(Filed under humor, sarcasm, lest Poe’s Law befall me.)

John Dehlin recently posted an appeal to the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, attempting to overturn the earlier decision of his Stake President and High Council to excommunicate him. Read about his excommunication here

The First Presidency are kindly, elderly gentlemen whose time would be much better spent mowing the lawns of widows and helping kittens cross the street, so I have taken the liberty of providing a response that, I think, will meet with their approval.

You can read the full text of John’s appeal post online here. In it John lays out 10 points that support his assertion that “the decision to excommunicate me was not justified substantively.” He also includes a legal-type brief, composed by two Lawyers, in support of his claim. I would like to present a response to each of his points:

Point 1 – Expressing Doubts

” LDS Church members should not be excommunicated for publicly expressing doubts.”

It’s nice that you think that. Your accompanying legal-ish brief makes the point that the top 15 get to determine things like that. You don’t. Your complaint here is your opinion, but that’s all it is.

Members can have doubts. They just can’t express them. Deal with it.

Point 2 – Pre-determined Outcome

” President King decided that a disciplinary council should be convened before having ever met me, without showing any pastoral concern”

Normal men might remind themselves that unfounded suspicions and assumptions should be investigated and confirmed by an extensive exploration of verifiable facts. Not so with Bishops and Stake Presidents. It’s called the “Spirit of Discernment™” and they have it in spades. It’s what sets these men apart from the plebeian masses in the chapel pews. If you understood the mantle and power given to the men over you, you wouldn’t make this complaint.

He didn’t need to show pastoral concern with you because his Spirit of Discernment™ told him that you were already past saving. The fact that you made an appeal to his inspired decision is proof of that. Some men are never satisfied, usually because they are wicked.

Point 3 – Lack of Evidence

“The Stake President provided no evidence during the disciplinary council demonstrating that I met the Church’s criteria for apostasy.”

See “Spirit of Discernment™”

Point 4 – Holland Approves

“Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland has stated publicly that members of the Church should not be excommunicated for not believing that the Book of Mormon is historical…”

You weren’t excommunicated for not believing the Book of Mormon is historical. You were excommunicated for expressing that disbelief. See point 1.

Point 5 – No Defenders in Court

“Church Policy was not followed in my disciplinary council, with the result that the process was flawed and unfair…”

Here you claim one-half of the High Council is required “to stand up in behalf of the accused, and prevent insult and injustice” (D&C 102:17) and that that didn’t happen. The High Council members didn’t speak? That is proof that no “insult or injustice” took place. They would have gladly stood up and spoke out if an insult was given or an unjust decision was made. Since they didn’t say a peep, that should tell you that everything was above board. Shame on you for accusing them of being derelict in their duty. If you weren’t already excommunicated, this would be grounds for doing it again.

Point 6 – Unfair Evidence

“Unfair collection of evidence.”

Boo hoo. Didn’t your mother ever tell you that life is unfair? “Evidence” need only be collected for the purpose of showing you how effective and powerful the Spirit of Discernment™ possessed by the Stake President is. Evidence that you believe to be faulty or nonsupporting of the Spirit of Discernment’s™ pre-determined outcome would only serve to plant doubt in the minds of people in regards to the legitimacy of this power, and by extension the legitimacy of the church. That would make the Stake President guilty of apostasy. You wouldn’t want the Stake President to join you in your slow but inevitable descent into perdition, would you?

Point 7 – Selective Quotes

“The stake president intentionally used outdated and highly selective quotes in his evidence against me.”

When members use outdated quotes from old church leaders to try to convict the church of being false – they are in error. They do not have the Spirit of Discernment™ to know when those men were speaking as men and when they were speaking as prophets and revelators. The men who hold disciplinary councils on members DO have the Spirit of Discernment™ – so they are able to know which of your old statements reflect how you really feel, deep down inside. Those old statements are just brief glimpses into the real you. It is the real you that is on trial in the court of love – not the cleaned up version of you that you have been crafting and polishing in your deceitful and deceptive ways.

Point 8 – Unclear Reasons

“The stake president has not been publicly forthright about the reasons for the disciplinary council…”

Yeah? Well you were deceptive by recording those statements after your Stake President told you that he didn’t want to see his words on the subject out in print. It didn’t matter that your actions were legal. It didn’t matter that you had seen other examples where leaders had denied or distorted the contents of these interviews to protect the church. Since you acted with deception, the Stake President was only acting defensively. It really sounds like you are butt-hurt for being caught dishonestly recording the session with the honorable Stake President. You should downplay this point in the future.

“Via an LDS Church spokesman, the Church contributed to misinformation about the reasons behind the disciplinary council, and violated the Church’s own policy regarding not commenting on disciplinary councils”

You remember President Dallin H. Oaks talk about only telling the truth that you have a duty to reveal? Well every time in the past that we have said that “we don’t comment on disciplinary councils” was just the part of the truth that we had a duty to tell at the time.

The full truth would add the statement “…unless it would really help the reputation of the church in doing so.”

So really there is no foul here. You just confirmed that you have no Spirit of Discernment™, because you clearly didn’t know this. I bet your bishop and Stake President know it.

P.S. There may be yet more to this truth that we don’t have a duty to reveal at this time – you never can tell. Just sayin’.

Point 10 – Church Should Repent

“Instead of putting doubting Church members on trial, the LDS Church should do more to make amends for the way it has handled its history and policies.”

There you go – trying to set church policy and doctrine again. Remember, your own supporting legalistic brief states that it is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles alone who have that privilege. President Uchtdorf wants you to live up to the level of your privilege – not above it. You seem to be saying the church needs to repent. No. You do.

Conclusion

Have you ever heard the expression “Canary in a Coal Mine”? Some people might think that “Canary in a Coal Mine” refers to bringing in a helpful friend who would be the first to die, warning all the other coal miners that there are toxic fumes that need to be avoided, lest everyone else perish in the worst way possible.

Those people are wrong.

It refers to the olden times when people really hated Canaries because they were noisy and kept people awake and pooped all over the place. They were disgusting and made people feel bad about themselves. So to try to solve that problem, coal miners would take the canaries with them into the deep dark coal mines in the hope that the noxious fumes would kill the canaries in a messy fashion, so that the miners wouldn’t get their own hands dirty by doing the deed themselves. This would also send a message to all the other Canaries that they had better shape up or they would be liable to share the same fate.

You are a “Canary in a Coal Mine” John.