John Dehlin Excommunication Discussion

[Tacenda]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

I would not blame John for any member who decided to leave.  They do so by their own choice and they had issues already.  At some point they were going to leave and just needed some excuse.  John just helped weed out some of the players from the pretenders.  If he knew he would get exed, then he knew he crossed the line a long time ago and its hard to feel sorry for him. 

[KevinG]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

It could be hesitancy, or it could be he didn't venture off into preaching against foundational doctrines that soon, or it could be his leaders wanted to give him a chance to repent. We don't know.

[carbon dioxide]

some of us believe that the priesthood should be expanded to some 5-6 million Mormon women. 

Some of us believe that God makes that determination and its not for us to decide for God that the time is now or ever.  God does not run on our schedule.  If God wants to give the priesthood to cats and dogs that is His choice and right.  He makes the decision,  Not Kate Kelly or anyone else.

[KevinG]

God does not think like me. Some use this as an excuse to find fault with God. Others use it as an excuse to seek a fuller understanding of God's will.

[mfbukowski]

Ten RS ladies met for lunch today and I heard the news. I asked each one of them if they had heard of John Dehlin. Not one of them had. Only one woman confirmed his name to look into it more.  I think that is probably representative in outside Utah areas.

 

Reality checks are useful sometimes.

 

Given the disclosures of the percentage of his non-profit income feeding into his income by two blogs on the Bloggernacle, he may have bigger concerns than excommunication now.

This really is a very small church in a very big world and what is news to us doesn't even appear on p 15 in Peoria, much less Paris.

 

Before I started studying the church, I thought it was basically Catholic but Mormons made up their own saints, and their saints were mostly Indians.  You would probably have to pay me to even run a google search on the church if such a thing were possible then, much less worry about why such a small and strange church would excommunicate someone.

 

And I was pretty well informed on these matters compared to someone in the "general public" !    The idea of someone being excommunicated would be less than ignorable.  If asked to explain why someone might be excommunicated, I might have answered that maybe he made up his own saints to pray to or something.

 

Anyway, I don't think we need to worry about this very much even if every person on the Wasatch Front is watching for results 24- 7.

 

To give it all some perspective, there are FIVE TIMES as many people within a hundred miles of where I live as the entire population of the state of Utah.  I bet there is not a single member of my stake who has ever heard of JD- except for me

[mfbukowski]

I can understand why you think I revel in our (relatively minor) public scorn.  After all, I predicted such and we all know how prideful I am and how much I like to be right (I'm certainly alone on this board in that capacity).

 

However, just to be clear, I do NOT revel in the thought of the conversations I will have with my liberal friends asking, "So why do you belong to such a backwards church?"  I'd much rather talk about a topic that is much more interesting (i.e., ME, my current business plans, my kids, and all other things Newb).  Instead, I'll be taking away valuable Newb-discussion time saying things like, "I know what it looks like, but trust me, on an individual basis, Mormons are kind-hearted, loving and generous Christians.  And yes, collectively, we're a little slow to come around to modern ways of thinking, but don't give up on us yet.  We'll get there!  Pray for us, Brother/Sister!"

 

Fortunately, this is a much bigger deal within Mormonism than without, so I don't expect to have this conversation more than a half-dozen times or so; that is, until we have our next heresy trial (which I predict will be sometime this summer).

And that is just because you live close to Utah.

 

Move to LA and no one would even discuss religion with you at all, much less this non-blip.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Oh my gosh- listen to yourself!!

 

"God's law doesn't change- Period" unless this, or that, or the other thing that we don't yet know about

 

That's like saying science doesn't change, we just learn more.   So there was no "change" from Newton to Einstein in your book- we just got to know more.

 

Now THAT is a very strange definition of "unchanging" if you ask me.  But if it floats your boat, fine.  Just don't expect others to know what you are talking about when you say that "God's law doesn't change".

 

I know, sometimes polygamy is right sometimes wrong, sometimes people of the wrong race hold the priesthood, sometimes not, sometimes Adam is God, sometimes not, but that is not "change".  It's learning MORE!

 

Yes, I think I am getting the hang of this already. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

Of course they can. You think the best course of action is to do both. I think you are better off doing the latter. I would even consider the former a waste of time.

Does the winner get the high seat?

Touché!

[readstoomuch]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

 

I think this is what Christ would expect.  Try to work with the individual as long as possible if there is any hope.  The Church really was trying and doesn`t want to excommunicate people.  Because the Church is going to try, but also keep things confidential, this is how it has to go.  Even if the person knows the system and uses it for publicity purposes.  I think the Church is noble in this way and showed it in this circumstance.  

[CMZ]

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 the issue is more that the Church wants people to be basing their opinions of the Church, whether those opinions be positive or negative, on true information rather than on distortions.

[CMZ]

I'm not an expert on the Dehlin matter but I have heard a little here and there. Is he wishing to remain a member while not believing in the Church? Does he think that is an ideal state of affairs?

[mfbukowski]

I'm not an expert on the Dehlin matter but I have heard a little here and there. Is he wishing to remain a member while not believing in the Church? Does he think that is an ideal state of affairs?

Oh you are making far too much sense.  You should excuse yourself from the thread immediately. 

[Pahoran]

I can understand why you think I revel in our (relatively minor) public scorn.  After all, I predicted such and we all know how prideful I am and how much I like to be right (I'm certainly alone on this board in that capacity).

 

However, just to be clear, I do NOT revel in the thought of the conversations I will have with my liberal friends asking, "So why do you belong to such a backwards church?"

What a wonderful missionary opportunity that would be!

You could begin by explaining that you didn't select the Church because you had a laundry list of trendy, popular, politically correct points to tick off. Rather, you came to know for yourself that the fundamental truth claims are true; and compared to them, nothing else really matters.

And if your friend really wants to know how that came about, you know two young men/women who would be delighted to tell them more.

I'd much rather talk about a topic that is much more interesting (i.e., ME, my current business plans, my kids, and all other things Newb).  Instead, I'll be taking away valuable Newb-discussion time saying things like, "I know what it looks like, but trust me, on an individual basis, Mormons are kind-hearted, loving and generous Christians.  And yes, collectively, we're a little slow to come around to modern ways of thinking, but don't give up on us yet.  We'll get there!  Pray for us, Brother/Sister!"

I actually think a Romans 1:16 approach would be better.

Fortunately, this is a much bigger deal within Mormonism than without, so I don't expect to have this conversation more than a half-dozen times or so; that is, until we have our next heresy trial (which I predict will be sometime this summer).

We haven't had a "heresy trial." Someone who rejected the Church's fundamental beliefs, and who made a career out of encouraging others to also reject them, is no longer a member.

Ask yourself: given his adamant disbelief, why would he want to remain a member?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

 

This is a surprising position - the Church waited too long to X someone like John.  I knew it had to be the Church's problem and not John's.  When he picked up the microphone he already knew he was on the road to being x'ed.  What does that say about the condition of his mind, his objectives, and all the denials he has made all along the way for ten years?  He has not been faithful or honest for ten years if we are to believe him.  

 

The more he talks, the more facts come out by accident, and the more I distrust everything he says or has said and does and has done.  How can anyone trust him?

[Hamba Tuhan]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

 

Dear, sweet Tacenda, I'm not a fan of overused internet slang, but thank you for making me genuinely LOL tonight!

[Kenngo1969]

... His [Dehlin's] question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

Whiners gonna whine, I guess. (Sorry, Tacenda: Nothing personal, but I call 'em as I see 'em ...)  This just proves that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders can't win (that they're in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't position), doesn't it?  Excommunicate too soon, and the Church and its leaders are too sensitive, with itchy "trigger fingers" and so on; don't excommunicate soon enough, and they're too tolerant of "wolves among the flock," so to speak.  Either way, they're in for criticism from the critics.

[why me]

In one newscast tonight, John mentions that the day he picked up the microphone and started his podcast, 10 yrs. ago? he knew it would get him excommunicated. His question and my question is WHY did church leaders allow this to go on for so long?? They could have nipped it in the bud. Who knows, maybe John would be back in the church right now. And maybe there would be a few less disassociated and resigned members. I think this is a case of grave hesitancy on the part of leaders who should know better.

We need to consider john's history with his podcasts. His original podcasts had more to do with his own questions and his attempt to find answers to his own questions. In this, he went public in his podcasts. All was well at this time. Then, he veered off course, and became much more critical. Why? This would be a good question to ask. The original interviewees answered his questions well and many a oh's from john. So, why did he go off course? It is up to him to answer that question. His podcasts began to reflect his disbelief and he attempted to confirm this disbelief with him he invited on. Then, he began to organize mormonstories chapter and conferences that were more or less focused aganst the church. It is here that his local church should have done something. Their silence began to create a hulk-like creature who became stronger and stronger as the local ward was still silent about what he was doing and the church took no notice or interest. Of course the apologists did and we have many threads about him over the years.

 

So, the question should be: why did the local church and the national church wait so long to call him in for an excommunication talk? The chapters and conferences should have brought notice of him to the SP at that time.  I think that the church showed great patience with him but he kept pushing the boundaries until like kate, he went too far. 

[Boanerges]

We need to consider john's history with his podcasts. His original podcasts had more to do with his own questions and his attempt to find answers to his own questions. In this, he went public in his podcasts. All was well at this time. Then, he veered off course, and became much more critical. Why? This would be a good question to ask. The original interviewees answered his questions well and many a oh's from john. So, why did he go off course? It is up to him to answer that question. His podcasts began to reflect his disbelief and he attempted to confirm this disbelief with him he invited on. Then, he began to organize mormonstories chapter and conferences that were more or less focused aganst the church. It is here that his local church should have done something. Their silence began to create a hulk-like creature who became stronger and stronger as the local ward was still silent about what he was doing and the church took no notice or interest. Of course the apologists did and we have many threads about him over the years.

 

So, the question should be: why did the local church and the national church wait so long to call him in for an excommunication talk? The chapters and conferences should have brought notice of him to the SP at that time.  I think that the church showed great patience with him but he kept pushing the boundaries until like kate, he went too far. 

 

I agree with your assessment, but I'm not so sure they were silent. If you look at the stuff Dehlin said when this all began - back when Kate Kelly was also being disciplined - he said he has over the years had many meetings with local leaders and indicated he regularly met with either a bishop or stake president for quite some time. He also indicated he was unwilling to do that again. For those unfamiliar with the process, in addition to formal church discipline, there is informal discipline - things like regularly meeting with a church leader in an effort to help the individual repent. This can also be a requirement of formal probation or disfellowshipment, but in the case of informal probation there is not record kept. Dehlin made it clear earlier that this is not the first time he faced formal discipline. I think that is in part why he fully expected to be excommunicated - he has been through lesser levels of discipline and is unwilling to submit to that again.  Of course, I also see the evolution of his thought and disaffection.

[why me]

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.

This is false. kate was advocating for women to hold the priesthood by saying that they must have it to achieve any form of equality. However, we can say the same for john. Was john exed for advocating for gay rights? No. However,  he did say some disparaging comments about the church and its relationship with gays and lesbians. But was he excommunicated for this: No. He was excommunicated for apostacy because he came out against lds doctrine. Most churches would do this also, as I showed you with the pope exing a priest in australia for his stance on gays in the catholic church and for his advocating for women to become catholic priests.

 

So, kate was exed because she claimed that women must have the priesthood and began an organization that was opposed to the lds church.and john was exed for apostasy. All in all, they were both apostates but for different reasons.

Edited February 11, 2015 by why me

[why me]

I agree with your assessment, but I'm not so sure they were silent. If you look at the stuff Dehlin said when this all began - back when Kate Kelly was also being disciplined - he said he has over the years had many meetings with local leaders and indicated he regularly met with either a bishop or stake president for quite some time. He also indicated he was unwilling to do that again. For those unfamiliar with the process, in addition to formal church discipline, there is informal discipline - things like regularly meeting with a church leader in an effort to help the individual repent. This can also be a requirement of formal probation or disfellowshipment, but in the case of informal probation there is not record kept. Dehlin made it clear earlier that this is not the first time he faced formal discipline. I think that is in part why he fully expected to be excommunicated - he has been through lesser levels of discipline and is unwilling to submit to that again.  Of course, I also see the evolution of his thought and disaffection.

But they took no action and that was my point. They were silent when it came to reigning him in. Of course, we only have his word for thes conversations. Was he doing a Brian Williams? We just don't know. What we do know is that no action was taken against him.

Edited February 11, 2015 by why me

[Boanerges]

But they took no action and that was my point. They were silent when it came to reigning him in. Of course, we only have his word for thes conversations. Was he doing a Brian Williams? We just don't know. What we do know is that no action was taken against him.

 They may have taken action, we don't know. Have you ever been asked to meet regularly with a priesthood leader? In my own experience I am aware of this happening with two people (one with a bishop, one with a stake president). In both cases there were very serious concerns, and in one case there was an eventual disciplinary council. It's not a usual thing to meet regularly with a priesthood leader.  Dehlin admits he has had such regular meetings in the past, possibly with more than one leader. This kind of informal stuff is taking action. We find the same thing prior to Kate Kelly's disciplnary council. In the stuff she published it was clear that she had previously met with her bishop and stake president prior to proceeding to formal discipline. She had been asked to stop prior to moving to formal discipline and didn't. These cases are similar in that respect. While we do only know what each of them has shared, the lack of formal discipline - a disclinary council - does not indicate they took no action. Any good leader (and I believe the vast majority of them are good and well intentioned) will do all he can prior to instituting formal discipline - and sometimes that requires a great deal of patience and longsuffering until it just becomes obvious there is no other way.

[rpn]

I think it is pretty common to receive the decision in a letter after the disciplinary counsel.   I got mine that way, hand delivered, not mailed (would have preferred mail).

[rpn]

If you read the transcript posted of the August 7, 2014 meeting with teh SP, he was put on probation.   And that was when he got the letter telling him what he had to fix (that JD released soon after he got it.)

 

NOTE:  The Aug 7, 2014 transcript proves the SP was correct in asking for the commitment not to record. 

 

 

ETA: A jaundiced interpretation would be, he started out just trying to understand, verred off, came around again after all those talks mentioned (this was a 2-3 years ago, when many of his "followers" were outraged that he'd returned to church), and then found that he got more donations when he was critical, so he posted the Tom Phillips interview, which squarely placed him on the road to where he is.

 

Also, JD consistently relied on others- know- all -about- this- and- they- are- okay- with -my- continuing- membership argument, even when his broadcasts became pretty uniformly those seeking to disparage or destroy the church.

Edited February 11, 2015 by rpn

[Tacenda]

Whiners gonna whine, I guess. (Sorry, Tacenda: Nothing personal, but I call 'em as I see 'em ...) This just proves that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders can't win (that they're in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't position), doesn't it? Excommunicate too soon, and the Church and its leaders are too sensitive, with itchy "trigger fingers" and so on; don't excommunicate soon enough, and they're too tolerant of "wolves among the flock," so to speak. Either way, they're in for criticism from the critics.

Please pass the cheese to go with my whine.

Also, as much as I don't want to admit this, I often wonder if MS's wasn't there, nor Stay LDS, if I'd have gone over the edge so to speak.

Those sites led me to unchartered waters, which also led me to Fair LDS, with a whole new ocean of topics I'd never heard of.

Not playing the blame game, just wondering if stopping John earlier would have helped. But maybe after ex'g the September Six etc the church is going slower on the uptake.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Tacenda