DiscussMormonism.com

Maybe Dehlin is trying to embarrass the church and attract attention to the problems within Mormonism?

Even if Dehlin is doing this for all the wrong reasons like Mayan asserts, it still makes the church look bad and will force some members to confront the issues? No?

I guess what i am saying, regardless of personal feelings towards Dehlin, he has the resources and name recognition to at least make it known to some members what is happening within the church. I mean the guy, whether you believe he is riding the coat tails of OW and for attention or whatever, is still getting press coverage in the NY times, and pressing the the troubling issues with some of our TBM family and local leaders

Can any of us say the same? Can any of us call up the NYTimes and speak our piece to a national audience about the BS that is happening in the church?

The church needs to be held accountable and exposed for what it is. How do we do it? When the Washington Post called me, I asked them how they got my name. They told me Brian Johnston and John Dehlin from Dehlins stayLDS site referred me for this particular interview. Sure, it was a small piece stuck in the back, but i got to at least let some members know how badly my family and the church treated me. With out Dehlin's and stayLDS stamp, they would never have found me or cared and i would not have got the chance to speak out.

Does that make sense?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/mormons-struggling-with-doubt-turn-to-online-supportgroups/2012/05/24/gJQASImHnU_story.html

I also want to be clear. I'm not talking about my personal feelings towards John Dehlin. We've had a, well, "rocking relationship" over the years. I got my ass handed to me by family and the church because of my relationship with Dehlin's projects, about the same time he caved and "went back to church" and pulled the plug on the MS Facebook Communities. Yeah, I was pissed and let him know. I'm simply just trying to be fair and give credit where it is deserved. I think John deserves credit for much of the dialogue. yeah, I know he didn't invent it and much of it is simply coat tails, but can we not at least agree he has had more of a national audience and dialogue than most of us apostates?

I will be the first person to say that I think the church is certainly within it's right to ex him. He is an apostate. What most of us have to come to know, is the church is not going to reform because it cannot reform. Most of us "apostates" have just walked away to save our families anymore pain and embarrassment. John probaly should have done the same but he didn't. John is not doing that. He pushed the envelop until the church got so fed up with his antics, they really have no choice. John is not surprised. Obviously, well maybe not obviously, but to me this is the end goal he had planned all along. he threw the gantlet down long ago.

Symmachus wrote:Yeah, that's nice. It reminded me of Nibley's hatred of the limelight, a hatred which was so intense that he allowed a documentary crew led by his son to follow him around for several hours, so overpowering that he let his son-in-law write (a rather good) biography that contained a picture of his humble house, complete with a caption telling you how humble it was and how long he had humbly lived in such humility.

Ostentatious humility. It's a thing alright.

cwald wrote:I'm simply just trying to be fair and give credit where it is deserved. I think John deserves credit for much of the dialogue. yeah, I know he didn't invent it and much of it is simply coat tails, but can we not at least agree he has had more of a national audience and dialogue than most of us apostates?

I will be the first person to say that I think the church is certainly within it's right to ex him. He is an apostate. What most of us have to come to know, is the church is not going to reform because it cannot reform. Most of us "apostates" have just walked away to save our families anymore pain and embarrassment. John probaly should have done the same but he didn't. John is not doing that. He pushed the envelop until the church got so fed up with his antics, they really have no choice. John is not surprised. Obviously, well maybe not obviously, but to me this is the end goal he had planned all along. he threw the gantlet down long ago.

Great post, cwald. John Dehlin did some significant things.

Mayan Elephant wrote:i think it is pretty goddamn funny that the same people that think anne frank, holocaust survivors and helen keller get nothing, nothing, not a damn thing, when Mormons baptize them posthumously - somehow magically think that john dehlin loses everything when he loses the same damn "blessing." Ain't that something?

Great point, if you ask me.

All this hand-wringing from ex-mormons and disaffected Mormons concerning Dehlin's (presumed) excommunication is, to me, nothing short of comical. I thought the same thing back in the summer of 2014 when so many people were up in arms about the Kate Kelly excommunication.

The same people who tell us over and over that Mormon priesthood, blessings, revelations, etc. are totally meaningless are now acting as though Dehlin is "losing" something of real value by getting excommuncated. Same thing with the ex-mormon women who make so much noise about how important it is for Mormon women to get "The Priesthood™". None of them believe "The Priesthood™" has any intrinsic value or power or whatever, and yet they sure act like Mormon women are being deprived of something with intrinsic value.

It makes no sense to me.

It also makes no sense at all to me that the New York Times is covering the Dehlin excommunication story as though it were an important news event. Seriously? The Mormon church excommunicating a run-of-the-mill member for what it considers apostasy is judged by the New York Times editors as news worthy of the front page of the most highly respected newspaper in the world?

Sorry, but I just don't get it.

Kishkumen wrote:

cwald wrote:I'm simply just trying to be fair and give credit where it is deserved. I think John deserves credit for much of the dialogue. yeah, I know he didn't invent it and much of it is simply coat tails, but can we not at least agree he has had more of a national audience and dialogue than most of us apostates?

I will be the first person to say that I think the church is certainly within it's right to ex him. He is an apostate. What most of us have to come to know, is the church is not going to reform because it cannot reform. Most of us "apostates" have just walked away to save our families anymore pain and embarrassment. John probaly should have done the same but he didn't. John is not doing that. He pushed the envelop until the church got so fed up with his antics, they really have no choice. John is not surprised. Obviously, well maybe not obviously, but to me this is the end goal he had planned all along. he threw the gantlet down long ago.

Great post, cwald. John Dehlin did some significant things.

I've asked several people in my circles of acquaintance (family, friends, neighbors, etc.), over the course of the past few days, what they think about John Dehlin being excommunicated. My rough estimate would be that, out of maybe 50 or 60 people I have asked, probably 10 are non-mormons, 25 or so are ex-/disaffected/inactive Mormons, and the rest are active Mormons (to varying degrees).

I have yet to find one single person that has ever even heard of him.

The mere fact that NYTimes DID run the John Dehlin story on the front page proves my point, doesn't it?

Question: why would the NYTimes, one of the most "respected news papers in the world," run the story if John Dehlin is simply a "run of the mill" member of the church?

You state that you "don't get it." Perhaps NYTimes knows something you don't?

Another question: How many of the Q15 don't know who John Dehlin is? Of the supposed 15 million members in the LDS church, I'm pretty sure Dehlin is one of the few "run of the mill" that every Q15 know about?

Ludd wrote:

Mayan Elephant wrote:i think it is pretty goddamn funny that the same people that think anne frank, holocaust survivors and helen keller get nothing, nothing, not a damn thing, when Mormons baptize them posthumously - somehow magically think that john dehlin loses everything when he loses the same damn "blessing." Ain't that something?

Great point, if you ask me.

All this hand-wringing from ex-mormons and disaffected Mormons concerning Dehlin's (presumed) excommunication is, to me, nothing short of comical. I thought the same thing back in the summer of 2014 when so many people were up in arms about the Kate Kelly excommunication.

The same people who tell us over and over that Mormon priesthood, blessings, revelations, etc. are totally meaningless are now acting as though Dehlin is "losing" something of real value by getting excommuncated. Same thing with the ex-mormon women who make so much noise about how important it is for Mormon women to get "The Priesthood™". None of them believe "The Priesthood™" has any intrinsic value or power or whatever, and yet they sure act like Mormon women are being deprived of something with intrinsic value.

It makes no sense to me.

It also makes no sense at all to me that the New York Times is covering the Dehlin excommunication story as though it were an important news event. Seriously? The Mormon church excommunicating a run-of-the-mill member for what it considers apostasy is judged by the New York Times editors as news worthy of the front page of the most highly respected newspaper in the world?

Sorry, but I just don't get it.

John Dehlin's social and family life will be affected by the LDS church kicking him out. I think that Anne Frank and Helen Keller got nothing from the LDS baptisms for them after they died. Thankfully, the LDS church did not (to my knowledge anyway) do anything to adversely impact the social and family lives of Frank and Keller.

John's family and social life is affected by his public life and calls to the new York times. That is a gargantuan stretch to credit any of those changes to this alleged excommunication. Huge huge stretch.