NYT article: John Dehlin & Kate Kelly face discipline

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Of course we can’t know for sure what will be approved in the future, but if we could would that make a difference? …or is it our duty to remain loyal to current methods even if time will change them? Lester Bush’s article also comes to mind, he was given grief for it but I think a case can be made that it helped bring the seeking that led to the 1978 revelation. Was he following the spirit or kicking against the pricks?

I find myself asking… how will time change anything if no one challenges current methods? There must be a catalyst, that’s how revelation comes. If we are comfortable with the knowledge we already have then where will the required catalyst for further knowledge come from? Sometimes it comes from places that are external to established stewardship.

Good questions.

[Anonymous]

It’s on Good Morning America today:

.

Good Morning, America.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/church-day-saints-mormons-threatened-excommunication-24121034

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to derail the thread, but I think this is relevant in light of this statement:

shoshin wrote:

I am taking pains to harp on all this because I feel strongly that some members do not understand a key point behind this: Being a member of the church means following the prophet and submitting to God. We should not expect the church to be like a worldly organization. Of course, “you must follow the Dear Leader” sends cold chills into anyone who follows world history. But that’s where faith comes in – you are following God, not some blood-stained human dictator.

Perhaps members don’t understand following the prophet as a core doctrine of the church because it’s not really there. Don’t take this wrong – I’ll say up front that I do sustain the prophet, I do believe he is duly and rightfully appointed to his place, and I do believe that if there is revelation pertaining to the whole church he’s the guy that’s going to receive it and teach us. In one sense, this is what Ordain Women is asking for – that the prophet ask for revelation (although I am not convinced they will accept “no” as an answer). Almost all of the revelations recorded in D&C were given because Joseph Smith asked, many times at the bequest of others.

Why do I think “follow the prophet” is not that central? Because it’s not directly mentioned in the the temple recommend questions nor in the Articles of Faith (which are cannonized scripture). The TR interview asks: 1. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Easy enough, indeed most of us do – I think Sr. Kelly does, that’s why she tries to get his attention, Frankly I don’t know about Br. Dehlin; 2. Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Yes, they have the keys because they have been conferred upon them as possible successors to the president, however only the president is authorized (ordained) to use the keys – only he can speak for the Lord to the whole church (or even all humanity); 3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? As with number 1, yes, they are authorized and hold the respective keys to officiate in those offices and can receive revelation relevant to their respective callings. Other than “sustaining” (which has been discussed here on the forum) there is no indication that we need to “follow” the prophet. It could be argued that this is semantics, and it admittedly is – it really depends on one’s own definition of what it means to sustain. However, I do think the the temple recommend questions are very carefully worded to ask what they mean – and there is no question “do you believe everything the prophet says” or “do you follow the prophet with exactness,” while there are direct questions like “do you live the law of chastity” and “do you keep the word of wisdom,” and “are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men.” Even in the temple itself there is not a direct covenant to follow the prophet. I agree that following God could mean following the prophet, but only as the prophet speaks for God (which I firmly believe is not always).

The Articles of Faith make several references to the priesthood and organization of the church. Number 4 lays out the first principles and ordinances of the gospel – faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost. These things are also known as the Doctrine of Christ, and Elder Christofferson gave a great talk about this a couple years ago: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng. No mention in AoF 4 of following the prophet. AoF 5 talks about men being called of God by prophecy and the laying on of hands to preach and administer. This apparently applies to the deacon as much as it does to the prophet, and I think it’s generally accepted by members of the church – but still no indication that we must follow the prophet (or the deacon ). AoF 6 talks about the organization of the church and that we have prophets among other things – again, I think this is generally accepted by members of the church, no indication of following the prophet, only that we have them (or strictly interpreted that we believe we should). AoF 7 and AoF 9 talk about revelation and prophecy among other things, and that revelation does happen and will continue to happen in the future. Once again, I think it’s generally accepted by church members and the vast majority of us can say that we have received personal revelation, and most probably also believe (or perhaps in the vernacular, know) the prophet receives revelation – this is probably the closest the AoF come to “follow the prophet” because if we believe the prophet has received revelation then we should do it because we believe it is revelation. The question is what is revelation and what isn’t and when is the prophet speaking as a prophet and when is he not (I’ll refer again to Elder Christofferson).

That wraps it up – no outright statement in either the Articles of Faith or the temple recommend questions regarding following the prophet. I don’t disagree that it’s taught in the church and I don’t even disagree that we should follow the prophet. I do disagree that it is a basic tenet of the church. It is part of the gospel (those things that Joseph Smith said were appendages to the Doctrine of Christ), part of the outer layers of the onion – good stuff, not false, but not a key doctrine and apparently not necessary to salvation and perhaps not even exaltation (I can’t find a reference to it if it is).

So in context of the subject, I do believe Sr. Kelly understands the gospel – her understanding may just be different than that of others. She was raised in the church by apparently goodly parents, she served an honorable mission, she has served in many callings, she bears her testimony (apparently as recently as this month), she honors her bishop by keeping him informed of her activity, etc. She very likely had a talk at her baptism that talked about the covenants that she was making. Those baptismal covenants, commonly believed to be contained in the sacrament prayers, don’t mention following the prophet, either. While I don’t agree with the tactics of Ordain Women and I do believe she and her group openly defied the request of church authorities that they not protest in Salt Lake City and that she take down her website – I also understand why they do what they do (there is no other way for them to be heard). I do not believe excommunication of Sr. Kelly will mean an end to OW, and I don’t believe excommunication (or any of the other possible outcomes) will cause her to “repent.” I also believe Br. Dehlin understands the gospel, but I actually believe he is in a less tenable position than Sr. Kelly because he has openly stated that he does not believe many of the core doctrines of the church (although I do think he believes in the Doctrine of Christ). I don’t believe excommunication will cause Br. Dehlin to “repent” either, and I think it may cause some people who question and may have heeded Pres. Uchtdporf’s call to “come join with us” to reconsider whether they really do fit and whether the church is sincere in that invitation. In things I have read about Br. Dehlin over the past couple days, specifically his admission that he has had meetings (perhaps disciplinary in nature) in the past, I can only say I wish I had known about that before.

Just a final thought: It is apparent to me that the church has caved to worldly interests in the past, both with ending polygamy in order for Utah to gain statehood and with extending the priesthood to all worthy males because of the civil rights movement and because of a quandary in Brazil and Africa. In both of those instances there were those who believed these would not change because they were core doctrines of the church. I don’t think we can say that women will never receive the priesthood (more than they already do). It is also apparent that the church has done other things due to social pressure in the past, coming clean and being more open about the Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

I just want to share my own thoughts on this issue…

1. I believe this is in fact a coordinated effort on the part of the church. They have massive resources and experience with the press, and would know that raising the possibility of excommunication for two high profile contrarions would imply coordination. If they did not know or anticipate this, it represents a serious flaw in their PR decision-making.

2. While I believe the disciplinary councils will be held locally, I know first hand from experiencing both Bishops’ and Stake Disciplinary councils that often, there are directives to deal with certain members, from above. In one case, it was clear to us as a Bishopric that a SP wanted a certain Melch priesthood holder “tried” in a Bishop’s court. Both myself and another Bishopric member reached the same conclusions, and it led to a decision that was less than excommunication. There are implicit messages associated with directives to take care of the infractions of local members, whether the leaders from near the top explicitly mandate a particular outcome or not. If those outcomes are not implied, the local leaders infer them and it affects their decision-making.

3. I believe there will come a time when the church will do the following — make it a cultural norm NOT to participate in non-faith promoting blogging activities, much like not watching R-rated movies, having skirts above the knee, etcetera.

4. I think people will continue blogging and posting anyway, so long as they believe it is anonymous and there is no legal requirement for site administrators to turn over login information to church authorities.

[Anonymous]

This is probably a dumb question, but in light of what is happening to john dehlin, I have to ask it. Is all the stuff that I have read recently, like fawn Brodie’s book, Mormon stories, etc etc the truth? Or can even part of it be false or unconfirmed? Also, is there any record of the church coming forward and saying this “anti Mormon” literature is false? I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around the church trying to excommunicate him for telling the truth. Slander? I totally get it. But if he is interviewing truth, then….

Growing up I remember being warned to not read antimormon literature as it was called. Was I being warned against reading the truth? To be honest, I’m scared to research more because of what more I’ll find out, and also because of the brainwashing to not do it still lingers….

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

1. I believe this is in fact a coordinated effort on the part of the church. They have massive resources and experience with the press, and would know that raising the possibility of excommunication for two high profile contrarions would imply coordination. If they did not know or anticipate this, it represents a serious flaw in their PR decision-making.

You mention high profile, one thing that’s crossed my mind with respect to that is: could it be possible that the church doesn’t like local leaders bringing up charges of apostasy for high profile folk, purely for the PR implications? Out of my warped brain I see a few strange possibilities:

1) A local leader trying to make a name for himself by being the one that drug a celeb into a disciplinary council.

2) A local leader doing what they see as their duty but getting called to the carpet by the higher ups because of the media frenzy that their ignorant action has now created.

I’ve watched a lot of movies apparently.

So the point is that sometimes, for the high profile folk, it has to be a top down directive because the rank and file might not have a vision of the big picture implications.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

1. I believe this is in fact a coordinated effort on the part of the church. They have massive resources and experience with the press, and would know that raising the possibility of excommunication for two high profile contrarions would imply coordination. If they did not know or anticipate this, it represents a serious flaw in their PR decision-making.

You mention high profile, one thing that’s crossed my mind with respect to that is: could it be possible that the church doesn’t like local leaders bringing up charges of apostasy for high profile folk, purely for the PR implications? Out of my warped brain I see a few strange possibilities:

1) A local leader trying to make a name for himself by being the one that drug a celeb into a disciplinary council.

2) A local leader doing what they see as their duty but getting called to the carpet by the higher ups because of the media frenzy that their ignorant action has now created.

I’ve watched a lot of movies apparently.

So the point is that sometimes, for the high profile folk, it has to be a top down directive because the rank and file might not have a vision of the big picture implications.

I think there is another possibility, and I think Ray alluded to it in an earlier post. I think that in the case of a high profile case it might be necessary (or at least highly recommended) that the local authority (bishop or SP) contact the church office first. While I maintain it could be coincidence that these and maybe others got their letters at the same time, I also believe it’s very possible the upper echelons of the church have been made aware and that perhaps there is some type of committee (perhaps even ad hoc) that advises and/or approves such actions by local leaders.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I saw that and it does make sense. Perhaps the disciplinary council recommendations for these people kept filtering up the channels of leadership because of their high profile nature.

That explanation is less fun though.

[Anonymous]

There’s also the possibility that these local leaders just happened to receive revelation around the same time. Maybe God was busy with apostates on other worlds and just got around to this one! 😈

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

nibbler wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

1. I believe this is in fact a coordinated effort on the part of the church. They have massive resources and experience with the press, and would know that raising the possibility of excommunication for two high profile contrarions would imply coordination. If they did not know or anticipate this, it represents a serious flaw in their PR decision-making.

You mention high profile, one thing that’s crossed my mind with respect to that is: could it be possible that the church doesn’t like local leaders bringing up charges of apostasy for high profile folk, purely for the PR implications? Out of my warped brain I see a few strange possibilities:

1) A local leader trying to make a name for himself by being the one that drug a celeb into a disciplinary council.

2) A local leader doing what they see as their duty but getting called to the carpet by the higher ups because of the media frenzy that their ignorant action has now created.

I’ve watched a lot of movies apparently.

So the point is that sometimes, for the high profile folk, it has to be a top down directive because the rank and file might not have a vision of the big picture implications.

I think there is another possibility, and I think Ray alluded to it in an earlier post. I think that in the case of a high profile case it might be necessary (or at least highly recommended) that the local authority (bishop or SP) contact the church office first. While I maintain it could be coincidence that these and maybe others got their letters at the same time, I also believe it’s very possible the upper echelons of the church have been made aware and that perhaps there is some type of committee (perhaps even ad hoc) that advises and/or approves such actions by local leaders.

The only thing I can think of is the strengthening church members committee.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/7595/who-on-earth-knows-what-the-strengthening-church-members-committee-is-or-does/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.wheatandtares.org/7595/who-on-earth-knows-what-the-strengthening-church-members-committee-is-or-does/ since no one seems to know or admit exactly what’s it for or does, I’m

Sure it played a huge part in it.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting information in the last couple pages. You have given me a lot to consider.

I would like to re-iterate my opinion that there is a big difference between privately and publicly disagreeing with church leaders.

One interview by Pres. Hinckley in the Australian media is a lot to base a whole movement on, but I appreciated seeing this. I had never heard of this statement. Sometimes you can say something in an impromptu interview and not mean it exactly how it seems. It would be nice if there were a way to get official clarification from the top church leaders about statements like this.

I really like this Hugh Nibley article:

Criticizing the Brethren

http://ash.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=49&chapid=316

MP3 http://www.divshare.com/download/12773790-90f

As far as following the prophet, my view is that it is generally understood that a vital part of membership is following the prophet, as the leader Christ has put in charge.

I will paste the following section from the Gospel Principles manual, one of the major publications by the church, which I have always admired for its simple yet deep explanations. You can make of this what you will.

I agree with DarkJedi that the church leaves us some leeway in how to interpret what this all means.

Quote:

We Should Sustain the Lord’s Prophet

Many people find it easy to believe in the prophets of the past. But it is much greater to believe in and follow the living prophet. We raise our hands to sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator.

How can we sustain the prophet? We should pray for him. His burdens are heavy, and he needs to be strengthened by the prayers of the Saints.

We should study his words. We can listen to his conference addresses. We can also subscribe to the Ensign or Liahona so we can read his conference addresses and other messages he gives.

We should follow his inspired teachings completely. We should not choose to follow part of his inspired counsel and discard that which is unpleasant or difficult. The Lord commanded us to follow the inspired teachings of His prophet:

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his [the prophet’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5).

The Lord will never allow the President of the Church to lead us astray.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-9-prophets-of-god?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

Also, I now have that Primary song looping obsessively in my brain. “Follow the prophet, follow the prophet…”

Thanks a lot folks!

[Anonymous]

I think Shoshin very accurately described the belief and honest opinions of most active church members.

Thanks.

I’ll say it again, I don’t belong to the same church as some of you others. I belong to the church Shoshin described which is why this doesn’t surprise me in the least as I’ve had to spend the last three years inactive for just this kind of attitude from church members and leaders.

A spade is a spade.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Also, I now have that Primary song looping obsessively in my brain. “Follow the prophet, follow the prophet…”

I am SO sorry.

Yeah, it’s all in how “inspired” is translated and viewed, isn’t it. I’m not into extremes, so I’m okay with the wording – but I know others are going to interpret that part differently than I do. That’s life on this planet.

[Anonymous]

shoshin wrote:

Also, I now have that Primary song looping obsessively in my brain. “Follow the prophet, follow the prophet…”

Thanks a lot folks!

Hahahaha 👿 Try singing the theme from Gilligan’s Island – it always works for me.

[Author]

Posts