John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[Teancum]

I don't know his intent. I just know the end result and that was what I was talking about. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

That is your perception of the end result. Others have a different opinion.

 

You need to back off. You are rankling too many posters for it to be a problem of perception.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry to correct you (being a professional wordsmith and all) but it is a perfectly good word. It's a musical term, and it means to play or sing off the beat. (Think Frank Sinatra; he hardly ever sung without syncopation.)

 

Very true.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ah yes.

I'm quite well aware of syncopation. It's just that it had never occurred to me it had a verb form. Of course, it now makes perfect sense to me that it would and that the word would be syncopate.

And now that I think of it, I've probably heard it before (as in "Ragtime songs are characterized by syncopated rhythm").

In memory of this occasion, maybe I'll change the title in my name to "Syncopated Accolade".

Edited February 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

No I disagree. it is much more than a social club. For me as someone who was totally a believer for 30 years of my adult life and being 5th generation LDS it is more than that. Now as a skeptic I have much to lose.  Family, friends, a community structure, heritage, etc.   I think you marginalize the issues. So I still attend, participate and keep quiet because vocal people that are skeptics are not welcome.  I do it though mostly for my wife.  It is important to her.  See not as simple as you think.

Life is as complicated as you make it for yourself.  Of course you can always blame your life on others if you want.

Edited February 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

To me, this is a major problem. One's faith should not hinge of the reliability of JS, BY, etc. No Protestant would ever say that if Paul wasn't who he said he was, then Christianity is a fraud. In fact, scholars believe that a few of Paul's epistles were actually penned by someone attempting to deceive the ecclesia. This discovery has not caused massive disillusionment amongst Protestants because their hope is not in the reliability of Paul's epistles. It is in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus ... full stop.

And in our secular world, it is hard enough to keep that belief. To heap another level of faith upon that seems to be adding an extra (and unnecessary) burden.

You make a great case for Joseph being a prophet and doubts about the BOM being irrelevant.  Golly maybe someday that will even include that it was OK to make a mistake about blacks and the priesthood, since all that is important is the resurrection.

Edited February 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

You make a great case for Joseph being a prophet and doubts about the BOM being irrelevant.  Golly maybe someday that will even include that it was OK to make a mistake about blacks and the priesthood, since all that is important is the resurrection.

 

I can only give one rep point for this but it deserves many more.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was not seeking personal examples.

From what I have heard from Dehlin he has not denied Jesus divinity though he has questions about the atonement and he only questions the historicity of the BoM.

Only??? Are you sure about that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can only give one rep point for this but it deserves many more.

I concur.

[mfbukowski]

"Gee, I think I will join a church I don't believe in, so I can go online and criticize it, and people will treat me well because they don't want to offend me, and I will be able to say anything I want and people will be nice anyway!"

Who does that?? What's the logic to that?

[Teancum]

That is your perception of the end result. Others have a different opinion.

 

You need to back off. You are rankling too many posters for it to be a problem of perception.

 

 

Ok I will do my best!

[Teancum]

Life is as complicated as you make it for yourself.  Of course you can always blame your life on others if you want.

 

 

Do you perceive I am doing that?  I sure hope not.  I love my life.

[Calm]

Life is as complicated as you make it for yourself.  Of course you can always blame your life on others if you want.

I don't know if this is a solution that works for others, but it does work for me.

 

If I do things out of love, they and life seems relatively simple to me (even when difficult).  When I do things with confused or conflicted feelings, they become complicated.  It is all the baggage that goes with things that complicate.  Love tends to remove that baggage the best.

[mormonnewb]

You make a great case for Joseph being a prophet and doubts about the BOM being irrelevant. Golly maybe someday that will even include that it was OK to make a mistake about blacks and the priesthood, since all that is important is the resurrection.

For the record, I hold no ill will towards BY, Benson and others for the mistakes in regards to blacks and the priesthood. However, I do let it factor into my estimation of current church doctrines and practices. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

[mormonnewb]

"Gee, I think I will join a church I don't believe in, so I can go online and criticize it, and people will treat me well because they don't want to offend me, and I will be able to say anything I want and people will be nice anyway!"

Who does that?? What's the logic to that?

Was this question directed towards me?

[JLHPROF]

For the record, I hold no ill will towards BY, Benson and others for the mistakes in regards to blacks and the priesthood. However, I do let it factor into my estimation of current church doctrines and practices. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

 

Yes, absolutely, depending on the conclusions it drives you towards.

 

For example, if it teaches you that the prophets are humans doing their best and making some mistakes, that would be good.

If it teaches you that all the other teachings of the restored gospel are now suspect, that would be bad.

 

Being vulnerable to mistakes is one thing.  Doubting their every word and questioning their every teaching that doesn't make us feel happy is another.

[Avatar4321]

I was reading 3 Nephi 18 this morning and it seemed rather appropriate for this thread considering some have objected to excommunication.

V 26 to 33.

We know Jesus is talking about excommunication in these verse because of verses 30 and 31.

Just thought I'd share

[juliann]

For the record, I hold no ill will towards BY, Benson and others for the mistakes in regards to blacks and the priesthood. However, I do let it factor into my estimation of current church doctrines and practices. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

 

I don't think anyone can make those decisions anymore without reading http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424674468&sr=8-1&keywords=religion+of+color

 

I can't stress enough what a game changer this new book is. It is the missing link in our haphazard understanding of the role of race...and how polygamy played into designating Mormons as not white.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think anyone can make those decisions anymore without reading http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424674468&sr=8-1&keywords=religion+of+color

 

I can't stress enough what a game changer this new book is. It is the missing link in our haphazard understanding of the role of race...and how polygamy played into designating Mormons as not white.

Amazing- thanks for the link!

[Storm Rider]

Had not yet heard of this book, thank you for pointing it out Julieann.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think anyone can make those decisions anymore without reading http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424674468&sr=8-1&keywords=religion+of+color

 

I can't stress enough what a game changer this new book is. It is the missing link in our haphazard understanding of the role of race...and how polygamy played into designating Mormons as not white.

An interesting premise.

 

But my question -- not having yet read the book, of course -- is that if this phenomenon is what caused early Church leaders to withhold the priesthood from those of African descent, why didn't they withhold it from other non-white peoples?

[Scott Lloyd]

So it's not very often that I change my name title. But dialogue in this thread has resulted in my doing just that.

 

Behold my new name title.

[BlueDreams]

An interesting premise.

 

But my question -- not having yet read the book, of course -- is that if this phenomenon is what caused early Church leaders to withhold the priesthood from those of African descent, why didn't they withhold it from other non-white peoples?

 

Having also not read but the first few pages and going to a quick presentation about the book given by the author....I'm basing this answer more on historical context, than anything he said. I'd guess ti has something to do with the relevance of Black people v every other potential minority. Native americans were increasingly marginalized, isolated, slaughtered and moved westward....they also held little to no political power. Besides the "best" of society was trying to integrate NA's into white society (ie. forced assimilation).....so it wasn't that simple with them. Plus, LDS scripture would have left LDS with more of a sense of Native importance to the church. A belief that was pertinent and unique to the LDS pop. So no getting rid of that one.

 

Chinese - there probably wasn't enough exposure in LDS heavy populations. 

 

Polynesian - distant and following the overarching theme of christian misisonary efforts to "savage" lands....so not biggie.

 

Blacks - problem. There was exposure and baptism in the church. Miscegenation was an actual and tangible fear during this era. There were high tensions surrounding slavery that would explode into a bloody civil war and continued with uneasy tensions following. And there was a protestant traditional belief based out of the slave trade on black and Ham/Cain/fill-in-your-bible-curse-here that, taken on face value, was never really scrutinized by the church body to question it's legitimacy. Filled in with their own daily prejudices of the day. To say one was for miscegenation with black people was a very serious claim that could threaten one's societal stance and capacities within the society.

 

 

But I'm just taking a stab at it. The book is on my reading list.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 23, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

Having also not read but the first few pages and going to a quick presentation about the book given by the author....I'm basing this answer more on historical context, than anything he said. I'd guess ti has something to do with the relevance of Black people v every other potential minority. Native americans were increasingly marginalized, isolated, slaughtered and moved westward....they also held little to no political power. Besides the "best" of society was trying to integrate NA's into white society (ie. forced assimilation).....so it wasn't that simple with them. Plus, LDS scripture would have left LDS with more of a sense of Native importance to the church. A belief that was pertinent and unique to the LDS pop. So no getting rid of that one.

 

Chinese - there probably wasn't enough exposure in LDS heavy populations. 

 

Polynesian - distant and following the overarching theme of christian misisonary efforts to "savage" lands....so not biggie.

 

Blacks - problem. There was exposure and baptism in the church. Miscegenation was an actual and tangible fear during this era. There were high tensions surrounding slavery that would explode into a bloody civil war and continued with uneasy tensions following. And there was a protestant traditional belief based out of the slave trade on black and Ham/Cain/fill-in-your-bible-curse-here that, taken on face value, was never really scrutinized by the church body to question it's legitimacy. Filled in with their own daily prejudices of the day. To say one was for miscegenation with black people was a very serious claim that could threaten one's societal stance and capacities within the society.

 

 

But I'm just taking a stab at it. The book is on my reading list.

With luv,

BD

Very reasonable analysis. Thanks.

[rockpond]

I don't think anyone can make those decisions anymore without reading http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424674468&sr=8-1&keywords=religion+of+color

 

I can't stress enough what a game changer this new book is. It is the missing link in our haphazard understanding of the role of race...and how polygamy played into designating Mormons as not white.

 

Thanks, Juliann.  I've added it to my Amazon wishlist so that I can read it ASAP.

[juliann]

Scott, Mormons were associated with blacks, Indians, and Chinese by outsiders. This book looks from the outside in for the most part, although it carefully lays out with who and when the priesthood policies occurred. It was a progression with a lot of institutional forgetting. I think it will be very difficult to think God was involved in the evolution of our theology on blacks after seeing these quotes. We can no longer say, without rebutting those quotes, that we "don't know."

 

The national fear was as BD notes, intermarriage. They called it amalgamation at first. Only the most radical abolitionists supported full inclusion. Most wanted freedom but wanted blacks to stay with their own. JS was in the mainstream of abolitionist thought on that.

 

The author uses political cartoons extensively. Mormons became black, Indian, and finally Chinese and all of the ugly characteristics that were ascribed to those groups. Polygamy became the proof of the degeneracy of Mormons, thus cementing the idea they were Chinese or Muslim. (Interestingly, the Irish were painted as non white degenerate dunkards and were included in cartoons as the spawn of Mormons.) Stupidity aside, not being designated as "white" had severe consequences. Non-whites were considered to be incapable of self-governing. They were stupid and animalistic. There were even efforts to put the Mormons on reservations like the Indians. We are all aware of the viciousness of the assaults on blacks, Mormons got a good amount of it (I would never compare the Mormon plight to that of blacks, just want to make that clear.) It was thought that "hybrid" children destroyed the white race, although there was belief that mulatto children were like mules and couldn't reproduce. The cartoons skipped the middle man and simply pictured the white polygamist male with his black, Chinese, Irish, Indian offspring. That was the product of our behavior. Mormons were thought to be in cahoots with Indians and ready to slaughter all whites even before MMM.

 

Where they looked at the skin color of these other groups to demonize them, they looked at the behavior of the Mormons to make them a member of these other groups. Reeve makes it an issue of the battle over the Mormon body. It still goes on today in the 19th century yellow journalism blather we saw in the Romney campaign over such things as what we wear on our bodies.

 

I would consider myself pretty well acquainted with race issues. I had not seen a majority of what he used. And that is probably because we always tend to treat Mormonism in a vacuum. It is stunning to see the effect we had on national politics. Stunning. And if we think we have it bad in the papers today, wow. The threats of extermination did not end with Boggs.

 

So the irony is that as we had to struggle to be white to restore self-governance, we now have to struggle to be not white. We had a quite brief moment in the 50s where we finally were seen as the ideal American family only to meet the protests over our whiteness in the 60s. None of this justifies what was done to our black brothers and sisters but it puts a whole new framework around it that had nothing to do with the evilness of that curse stuff. In a way, it makes me much more sympathetic to the situation Mormons were in and allows me to see the bad decisions in a much larger non-religious context that makes sense.

[juliann]

 

 

Blacks - problem. There was exposure and baptism in the church. Miscegenation was an actual and tangible fear during this era. There were high tensions surrounding slavery that would explode into a bloody civil war and continued with uneasy tensions following. And there was a protestant traditional belief based out of the slave trade on black and Ham/Cain/fill-in-your-bible-curse-here that, taken on face value, was never really scrutinized by the church body to question it's legitimacy. Filled in with their own daily prejudices of the day. To say one was for miscegenation with black people was a very serious claim that could threaten one's societal stance and capacities within the society.

 

 

It was much worse than threatening status. An example of what the author includes that I have never even heard of is the story of a church leader (not Mormon) who was killed by a mob because he was thought to be supporting miscegenation. So the Carthage mobs weren't unique. Like the Mormons, one didn't have to actually be doing what was claimed. This minister was welcoming blacks into the congregation too enthusiastically. So the fear was that he would lure all the blacks to their town, it would be automatic intermarrying, their civilization would be destroyed. The minister wasn't, of course, advocating everybody marry each other. Didn't matter.

 

This reminds me of when I first began studying early Christian history and was astonished that we not only didn't use this stuff, we didn't even know about it.