John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[stemelbow]

It's obviously a matter of degrees of how much you are spreading your doubts, or "teaching" your disbeliefs, right?

I could post on Facebook that I don't believe in the BoM and that probably wouldn't result in any action.

So when does "public support" cross that line into teaching and leading people away?

There's plenty of blogs, sunstone articles, etc that had had equal amounts of apostaty as Dehlin. But is it because he has a bigger following and his effects are felt more?

Sure. He's created a public platform in which he argues against core elements of the Church. He has a following, admittedly is trying to grow that following, and happily admits he has led far more people out of the Church then anything else. The line gets obvious, I think when you see it that way.

[stemelbow]

He desperately needs it to be about those things, because those issues are key to his being able to excite public opinion against the Church. The public at large doesn't care so much about the other things.

I've been listening to his current interview--the "desperately needs it to be" seems accurate, with all due respect to him. But he's really trying to say he's been mistreated, in a sense, because he was ex'd even though he doesn't believe the core elements, since many LDS people do not believe the core elements. He keeps skipping over the notion that he created a platform and following in which he expresses his arguments against the main elements. So sure, one can be ex'd for not believing, but they won't unless they are intent on presenting public arguments against the faith. Plus, as it turns out he's lead more people out of the Church than anything else.

[KevinG]

It's obviously a matter of degrees of how much you are spreading your doubts, or "teaching" your disbeliefs, right?

I could post on Facebook that I don't believe in the BoM and that probably wouldn't result in any action.

So when does "public support" cross that line into teaching and leading people away?

There's plenty of blogs, sunstone articles, etc that had had equal amounts of apostaty as Dehlin. But is it because he has a bigger following and his effects are felt more?

 

A very clear line is self doubt vs. public advocacy of a position contrary to church doctrines and practices.

 

Refusing to repent and restrain your teaching to official doctrines and practices (ex. John's commitment to continue what he is doing) is another clear line.

 

The scope of the audience and number of people influenced would certainly affect the degree of the response, but I don't see it as the deciding factor in what defines apostasy.

Edited February 10, 2015 by KevinG

[mfbukowski]

Let's start another Utah Mormon thread.  I hear Scott Lloyd loves those!  

Yes I have heard that message but it's usually quite subtle.    (NOT)  But I suppose this is a derail.  But indeed this thread would not exist if it were not for the Zion Curtain. 

[Brian 2.0]

Sure. He's created a public platform in which he argues against core elements of the Church. He has a following, admittedly is trying to grow that following, and happily admits he has led far more people out of the Church then anything else. The line gets obvious, I think when you see it that way.

Dehlin started by trying to do something that I admire, but may be impossible... creating a space where people can doubt and process doubt without a hard slant either way where staying LDS or leaving the faith were both valid options.

But as the leader of such a group it is hard not to let your sways in your own journey bleed trough to that "space" and by so you have given it the slant you were so trying to avoid.

Dehlin and Mormon Stories has seemed to end up where people like John Larsen and Mormon Expression (the "harsher" podcast) ended up.... helping people transition out of orthodoxy.

In the end, a neutral-ground space with no push either way is probably just a pipe dream. Those looking for such a space have to accept the reality that they will have to move between spaces like LDS.org and FAIR with MormonThink and MormonStories. And as time goes on you'll start to feel which space you find yourself more identifying with.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's start another Utah Mormon thread.  I hear Scott Lloyd loves those!  

I wondered about the inexplicable and apparently gratuitous reference to Utah, but I had decided that, for once, I wouldn't mention it.

[KevinG]

Yes I have heard that message but it's usually quite subtle.    (NOT)  But I suppose this is a derail.  But indeed this thread would not exist if it were not for the Zion Curtain. 

 

Let's start a new media outlet...

 

Mormon Underground Radio for Mormon Emigrant Recluses

 

Radio M.U.R.M.E.R.  

[Boanerges]

It's obviously a matter of degrees of how much you are spreading your doubts, or "teaching" your disbeliefs, right?

I could post on Facebook that I don't believe in the BoM and that probably wouldn't result in any action.

So when does "public support" cross that line into teaching and leading people away?

There's plenty of blogs, sunstone articles, etc that had had equal amounts of apostaty as Dehlin. But is it because he has a bigger following and his effects are felt more?

 

"We have members in the church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues, but … in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines." D. Todd Christofferson (emphasis added)

[Brian 2.0]

A very clear line is self doubt vs. public advocacy of a position contrary to church doctrines and practices.

Refusing to repent and restrain your teaching to official doctrines and practices (ex. John's commitment to continue what he is doing) is another clear line.

But is not my Facebook post saying that I supoort SSM "public advocacy"? Or my post that I believe women should be allowed to serve in higher office of the church "public advocacy"?

Social media and personal blogs blur that line.

[rockpond]

Neither is crowd control for protesters (excuse me, "followers in a vigil")

Which is, again, why I've said all along that I support the SP in departing from standard handbook procedures.

[Jeanne]

"We have members in the church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues, but … in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines." D. Todd Christofferson (emphasis added)

Why wouldn't the First Presidency and Apostles welcome ideas to keep members and families together?  Waiting for prophecies doesn't mean you cannot listen.

[KevinG]

Dehlin started by trying to do something that I admire, but may be impossible... creating a space where people can doubt and process doubt without a hard slant either way where staying LDS or leaving the faith were both valid options.

But as the leader of such a group it is hard not to let your sways in your own journey bleed trough to that "space" and by so you have given it the slant you were so trying to avoid.

Dehlin and Mormon Stories has seemed to end up where people like John Larsen and Mormon Expression (the "harsher" podcast) ended up.... helping people transition out of orthodoxy.

In the end, a neutral-ground space with no push either way is probably just a pipe dream. Those looking for such a space have to accept the reality that they will have to move between spaces like LDS.org and FAIR with MormonThink and MormonStories. And as time goes on you'll start to feel which space you find yourself more identifying with.

 

People transition in and out of orthodoxy all the time.  Especially in Institute classes.   As long as Dehlin's stance was benevolent he got the benefit of the doubt.  But he took a very hard turn towards advocacy against the basic beliefs of the church, yet wanted to retain his status as an unofficial authority, including the oft cited tacit approval of anonymous general authorities.

 

As for staying "neutral", the Lord had some thoughts on the matter:

 

Revelations 3:  15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

I have often struggled to understand this verse.  But after observing the seductive path of neutrality, leading to criticism, leading to apostasy... I'm beginning to see why we are encouraged to be actively engaged in the building of the Kingdom.  For our own salvation and that of those we influence.

[stemelbow]

Dehlin started by trying to do something that I admire, but may be impossible... creating a space where people can doubt and process doubt without a hard slant either way where staying LDS or leaving the faith were both valid options.

But as the leader of such a group it is hard not to let your sways in your own journey bleed trough to that "space" and by so you have given it the slant you were so trying to avoid.

It is impossible to talk openly about your views without expressing your biased opinions.

Dehlin and Mormon Stories has seemed to end up where people like John Larsen and Mormon Expression (the "harsher" podcast) ended up.... helping people transition out of orthodoxy.

In the end, a neutral-ground space with no push either way is probably just a pipe dream. Those looking for such a space have to accept the reality that they will have to move between spaces like LDS.org and FAIR with MormonThink and MormonStories. And as time goes on you'll start to feel which space you find yourself more identifying with.

Well of course. We simply can't tie ourselves to one movement and pretend to be anything other than a follower of that movement.

[KevinG]

But is not my Facebook post saying that I supoort SSM "public advocacy"? Or my post that I believe women should be allowed to serve in higher office of the church "public advocacy"?

Social media and personal blogs blur that line.

 

Did you say it was your opinion, or that you believe the church is wrong (its authorities uninspired) for having those policies?  That is the line.

 

Then again if your "apostasy" is limited to your facebook page, I suspect most authorities would rather ignore it, or privately counsel you, and hope you repent of any error on your own, without the need for excommunication.

[stemelbow]

But is not my Facebook post saying that I supoort SSM "public advocacy"? Or my post that I believe women should be allowed to serve in higher office of the church "public advocacy"?

Social media and personal blogs blur that line.

Clearly supporting SSM via Facebook is not the same as developing a following and creating a platform which you use to continually argue against the core elements of the Church. Indeed, the letter to excommunicate doesn't mention supporting SSM, hopefully which will put an end to all this "you can't support SSM and not get ex'd by your local leaders" which he's been saying.

[DragonLancer]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

[KevinG]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

 

From your link:

 

"Such councils are always far better when all involved respect the principle of confidentiality. At the very least, this principle helps those members who wish to return to full fellowship at a later date. When the member has chosen to air their grievances in public, the Church reserves the right to correct the public record. In this case, attempts have been made to create the impression that the disciplinary council convened on Sunday, February 8, 2015, and which has resulted in a loss of Church membership or excommunication of Mr. Dehlin arose largely because of his views on same-sex marriage and priesthood ordination for women.  Although his stated positions on those subjects are not consistent with the Church’s teachings, they were not cited in the local leader’s letter delivered to Mr. Dehlin on February 9, which spelled out the reasons for the local council’s unanimous decision..."

 

I wonder what the odds of this paragraph being cited are by media outlets and bloggers who seek to continue the theme of Dehlin being excommunicated because of support for same sex marriage and priesthood ordination for women?

[KevinG]

Does anyone have a summary or transcript of Dehlin's public comments?

[Scott Lloyd]

From your link:

 

"Such councils are always far better when all involved respect the principle of confidentiality. At the very least, this principle helps those members who wish to return to full fellowship at a later date. When the member has chosen to air their grievances in public, the Church reserves the right to correct the public record. In this case, attempts have been made to create the impression that the disciplinary council convened on Sunday, February 8, 2015, and which has resulted in a loss of Church membership or excommunication of Mr. Dehlin arose largely because of his views on same-sex marriage and priesthood ordination for women.  Although his stated positions on those subjects are not consistent with the Church’s teachings, they were not cited in the local leader’s letter delivered to Mr. Dehlin on February 9, which spelled out the reasons for the local council’s unanimous decision..."

 

I wonder what the odds of this paragraph being cited are by media outlets and bloggers who seek to continue the theme of Dehlin being excommunicated because of support for same sex marriage and priesthood ordination for women?

Another element I predict will get lost in the media coverage:

 

I want you do know, Brother Dehlin, that this action was not taken against you because you have doubts or because you were asking questions about Church doctrine. Rather, this decision has been reached because of your categorical statements opposing the doctrine of the Church and their wide dissemination via your Internet presence, which has led others away from the Church.

 

These things bear constant repetition just to keep the record straight.

[mormonnewb]

Here are some of the headlines from websites covering the decision.  One of these is not like the others.

 

 

Mormon critic John Dehlin is excommunicated for 'apostasy'

 

Mormon Stories founder Dehlin's spread of 'false concepts' results in excommunication

 

John Dehlin, Popular Mormon Podcaster, Excommunicated by Church

 

John Dehlin, 'Mormon Stories' Podcaster, Is Excommunicated For Apostasy

 

LDS church: Mormon blogger excommunicated for 'apostasy'

 

 

I think we can pick out the one from Deseret News.  The others are not so clear about the reasons for Dehlin's excommunication.  And the articles themselves are fairly sympathetic to Dehlin (although not as critical of the church as one might guess).  The only surprising thing is the Fox coverage, which included quotes from attendees at the vigil expressing fear of being silenced.  Fortunately, Fox doesn't allow comments to its story.  But the other websites do and as you can imagine, it's not pretty for Team Church.

 

Of course, you could argue that the Church isn't interested in its standing in the eyes of "infidels," but I could point to literally millions of dollars in the Internet campaigns, a feature motion picture and a Times Square billboard that says the Church is EXTREMELY interested in its public image.

[Scott Lloyd]

But is not my Facebook post saying that I supoort SSM "public advocacy"? Or my post that I believe women should be allowed to serve in higher office of the church "public advocacy"?

Social media and personal blogs blur that line.

My impression is that, if anything, the Church at large errs on the side of being too careful or restrained about bringing disciplinary proceedings against anyone.

 

I don't see this as a particularly bad thing.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Here are some of the headlines from websites covering the decision.  One of these is not like the others. ...

 

I think we can pick out the one from Deseret News.

Your snide innuendo notwithstanding, I don't see the difference as all that obvious. In fact, presented with the list alone, I would be hard-pressed to spot it.

 

Of course, you could argue that the Church isn't interested in its standing in the eyes of "infidels," but I could point to literally millions of dollars in the Internet campaigns, a feature motion picture and a Times Square billboard that says the Church is EXTREMELY interested in its public image.

 

False dichotomy. The Church can be interested in presenting a good image to fair-minded observers while at the same time not be inclined to cave in to or run scared from antagonists.

 

Both categories exist out there. How does the proverb go? "It takes all kinds to make a world."

 

Edited to add: I don't believe I have ever heard a Church leader or spokesman refer to non-members, even antagonistic ones, as "infidels." Your use of scare quotes around that word is thus puzzling.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Of course no amount of repetition of the Stake President's reasons for the excommunication will deter those critics who know the real reasons    he was disciplined.

 

I am envious of the mind reading skills of the churches critics.  Especially those who can reach back in time and divine the real intent    of dead prophets. 

 

But what does this fully correlated and assimilated Morg   know of the truth? 

Edited February 10, 2015 by KevinG

[Brian 2.0]

Did you say it was your opinion, or that you believe the church is wrong (its authorities uninspired) for having those policies? That is the line.

I said I believed it was "wrong" if an administrative body that governs both men and women had a policy that disqualified women to serve in that governing body.

So it's my opinion, but it's pretty obvious that my opinion also holds that the church and its leaders are in err.

Then again if your "apostasy" is limited to your facebook page, I suspect most authorities would rather ignore it, or privately counsel you, and hope you repent of any error on your own, without the need for excommunication.

I have no fear of action towards me. I just have a little distaste for policy that may get close to "you can believe whatever you want, just keep it to yourself in all your communications"

I agree that the church should not allow someone to give a talk in sacrament meeting about why he doesn't believe some fundamental truth claims of the church. But expression of that view publicly outside of church shouldn't be grounds of excommunication... in my opinion.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[stemelbow]

Here are some of the headlines from websites covering the decision.  One of these is not like the others.

 

 

Mormon critic John Dehlin is excommunicated for 'apostasy'

 

Mormon Stories founder Dehlin's spread of 'false concepts' results in excommunication

 

John Dehlin, Popular Mormon Podcaster, Excommunicated by Church

 

John Dehlin, 'Mormon Stories' Podcaster, Is Excommunicated For Apostasy

 

LDS church: Mormon blogger excommunicated for 'apostasy'

 

 

I think we can pick out the one from Deseret News.  The others are not so clear about the reasons for Dehlin's excommunication.  And the articles themselves are fairly sympathetic to Dehlin (although not as critical of the church as one might guess).  The only surprising thing is the Fox coverage, which included quotes from attendees at the vigil expressing fear of being silenced.  Fortunately, Fox doesn't allow comments to its story.  But the other websites do and as you can imagine, it's not pretty for Team Church.

 

Of course, you could argue that the Church isn't interested in its standing in the eyes of "infidels," but I could point to literally millions of dollars in the Internet campaigns, a feature motion picture and a Times Square billboard that says the Church is EXTREMELY interested in its public image.

I think he's loving all this publicity. No doubt he'll continue to say some informal comment from his SP some months ago about whether his support for LGBT was a problem will remain his main focus as he talks about his excommunication. But the letter interestingly doesn't mention it at all. Not even in a sly way. It's all about his public arguments against the Church's core doctrines.