John Dehlin Appeals His Excommunication

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

But consistent with the emotional blackmail we see frequently from critics of the Church.

[Teancum]

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.  

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

 

1:  No I really don't think Mormons follow the proper admonition about judging for the most part. I think we love to judge.

 

2:  I think I was fairly clear on how I at least interpret righteous judgment. I think I stated it applies to situational issues rather than focusing on a person and their individual actions.  These verses from D&C 64 come to mind:

 

 8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.

 9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

 11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

 

I think this is good advice.  How does judging righteously play into this passage?

 

Do I judge others actions like JS?  Yes likely. I did not claim to be an expert at this.

[Teancum]

Stop judging our judging you judgemental judger.

 

 

Are you always so obtuse.... oh wait I already know the answer to this. 

[Teancum]

There was never a claim of transparency.

 

 

Of course not. This is the LDS Church we are talking about after al and transparency is not something it seems to like.  How silly of me to assume otherwise.

[Teancum]

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

 

 

I see this is beyond yours and others ability to understand.  As noted I do not claim to be an expert at this.  But I try hard.  My point was fairly clear on how I at least understand the passages and attempt to apply them.  I can only assume your jab is because you don't agree and would rather use such passages to judge in a different way. The one thing I think I understand is Jesus said that how we judge is they way we will be judged and if he was right and really is our judge I personally think it is something to work at.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

You are correct. I did judge the SP. Unrighteously at that.  I agree.  On the other point.... it seems to me that at least if the person being hauled in for trial wants to make it public they ought to be able to.   It is after all their court of love.

[Teancum]

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

You're welcome.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

As noted if the person on trial wishes it not to be confidential it seem to me they should have input. Why not?

 

You are welcome

Edited March 11, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

I am on record I believe here and elsewhere stating that Dehlin's recording of a personal interview behind his SPs back was despicable. I still think it was.

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

I have no idea what other Church's do. I don't think many have DCs that are anything like what the LDS Church does. I think at least letting someone takes notes was not unreasonable especially given the high profile.   On the other hand I know the Church says they keep all this confidential so I understand the position even though I may not totally agree with it.

[bdouglas]

It is interesting how Dehlin divides people. It was possible for a long time to assume a neutral stance in regards to him, and I am one of those people who had such a stance. But I am sorry to say I have had to reevaluate this position and now have come down against him. I say I am sorry about this because I am sorry for anybody in his shoes.

 

I think Dehlin hoped he could continue to straddle the fence, ostensibly neither for nor against the church (although he seemed to be, at least 70-80% of the time, against), but rather playing the part of neutral arbiter.

 

You can do that for a while, but eventually you have to choose. And such choices can be painful, not only for the individual himself but for family members who reside on the other side of the fence.

Edited March 11, 2015 by bdouglas

[Calm]

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). 

He quotes the handbook himself where it states:  They are not prosecutors or defenders. They are councilors, responsible to see that the evidence is examined in its true light before the council".

 

And then he states he was led to believe that half would be his advocates.  I would like to know who led him to believe that.

[Teancum]

It is interesting how Dehlin divides people. It was possible for a long time to assume a neutral stance in regards to him, and I am one of those people who had such a stance. But I am sorry to say I have had to reevaluate this position and now have come down against him. I say I am sorry about this because I am sorry for anybody in his shoes.

 

I think Dehlin hoped he could continue to straddle the fence, ostensibly neither for nor against the church (although he seemed to be, at least 70-80% of the time, against), but rather playing the part of neutral observer.

 

You can do that for a while, but eventually you have to choose. And such choices can be painful, not only for the individual himself but for family members who reside on the other side of the fence.

 

 

Probably the most accurate post about the man that I have seen.

[ksfisher]

He quotes the handbook himself where it states:  They are not prosecutors or defenders. They are councilors, responsible to see that the evidence is examined in its true light before the council".

 

And then he states he was led to believe that half would be his advocates.  I would like to know who led him to believe that.

 

D&C 102 states that half of the high councilors "stand up" in behalf of the accused:

 

17 Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.

 

At least one of the above numbered high councilors would have spoken on the matter at hand when called upon by the stake president, but there is nothing that says the others have to say anything.  While this may sound like advocating, it's not quit the same thing.

 

Having participated in the few disciplinary councils I can image a few of the participants being less willing to speak out if they felt that some of what they said might be spread all over the internet.  High councilors are not "professional disciplinary councilors" and come from all walks of life, occupations, and church backgrounds.  The only qualifications are being worthy to hold the calling, and being called and set apart by those in authority to do so.  

 

Those are my thoughts on the subject, but I'm sure everyone is aware of all this already.

Edited March 11, 2015 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

 

D&C 102 states that half of the high councilors "stand up" in behalf of the accused:

 

17 Those councilors who draw even numbers, that is, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, are the individuals who are to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice.

 

At least one of the above numbered high councilors would have spoken on the matter at hand when called upon by the stake president, but there is nothing that says the others have to say anything.  While this may sound like advocating, it's not quit the same thing.

 

Having participated in the few disciplinary councils I can image a few of the participants being less willing to speak out if they felt that some of what they said might be spread all over the internet.  High councilors are not "professional disciplinary councilors" and come from all walks of life, occupations, and church backgrounds.  The only qualifications are being worthy to hold the calling, and being called and set apart by those in authority to do so.  

 

Those are my thoughts on the subject, but I'm sure everyone is aware of all this already.

 

I don't have any experience with this sort of thing, but it strikes me that one could stand up in behalf of the accused to prevent insult and injustice -- ensure fairness, in other words -- while not necessarily being an advocate for the accused.

[bluebell]

1: No I really don't think Mormons follow the proper admonition about judging for the most part. I think we love to judge.

2: I think I was fairly clear on how I at least interpret righteous judgment. I think I stated it applies to situational issues rather than focusing on a person and their individual actions. These verses from D&C 64 come to mind:

8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.

9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

I think this is good advice. How does judging righteously play into this passage?

Do I judge others actions like JS? Yes likely. I did not claim to be an expert at this.

I think you've confused judging someone with forgiving them. We can judge someones actions and not be unforgiving (or even upset with them).

The verses you quoted are about letting God handle the punishment when someone has wronged us. Awesome words to remember but not at all what I'm talking about. I'm not to talking about judging so we can dish out consequences (like those verses are). I'm talking about judging so we know how to process things a person is doing or saying or teaching.

Judging whether someone is trustworthy, or right, or behaving in a godly manner, or worthy of being an example to follow, or speaking for God, or has the spirit, etc.

[ksfisher]

I don't have any experience with this sort of thing, but it strikes me that one could stand up in behalf of the accused to prevent insult and injustice -- ensure fairness, in other words -- while not necessarily being an advocate for the accused.

 

Exactly.

[The Nehor]

Are you always so obtuse.... oh wait I already know the answer to this.

It is an art form.

Of course not. This is the LDS Church we are talking about after al and transparency is not something it seems to like. How silly of me to assume otherwise.

I admit I have no idea why people see the need for transparency in this instance. On he whole it protects the person called more then the church. The church would probably be better off telling about how messed up the person may be. Instead they are sometimes vilified and can say nothing.

Recordings would not be evidence for an appeal. In fact this even helps drama queens like Dehlin more this way. Note he requested the right to record or take notes knowing it would be denied. His sychophantic flunkies eat that up whereas listening to a relatively dull recording would not have helped at all.

Edited March 11, 2015 by The Nehor

[smac97]

But consistent with the emotional blackmail we see frequently from critics of the Church.

Does invoking the Savior when he expresses disbelief of His existence constitute taking the Lord's name in vain? I dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

[name]

Being a never-Mo, it probably isn't very wise for me to offer my opinion - but - I never claimed to be wise.

 

It seems rather obvious to me that this particular discussion (as well as countless others involving Mr. Dehlin that I have seen over the past several months/years) is loaded with high emotions and is exceedingly complex. Human beings taking sides (sometimes, for  variety of reasons, being forced to take a side/position) ...... some trying to be neutral or choose a middle-ground ......... some changing sides (again for multiple and personal reasons)........ some so weary from it all that they wouldn't take a side if you smothered it in chocolate.

 

There has been much pain (I am not suggesting this pain was intended and/or I am not suggesting who or what is the cause of said pain), much stress, much angst, much turmoil and perhaps most troubling - much to much division among friends/family/loved ones.

 

From reading what other folks have written and/or said:

There has been (currently are) many human beings that have received help, support, compassion, guidance, etc.

There has been (currently are) many human beings that have been hurt, disappointed, confused, etc.

 

From my view (Last row - upper deck) I would love to see the many wounds begin to heal ....................... and that can't and will not happen until this lengthy novel reaches its last page. 

 

But like I said, I would have been wise to remain silent! 

[Avatar4321]

Does invoking the Savior when he expresses disbelief of His existence constitute taking the Lord's name in vain? I dunno.Thanks,-Smac

I tend to think it is. But thankfully I don't have to make that ultimate determination.

I'm not surprised he appealed when he said he wouldn't. A bit disappointed though. It means he hasnt reached the point where repentance is forth coming

[Tacenda]

I'm here all day ...... Satan.

Like

[smac97]

Being a never-Mo, it probably isn't very wise for me to offer my opinion - but - I never claimed to be wise.

 

It seems rather obvious to me that this particular discussion (as well as countless others involving Mr. Dehlin that I have seen over the past several months/years) is loaded with high emotions and is exceedingly complex.

In some ways, yes. In others, the issue is fairly simple. John Dehlin has been in a state of apostasy for, I think, quite some time, in a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing kind of way. He has relied heavily on his membership in the Church to bolster his bona fides as a commenter on Mormonism, off which he apparently makes a pretty penny, and for which he has gained some measure of worldly prominence. He does not accept, and in fact openly rejects, many/most of the fundamental truth claims in the Church. He seeks to persuade others to his interpretation of things sacred to Latter-day Saints. These factors are hard for many observant Latter-day Saints to stomach (particularly the fact that Mr. Dehlin did all these things by trading on and exploiting his membership in the Church).

 

Human beings taking sides (sometimes, for  variety of reasons, being forced to take a side/position) ...... some trying to be neutral or choose a middle-ground ......... some changing sides (again for multiple and personal reasons)........ some so weary from it all that they wouldn't take a side if you smothered it in chocolate.

Yep. And many observant Latter-day Saints who are familiar with John Dehlin and his "faith journey" and its bent against the Church are siding with and defending the Church. And I think that's just hunky dory.

 

There has been much pain (I am not suggesting this pain was intended and/or I am not suggesting who or what is the cause of said pain), much stress, much angst, much turmoil and perhaps most troubling - much to much division among friends/family/loved ones.

John Dehlin has said: "I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet work." Those of us who have been following him are, sadly, forced to concur with the likelihood of this assessment.  He also stated on a "post-Mormon" site in a thread titled "Yes, John Dehlin has left the Church" that he and his wife "no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims [of the LDS Church]."

A person who publishes such statements has no business being a member of the LDS Church. For his sake, and for ours, excommunication was an unfortunate necessity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 7, 2015 by smac97

[name]

Hey Smac,

I understand - and I can certainly appreciate your side.

In addition to having compassion and understanding to and for your side (I freely admit that my never-Mo understanding to your LDS position may be lacking and to at least some degree, short-sighted), I have compassion and understanding to the other side/sides as well.

That was/is kind of the whole point to my last post.

Thanks for engaging.

Edited March 11, 2015 by name

[smac97]

Okay, here is a rather long fisking of Mr. Dehlin's appeal.
 

I write to appeal my February 9th, 2015 excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on charges of apostasy.

 
That is certainly his right.
 

I also include in this document an accompanying brief written in support of my appeal written by my close friends Nadine Hansen and Kate Kelly. I respectfully request that both documents be considered as my complete appeal.

 
I'm not sure this is appropriate, as Kate Kelly and Nadine Hansen, attorneys though they may be, have no standing to present argument to the First Presidency.  Their contribution is purely argumentative in nature (as opposed to evidentiary, which could have been appropriate).
 

As an overview, I believe the decision to excommunicate me was not justified substantively.

 
This is a strange statement, since Mr. Dehlin's arguments are mostly procedural in nature.  He delves into the precise definition of "apostasy," he claims that he the procedural formalities of the disciplinary council were not observed (they were, he just misunderstood them), he complains that the stake president did not present evidence of apostasy, that the evidentiary "procedures" used in the council were "unfair," and so on.  He spends very little time addressing the "substance" of the evidence relied upon by the stake president, except to say that his use of it was "discourteous" and "cherry-picking."  Here is a link to the stake president's letter: http://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2015/01/for-record.html .  To sum up, the points raised by the stake president include the following: 

 
1. Promoting atheism/agnosticism.
2. Denying or doubting the divinity of Jesus and the reality of the Atonement.
3. Denying the Restoration of the Gospel.
4. Denying the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
5. Denying the inspired calling of Church leaders.
6. Being ordained a minister in another faith.

 

You will note that John Dehlin does not actually deny that he has done any of these things, but instead describes his various actions spanning many years as "publicly expressed doubts about several orthodox interpretations of LDS doctrine."  To be honest, I am not sure how to readily differentiate between Mr. Dehlin "publicly express(ing) doubts about ... doctrine" (as Mr. Dehlin puts it) and, as his stake president has put it, Mr. Dehlin "teaching" atheism/agnosticism, publicly denying the divinity of Jesus Christ, "actively teaching against" the Restoration through Joseph Smith, calling it "not a credible narrative" at which he (Mr. Dehlin) is "repulsed" teaching (not just expressing one's own views, but actually "teaching") that "the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work of fiction" accusing the Brethren of being motivated not by doctrine but by "power" and "money," becoming ordained in another faith, and so on.  Nevertheless, such a differentiation was apparently necessary.
 

I would like to appeal the excommunication on grounds of apostasy for the following specific reasons:
 
1. LDS Church members should not be excommunicated for publicly expressing doubts.

 
This is a non-sequitur, to the point of being disingenuous.  He was not "excommunicated for publicly expressing doubts."
 

2. President King decided that a disciplinary council should be convened before having ever met me, without showing any pastoral concern.

 
Well, maybe, maybe not.  President King expressed the possibility in his first letter to Mr. Dehlin, but he couched it as "I think we are to the point where I should convene a formal disciplinary council on your behalf for apostasy."
 
In any event, Mr. Dehlin cannot seriously complain that his many years of oh-so-public commentary on the Church were not sufficient for his stake president to have developed a well-informed understanding of what Mr. Dehlin had been publishing and teaching.  In other words, the stake president did nothing wrong by being familiar with Mr. Dehlin's body of published statements.
 
Mr. Dehlin goes on to fault President King for not following the same course of action as that of the previous stake president.  This does not seem problematic, as stake presidents can and should proceed according to A) the Spirit, B) developments over time, and C) their own judgment and experience.  
 
As far as the "without showing any pastoral concern" bit, that's too subjective a thing to merit comment.
 

3. The Stake President provided no evidence during the disciplinary council demonstrating that I met the Church’s criteria for apostasy.

 
This is where the proverbial rubber could have hit the road, where Mr. Dehlin could have addressed the "substance" of the charges against him.  He does not.  Instead, he complaints about President King focusing on what Mr. Dehlin characterizes as "my publicly expressed doubts regarding orthodox views of God, Jesus, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and matters of the LDS Restoration."
 
Mr. Dehlin has produced a huge body of work over the years.  President King's itemization (linked to and summarized above) is just a toe dipped in the many waters of Mr. Dehlin's published works.  But to characterize his public denunciations of the core doctrines of the Church, the leaders of the Church, and so on as merely "publicly expressed doubts" is to distort the truth and to bear false witness.
 
John Dehlin has said: "I would guess that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of my Internet work." Those of us who have been following him are, sadly, forced to concur with the likelihood of this assessment.  He also stated on a "post-Mormon" site in a thread titled "Yes, John Dehlin has left the Church" that he and his wife "no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims [of the LDS Church]."  A person who publishes such statements has no business being a member of the LDS Church. For his sake, and for ours, excommunication was an unfortunate necessity.
 
More in the next post.

Edited March 11, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post:
 

Regarding the charge of “acting in public opposition to the Church or its leaders,” the evidence that President King provided in the section entitled “Public Distribution and Opposition” simply conveyed my belief that members should be able to determine their own status with the Church, and that I was supportive of their right to self-determination.  I do not believe that the quote provided by President King in this section in any way denotes public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

 
President King quotes John Dehlin as saying that he is "repulsed by the teaching of 'one true church', and would rather roll around in thumb tacks than ever teach or support that notion."  President King also quotes John Dehlin as saying that governance of the Church is "no longer about doctrine and/or revelation," and is instead "about 1) power, and 2) money," and that senior church leaders are "hastening the Church's demise."
 
John Dehlin has said all of these things, and yet still claims that President King did not have grounds for concluding that Mr. Dehlin has acted in "public opposition to the Church or its leaders."  Talk about speaking out of both sides of one's mouth...
 

4. Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland has stated publicly that members of the Church should not be excommunicated for not believing that the Book of Mormon is historical.

 
Another non-sequitur.  Mr. Dehlin was not "excommunicated for not believing that the Book of Mormon is historical."  President King specifically stated in his letter: "Through your podcasts and Internet posts, you have broadly disseminated these views.  Additionally, you have provided a forum for others to criticize the Church and to disseminate their views that are contrary to the revealed word of God."
 

5. Church Policy was not followed in my disciplinary council, with the result that the process was flawed and unfair.

 
Here Mr. Dehlin complains that "no member of the high council spoke a single word on my behalf," and that it is his belief that "one half of the high counselors would be my advocates during the disciplinary council."  
 
Well, no.  The members of the High Council do not play the role of "advocate" for a person subject to a disciplinary counsel, except to the extent necessary to "prevent insult and injustice."  Moreover, it appears that there was no need for any sort of "advocacy" because, in the case of Mr. Dehlin, there was no factual dispute.  Mr. Dehlin has never denied saying the things presented by the stake president.  The only issue, then, is whether these statements fall within the definition of "apostasy."  That is an issue left to the stake presidency, not the council.
 
I think Mr. Dehlin (and, for that matter, Kate Kelly and Nadine Hansen) fundamentally misunderstand and misconstrue the nature and purpose of disciplinary councils.  To be fair, this may be partly to blame on the Church's prior use of the term "court."  But that was years ago.
 

6. Unfair collection of evidence.

 
Here Mr. Dehlin complains that the stake president disallowed testimonial evidence from "thousands of LDS individuals and families" who would have testified of Mr. Dehlin's statements and actions having "aided them in their activity in the Church and faith in the gospel."
 
I suppose Mr. Dehlin has a technically correct point here, but not a practical one.  The stake president obviously cannot allow a person under discipline to present unfettered amounts of "evidence."  Moreover, I question what form of competent evidence Mr. Dehlin could have presented regarding the testimony of "thousands."
 
In any event, Mr. Dehlin has publicly bragged that "that many more people have left the church than have stayed because of (his) Internet work," and that he is "happy" with this.  So the problem is not that Mr. Dehlin may have helped people stay in the Church.  He wasn't under discipline for that, so evidence about such things would be mostly irrelevant (imagine a man at a disciplinary council who is charged with adultery, and confesses to it, but then says "But there were many days during my marriage in which I did not commit adultery, so that excuses the few times I did, right?").  Instead, Mr. Dehlin was under discipline for, among other things, trying to lead people away from the Restored Gospel, an endeavor at which - by Mr. Dehlin's own reckoning - he has succeeded.
 
So if we take Mr. Dehlin at his word and conclude that his actions/statements have led more people out of the Church than have kept them in it, then President King's decision appears amply justified.
 

7. The stake president intentionally used outdated and highly selective quotes in his evidence against me.

 
This is Mr. Dehlin at his most dissembling.  As far as I can tell, Mr. Dehlin has never denied or retracted the statements which President King found problematic, so such statements cannot, by any reasonable measure, be described as "outdated" (particularly since they are not very old at all, the earliest having been published in 2010).  Again, on a "post-Mormon" site in a thread titled "Yes, John Dehlin has left the Church" Mr. Dehlin and his wife "no longer are willing to act or appear as though we believe the fundamental truth claims [of the LDS Church]."  A person who publishes such statements has no business being a member of the LDS Church. For his sake, and for ours, excommunication was an unfortunate necessity.
 

8. The stake president has not been publicly forthright about the reasons for the disciplinary council, which he has told me include my unwillingness to censor my podcast, Mormon Stories (http://mormonstories.org), along with my public support of Ordain Women (http://ordainwomen.com) and of same-sex marriage (https://www.youtube.co m/watch?v=0MxCXjfAunk).
...
 I believe President King’s attempt to publicly name my religious doubts as the cause for my disciplinary council, while telling me in private that my podcast materials and my support for LGBTQ rights and women’s rights were serious issues for him regarding my ability to remain in good standing with the Church, is a cover intended to help the Church avoid negative publicity from a public relations perspective.

 
I guess I can see where Mr. Dehlin is coming from here, but I don't really buy it.  President King was sifting through a lot of stuff published by Mr. Dehlin.  He took exception to a lot of it, some of which was more of a judgment call.  I can see reasoned and sensible differences of opinion amongst different local leaders regarding whether "supporting" the OW group or same-sex marriage creates a problem with continued membership.  Ultimately, however, President King apparently felt that Mr. Dehlin had created sufficient alternative grounds for disciplinary proceedings (linked to and cited above), such that addressing the more questionable potential grounds for discipline (OW/SSM) became unnecessary/moot.  Mr. Dehlin sees something nefarious in this, and it is clear that he really really wanted his disciplinary council to be about those issues.  He could have been the cause célèbre du jour.  Alas, his apostasy on other grounds was, at the end of the day, sufficiently established.
 

9. Via an LDS Church spokesman, the Church contributed to misinformation about the reasons behind the disciplinary council, and violated the Church’s own policy regarding not commenting on disciplinary councils.

 
Meh.  Subjective.  And irrelevant to whether the disciplinary council was properly convened and conducted.
 

10. Instead of putting doubting Church members on trial, the LDS Church should do more to make amends for the way it has handled its history and policies.

 
Meh.  This is just soapbox posturing.  It has no bearing on whether the disciplinary council was properly convened and conducted.
 

I would like to end by saying that I sincerely believe that the Church is harming itself by excommunicating me, and people like me.

 
The Church is harming itself by excommunicating a person who - by his own reckoning - has engaged in a pattern of behavior resulting in "many more people" having "left the church than have stayed?"
 
With friends like these...

 

Continued in the next post.

Edited March 11, 2015 by smac97