John Dehlin on Radio West.

[sirkickyass]

Did he change because they started excommunication proceedings, or did they start excommunication proceedings because he changed? I didn't follow him closely enough to judge. Did you?

This wasn't exactly his first rodeo with church disciplinary proceedings. My understanding from reading the timelines that got put out publicly in December was that they had already harassed him before he delivered the 2012 address I quoted. He's had a foot out the door for some time, but I think that more than half of the officially counted members have that or more out the door. What he did was provide real reasons to stay while acknowledging that the reasons people had for doubting had a legitimate basis. That's the part of the "come back" message that most of the faithful miss out on. They don't actually deal with the other side's objections as real reasons for doubt.

I'm not really shocked you're going to get the most bitter version after it was already apparent he was going to get excommunicated. That seems eminently predictable.

 

[sirkickyass]

A PDF Transcript of the excommunication proceeding:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/11/us/11mormons-docs.html

 

[Beer]

I still find it odd that anyone has a problem with someone who very obviously does not believe in a certain religion being kicked out of said religion.

 

[Stoked]

I still find it odd that anyone has a problem with someone who very obviously does not believe in a certain religion being kicked out of said religion.

I seriously doubt the vast majority of people here have a problem with it. In fact the only one that really cares at all is Mr. Dehlin and that is only for publicity imo.

 

[Beer]

I seriously doubt the vast majority of people here have a problem with it. In fact the only one that really cares at all is Mr. Dehlin and that is only for publicity imo.

Theres a few in this thread that seem to have a problem with it

 

[Hantlers]

I'm honestly more intrigued by the Book of Abraham stuff. If true, would be a big blow to Smith's reputation.

As far as subject of OP, if he doesn't like the BoM and that stuff, but still likes the Bible, community and church, maybe he should try a more traditional church. The church doesn't owe him a response, but they certainly look worse by not responding to his claims.

 

[Stoked]

Theres a few in this thread that seem to have a problem with it

Debating a subject does not always mean personal involvement/investment. It was brought up and we are all adding our .02

 

[♪alt13]

I still find it odd that anyone has a problem with someone who very obviously does not believe in a certain religion being kicked out of said religion.

It seems to be Mormons that are on the fence or have issues with aspects of church doctorine/history like Dehlin that care about the excommunication itself. People like myself who think many of the same things as Dehlin but are not church members wonder what Mormons think of people that hold these views. Does the average Mormon think Dehlin is evil, a liar, trying to corrupt them? If I hold these views how much are Mormons going to hold it against me? After years of mending bridges(I honestly think it has been getting better for the last decade)is this a signal of a return to molly Mormonism? A return to ostracizing out groups and parents telling children they can't play with the neighbors because they don't attend our church?

There was a time that the holier than thou image was very representative of life here in Utah. Many of us don't ever want to see a return to that. So we're naturally asking questions.

 

[sirkickyass]

I still find it odd that anyone has a problem with someone who very obviously does not believe in a certain religion being kicked out of said religion.

Well it certainly proves the lie to the idea that membership is voluntary. The transcript of the proceeding itself is pretty fascinating if you've looked at it. What the lines are regarding what's acceptable and what isn't is far from clear.

For example:

John Dehlin: Okay, but you’ve expressed that you guys don’t like the public expression of
doubt.

Bryan King: No. It’s okay—well… not true. Everybody has doubts.

John Dehlin: I’m talking about the public expression of doubt.

Bryan King: You can publicly express that you have a doubt.

John Dehlin: You can?

Bryan King: You can.

John Dehlin: Okay.

Bryan King: The problem that comes that I have is when people come to you, or align
themselves with you—and then they become more comfortable in their doubts because you
have doubts.

John Dehlin: Which I have no control over.

Bryan King: Well, you do in a sense that you express them publicly.

John Dehlin: So it is about expressing doubts publicly.

Bryan King: This is a circular argument.​

I'm honestly more intrigued by the Book of Abraham stuff. If true, would be a big blow to Smith's reputation.

As far as subject of OP, if he doesn't like the BoM and that stuff, but still likes the Bible, community and church, maybe he should try a more traditional church. The church doesn't owe him a response, but they certainly look worse by not responding to his claims.

The Book of Abraham issue is pretty cut and dry. The scroll purportedly translated by Joseph Smith does not contain the text of the book of Abraham. The name Abraham doesn't appear a single time. I don't think the church at this point even attempts to argue that it's a true literal translation.

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

 

[seattlejazzfan]

A PDF Transcript of the excommunication proceeding:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/11/us/11mormons-docs.html

FTR, that is not a transcript of the excommunication proceedings. It is a transcript of a meeting with the SP that took place last August that Dehlin recorded without the SP's knowledge.

 

[Beer]

Well it certainly proves the lie to the idea that membership is voluntary. The transcript of the proceeding itself is pretty fascinating if you've looked at it. What the lines are regarding what's acceptable and what isn't is far from clear.


https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

I read it and it is interesting. I don't see how its not pretty clear though. You can have doubts, everyone does, but you shouldn't be pushing your doubts onto others, telling others that certain things a religion holds sacred are completely untrue, and questioning the authority of a churchs leadership and expect it to be all good. Thats irrational. Especially in the LDS church where members believe they have a prophet and are the 1 true religion. It would be different if it was just a non denominational generic christian church.

 

[Hantlers]

Yeah guys. Don't question the church, don't ask other members if they have the same doubts that you have, and certainly don't try to educate people you care about when you discover somethjng you once believed to be true isn't. I can understand why they booted him, that makes sense. I also don't disagree with what he did, how he went about it, and I will say I think the LDS church is making a mistake by not addressing these issues head on. If they truly believe what they confess to, then I don't see how responding to him would be a problem.

 

[GVC]

Especially in the LDS church where members believe they have a prophet and are the 1 true religion.

Do they? Maybe they just don't express their doubts for fear of excommunication/ostracization.

 

[sirkickyass]

FTR, that is not a transcript of the excommunication proceedings. It is a transcript of a meeting with the SP that took place last August that Dehlin recorded without the SP's knowledge.

True. I got confused by the filename on the original site, the datestamp on the transcript, and the timing of the release.

I've snipped the segment that I think is most relevant to why excommunication isn't a great remedy for him. Certainly it indicates that the sentiments he expressed in 2012 for why he stays were still true as of August of 2014.

Look, I'm not saying this guy should be the prophet of the church. I do think the church is better served by having guys like him be their allies than their public adversaries. I would probably still be a member if John Dehlin had been in my ward. As is, I still feel strongly compelled to buy him a drank.

 

[Harambe]

I would actually prefer religios belief sets to be unprovable.

I prefer a society that doesn't have beliefs that can't be questioned or differed with. I think our essential humanity requires tolerance of different beliefs. . .. . Our rightto choose, believe, speak and forge our own oath in life depend on it.

There's blind faith, and then there's this... where society wasn't doing something at the time, but scripture said it was common.

I asked my seminary teacher about horses when I was in 10th grade. Seminary was just after geography where we were learning about Cortez' trip to America, and what he brought.

His response ".. you'll find out when you go to the temple"

How am I supposed to NOT think ill after that exchange?

 

[Stoked]

Yeah guys. Don't question the church, don't ask other members if they have the same doubts that you have, and certainly don't try to educate people you care about when you discover somethjng you once believed to be true isn't. I can understand why they booted him, that makes sense. I also don't disagree with what he did, how he went about it, and I will say I think the LDS church is making a mistake by not addressing these issues head on. If they truly believe what they confess to, then I don't see how responding to him would be a problem.

He is contesting core tennets of the faith. Not questioning, imo, but contesting. There is a difference. Also him being ex-communicated in no way stops him from trying to "educate" those he cares about.

Now the Church might be making a mistake by not taking these issues head on but I do think they were right to ex-communicate him.

 

[Hantlers]

He is contesting core tennets of the faith. Not questioning, imo, but contesting. There is a difference. Also him being ex-communicated in no way stops him from trying to "educate" those he cares about.

Now the Church might be making a mistake by not taking these issues head on but I do think they were right to ex-communicate him.

Are members not allowed to question core tenants? Because I for one am thankful that Martin Luther did what he did. Now I'm not saying this guy is Luther, and I'm not saying the church shouldn't have booted him, but the idea that we should not question our beliefs is very, very dangerous. In fact, I would go as far as saying that places that condemn questioning of those things are very close to being cult-like.

 

[Stoked]

Are members not allowed to question core tenants? Because I for one am thankful that Martin Luther did what he did. Now I'm not saying this guy is Luther, and I'm not saying the church shouldn't have booted him, but the idea that we should not question our beliefs is very, very dangerous. In fact, I would go as far as saying that places that condemn questioning of those things are very close to being cult-like.

Again, we disagree on the "questioning". I do not think that is what he was doing and I do not think that is how the Church saw it.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

True. I got confused by the filename on the original site, the datestamp on the transcript, and the timing of the release.

I've snipped the segment that I think is most relevant to why excommunication isn't a great remedy for him. Certainly it indicates that the sentiments he expressed in 2012 for why he stays were still true as of August of 2014.

Look, I'm not saying this guy should be the prophet of the church. I do think the church is better served by having guys like him be their allies than their public adversaries. I would probably still be a member if John Dehlin had been in my ward. As is, I still feel strongly compelled to buy him a drank.

I agree with you, especially the part about excommunication not being the right answer. I wish the church would either do away with it all together or reserve it for the most extreme cases (whatever those might be). Also, about the church being better served with guys like him as thei allies, I hope that's true, because, to be honest, in terms of his beliefs, I don't differ much from him. I am pro gay marriage, if weren't indifferent to it, I'd be pro OW, I don't care if scripture stories are literal or not rather the principles contained in them are what is important, I don't ever say "I know" and whether or not the church is the "only true church" is irrelevant.

The biggest difference is that I don't have a podcast. I don't shout my beliefs from the rooftops and I certainly don't try to convince anybody else that my way is the right way. My last two Bishops know all that I described above about me, yet one put me in a Bishopric and made me scoutmaster, while the other put me in primary, then High Priest Group leadership.

 

[Hantlers]

Again, we disagree on the "questioning". I do not think that is what he was doing and I do not think that is how the Church saw it.

"John Dehlin: Okay, but you’ve expressed that you guys don’t like the public expression of
doubt.

Bryan King: No. It’s okay—well… not true. Everybody has doubts.

John Dehlin: I’m talking about the public expression of doubt.

Bryan King: You can publicly express that you have a doubt.

John Dehlin: You can?

Bryan King: You can.

John Dehlin: Okay.

Bryan King: The problem that comes that I have is when people come to you, or align
themselves with you—and then they become more comfortable in their doubts because you
have doubts.

John Dehlin: Which I have no control over.

Bryan King: Well, you do in a sense that you express them publicly.

John Dehlin: So it is about expressing doubts publicly.

Bryan King: This is a circular argument."

This makes it pretty clear what they thought of him expressing doubts, and questioning tenants. Again, when not allowed to do this, it is very dangerous for a church.