John Dehlin / Mormon Stories Criticized by Equality Utah, Wyoming Equality, Equality Arizona

[smac97]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

That's an assumption about what the bishop has or hasn't done in this individual case based off of what you assume should be done in aggregate.

You are correct.  It was an unwarranted inference on my part (at least as to this particular situation with Charlie Bird).

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Note that in what you quoted, same-sex relations are not under the mandatory member council list.  There's a lot of space to come to an agreement on what will not happen and what will within a ward setting that doesn't include formal proceedings.

I agree.  I further agree that the Charlie Bird's bishop may well have found a workable solution in that "space" along the lines of what you describe.  My guess is they're not given callings that call for a practicing ordained priesthood member and they aren't given temple recommends. 

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

But that would be based on inference based on what I've listened to on the podcast. I'm not going to insist what the bishop should have done as it's not my calling and the two men are not within my stewardship. I would hate to see the church "address this" because some a-holes decided to try and stir the pot for this unwilling couple, when they have thoroughly tried to avoid pot-stirring and to be a positive addition to their local ward. 

If the bishop and his stake presidency and the area presidency are all on board with the solution in place, then that's fine.  As you say, we lack stewardship over the matter or the persons involved.

That said, I will amend my previous comment "I think the Church will need to address this" to the extent it can be interpreted as applying specifically to Charlie Bird and his bishop.  My comment was intended to speak more broadly.  At some point I think there will be bishops and stake presidents who, in exploring the "space to come to an agreement," will proceed with granting a temple recommend and granting other privileges that normally hinge on some (admittedly broad) requirement of "worthiness."  From Sections 30.1.1 and 30.2 of the Handbook:

Quote

30.1.1

General Guidelines

Those who serve in the Church are called of God (see Hebrews 5:4; Articles of Faith 1:5). Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call (see also 4.2.6). They also consider:

• The member’s worthiness (as determined in an interview).

• Gifts and abilities the member has, or could develop, to bless others.

• The member’s personal circumstances, including his or her health and work.

• The impact the calling may have on the member’s marriage and family.

...

Before a stake leader extends a calling, the person’s bishop is consulted to discuss the member’s worthiness and other circumstances that could influence his or her service (such as those described above).
...

30.2

Extending a Calling

Receiving a call to serve should be a meaningful spiritual experience for a member. Callings to serve the Lord are sacred and joyful opportunities. Leaders communicate this by the way they extend a calling. They should not extend callings in a casual manner.

The Chart of Callings indicates who may extend each calling (see 30.8). After receiving the necessary approvals, the authorized leader counsels with the member to understand if the member’s circumstances allow him or her to serve. The leader also seeks to understand if the member is worthy and willing to serve.

"Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call ... {and} also consider ... {t}he member’s worthiness (as determined in an interview)."

"Before a stake leader extends a calling, the person’s bishop is consulted to discuss the member’s worthiness and other circumstances that could influence his or her service."

"The leader also seeks to understand if the member is worthy and willing to serve."

See also Section 4.2.6:

Quote

4.2.6

Prepare Others to Be Leaders and Teachers

The Savior prepared His Apostles to become leaders in His Church. You likewise help others prepare to be leaders and teachers. The Lord’s work focuses on helping people, not just administering Church programs. These programs are not ends in themselves. They exist to help people grow.

When considering who could serve in Church callings or assignments, be prayerful. Remember that the Lord will qualify those He calls. What is most important is that they are willing to serve, will humbly seek the Lord’s help, and are striving to be worthy.

I suspect at some point, perhaps even in the near future, some bishop will disregard the plain parameters of the Law of Chastity when evaluating "worthiness" for a calling and/or temple recommend and/or membership discipline.  If and when that happens, and starts happening here and there, the Church "will need to address this."

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Funny enough, my mom fit this descriptor back in the day. She got pregnant before marrying her current husband, who was also a new convert. The bishop decided not to hold any form of a council considering their circumstances. If you want it to be the same, let it be treated the same.

Not sure what you mean by "it."

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Let the bishop be the primary decider of what makes the most sense for this couple's individual circumstance, let us in the peanut gallery hold our peace, and let's not have people purposely trying to make drama/controversy via stalking/glorified gossip have a voice in their ward lives by their inappropriate behaviors. 

Bishops have ample, but not plenary and unquestionable, discretion in the decisions they make as an ecclesiastical leader.  Otherwise, we would not need the Handbook, area presidencies, prophets and apostles, the scriptures, etc.  "{W}hat makes the most sense" cannot be left to the sole and unfettered discretion of a bishop.  He is bound to keep the commandments and fulfill his mandates as laid out by the Brethren.

As for people "in the peanut gallery hold{ing} our peace," I agree as to specific situations, but on broad matters of Church governance, I think we ought to be able to talk about such things.  

Regarding whether the Church should respond to stirring-the-pot antics of the likes of John Dehlin, that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  Sometimes they do, mostly they don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

when I get to heaven, I will ask God, why would the sacrament be withheld from the people who just may need it the most?

Granted that it is the sinner who needs the sacrament the most, it is only efficacious for those who have repented. That's why it is given out weekly, because doubtless most or all of us have something we have recently repented of. Those who have not repented gain no benefit, and may actually be made worse off: see more below.

I am sure I am not alone when I say there have been times when I felt the need to refrain from partaking of the sacrament because I felt unworthy to do so, but found upon repentance felt an enhanced blessing and a great cleansing when I was finally able to partake again.

But those who partake of the sacrament while unrepentant gain no such benefit (though they feel self-righteous about it).

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Though I will be challenged on this, I’m comfortable believing God will say “that was never my rule.” 

One may be comfortable in believing many things, including incorrect ones. If God were to say "that was never my rule," He would have to explain away a few things:

• The Apostle Paul wrote that there were those who had been made weak and sickly, and even died, because they partook of the sacrament unworthily.
• Jesus told the Nephites that they should forbid the unworthy from partaking, because partaking unworthily would result in damnation to their souls.
• In 4th Nephi Mormon reports that in the fourth generation after Christ's appearance there were churches in apostasy, and one of the evidences of that apostasy was in permitting the unworthy to partake of the sacrament.

From the following scriptures:

1 Cor. 11:27-30 -> 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

3 Ne. 18:28-29 -> 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

Mormon 9:29 -> See that ye are not baptized unworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily; but see that ye do all things in worthiness, and do it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; and if ye do this, and endure to the end, ye will in nowise be cast out.

4 Nephi 1:27 -> And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.

 

Edited February 7, 2024 by Stargazer

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But those who partake of the sacrament while unrepentant gain no such benefit (though they feel self-righteous about it).

Why then restrict it as part of the repentance process rather than restricting it until someone is willing to repent?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

But those who partake of the sacrament while unrepentant gain no such benefit (though they feel self-righteous about it).

Why then restrict it as part of the repentance process rather than restricting it until someone is willing to repent?

To fulfill a scriptural mandate, and to safeguard the individual?

• 1 Cor. 11:27, 29 - "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  ... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."
• 3 Nephi 18:28-29 - "And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;  For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him."
• Mormon 9:29 - "See that ye ... partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily; but see that ye do all things in worthiness."

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Ok.  So MS did some 'investigative journalism" and published a bunch of stuff about the lives of two people?  I guess my thoughts: 

- If these people have put themselves and their lives in the public spotlight, then too bad for them and Equality Utah can just shut up.  Go read up on the history of celebrities mad at against paparazzi to see where society or the law draw the line.
- If these folks have done little to none of that, and are just two folks going about their private lives, then boo on MS and yay on Equality Utah.

I'd say these are my thoughts regardless of who is doing the telling, who the associated communities are, what cultural aspects or institutional practices are being looked at, or what anyone's agenda is.   Public figures are fair game. People get to enjoy their private lives.  No matter the politics or persuasions or personalities or proclivities, if you put 'em in a window, people are gonna window shop from public spaces and blog about what they found rummaging through your dumpster.  If you keep 'em in a box in your house, people are jerks if they hang out with a camera to catch you carrying the box to your car or whatever.  

Go film and discuss Mitt Romney and Harry Reid all you want - leave my uncle in Vernal alone.   Go do an expose on the owner of whatever dog is trending on TikTok, but leave my dog alone, even if you see us in the park.  Go point to the personal lives of Hollywood starlets as proof of the moral decay of the movie industry, leave my Bishop alone - he's a software developer for pete's sake.  

Edited February 7, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Stargazer]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why then restrict it as part of the repentance process rather than restricting it until someone is willing to repent?

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that someone who is not willing to repent should be restricted from partaking, but someone who has confessed and is now attempting to correct their behavior should be permitted?

If that is the case, then my answer is the first part is definitely how it must go, while the second is conditional upon one's feeling of having repented, or for more serious matters, the discernment of the presiding officer, as well as the seriousness of the sin.

Three scenarios:

1. I arrive a sacrament meeting a bit late, having had an argument with my wife while driving there, and the other drivers on the road have caused me to shout at them, too. I barely find my seat as the last notes of the sacrament hymn are sung. Suddenly I am presented with the bread while I am still worked up and at odds with my wife. Do I partake, or not? Well, all the aggravation aside, I am willing to repent. Should I partake?

2. I have allowed myself to be become addicted to alcohol, but I want to shake the addiction. I am willing to repent, and have cut my consumption, but I'm still craving the stuff, and find myself sneaking drinks occasionally. I partake of the sacrament each week. Am I doing wrong, given the scriptures I quoted to MustardSeed?

3. Replace scenario 2 with the occasional intimate contact with a woman not my wife, though I'm trying to end the relationship. I partake of the sacrament each week so as not to raise my wife's suspicions. Same question.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2024 by Stargazer

[LoudmouthMormon]

Another thought: Does anyone know if Charlie or Ryan have actually expressed any discomfort over the situation?  If that's the case, this might be a simple case of two competing attempts to monetize/weaponize active gay saints by generating outrage and clicks.   I've seen golden child tug-of-wars before, where competing interests both claim to be "acting in their best interests".  I've also seen an awful lot of getting-offended-on-behalf-of-fashionably-marginalized individuals or groups who may or may not even care what's happening.   I don't have enough info to make any conclusions, but there are the three possibilities as I see them.

Also, holy crap are the comments in this Facebook post a hoot.   People are mad from just about every possible angle. 

Edited February 7, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that someone who is not willing to repent should be restricted from partaking, but someone who has confessed and is now attempting to correct their behavior should be permitted?

If that is the case, then my answer is the first part is definitely how it must go, while the second is conditional upon one's feeling of having repented, or for more serious matters, the discernment of the presiding officer, as well as the seriousness of the sin.

Three scenarios:

1. I arrive a sacrament meeting a bit late, having had an argument with my wife while driving there, and the other drivers on the road have caused me to shout at them, too. I barely find my seat as the last notes of the sacrament hymn are sung. Suddenly I am presented with the bread while I am still worked up and at odds with my wife. Do I partake, or not? Well, all the aggravation aside, I am willing to repent. Should I partake?

2. I have allowed myself to be become addicted to alcohol, but I want to shake the addiction. I am willing to repent, and have cut my consumption, but I'm still craving the stuff, and find myself sneaking drinks occasionally. I partake of the sacrament each week. Am I doing wrong, given the scriptures I quoted to MustardSeed?

3. Replace scenario 2 with the occasional intimate contact with a woman not my wife, though I'm trying to end the relationship. I partake of the sacrament each week so as not to raise my wife's suspicions. Same question.

 

 

Nobody is righteous “enough”, and no one can say but the individual if at the time of sacrament the individual has an attitude of a desire to do better and a repentant attitude. 

If somebody’s going to sit down with the Bishop and confess their sins, I don’t understand the need to withhold the sacrament . That’s more than I’ve ever done, and I take sacrament every week. 

Edited February 7, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Nobody is righteous “enough”, and no one can say but the individual if at the time of sacrament the individual has an attitude of a desire to do better and a repentant attitude. 

You're right that nobody is righteous enough. Even if we've repented of everything we've ever done wrong, and have avoided a repeat of every sin we've ever committed since that repentance, the fact remains that until we are ultimately ransomed, we remain guilty and need the sacrament.  That should be our attitude:  deep humility.

8 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If somebody’s going to sit down with the Bishop and confess their sins, I don’t understand the need to withhold the sacrament . That’s more than I’ve ever done, and I take sacrament every week. 

If it's not that serious, the bishop probably wouldn't ask you to refrain from partaking. Ultimately, every person can decide if he or she will partake of the sacrament, whatever the Bishop says. He's not going to come down among the congregation and forcibly jockey the tray away from those who he thinks is partaking unworthily. Or he shouldn't be, anyway.

But you don't understand the need to withhold it? Did you read the scripture verses I included? 

On the offchance that you simply skimmed my post (I admit I am quite verbose and can't blame people from doing a TL;DR), let me repeat, for emphasis, 3 Nephi 18:28-29...

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

This is Jesus Christ speaking, not just Bishop Smith of the 15th Backcountry Hicks Ward. The need to withhold the sacrament is not to make the person feel bad or singled out, or to shame them, it's to prevent them from doing something that will damn their soul. Would you not stop someone from jumping off the Empire State Building without a parachute, if you could? The point is that partaking of the sacrament unworthily is a sin in and of itself. 

Merely confessing to the bishop does not end the process of repentance. It's a step on the pathway, but only a step.

1. Recognize that you have sinned.
2. Feel a godly sorrow for your sin.
3. Forsake your sin.
4. Confess your sin. We must confess all our sins to the Lord. Some serious sins which might affect our standing in the Church should be confessed to the proper priesthood authority. If we have sinned against another person, we should confess to the person we have injured. Some less serious sins involve no one but ourselves and the Lord. These may be confessed privately to the Lord.
5. Make restitution: as much as possible we must make right any wrong that we have done.
6. We must forgive others: a vital part of repentance is to forgive those who have sinned against us. The Lord will not forgive us unless our hearts are fully cleansed of all hate, bitterness, and bad feelings against other people.
7. Continue keeping the commandments. <- This signifies that the process never ends.

If you have done something that might affect your membership status in the church (e.g. adultery), then the bishop (or stake president) is commanded to restrict your access to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper until you have demonstrated true repentance. Again, that's commanded by Christ as recorded in 3 Nephil it's not the unreasonable demand of some self-righteous stick-up-the-rear who grumbles about how the younger generation are all going to pot.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

To fulfill a scriptural mandate, and to safeguard the individual?

• 1 Cor. 11:27, 29 - "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  ... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."
• 3 Nephi 18:28-29 - "And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;  For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him."
• Mormon 9:29 - "See that ye ... partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily; but see that ye do all things in worthiness."

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the issue is what unworthily means.  We all sin and are unworthy to some degree.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'd say these are my thoughts regardless of who is doing the telling, who the associated communities are, what cultural aspects or institutional practices are being looked at, or what anyone's agenda is. 

But wouldn’t you at least say someone is a hypocrite if they protested this for one group and then turned around and did it themselves?

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Granted that it is the sinner who needs the sacrament the most, it is only efficacious for those who have repented. That's why it is given out weekly, because doubtless most or all of us have something we have recently repented of. Those who have not repented gain no benefit, and may actually be made worse off: see more below.

There is so much to be repented of according to the scriptures and church leaders. I dare say that 99.99% of members take the sacrament without having repented of something, either because they forgot about it or hadn't recognized or felt it was a sin. 

I would assume these 2 men had other things to repent of besides any sexual relationship they may or may not have.  So that tells me when they take the sacrament there are a lot of things they may have repented of which the sacrament would be efficacious for.

And I'm certainly not going to be casting a stone because I knew there were a lot of things I hadn't repented for when taking the sacrament. To me this falls under Elder Uchtdorf's not to judge others because they sin differently than I do.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I am sure I am not alone when I say there have been times when I felt the need to refrain from partaking of the sacrament because I felt unworthy to do so, but found upon repentance felt an enhanced blessing and a great cleansing when I was finally able to partake again.

But those who partake of the sacrament while unrepentant gain no such benefit (though they feel self-righteous about it).

One may be comfortable in believing many things, including incorrect ones. If God were to say "that was never my rule," He would have to explain away a few things:

• The Apostle Paul wrote that there were those who had been made weak and sickly, and even died, because they partook of the sacrament unworthily.
• Jesus told the Nephites that they should forbid the unworthy from partaking, because partaking unworthily would result in damnation to their souls.
• In 4th Nephi Mormon reports that in the fourth generation after Christ's appearance there were churches in apostasy, and one of the evidences of that apostasy was in permitting the unworthy to partake of the sacrament.

From the following scriptures:

1 Cor. 11:27-30 -> 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

3 Ne. 18:28-29 -> 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

Mormon 9:29 -> See that ye are not baptized unworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily; but see that ye do all things in worthiness, and do it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; and if ye do this, and endure to the end, ye will in nowise be cast out.

4 Nephi 1:27 -> And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.

 

Every one of those talks about being unworthy. Every one of us is unworthy according to the gospel. The scriptures also talk about if one has not charity then he is nothing. All the points that talk about charity and the first 2 commandments tells me loving our neighbor is more important than who we have sex with so I'm a little confused why the person who is unkind to me for reasons she thinks are valid is worthy to take the sacrament, but the man having sex with another man is not worthy.

Perhaps worthiness is actually about the state of our hearts rather than specific sins or amounts of sin.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that someone who is not willing to repent should be restricted from partaking, but someone who has confessed and is now attempting to correct their behavior should be permitted?

I think it should be considered default mode as I know of cases where the bishop required a period that he would decide was good enough where the person had already committed to stop the behaviour and had stopped, but struggled in other ways because they felt they were damaged goods because the bishop didn’t tie the privilege to actual behaviour, but to his own feelings.

I think taking the sacrament should in the case of relatively obvious repentance be more member directed than the bishop having a one size fits all or maybe four sizes fits all personal policy. Bishops should talk to the member and discuss if they see taking the sacrament as helping the process of repentance or would not taking it help more, among other things.  I think a lot of times giving a short time of no sacrament (a month or two) followed by a probation where the member is to pray about taking it weekly and decide for themselves would not be a bad idea since this creates another opportunity to self reflect and refocus one’s commitment during the week, but for some overly conscientious, the bishop would do best by setting up a very structured timeline to push the person into rightfully forgiving themselves.  The tricky part there is not making it so short of a time it doesn’t feel serious to the member, but it doesn’t go on long enough to turn into a habit of self condemnation.  The time of not taking the sacrament should not be presented as punishment, but as an opportunity to refocus, to prepare as one would for a baptism.

Self harm behaviours should not have as strict of a standard as behaviours that harm others.  

Addictions add a whole mass of complexity to the discussion and I am not well enough versed in it to feel comfortable saying what would be most likely to help reach the goal of truly laying the sin the addiction is focused on aside.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

the fact remains that until we are ultimately ransomed, we remain guilty and need the sacrament.

Wait….do you mean repentance for a particular sin is never finished (we are still guilty of that sin and not just guilty because we end up committing more sins we now need to repent of) until final judgement (it’s on our ledger until then)  so the sacrament acts like a booster to keep us going until then or do you mean the sacrament is needed to resolve sins and get full forgiveness because one can truly fully repent now (the sacrament erases the sin out of the ledger once repented even if other sins get added so we are still in the red) (normally I don’t like debt/money analogies for the Atonement, but my brain is fried today)

Edited February 8, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

It all boils down to what it means to be unworthy.  My experiences have me distrusting men in powers’ opinions and overreach-, 

I’m grateful that the sacrament is withheld less often than it was 10 years ago, but I’d really could have used the more generous approach in my own family then. 

[juliann]

 Women, Blacks and now gays. Can’t wait to see what group he goes after next. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Another thought: Does anyone know if Charlie or Ryan have actually expressed any discomfort over the situation?  If that's the case, this might be a simple case of two competing attempts to monetize/weaponize active gay saints by generating outrage and clicks.   I've seen golden child tug-of-wars before, where competing interests both claim to be "acting in their best interests".  I've also seen an awful lot of getting-offended-on-behalf-of-fashionably-marginalized individuals or groups who may or may not even care what's happening.   I don't have enough info to make any conclusions, but there are the three possibilities as I see them.

Also, holy crap are the comments in this Facebook post a hoot.   People are mad from just about every possible angle. 

Hadn't thought of that, but you may be right. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

 Women, Blacks and now gays. Can’t wait to see what group he goes after next. 

Oh puhlease.  He did not go after gays.  Nor women.  Nor blacks. But I know there seems to be a deep seated need to demonize those who criticize the church.  But is is great ad hominem.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Oh puhlease.  He did not go after gays.  Nor women.  Nor blacks. But I know there seems to be a deep seated need to demonize those who criticize the church.  But is is great ad hominem.

I just have a deep seated need to demonize Dehlin, not any other critic that I can think of. (Obviously, I don’t believe I am actually demonizing him, just being realistic, if harsh and this bias is because of how I have seen him treat several people, including friends.)

I wouldn’t say he goes after them in the usual sense as it’s not a campaign, but his approach of criticizing or targeting a member based on them being black or gay when it is an advantage to him is not being an ally as he likes to claim he is. Same with his willingness to turn on someone when he gets defensive.  The treatment of women is in a different category imo because the ones relevant to the discussion in my view were coworkers or volunteers as opposed to be pointed to publicly outside of Rosebud.  The Rosebud affair is too tangled to be dealt with by me right now, though I do think it is an example that Dehlin is more of a taker than a giver in his life.

There is this thread that discussed it n the past that I think covers it though haven’t read much, so perhaps not.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73364-kate-kelly-on-dehlin/

Quote

Hey everyone.  I have an apology to make.  It's an apology to Kwaku El, and to all my friends of color who are of faith.  So, last Fall in a podcast interview I, we were talking about Kwaku, the Mormon apologist.  And I asked the question in the interview 'How in the world could an intelligent person of color join the Mormon Church in the modern era, in the Google era, given its racist past and present racism?'  And that's a super offensive and rude and insulting, and a racist thing to say.  So I own it, and I apologize for it, and I'm really sorry, Kwaku, for saying that.  And I apologize to all my friends of color or any Mormon of color for saying that.  I shouldn't have said it, and it was wrong.  The truth is, I don't even believe that.  I know that there are lots of reasons why people believe, why they have faith.  There are intellectual reasons, there are social reasons, there are emotional reasons, psychological reasons, lots of reasons.  So, full stop.  I'm really sorry, Kwaku.  I'm sorry to everyone, and I'll work to do better.  Thanks.

I personally think he does believe it, at least at some level.  Like I said before, stuff comes out of his mouth all the time that he may apologize for, but then I have seen him repeat the same behavior later (sorry, I haven’t tracked it, it’s off of memory).  It doesn’t help him look committed to the apology to do the equivalent of issuing it on the inside of a thick newspaper in one of its obscure corners, imo.  See Smac’s post here for that critique on which I draw that conclusion:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74374-dehlin-v-kwaku-an-update/

A critique:

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/04/23/john-dehlin-racism-and-racial-stereotyping/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U7Scnb4wWM

 

Edited February 8, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You're right that nobody is righteous enough. Even if we've repented of everything we've ever done wrong, and have avoided a repeat of every sin we've ever committed since that repentance, the fact remains that until we are ultimately ransomed, we remain guilty and need the sacrament.  That should be our attitude:  deep humility.

If it's not that serious, the bishop probably wouldn't ask you to refrain from partaking. Ultimately, every person can decide if he or she will partake of the sacrament, whatever the Bishop says. He's not going to come down among the congregation and forcibly jockey the tray away from those who he thinks is partaking unworthily. Or he shouldn't be, anyway.

But you don't understand the need to withhold it? Did you read the scripture verses I included? 

On the offchance that you simply skimmed my post (I admit I am quite verbose and can't blame people from doing a TL;DR), let me repeat, for emphasis, 3 Nephi 18:28-29...

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

This is Jesus Christ speaking, not just Bishop Smith of the 15th Backcountry Hicks Ward. The need to withhold the sacrament is not to make the person feel bad or singled out, or to shame them, it's to prevent them from doing something that will damn their soul. Would you not stop someone from jumping off the Empire State Building without a parachute, if you could? The point is that partaking of the sacrament unworthily is a sin in and of itself. 

Merely confessing to the bishop does not end the process of repentance. It's a step on the pathway, but only a step.

1. Recognize that you have sinned.
2. Feel a godly sorrow for your sin.
3. Forsake your sin.
4. Confess your sin. We must confess all our sins to the Lord. Some serious sins which might affect our standing in the Church should be confessed to the proper priesthood authority. If we have sinned against another person, we should confess to the person we have injured. Some less serious sins involve no one but ourselves and the Lord. These may be confessed privately to the Lord.
5. Make restitution: as much as possible we must make right any wrong that we have done.
6. We must forgive others: a vital part of repentance is to forgive those who have sinned against us. The Lord will not forgive us unless our hearts are fully cleansed of all hate, bitterness, and bad feelings against other people.
7. Continue keeping the commandments. <- This signifies that the process never ends.

If you have done something that might affect your membership status in the church (e.g. adultery), then the bishop (or stake president) is commanded to restrict your access to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper until you have demonstrated true repentance. Again, that's commanded by Christ as recorded in 3 Nephil it's not the unreasonable demand of some self-righteous stick-up-the-rear who grumbles about how the younger generation are all going to pot.

I don't have a leg to stand on the subject, but I'd always remembered taking it to renew our covenants, wouldn't that work with someone trying to reset their ways?

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

18 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'd say these are my thoughts regardless of who is doing the telling, who the associated communities are, what cultural aspects or institutional practices are being looked at, or what anyone's agenda is. 

But wouldn’t you at least say someone is a hypocrite if they protested this for one group and then turned around and did it themselves?

Well, I'd say being inconsistent like you describe is engaging in hypocritical behavior.  I don't need to call anyone a hypocrite, but yes, your point is valid. 

Intellectual consistency often requires folks to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they're applying different standards based on their preferences. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Another thought occured to me as I thought about this overnight.   There are an awful lot of similarities between EU/WE/EA's statement in the OP, and the stuff you hear at a church membership council/disciplinary hearing.   

There's claims of authority and recitations of what all LGBTQ people think/believe/know:
"As LGBTQ leaders who"
"As LGBTQ people we know"

There's border maintenance, with clear recitations of what's unacceptable, and an indication that only the sinners and wrongthinkers do that sort of thing:
"There is no room in our movement for [x].  We expect this from the Westboro Baptist Church, not from people claiming to advocate on our behalf."

There's a call to repentance, with clear steps laid out:
"We call on Mormon Stories to engage in a restorative justice process today by doing the following:"

I'm not calling foul or throwing stones here.  I'm just looking at this window into a culture containing folks very different than me, and I'm amazed that I have so much in common.

It's another reason why reading those Facebook comments are such a hoot.   LGBTQ folks are reacting quite strongly to Equality Utah's audacious daring to speak for them.  It ain't that cohesive a community.  There is far more resistance to any sort of "lets march in lockstep" efforts than you'll ever see in the CoJCoLDS.

- Someone called out all 3 signatories to ask if they had even watched the episodes, and only one of the signatories said they did.
- People who did watch the episodes saw nothing wrong and are defending Dehlin.
- Gerardo's Reddit response defending MS' actions are getting likes.
- Fun exchange: 

Quote

Susan Gates
[Golly] Troy you are such a busybody! What does this have to do with Equality Utah? And then you drag WY and AZ into it. You just love to stir the [crap].

Justin Utley
He definitely places himself at the center of all things Utah, gay, and Mormon, as the unofficial spokesperson. He had no real political, legal, or ethical reason to get involved in this other than perhaps an opportunistic move to placate his Mormon donor base and attempt to upstage another advocate’s incredible work in the community.

 

Heh.  Anyone in favor of doing church discipline like this?  It would sure spicy things up in the church if we did our membership councils and boundary maintenance over the pulpit and then passed around the microphone!

Edited February 8, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I just have a deep seated need to demonize Dehlin, not any other critic that I can think of. (Obviously, I don’t believe I am actually demonizing him, just being realistic, if harsh and this bias is because of how I have seen him treat several people, including friends.)

I wouldn’t say he goes after them in the usual sense as it’s not a campaign, but his approach of criticizing or targeting a member based on them being black or gay when it is an advantage to him is not being an ally as he likes to claim he is. Same with his willingness to turn on someone when he gets defensive.  The treatment of women is in a different category imo because the ones relevant to the discussion in my view were coworkers or volunteers as opposed to be pointed to publicly outside of Rosebud.  The Rosebud affair is too tangled to be dealt with by me right now, though I do think it is an example that Dehlin is more of a taker than a giver in his life.

There is this thread that discussed it n the past that I think covers it though haven’t read much, so perhaps not.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73364-kate-kelly-on-dehlin/

I personally think he does believe it, at least at some level.  Like I said before, stuff comes out of his mouth all the time that he may apologize for, but then I have seen him repeat the same behavior later (sorry, I haven’t tracked it, it’s off of memory).  It doesn’t help him look committed to the apology to do the equivalent of issuing it on the inside of a thick newspaper in one of its obscure corners, imo.  See Smac’s post here for that critique on which I draw that conclusion:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74374-dehlin-v-kwaku-an-update/

A critique:

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/04/23/john-dehlin-racism-and-racial-stereotyping/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U7Scnb4wWM

 

My faith crisis didn't start with the knowledge of Joseph Smith's polygamy, until I saw the information behind the wives and read Todd Compton's book. I still think I would have been able to stay faithful and it wasn't until I obsessed over John Dehlin's podcasts that pretty much sealed the deal on my crisis, and even a little bit of FairLDS too. John started the StayLDS.com discussion board and that helped me not go insane, reading other's faith issues. That led to New Order Mormon or NOM. Not sure what it's called now if it even exists. Then somehow Mormon Dialogue came up and it was everything I needed wrapped in one. I embarrassingly admit to watching nearly all of MS's podcasts up till two or three years ago. Now it's sporadic depending on the subject/guest. But find it frustrating to listen to JD ramble on and on either on getting donations, or speaking too much during the interview. 

And his unfaithfulness to his wife, not a full adulterer, but bothersome to me still. I like Margi his wife and hope she doesn't ever go through that again. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I just have a deep seated need to demonize Dehlin, not any other critic that I can think of. (Obviously, I don’t believe I am actually demonizing him, just being realistic, if harsh and this bias is because of how I have seen him treat several people, including friends.)

I wouldn’t say he goes after them in the usual sense as it’s not a campaign, but his approach of criticizing or targeting a member based on them being black or gay when it is an advantage to him is not being an ally as he likes to claim he is. Same with his willingness to turn on someone when he gets defensive.  The treatment of women is in a different category imo because the ones relevant to the discussion in my view were coworkers or volunteers as opposed to be pointed to publicly outside of Rosebud.  The Rosebud affair is too tangled to be dealt with by me right now, though I do think it is an example that Dehlin is more of a taker than a giver in his life.

There is this thread that discussed it n the past that I think covers it though haven’t read much, so perhaps not.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73364-kate-kelly-on-dehlin/

I personally think he does believe it, at least at some level.  Like I said before, stuff comes out of his mouth all the time that he may apologize for, but then I have seen him repeat the same behavior later (sorry, I haven’t tracked it, it’s off of memory).  It doesn’t help him look committed to the apology to do the equivalent of issuing it on the inside of a thick newspaper in one of its obscure corners, imo.  See Smac’s post here for that critique on which I draw that conclusion:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74374-dehlin-v-kwaku-an-update/

A critique:

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2021/04/23/john-dehlin-racism-and-racial-stereotyping/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U7Scnb4wWM

 

We all say and do stupid things that we regret at time.  The blacks and Kwaku comment seems to fall into such a category.  I recall early in my career making what I thought was on funny witty statement and realized as I said that it would come out as sexist and disparaging of women. And it was in the workplace.  I immediately wanted to stuff the words back in my mouth and have it be that I never said them.  But I couldn't so I had to apologize.  Profusely.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh puhlease.  He did not go after gays.  Nor women.  Nor blacks. But I know there seems to be a deep seated need to demonize those who criticize the church.  But is is great ad hominem.

Oh puhlease.  He is well known for his misogynistic tendencies (women who worked with him are the sources). But I understand that it is common to downplay such things. He had to apologize for a bad blooper involving comments about Blacks, too.  And none of this was stuff was so minor that could be discounted without displaying bigotry yourself.