John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[ERayR]

That's exactly what I think. I think they punted because they were scared to make a decision when others were around to criticize them for it. So for their own comfort they make JD wait. Delivering a letter that the leaders believe impact JD's eternal destiny is weak.

 

As I see it , it had nothing to do with fear but from the desire to avoid an ugly scene. 

[The Nehor]

It's official.  Dehlin was ex'd for "telling the truth":

 

 

They cut off the bottom part.

 

....and I will not be able to tell you because the truth and I are not really on speaking terms.

[pogi]

Here is one of my major concerns.  It seems that the only way to be a good latter-day saint is to always be on the slow train.

 

An enlightened saint would have been waiting for:

 

1)  The Utah territorial government to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

2)  The German saints to stop making nice with the Nazis.

3)  The American saints to get on board with civil rights.

4)  The current Church to come around on OW and SSM.

 

It seems strange to me that, in a Church that stresses modern revelation, the ultimate test of loyalty is to be behind the times on the important issues of your day.

 

 

"Important issues", you mean like priesthood authority, temple ordinances, nature of Godhead, plan of salvation, etc. etc.?  In the grand scheme of "important" issues, I think that our progression is far advanced. 

[The Nehor]

Here is one of my major concerns.  It seems that the only way to be a good latter-day saint is to always be on the slow train.

 

An enlightened saint would have been waiting for:

 

1)  The Utah territorial government to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

2)  The German saints to become more antagonistic to the Nazis.

3)  The American saints to get on board with civil rights.

4)  The current Church to come around on OW and SSM.

 

It seems strange to me that, in a Church that stresses modern revelation, the ultimate test of loyalty is to be behind the times on the important issues of your day.

 

Then find a faster train. I am more concerned with the ultimate destination rather then the speed. I really doubt at the last day anyone will care who was the most "advanced" and "ahead of their time" on the social issues of the day.

[rockpond]

it's hard for me to look away.

But I read the whole transcript from his meeting with King and Jensen that he put on his sight. I have no idea why he would post that. It does nothing for him. Nothing at all. It only possibly hurts King. Nothing else.

That's really disappointing.

I couldn't read very much of it. And I don't see the point.

Dehlin's account from his Fabrizio interview today makes a good case as to how his SSM/OW advocacy was followed by threat of disciplinary action. But it also corresponded with getting a new SP. Seems like the new SP may have felt differently. Could be a little ecclesiastical leader roulette. But...

The SP has stated why he was being ex'd. And, the SP's reasons, IMO, are sound per current church policy.

I think the important takeaway for everyone is the Church's (now) repeated insistence that you can support SSM and not be excommunicated for it. As an ally, I think Dehlin should celebrate that.

[rongo]

If a husband and wife are sealed together as man and wife, and the husband's sealing is cancelled, who is the wife now sealed to?  Nobody.

If the sealing is cancelled she's now single in the eternities.  And her children have a mother but no father in the eternities.

 

Either he repents at some point in the future and his blessings are restored, or she and her children need a new eternal companion.

In an important sense, what is important is that one has the sealing ordinance, not *whom* one is sealed to. Bishops and stake presidents deal with many situations, because of excommunication, where spouses and children have a parent or spouse whose covenants are severed. The Church's position is that these innocent parties have their sealing ordinance fully intact, without focusing exclusively on whom people are sealed to. 

 

Yes, this is something that will be sorted out in the hereafter (if it isn't resolved here through restoration of blessings), but the important thing is that the innocent parties have their sealing ordinance. Born in the covenant children are still born in the covenant, even when a parent is excommunicated. Probably, spouses will be provided for by allowing them to be sealed to other people in the hereafter.

[USU78]

It seems strange to me that, in a Church that stresses modern revelation, the ultimate test of loyalty is to be behind the times on the important issues of your day.

 

And yet Dehlin lied concerning the issues for which he received Church discipline and not any alleged being "on the cutting edge" culture-wise.

[Mars]

There it goes again.

"efforts to silence"

You gotta be kidding me.

HE CAN STILL TALK AND BLOG AND GIVE INTERVIEWS AND PODCAST.

[mormonnewb]

Then find a faster train. I am more concerned with the ultimate destination rather then the speed. I really doubt at the last day anyone will care who was the most "advanced" and "ahead of their time" on the social issues of the day.

 

Really?  So you think it will be irrelevant to Christ which early Americans massacred Native Americans and which treated them with friendship and respect?  Likewise, you think Christ won't care which people held other human beings as livestock or acted as jailers in concentration camps or devoted their lives to service to the poor?  Our positions on the social issues of the day tend to have a rather direct impact on how well we live in the Gospel.

 

And for some strange reason, I think that Christ will care a whole lot about that (even more than he will care about whether we consumed hot caffeine or wore company issue clothing).

[The Nehor]

Really?  So you think it will be irrelevant to Christ which early Americans massacred Native Americans and which treated them with friendship and respect?  Likewise, you think Christ won't care which people held other human beings as livestock or acted as jailers in concentration camps or devoted their lives to service to the poor?  Our positions on the social issues of the day tend to have a rather direct impact on how well we live in the Gospel.

 

And for some strange reason, I think that Christ will care a whole lot about that (even more than he will care about whether we consumed hot caffeine or wore company issue clothing).

 

No, it is more correct to say that living the gospel has a very direct impact on how we interact with others. "Social issues" are abstract. It has been my experience that most people obsessed with social issues are so obsessed because they're jerks and need to feel right about something to convince themselves they are not human trash. There are exceptions of course.

 

The examples you cited were not just social issues. Doing one was in harmony with the gospel while the other is not.

[stemelbow]

Here is one of my major concerns.  It seems that the only way to be a good latter-day saint is to always be on the slow train.

 

An enlightened saint would have been waiting for:

 

1)  The Utah territorial government to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

2)  The German saints to become more antagonistic to the Nazis.

3)  The American saints to get on board with civil rights.

4)  The current Church to come around on OW and SSM.

 

It seems strange to me that, in a Church that stresses modern revelation, the ultimate test of loyalty is to be behind the times on the important issues of your day.

His excommunication had nothing to do with any of this though. It was only about his effort to gain a following while publically arguing against the core teachings of the Church. I was thinking this post of yours was going to be on topic, but he lied to us. It is not. This has nothing to do with his advocacy for LBGT and women.

[mormonnewb]

"Important issues", you mean like priesthood authority, temple ordinances, nature of Godhead, plan of salvation, etc. etc.?  In the grand scheme of "important" issues, I think that our progression is far advanced. 

 

I would agree those are VERY important things but I think we could have been a little quicker in expanding these blessings to all of God's children.  In fact, some of us believe that the priesthood should be expanded to some 5-6 million Mormon women.  We are considered the "disloyal," "prideful," and "apostate" until such time as the Church leaders get a "revelation" (or the Pac-12 refuses to play BYU).  And even then, we will be considered "fast trainers" who should have stayed with the rest of the Church when it was stuck in its outmoded ways of thinking.

 

It just seems strange that being forward-thinking and Mormon would be considered incompatible when the Church's fundamental underpinning is based on receiving modern revelation through living prophets; and when our first prophet, Joseph Smith, was progressive in a number of ways.

[stemelbow]

I couldn't read very much of it. And I don't see the point.

Dehlin's account from his Fabrizio interview today makes a good case as to how his SSM/OW advocacy was followed by threat of disciplinary action.

I thought he made a terrible case. Absolutely horrible. And after reading the transcript it's not only obvious he went to the meeting with King, as another poster on another forum put it, to set him up in regards to SSM and OW, it is obvious he has played everyone. Not in any sense did President King indicate a pending excommunication had anything to do with LGBT and SSM. I honestly don't think one can go that route. I felt his interview with Fabrizio was a low point for him, but this really just magnified it. The letter is clear--it has nothing to do with SSM/OW. It never was. Not even a little bit. Wow.

But it also corresponded with getting a new SP. Seems like the new SP may have felt differently. Could be a little ecclesiastical leader roulette. But...

Yeah you didn't read the transcript. President King said that the previous president didn't feel like he could approach Dehlin--wasn't equipped to. If he felt like he could he probably would have.

The SP has stated why he was being ex'd. And, the SP's reasons, IMO, are sound per current church policy.

I think the important takeaway for everyone is the Church's (now) repeated insistence that you can support SSM and not be excommunicated for it. As an ally, I think Dehlin should celebrate that.

After hearing the interview today I'm not sure he's going to back down by trying to make this about LGBT and OW. Hopefully he does, but he seems to have lost it a little.

[Avatar4321]

Forward thinking in which way? Why would we want to rush forward if it's not redirection the Lord wants us to take?

[stemelbow]

I would agree those are VERY important things but I think we could have been a little quicker in expanding these blessings to all of God's children.  In fact, some of us believe that the priesthood should be expanded to some 5-6 million Mormon women.  We are considered the "disloyal," "prideful," and "apostate" until such time as the Church leaders get a "revelation" (or the Pac-12 refuses to play BYU).  And even then, we will be considered "fast trainers" who should have stayed with the rest of the Church when it was stuck in its outmoded ways of thinking.

 

It just seems strange that being forward-thinking and Mormon would be considered incompatible when the Church's fundamental underpinning is based on receiving modern revelation through living prophets; and when our first prophet, Joseph Smith, was progressive in a number of ways.

I would have loved if the Church from the very start rejected slavery as viable and instead of opposing slavery but more vociferously opposing abolitionists, they were out front and center. But that's not what happened. But this thread is only about Dehlin. And his excommunication has nothing to do with equal rights or social issues at all. Not even a little bit.

That's encouraging to me, as one who pretty much agrees with you on this and the difficulty it brings to realize the Church was lagging behind so much.

[stemelbow]

Mormonstories is down now. I wonder if someone reported him trying to post a private conversation to the host and they were like, shut it down. I guess it wouldn't surprise me. Or if he had a change of heart and decided to stop all the nonsense he's been spewing of late.

[mormonnewb]

No, it is more correct to say that living the gospel has a very direct impact on how we interact with others. "Social issues" are abstract. It has been my experience that most people obsessed with social issues are so obsessed because they're jerks and need to feel right about something to convince themselves they are not human trash. There are exceptions of course.

 

The examples you cited were not just social issues. Doing one was in harmony with the gospel while the other is not.

 

So which of these examples is a social issue that has nothing to do with living the Gospel?

 

1)  The Utah territorial government to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

Are you saying that slaveholders were living in tune with the Gospel?

 

2)  The German saints to become more antagonistic to the Nazis.

Are you saying that those who excluded persons of Jewish descent from meeting houses (and helped trained the German basketball team for the Olympics) were living in tune with the Gospel?

 

3)  The American saints to get on board with civil rights.

And let me guess.  Those who ignored the pain and suffering of millions of God's children being denied the fundamental dignities of citizenship were living perfectly in tune with the Gospel, right?

 

4)  The current Church to come around on OW and SSM.

[To be determined]

 

Where you see a mere "social issue," I see the true essence of the Gospel as reflected in Matthew (i.e., how we treat the "least of these").

 

This is a hot topic.  We have already closed threads and now we will remove posters who don't stay on topic.

[Avatar4321]

Maybe you should be concerned more about learning and doing the will of God in your life and not focus on social issues. It seems to me that if you are living the gospel, the social issues take care of themselves.

[ERayR]

 

Edited February 11, 2015 by ERayR

[stemelbow]

So which of these examples is a social issue that has nothing to do with living the Gospel?

 

1)  The Utah territorial government to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

Are you saying that slaveholders were living in tune with the Gospel?

 

2)  The German saints to become more antagonistic to the Nazis.

Are you saying that those who excluded persons of Jewish descent from meeting houses (and helped trained the German basketball team for the Olympics) were living in tune with the Gospel?

 

3)  The American saints to get on board with civil rights.

And let me guess.  Those who ignored the pain and suffering of millions of God's children being denied the fundamental dignities of citizenship were living perfectly in tune with the Gospel, right?

 

4)  The current Church to come around on OW and SSM.

[To be determined]

 

Where you see a mere "social issue," I see the true essence of the Gospel as reflected in Matthew (i.e., how we treat the "least of these").

Like I said, this is off topic, which I'm fine with but the mods aren't. I'm as interested as the next guy in showing that the Church was/is behind and that is a problem. But this has nothing to do with that, now that we know Dehlin's excommunication was not because of these issues.

[mormonnewb]

His excommunication had nothing to do with any of this though. It was only about his effort to gain a following while publically arguing against the core teachings of the Church. I was thinking this post of yours was going to be on topic, but he lied to us. It is not. This has nothing to do with his advocacy for LBGT and women.

 

But Sister Kelly was ex'd for advocating for women, so it still is true that one must stay on the slow train (don't blame me ... I didn't craft this metaphor) to be a faithful saint.

[stemelbow]

But Sister Kelly was ex'd for advocating for women, so it still is true that one must stay on the slow train (don't blame me ... I didn't craft this metaphor) to be a faithful saint.

Sister Kelly isn't the topic of this thread. And plenty of women in the Church advocate for women, just differently than Sister Kelly (Which I've learned through Juliann has made these sweet ladies like my wife as much a target of her scorn as anyone else).

[JLHPROF]

It just seems strange that being forward-thinking and Mormon would be considered incompatible when the Church's fundamental underpinning is based on receiving modern revelation through living prophets; and when our first prophet, Joseph Smith, was progressive in a number of ways.

 

Here again is the basic flaw.  It's an assumption that the things listed are "forward thinking".

God's law doesn't change.  Period.  Sometimes he reveals more of it.  Sometimes he revokes parts of it when we aren't worthy.  But the pool of law from which God plays, the Rulebook of eternity, doesn't change, can't be overruled, and God is bound to play by it.

 

All that changes is how much truth God is willing to grant us little organisms, and that is based one what we are willing and able to accept.  Society is more than willing to accept SSM and Female ordinantion, but there has been no revelation on these.  Maybe there is no further truth on the subject.  After all that is what continuing revelation is - not change, but an increase or decrease in what truth God is willing to give us.

If women holding the priesthood or SSM aren't allowed under the rule book not even God can change that and we are beating our heads against a brick wall.

 

The idea that these things are "further light" waiting to be revealed is 100% assumption based on no indication we have received from God so far.  They may be considered progressive to us, but they may be regressive to eternal law.

And eventually, God will get tired of waiting for us to get our will in subjection to the rulebook and start handing out the penalties.

[The Nehor]

1)  The Utah territorial government to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong.

Are you saying that slaveholders were living in tune with the Gospel?

 

Nope, but if they listened to Joseph Smith they would set them free.

 

 

2)  The German saints to become more antagonistic to the Nazis.

Are you saying that those who excluded persons of Jewish descent from meeting houses (and helped trained the German basketball team for the Olympics) were living in tune with the Gospel?

 

So your advice to the German saints if you went back in time would be active opposition to the Nazi regime and get the Mormons added to those sent to the camps? I am not sure I would see this as a moral thing to do. I think the advice of the Priesthood leaders of the time was probably best, that is, to gather to Zion.

 

 

3)  The American saints to get on board with civil rights.

And let me guess.  Those who ignored the pain and suffering of millions of God's children being denied the fundamental dignities of citizenship were living perfectly in tune with the Gospel, right?

 

Nope, but the gospel already teaches charity and the like so it was already there.

 

 

4)  The current Church to come around on OW and SSM.

[To be determined]

 

Where you see a mere "social issue," I see the true essence of the Gospel as reflected in Matthew (i.e., how we treat the "least of these").

 

And here we come to the crux of the matter. We know which side history is on. This is the way things are going. We will be reviled for our stance. It is amazing how many prophets with a sure word of prophecy we have in the world isn't it?

 

The people fighting to keep gays from getting dragged behind trucks were those practicing charity. Joining the marriage equality campaign is a cheap way of casting oneself as a hero. I have more respect for a guy collecting money for textbooks for underprivileged schools then I do a thousand people in favor of gay marriage. One is unsung discipleship. The other is joining a party movement and being lauded for almost no sacrifice.

 

"For they love the high seats"

[mormonnewb]

Here again is the basic flaw.  It's an assumption that the things listed are "forward thinking".

God's law doesn't change.  Period.  Sometimes he reveals more of it.  Sometimes he revokes parts of it when we aren't worthy.  But the pool of law from which God plays, the Rulebook of eternity, doesn't change, can't be overruled, and God is bound to play by it.

 

All that changes is how much truth God is willing to grant us little organisms, and that is based one what we are willing and able to accept.  Society is more than willing to accept SSM and Female ordinantion, but there has been no revelation on these.  Maybe there is no further truth on the subject.  After all that is what continuing revelation is - not change, but an increase or decrease in what truth God is willing to give us.

If women holding the priesthood or SSM aren't allowed under the rule book not even God can change that and we are beating our heads against a brick wall.

 

The idea that these things are "further light" waiting to be revealed is 100% assumption based on no indication we have received from God so far.  They may be considered progressive to us, but they may be regressive to eternal law.

And eventually, God will get tired of waiting for us to get our will in subjection to the rulebook and start handing out the penalties.

 

This is a reasonable position to take with regards to the issues of today -- SSM and OW.  One can plausible (although I don't believe persuasively) argue that the Church (and God) have it right and that society is going off on one of its tangents.  But how does one argue this about the first three things I listed (slavery, opposition to Nazis, and civil rights)?  At one point, the Church was on the wrong side of each of these issues.  It is currently on the right side of all three now because it changed its position.

 

So is the Church in apostasy for being regressive to eternal law or is it the case that Church leaders used modern revelation to make course corrections?  And if so, why is it that the greatest sign of loyalty is to support the status quo when it is all but certain that the current status quo will not hold?  In fact, that is the great promise of continuing revelation (and the only reason for God to grant it).