- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
twolamps wrote:
John is not running for office. He is an American who understands his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He can “flip-flop” as many times as he likes. It’s a day to day thing for many of us who are experiencing a faith crisis.
This reminds me of the DC for Oliver Cowdery. His defense was all about political freedoms and wanting more democratic processes in the church like checks and balances to prevent one person from having all the power. Richard Bushman in RSR discusses it. In some ways the church is the opposite of a democracy. I am sure that some could say that God is our king and that He sets down the laws and precepts that must be followed in order to prepare us to enter the heavenly kingdom.
Even from a less believing perspective, there is no personal right to LDS church membership. Indeed the seperation of church and state grants more freedom to churches to discriminate than it does to individuals (as evidenced by the the religious exemptions to public accommodation laws and others).
How to balance the rights of churches to define for them selves where to draw the lines on what is acceptable for membership against the heartbreak and hardship of the individuals that find themselves on the other side of that line is not an easy task.
As for women’s roles – I do have a young daughter and I do worry about it. On the one side is the church influence of the value of her virtue and “moral influence” on the other side is media, outside culture, and social pressures to put her value on her attractiveness and sex appeal. Both of these influences reduce her worth to the value she provides for the men around her. I am trying my best to chart a middle road that emphasizes honor and respect for her complete self independant of any man’s evaluation. I am sure that I walk this road imperfectly but I do not see my path turning to easy street just by cutting the church out of our lives (just speaking for me personally). This is what it means for me to “stay”.
twolamps: I am well aware of the witch hunt Clayton & Ballard went on. No doubt they would have liked to ex Kate particularly. To me, it looked like classic victim blaming. Marginalize women and then tone police them when you don’t like being called on it. But I stand by my statement that they weren’t in the DC, and leaders who were have the right to take whatever actions they deem appropriate. I’m not willing to absolve local leaders of responsibility for their own actions, even if it’s motivated by a desire to please those above them. In essence, leader roulette can be scarier than authoritarianism. I read through all of your comments since my last, with varying emotions and thoughts. Thank you all for the input. My heart aches over the possibility of his ex’ing. I have come ti the feeling that if he is, i will reserve quick judgement. Nothing usually ends well from rash decisions and assumptions. I know there are many who have already assumed that they know why he will be ex’d. The assumption is that the church is silencing opposing voices. Unless the SP comes out and says why they will vote the way they end up voting (which won’t happen), we will only know JDs version of why.
It’s a terrible comparision, but I am reminded of the salamander letter, and when it was first attributed, so many people jumped ship. “Finally they had proof”. They may not have regretted their decision after finding out it was a fake, but I imagine that were a few that realized they were carried about like the wind so to speak.
I’m not ready to shout from the rooftops that there’s 100% of anything, especially JDs views on his upcoming hearing.
The thought that the church I am a part of would ‘silence’ it’s membership is contrary to my personal moral standing. I realize though that part of this problem was my own assumptions that he is being silenced. If i say that i have doubts, i don’t expect to have the SP knocking on my door. So where is there a line that gets crossed? When you shout it from a rooftop to when you have a huge following and say you no longer believe in Christ?
The term silencing is an interesting one in that there’s been only one instance of that that’s come to light recently, i.e. the OW board member that had to resign and retract posts to get a recommend. Otherwise those disciplined starting with the group some 25-30 years ago have continued to be as vocal and proliferate in writing as ever. Their being disciplined didn’t mean people stop listening to them either as you’ll note on the regular presenters at Sunstone. As regards the question of what excommunication is from what I understood back in my clerk days was 1) help with repentance and 2) protect the good name of the church. There were plenty of people that had left activity and were not living the law of chastity that were never disciplined because they weren’t interested in repentance and weren’t making a splash about being mormon and immoral. Small point.
GBSmith wrote:As regards the question of what excommunication is from what I understood back in my clerk days was 1) help with repentance and 2) protect the good name of the church.
There were plenty of people that had left activity and were not living the law of chastity that were never disciplined because they weren’t interested in repentance and weren’t making a splash about being mormon and immoral. Small point.
(emphasis added)Small point indeed. But I think a very important small point, and indeed possibly the crux of the matter at hand.
I think some excommunications are the results of leaders getting caught up in a moment like a deer in headlights and they’re just trying their best to follow what’s in the handbook. I’d rather not get into specifics but I remember discussion in PEC over whether someone should be disciplined for apostasy and my input was essentially “They are already teetering on the edge. I think proceeding in this fashion will only solidify their conviction to leave the fold.” The response to my comment was an appeal to handbook 1. Sometimes rules trump reason.
To be honest I think the higher up the leadership chain you go the more likely you are to run into a person that feels like
it is better to break a rule than to break a heartI think organizations try to do what they need to protect the organization. So there is a conflict at times to choose between the best interest of the organization and the individual. And that is left up to the local leaders to try to balance that scale and make a choice on what they think is right. Like many things in the church, God will make right what imperfect mortals make wrong.
It’s how I separate God from Church in some things that helps me stay, or actually makes me think if I don’t stay it is not the end of my relationship with God or my salvation.
I don’t mean to minimize the pain it must be causing John and his family. Only that I don’t know how else to view it, since we live in the mortal realm with mortals making decisions for the mortal organization called the church, which from time to time is inspired from a higher realm to do miraculous things.
We see through a glass darkly. All of us do, including church leaders trying to do what they think is best for the church and the individual. They don’t always get it right, and they aren’t always wrong. They try. As will I.
GBSmith wrote:
There were plenty of people that had left activity and were not living the law of chastity that were never disciplined because they weren’t interested in repentance and weren’t making a splash about being mormon and immoral. Small point.Good point as well, I wonder if some people get to the point of wanting to leave but can’t do it on their own that they just keep pushing until they are kicked out, then they no longer have used their agency, so to speak, to leave. I don’t mean to dismiss nor belittle, I guess I am just not fully comprehending my own opinion on this. I would so much rather that he not be excommunicated, I don’t know how I will feel if he is.
nibbler wrote:I think some excommunications are the results of leaders getting caught up in a moment like a deer in headlights and they’re just trying their best to follow what’s in the handbook.
I understand this, and it’s prevalence in the church. I’m doing this because it’s what I’m supposed to do. Or what I think those who put me in charge expect me to do.
Heber13 wrote:
I don’t mean to minimize the pain it must be causing John and his family. Only that I don’t know how else to view it, since we live in the mortal realm with mortals making decisions for the mortal organization called the church, which from time to time is inspired from a higher realm to do miraculous things.
I agree, even though I think they have come to terms with it, it still must be excruciating.
Heber13 wrote:
We see through a glass darkly. All of us do, including church leaders trying to do what they think is best for the church and the individual. They don’t always get it right, and they aren’t always wrong. They try. As will I.This.well said I’ve been rummaging around a little, trying to find exactly what John Dehlin is accused of. In the course of that found Dehlin’s description of his stake president’s conditions. Quote:On June 7, 2014, I was contacted by letter by my current stake president, Dr. Bryan King (whom I had never met), and informed that he would be initiating a disciplinary council against me, with the intent of either disfellowshipping me from the church (i.e., putting me on probationary status), or excommunicating me.
At my request, Bryan King met with me to discuss my situation and concerns. This meeting occurred in late June of 2014. In early August of 2014, we met for a second time, wherein Bryan King verbally enumerated several specific terms for avoiding church discipline and remaining in good standing with the church. These terms included:
•Censoring and removing all past episodes of Mormon Stories podcast that were not favorable and/or faith-promoting to the church.
•Agreeing to never again interview anyone for Mormon Stories podcast who expressed doubt, disbelief, or criticism of the LDS church or its leaders.
•To never again voice any public doubt or criticism of the LDS church or its leaders.
•To cease my public support of same-sex marriage, and of the Ordain Women movement.
Is this current?
I doubt it, Ann – but there is no way to know what was said in a private conversation. I am not saying John lied. Really, I’m not. I just believe there is a good chance John sees it that extremely when his SP didn’t, especially if it happened during one of John’s dark times. If that is the case, it would explain the SP’s frustration even better.
twolamps wrote:
John is not running for office. He is an American who understands his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He can “flip-flop” as many times as he likes. It’s a day to day thing for many of us who are experiencing a faith crisis.Finding out that we have been lied to by the very people who demand explicit trust is hard on anyone. John has provided a forum of support, love and acceptance where there previously wasn’t one.
I don’t know what coming from America has to do with anything.. the freest people in the USA are the plutocracy.
As for flip-flopping, it is obvious this is NOT his free will. He thinks he is deciding for himself, when a bipolar chemical imbalance is doing that for him. He needs to get that sorted for his own sake.
I have no quarrel with the last para. But he needs to face himself – his greatest battle.
John posted a link to this very thoughtful (and IMHO accurate) link on John. The real reason John will be ex’edNow I do think that he also has stated that he no longer believes – that is true. But there are thousands (if not almost 10 million) inactive Mormons that are inactive and probably couldn’t truthfully say the 100% believe. But I do think what bothers some in the church the most is that they think HE is trying to take people away from the faith. As Tom (the blog author) states, “Every topic he has covered on Mormon Stories has previously been discussed elsewhere.” and the one item that really touched my heart, “The Church offers no equivalent, sadly.” I fully agree that “the chasm will still exist” and the BIGGER issue can’t be excommunicated away.
One think I like about this post is that I feel I can actually post this to (some of) my TBM friends. It does not take a dig at anybody.
Good article. The idea that the chasm exists, and will continue to exist even after February 8th. Thanks for the link, LH. I liked the way that blogger expressed it. I am not sure if it is totally accurate on John just trying to help others and be balanced, or if at some point I sensed John did have some sort of agenda, even if tempering it and trying to keep it fair. But nonetheless…I agree with SD and LH and the blogger…the chasm exists from what I thought was church teachings and what I’ve learned about the church and the world. My approach is to adjust what my expectations are, and try to be like Dr Bushman to believe in good things despite the problems. To do that, I have to choose what i want to believe, and what is good for me to believe, and how to be authentic and genuine in my behaviors.
I appreciate all John has done to have the discussions in the open. I think it has done more good than harm. The church will roll on. In 10 years from now, I’m guessing many will look back and think that John didn’t need to be ex’d. But this is not the first time that has happened.
This adds some additional information to the proceedings, IMO. Whether it’s a chicken or egg situation, those who profit from the church, particularly in a counter-message way, often end up in the cross-hairs: http://www.sltrib.com/home/2146441-155/mormon-facing-excommunication-makes-his-living?fullpage=1 I’m thinking specifically of Chad Hardy and Denver Snuffer, but I’m sure there have been others. I’m not saying that’s why the church targets them. It could also be that monetizing a counter-message to the church’s party line changes the nature of the messenger as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.