John Dehlin Appeals His Excommunication

[rongo]

Regarding Dehlin, Hansen, et. al.'s claim that half of the high council did not "advocate" for him (ostensibly contra to D&C 102):

 

This is a misunderstanding of the role of the six members of the high council. They seem to be claiming that those six should have assiduously pressed for exoneration, regardless of their personal views on the matter. That is, they seem to be saying that it should have at least been a "hung jury," as far as the high council went (i.e., and that if any of these six sustained the stake president's decision, then this violated church policy). This isn't the intent or function of this clause.

 

Six are chosen by lot to pay special attention to see that the accused's rights are observed and preserved. In stake disciplinary councils I have attended (as a bishop, with members of my ward), the discussion of this part of the council has been done without the accused present. The stake president asked each one individually to speak to any shortcomings or irregularities they noticed (if any). 

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

If nothing else, he has plausible deniability. He can say, in effect, "I tried to reason with them, but to no avail."

 

Not a bad strategy, actually, for one looking to salvage credibility.

[Teancum]

So much for not appealing….

 

Good point. I forgot he said he had no plans to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good point. I forgot he said he had no plans to do so.

Considering who it was that provided his attached "briefs," I'm guessing he was talked into it.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Mormons love the get out of jail so called judge not unrighteous clause.  But in my experience most judging by most Mormons is not righteous.  I think this deals more with picking and choosing certain things like avoiding bad movies, books, porn, associating with someone who clearly is toxic.  I think it has nothing to do with judging someone's actions or choices.  That is almost always not righteous whatever that really means.

[Teancum]

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?

 

 

No he did not record the trial by fire but he did record an interview he had with King,

 

But this begs the question about the so called court of love. Why if is was his court should he not have been able to record it. King even prohibited a note taker.  Talk about control and paranoia.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Of course it was.  The SP did not want anything out there that would make the Church or him look bad.   So much for transparency.

[Teancum]

Considering who it was that provided his attached "briefs," I'm guessing he was talked into it.

 

 

Yes I would agree. Honestly I wish John had stuck with no appeal. He has to know it won't get him anywhere and it is really a rehash. Move on man!

[bluebell]

Mormons love the get out of jail so called judge not unrighteous clause.

If by that you mean that mormons love to follow the scriptures instead of trite soundbites, then i thank you for the compliment, though doubt it's all that accurate. We are a lover of trite soundbites as much as the next guy.

If the idea that we are allowed to judge righteously bothers you then i am sorry, but that's in the bible and can't be blamed on Mormons.  

 

But in my experience most judging by most Mormons is not righteous. 

 

 

In my experience most judging by anyone is not righteous.  I don't think that mormons are any worse or any better at that than anyone else.  It's a flaw common to all humans.

 

I think it has nothing to do with judging someone's actions or choices.  That is almost always not righteous whatever that really means.

 

 

Have you really never been in a situation where you needed to judge someone's actions or choices?  You never felt like you had to judge the actions or choices of Joseph Smith for example?

[The Nehor]

Mormons love the get out of jail so called judge not unrighteous clause.  But in my experience most judging by most Mormons is not righteous.  I think this deals more with picking and choosing certain things like avoiding bad movies, books, porn, associating with someone who clearly is toxic.  I think it has nothing to do with judging someone's actions or choices.  That is almost always not righteous whatever that really means.

Stop judging our judging you judgemental judger.

[The Nehor]

Of course it was.  The SP did not want anything out there that would make the Church or him look bad.   So much for transparency.

There was never a claim of transparency.

[rongo]

I agree that those who complain about "judgmentalism" are often more judgmental than those who are ostensibly being judgmental.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mormons love the get out of jail so called judge not unrighteous clause.  But in my experience most judging by most Mormons is not righteous.  I think this deals more with picking and choosing certain things like avoiding bad movies, books, porn, associating with someone who clearly is toxic.  I think it has nothing to do with judging someone's actions or choices.  That is almost always not righteous whatever that really means.

And in this, Teancum engages in the very sort of judgment he is in the act of condemning.

[Kevin Christensen]

Hmmm... In contrasting President King's directness compared to his predecessor offering lots of one on one time and compassion, I noticed that Dehlin left out the letter that led to his first correspondence from President King. Back in June of 2014, President King wrote to Dehlin and said

"I am aware of your recent email to Bishop Hunt,

dated January 2014, in which you requested that you not be contacted by ward

members or church leaders. The email also requested that you not be considered a

member of the ward, and that your names be removed from the home teaching and

visiting teaching rolls of the Church. Although I wish it were otherwise, I respect

this request. But at the same time, given your recent actions and statements, I need

to know exactly where you stand regarding your membership in the Church.

I have chosen to write this letter to you and inquire whether, by your earlier

email to Bishop Hunt and your recent public statements, you desire to have your

name removed from the records of the Church. As you know, if you make such a

request I am bound to honor it. You should know, however, that such name removal

will revoke your temple and priesthood blessings. I would urge you to consider this

carefully, as it is a very important decision.

If you choose not to have your name removed, then I think we are to the

point where I should convene a formal disciplinary council on your behalf for

apostasy. Together we would need to arrive at an acceptable time to hold such a

council.

Dehlin claims that "LDS Church members should not be excommunicated for publicly expressing

doubts."

Dehlin has gone beyond doubt and on to certainty regarding the basic claims of the LDS faith.

I also believe that members should be supported, and

not punished, for their legitimate and well-founded doubts and questions.

Who gets to define what constitutes "legitimate and well-founded doubts and questions? Daniel Peterson? Richard Bushman? Terryl Givens? Or perhaps

should we turn to Jeremy Runnells and his year of obsessive investigation? Maybe Sandra Tanner? Brent Metcalfe? Grant Palmer?

In his appeal Dehlin quotes from the letter he received from President King. Compare his quotation with my earlier quotation. Notice the difference and what difference it makes.

In early June, 2014 I received a letter from newly-called Stake President Bryan King

– whom I had never met, and who had never made even a single attempt to reach out

to me up to that point. In the letter, he wrote the following:

“I have chosen to write this letter to you and inquire whether, by your

earlier email to Bishop Hunt and your recent public statements, you desire

to have your name removed from the records of the Church. As you know,

if you make such a request I am bound to honor it. You should know,

however, that such name removal will revoke your temple and priesthood

blessings. I would urge you to consider this carefully, as it is a very

important decision.

If you choose not to have your name removed, then I think we are to the

point where I should convene a formal disciplinary council on your behalf

for apostasy. Together we would need to arrive at an acceptable time to

hold such a council. You should also be aware that if you choose to have

your name removed from Church records, I feel it is important to make an

appropriate announcement to the adults in the stake that you have chosen

this option.”

I found it very disturbing that in my very first correspondence with President King as

a newly called stake president, he was already inviting me to resign my membership,

having never shown even ten minutes worth of interest in learning more about the

legitimate reasons behind my doubts and concerns about the Church, or offering to

provide any pastoral care.

All of the pastoral care that his predecessors had provided led to Dehlin's request for no contact, and no

change in his thinking and public statements regarding he central beliefs of the church.

And no change in the way that Dehlin manipulates sources and circumstances.

I notice that he ends his appeal with a famous quote from Joseph Smith. Brother Brown, for those who know the history behind the quote, had

some odd ideas about the Book of Revelation. He did not go around declaring that God does not exist, the atonement is nonsense, Joseph Smith was a transparent fraud and womanizer, etc. If Brother Brown had been expressing the sorts of things that Dehlin does, I think other Joseph Smith quotes could be called in. Nibley collected many appropriate things in his "Criticizing the Brethren" essay.

Sad. But glad that he never got round to making an interview with me happen.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course it was.  The SP did not want anything out there that would make the Church or him look bad.   So much for transparency.

I think you are judging the stake president -- and doing it unrighteously.

 

For one thing, you are imposing your own standard of conduct on him. The Church and its leaders do not purport that disciplinary councils are transparent, and they do not concede that they should be.

 

For another, you are ascribing motives to the stake president when you have no way of knowing his mind or heart. Disciplinary councils are conducted in private for the sake of the one being disciplined.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

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).

During which the SP more or less thanked him for agreeing to the confidentiality of the interview twice, iirc….Dehlin didn't say anything the first time, but responded in agreement (that it was a good thing that it was confidential iirc again) the second time….while he was actually recording what was being said.

[Calm]

All of the pastoral care that his predecessors had provided led to Dehlin's request for no contact

 

When he has requested no contact and then complains that there was no contact….

[Pahoran]

No he did not record the trial by fire but he did record an interview he had with King,

 

But this begs the question about the so called court of love. Why if is was his court should he not have been able to record it. King even prohibited a note taker.  Talk about control and paranoia.

But we're not talking about "control and paranoia." We're talking about a confidential proceeding.

You're welcome.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

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.

Did you read the interview he secretly taped and published the transcript of…where the SP continually came back to the point that Dehlin had created and promoted a community that fostered doubt and lack of faith in the Gospel and Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

No he did not record the trial by fire but he did record an interview he had with King,

 

But this begs the question about the so called court of love. Why if is was his court should he not have been able to record it. King even prohibited a note taker.  Talk about control and paranoia.

No, it doesn't "beg the question."

 

It might prompt the question, or raise the question, but that's not what beg the question means.

 

See here.

[The Nehor]

No he did not record the trial by fire but he did record an interview he had with King,

 

But this begs the question about the so called court of love. Why if is was his court should he not have been able to record it. King even prohibited a note taker.  Talk about control and paranoia.

It is the Lord's court.

Would you feel the same way if the Stake President was complaining about this restriction because he wanted to put it on YouTube to show the world what a git Dehlin was during the proceedings? After all that was Dehlin's motive.

[bdouglas]

No he did not record the trial by fire but he did record an interview he had with King,

 

But this begs the question about the so called court of love. Why if is was his court should he not have been able to record it. King even prohibited a note taker.  Talk about control and paranoia.

 

But he did record an extensive interview he had with Pres. King prior to court and then published the transcript of this interview. My question is, did Pres. King know he was being recorded? If I had been in Pres. King's shoes and was conducting an interview and someone was recording me with a view to later publish transcript of the interview, I'd be pissed.

 

As I said in previous post, anybody can be made to look a fool if they are being recorded surreptitiously.

 

If this is what happened, i.e., if Pres. King did not know he was being recorded and then Dehlin publishes the interview——well, to me that really says a lot about Dehlin, and any respect I might have had for him is gone.

Edited March 10, 2015 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

deleted

Edited March 10, 2015 by bdouglas

[smac97]

Here's an article on this subject: http://news.hjnews.com/features/faith/update-john-dehlin-to-appeal-excommunication-from-lds-church/article_99ce09b6-c757-11e4-af84-a7fe02591232.html

Some excerpts:

 

John Dehlin, blogger and creator of the “Mormon Stories” podcast, announced Tuesday he is appealing his excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claiming that the church’s February decision was “not substantially justified” and that his “doubts and concerns” about church doctrine are “becoming increasingly common” with other members of the church.

Dehlin issued a meticulous argument in hopes of regaining his membership in an 11-page letter to the First Presidency — comprised of LDS Church President Thomas Monson and his two counselors, Henry Eyring and Dieter Uchtdorf — saying that the disciplinary council he was subject to Feb. 8 did not follow proper guidelines and that his local stake president and the LDS Public Relations Department have been “disingenuous” about the reasons behind holding the hearing.

"A meticulous argument?" Meticulous as in "taking or showing extreme care about minute details; precise; thorough," not really. His letter is long on verbiage, but short on substance. However, if by "meticulous" the Herald means "finicky; fussy," then yeah, that's apt.

Dehlin added that his experience with the disciplinary council — in which many supporters came to his side, holding a vigil outside the stake center — was that it has “not been Christ-like on any level.”

Ya know, it seems kinda sorta ... weird for John Dehlin to invoke Jesus Christ, when he has elsewhere denied the Savior's divine sonship or even existence.

He urged the church to “be more open and loving in how we treat those in the Church who have doubts about or cannot accept various aspects of our historical or truth claims.”

In addition, he called on the LDS Church to “do more to make amends” for “intentionally withholding” information from members regarding things like Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages and historical inconsistencies contained in the Book of Mormon, such as its reports of horses and sheep in ancient America.

Yawn. This stuff exposes Mr. Dehlin's appeal as a facade. A good faith appeal would not include a recently excommunicating individual dictating to the First Presidency what they oughta be doing.

In his letter on Tuesday, Dehlin also attached a brief written in support of his appeal by Nadine Hansen, an advocate of women’s ordination in the LDS Church, and Kate Kelly, head of the Ordain Women movement. Kelly was excommunicated from the church in June 2014, losing her appeal in November 2014.

This is further evidence of Mr. Dehlin not acting in good faith. Using a legalistic brief prepared by another recently excommunicated person, and publishing such pablum to the world, is really nothing more than a lame attempt to stick his thumb in the Church's eye. He's not seeking an appeal. He's pandering to his followers.

In an email to The Herald Journal on Tuesday, Dehlin said he chose the two to defend him because “they are great friends and great lawyers.”

Great friends, maybe. But "great lawyers?" Kate Kelly has demonstrated abysmal judgment and common sense. I haven't seen any of her "legal" product, but I suspect she's not a practicing attorney, or at least not a litigator, as a litigator would not have made the multitude of boneheaded mistakes she has.

Dehlin added that he was told by his local stake president that Tuesday was the absolute last day he could file an appeal — an appeal he doesn’t expect to win.

He explained that he originally did not intend to appeal, but that watching the excommunication’s stressful effects on his family “motivated me to appeal on principle.”

Fair enough. I have no problem with him changing his mind. But his appeal lacks both substance and merit.

“I believe that this process is inhumane and medieval,” Dehlin wrote in the email.

Oh, brother. What a drama queen. He's not unlike Kate Kelly in that regard. He abuses, to the point of dishonesty, the term "inhuman" when he uses it to describe the LDS disciplinary process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bdouglas]

Of course it was.  The SP did not want anything out there that would make the Church or him look bad.   So much for transparency.

 

Is there any church in all of the land that would have allowed such proceedings to be recorded? Or for a note taker to be present? Especially give the fact Pres. King may have known that Dehlin recorded their last interview and either published it or was preparing to publish it.

 

My Dad used to have a saying: "Here, let me hold your coat for you while you bloody my nose." This is essentially what Pres. King would have been doing had he let Dehlin record court proceedings.

Edited March 10, 2015 by bdouglas