (or even national) story. But quite frankly, NO Mormon news story is.

[pogi]

But quite frankly, NO Mormon news story is.

 

Unless Broadway is involved, or a presidential candidate. 

[bluebell]

That doesn't seem to be Stone Helm's point AT ALL. He is simply stating that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that a SP would take on a high-profile excommunication without first receiving approval from SLC.

 

 

I hear this a lot, but i don't really understand it.

 

Why is it highly unlikely?

[mormonnewb]

I hear this a lot, but i don't really understand it.

Why is it highly unlikely?

If I was a regional manager at, say, Target, and I was going to fire the founder of a very popular blog amongst Target employees (let's call it Target Stories), I'd call my boss to get her input first.

And let's be clear, I am not criticizing the SP or the Church leaders for not allowing a "rogue" SP to take action that might have a negative effect on the Church's image. The Church has a legitimate reason to be concerned with how it is perceived in the world at large.

[USU78]

If I was a regional manager at, say, Target, and I was going to fire the founder of a very popular blog amongst Target employees (let's call it Target Stories), I'd call my boss to get her input first.

And let's be clear, I am not criticizing the SP or the Church leaders for not allowing a "rogue" SP to take action that might have a negative effect on the Church's image. The Church has a legitimate reason to be concerned with how it is perceived in the world at large.

 

Seeking direction/aid from one's ecclesiastical superiors is not the same thing at all as eschewing one's duty to do one's own job under direction of G-d through prayer and fasting, as has been intimated.

[Calm]

PA people, doing what they do, demonstrated they were already well aware of the impending council. I see no reason why they could not have constructed several versions depending on outcome in preparation.

And I would actually be surprised if the SP didn't contact someone at PA, perhaps Eric Hawkins as he was already dealing with some of the media corrections, to let them know when the decision was made. If the letter was delivered through a mail service, that would give at least half a day, even if hand delivered an hour or two if Dehlin has chosen to make an immediate announcement.

As it was Dehlin chose to wait for at least 12 hours to release the info. That gave plenty of time.

At the very least, there would have been the change in his records surely.

But even if there was no notification, why does anyone think it would have taken that long to put together something they had been thinking about prior to that?

[bluebell]

If I was a regional manager at, say, Target, and I was going to fire the founder of a very popular blog amongst Target employees (let's call it Target Stories), I'd call my boss to get her input first.

And that would make sense,  because i'm sure that Target does not have a policy which specifically states that it's managers are to fire people based on their own inspiration and that the boss is not to be involved except upon appeal.

 

But the church doesn't function like Target when it comes to excommunicating someone though so i really don't see why it's 'highly unlikely' that it would follow it's only policies in cases like Dehlin.

 

And let's be clear, I am not criticizing the SP or the Church leaders for not allowing a "rogue" SP to take action that might have a negative effect on the Church's image. The Church has a legitimate reason to be concerned with how it is perceived in the world at large.

 

 

Do we have any evidence that the church weighs how the secular world is going to react before it decides to do something?  I mean, of course we know the church wants to be seen in a positive light and that they spend energy and effort to make sure people's interpretation of the church is accurate, but do we have evidence of church leaders really feeling like something should be done but not doing it because of how it would be perceived in the world at large?

 

You yourself have lamented many times on this board how much the church doesn't seem to care how the world sees it, its doctrine, or its policies (and have stated that it's been embarrassing for you a few times in regards to how your non-lds friends react to things the church says or does).  

 

I'm just not seeing the evidence to support something that you and others claim is pretty much a given.  

Edited February 16, 2015 by bluebell

[bluebell]

And I would actually be surprised if the SP didn't contact someone at PA, perhaps Eric Hawkins as he was already dealing with some of the media corrections, to let them know when the decision was made. If the letter was delivered through a mail service, that would give at least half a day, even if hand delivered an hour or two if Dehlin has chosen to make an immediate announcement.

 

 

I agree.  I think it makes sense that the SP would inform the church's PA department of the outcome of such a court because it's high profile.  That's different than implying that SLC was involved in the decision to hold the court or involved in the outcome of the court.

[Stone holm]

It is highly unlikely because every SP has usually a weekly or at least monthly telephone conversation with a GA who is assigned to him.  If a SP was faced with a situation like this, yes he would make the ultimate decision -- but its not credible that the SP wouldn't seek guidance.  In this case, I would guess  the guidance went pretty far up the chain.   One of the considerations taken into account in a disciplinary case is to what extent the act for which the person is being disciplined had a negative impact on the reputation of the Church.  It would, I think, have been almost irresponsible for an SP not to have sought and obtained counsel.  It certainly wouldn't be fair to the SP to leave him dangling in the wind on something this high profile.  Dehlin for good or ill, had a following...and awkwardly, he was known to have probably kept a few people from leaving the Church.  So if you ex him, then you may be saying good bye to not just him...and he ran a popular podcast so you know its going to go viral.  Out here he was pretty much a non issue.  The exing of Kelly was much more of an issue because the Sisters, many of whom are professionals, tended to identify with her -- not all, not even a majority, but a few.  Dehlin, on the other hand, nobody out here really identified with him much -- to the extent they did, it was more of a "oh well" shrug "another one bites the dust" sort of thing.  And besides us members, people don't take the Church very serious out here so somebody being kicked out of it just doesn't hit the radar screen.

[ERayR]

If I was a regional manager at, say, Target, and I was going to fire the founder of a very popular blog amongst Target employees (let's call it Target Stories), I'd call my boss to get her input first.

And let's be clear, I am not criticizing the SP or the Church leaders for not allowing a "rogue" SP to take action that might have a negative effect on the Church's image. The Church has a legitimate reason to be concerned with how it is perceived in the world at large.

 

Seeking direction by the SP is not the same as seeking permission.  The SP had authority to proceed and did not need permission..

[bluebell]

It is highly unlikely because every SP has usually a weekly or at least monthly telephone conversation with a GA who is assigned to him.  If a SP was faced with a situation like this, yes he would make the ultimate decision -- but its not credible that the SP wouldn't seek guidance.  In this case, I would guess  the guidance went pretty far up the chain.

 

This keeps getting repeated but i'm not seeing any evidence at all to back it up.  Again, why isn't it credible that the church would follow its own policies in situations like this?

 

 

 

[ERayR]

This keeps getting repeated but i'm not seeing any evidence at all to back it up.  Again, why isn't it credible that the church would follow its own policies in situations like this?

 

 

 

 

Those that keep repeating like to believe the GAs are sitting in their offices in front of a giant computer screen with the names of the members scrolling across it and sending messages to the SP on what to do with each member. 

[KevinG]

That doesn't seem to be Stone Helm's point AT ALL. He is simply stating that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that a SP would take on a high-profile excommunication without first receiving approval from SLC.

As for YOUR suggestion that the SP's reasons for excommunication were crafted in conjunction with the Church, I agree wholeheartedly. Otherwise, how was the Church able to make a public statement on the matter within an hour of Dehlin announcing his excommunication? Are you really suggesting that the Church had no idea of how everything was proceeding, read the letter on the Internet, and then immediately issued its own statement?

For the Church to have been uninvolved in a matter that went international is not only implausible, but it would have been irresponsible. Just last year, the Church spent millions to build its brand. Would it just let any random SP "trash" that brand without saying a word about it? (And no, I don't think that Dehlin's ex'ing trashed the brand)

My comments were not in response to stone holm alone. They summarize several posters opinions. The church responded to Dehlins press releases not the Stake Presidents decision.

[Scott Lloyd]

Those that keep repeating like to believe the GAs are sitting in their offices in front of a giant computer screen with the names of the members scrolling across it and sending messages to the SP on what to do with each member. 

Kind of like the elves with the Naughty List and the Nice List at the North Pole?

 

I guess youthful fantasies die hard.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Kind of like the elves with the Naughty List and the Nice List at the North Pole?

 

I guess youthful fantasies die hard.

 

Maybe the GA's are taking advantage of this government program.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/russian-researchers-expose-breakthrough-us-spying-program/ar-BBhE3Fx?ocid=mailsignout

[Pahoran]

Stone holm opined:
 

Yes, but few out here would believe that it went forward without counsel from SL.

Yes, but few out there actually understand how the Church works.

Regards,
Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Let me get this straight...

 

So John Dehlin after several discussions with his Bishop and Stake President over his public statements denying the divinity of Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was actually excommunicated over support same sex marriage and women in the priesthood, after local authorities counseled with higher ups in Salt Lake City.

 

Is that the narrative?

If he denied the divinity of Christ publicly (I neither know nor care if he did or did not) that's it.

 

As a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, the Stake President would make the decision after conferring with the HC.   Period.  Clear cut case if he denies the divinity of Christ and preaches that to others.

 

Anyone who thinks that would have to go through SLC is just plain wrong and doesn't know how the church works.  The SP holds the keys, not SLC.  SLC would not take away his keys to do that.

[Storm Rider]

Those that keep repeating like to believe the GAs are sitting in their offices in front of a giant computer screen with the names of the members scrolling across it and sending messages to the SP on what to do with each member. 

 

We use multiple screens rather than one big one.  It speeds the process along of monitoring everyone, reporting on their actions, and receiving direction from GA on exactly what to do.  The GAs have loads of time to hear about everything members do.  We stopped simply reporting on members and now we don't do anything unless the prophet tells us what to do with each member.  

[mfbukowski]

If I was a regional manager at, say, Target, and I was going to fire the founder of a very popular blog amongst Target employees (let's call it Target Stories), I'd call my boss to get her input first.

And let's be clear, I am not criticizing the SP or the Church leaders for not allowing a "rogue" SP to take action that might have a negative effect on the Church's image. The Church has a legitimate reason to be concerned with how it is perceived in the world at large.

The church is not Target and the SP is essentially the regional "prophet" for the stake with his own q of 12 and priesthood organization.

 

I am sure the SP sought advice, but I am equally sure that the SP made the decision. 

Edited February 17, 2015 by mfbukowski