John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[Storm Rider]

Another POV (I don't believe this link has been posted before, my apologies if so):

 

http://www.standard.net/Standard-Deviations/2015/02/14/Excommunicated-blogger

 

Strong imagery, I wonder if people will like or reject the analogy he uses.

Interesting blog; thank you for posting it.

 

I find it strange that JD's followers want to defend him and criticize the Church for excommunicating him.  JD said he did not believe in the teachings of the Church and he taught others the same things; boom, you are no longer LDS.  What exactly is the problem?  

 

It would have been far more honest for him to pick up his cookies and march on down to a church of his choice start attending church rather than to present a fake facade in order to make money off of his program. 

[why me]

Interesting blog; thank you for posting it.

 

I find it strange that JD's followers want to defend him and criticize the Church for excommunicating him.  JD said he did not believe in the teachings of the Church and he taught others the same things; boom, you are no longer LDS.  What exactly is the problem?  

 

It would have been far more honest for him to pick up his cookies and march on down to a church of his choice start attending church rather than to present a fake facade in order to make money off of his program. 

I think that many of John's followers are going through a process that not even they understand. It can't be easy to be a believer is someone who sorely disappoints them. For example, I know that the income that he has generated has caused some of his supporters to reflect a little about his role in the podcasts etc. Also, his flip flops have caused just a little concern for this followers because john can change his outlook on the drop of a dime. Also, his followers must know that john's powerbase has disappeared with his excommunication. He no longer can be a fifth column in the church.

 

And I can agree about honesty. It certainly would have been but then he probably thought that his followers would have seen him as a coward. Better to be Custer and make a last stand. John will go the way of Kate or at least he should. Now is the time for him to concentrate on family and kids and his independent practice. What more can be done with podcasts?

[mormonnewb]

Interesting blog; thank you for posting it.

 

I find it strange that JD's followers want to defend him and criticize the Church for excommunicating him.  JD said he did not believe in the teachings of the Church and he taught others the same things; boom, you are no longer LDS.  What exactly is the problem?  

 

Interestingly, I think JD had a stronger testimony of the Church than anyone on this board.  And by "church," I mean it in the same way that the Savior meant it; at least, if we can trust that the early writers were accurate in the 113 times they used the Greek word "ecclesia" (i.e., the congregation or assembly or the people).  JD's testimony was so strong about the people that he wanted to continue on as part of the tribe despite not believing in any of the fundamental tenets of the RELIGION.  In my view, that is the ultimate form of devotion.

 

Of course, as good Christians, we threw him out because hey, we're a people of doctrine; not love.  Interestingly, it's amazing how little the Savior spoke of doctrine.  And yes, he did say that He was the way, the truth and the light; that none come to the Father except through Him.  I get it that He was the Messiah and wanted us to know that.  He also seemed to be very concerned with how we treated one another; and He didn't seem to put a litmus test of belief on it.  In fact, His very last command to the disciples at the Last Supper was:

 

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:34-35

 

Perhaps, the translators got it wrong and Christ really meant, "Love one another so long as you should believe the same way about me, but as soon as one of you strays from that knowledge, they've got to go.  See 'em, wouldn't want to be 'em!"  Once again, translation can be tricky sometimes so one never knows.  But my strong hunch is that Jesus would have wanted his disciples to love one another despite their differences.  Perhaps, that's why He personally sent a shout out to Peter in the form of the messenger in the tomb.  When the three ladies entered into the sepulcher on that Resurrection Sunday, they were told that Jesus had risen.  And then the messenger said:

 

"But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." Mark 16:7

 

I once heard a pastor say that these are the two most beautiful words in scripture, and he may have been right.  Peter had denied Christ three times.  He had no right to call himself a "disciple" anymore, but Christ wanted Him to know that he was still important to Him; that He still wanted a relationship with Him.  It's a good thing that the disciples hadn't discovered the "court of love" yet, because they would have "loved" Peter right out of the Church.  Of course, they didn't have the benefit of the Restored Gospel, so they didn't know any better.  I guess we should pray for them.

[Calm]

".  JD's testimony was so strong about the people that he wanted to continue on as part of the tribe"

He cut off complete contact from the Church for himself and his family approximately a year before his excommunication.

[teddyaware]

Interestingly, I think JD had a stronger testimony of the Church than anyone on this board.  And by "church," I mean it in the same way that the Savior meant it; at least, if we can trust that the early writers were accurate in the 113 times they used the Greek word "ecclesia" (i.e., the congregation or assembly or the people).  JD's testimony was so strong about the people that he wanted to continue on as part of the tribe despite not believing in any of the fundamental tenets of the RELIGION.  In my view, that is the ultimate form of devotion.

 

Of course, as good Christians, we threw him out because hey, we're a people of doctrine; not love.  Interestingly, it's amazing how little the Savior spoke of doctrine.  And yes, he did say that He was the way, the truth and the light; that none come to the Father except through Him.  I get it that He was the Messiah and wanted us to know that.  He also seemed to be very concerned with how we treated one another; and He didn't seem to put a litmus test of belief on it.  In fact, His very last command to the disciples at the Last Supper was:

 

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:34-35

 

Perhaps, the translators got it wrong and Christ really meant, "Love one another so long as you should believe the same way about me, but as soon as one of you strays from that knowledge, they've got to go.  See 'em, wouldn't want to be 'em!"  Once again, translation can be tricky sometimes so one never knows.  But my strong hunch is that Jesus would have wanted his disciples to love one another despite their differences.  Perhaps, that's why He personally sent a shout out to Peter in the form of the messenger in the tomb.  When the three ladies entered into the sepulcher on that Resurrection Sunday, they were told that Jesus had risen.  And then the messenger said:

 

"But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." Mark 16:7

 

I once heard a pastor say that these are the two most beautiful words in scripture, and he may have been right.  Peter had denied Christ three times.  He had no right to call himself a "disciple" anymore, but Christ wanted Him to know that he was still important to Him; that He still wanted a relationship with Him.  It's a good thing that the disciples hadn't discovered the "court of love" yet, because they would have "loved" Peter right out of the Church.  Of course, they didn't have the benefit of the Restored Gospel, so they didn't know any better.  I guess we should pray for them.

 

Now comes the test to see if you believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God and if you believe the doctrine that states when a prophet is speaking as a prophet that his words are the same as if they came from God's own mouth. The following scriptural references were all found in the LDS Standard Works Topical Guide under the heading "Excommunication." Click on the link at the end of each of the following verses and read them in context to see if the scriptures back-up your apparent notion than virtually no one should ever be cut off from the Church. Please note that the words in 3 Nephi 18 were spoken by the Saviour when He ministered among the Nephites...

 

 

• cut off which trouble you: Gal. 5:12 .
• withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly: 2 Thes. 3:6 .
• not confess their sins and repent … names were blotted out: Mosiah 26:36 . ( Moro. 6:7 . )

• hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out: Alma 1:24 .
• lifted up in the pride … names were blotted out: Alma 6:3 .
• repent not he shall not be numbered among my people: 3 Ne. 18:31 .

• Any member … transgressing … shall be dealt with: D&C 20:80 .
• receiveth it and doeth it not … shall be cast out: D&C 41:5 .
• sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out: D&C 42:28 .
• adultery … shall be cast out: D&C 42:75 .
• hypocrites … shall be cut off: D&C 50:8 .
• rebellious shall be cut off: D&C 64:35 .
• no bishop … condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency: D&C 68:22 .
• cut off from the church … not find an inheritance: D&C 85:11 .
• cut off for transgression: D&C 104:9 .
• can only excommunicate them from their society: D&C 134:10 .

          See also D&C 102:16 ; D&C 107:72

 

As usual, your thinking is out of step with the Church and it's scriptures. It must be draining to always be kicking "against the pricks" (Acts 26:14).

Edited February 19, 2015 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

". JD's testimony was so strong about the people that he wanted to continue on as part of the tribe"

He cut off complete contact from the Church for himself and his family approximately a year before his excommunication.

I don't think he felt comfortable or very welcome by some of the members. People know when they're not really accepted or wanted.

And like Newb mentioned, of his devotion, seems a few on this board have said that if they didn't believe the church was true they would be out of there!

Edited February 19, 2015 by Tacenda

[Kevin Christensen]

I learned very quickly that I was not wanted over at Mormon Stories. After I made a few informative posts there under the Coe interview, some of John's followers threatened to totally ruin my reputation. In response, John deleted my posts (which made he and Coe appear to be woefully uninformed), and retained their threats. John's efforts to protect the membership from the baleful influence of FARMS apologists and to guide them to the alternative voices provided by Grant Palmer, Sandra Tanner, Michael Coe, Brent Metcalfe and Jeremy Runnells demonstrates to me just where his love and loyalty lies.

A few days ago, I got an email from a friend at church who told me that Dehlin's promotion of Runnells has meant that his father, mother, sister, and brother in law have left the church. John calls this putting all of the information on the table. I disagree. But my voice is not welcome in his community.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited February 19, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Storm Rider]

Reading NewB and Tacenda's comments reinforces the idea that each of us glamorizes that which we like and agree with and demonize all that conflicts with our personal agenda.  

 

How exactly do you overlook JD's express wish to not be viewed as a member of a ward?  He shows a strong commitment to the tribe? Whose tribe?  Oh, you mean the guys who pay him to lead them down his chosen path of ignorance and one sided information.  I see more clearly now that you have cleared it up.  

 

Does not feel comfortable with the members of his ward?  Well, duh!  Don't talk to me; don't visit me; but you dang sure need to talk and visit with me when I do choose to attend church or see you on the street.  However, don't bother me when I don't want to be bothered.  Does anyone see the sheer stupidity of this conundrum that is self-imposed by JD himself?  I must be losing it; this is just such a yawner and people want to beat this dead horse.  He left over ten years ago; he just has lied about it and made money from it for a very long time.    

[bluebell]

Interestingly, I think JD had a stronger testimony of the Church than anyone on this board. And by "church," I mean it in the same way that the Savior meant it; at least, if we can trust that the early writers were accurate in the 113 times they used the Greek word "ecclesia" (i.e., the congregation or assembly or the people). JD's testimony was so strong about the people that he wanted to continue on as part of the tribe despite not believing in any of the fundamental tenets of the RELIGION. In my view, that is the ultimate form of devotion.

Of course, as good Christians, we threw him out because hey, we're a people of doctrine; not love. Interestingly, it's amazing how little the Savior spoke of doctrine. And yes, he did say that He was the way, the truth and the light; that none come to the Father except through Him. I get it that He was the Messiah and wanted us to know that. He also seemed to be very concerned with how we treated one another; and He didn't seem to put a litmus test of belief on it. In fact, His very last command to the disciples at the Last Supper was:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:34-35

Perhaps, the translators got it wrong and Christ really meant, "Love one another so long as you should believe the same way about me, but as soon as one of you strays from that knowledge, they've got to go. See 'em, wouldn't want to be 'em!" Once again, translation can be tricky sometimes so one never knows. But my strong hunch is that Jesus would have wanted his disciples to love one another despite their differences. Perhaps, that's why He personally sent a shout out to Peter in the form of the messenger in the tomb. When the three ladies entered into the sepulcher on that Resurrection Sunday, they were told that Jesus had risen. And then the messenger said:

"But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." Mark 16:7

I once heard a pastor say that these are the two most beautiful words in scripture, and he may have been right. Peter had denied Christ three times. He had no right to call himself a "disciple" anymore, but Christ wanted Him to know that he was still important to Him; that He still wanted a relationship with Him. It's a good thing that the disciples hadn't discovered the "court of love" yet, because they would have "loved" Peter right out of the Church. Of course, they didn't have the benefit of the Restored Gospel, so they didn't know any better. I guess we should pray for them.

You believe the man who denies Jesus, the resurrection, and Atonement has a more Christ-like testimony of what church is than anyone in this board and that teaching people that while still wanting to belong to a community of believers is the ultimate form of devotion?

Can you explain that because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

[mormonnewb]

I learned very quickly that I was not wanted over at Mormon Stories. After I made a few informative posts there under the Coe interview, some of John's followers threatened to totally ruin my reputation. In response, John deleted my posts (which made he and Coe appear to be woefully uninformed), and retained their threats. John's efforts to protect the membership from the baleful influence of FARMS apologists and to guide them to the alternative voices provided by Grant Palmer, Sandra Tanner, Michael Coe, Brent Metcalfe and Jeremy Runnells demonstrates to me just where his love and loyalty lies.

A few days ago, I got an email from a friend at church who told me that Dehlin's promotion of Runnells has meant that his father, mother, sister, and brother in law have left the church. John calls this putting all of the information on the table. I disagree. But my voice is not welcome in his community.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Don't you see that a non-believer in the Church would be treated just as badly as you were treated by the MS community? If a critic of the Church posted something that was not faith-promoting at LDS LIving or Meridian, it would be taken down immediately. And, of course, any comments that backed the Church would be left to stand.

I don't see much difference except for the fact that we are SUPPOSED to be led by the light of Christ. As a result, we pray for those who curse us. We forgive our transgressors 70 x 7 times. And we repay evil with good. It's easier said than done, but I'm afraid we've stopped even saying it.

[Tacenda]

Reading NewB and Tacenda's comments reinforces the idea that each of us glamorizes that which we like and agree with and demonize all that conflicts with our personal agenda.

How exactly do you overlook JD's express wish to not be viewed as a member of a ward? He shows a strong commitment to the tribe? Whose tribe? Oh, you mean the guys who pay him to lead them down his chosen path of ignorance and one sided information. I see more clearly now that you have cleared it up.

Does not feel comfortable with the members of his ward? Well, duh! Don't talk to me; don't visit me; but you dang sure need to talk and visit with me when I do choose to attend church or see you on the street. However, don't bother me when I don't want to be bothered. Does anyone see the sheer stupidity of this conundrum that is self-imposed by JD himself? I must be losing it; this is just such a yawner and people want to beat this dead horse. He left over ten years ago; he just has lied about it and made money from it for a very long time.

I was only stating that there is a behind the scenes story as to why John and his family quit attending church.

Also, that he was devoted to his tribe of Mormonism, and unlike a few here, didn't hightail it as soon as he realized it wasn't what he thought.

I'm not in total agreement with making John into the poor picked on guy, not at all. I just wanted to mention those two things.

All sides need to get a clue, the church holds no blame, never huh? It's all John's fault. It started somewhere and not with John, John was the consequence of some bad choices. I understand that men wanted to hush things on Joseph Smith Jr's life. For example Joseph F. Smith put the kibosh on some things in church history such as Joseph's marriages being well known.

I don't think John Dehlin started out to kill a lot of people's testimonies, and do agree he went too far. But if the church is true it needs to stand on it's merits, without worrying about a Runnell's or a Dehlin.

[Kevin Christensen]

Don't you see that a non-believer in the Church would be treated just as badly as you were treated by the MS community? If a critic of the Church posted something that was not faith-promoting at LDS LIving or Meridian, it would be taken down immediately. And, of course, any comments that backed the Church would be left to stand.

I don't see much difference except for the fact that we are SUPPOSED to be led by the light of Christ. As a result, we pray for those who curse us. We forgive our transgressors 70 x 7 times. And we repay evil with good. It's easier said than done, but I'm afraid we've stopped even saying it.

I am the Good Shepherd, and I love my sheep. Because of that perfect love, little flock, let me introduce you to a most misunderstood creature, the hungry wolf. I'm aware that love and understanding and sympathy for the wolves might lead to some changes in the sense of security that some feel, and that some families might undergo some trauma during the transition to the new order of tolerance and love, but that seems a small price to pay in light of the beautiful ideals I'm promoting. And it goes without saying, that anyone who objects to the activies of the wolves is a disingenuous, hateful, ad hominem spewing, toxic apologist who does far more harm than any of my personal friends, the wolves, could or will do. And if you know any ad hominems that have been spewed by the under shepherds, please let me know. I need them for a presentation I am preparing.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[mormonnewb]

I am the Good Shepherd, and I love my sheep. Because of that perfect love, little flock, let me introduce you to a most misunderstood creature, the hungry wolf. I'm aware that love and understanding and sympathy for the wolves might lead to some changes in the sense of security that some feel, and that some families might undergo some trauma during the transition to the new order of tolerance and love, but that seems a small price to pay in light of the beautiful ideals I'm promoting. And it goes without saying, that anyone who objects to the activies of the wolves is a disingenuous, hateful, ad hominem spewing, toxic apologist who does far more harm than any of my personal friends, the wolves, could or will do. And if you know any ad hominems that have been spewed by the under shepherds, please let me know. I need them for a presentation I am preparing.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Is that how it EVER went down with John?  Did John ever enter a room full of faithful Mormons and attempt to destroy their testimonies?

 

Because if so, then yes, he had to go.  In fact, if he was a constant source of contention and irritation in sacrament meeting, Sunday School, or Elder's Quorum, he needed to be removed from that church environment.

 

However, my hallucination is that people sought him out after experiencing their own doubts.  They uncovered someinconsistency from the narrative they had been fed their entire lives and felt, "What else have I been lied to about?"  And then they went to the Internet in search of "the truth."

 

By the way, this is the reason that I don't think stripping JD of his official "Mormoness" will do the trick.  People coming to his podcast aren't looking for the Church-sanctioned view.  They could have listened to one of a dozen LDS or BYU podcasts if that was the case.  They are looking for someone who will tell them the "whole truth" (and yes, I agree that they are not likely to find that on MS either).

 

But aside from that, painting JD as a ravenous wolf just waiting to devour the testimony of innocents is about as one-sided as any podcast he has ever produced.  Now, of course, I'm just looking at this from the view of a listener of his podcast.  Perhaps, he is cruising the streets of Logan passing out candy (and CDs of his podcast) to the neighborhood kids.  Or perhaps, he is putting in subliminal messages in his RSS feed.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, he is trying to create a soft place to land for people who become disaffected from the Church; particularly if that disaffection results in divorce, being estranged from one's family or the loss of employment.

[mormonnewb]

Reading NewB and Tacenda's comments reinforces the idea that each of us glamorizes that which we like and agree with and demonize all that conflicts with our personal agenda.

 

We agree.  If I had a nickel for every time that someone on Team Church attempted to defend the indefensible (e.g., marrying other men's wives, 100+ years of racism, statements that it is "not-scriptural" to apologize, etc.).  We all tend to bend over backwards to defend those who see things as we do.  For example, I did overlook the fact that Dehlin left the community about a year ago, which might make him SLIGHTLY less committed to the tribe than I first suggested.  So even the best of us (or worst of us) is guilty of this behavior.

 

How exactly do you overlook JD's express wish to not be viewed as a member of a ward?  He shows a strong commitment to the tribe? Whose tribe?  Oh, you mean the guys who pay him to lead them down his chosen path of ignorance and one sided information.  I see more clearly now that you have cleared it up.  

 

You really need to get over the fact that he made a measly $90K on MS last year.  And I use that word because he was formerly a project manager at MIT.  And by the way, we're not talking about Manti Industrial Tech.  I'd be willing to be $90K (if someone would lend me the other $85K) that he made quite a bit more than $90K at MIT.  In fact, JANITORS make more than $90K at MIT.  So unless MIT doesn't require basic math skills in its project managers, he wasn't in it for the money.

 

Does not feel comfortable with the members of his ward?  Well, duh!  Don't talk to me; don't visit me; but you dang sure need to talk and visit with me when I do choose to attend church or see you on the street.  However, don't bother me when I don't want to be bothered.  Does anyone see the sheer stupidity of this conundrum that is self-imposed by JD himself?  I must be losing it; this is just such a yawner and people want to beat this dead horse.  He left over ten years ago; he just has lied about it and made money from it for a very long time.    

 

This thread has lasted a week longer than his membership in the Church and it isn't just Tacenda and me giving shout outs to each other ("Hey Girlfriend!").  We'll put down our sticks and stop beating this horse when you do.

[Kevin Christensen]

Is that how it EVER went down with John?  Did John ever enter a room full of faithful Mormons and attempt to destroy their testimonies?

The Coe interview is a good example. And the Palmer, Tanner, Runnells and Metcalfe interviews. Talking about "a soft place to land" is interesting choice of words since Dehlin so readily swallowed everything Coe said, describing his conclusions as "hard truth for Mormons to take. He actually pumped Coe for tales of disillusioned LDS archeologists. And when I pointed out that the hard truth about "iron arrowheads" and "brass helmets" was not that there was no evidence in Mesoamerica, but that the Book of Mormon never mentions them, he boldly and bravely deleted my comments, on that and a few other relevant topics. So, yes, Dehlin strikes me as hostile to LDS belief, as well as remarkably ignorant about it. He also insists that the evidence against LDS claims is "overwhelming" and cites the CES Letter and evidence of this. He mischaracterizes LDS apologetics as disingenuous (that is, deliberate, conscious falsehood). Far from putting everything on the table, he insists on setting the table himself, and discredting anyone who objects to his arrangement.

 

Because if so, then yes, he had to go.  In fact, if he was a constant source of contention and irritation in sacrament meeting, Sunday School, or Elder's Quorum, he needed to be removed from that church environment.

LDS faith and practice, in my experience, is a bit larger than what happens on Sunday meetings in the chapel.

 

However, my hallucination is that people sought him out after experiencing their own doubts.  They uncovered someinconsistency from the narrative they had been fed their entire lives and felt, "What else have I been lied to about?"  And then they went to the Internet in search of "the truth."

And of course, building your approach to unresolved questions on the premise "What else have I been lied to about?" guarentees a healthy attitude towards favorable sources, and healthy skepticism about whether Dehlin's podcasts will actually provide "the truth."

 

By the way, this is the reason that I don't think stripping JD of his official "Mormoness" will do the trick.  People coming to his podcast aren't looking for the Church-sanctioned view.  They could have listened to one of a dozen LDS or BYU podcasts if that was the case.  They are looking for someone who will tell them the "whole truth" (and yes, I agree that they are not likely to find that on MS either).

After John responded to his Bishop's extraordionary patience and love, and came back to church, he later wrote and asked not to be contacted, home taught, given callings, etc. He has publically declared that he doesn't believe in God, or Jesus, or the atonement, let alone any of Joseph Smith's claims, or the Book of Mormon, and despite all of the positive podcasts, he insists that no believer confronts the objective overwhelming facts, but have some social or emotional or financial motivation for participation. What official Mormoness is left? Social benefits, without the responsibility?

 

But aside from that, painting JD as a ravenous wolf just waiting to devour the testimony of innocents is about as one-sided as any podcast he has ever produced.  Now, of course, I'm just looking at this from the view of a listener of his podcast.  Perhaps, he is cruising the streets of Logan passing out candy (and CDs of his podcast) to the neighborhood kids.  Or perhaps, he is putting in subliminal messages in his RSS feed.

My point is that the image of a Shepherd being concerned with protecting his flock from wolves is one provided by one Jesus of Nazareth, and ought not to be neglected by people urging us to take Christ-like attitudes. His love is not pretty bows, and smiles and tolerance of everyone and everything, and no mention of nasty intolerant notions that anyone anywhere ought to repent of something they enjoy or believe in sincerely.

Subtlty is not John's strong point. His statements about his beliefs and his disregard for believers are very open, obvious, and explicit.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, he is trying to create a soft place to land for people who become disaffected from the Church; particularly if that disaffection results in divorce, being estranged from one's family or the loss of employment.

That is exactly what Greg Smith pointed out in the famous essay. Dehlin is an exit counselor, and plans to make a good living at it. He is welcome to do so. And if he changes his mind, and wants to come back, he is also welcome to do that.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 19, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[ERayR]

I don't think he felt comfortable or very welcome by some of the members. People know when they're not really accepted or wanted.

And like Newb mentioned, of his devotion, seems a few on this board have said that if they didn't believe the church was true they would be out of there!

 

Not surprising, most people avoid that which makes them uncomfortable.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You believe the man who denies Jesus, the resurrection, and Atonement has a more Christ-like testimony of what church is than anyone in this board and that teaching people that while still wanting to belong to a community of believers is the ultimate form of devotion?

Can you explain that because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

How do I say this nicely? Some people are just delusional.

[KevinG]

It is a poor kind of love that allows a wolf to separate sheep from the shepherd. I can say I love mutton, but that makes me no lover of the sheep who provided it.

[why me]

Interestingly, I think JD had a stronger testimony of the Church than anyone on this board.  And by "church," I mean it in the same way that the Savior meant it; at least, if we can trust that the early writers were accurate in the 113 times they used the Greek word "ecclesia" (i.e., the congregation or assembly or the people).  JD's testimony was so strong about the people that he wanted to continue on as part of the tribe despite not believing in any of the fundamental tenets of the RELIGION.  In my view, that is the ultimate form of devotion.

 

John's flip flops of being in and out and in and out of the church hurt many people. I don't think that the savior is about hurting people. Also,I think that you have misunderstood the savior, especially if one considers Paul his apostle who guided His church among the gentiles.

 

Of course, as good Christians, we threw him out because hey, we're a people of doctrine; not love.  Interestingly, it's amazing how little the Savior spoke of doctrine.  And yes, he did say that He was the way, the truth and the light; that none come to the Father except through Him.

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13:34-35

I think that the savior said much more than what is in the bible. If this is all he said during his ministry, he didn't say much. He must have spoken a lot during his youth and young adulthood but we have no record of it. What we do have are what certain people remember him saying or from hearsay and what they wrote was to strengthen the church. Did john strengthen the church by his claim that it was not true?  But we do have what Paul said but I am sure he also said more than what the new testament claims he said.

 

Perhaps, the translators got it wrong and Christ really meant, "Love one another so long as you should believe the same way about me, but as soon as one of you strays from that knWowledge, they've got to go.  See 'em, wouldn't want to be 'em!"  Once again, translation can be tricky sometimes so one never knows.  But my strong hunch is that Jesus would have wanted his disciples to love one another despite their differences.  Perhaps, that's why He personally sent a shout out to Peter in the form of the messenger in the tomb.  When the three ladies entered into the sepulcher on that Resurrection Sunday, they were told that Jesus had risen.  And then the messenger said:

 

"But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." Mark 16:7

 

Of course, we can omit the teaching of Paul, James and Timothy. But unfortunately their works are in the new testament too. Maybe we should take out acts, and the letters to the churches because they do give a foundation to doctrine and how to treat wayward members who are leading people away.

 

I once heard a pastor say that these are the two most beautiful words in scripture, and he may have been right.  Peter had denied Christ three times.  He had no right to call himself a "disciple" anymore, but Christ wanted Him to know that he was still important to Him; that He still wanted a relationship with Him.  It's a good thing that the disciples hadn't discovered the "court of love" yet, because they would have "loved" Peter right out of the Church.  Of course, they didn't have the benefit of the Restored Gospel, so they didn't know any better.  I guess we should pray for them.

 

All the apostles fell into a state of disbelief since they were not out there making the words of christ known. It took christ coming back for a visit to get all of them onboard with the program. Peter went into hiding because he did not want to die as did the other apostles. So, they had the benefit of a visit from christ. But we have the benefit of the restored gospel.

Sorry for the blue lines but such is life on limited and in not knowing how to do it any different to save some posts.

[why me]

I don't think John Dehlin started out to kill a lot of people's testimonies, and do agree he went too far. But if the church is true it needs to stand on it's merits, without worrying about a Runnell's or a Dehlin.

How did the book of mormon deal with such 'prophets' who were leading members astray? And what did paul admonish the saints when it came to a member who was leading away the saints?  Also, you keep on saying the church but it was really his local church. Also, do you have proof that he was unwelcomed by his bishop? Have you interviewed the bishop? You can give him a call and ask him or you can visit his ward and talk to the people. I don't think that you live too far away from his ward.

 

Sometimes the best research is through primary sources and not through secondary sources.

Edited February 19, 2015 by why me

[mfbukowski]

".  JD's testimony was so strong about the people that he wanted to continue on as part of the tribe"

He cut off complete contact from the Church for himself and his family approximately a year before his excommunication.

This guy is just plain out there.

[mfbukowski]

As usual, your thinking is out of step with the Church and it's scriptures. It must be draining to always be kicking "against the pricks" (Acts 26:14).

 

+1

 

As always, and still, he has no clue what a "testimony" is.  For him the church is a social club full of nice people.  The beliefs are irrelevant.

Edited February 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

I was only stating that there is a behind the scenes story as to why John and his family quit attending church.

Also, that he was devoted to his tribe of Mormonism, and unlike a few here, didn't hightail it as soon as he realized it wasn't what he thought.

I'm not in total agreement with making John into the poor picked on guy, not at all. I just wanted to mention those two things.

All sides need to get a clue, the church holds no blame, never huh? It's all John's fault. It started somewhere and not with John, John was the consequence of some bad choices. I understand that men wanted to hush things on Joseph Smith Jr's life. For example Joseph F. Smith put the kibosh on some things in church history such as Joseph's marriages being well known.

I don't think John Dehlin started out to kill a lot of people's testimonies, and do agree he went too far. But if the church is true it needs to stand on it's merits, without worrying about a Runnell's or a Dehlin.

 

Tacenda, I don't think the Church or its leaders have a problem with JD.  I expect they feel extreme sadness at the outcome, but the only person responsible for JD's position is JD.  It is the same with each of us; I am responsible for my choices and actions.  It is not the Church's or JD's actions by which I will be judged, but my own.  

 

I don't believe that JD had a conscious idea of harming people.  I suspect he fell into his role just as most of us fall into our careers.  The only problem I have with JD is the dishonesty that he has expressed for so many years.  He was dishonest with himself and with others.  

 

I expect that his main problem now is where does his career take him?  These worries are a burden and there are no easy answers.  

 

I have only talked about JD on this board.  He has never been topic of conversation with others and I don't expect that to change. 

 

Jesus is my master; he always has been since I was a small boy.  John gave away his faith for reasons only he and God know and understand.  Repentance is the only viable path for abandoning the Christ.  The door is open if JD seeks to return. 

[Calm]

I don't think he felt comfortable or very welcome by some of the members. People know when they're not really accepted or wanted.

IMO, a strong testimony continues to operates even in the context of opposition....yet Dehlin chose to withdraw himself and his family.

[Calm]

Don't you see that a non-believer in the Church would be treated just as badly as you were treated by the MS community?

But if Dehlin was as devoted to all the members of the Church community as you say, including the believers, why didn't he do his best to protect them in his own community rather than essentially 'excommunicate' them from it (or ban them if you think the term "excommunicate" does not apply)?