Excommunications on the Rise.

[Maureen]

...John Dehlin (Creator of the CES Letter, which discounts the origins of the restoration)...

As RMGuy has mentioned, John Dehlin is not the creator of the CES Letter; John Dehlin is the creator of Mormon Stories. 

 

M.

[MorningStar]

I get that some LDS women would want ordination.  Perhaps I get it more than  most, because my fellowship does ordain them.  Nevertheless, I am confused by these groups.  Why do they lobby?  Why do the seem to seek support and publicity from non-members?

 

As for Dahlin, I confess to ignorance.  However, most churches have people who disagree with certain doctrines.  When ordained members disagree with core teachings (yes, we have a few of these in my fellowship), then it would seem that, "Grasshopper...it is time for you to go."

I think they do it because they think if they make the church look like crap, it will put pressure on our leaders to give them what they want, which is really messed up. 

[Backroads]

I've read a couple of blog posts by people, who seem faithful enough, in tears over what is happening to Kelly and Dehlin.  I try really hard to sympathize because I think these people don't quite agree with Kelly or Dehlin verbatim but see this is an affront to their own not-strictly-orthodox (but still nowhere near Dehlin/Kelly) beliefs.  Now I don't think I'm exactly orthodox, but perhaps I approach things differently.  I let the Church teach what it teaches and I supplement here and there.  I don't expect the Church to adopt "Backroads Mormonism".

 

Perhaps people really do need that organized community church to support them in everything and that's where I'm missing out on the sympathy.

[The Folk Prophet]

I let the Church teach what it teaches and I supplement here and there. 

 

The idea of "supplemental" theories is great. It's when the church teaches what it teaches and personal theories contradict those things that I think there begins to be a problem.

[jerome1232]

The idea of "supplemental" theories is great. It's when the church teaches what it teaches and personal theories contradict those things that I think there begins to be a problem.

Even then it's not so bad until you begin preaching your personal theory and staging protests to get the church to adopt your personal theory.

[The Folk Prophet]

Even then it's not so bad until you begin preaching your personal theory and staging protests to get the church to adopt your personal theory.

 

If by not so bad you mean not "as" bad, relatively, I agree. If by "not so bad" you mean not a big deal, I don't think I do agree. I have a hard time thinking secret, personal anti-church thoughts are going to put us in a comfortable state on judgment day. Moreover, my understanding of the following Joseph Smith quote includes thinking this way even if it's kept private:

 

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

 

 

Secretly thinking the church is wrong is dangerous, prideful, and puts one on the road to apostasy, even if one hasn't actually apostatized yet.

 

But, relatively, yes, not so bad.

 

edit: Here's Heber C. Kimball too

 

“I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.”

[estradling75]

To me this issue is fundamentally about Pride.

 

Can someone truly and faithfully have questions?  Can they have concerns?  Absolutely.  Can people have doubts?  Yes they can.  In fact many ways dealing with those is how we learn and become more faithful.  So I don't see a real problem with those.

 

Were I see the problem is when pride kicks in.  When people say there is only one answer I'll accept, the answer I think is right.  When they might assume that anyone that doesn't have the same questions as them are some sleeping brainwashed sheeple that need to wake up to what is going on around them.

 

When people reach that point then the church does need to step in.  For the two people in question in the OP it appears that the Local leaders think they might have reach such a point and so they are doing what they must.

[The Folk Prophet]

To me this issue is fundamentally about Pride.

 

Can someone truly and faithfully have questions?  Can they have concerns?  Absolutely.  Can people have doubts?  Yes they can.  In fact many ways dealing with those is how we learn and become more faithful.  So I don't see a real problem with those.

 

Were I see the problem is when pride kicks in.  When people say there is only one answer I'll accept, the answer I think is right.  When they might assume that anyone that doesn't have the same questions as them are some sleeping brainwashed sheeple that need to wake up to what is going on around them.

 

When people reach that point then the church does need to step in.  For the two people in question in the OP it appears that the Local leaders think they might have reach such a point and so they are doing what they must.

 

Yeah...this thought makes me want to clarify mine a bit. I absolutely agree. Questions, concerns, doubts. I've had them. Everyone does. But I have always given the benefit of that doubt to the teachings of the church even if I do not understand or agree. Because I know the church is true and is led by God.

 

This has particularly come into play with me in the last few years as the church has addressed certain hot-button issues. My personal feeling is that some of the approach is mistaken...but I do not allow my personal feeling to translate to a determination that the church is wrong. I translate it to my weaknesses and inability to understand, and I trust the Lord will help me understand as I remain faithful. I'm also smart enough to know that the church, may, actually be mistaken in some things. But I also believe that I will be more blessed eternally by following the church even when it is mistaken than by rebelling against it, even in my own thoughts. So I sustain and support even when and if I don't agree.

[andypg]

Does anyone know if Rock Waterman also got a letter? I know he got a warning in February, but did he also get a letter this week but is just not famous enough for news outlets to pick it up?

[The Folk Prophet]

News outlets only pick it up if the person recieving the letter notifies them.

[andypg]

News outlets only pick it up if the person recieving the letter notifies them.

 

Even then, I think a popular podcaster and the founder of OW is more important to them than some guy on Blogspot. Some of the blogs I'm reading are listing him as one of the ones being called to court, others are saying it's just coming. It would be a shame, I really enjoy his blog and interviews he's done on Mormon Stories were very well done and thoughtful.

[pam]

I'm not sure that someone that has this on his homepage of his blog would be someone I would be following to learn and understand more about Mormonism:

 

I have deep love for the LDS church, for its members, and for its former members.  At present, I consider myself to be an unorthodox, unorthoprax Mormon.  I believe in many of the central, non-distinctive moral teachings within Mormonism (e.g., love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, faith, hope), but either have serious doubts about, or no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims (e.g., anthropomorphic God, “one true church with exclusive authority,” that the current LDS church prophet receives privileged communications from God, that The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are translations, polygamy, racist teachings in the Book of Mormon, that ordinances are required for salvation, proxy work for the dead).

[jerome1232]

If by not so bad you mean not "as" bad, relatively, I agree. If by "not so bad" you mean not a big deal, I don't think I do agree. I have a hard time thinking secret, personal anti-church thoughts are going to put us in a comfortable state on judgment day. Moreover, my understanding of the following Joseph Smith quote includes thinking this way even if it's kept private:

 

 

Secretly thinking the church is wrong is dangerous, prideful, and puts one on the road to apostasy, even if one hasn't actually apostatized yet.

 

But, relatively, yes, not so bad.

 

edit: Here's Heber C. Kimball too

 

I was actually trying to make it very evident how out of line she was, and yes, relatively.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not sure that someone that has this on his homepage of his blog would be someone I would be following to learn and understand more about Mormonism:

 

I have deep love for the LDS church, for its members, and for its former members.  At present, I consider myself to be an unorthodox, unorthoprax Mormon.  I believe in many of the central, non-distinctive moral teachings within Mormonism (e.g., love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, faith, hope), but either have serious doubts about, or no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims (e.g., anthropomorphic God, “one true church with exclusive authority,” that the current LDS church prophet receives privileged communications from God, that The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are translations, polygamy, racist teachings in the Book of Mormon, that ordinances are required for salvation, proxy work for the dead).

 

I'll state it stronger. STAY AWAY FROM THIS!!

 

Even Satan can make well done and thoughtful communication. Well done and thoughtful is not the same as right, good, and true.

[slamjet]

Interesting Radio West interviews:

 

> The potential excommunicants speak

 

> The church speaks about the potential excommunications

 

Thought these would be good to add to the discussion.  At least these are words from those involved.

[Gretchen]

I'm not sure that someone that has this on his homepage of his blog would be someone I would be following to learn and understand more about Mormonism:

 

I have deep love for the LDS church, for its members, and for its former members.  At present, I consider myself to be an unorthodox, unorthoprax Mormon.  I believe in many of the central, non-distinctive moral teachings within Mormonism (e.g., love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, faith, hope), but either have serious doubts about, or no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims (e.g., anthropomorphic God, “one true church with exclusive authority,” that the current LDS church prophet receives privileged communications from God, that The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are translations, polygamy, racist teachings in the Book of Mormon, that ordinances are required for salvation, proxy work for the dead).

 

Half-truths are by far one of the most (if not the most) effective ways of leading away from God. Satan knows this, which is why there's nondoctern (like the racist teachings and the "our church is better than your's") listed alongside docterne (like proxy work for the dead, The Book of Mormon being a translation.)

 

(I appologize for any spelling mistakes/noncoherent thoughts; I just got home from work and my bed is calling my name.)

[The Folk Prophet]

Half-truths are by far one of the most (if not the most) effective ways of leading away from God. Satan knows this, which is why there's nondoctern (like the racist teachings and the "our church is better than your's") listed alongside docterne (like proxy work for the dead, The Book of Mormon being a translation.)

 

(I appologize for any spelling mistakes/noncoherent thoughts; I just got home from work and my bed is calling my name.)

 

One true church with exclusive authority is non-doctrine? What about the "racist" teachings in the scriptures? Are those non-doctrine?

 

I agree with you that half-truths are effectively leading people away from God. You're interpretations of what qualifies as a half-truth seems a bit askew.

 

How about things like, love your neighbor means total tolerance of sinful behavior, or the prophet is fallible so we can pick and choose what we follow, or following the prophet means your a mindless sheep, or the leaders of the church are fallible so that means the church is under condemnation, or nobody's perfect so we don't have to worry about it if we're not doing our home teaching, or pornography isn't that bad of a sin because it's so common, etc., etc.

 

I have never known anyone that translated "the one true church with exclusive authority" into "we're better than you, neener neener" and the implication that there's a half-truth in there leading people away from God is a half-truth in itself. I am also not aware of anyone who took some of the mistaken thoughts about race and the priesthood once taught (now disavowed) and turned into the spawns of Satan from it. The imperfection of our leaders does not lead us away from God. If we humbly follow those He has set to guide us we will be blessed and brought closer to Him, in spite of imperfections they may have.

[Blackmarch]

Seems the amount of excommunications/people leaving the church have grown exponentially the last year or two.

 

Two more:

John Dehlin (Creator of the CES Letter, which discounts the origins of the restoration)

Kate Kelly (Founder of Ordain the Women)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/two-activists-within-mormon-church-threatened-with-excommunication.html?src=twr&_r=3

thats because the influences of the world have grown multiple times quicker than that rate.

[slamjet]

<snip>

[Doug Gonser]

This saddens my heart. I would just like to say. If I was a woman and wanted to be a priest, I would be a member of a church that allows it. I wouldn't be a member of a church that has a firm stance against it and expect them to change their beliefs for me. MOST religions only allow men to hold the priesthood. This isn't a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints thing. JESUS CHRIST organized his church while here on earth. It has been restored in these latter days and set up as it was originally. No man nor woman has the right to challenge that. There is a consequence for breaking the laws of the church or mans laws. It is only a sign of the times and prophesy fulfillment. The church needs to stand firm against any group wanting to change the gospel for their own agenda. This is not mans church, this is the Church of Jesus Christ. He set it up and no one else can improve or change it. I know this sounds harsh and I don't mean to hurt feelings. People need to make a reality check. You are either a member and follow its doctrins or you don't believe in the doctrin and are in the wrong place if you have no desire to change. You can't have it both ways. You are either for or against. Luke warm isn't an option. Fact is every woman involved in fighting for women to be ordained know exactly where the church stands on this matter and what the outcome will be if they don't change their minds. The evil ones best weapons are using family members, church members,and friends to mislead you. They can get to you easier than a stranger. My prayer is these women will come to their senses, repent, and move on with their lives. Members know how hard satan is working against the church. We don't need members helping him. Choose the right and let the consequence follow.

[slamjet]

This isn't a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints thing. JESUS CHRIST organized his church while here on earth. It has been restored in these latter days and set up as it was originally. No man nor woman has the right to challenge that.

 

So then let me ask the obvious question, where in scripture did Christ ordain women to the priesthood?

[Gretchen]

One true church with exclusive authority is non-doctrine? What about the "racist" teachings in the scriptures? Are those non-doctrine?

 

I agree with you that half-truths are effectively leading people away from God. You're interpretations of what qualifies as a half-truth seems a bit askew.

 

How about things like, love your neighbor means total tolerance of sinful behavior, or the prophet is fallible so we can pick and choose what we follow, or following the prophet means your a mindless sheep, or the leaders of the church are fallible so that means the church is under condemnation, or nobody's perfect so we don't have to worry about it if we're not doing our home teaching, or pornography isn't that bad of a sin because it's so common, etc., etc.

 

I have never known anyone that translated "the one true church with exclusive authority" into "we're better than you, neener neener" and the implication that there's a half-truth in there leading people away from God is a half-truth in itself. I am also not aware of anyone who took some of the mistaken thoughts about race and the priesthood once taught (now disavowed) and turned into the spawns of Satan from it. The imperfection of our leaders does not lead us away from God. If we humbly follow those He has set to guide us we will be blessed and brought closer to Him, in spite of imperfections they may have.

 

I worded my post poorly. I apologize.

 

There are parts of the scriptures that do seem to be somewhat racist/xenophobic. Where they intended to be that way? I don't know.

 

I have seen some members who have the "neener neener" attitude towards members of other faiths. Then again, I have also met people who think they are above the rules, or that work is for poor people. They are not common (from my observations), but they do exist. And unfortunately, Satan is using the few to stir bitter feelings towards many.

[Backroads]

There are parts of the scriptures that do seem to be somewhat racist/xenophobic. Where they intended to be that way? I don't know.

 

 

 

I'd say it's more likely one of those things that will be continually viewed different ways as cultures change.  We can't just set aside something because it's currently not  politically correct and figure we can pull it out later.

[FiveNine]

Kate Kelly is a prime example of feminism gone wild. She cannot demand changes take place within the church when they are not the decision of our Heavenly Father. If that revelation comes one day from the President, then so be it. But until then things are the way they are for a reason. Perhaps someday she will realize this, repent and be baptized into the Church once again. But likely she will not, rather she will continue her 'movement' and in time it will lose its steam just as most do of this manner. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it's important that both sides make absolutely clear that Kelly was not exed for having questions or even for wanting priesthood ordination. Kelly's letter was crystal clear on this point, and other fora--Dialogue, a Sunstone, FMH, and Exponent II, to name a few--routinely tackle these issues with no adverse administrative action against its participants by the Church.

Kelly's request went far beyond "dialogue", though. If one of my questions elicited a twenty-minute sermon from an apostle (especially Elder Oaks, who is flipping AWESOME) at general conference, I would be thrilled and would study that thing for six months looking to squeeze out and apply every tidbit of knowledge I could find. Not so Kate Kelly, who immediately launched a public campaign dedicated to picking the thing apart. "Dialogue" involves give and take, but Kelly went on record early and often to the effect that there would be no "give" from her side. Nothing less than ordination would suffice.

As I pointed out elsewhere earlier today:

In the intervening months, I've seen:

1) Two pre-planned media circuses on Temple Square, one of which occurred after a specific request to desist;

2) A moving target as to the movement's true objectives;

3) Accusations that those who don't support female priesthood ordination must be oppressors, or tools of The Patriarchy, spiritually incurious, or lazy, or otherwise inferior;

4) Outright misrepresentations of the historical record;

5) An attempt to introduce naked legalism into what should be revelatory processes--in doctrinal exposition, in Church management, and most recently, in the Church disciplinary process;

6) The release of "Discussions" that, in some situations, resort to open mockery of either LDS leadership themselves or ideas embraced/taught by LDS leaders; and--contra OW's initial claims--purport to provide answers, rather than merely asking proselytes to seek those answers from either Church leadership or revelation.

7) And now, it's beginning to appear that Kelly has deceived us about the frequency and nature of her contact with her local priesthood leaders throughout much of the last seven months.

I'm sorry Kelly is in the situation she's in. But frankly, she has introduced politicking, mendacity, and the ugliest facets of the electioneering process into what is fundamentally a kingdom, not a democracy. Having created a measure of disunity in the Church, she then pirouettes and blames the disunity on the leadership itself and flat-out lies about the implications of the Church's response for Mormon Feminism as a whole (which are, frankly, minimal for all but the most militant), the better to foster a bunker mentality in the minds of sincere and moderate LDS feminists like you.

I wish it were otherwise; but given her antics excommunication is not a disproportionate response.