John Dehlin Stake President update 8/23/14

[_Mayan Elephant]

So what do you think would have happened if he didn't resign his membership?

exactly what did happen - because he didn't resign his membership. no excommunication and no council.

[_Mayan Elephant]

If you can show me where the well established rules are that the sp is relying on, then I'll admit he's imposing conditions rather than threats.

Sorry, the CHI is not "well-established rules" for members;

well excuse me for missing the moving goal posts. very clever of you.

before i miss the kick again, can you please tell me exactly what it is you are asking and suggesting? i understand the chi is not public, but i would hardly call it clandestine protocol. but for the sake of argument, lets say the stake president has a clandestine protocol for exerting his power, do you think he did not act in accordance with the clandestine protocol?

or, are you suggesting that mormonstories thought he was following the rules and the stake president moved the goal posts, like you did?

[_suniluni2]

well excuse me for missing the moving goal posts. very clever of you.

before i miss the kick again, can you please tell me exactly what it is you are asking and suggesting? i understand the chi is not public, but i would hardly call it clandestine protocol. but for the sake of argument, lets say the stake president has a clandestine protocol for exerting his power, do you think he did not act in accordance with the clandestine protocol?

or, are you suggesting that mormonstories thought he was following the rules and the stake president moved the goal posts, like you did?

I'm asking how can he (or anyone else for that matter) be subject to rules that aren't well established. It's that simple. How can they be well-established when only leadership has access to them? (well, supposed to have access) These are rules for members, aren't they? If this involved adultery, then yes, I'd say that is a well established rule. I don't see how you can admit the chi is not public, but not that it's clandestine. Maybe there's a middle ground there that I'm missing.

I have no idea what ms thought. I don't think the sp moved the goal posts, it's just arbitrary where they are at any time given the uncertainty on what is and isn't doctrine.

[_suniluni2]

So what do you think would have happened if he didn't resign his membership?

exactly what did happen - because he didn't resign his membership. no excommunication and no council.

Yes, you and cwalt are correct, and I'm wrong here. I got ahead of myself. We'll see how long that lasts if ms doesn't cave. I, and maybe others- I can't remember- believed that this would not end well for ms if he doesn't give in.

Do you really believe that there will not be a council or excommunication if status quo continues? If that happens, I'll join what's-his-name in the other thread and start nut-hugging ms and proclaiming his mojo.

[_Bazooka]

If you can show me where the well established rules are that the sp is relying on, then I'll admit he's imposing conditions rather than threats.

Sorry, the CHI is not "well-established rules" for members;

well excuse me for missing the moving goal posts. very clever of you.

before i miss the kick again, can you please tell me exactly what it is you are asking and suggesting? i understand the chi is not public, but i would hardly call it clandestine protocol. but for the sake of argument, lets say the stake president has a clandestine protocol for exerting his power, do you think he did not act in accordance with the clandestine protocol?

or, are you suggesting that mormonstories thought he was following the rules and the stake president moved the goal posts, like you did?

Perhaps the question ought to be, what is in the CHI for Stake Presidents that is both material to the situation but which mormonstories as a member would have been unaware?

[_Spanner]

In case it wasn't obvious, I am a woman and a feminist. I have little tolerance for anybody trivializing or exploiting the existence of real discrimination. But all women don't march in lockstep, and have different views on many matters.

[_suniluni2]

Perhaps the question ought to be, what is in the CHI for Stake Presidents that is both material to the situation but which mormonstories as a member would have been unaware?

He would have been unaware that his conduct violated the "rules" in the CHI. (I guess I should note that I'm treating ms as a "chapel" member, which I don't believe he is. In other words I'm making this argument out of principle but recognize ms probably has read the CHI.)

[_Bazooka]

Perhaps the question ought to be, what is in the CHI for Stake Presidents that is both material to the situation but which mormonstories as a member would have been unaware?

He would have been unaware that his conduct violated the "rules" in the CHI. (I guess I should note that I'm treating ms as a "chapel" member, which I don't believe he is. In other words I'm making this argument out of principle but recognize ms probably has read the CHI.)

What rule in the CHI do you think he violated but which he would (as a member) have been unaware of?

[_suniluni2]

He would have been unaware that his conduct violated the "rules" in the CHI. (I guess I should note that I'm treating ms as a "chapel" member, which I don't believe he is. In other words I'm making this argument out of principle but recognize ms probably has read the CHI.)

What rule in the CHI do you think he violated but which he would (as a member) have been unaware of?

As a member he would have been unaware of any rule.

[_Bazooka]

As a member he would have been unaware of any rule.

That's not correct.

For instance this....

Formal Church Discipline
On the other hand, the spirit of inspiration may move the Church leader to convene a disciplinary council, particularly if the member holds a prominent position in the Church.

In the scriptures, the Lord has given direction concerning Church disciplinary councils. (See D&C 102.) The word council brings to mind a helpful proceeding—one of love and concern, with the salvation and blessing of the transgressor being the foremost consideration.

Members sometimes ask why Church disciplinary councils are held. The purpose is threefold: to save the soul of the transgressor, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard the Church’s purity, integrity, and good name.

The First Presidency has instructed that disciplinary councils must be held in cases of murder, incest, or apostasy. A disciplinary council must also be held when a prominent Church leader commits a serious transgression, when the transgressor is a predator who may be a threat to other persons, when the person shows a pattern of repeated serious transgressions, when a serious transgression is widely known, and when the transgressor is guilty of serious deceptive practices and false representations or other terms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.

Disciplinary councils may also be convened to consider a member’s standing in the Church following serious transgression such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing.

Disciplinary councils are not called to try civil or criminal cases. The decision of a civil court may help determine whether a Church disciplinary council should be convened. However, a civil court’s decision does not dictate the decision of a disciplinary council.

Disciplinary councils are not held for such things as failure to pay tithing, to obey the Word of Wisdom, to attend church, or to receive home teachers. They are not held because of business failure or nonpayment of debts. They are not designed to settle disputes among members. Nor are they held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action.

https://www.LDS.org/ensign/1990/09/a-ch ... s?lang=eng

...is publicly available information about the rules.