It is currently Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:00 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:09 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 9589
What to do when one believes that they have so much power that the media will protect them from excommunication etc. The fact is if the local bishop and stake president believe that john should be excommunicated, he will be excommunicated. However, if it is true that john has a GA in his pocket, he may be saved again. The thing is I have no idea what john wants or believes in. He changes his opinions a lot. He goes inactive, becomes active and becomes inactive again and wants no contact with the church. Did I get the twists and turns right?

When he returned to church he forsoke the MS conferences and chapters leaving those people behind. Do I have this right? Then he gets a piece about mormonstories squashed, returns to church and leaves the church again. What is going on in this man's mind I all this is true? And wants to remain a member because he actually believes that he can help members leave the church? Is this true?

_________________
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:50 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm
Posts: 10719
Location: Betwixt & Between
This question is to the likes of Mayan Elephant, bcspace, Why Me etc.

Given the action that has been taken/proposed to be taken against Dehlin, Kelly and Waterman....how do you explain (or rationalise) the lack of action against Tom Phillips - an exceptionally vocal apostate who took the Church to court and called it a liar?

_________________
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:20 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:56 pm
Posts: 2408
Bazooka wrote:
This question is to the likes of Mayan Elephant, bcspace, Why Me etc.

Given the action that has been taken/proposed to be taken against Dehlin, Kelly and Waterman....how do you explain (or rationalise) the lack of action against Tom Phillips - an exceptionally vocal apostate who took the Church to court and called it a liar?


i cannot rationalize that one. that is really tough to explain.

there are some commonalities between the three you mention. the thing i think is unique to phillips and that protects him is that he is not in utah or california.

_________________
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 6461
Mayan Elephant wrote:
who escalated and who deescalated? lets stick to the facts here.
First - the stake president sent a private correspondence to dehlin. king asked for clarification on where john stood. king said if dehlin offered to resign, he would announce his resignation publicly. king said IF he did not hear from dehlin, he would schedule a church court.

This "private correspondence" was a threat ... a simple if not/then. Regardless of what might be in the letter to the Bishop, what right does the stake president have to demand clarification on where John stands? A demand given with an ultimatum of a church court if not meet.
Quote:
Next - dehlin called the New York times, made the letter public, and ramped up the social media campaign. dehlin did an interview with the trib. dehlin took this from a private correspondence about his standing, with the opportunity to resolve this privately, to a massive social campaign.

It seems pretty clear that John's letter to the Bishop made it clear NO private correspondence (especially over issues of his worthiness) would be welcomed. This request is not only subsequently ignored, but comes with the threat of excommunication if John is not willing to honor the violation of his request.

Now you are painting John the bad guy for not validating the stake president's ultimatum?
Quote:
In response to dehlin's public events - king never responded in public, despite being accused of all sorts of nefarious intent and behavior.

I think Gidianton is right on this one ... one or more GA's woke up to GMA ... turned red with anger and phones started ringing.

The odds seem very high that if John would have "keep this private" they would have ex'ed him either way.
Quote:
Then - Dehlin announces that they have a meeting.
the stake president president may have made new correspondence with dehlin. dehlin may have actually asked for a meeting. we do not really know who asked for what. dehlin only says that king would like a deescalation. john's previous explicit request was to have no contact with the stake president or bishop, and while king's email that john published was in fact a form of contact, it was also a request on how john would like the church to proceed given his request for no contact.

Speculation, and as you say the stake president was violating an "explicit request" for no contact, and you then you suggest it was for the purpose of how they should proceed??? (well lets see, how about don't contact me, its not that hard). It seems obvious to me that this was not the intent of the stake president.
Quote:
if anything, the stake president is being good for his word and agreeing to listen to john's explanations. obviously, john responded with something before the initial deadline. given that the stake president was, initially, simply making a gentlemen's offer to settle/clarify things without an escalation, and things are only on the same path they were before, i hope dehlin honors the request for deescalation and tones down the public spectacle he is enjoying.


BS .. "agreeing to listen" ... exactly where in all of this did John offer to give some explanation? He had explicitly requested just the opposite.

"gentlemen's ... without an escalation" ... hello, unsolicited ultimatum of escalation from his state of live and let live just leave me alone to honor my authority within this deadline or be excommunicated.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm
Posts: 10719
Location: Betwixt & Between
Dr. Shades wrote:
This is the exact same thing that happened with Tom Murphy. Don't these people ever remember the past?

It looks like my new signature line was eerily prescient! (See below)


Quote:
Murphy's review of genetic research was expanded upon by molecular biologist Simon Southerton, a former Mormon bishop, with his study Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans DNA, and the Mormon Church, Signature Books, 2004, which gives a more complete accounting of the current status of Polynesians and Native Americans in context with national studies, Mormon scholars and concessions by geneticists from BYU. Other researchers such as Scott Woodward are critical of Southerton's work.

In response to the publication of "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics", Murphy's LDS stake president asked him to either recant his position regarding DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon or resign his membership in the LDS Church. Murphy declined both suggestions, so Latimer scheduled a disciplinary council for December 8, 2002.[9] Such a council might have resulted in Murphy's disfellowshipment or excommunication from the church.[10]

Murphy's situation received widespread media attention and generated protest actions from some Mormon intellectual groups. On December 7, 2002, less than 24 hours before the scheduled meeting time, Latimer indefinitely postponed Murphy's disciplinary council.[10] Finally, on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.[11] In a note Murphy sent to several supporters for wide public distribution, Murphy expressed hope that other scholars in similar positions might benefit from Latimer's decision:

We hope that other stake presidents will follow this most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.

—-- Thomas Murphy, open letter dated 23 February 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._ ... ropologist)

_________________
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:14 am 
CTR B

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 154
This is the full text of the email Margi and I sent our bishop back in February, after he accused me of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, and told me that he was going to begin yet another investigation. I'm sharing this because so many people seem concerned about it, I don't want to appear like I'm hiding anything.

"
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 roles/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"

My understanding now from my stake president is that he interpreted this letter as saying that I did not want him (the stake president) to reach out to me either. I will take him at his word, though I will say that our intent in this email was to tell the bishop not to contact us, nor for him to ask other ward members to contact us (not to tell the stake president that he shouldn't contact us).

Consequently, it is very possible that the stake president not contacting me before sending the June 7th letter may have been just a misunderstanding, based on this email. But in my mind, this didn't occur to me when receiving the stake president's letter, since I never asked the stake president to not contact me, only the bishop. And I never asked to take my name off the records of the church -- just to be put on the ward's "do not contact" list.

Anyway, this may have been just a mutual misunderstanding.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 19275
Location: Koloburbia
So do you want to remain a member of the LDS Church or not?

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:58 am 
Stake President
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:45 pm
Posts: 577
In addition to Tom Murphy, David Twede (a former editor of MormonThink) also had his court court called off when the media coverage reached critical mass. That was almost two years ago.

Dan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:01 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:44 am
Posts: 3332
Location: Dallas, Texas
Mayan Elephant wrote:
Bazooka wrote:
This question is to the likes of Mayan Elephant, bcspace, Why Me etc.

Given the action that has been taken/proposed to be taken against Dehlin, Kelly and Waterman....how do you explain (or rationalise) the lack of action against Tom Phillips - an exceptionally vocal apostate who took the Church to court and called it a liar?


i cannot rationalize that one. that is really tough to explain.

there are some commonalities between the three you mention. the thing i think is unique to phillips and that protects him is that he is not in utah or california.


And the Second Anointing. Dehlin's mistake (if he wanted to be an untouchable member of the church) was in not securing the Second Anointing before starting Mormon Stories.

_________________
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 6461
John,

Open book John Dehlin ... once again showing forthright and honest dealings. Thanks for sharing that which should not have been demanded of you of the community to share in the first place.

I am surprised that you would still welcome communication with the stake president. My first thought was that you should follow EAllusion's advice upthread (keeping correspondence written). On second though however ... it seems John Dehlin has a lot of experience in these matters dealing with stake president's on up, and he surely knows what he is dealing with better than I.

Thanks again John Dehlin!

and best wishes to you and your family.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm
Posts: 3927
Location: La Mancha
consiglieri wrote:
I like to think I had something to do with this . . .

I'll take the bait. What did you have to do with this? Did you talk to his stake president or something?

_________________
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:56 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm
Posts: 10719
Location: Betwixt & Between
Mayan Elephant wrote:
Bazooka wrote:
This question is to the likes of Mayan Elephant, bcspace, Why Me etc.

Given the action that has been taken/proposed to be taken against Dehlin, Kelly and Waterman....how do you explain (or rationalise) the lack of action against Tom Phillips - an exceptionally vocal apostate who took the Church to court and called it a liar?


i cannot rationalize that one. that is really tough to explain.

there are some commonalities between the three you mention. the thing i think is unique to phillips and that protects him is that he is not in utah or california.



"Not in Utah or California"
Are the Church rules different in those states?

*It's worth noting that, as far as I am aware, Tom Phillips remains logged as a member of the Church in full fellowship.

_________________
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)


Last edited by Bazooka on Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 6461
Mayan Elephant wrote:
i cannot rationalize that one. that is really tough to explain.
there are some commonalities between the three you mention. the thing i think is unique to phillips and that protects him is that he is not in utah or california.


Seems the church takes the second anointing seriously. Its just a good thing Blood Atonement is no longer a true doctrine.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm
Posts: 10719
Location: Betwixt & Between
RockSlider wrote:
Mayan Elephant wrote:
i cannot rationalize that one. that is really tough to explain.
there are some commonalities between the three you mention. the thing i think is unique to phillips and that protects him is that he is not in utah or california.


Seems the church takes the second anointing seriously. Its just a good thing Blood Atonement is no longer a true doctrine.


They have to.
Think how many serious players in the Church would be gulping if it turned out to not be the immunity they were told it was....

_________________
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm
Posts: 10719
Location: Betwixt & Between
Is it possible that John's General Authority 'acquaintance' has ridden in on a white charger to once again save the day?

_________________
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:49 am 
Valiant A
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:21 am
Posts: 169
Location: The 25th floor
Bazooka wrote:
This question is to the likes of Mayan Elephant, bcspace, Why Me etc.

Given the action that has been taken/proposed to be taken against Dehlin, Kelly and Waterman....how do you explain (or rationalise) the lack of action against Tom Phillips - an exceptionally vocal apostate who took the Church to court and called it a liar?


I do truly think that it is the second anointing. Nothing else can explain it.

_________________
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Hitch


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:29 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:14 am
Posts: 2247
mormonstories wrote:
This is the full text of the email Margi and I sent our bishop back in February, after he accused me of being a wolf in sheep's clothing, and told me that he was going to begin yet another investigation. I'm sharing this because so many people seem concerned about it, I don't want to appear like I'm hiding anything.

"
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 roles/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"

My understanding now from my stake president is that he interpreted this letter as saying that I did not want him (the stake president) to reach out to me either. I will take him at his word, though I will say that our intent in this email was to tell the bishop not to contact us, nor for him to ask other ward members to contact us (not to tell the stake president that he shouldn't contact us).

Consequently, it is very possible that the stake president not contacting me before sending the June 7th letter may have been just a misunderstanding, based on this email. But in my mind, this didn't occur to me when receiving the stake president's letter, since I never asked the stake president to not contact me, only the bishop. And I never asked to take my name off the records of the church -- just to be put on the ward's "do not contact" list.

Anyway, this may have been just a mutual misunderstanding.


Thanks John. I find it interesting that your requests sounds nothing more than what an inactive would do. So this begs the question, why aren't they excommunicating all the inactives? A great purge of people that no longer want to be contacted by their bishops or be considered members of a ward.

_________________
I'm a Ziontologist. I self identify as such.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: 6/14/14 Important Update from John Dehlin (deescalation!
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm
Posts: 10719
Location: Betwixt & Between
GrandMoffTarkin wrote:
Bazooka wrote:
This question is to the likes of Mayan Elephant, bcspace, Why Me etc.

Given the action that has been taken/proposed to be taken against Dehlin, Kelly and Waterman....how do you explain (or rationalise) the lack of action against Tom Phillips - an exceptionally vocal apostate who took the Church to court and called it a liar?


I do truly think that it is the second anointing. Nothing else can explain it.


I completely agree, however I await a TBM poster to contemplate such a conclusion....

_________________
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Philo Sofee and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group