John Dehlin Facing Excommuncation

[notjamesbond003.5]

Okay, thank you. I get all that and understand what you're saying about the perceived power and what most active members tend to believe, etc.... But what I still don't understand is why any of this matters to people who have left the church - especially ones who have left because of doctrinal issues (as opposed to some other reasons). I'm not saying that in a snotty way - I genuinely don't get it. For example, if I left the church because I no longer believed Christ was at its head, or was excommunicated because I was publicly preaching blatant anti-LDS doctrine (whether it's true or not in reality, doesn't matter for what I'm asking here) - I would not for one second give a crap what the church did or said about me or those like me! So that's the part I don't understand - why you and others here care anymore? (said sincerely)

Tabula, I follow John Dehlin and have been acquainted with him. He would say that Mormonism is his tribe. He love the people, the story, some of the culture, the goodness . . . of Mormonism. Aside from the fact the he bows at the science and progressive altar over everything else, he really is a good person. That's why he wants to stay. It's like a agnostic Jew. We accept that term because Judaism is an ethnic trait, not just a religion. John feels the same about Mormonism.

Now I don't get that. I think if you don't believe in the big three tenents 1) Book of Mormon 2) Joseph Smith, or 3) at least the idea of continuing revelation, why would you want to be a Latter-day Saint?

But he does.

I like to take the scriptures at their word. The Doctrine of Christ is to cast those out who won't repent. Well, what is repentance? It is turning your life over to Christ, following His word. That's the pure intent. It's not disagreeing with the Brethren, smoking, unchaste behavior, etc. It's not what you're doing now! It's the unwillingness to turn. I think the scriptures are very clear about what that returning to is referencing. It's referencing returning to Christ, by believing in him and doing his works. Any more or less than that is adding to or detracting from the doctrine of Christ. In many ways, John was doing the works of Christ, by reaching out in love and ministering to those sinners that feel cast off. His problem is that he is too accepting of the sin. A good shepherd may be completely within his right to cast John out if he is denying the Christ (which I'm not sure he was or wasn't).

I'm torn on this movement by the Church, because I think John is sincere in his motives. On the other hand, the airing of grievances was all too often amplifying the deception. People who followed John just weren't denying the Church (a forgivable heresy in my mind) they were denying the Christ. He was deceived, and I think we draw too stark of a line between a straying sheep and a wolf. Hint, less wolves, more sheep. Furthermore, by going after the lost sheep, does it not create greater bonds of trust between the sheep and shepherd, versus trying to demask a wandering sheep as a wolf? How does that create trust? Now the sheep only fear the shepherd. If they feel greener pastures call, they are more likely to bolt!

I see no Korihors here. I only see tragedy.

Ah, but they did go after him- patiently, lovingly and kindly, asking him to stop, but he wouldn't.
Yes, you are right, he is misguided, and too blinded to see that.

Moreover he doesn't believe in the Institution anymore, so if he were genuine, as you infer-he would have resigned, not exasperating the situation, but he chose otherwise, because it was more about him, he John -having his own agenda.

Why can't his sycophants admit that?

njb

[shadow]

Jules, I know you can handle the heat of the haters.

theres no haters, unless you're referring to her getting her hate on with the church.
President King is a good man. He's not my SP, but I do live in Cache County. He has a stewardship over the flock of his stake. He tried, as Dehlin admits, multiple times to get Dehlin to stop teaching, entertaining and broadcasting false doctrine. Dehlin, like so many others, refused. Exing him was not an act of unrighteous dominion. I'm a bit surprised you think it is, Obrien.

36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

[shadow]

"I frequently rebuke and admonish my brethren, and that because I love them, not because I wish to incur their displeasure, or mar their happiness. Such a course of conduct is not calculated to gain the good will of all, but rather the ill will of many; therefore, the situation in which I stand is an important one; so, you see, brethren, the higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station; but these rebukes and admonitions become necessary, from the perverseness of the brethren, for their temporal as well as spiritual welfare. They actually constitute a part of the duties of my station and calling" -Joseph Smith the Prophet

To Jared Carter, who taught contrary to the church, Joseph Smith said to him-
"In your letter you say many hard things against the brethren, especially against Father Joseph Smith, Brother Reynolds Cahoon, and Bishop Whitney, all of which we highly disapprove. It seems also that your son Eden is confederate with you, and needs to be reproved, together with yourself, in all humility before the Lord, or you must expect to be dealt with according to the laws of the Church. We say you are no more than a private member in the Church.[2]:1:370

if the church today did this (and they do, as seen with Dehlin, Kelly and Snuffer) Jules would claim they were power hungry unrighteous dominators (as seen in her posts above). This proves a point- those who kick against the church today would also kick against Joseph Smith. This is clear as day. What jules has been posting above is in direct opposition to what Joseph Smith taught. Heck, a good chunk of the apostles that served with Joseph were exed for "silly" things like teaching contrary to the church. What happens today is nothing new.

Just proves Joseph was also fallible.

Joseph did what the Lord tells church leaders to do. Alma was in the same boat-
36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.
so today's church leaders are wrong, Joseph was wrong, Alma was wrong, and the Lord was wrong. Maybe you think you're more righteous than them all??

[ajax]

"I frequently rebuke and admonish my brethren, and that because I love them, not because I wish to incur their displeasure, or mar their happiness. Such a course of conduct is not calculated to gain the good will of all, but rather the ill will of many; therefore, the situation in which I stand is an important one; so, you see, brethren, the higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station; but these rebukes and admonitions become necessary, from the perverseness of the brethren, for their temporal as well as spiritual welfare. They actually constitute a part of the duties of my station and calling" -Joseph Smith the Prophet

To Jared Carter, who taught contrary to the church, Joseph Smith said to him-
"In your letter you say many hard things against the brethren, especially against Father Joseph Smith, Brother Reynolds Cahoon, and Bishop Whitney, all of which we highly disapprove. It seems also that your son Eden is confederate with you, and needs to be reproved, together with yourself, in all humility before the Lord, or you must expect to be dealt with according to the laws of the Church. We say you are no more than a private member in the Church.[2]:1:370

if the church today did this (and they do, as seen with Dehlin, Kelly and Snuffer) Jules would claim they were power hungry unrighteous dominators (as seen in her posts above). This proves a point- those who kick against the church today would also kick against Joseph Smith. This is clear as day. What jules has been posting above is in direct opposition to what Joseph Smith taught. Heck, a good chunk of the apostles that served with Joseph were exed for "silly" things like teaching contrary to the church. What happens today is nothing new.

Just proves Joseph was also fallible.

Joseph did what the Lord tells church leaders to do. Alma was in the same boat-
36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.
so today's church leaders are wrong, Joseph was wrong, Alma was wrong, and the Lord was wrong. Maybe you think you're more righteous than them all??

Not at all, but perhaps scripture could be lessons in both the righteousness and weaknesses of persons, even those we consider holy.

Certainly a strapping 25-39 yr old prophet may have suffered from a few arrogant delusions of grandeur from time to time, especially with sycophants constantly whispering in his ears.

[freedomforall]

There is a huge difference in actually being righteous and pretending to be.
The Lord said:

2 Nephi 27:25
25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men—

Matt 7:22,23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

Here is what the Lord expects of all of us:

Doctrine and Covenants 64:34
34 Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days.

This says about it all.

[notjamesbond003.5]

Certainly a strapping 25-39 yr old prophet may have suffered from a few arrogant delusions of grandeur from time to time, especially with sycophants constantly whispering in his ears.

And, what about John, do you possibly think he was caught up in delusions of grandeur on occasions, with his following, and perceived findings by malcontents?

njb

[natasha]

Jules, I know you can handle the heat of the haters. FWIW, I love you, as a sister and a friend. Thanks for teaching me all you have over the last year.

So...if we disagree with many of you on this forum...that makes us "haters"?

[ajax]

Certainly a strapping 25-39 yr old prophet may have suffered from a few arrogant delusions of grandeur from time to time, especially with sycophants constantly whispering in his ears.

And, what about John, do you possibly think he was caught up in delusions of grandeur on occasions, with his following, and perceived findings by malcontents?

njb

Sure, we are all subject to that. I mean there are some that like to pretend on the internet they are covert operators? ;)

I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another. I'm haven't followed much from him, though I have listened to a handful of podcasts which I found somewhat interesting. I like the fact that he is willing to interview a vast spectrum. I find him to be rather innocuous to be honest. But he may have an agenda, sure. And the church obviously has the right to do what they do. It's all rather amusing - calls for "off with his head" and "the church is a big big bully" almost as if we are Roman Catholicism circa 1600.

[ajax]

Jules, I know you can handle the heat of the haters. FWIW, I love you, as a sister and a friend. Thanks for teaching me all you have over the last year.

So...if we disagree with many of you on this forum...that makes us "haters"?

In the same way it makes the other side "apostates"

[ajax]

In the same way it makes the other side "apostates"

Can one be both at the same time? ;)

Absolutely. Obrien?

[notjamesbond003.5]

Certainly a strapping 25-39 yr old prophet may have suffered from a few arrogant delusions of grandeur from time to time, especially with sycophants constantly whispering in his ears.

And, what about John, do you possibly think he was caught up in delusions of grandeur on occasions, with his following, and perceived findings by malcontents?

njb

Sure, we are all subject to that. I mean there are some that like to pretend on the internet they are covert operators? ;)

I don't have a dog in this fight one way or another. I'm haven't followed much from him, though I have listened to a handful of podcasts which I found somewhat interesting. I like the fact that he is willing to interview a vast spectrum. I find him to be rather innocuous to be honest. But he may have an agenda, sure. And the church obviously has the right to do what they do. It's all rather amusing - calls for "off with his head" and "the church is a big big bully" almost as if we are Roman Catholicism circa 1600.

However, with the foibles Joseph had -he continued to point people to Christ.

John on the other hand w his foibles not only doesn't know Christ but chooses to -point people to Doubt.

Therein lies the difference.

njb

[samizdat]

Jules, I know you can handle the heat of the haters. FWIW, I love you, as a sister and a friend. Thanks for teaching me all you have over the last year.

So...if we disagree with many of you on this forum...that makes us "haters"?

Sounds like the practitioners of tolerance also known as the LGBT group.

[samizdat]

To Jared Carter, who taught contrary to the church, Joseph Smith said to him-
"In your letter you say many hard things against the brethren, especially against Father Joseph Smith, Brother Reynolds Cahoon, and Bishop Whitney, all of which we highly disapprove. It seems also that your son Eden is confederate with you, and needs to be reproved, together with yourself, in all humility before the Lord, or you must expect to be dealt with according to the laws of the Church. We say you are no more than a private member in the Church.[2]:1:370

if the church today did this (and they do, as seen with Dehlin, Kelly and Snuffer) Jules would claim they were power hungry unrighteous dominators (as seen in her posts above). This proves a point- those who kick against the church today would also kick against Joseph Smith. This is clear as day. What jules has been posting above is in direct opposition to what Joseph Smith taught. Heck, a good chunk of the apostles that served with Joseph were exed for "silly" things like teaching contrary to the church. What happens today is nothing new.

What I consistently find ad nauseum in this forum.

[Curious Workman]

I don't often post, but I'll throw in my two cents about JD because I've listened to his podcasts for years. He's done some great interviews with a wide range of interesting people, both faithful LDS and ex-Mormons. I don't think he ever actively encouraged anyone to leave the Church, in fact, there were times when he was seeking to help struggling doubters to STAY. By excommunicating JD, the Church is sending a clear message to those who have doubts, that you'd better "doubt your doubts" and just shut up. Whether this was intended or not, I don't know. Ultimately, it will just drive more people away who may have stayed and tried to make it work. OTOH, I don't think JD gave his stake president much choice in the matter. He was pretty much asking for it. It's a top-down organization, and you do what the people above you tell you to do or else you are disciplined. The only way this can work is if the people near the bottom sincerely believe that the people near the top are inspired and directed by God. If you call that into question, you are a threat to the organization.

[boo]

I don't often post, but I'll throw in my two cents about JD because I've listened to his podcasts for years. He's done some great interviews with a wide range of interesting people, both faithful LDS and ex-Mormons. I don't think he ever actively encouraged anyone to leave the Church, in fact, there were times when he was seeking to help struggling doubters to STAY. By excommunicating JD, the Church is sending a clear message to those who have doubts, that you'd better "doubt your doubts" and just shut up. Whether this was intended or not, I don't know. Ultimately, it will just drive more people away who may have stayed and tried to make it work. OTOH, I don't think JD gave his stake president much choice in the matter. He was pretty much asking for it. It's a top-down organization, and you do what the people above you tell you to do or else you are disciplined. The only way this can work is if the people near the bottom sincerely believe that the people near the top are inspired and directed by God. If you call that into question, you are a threat to the organization.

Alas tis true . Many years ago during the Sept 6 mass excommunications I remember a discussion with someone who was in a position of authority telling me " you can believe anything you want in this church as long as you keep you mouth shut and remember it may be true but if it isn't edifying keep quiet". Nothing has improved in all these years.

[AgaetisTakk]

I don't often post, but I'll throw in my two cents about JD because I've listened to his podcasts for years. He's done some great interviews with a wide range of interesting people, both faithful LDS and ex-Mormons. I don't think he ever actively encouraged anyone to leave the Church, in fact, there were times when he was seeking to help struggling doubters to STAY. By excommunicating JD, the Church is sending a clear message to those who have doubts, that you'd better "doubt your doubts" and just shut up. Whether this was intended or not, I don't know. Ultimately, it will just drive more people away who may have stayed and tried to make it work. OTOH, I don't think JD gave his stake president much choice in the matter. He was pretty much asking for it. It's a top-down organization, and you do what the people above you tell you to do or else you are disciplined. The only way this can work is if the people near the bottom sincerely believe that the people near the top are inspired and directed by God. If you call that into question, you are a threat to the organization.

I completely agree. I've listened to Mormon Stories for the past 6 months since he has been sensationalized in the media. I never found he was teaching "false doctrine", he may have had guest on that directly spoke again church teachings but I don't find it wrong to censor those voices. Most of his historical issues he's presented are actually true church history. I've read a lot.... a lot of church history book and keep up with the Joseph Smith Papers project and while what he's teaching is controversial, I don't think that means we censor people. That being said, the church had every right to excommunicate him.

[notjamesbond003.5]

Censor

[braingrunt]

Some might be driven out. Some might be driven in. I think both of those groups will be benefited.

Some might just go deeper undercover as social mormons. Those will probably be harmed, no spiritual growth is likely to occur. I wish they all had the courage to just come out of the closet like John Dehlin, and try to live a life of greater internal consistency. It would be good for their salvation. Along with that, I would really like to see good will extended to all such, so that they don't have just reason to complain of unchristlike treatment, even though they have been properly set on a path outside the church.

Perhaps we could encourage excoms to report hateful behavior, and seriously try to counsel it out of the offenders.

[ajax]

However, with the foibles Joseph had -he continued to point people to Christ.

John on the other hand w his foibles not only doesn't know Christ but chooses to -point people to Doubt.

Therein lies the difference.

njb

Another difference is Joseph was an excommunicator while John is an excommunicatee. You could argue that persons with delusions of grandeur are more dangerous who hold positions of authority and the keys of heaven and hell.

Also, doubt doesn't always lead people away from Christ. It very well may lead a person on a journey to Christ. And doubt in what? Official histories, story lines etc? There are some things for which it is good to doubt.

But what I find amusing are those chomping at the bit to join the crowds cheering one way or another. Maybe delusions all around.

[GeeR]

I don't often post, but I'll throw in my two cents about JD because I've listened to his podcasts for years. He's done some great interviews with a wide range of interesting people, both faithful LDS and ex-Mormons. I don't think he ever actively encouraged anyone to leave the Church, in fact, there were times when he was seeking to help struggling doubters to STAY. By excommunicating JD, the Church is sending a clear message to those who have doubts, that you'd better "doubt your doubts" and just shut up. Whether this was intended or not, I don't know. Ultimately, it will just drive more people away who may have stayed and tried to make it work. OTOH, I don't think JD gave his stake president much choice in the matter. He was pretty much asking for it. It's a top-down organization, and you do what the people above you tell you to do or else you are disciplined. The only way this can work is if the people near the bottom sincerely believe that the people near the top are inspired and directed by God. If you call that into question, you are a threat to the organization.

Well according to what I've read about John Dahlin he was not as innocuous and blameless as you say, in fact he might even qualify as a son of perdition. Read this: http://mormonvoices.org/3280/excommunic ... ohn-dehlin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ebenezerarise]

Anyone who says Dehlin was excommunicated for voicing disagreement just has not reviewed seriously what he has said or how the Church has responded.

[BroJones]

Read this: http://mormonvoices.org/3280/excommunic ... ohn-dehlin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems to provide historical background re: JD, thanks for that link. From it, extract:

As Dehlin’s influence grew, he initiated organizations around the United States and other parts of the world known as “chapters” of his Mormon Stories organization. “Mormon Stories Retreats” were also initiated. These chapters and retreats encouraged individuals who were in the process of leaving the Church and abandoning their faith to gather together for support as opposed to turning to Church leaders for spiritual counsel and support. Testimonials of disbelief were common in such meetings, and the organization served to provide a church-like setting so as to ease the social aspects of departure from the faith.

Isn't this what is happening to the lDS-FF lately, to some extent? with all the Denver Snuffer'ers (not necessarily sycophants) here? Some of you could name the DS'ers, and their belief system including acceptance of beer and wine and multiple-mortal probations and open criticism of the Lord's anointed Twelve and First Presidency, and so on.

John Dehlin also co-founded a website that was originally designed to assist individuals who no longer believed in basic tenets of the LDS faith in maintaining their social ties to the Church through deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops about their commitment to the Church.
In 2011, Dehlin’s public and private actions again came to the attention of his local leaders. His stake president at the time (stake president is a position of ecclesiastical responsibility over several local congregations), Mark Jensen, took approximately one hour each week from his busy schedule as a businessman, father, and leader of several thousand local Latter-day Saints to personally counsel with Dehlin and to help him with personal struggles and his public actions. Dehlin at the time publicly expressed concern about his standing within the Church and he solicited testimonials from individuals he had helped remain socially in the Church to bolster an argument that he was not leading people out of the Church. This process continued into 2012 when Dehlin was permitted to perform the baptism of his own son who had reached the eligible age for baptism.
John Dehlin’s ambiguous relationship with the Church drew fire from its critics as well. Between 2012 and 2014, Dehlin responded to criticisms from vocal ex-members of the Church who had recently withdrawn public and financial support for his foundation, claiming that Dehlin had ceased to be true to himself. In response to these accusations, Dehlin resumed open criticism of the LDS Church by publishing recordings of sacred temple ordinances which members are instructed not to discuss outside the temple, renewed interviews with prominent Church critics such as Simon Southerton and Brent Metcalf, and provided publicity to organizations that undermined the Church or taught doctrine contrary to the doctrines of the Church.
In January 2014, Dehlin wrote a letter to his local congregational leader, Bishop Hunt, and expressed a desire to not be contacted by local members or leaders, and that he no longer be considered a member of the ward (congregation). In that same time period, a new stake president was appointed named Bryan C. King. President King reached out to Dehlin in an attempt to better understand his intent in light of: his request that he not be considered a member of his ward; his public statements of disbelief; and to express concern about the impact his actions and public statements were having on other members of the Church in his area. In a letter dated June 7, 2014, President King expressed love and concern for Dehlin, and offered to meet with him personally to discuss the intent of his email to Bishop Hunt.2 President King sought clarification regarding whether Dehlin had intended to voluntarily withdraw from membership in the Church, or if he would rather participate in a disciplinary council for apostasy (a hearing whose outcome is not pre-determined). Implied in the letter was the concern that, absent a voluntary withdrawal from membership, the disciplinary council would be necessary to protect the faith of Church members in the area who might be drawn away as a result of Dehlin’s public expressions of disbelief. The letter ended with the statement, “I have a deep love for you and your family. I am very willing to confer with you in person about these issues. I hope you will carefully consider your options. If you choose not to meet with me I want you to know my love for you and your family will remain.”

Sad to see happening; we do what we can to maintain allegiance to Jesus' WRITTEN instructions to us, e.g.,

behold, I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written;

4 For in them are all things written concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock.

5 Wherefore, if you shall build up my church, upon the foundation of my gospel and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

6 Behold, the world is ripening in iniquity; and it must needs be that the children of men are stirred up unto repentance, both the Gentiles and also the house of Israel.

7 Wherefore, as thou hast been baptized by the hands of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., according to that which I have commanded him, he hath fulfilled the thing which I commanded him.

8 And now, marvel not that I have called him unto mine own purpose, which purpose is known in me; wherefore, if he shall be diligent in keeping my commandments he shall be blessed unto eternal life; and his name is Joseph.

Jesus:

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

[shadow]

Another difference is Joseph was an excommunicator while John is an excommunicatee. You could argue that persons with delusions of grandeur are more dangerous who hold positions of authority and the keys of heaven and hell.

"I frequently rebuke and admonish my brethren, and that because I love them, not because I wish to incur their displeasure, or mar their happiness. Such a course of conduct is not calculated to gain the good will of all, but rather the ill will of many; therefore, the situation in which I stand is an important one; so, you see, brethren, the higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station; but these rebukes and admonitions become necessary, from the perverseness of the brethren, for their temporal as well as spiritual welfare. They actually constitute a part of the duties of my station and calling" -Joseph Smith the Prophet

Not that those in authority can't or haven't got it wrong before, they have. But lately, especially regarding the few have made their courts a circus like Dehlin, Kate and Snuffer, their excommunications have been warranted. From the Lord, church leaders have an obligation to call these false teachers to repentance. If they don't repent, according to the scriptures, they are to be no longer numbered among the church. Their names are to be "blotted out". That's in the Book of Mormon. Those who argue against this should be careful as they are arguing against what the Lord told Alma.

[ajax]

Another difference is Joseph was an excommunicator while John is an excommunicatee. You could argue that persons with delusions of grandeur are more dangerous who hold positions of authority and the keys of heaven and hell.

"I frequently rebuke and admonish my brethren, and that because I love them, not because I wish to incur their displeasure, or mar their happiness. Such a course of conduct is not calculated to gain the good will of all, but rather the ill will of many; therefore, the situation in which I stand is an important one; so, you see, brethren, the higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station; but these rebukes and admonitions become necessary, from the perverseness of the brethren, for their temporal as well as spiritual welfare. They actually constitute a part of the duties of my station and calling" -Joseph Smith the Prophet

Not that those in authority can't or haven't got it wrong before, they have. But lately, especially regarding the few have made their courts a circus like Dehlin, Kate and Snuffer, their excommunications have been warranted. From the Lord, church leaders have an obligation to call these false teachers to repentance. If they don't repent, according to the scriptures, they are to be no longer numbered among the church. Their names are to be "blotted out". That's in the Book of Mormon. Those who argue against this should be careful as they are arguing against what the Lord told Alma.

I'm not arguing against that. It obviously has its place.

[ajax]

Isn't this what is happening to the lDS-FF lately, to some extent? with all the Denver Snuffer'ers (not necessarily sycophants) here? Some of you could name the DS'ers, and their belief system including acceptance of beer and wine and multiple-mortal probations and open criticism of the Lord's anointed Twelve and First Presidency, and so on.

BroJones, coming from a nice man like yourself, this feels more like a tickle than a jab.