John Dehlin Appeals His Excommunication

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post: 
 

I believe that my doubts and concerns about the Church are legitimate and are becoming increasingly common.

 
Doubts and concerns can and should be addressed.  But many of them are not "legitimate" to the extent they are predicated on a rejection of the LDS paradigm.  The Restored Gospel makes little sense to people who cannot decide whether God exists (or have decided He does not), or who reject the divinity of Jesus Christ, living prophets and apostles, ongoing revelation, priesthood authority, and so forth.  But all that is beside the point.  He could have wrestled with these issues until doomsday and still retained his membership.  But when he goes out and actively preaches against the Church and its doctrines and leaders, and when he exploits his membership in the Church to do so, well, that's a real problem.
 
The "Statement of Support" written by Kate Kelly and Nadine Hansen and appended to Mr. Dehlin's appeal is, on the whole, rather hokey.  First, Kelly/Hansen cite D&C 102:27 and claim that this is a "mandate" which creates a "scripturally-based right" to a hearing by the First Presidency.  Well, yeah, except they neglect verse 33, which states: "Resolved: that the president or presidents of the seat of the First Presidency of the Church shall have power to determine whether any such case, as may be appealed, is justly entitled to a re-hearing, after examining the appeal and the evidences and statements accompanying it."  Kelly/Hansen don't account for this, which means either A) they were exceedingly sloppy at their "research," such as it was, or B) they are being misleading by omitting a key provision in the very authority they cite, which provision largely vitiates their claim of a "scripturally-based right", or C) they are not writing in good faith, and are instead pandering to their supporters, or D) some combination of A, B and/or C.
 
Second, Kelly/Hansen make no effort to address the evidence presented by President King.  They just complain that he did not take the same approach as the previous stake president.  This is not argument.  It is petulance.
 
Third, Kelly/Hansen summarily declare that Mr. Dehlin "did not" engage in conduct that meets the definition of "apostasy."  Well, reasonable minds can disagree about that, I suppose.  In any event, the because-I-say-so argument coming from an excommunicated apostate and her confederate probably does not merit much consideration.
 
Fourth ... well, there are too many defects in their contribution to include here.  Read it and draw your own conclusions.  However, I will comment on this last comment by Kelly/Hansen:
 

Ultimately, the buck stops with you, the First Presidency. There is no better time than now for you to take a long, hard look at the stresses that the current state of knowledge and scholarship is placing on members of the Church. 
...
What is needed is a new paradigm, one where questions and historical problems are met with compassion and understanding, not with punishment, confiscation of temple recommends, withdrawal of callings and marginalization within what should be supportive faith communities.
...
The LDS Church today needs to become a place where Church members can learn how to respect one another’s beliefs and struggles. Every question does not need to be answered, and indeed, many questions cannot be answered, but questions must be respected and honored, and where necessary, institutional course corrections need to be made.

 
This is rather audacious, and not in a good way, but in an "insolent" or "brazen" kind of way.  It assumes the Brethren, particularly the First Presidency, are a bunch of clueless rubes.  They are not.  It assumes that the Brethren are ignorant of the difficulties facing the Saints.  They are not.  It mischaracterizes the state of the Church.  It presumes to dictate to the First Presidency about "a new paradigm" and "institutional course corrections."  For the record, I agree that the Church needs to change.  It always needs to change.  It always needs course corrections.  But what I reject is the notion that a self-selected excommunicated apostate and her lieutenant are the conduit through which God will reveal such changes to the First Presidency of His Church.  
 
Thanks,
 
-Smac

Edited March 11, 2015 by smac97

[bdouglas]

I've been thinking about the "transparency" that previous posters brought up. They said these courts lack transparency. And it's true, they do. But I think there are very good reasons for this. I wasn't very old when George P. Lee of the Seventy was excommunicated, but I remember a friend of my father's complaining about it. He said, "George did not deserve to be excommunicated." And, from what we knew at the time, it seemed that maybe this man was right. Elder Lee had been guilty of insubordination——something like that. But really no one knew what he'd been excommunicated for. The ostensible reason was "apostasy", but what does that mean?

 

Well, later it came out in the news that Elder Lee had been involved with a pre-pubescent or barely pubescent girl, and the critics of his excommunication all suddenly had pie in their faces.

 

The no transparency rule is for the protection of the court subject, not the court and not the church. (Another poster previously made this same point.)

 

P.S. - It's possible, I guess, that Elder Lee's court did not know about the girl, but I think they must've known something.

Edited March 11, 2015 by bdouglas

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Just after his excommunication trial, Dehlin was interviewed on KUER by Doug Fabrizio, and he seemed quite gracious, calm, and at peace with what had taken place.  He claimed that the Stake President had been more than fair.  After all, his public statements had left his Stake President and Stake High Council no choice in the matter.  I was fully convinced that he wanted to be exed.

 

His 180 degree turnabout now, however, makes him appear to be very unstable psychologically, and not likely to ride off into the sunset any time soon.  We might even end up with a reprise of the Godbeite experience, i.e. he may milk this event for all it is worth and even create a more formal anti-Mormon group.  How does "Dr. Dehlin" sound?  Deep down, beneath that oh so calm exterior lies a heart that really wants to kick butt.

[why me]

His power?  Over whom?  

 

As far as his followers go, he seems to still be their hero and he still has many supporters.

Back in the day, he did have some power over members. And he knew it. He organized MS chapters and MS conferences. He was the main man. And many church members listened to his podcasts. Not to mention garnering 90k in salary from his podcast etc work. Now that he is exed, members will begin to lose interest in him and his followers will begin to go away too. And john, for the sake of himself and his family, will go about his life in other directions, if he is not suffering from a 'mormon' obsession. John lost his hero status with the old dehlinites when he returned to church and disbanded his conferences and chapters. When he left again, his credibility suffered. Sure, he may find new supporters but those of us who have been around from the time he began have been on a roller coaster ride with his ups and downs within mormonism. Now it is time to get off the roller coaster and john can retire as brakeman.

[smac97]

Just after his excommunication trial, Dehlin was interviewed on KUER by Doug Fabrizio, and he seemed quite gracious, calm, and at peace with what had taken place.  He claimed that the Stake President had been more than fair.  After all, his public statements had left his Stake President and Stake High Council no choice in the matter.  I was fully convinced that he wanted to be exed.

 

His 180 degree turnabout now, however, makes him appear to be very unstable psychologically, and not likely to ride off into the sunset any time soon.

I'm not persuaded that there is psychology in play here. Machiavellian connivance, perhaps (note Kate Kelly's fingerprints all over the place). But not psychological instability.

We might even end up with a reprise of the Godbeite experience, i.e. he may milk this event for all it is worth and even create a more formal anti-Mormon group.

I doubt it. A Godbeite experience requires some semblance of faith, but Mr. Dehlin is, I think, too much in the thrall of secular humanism for that. At the end of the day, Mr. Dehlin's opinions are rather mundane, even boring. Popular interest in him and his ideas will, I think, wane rather quickly. If you want to see a potentially nascent Godbeite movement, check out Denver Snuffer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

Just after his excommunication trial, Dehlin was interviewed on KUER by Doug Fabrizio, and he seemed quite gracious, calm, and at peace with what had taken place.  He claimed that the Stake President had been more than fair.  After all, his public statements had left his Stake President and Stake High Council no choice in the matter.  I was fully convinced that he wanted to be exed.

 

His 180 degree turnabout now, however, makes him appear to be very unstable psychologically, and not likely to ride off into the sunset any time soon.  We might even end up with a reprise of the Godbeite experience, i.e. he may milk this event for all it is worth and even create a more formal anti-Mormon group.  How does "Dr. Dehlin" sound?  Deep down, beneath that oh so calm exterior lies a heart that really wants to kick butt.

I agree. This is why I called it custer's last stand. But in the end, he will lose. I don't think that many of us will suffer through another roller coaster ride with john. Time for him to retire as brakeman and let us all have a hot dog and some popcorn as the roller coaster comes to a halt.

 

The word Dr. can carry some weight but it doesn't carry much weight unless the doctor begins to say some extremely intellectual sentences. To have a doctor raging against a church no matter how calm the voice can present itself as a 'mad' doctor. Or a doctor suffering though some obsession who just may be in need of a real doctor. The mormon church is basically a non entity for most people. The vast majority of humankind couldn't care less what the mormon church does internally with excommunication and most intelligent people know that no church can have a priesthood holder or a pastor being a heretic.

Edited March 11, 2015 by why me

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not persuaded that there is psychology in play here. Machiavellian connivance, perhaps (note Kate Kelly's fingerprints all over the place). But not psychological instability.

I doubt it. A Godbeite experience requires some semblance of faith, but Mr. Dehlin is, I think, too much in the thrall of secular humanism for that. At the end of the day, Mr. Dehlin's opinions are rather mundane, even boring. Popular interest in him and his ideas will, I think, wane rather quickly. If you want to see a potentially nascent Godbeite movement, check out Denver Snuffer.

Thanks,

-Smac

O.K. I'll give you the Machiavellian bent, but (aside from being anti-polygamy) the Godbeite experience was at base a secular, social, economic, political, and even mystical effort at reform of the LDS Church, which was the humanism of its day.  And of course it failed rapidly.

[Glenn101]

 

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.

 

 

During a disciplinary council, any members of the council will be able to ask questions. The debate leading to a conclusion will not be in the presence of the accused and he will not be given the information of who was who in the process. There is a good reason for that.

 

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

O.K. I'll give you the Machiavellian bent, but (aside from being anti-polygamy) the Godbeite experience was at base a secular, social, economic, political, and even mystical effort at reform of the LDS Church, which was the humanism of its day.  And of course it failed rapidly.

Isn't the Salt Lake Tribune a residue of the Godbeites?

 

Edited to add:

 

Yes, I checked online sources, and my memory is correct. The Tribune was started by the Godbeites.

 

And to the extent that the newspaper to this day self-identifies as serving a certain local market niche that detests, mistrusts or resents the presence and influence of the Church of Jesus Christ, it is as though the Godbeites live on in the pages of the Tribune.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Back in the day, he did have some power over members. And he knew it. He organized MS chapters and MS conferences. He was the main man. And many church members listened to his podcasts. Not to mention garnering 90k in salary from his podcast etc work. Now that he is exed, members will begin to lose interest in him and his followers will begin to go away too. And john, for the sake of himself and his family, will go about his life in other directions, if he is not suffering from a 'mormon' obsession. John lost his hero status with the old dehlinites when he returned to church and disbanded his conferences and chapters. When he left again, his credibility suffered. Sure, he may find new supporters but those of us who have been around from the time he began have been on a roller coaster ride with his ups and downs within mormonism. Now it is time to get off the roller coaster and john can retire as brakeman.

I agree with this post, why me as it's a good summary of Dehlin's behavior over the years.

He has definitely burned bridges on both sides.  But for some reason, he still has a huge following.  I have no ill will towards him, but I would never trust him to take a stand and hold to it.

 

As I read comments here and elsewhere online, it seems that many believe Dehlin knows this appeal will be not be successful and that he's only doing this to "force" the First Presidency to put their stamp on it so he can say "See! It wasn't just a local matter handled by my Stake President, it has the approval of the church leaders in SLC."

[mnn727]

The letter is little more than grandstanding. I am sure however he will be (if he hasn't already) be quoting it on his podcasts.

[stemelbow]

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!

A pretty wise take, in my estimation. This has all been very emotionally charged. On one hand I can't stand hearing and seeing some of the comments about Dehlin, and others for that matter. They seem unfair. Then I go back and re-read some of my comments and realize I'm pretty judgmental and perhaps even a little unfair in some cases. Oops. Emotions have gotten the best of me too.

In the end what it tells me as much as anything is there are so many people out there just trying their best, working through internal and external struggles, many times in ways I simply can't understand. It makes me sad.

[Jeanne]

I read his article in the Herald Journal this morning.  I thought he was very straightforward and sincere.  Who are we to know what his family is really going through. I have been out of the church since 2008 and it is still not easy.  He would know more than anyone on this board (as well has Pres. King) what is really going on and the affect it has had.  When do we quit judging??  It is so not your place to judge...or for John to judge others..not until we all have the truth.  Believe me, my friends and family do NOT know the truth..it really is pay, pray and obey. 

[KevinG]

I do not assume to know enough to judge John Dehlin.  I did have enough judgement not to follow him over a living Prophet.  

 

I would hope that Dehlin's supporters extend the same courtesy to the Stake High Council.  

 

That is enough for me.

Edited March 11, 2015 by KevinG

[smac97]

I read his article in the Herald Journal this morning.  I thought he was very straightforward and sincere.

Whether he "was very straightforward and sincere" is a separate issue from the merits and substance of his appeal.

Who are we to know what his family is really going through.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has presumed to know any such thing.

I have been out of the church since 2008 and it is still not easy.  He would know more than anyone on this board (as well has Pres. King) what is really going on and the affect it has had.  When do we quit judging??

We are assessing the merits of his appeal. It is a written document which he has published to the world. I don't think such an assessment amounts to a judgment of his soul, just his words. He is putting his words out there in an attempt to influence people, and the folks on this board are responding to that attempt. So it doesn't make much sense for his defenders to complain about people who read and comment on statements Mr. Dehlin is publishing to them, or to allege that such reading/commentary amounts to unrighteous judgment.

It is so not your place to judge...or for John to judge others..not until we all have the truth.

Here you are, assessing our actions and finding fault in them. This sounds quite a bit like what we have been doing in assessing John Dehlin's actions. If it is "judgment" when we do such things, what do you call it when you do such things?

Believe me, my friends and family do NOT know the truth..it really is pay, pray and obey.

"Pay, pray and obey" fits in well with various other slurs against religionists. Evangelicals have to put up with being called "Jesus freaks." Catholics have to endure snide remarks profaning their Eucharist as "ritualistic cannibalism." And we Mormons have to put up with people like you slurring our most sacred beliefs by distilling them into "pay, pray and obey."

Thank for playing. Bye.

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

....pay, pray, and obey.  Hmm, it has nothing to do with my experience of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I am sorry it is your perspective, but understand that it is only your perspective.  In other words, we only have our own perspective for which we are responsible.  I think we find what we are looking for in life.  Your perspective about the Church, just as mine, has more to say about ourselves than the Church.  You may want to consider that and consider how your perspective about all things affects your own life.  

 

We create our own hell and our own heaven here on earth depending on our choices.  

[Scott Lloyd]

....pay, pray, and obey.  Hmm, it has nothing to do with my experience of the Church of Jesus Christ.

It's a catch-phrase I heard used in a TV interview by prominent and outspoken Mormon apostate Steve Benson.

 

Don't know whether it was he who originated it.

[stemelbow]

It's a catch-phrase I heard used in a TV interview by prominent and outspoken Mormon apostate Steve Benson.

 

Don't know whether it was he who originated it.

hnmmm..interesting. Do you happen to know when that interview took place?

[Scott Lloyd]

hnmmm..interesting. Do you happen to know when that interview took place?

If memory serves, it was the "60 Minutes" report in which Mike Wallace interviewed President Hinckley.

[KevinG]

Steve Benson can leave President Monson's alliteration, but he can't leave it alone.

[Scott Lloyd]

I read his article in the Herald Journal this morning.  I thought he was very straightforward and sincere.  Who are we to know what his family is really going through. I have been out of the church since 2008 and it is still not easy.  He would know more than anyone on this board (as well has Pres. King) what is really going on and the affect it has had.  When do we quit judging??  It is so not your place to judge...or for John to judge others..not until we all have the truth.  Believe me, my friends and family do NOT know the truth..it really is pay, pray and obey. 

Aren't you the one who fussed over not knowing and only learning later that Joseph Smith was given a pistol by a friend while confined in Carthage Jail?

 

Call me judgmental, but that's a silly thing to leave the Church over.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Steve Benson can leave President Monson's alliteration, but he can't leave it alone.

A cartoonist could be expected to excel in gimmicky phrases, I suppose.

[KevinG]

A cartoonist could be expected to excel in gimmicky phrases, I suppose.

 

If not oversimplification in the course of partisanship.

[KevinG]

Aren't you the one who fussed over not knowing and only learning later that Joseph Smith was given a pistol by a friend while confined in Carthage Jail?

 

Call me judgmental, but that's a silly thing to leave the Church over.

 

It get's better.  A photograph of the pistol was published in institute manuals, the tour at Carthage walks through Joseph and Hyrum shooting back down the stairs, and (saving the best for last) the pepper box pistol itself is displayed prominently in a case, in the first room of the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City.

 

Having people say the pistol is "hidden history" is one of my favorite arguments.

[Scott Lloyd]

If not oversimplification in the course of partisanship.

Heh. Yeah, that too.

 

Caricature is the essence of what political cartoonists do.