Why do so many people dislike John Dehlin?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

I think communications between John Dehlin and his SP after receipt of the June 7 letter certainly changed things. It's not like the SP's June 7 was some sort of legal contract that required the SP, no matter what, to schedule a church court after June 18th. At the very least, communications between John Dehlin and the SP slowed down the process. Now, whether it'll stop the process entirely is anyone's guess.

[_RockSlider]

and then there is the other aspect - why in the world would otterson step in here if this guy is so willing to self-destruct publicly?

Does this self-destruction actually exist? Has his supporter base dropped and his critic base increased over these issues?

I'm guessing that the strength of the supporter base along with John Dehlin's media power is what scares the church and has otterson on pause.

[_Sister Mary Lisa]

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?

So let me get this straight. John Dehlin writes that he is concerned about how gossip (that we all agree can run rampant within any particular ward, especially in Utah) might affect his kids. The douchey part for me comes from John Dehlin's suggestion that any gossipy-lashback his kids might encounter comes from the leadership in his ward and not from John Dehlin'S COUNTLESS PUBLIC SENTIMENTS HE MADE BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THIS LETTER that are the opposite of what most Mormons would find acceptable within the culture and policies of the Church.

[_Molok]

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.

Cool, thanks Equality.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So let me get this straight. John Dehlin writes that he is concerned about how gossip (that we all agree can run rampant within any particular ward, especially in Utah) might affect his kids. The douchey part for me comes from John Dehlin's suggestion that any gossipy-lashback his kids might encounter comes from the leadership in his ward and not from John Dehlin'S COUNTLESS PUBLIC SENTIMENTS HE MADE BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THIS LETTER that are the opposite of what most Mormons would find acceptable within the culture and policies of the Church.

Oh, geesh. Your hatred of all things John Dehlin runs very deep, I see. Let's keep this on topic. I was responding to a post by ME that dealt exclusively with John Dehlin's email to his bishop. That's it! Don't label that email "doochey" because you're angry with his public statements elsewhere. The guy, as a husband and father, made a VERY reasonable request to his bishop, asking that his family and their absence NOT be discussed at meetings that we all know leak like a sieve. Can't you give the guy a break on at least this? Are you that hardcore?

[_RockSlider]

Another thing about the letter to the Bishop. It was clearly stated that he intended to continue to come to Church. I don't see how the SP could have interpreted that as a desire or statement of resignation.

Sure seems like a simple do not contact request.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Another thing about the letter to the Bishop. It was clearly stated that he intended to continue to come to Church. I don't see how the SP could have interpreted that as a desire or statement of resignation.

Sure seems like a simple do not contact request.

Good catch, Rock. John Dehlin also seems to say that the EQ or RS can still contact them about "community service opportunities." And, finally, just to show this email was not 'etched in stone,' John Dehlin wrote: "This is just what would work for us right now. If things change, we will let you know." (Emphasis added).

I agree with your characterization that the email was really just a "do not contact" request, which a bishop handles.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Oh, geesh. Your hatred of all things John Dehlin runs very deep, I see. Let's keep this on topic. I was responding to a post by ME that dealt exclusively with John Dehlin's email to his bishop. That's it! Don't label that email "doochey" because you're angry with his public statements elsewhere. The guy, as a husband and father, made a VERY reasonable request to his bishop, asking that his family and their absence NOT be discussed at meetings that we all know leak like a sieve. Can't you give the guy a break on at least this? Are you that hardcore?

Dehlin is, in part, a victim of his own Freudian need to be famous, to have his name "out there" at all times. He doesn't want people talking about him (who does) but he wants to be on everybody's lips.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Dehlin is, in part, a victim of his own Freudian need to be famous, to have his name "out there" at all times. He doesn't want people talking about him (who does) but he wants to be on everybody's lips.

This doesn't change the fact that he, as a husband and father, made a very reasonable request of privacy to his bishop in the email.

[_suniluni2]

Geez guys, I just don't see how you can characterize the SP's letter as a "courteous inquiry" or whatever you're calling it. When's the last time you heard of a SP sending a letter to a member saying, "Hey, this is President Suni here, just checking to see if you want your name removed from church records. Let me know".

MS's letter to the bishop was a clear no-contact letter with some other BS. It's clearly not a removal request. The SP saw an opportunity to threaten MS and he took it. He was just stupid to leave MS a huge out.

I'm just curious, for all you CHI experts out there-- is it protocol for the SP to follow up on either a no contact or removal request? I would think that's the Bishop's stewardship, but I very well could be wrong.