Well, John Dehlin is...


slamjet
 Share

Recommended Posts

The firestorm this has caused in my FB newsfeed...

We have several members who has left the Church due to some issues with the "new articles on LDS.org".  And one of them posted an article that said John Dehlin got ex'd because the LDS Church wants to shut him up.

 

And I'm like... shut him up?  How does ex'ing him shut him up?  It's not like the Church, in the process of ex'ing people, also duct tapes their fingers so they can't type a blog....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Dehlin has been very public about this, almost to the point of being exhibitionist.  In the latest news he quotes his stake president's letter at length, which says very reasonable things, such as: "I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause. But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error."

 

I agree completely.  I'm astonished this excommunication didn't happen years ago.  

Edited by PolarVortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's more that the Church does not want this controversial blogger to be misunderstood as speaking authoritatively about the church.  Apparently his thoughts are now such that he is to be considered an outsider.  As such, current members--especially those who may be wavering in their doctrinal faith--will now know better than to look to him for approved understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church has been fortunate in a couple of recent high-profile excommunications (I'm thinking of Dehlin, Kate Kelly, and Denver Snuffer, specifically) in that a) the local leaders were extremely articulate and wrote very cogent letters explaining their decisions; and b ) the individuals being disciplined so love to see their names in the papers that they have publicized what would otherwise be private, confidential letters; which therefore gives the Church an opening to provide further comment and explanation over what was in theory a closed-door proceeding.

 

One of these days, we're going to get an excommunicant who declines to make their letter available for public inspection, and flat-out lies about the basis for their discipline.  It will be interesting to see how the Church's PR department handles that.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one thing to remember is. The Church never made any of these things public.  Either before or after.  It was those going before the disciplinary council that have made things public.

 

The Church has only responded to briefly clarify those things said against it publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement from the letter he received is important, but I'm sure will be ignored by his fan club:

 

 

 

In his letter the local leader stated, “I want you to know, Brother Dehlin, that this action was not taken against you because you have doubts or because you were asking questions about Church doctrine. I also want you to know that I acknowledge your right to criticize the Church and its doctrines and to try to persuade others to your cause.  Our Heavenly Father has given us moral agency to decide how we will live our lives, and cherished free speech rights in this country allow you to openly state your opinions.  But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error.”  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they leave because those "new articles" went too far or didn't go far enough (in their opinion)?

 

Nah... it's the same things we see here on lds.net (I sometimes wonder if these people posting here are from my ward...)... "I was deceived by the Church" complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah... it's the same things we see here on lds.net (I sometimes wonder if these people posting here are from my ward...)... "I was deceived by the Church" complaints.

 

I've had similar suspicions about the people here.  For a while I was convinced that everyone here except me was really the same person, just furiously logging in and out with different accounts to create the illusion of crowd chatter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to his interview on Mountain West Radio this morning (at least as much as I could before work got in the way) and I really feel for him because I recognize the same tone he has with what I had when I was first excommunicated - no humility (humility being submitting ourselves to the will of our Heavenly Father) and lots of pride.  I had to lose everything short of my life before I decided to humbled myself and accept what had happened and truly become obedient and turn myself to God.

 

Before anyone misconstrues what I'm saying, I chose to do what it took to come back into the church.  I know of others who humbled themselves, accept what had happened and turned to God who decided not to come back to the LDS church.  They also have found comfort and their lives have become much better because they not only became obedient to the word of God, they developed a personal relationship with God.

 

What I'm saying is that, and if by some weird confluences of events I'm actually asked, my advice to him would be to step out of the public eye, concentrate on what is important (his marriage and family), work at developing a personal relationship with his Father in Heaven and leave the rest alone.  Otherwise, he risks losing it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had similar suspicions about the people here.  For a while I was convinced that everyone here except me was really the same person, just furiously logging in and out with different accounts to create the illusion of crowd chatter.

 

Well, except for Pam.  Pam is just... Pam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

If you make it known again and again that you disagree with fundamental church teaching, well, can't say I'm sorry he's gone. It shouldn't matter to him what the Church does anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

 my advice to him would be to step out of the public eye, concentrate on what is important (his marriage and family), work at developing a personal relationship with his Father in Heaven and leave the rest alone.  Otherwise, he risks losing it all.

 

I love that.  Wise counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had a very pivotal part in my brother and his family losing their faith not just in the Church but in God, so I have some definitely feelings about his "work". I'm not avoiding facebook but I'm sure having to avoid saying some things I want to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

He had a very pivotal part in my brother and his family losing their faith not just in the Church but in God, 

 

Sorry about your brother.  

 

A friend of mine recently posted that it was her anniversary of "escaping' from the church, and she also posted about her great respect for John Dehlin.  I think he has "helped" many right out of the church.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even besides those who lionize him, many people are posting their regret at the ugly necessity of excommunicating John Dehlin. For myself, I feel no regret and don't see the excommunication as ugly. My only regret is that Dehlin and his ilk have chosen to commit spiritual suicide and drag as many others with them as possible. The excommunication itself is a blessing, the popping of an infected, pus-filled boil. The aftermath may look ugly for a while, but after things get cleaned up, it will become exceedingly obvious that it was the right course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been awhile since I read the New Testament, so I chose that particular book of scripture to study this year.  I haven't gotten very far in it, but my testimony of Jesus Christ has been renewed and strengthened. What a powerful testament of Jesus Christ!  I mention this, because I see so many people nowadays who no longer have a belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. And for many people in the world, the Bible is the only book of scripture they have that testifies of Jesus Christ.

 

I feel testimony of the church really comes down to Christ being the foundation of our testimony and church.  Because Christ is my foundation, and I know it is His church, I feel my testimony is that much stronger.  Is this Joseph Smith's church?  Brigham Young's church?  Thomas S. Monson's church?  No.  They are prophets of Christ's church.  If I know that Christ is at the head, and after reading the Book of Mormon, and getting an answer to the divinity of that work, I also know that Joseph Smith was chosen to be the latter-day prophet who brought the restoration of Christ's church back.

 

So, as people listen to John Dehlin and others, and are swayed away from the church, I wonder: where was their foundation?  Was it in their parent's belief?  Was it in the missionary who helped convert them?  Was it in the Bishop or Stake President?  Was it in Joseph Smith?  etc.  In my mind, if their foundation is in Jesus Christ, and they know that this is His church, they will not be so easily swayed.  And I am saddened, because we know that some of the very elect will be deceived.

Edited by classylady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share