The June 1

[byu71]

Anyone who doesn't denounce the LDS Church right now for its undeviating opposition to social progress has, as far as I'm concerned, made their values completely clear to me, and those values are repugnant to mine.

Denounce the LDS church or find myself having values that are repugnant to you? I am grinning from ear to ear.

I will let you know my decision later.

[SoonerCoug]

Elder Holland met with John Dehlin and said: "We are OK with doubts. Just don't buy a printing press."

Printing presses have caused more than their share of trouble for Mormonism.

Someone needs to tell Holland how easy it is to make a web site. Maybe they think it's tricky and expensive. (It took the Church years to make their own web site.)

[San Juan Sun]

Elder Holland met with John Dehlin and said: "We are OK with doubts. Just don't buy a printing press."

Printing presses have caused more than their share of trouble for Mormonism.

Someone needs to tell Holland how easy it is to make a web site. Maybe they think it's tricky and expensive. (It took the Church years to make their own web site.)

If you're suggesting that the church is slow to repond to changes in media you couldn't be more wrong. The apostles are on Twitter nowadays. They post things like how great the area conference in Yorba Linda was. Any day now they'll be posting selfies on Instagram.

[Moliere]

Daniel Peterson weighs in: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...ervations.html

While he uses some pretty derogatory terms such as "nominal members" he does make some (not many) good points. Clearly the church is trying to set boundaries, whether the "nominal" members like it or not. This paragraph is a gem:

I’m firmly convinced that disciplinary councils and, yes, even excommunication, can and very often do serve a salutary purpose in clarifying doctrinal boundaries and behavioral limits, and that such clarification can prevent spiritual harm. (Some critics may not believe in such a thing as “spiritual harm,” but I do.) Indeed, I’m convinced that, on some occasions, such clarification is urgently necessary. I think it vital for the Saints, and not merely for (as some very hostile critics see it) their supposedly power-hungry and control-obsessed leaders, that the integrity of the Church be preserved, and that innocent and unwary members of the Church be protected.

Protecting the innocent and unwary members? Sounds like squashing real history in favor of correlated history.

He also sheds some light on why Dehlin is being called in:

The stake president’s letter cites a public post written by Brother Dehlin earlier in the month, in which Brother Dehlin declares that he “no longer believe[s] many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims.” It also cites a January email from Brother Dehlin to his bishop in which Brother Dehlin apparently asks that he not be contacted by leaders or members of the Church, not even in their capacity as “visiting teachers” or “home teachers,” and that he no longer be considered a member of his local congregation.

The stake president’s letter then says that, in view of such statements and requests — which don’t, frankly, seem to indicate much “value” placed upon Brother Dehlin’s membership — the stake president “need[s] to know exactly where you stand regarding your membership in the Church.” (In Mormonism, it’s effectively impossible to be an active and committed member of the Church while completely unaffiliated with any Church congregation.) Does Brother Dehlin wish, asks the stake president, to have his name removed from the membership rolls of the Church?. If so, the letter says, the stake president would be bound to honor that request. But the letter outlines some of the implications of such removal, and expresses hope that Brother Dehlin will seriously consider whether that’s the course he wishes to take. It invites Brother Dehlin to speak personally and privately with the stake president about the matter.

While I respect Dehlin, I think the guy is definitely weird....and maybe mentally unstable. His actions are all over the place.

At the end of the day, this whole thing reaffirms the fact that Mormonism is nothing like Judaism in terms of culture. Mormonism doesn't want a cultural brand of Mormonism, it wants only Orthodox Mormons. You are fine to stay on the rolls and not attend, but do so quietly.

[Green Monstah]

I'm not sure how you took most of that away from my post, with the exception of the "reform from within" question. My answer to that is, yes ... if your goal is to "reform from within," you probably aren't going to be welcome. The Church isn't a democracy. It isn't your Church. It is Christ's Church. Only he gets to reform it from within. I'm not sure how someone familiar with the Church would find this surprising.

It's crazy how Christ is prone to modify rules and standards when society does the same. He must be a liberal.

[smokymountainrain]

Daniel Peterson weighs in: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...ervations.html

While he uses some pretty derogatory terms such as "nominal members" he does make some (not many) good points. Clearly the church is trying to set boundaries, whether the "nominal" members like it or not. This paragraph is a gem:



Protecting the innocent and unwary members? Sounds like squashing real history in favor of correlated history.

He also sheds some light on why Dehlin is being called in:



While I respect Dehlin, I think the guy is definitely weird....and maybe mentally unstable. His actions are all over the place.

At the end of the day, this whole thing reaffirms the fact that Mormonism is nothing like Judaism in terms of culture. Mormonism doesn't want a cultural brand of Mormonism, it wants only Orthodox Mormons. You are fine to stay on the rolls and not attend, but do so quietly.

So in the case of Dehlin, he essentially is asking out and the church is honoring that request. PR nightmare, indeed.

[Maximus]

Daniel Peterson weighs in: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...ervations.html

While he uses some pretty derogatory terms such as "nominal members" he does make some (not many) good points. Clearly the church is trying to set boundaries, whether the "nominal" members like it or not. This paragraph is a gem:



Protecting the innocent and unwary members? Sounds like squashing real history in favor of correlated history.

He also sheds some light on why Dehlin is being called in:



While I respect Dehlin, I think the guy is definitely weird....and maybe mentally unstable. His actions are all over the place.

At the end of the day, this whole thing reaffirms the fact that Mormonism is nothing like Judaism in terms of culture. Mormonism doesn't want a cultural brand of Mormonism, it wants only Orthodox Mormons. You are fine to stay on the rolls and not attend, but do so quietly.

no one is excommunicated because they dont believe X amount of mormonism. however if you, as a member, teach that parts of mormonism are untrue then that is called apostasy is it not? teaching false doctrine (according to the church.) and trying to lead others to believe that X things arent true. someone correct me if that is not what he has done. there is difference between doing that and just expressing doubts.

[DrumNFeather]

The Church isn't unlike this message board. Everyone thinks it's democratic but it is not. Common consent misleads many to believe that their voice is really that important. When a decision is made that is not popular everyone gets their underwear in a bunch for a few days. A statement is released. Discussion with conditions is allowed for a short time. Some threaten to leave. One or two may actually do that (rare). After a week it is generally forgotten and life goes on. SJBH.

I'll continue to withold my tithes from this site!

[All-American]

Please defend this statement. Explain to us all why it's such a good thing to belong to an aggressively anti-gay, sexist, totalitarian, historically racist religion.

At the end of law school, I really only had one promising job prospect. The day I got the letter from them telling me they were passing me over, my wife told me she felt that it was time to start our family. After a few days of despondence, despair, pondering, and prayer, I could only conclude that she was right. As uncertain as our lives were at that point, the answer to our prayers was that we couldn't make even that which mattered much take priority over that which mattered most. Halfway through the pregnancy, my current boss extended an offer to me. Just this morning, as I played with my beautiful baby girl before going off to work, I thought about how grateful I am that we trusted God in that bleak moment.

In the morning, I read the scriptures with my wife over breakfast. Messages vary, but today, it was Alma's sermon on humility and remembering the mighty change of heart.

In the evenings, we say prayers before we go to bed. We remember to be thankful for our blessings, and ask for our loved ones to be cared for.

On Wednesday nights, I spend time with a group of fantastic young men. Sometimes we teach them important life skills, like preparing resumes or speaking in public. This week, we just played video games and got to enjoy being with one another.

On Sundays, I spend a few hours with a community of good people trying to be better. I learn from them, make friends with them, and try to be of service to them as they are to me.

For all of its shortcomings, being a member of this church is an overwhelmingly good thing.

[pellegrino]

I'm not sure how you took most of that away from my post, with the exception of the "reform from within" question. My answer to that is, yes ... if your goal is to "reform from within," you probably aren't going to be welcome. The Church isn't a democracy. It isn't your Church. It is Christ's Church. Only he gets to reform it from within. I'm not sure how someone familiar with the Church would find this surprising.

so we should just forget that something like common consent ever made an appearance in the canon. gotcha.

[Moliere]

So in the case of Dehlin, he essentially is asking out and the church is honoring that request. PR nightmare, indeed.

Depending on the time of day it seems he wants to (1) still be Mormon but not affiliated with any ward or calling; (2) be active Mormon and able to baptize and bless his family; or (3) not be affiliated at all. The SP is probably just wondering what he really wants since it seems to be a mystery to many. Maybe the best thing is for the SP to publicly call him to repentance in stake conference and then just ignore the guy.

[SeattleUte]

Daniel Peterson weighs in: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...ervations.html

While he uses some pretty derogatory terms such as "nominal members" he does make some (not many) good points. Clearly the church is trying to set boundaries, whether the "nominal" members like it or not. This paragraph is a gem:



Protecting the innocent and unwary members? Sounds like squashing real history in favor of correlated history.

He also sheds some light on why Dehlin is being called in:



While I respect Dehlin, I think the guy is definitely weird....and maybe mentally unstable. His actions are all over the place.

At the end of the day, this whole thing reaffirms the fact that Mormonism is nothing like Judaism in terms of culture. Mormonism doesn't want a cultural brand of Mormonism, it wants only Orthodox Mormons. You are fine to stay on the rolls and not attend, but do so quietly.

This is the SU/Pheidippedes take. It's a progressive Mormon purge. (So I'm safe for now but you most of you guys here better run for cover.)

[Moliere]

so we should just forget that something like common consent ever made an appearance in the canon. gotcha.

Well, there are a lot of things in the canon we ignore....probably more things than we remember are actually there.

[byu71]

I've spent a lot (probably too much) of time thinking about this and I think I understand the fundamental disconnect between the Orthodox and the so-called ProgMos. Do the actions of Kate and John meet the Church's definition of apostasy? Probably so. The problem I and others have with this is that the "our way or the highway" Church is not what we want the Church to be. And the fundamental tenets of the Gospel don't require it. So yes, it is of man and I am okay with being critical of that. SU has used the term totalitarian. While that is pretty extreme, it's not totally wrong either. Christ was one to invite, not force or threaten with real earthly consequences if you don't toe the line (i.e. no temple recommend). And if anybody tries to say there are not earthly, painful consequences to lack of a recommend, you are a complete idiot. Participation in some of the most important events in family members' lives should not be contingent on Church membership (and more).

My beef is that there is no room in the Church to be "kind of Mormon". You're either all in or to some folks, you're out, a fence sitter, etc. To the most extreme this extends to culture, politics, etc.

The big tent we've dreamed of just got a lot smaller. And that makes me sad.

I think it is a pretty big tent, but not a come one come all. You are welcome in the boat, just don't try to rock it and overturn it. My experience is most of us who are in the boat don't agree with everything those driving it do or say, but for the most part are happy to be in it and aren't to empathetic with those who want to overturn it.

I will admit I am not a 100% attendance guy or Temple goer. So maybe my perspective of members comes more from dealing with them in social and business settings. Most of those people have priorities around their families and their careers. They are not orthodox, but are a long ways from caring about the issues those who want to reform the church care about.

[SeattleUte]

They won't answer you, SU! They're so scared of your inquisition they'll log out for a week just to avoid this thread. So chickenshit.

I'm not the inquisitor they are! How dare you. (I expected this sort of thing from UVA, but et tu?)