The June 1

[YOhio]

Interesting. Dehlin is one strange cat. I haven't followed him much lately. I recall that he stopped doing the Mormon Stories conferences and pulled back from some other activities because he felt like he was having too negative an influence on the church. So what is he doing now that is causing this controversy? It seemed to me like he had kind of fallen off the radar.

By my calculations Mormon Stories is worth eleventy million dollars so this controversy is only going to benefit his wallet. But that's just my estimate so I could be off by a hundred dollars or so and I don't want to go into how I derived those numbers (very technical and boring).

[YOhio]

But I'm still kind of shocked to see her in forums I don't see many active members show up in.

It's been a while since we've made an addition to the SE.

[Blueintheface]

It's been a while since we've made an addition to the SE.

[Jeff Lebowski]

[Blueintheface]

He mentioned the Holy of Molies. I thought this was frowned upon.

[YOhio]

He mentioned the Holy of Molies. I thought this was frowned upon.

I'm a moderator here so rules don't apply to me.

[Blueintheface]

I'm a moderator here so rules don't apply to me.

You are? I was unaware of that. Thanks for letting me know!

(Was that close to what you would've posted?)

[ERCougar]

Mormon stories is back up, but it holds less interest for me. He is a strange guy and I can't figure him out. But I appreciate what he has done in the past. His real benefit is that he has straddled a line appealing to multiple groups.

I have a friend - newly released RS president - who is going nuts over this. Rumor has it she was released because some ward members complained about her being too liberal (she was only in for a year). But I'm still kind of shocked to see her in forums I don't see many active members show up in.

This is what has really surprised me--people who I had no idea were interested in this kind of thing who are really upset. it has emboldened a lot of formerly quiet voices.

[SoCalCoug]

Sizzle:

Which of the following is less important or somehow separable from following the savior:

1) Equal rights for blacks (in and outside religion)
2) Equal rights for women (in and outside religion)
3) Equal rights for gays (in and outside religion)

You seem to separate these things from your notion of Christ. I find that fascinating. Please explain your rationale for what is "most important" and how you distinguish human rights from worship of the divine.

I actually think this is a good question. I think all three are consistent with my understanding of Christ's teachings. I'm interested in contrary opinions that aren't just a regurgitation of conservative political talking points. I know those arguments already.

I think you should care. One of the strangest pieces of advice i hear on here and elsewhere is to "leave it alone". I guess it's an ok piece of advice for some who go on for years obsessing about Mormons, but what kind of heartless freak would you have to be to suddenly leave an institution that has dominated your life for decades and then never think or talk about it again?

Exactly. It's not easy to just pick up and leave the United States if you guy doesn't get elected as president, and it's not easy to leave your ward, your family, your friends, in fact your entire social network, if you decide the church isn't for you. You're leaving your life. It sounds so easy to just say to leave if you don't like it. But it's ignorant to take that position. It's much more than a belief - it's an entire social and family network that has developed over decades for a lot of LDS.

[Eddie]

No. I am not autistic, although I do have a nephew with an autistic spectrum disorder as do many.

I was just just curious about the distinction between belief in human rights and belief in the savior. I sort of view those as the same thing, and that's why I think it's interesting that many people separate the two in their minds. Who is the "least of these" in our society and/or our church? I'd say that a variety of groups have been marginalized and are the "least of these," and so it's difficult for me to separate the idea of worshipping a savior from wanting true equality both inside and outside the church.

I kind of find it interesting in the context of all of this (IE the question "is this what Christ would do" as it relates to the church and priesthood for Blacks, etc.) that when Christ was on earth, he limited his preaching to the Jews. I know that ultimately he healed those who weren't, but isn't there a story of a Samaritan woman that he tells he is there to teach the Jews and her reply has something to do with food falling from the table for the dogs? It was later that revelation came to include sharing the Gospel with non-Jews. So...What WOULD Christ do?

A bunch of new information this morning. First, John Dehlin says that his SP swears this is a local action spearheaded by John's former EQP who is now on the high council. I find that somewhat hard to believe (a high councilor spearheading a disciplinary council? Somebody with more experience there should weigh in.) .....

I won't say I have more experience or knowledge about this than your average guy. But I did have an interesting conversation yesterday with a ward member who is also an ex bishop, ex-stake presidency member, and ex-mission president. He said that since this information has come out he has spoken with 4-5 different stake presidents and asked them about their experience with this. This included SP one who he didn't identify, but indicated was involved in a fairly high profile situation similar to the current one (someone very prominent making public statements inconsistent with church teachings).

He specifically asked each of them "does this really happen? Have you ever had someone from church headquarters call you and tell you to initiate disciplinary action? Did they tell you what they thought the outcome should be?"

All but one had never heard of this before. The one, who had experience with the prominent case indicated above, stated that he received a call from a member of the 12. The apostle simply told him that they wanted him to be aware that there was a prominent member of their stake who was teaching false doctrine. He explained to the SP what it was this person was teaching, and indicated to the stake president that they wanted him to be aware of it so that he could respond appropriately - which included clearing up the false doctrine for people this particular person had been teaching it to.

That said, he indicated that the apostle he talked to never told him what the appropriate response would be (aside from clearing up the incorrect doctrine).

I could see this happening in other areas. And it wouldn't surprise me for an overly enthusiastic leader to assume what someone thought was "appropriate" from the perspective of an apostle. But truth be told - I have personally found most of these guys to be more forgiving than we give them credit for. Particularly when we stop talking about consequences of sin in general terms and begin talking about individuals.

[imanihonjin]

Your vouch for him is doing him no favors. FYI.

Suck it....like I care what you think. Your over emotional responses to all things church related doesn't speak well for you either, FYI.

[San Juan Sun]

Suck it....like I care what you think. Your over emotional responses to all things church related doesn't speak well for you either, FYI.

Stay classy.

[imanihonjin]

I listened to part of her FMH podcast. It was interesting because all involved (her, her bishop, and her SP) are all lawyers. She framed her issues with the discipline in legal terms. When her SP asked her to meet with her, she asked for an agenda, arguing that no lawyer would schedule a brief or whatever without preparing an agenda. According to her, the threat of discipline was not on the agenda, but he pulled it on her when they met. So she felt deceived.

By the way, there are many kind and good leaders in the church. I think a lot of the criticism about these recent disciplinary actions are centered around the structure these good people work in. Their directive is to go after apostates. If there wasn't a pressure to suppress vocal criticism of the church, I wonder if most of these men would act the same.

From the little I have read on this particular case, what you have read confuses me. I thought she received a letter informing her of the disciplinary council after she had moved to Utah? What meeting with her stake president are you referring to where discipline was discussed because again what I have read she was completely blindsided by the letter she received in Utah? What am I missing?

[Pheidippides]

Stay classy.

Far too easy, and I don't even have half the skills others here do.

[imanihonjin]

Stay classy.

I am sure you responded similarly when he called me a fuckwad, right?