As reported by the Ordain Women website.
Over on his Facebook page, John Dehlin is begging, “Someone send me a banner/image that I erect on FB to express my mourning for, and solidarity with Kate Kelly.”
How’s this for a banner/image, John?
John Dehlin, ladies and gentlemen; promoting gender sensitivity and awareness since 2005.
Then there’s this gem from Dehlin’s Facebook page, which he quickly deleted. I wonder why.
Dehlin wonders “who’s next”? I’ll tell you who, John–––people who use idiotic and shameful hashtags like “monsonhasdimentia.”
[For more on this, see my latest post here.]
11 thoughts on “The Results of Kate Kelly’s Disciplinary Council”
I wonder what is more shameful?
1. a comment someone wrote in anger and then deleted 7 minutes later, or
2. a highly intelligent blogger who stoops to dig through deleted facebook messages to find dirt to smear the man, which he then copies and pastes on his blog.
believe it or not, at this point, we are all 'saints', and such divisive language on both parties is entirely unacceptable. Oddly enough, all of us are the 'lord's anointed', and there is no real difference evil speaking of the prophet or evil speaking of each other.
Oh, I don't have to go to Facebook to find Dehlin repeating this claim. When asked by Doug Fabrizio a few weeks ago if there is a possible "power vacuum" in the leadership of the Church, and that's what led to this disciplinary action against him and Kate Kelly, Dehlin responded,
"Yeah, I'm cousins with Ezra Taft Benson, and September 1993 when the September Six happened, there was a power vacuum. It's well known that he was not able to lead the Church. He died the year after. And I've had many people, you know I think it's fair for us to ask 'is President Monson doing okay?' I've heard many people report some form of dementia or alzheimer's, and you know the Church is so powerful today, that if it makes a misstep it can wreck havoc in the lives of individual families and in the Church as a whole. So I think as the Church has become a multi-billion dollar global corporation, can it afford to continue to having 80 or even 90 year old men be in charge of the Church, when if their health goes awry it can create a power vacuum. I'm speculating, but given the pattern here I think it's a fair question to ask."
Sorry, I just don't buy that this was some fluke he spouted in a "fit of anger." Dehlin has been pushing this narrative already for some time. His Facebook post is just the latest incident.
Here's part of a comment I left on the program.
Is [Dehlin] serious? Is this the level of intellectual discourse he is capable of? He is repeating groundless hearsay (literally: "I've heard many people report") and speculation ("I'm speculating," he says later) and tries to pass it off as some sort of profound, legitimate point to raise or consider because of some alleged "pattern" of past leaders being incapacitated during volatile situations involving high-profile disciplinary actions.
Seriously, this sort of conspiracy is just as nonsensical as the "rouge Church PR department" conspiracy that Kate Kelly and her followers perpetuated after Church PA came down on Ordain Women. And it's frankly insulting, both to the leadership of the Church and to all of those listening to the program, that Dehlin would try to use this as some kind of excuse as to why he's facing Church discipline. "Oh, it's those nasty GAs like Elder Oaks who must be calling the shots because President Monson has Alzheimer's, or so I've heard from others. But I'm just speculating here."
It reeks of desperation, and I think reveals that Dehlin, and his followers who perpetuated his narrative, will grasp at any possible straws rather than claim responsibility for his words and actions over the years that led him to this disciplinary council.
If Dehlin were to ever publicly renounce this hearsay about President Monson's mental health and apologize for perpetuating it, then I'd remove this post. But until then, I'm not letting him off the hook so easily. He needs to be held accountable for the things he says publicly, including the questionable hearsay he keeps promoting.
is there something wrong with Dehlin's accurate observation that when the prophet gets old in our church, that the leadership qualities we saw when younger no longer exist? Was he wrong about the status of Ezra Taft Benson?
At this point, the First Presidency uniquely had the opportunity, granted to them in the Church Handbook of Instructions, recent edition, to take a leadership role on the Kate Kelly excommunication. Instead, the PR arm of the first presidency prevaricated saying that it was strictly a local issue, which was false on several levels. Remember that PR reports ONLY to the First Presidency, and bear in mind that within 24 hours, numerous bona-fide reports came out showing the Elders Ballard and Clayton (of the 70) were involved in meetings where OrdainWomen was declared an apostate organization. And given the specific statement that the First Presidency is responsible for ALL church discipline and can make any call it wants, it kind of renders the "only a local issue" a complete lie.
Given what appears to be a complete lack of leadership and accountability from the first presidency, one has to wonder why. I deeply love President Monson, and always have. I am amazed at the spiritual depth of the first presidency. But that doesn't change my view that in this case, leadership was necessary and leadership was found wanting.
The leadership could simply have had a meeting with Kate and her leadership and explained that yes, we have considered their issues, and as prophets seers and revelators, the lord has not given us the go ahead to ordain women. Until he does, we will do our best to address the concerns you have laid out.
How hard would that have been?
Instead, they have the PR department meet at length with a brand-new "Mormon Women Stand" organization, led by a woman who thinks the movie "Frozen" is completely evil and a propaganda scheme for the gay agenda. Is Kathryn Scaggs a suitable role model for what LDS women aspire to be today?
Under GBH, PR found its heyday — he was a master of it. At this point, we are losing ground because that same leadership is not there.
Did Dehlin react poorly? Yes. I have discussed this him already. Were Dehlin's speculations in your above quote inappropriate? I don't think so, because it states a clear fact associated with a gerontocracy: that in the dotard years, leadership languishes. Inside information I have says that Pres Monson does have health issues and doesn't take care of himself as well as he could. Dementia? no. But without the energy and vibrancy he once had, naturally, leadership languishes.
Finally, I have to ask you guys, why do you want to judge Dehlin so harshly? In what place do you have to determine whether he is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'? I'm relatively close to what is going on here, and can assure you that we aren't talking about conspiracy, but rather, simply the characteristics of the organization as we see it.
I'm not going to comment on the wild conspiracy you and others have tried to perpetuated with regard to who was behind Kelly's excommunication. I've heard it before, and I remain totally unconvinced that your case, at best, is highly tenuous. Instead, I want to focus on Dehlin.
"Were Dehlin's speculations in your above quote inappropriate?"
Yes! In almost every imaginable way.
1. It's pure hearsay. Dehlin has furnished no credible sources for this claim he keeps making about President Monson's health.
2. Even if these rumors were true, it's nobody's damn business. President Monson is entitled to the same privacy afforded to everyone else with regard to his health. The details of his health are between him, his family, his physician, and anyone he cares to share them with. Nobody else.
3. The intent behind why Dehlin keeps repeating this is particularly offensive. He's trying to use it to shore up the credibility of his "power vacuum" conspiracy. He's trying to say, basically, "Well, the Brethren wouldn't dare discipline me, because I'm some great guy who's friends with Elder Holland. So there must be some rogue apostle trying to fill some 'power vacuum' with his influence against me, because Monson has dementia."
In almost every way I can think it's highly inappropriate and offensive that Dehlin keeps this rumor going.
"it states a clear fact associated with a gerontocracy: that in the dotard years, leadership languishes."
I will thank you not to use such inflammatory language about the Brethren on my blog. Take it to Mormon Discussions if you want.
"Inside information I have says that Pres Monson does have health issues and doesn't take care of himself as well as he could."
Bah! There it is again. What sources? Who? His doctor? His daughter? His secretary's friend's nephew? Who? You're just perpetuating the hearsay.
So is Dehlin lying? Or are his sources lying? If your sources say no, but his say yes, then whom should I trust?
"Finally, I have to ask you guys, why do you want to judge Dehlin so harshly?"
Speaking only for myself, I feel Dehlin has gotten away with way too much for way too long. His passive aggressive (and sometimes explicate) anti-Mormonism and his attempts to undermine the teachings of the Brethren on morality and a host of other issues come to the front of my mind. I feel strongly that people, especially members of the Church, need to alerted to the fruits of his work: less faith in the core, fundamental truth claims of Restoration, less confidence in the Brethren, less confidence in keeping and making commandments, particularly the Law of Chastity, etc.
"I'm relatively close to what is going on here, and can assure you that we aren't talking about conspiracy, but rather, simply the characteristics of the organization as we see it."
I hope you'll forgive me if I find such claims from some anonymous bloke on the Internet hard to put muck stock in.
Oh, I worded this wrong.
"I've heard it before, and I remain totally unconvinced that your case, at best, is highly tenuous."
"I've heard it before, and I remain totally convinced that your case, at best, is highly tenuous.
Contrary to your baldfaced lies on Mormon Discussions, I have not banned you or blocked you from commenting on my blog. You're free to continue to commenting if you'd like.
Friend, thrice in as many days you have reacted in judgment to what I have posted. When I referred to the LDS leadership model as a "gerontocracy", I used a formal term where the leaders of the Church are guaranteed to be in the 70s through 90s, thus the very definition of "gerontocracy". Gerontocracies are said to ensure that the wisdom that comes from age are part of the church leadership. The term is not inflammatory, regardless of your opinion to the contrary.
Likewise, I was unable to post a reply on your website, and I *assumed* that you blocked me. You accused me of a "baldfaced lie". I meant neither disrespect, nor did I prevaricate. I assumed something, and if this posts, I obviously assumed incorrectly.
The above two examples are why, when you put yourself in judgment of others, you neither have the emotional maturity or wisdom to make a righteous judgment. You do not have the place to judge me, John Dehlin, nor anyone else. That is the role of the specific leader called and ordained to do so.
My purpose in responding to you is to help you and others realize the damage that is done to all of us when we judge each other. Do the wrongs of the disaffected mormon underground justify the persecution by those like you who set themselves up as interpreters of mormon scripture? A pox on both houses — none of us are free from guilt or sin in these matters.
"When I referred to the LDS leadership model as a "gerontocracy", I used a formal term where the leaders of the Church are guaranteed to be in the 70s through 90s, thus the very definition of "gerontocracy". Gerontocracies are said to ensure that the wisdom that comes from age are part of the church leadership. The term is not inflammatory, regardless of your opinion to the contrary."
You're not fooling anyone, friend. The way in which you used the term, complete with indications that the Brethren must be in their "dotard" years, was inflammatory. And don't pretend like those chaps that you cohort with at Mormon Discussions don't have the same attitude towards those "dotards" at Church headquarters.
"Likewise, I was unable to post a reply on your website, and I *assumed* that you blocked me. You accused me of a "baldfaced lie"."
Well, when you say twice in the same post that "i just had a couple of exchanges with Steven Smoot on his blog, after which he has blocked me posting," and then "at this point, I was blocked from replying," yes, I'm going to call you out for lying. If you had said "I assume he blocked me," that'd be different. But you didn't. You asserted it as a fact. A "fact" that was, in reality, a falsehood.
Now that you've indicated that you were just (wrongly) assuming something, I take back my accusation of your dishonesty and apologize.
"The above two examples are why, when you put yourself in judgment of others, you neither have the emotional maturity or wisdom to make a righteous judgment."
Your low opinion of my judgement skills and maturity is noted.
"You do not have the place to judge me, John Dehlin, nor anyone else. That is the role of the specific leader called and ordained to do so."
So am I not allowed to have an opinion about John Dehlin or his activities? Am I not allowed to comment on or observe or otherwise share my opinions?
"Do the wrongs of the disaffected mormon underground justify the persecution by those like you who set themselves up as interpreters of mormon scripture?"
You seriously think that I am "persecuting" John Dehlin and other dissenters because I have strong disagreements with them and want to call them out on their antics? Truly bizarre.
If Wayfaring Fool, whom I pity, extended a tenth the compassionate benefit of the doubt to the Brethren as he does to Dehlin (because it's fine to publicly spread reprehensible hearsay if you're _angry_), then we'd all be singing Kumbaya Ye Saints together around a dish of funeral potatoes. Fool, you view the world through a cynical gauze that you mistake for realism.
honestly, i don't need your pity. I have said nothing negative or untrue about the brethren. You don't know me, therefore you're in a very poor position to judge.
This is the problem I'm trying to address: judgment without calling, insight, or knowledge is not only folly, it may be considered 'unrighteous judgment'. Yes I am guilt of this and so are we all.
Dehlin talks nonsense on occasion. He would readily admit that. I know him well, and I have measured his intent. Have you taken the time to understand him personally before you have made a summary categorical judgment?
Have you gotten to know me before condescendingly offer 'pity'?
Comments are closed.