ALarson Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I just saw this and thought I'd post his letter here for anyone who's interested in reading it: http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/7/f/f/7ffed1cb7fd987ba/John-Dehlin-Excommunication-Appeal-Letter-FINAL-NoAddress.pdf?c_id=8530556&expiration=1426020364&hwt=50fd72195f082d6b365b2bc5577da273 Edited March 10, 2015 by ALarson
ksfisher Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 He makes it sound like this President King is a real bad guy.
ALarson Posted March 10, 2015 Author Posted March 10, 2015 So much for not appealing….That was my exact reaction. I know it's his right to do so, but he cannot possibly believe it'll be successful. I wonder if he even wants it to be overturned or if he's just trying to make several more statements or get the last word in. (And yes, I know the decision will technically be the "last word").
Calm Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 "As a professional courtesy"? How does that even make sense in this context? Seems like Dehlin thinks he should be able to dictate how church policy should be implemented. 1
Buckeye Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 JLHPROF just created a thread about how to treat people who leave (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65053-when-people-leave/). Perhaps this thread would be a good place to put our teachings into practice. 1
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Letter of support from Kate Kelly? He is just trolling at this point. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 JLHPROF just created a thread about how to treat people who leave (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65053-when-people-leave/). Perhaps this thread would be a good place to put our teachings into practice.Thank you board nanny buckeye. I am glad you are here to show us the moral high ground.
stemelbow Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Well interesting in that it reveals a little of what transpired in the excommunication proceeding. I always thought there had to be high council members assigned to be his advocate too. I read it all the way through and it would come off a lot better without the letter from Kelly and Hansen attached to the bottom. That is useless. Why do they say things like, "he was completely honest" when he spoke to his stake president over the past ten years? they don't know that. And no he was not completely honest and forth coming to President King. That's not a bad thing, but no one is completely forthcoming when it comes to their beliefs. Why do they claim Dehlin believes Pres Monson speaks for God when just before that Dehlin outlines himself that he thinks it likely God does not exist? The letter seems ill-conceived, by attorneys no less, and amounts to grandstanding or talking to Dehlin's audience rather than to the First Presidency--Dehlin's part seems to be, at least, a little of the latter. Kinda seems like more of a challenge put to the First Presidency then a desire to work with them. But whatever...We'll all see, no doubt what comes of this. 3
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 JLHPROF just created a thread about how to treat people who leave (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65053-when-people-leave/). Perhaps this thread would be a good place to put our teachings into practice.I have not burned him at the stake as a heretic. I am showing as much compassion as I am capable of. 1
bluebell Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 JLHPROF just created a thread about how to treat people who leave (http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65053-when-people-leave/). Perhaps this thread would be a good place to put our teachings into practice. To be accurate, I don't see people who leave as being the same as people who are excommunicated for apostasy and then are mad about it. I'm not saying that because i think we can treat one group good and the other it's ok to treat badly-not at all-but just to express that there is a difference between the two groups. If someone truly is in apostasy, then each member has a kind of vested interest in that person's claim to membership in the group. That's not the same for someone who leaves because of a loss of testimony.
Buckeye Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Thank you board nanny buckeye. I am glad you are here to show us the moral high ground. I'm here all day ...... Satan.
Buckeye Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 To be accurate, I don't see people who leave as being the same as people who are excommunicated for apostasy and then are mad about it. I'm not saying that because i think we can treat one group good and the other it's ok to treat badly-not at all-but just to express that there is a difference between the two groups. If someone truly is in apostasy, then each member has a kind of vested interest in that person's claim to membership in the group. That's not the same for someone who leaves because of a loss of testimony. You're right, of course, as to there being a difference between the two groups. But when it comes to how we are supposed to judge, I think its a difference without meaning. And to be fair, the primary reason given for John's excommunication was his public expression of a loss of testimony.
stemelbow Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 And to be fair, the primary reason given for John's excommunication was his public expression of a loss of testimony. It was? During my disciplinary council on February 8th, 2015, Stake President Bryan King enumerated the following four conditions for apostasy: a) Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. b) Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. c) Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. d) Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
bluebell Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 You're right, of course, as to there being a difference between the two groups. But when it comes to how we are supposed to judge, I think its a difference without meaning. And to be fair, the primary reason given for John's excommunication was his public expression of a loss of testimony. I don't know that it is a difference without meaning. We are never told not to judge people in the scriptures. We are told not to judge unrighteously, and that's an important distinction. When it comes to whether or not someone is in apostasy we have to form some kind of judgement because we have to decide ourselves whether or not the person is or isn't (because the answer to that question has serious implications for the group as a whole). When someone leaves because they don't believe anymore, we don't need to make any kind of judgement on that. We can righteously judge without being uncharitable though. 4
Buckeye Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 It was? Yes. Those 4 points were conclusions. The reason for the conclusions are set out in the next paragraph ... He then provided four pages of evidence against me, the majority of which focused onmy publicly expressed doubts about several orthodox interpretations of LDS doctrine,including my doubts about an anthropomorphic God, orthodox interpretations regardingJesus’ atonement, the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, andthe LDS Church’s claim to be “the one true church on the face of the earth” (seeAppendix of the Letter of Appeal for President King’s evidence).
stemelbow Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Yes. Those 4 points were conclusions. The reason for the conclusions are set out in the next paragraph ... I think it's a little more fair to characterize it, from the President's perspective anyway, as his public arguments made against basic teachings of the Church. I really haven't seen King going after him because he lost his testimony and telling people he has lost it, as it seems to be getting characterized as. 1
bdouglas Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) I have a question about Dehlin's court. Did Dehlin surreptitiously record the court and then publish a transcript of the proceedings? I used to have some respect for Dehlin. I enjoyed some of his podcasts (although he often came across as quite ignorant of the nuances of things), but if he did do a recording of court proceedings, and then published the transcript, then I don't have much respect for him. Anybody can be made to look ridiculous if he does not know he is being recorded. If in fact Dehlin did record his court proceeding and published a transcript of it, what was his stated purpose for doing so? And would not Pres. King have asked him at beginning of the court if he was recording the proceedings? Should not such a recording have been prohibited? Edited March 10, 2015 by bdouglas
ALarson Posted March 10, 2015 Author Posted March 10, 2015 I have a question about Dehlin's court. Did Dehlin surreptitiously record the court and then publish a transcript of the proceedings? I used to have some respect for Dehlin. I enjoyed some of his podcasts (although he often came across as quite ignorant of the nuances of things), but if he did do a recording of court proceedings, and then published the transcript, then I don't have much respect for him. Anybody can be made to look ridiculous if he does not know he is being recorded. If in fact Dehlin did record his court proceeding and published a transcript of it, what was his stated purpose for doing so? And would not Pres. King have asked him at beginning of the court if he was recording the proceedings? Should not such a recording have been prohibited?As far as I know, Dehlin did not record his court proceedings (if he did, he hasn't revealed that he has). He did record an interview between himself and his stake president (his wife was present also).
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 As far as I know, Dehlin did not record his court proceedings (if he did, he hasn't revealed that he has). He did record an interview between himself and his stake president (his wife was present also).As I understand it he requested permission to record the council proceedings and, barring that, to have a note taker present. Permission was denied for both requests.
why me Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I think that it is john's last stand with the church. Sort of like a custer experience. There should be no surprise with the appeal. It keeps him in the spotlight for awhile longer. However, when he was exed, he seemed to lose his power. Perhaps he is trying to get some steam back into his crusade against the church. But this appeal will fail too and with it, like the last cowboy, he will ride off into the sunset, to a place where old cowboys rest and enjoy life.
ALarson Posted March 10, 2015 Author Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) However, when he was exed, he seemed to lose his power.His power? Over whom? As far as his followers go, he seems to still be their hero and he still has many supporters. Edited March 10, 2015 by ALarson
Recommended Posts