Why do so many people dislike John Dehlin?

[_Mayan Elephant]

If you're honest, you'll never tell anyone about this email.

to be fair. the bishop did share the email with the stake president. which, by asking the bishop to not discuss this was probably implied, though not expressed specifically.

that actually makes the email even more douchey. he is basically asking the bishop to not behave at all like a bishop. the whole thing was just a trap for the bishop, and one that backfired in a huge way. the bishop had to decide if he was going to behave like a bishop or go along with the ruse. the consistent behavioral aspect or pattern here is that mormonstories was asking the bishop to go along with a trick that was being played on him. i have no way of knowing if that was deliberate or not. benefit of the doubt, in mormonstories' favor, is that it was deliberate and not pathological.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

i am really having a hard time figuring your arguments out, in terms of where you are going. you seem to believe EVERY conclusion and assumption that mormonstories fed you.

My conclusions were are are based solely on what I read in King's June 7 letter and John Dehlin's email to his bishop. I'm assuming these writings are legitimate and NOT forgeries; if you think I am wrong in this assumption, please explain. But I'm not being "fed" anything -- everything is based on the writings I have perused. In other words, I'm relying on plain English. As far as I can tell, King's June 7 letter and John Dehlin's email to his bishop ARE factual. Am I wrong?

and when evidence is presented, you come back with the idea that these conclusions and assumptions made by mormonstories are actually factual and it is up to everyone to prove that your version of conclusions and assumptions that you swallowed when fed by mormonstories are not true.

What "evidence" are you referring to, ME? I know that you, Equality, et al., keep repeating that my conclusions are wrong, but you have given me absolutely NO evidence to back it up. I, on the other hand, have been relying strictly on actual writings (again, this assumes the June 7 letter and John Dehlin's email to the bishop, are legitimate, which I have no reason to think otherwise).

you seem to want to prove that people who like Mormon Stories are obliged to be mormonstories sycophants and practice the art of hack apologetics.

Not at all. The only reason I've been involved in this particular debate is because I didn't like the way you and others are (in my opinion) intentionally misrepresenting the actual evidence (i.e., what the June 7 letter REALLY says) in pursuing your ongoing vendetta against John Dehlin (which has been very evident on this bb for a very long time).

you had a completely different strategy when discussing kate kelly. it is very curious to me.

Absolutely NOT! My analysis of Kate's situation was of the procedural (i.e., the CHI) irregularities in the actual disciplinary process initiated against her by her bishop (John Dehlin's situation was different, because the SP's June 7 letter included the threat of discipline if John Dehlin did not resign; the disciplinary process had not yet formally begun).

maybe the difference between the two (kelly and mormonstories), and how it is playing out still to this day is the bigger story, i think it is.

Certainly possible.

mormonstories launched a massive media campaign, perhaps unmatched, to inject misinformation and pity and sympathy and raw meat for sycophants.

He may have "launched a massive media campaign" about all this, but it was not with "misinformation."

for example, Mormon Stories published a 4 hour interview of Sandra Tanner. but, as soon as the campaign started, mormonstories moved that off his front page. it was a totally dickish move and one that got praise at his Facebook community.

I listened to the Sandra Tanner podcast and had no problem finding it. I guess I don't see the big deal that it was not on the "front page" at MormonStories. Given the hundreds of podcasts there, I'd venture that very few are on the "front page." But why is this even a big deal? I'm just not seein' it.

[_Bazooka]

Mormonstories clarifies matters....sort of....

Yes. This was very odd for all of us to receive a letter from my stake president (whom I had never met) that basically said, “I invite you to resign from the church, otherwise we will be initiating a disciplinary council.”

However, in his defense, it is my understanding now that my stake president (Dr. Bryan King) interpreted the letter we wrote to our bishop as suggesting that I did not want him to reach out to me. I take him at his word. I will say that our clear intent in sending the above email was to tell the bishop and other ward members not to contact us (i.e., that we did not want to participate in any more investigations). That said, have always been open to meeting and speaking with our stake president (mostly because we perceive him to be the final decision-maker regarding the initiation of a disciplinary council). For the record, I have never asked to take my name off the records of the church: only to be put on the ward’s “do not contact” list.

http://mormonstories.org/is-it-true-tha ... y-council/

[_Rollo Tomasi]

1. Protocol. the North Logan Stake went by the book, the Virgina (sorry, can't remember the whole name here) Stake, went by a part of the book but really just botched the entire thing.

I agree.

2. Charges of Apostasy. Kelly owned what she has done, owned her movement, owned her actions, met them directly, made no apologies, spoke unequivocally. she did interviews about who she was and what she wanted and who she represented as the leader of this specific movement. her rebuttal was about the process, without apologies for who she was and what she was asking.

I agree.

mormonstories was like nailing jello to a wall. and Mormon Stories was just as impossible. mormonstories launched a media campaign saying this was tied to kelly, that wasn't sustainable.

I still think the two were connected in the sense that direction came 'from above.' I base this solely on the close timing of the two letters. If someone has real evidence to the contrary, then please share it.

then said it was for having doubts. that didn't really add up either. then it was for defending gays, well, BS (see rosebud.) then it was him taking the high road and de-escalating. oh boy, and all this over a simple question.

I agree that since the June 7 letter, the meetings/communications between John Dehlin and his SP have put this whole affair in a high state of flux, but I'm not surprised at all given the high stakes.

3. Potential for Longevity and a Following - kate kelly spent a year or so making herself very clear and specific and she did it with honor and her head held high. she has a lot of potential. mormonstories is writing a prospectus for a business as he goes along and denying/claiming crap all willynilly. of course he is going to stick around if he can do that forever.

I disagree with this characterization of John Dehlin, but that's only my opinion.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

“2/2/2014

Brian,

Margi and I decided today that we would like to ask the following of you as bishop forward: 1) We would like to ask you to please not request any more interviews with Margi or myself. Please do not contact us again as bishop. As a neighbor, no problem. But as a bishop, please don’t contact us or ask anyone to contact us again (other than to confirm receipt of this email). 2) We would like to ask you to please take our names off of any home or visiting teaching rolls/lists. Other than for community service opportunities, we do not want to be contacted by the Elder’s quorum or Relief Society in any way. 3) Please dispose of our fast offering envelope such that the fast offering boys no longer come to our house. 4) Finally, as a person who claims to believe in being honest and charitable, we would like to respectfully ask you to please keep the contents of this email between us. For the sake of our children, we would prefer not to be gossiped about in the ward. We are hopeful that you can arrange 1-3 above without needing to embarrass us or our children with other ward members. Our preference would be that you not speak about us in any way during your ward leadership meetings — and that if our family comes up in such a meeting, you respectfully let the ward members know that we would prefer to not be spoken about. We would just prefer to be left alone. Finally, please know that we sincerely have no hard feelings towards you or anyone else in the ward. We have not been offended. We are very happy in our lives and still feel much love for you, your family, and for the ward members. We know that you and others are just doing your jobs as you feel moved to do. This is just what would work for us right now. If things change, we will let you know. Also, please know that we will still be attending church on Sundays in support of our children (when they attend), but otherwise would like you to please no longer consider Margi and myself as members of the ward. Thanks for respecting this request. As a courtesy, please reply to let me know you have received this email.

Sincerely wishing you and your family all of the best. John and Margi”

Lol, this guy is ridiculous! If you're honest, you'll never tell anyone about this email. I, meanwhile, will put it up on the internet for everyone to see!

To be fair, John Dehlin did not disclose this email until many months after he actually wrote it.

[_Molok]

Just to show my eminent fairness, John Dehlin did indicate that he was initially reluctant to release the email's contents publicly. It was only after pressure from the online community that he eventually posted it.

Oh, really? Do you have any more information you could share about that? He says that he doesn't want the email spread to protect his children, so I'm very curious to know what kind of pressure the internet put on him to make him decide his children's protection wasn't such a big deal after all. Or was that no longer a concern at that point?

[_Equality]

Just to show my eminent fairness, John Dehlin did indicate that he was initially reluctant to release the email's contents publicly. It was only after pressure from the online community that he eventually posted it.

Oh, really? Do you have any more information you could share about that? He says that he doesn't want the email spread to protect his children, so I'm very curious to know what kind of pressure the internet put on him to make him decide his children's protection wasn't such a big deal after all. Or was that no longer a concern at that point?

Check out this thread here from June 15:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34757\
I was removed by John Dehlin from one of his Facebook groups because, among other things, I and a few others were pestering him to release the email to the Bishop so we could see the context of what the SP was referring to in his letter.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

try as you might to spin SP King's letter, any reasonable person would read it to say, 'if you don't signal your desire to resign within the next 11 days, I'm scheduling a church court for your apostasy.' There simply is no other reasonable interpretation of the SP's letter, one which, I dare say, you would have if it had been written to you instead of John Dehlin.

The letter sends mixed messages which I think lends itself to more than one reasonable interpretation.

This...

I have chosen to write this letter to you and inquire whether, by your earlier email to Bishop Hunt and your recent public statements, you desire to have your name removed from the records of the Church. As you know, if you make such a request I am bound to honor it.

...sounds like an inquiry, rather than an ultimatum.

I completely agree with you; if the SP had stopped there, then the letter's interpretation by Equality, et al., would make perfect sense. But, as you point out, the SP did not stop there.

Whereas this...

If you choose not to have your name removed, then I think we are to the point where I should convene a formal disciplinary council on your behalf for apostasy.

...sounds more like an ultimatum.

Agreed.

And this...

If you desire to have your name removed from Church records, please inform me in writing no later than June 18, 2014. If I do not hear from you by that time, I will assume that you do not desire to avail yourself of this option, and I will proceed to schedule a disciplinary council.

...sounds like part inquiry and part ultimatum.

Note, however, that this resignation "option" followed the ultimatum in the prior paragraph. An upcoming church court was the reality, but the resignation was offered as an 'escape hatch.'

Also, note in the first paragraph of the letter, where the SP writes:

I am greatly concerned abut the impact of these and other statements and actions are having upon the members of the stake.

At this point in the letter, the SP hasn't mentioned anything about John Dehlin's email to the bishop (that doesn't come up for the first time until the next paragraph). Instead, the SP is focusing on John Dehlin's activities that could be construed as "apostasy" and subject to formal discipline.

However, I think the SP recognized a way to take care of this problem in a quieter fashion: since John Dehlin's email to the bishop could be (and apparently was by the SP) construed as reflecting John Dehlin's desire to resign his membership, the SP offered that option as a way to avoid what the SP was really getting to -- excommunication for apostasy. And this is why I've always considered the letter (since the first time I read it) as an ultimatum. If it had been written to me, that's how I would have taken it.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

And this is why I've always considered the letter (since the first time I read it) as an ultimatum. If it had been written to me, that's how I would have taken it.

So did King change his mind about the ultimatum? As far as I am aware, John Dehlin hasn't resigned and no disciplinary council has been called. June 18th was a long time ago.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If you're honest, you'll never tell anyone about this email.

to be fair. the bishop did share the email with the stake president. which, by asking the bishop to not discuss this was probably implied, though not expressed specifically.

that actually makes the email even more douchey. he is basically asking the bishop to not behave at all like a bishop. the whole thing was just a trap for the bishop, and one that backfired in a huge way. the bishop had to decide if he was going to behave like a bishop or go along with the ruse. the consistent behavioral aspect or pattern here is that mormonstories was asking the bishop to go along with a trick that was being played on him. i have no way of knowing if that was deliberate or not. benefit of the doubt, in mormonstories' favor, is that it was deliberate and not pathological.

The words immediately following the quoted request, which you've conveniently ignored, makes clear that John Dehlin wanted this email to be kept confidential so his family would not be subject to ward "gossip," which we all know often happens when a request like this is discussed in a bishopric or ward council meeting. Here are John Dehlin's actual words that immediately follow your quoted snippet:

For the sake of our children, we would prefer not to be gossiped about in the ward. We are hopeful that you can arrange 1-3 above [i.e., other ward activities] without needing to embarrass us or our children with other ward members. Our preference would be that you not speak about us in any way during your ward leadership meetings -- and that if our family comes up in such a meeting, you respectfully let the ward members know that we would prefer to not be spoken about. We would just prefer to be left alone. (Emphasis added).

All John Dehlin was asking for was privacy within the ward. It had nothing to do with the SP. We all know how gossip spreads through a ward. John Dehlin's kids have to live and go to school with kids in the ward (this is particularly true in Utah!). How, ME, could you possibly turn this very reasonable request into something "douchey" (your word)? Geesh, does your vendetta know no limits?