158 replies to this topic

[kolipoki09]

why me, on 08 May 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

I think that he attempted to do this with his first podcasts before his leave of absence. But now, I can't say that this is his agenda. I think that in his first podcasts (before his leave of absence) he also attempted to answer his own questions. The Blacks and the Priesthood podcast is an example of that. Also, his interview with Bushman among others. It shows a member who needed answers to his questions for the sake of their own testimony.

I think that his podcasts are different now.

You're probably right. When Mormon Stories was in its infancy, John regularly promoted ideas later formulated in his website, StayLDS.com. It should be noted that StayLDS also got some flak at a FAIR Conference a few years back, but I digress.

But some time in 2010 or possibly even earlier, John made the decision that "staying" in the Church isn't always the best option for some people. That's the impression he left me when volgadon and I had lunch with him that summer. So there's been a gradual moving away from the "why I stay" Mormonism to the "why I leave" kind of Mormonism. Some time last year, if I recall correctly, John was called in for a meeting with his Stake President (which caused quite a stir in the Mormon Stories community). As far as I am aware, no disciplinary action was taken (and I'm not going to claim there should be). What happens between John and his ecclesiastical leaders is something personal to him. I think the Church is likely aware of the potential backlash associated with disciplinary action being taken against (somewhat) public figures, so that might be a reason why there hasn't been a crack down on self-described "Middle-Way" Mormons in a while.

Though I really have no formal affiliation with John, he's certainly helped many people understand how faith is often a journey of sorts. I don't feel judged by him personally for being an active, believing Latter-day Saint, and in some ways he's helped me be more personally tolerant of others in their respective faith journeys. Obviously I'd rather see more people return to full fellowship, but that doesn't seem to be the case most of the time. It isn't uncommon for two people to approach the same piece of literature or scholarship and come away with two competing perspectives.

I can't say my faith is intact as it was when I was a missionary. Arrington, Bushman, Barney, Ostler, Faulconer, and several others have certainly molded that faith into something else - likely a much more postmodern view of things. I'm happy with that change. Others don't always make the transition as smoothly. For some, that turns into disbelief all together. After subbing a Primary class a few weeks ago with my wife, I'm still convinced that Mormonism is the right path for me. The little things that rang true to me as a child still ring true now. I'll readily admit that I haven't always been the best example. I've tripped up, stumbled, and even fallen on my face more than a few times. I wish Mormon Stories (as a community) was more welcoming of people who - when recognizing their imperfections with regard to faith - still happily stick around.

[Senator]

Peppermint Patty, on 08 May 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

Reading this OP has made me a little uncomfortable.  Nobody (except the Savior) is even remotely qualified to be passing judgement on someone's testimony/commitment to the Church.  I know for an absolute certainty, the Savior would not want us doing so.

Moving on..........

Well, Storm Rider is qualified.

And his assessment is.........that Dehlin is a tool of the Devil.

So, get comfortable with it.

Senator has left the building.

Edited by Minos, 09 May 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[William Schryver]

Four or five years ago John Dehlin and I engaged in a brief, but quite spirited discussion with each other on the predecessor to this message board.  He had objected to my having included his name in a group of individuals whom I characterized as "apostate evangelists".

At that time I argued that Dehlin (and his ideological cohorts) were what I termed "vegetarian wolves in sheep's clothing".  They don't want to actually rend flesh and sup blood themselves, but they're more than willing to guide unwitting sheep to the ambush.

Since that time, I have become increasingly convinced of the accuracy of my original characterization.

[Bob Crockett]

What I really don't like about Dehlin is that his revamped website doesn't work with the IPad Safari browser.    I thought he was a computer science geek.

Edited by Bob Crockett, 09 May 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[TAO]

Bob, I'm guessing that'd be a problem with the Safari browser, and not with his website.

[Senator]

Bob Crockett, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

... but do not endorse passive dissent in the church as particularly compelling way to criticize or bring change.

Is there such a thing as, "a particularly compelling way to criticize or bring change" in the church?

[DWhitmer]

Bob Crockett, on 08 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

It seems to me that if one wants to be a critic of the Church, then dagnabbit, just be a critic.  What's the big deal?

Yeah, what could go wrong: "I had to fear for my life" -guess

[Bob Crockett]

TAO, on 09 May 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Bob, I'm guessing that'd be a problem with the Safari browser, and not with his website.

Well, of course.  I'm being tongue in cheek.  But, not being a geek myself, I don't know how to get my iphone and ipad to open those  sites, I am used to listening/viewing them that way.

[wenglund]

Even given the best of intents, it is one thing to portend to steadying the ark. It is yet another to become somewhat hostile, agitated, and critical when one's ark-steadying isn't whole-heartedly and/or soon embraced by the Church and its leaders.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

John is not the least bit hostile...and I don't really see him as an "ark steadier".  He is a person who has suffered a loss of faith, and it has been very painful for him, as it has been for many of us.

[Xander]

Yeah, this doesn't sound like a cult at all.

What was all that talk about free thinking?

All I see is scary imagery of blood sucking wolves and disingenuous disloyalty.

You say you have nothing to fear from criticism or free thinking Mormons.... and then we get threads like these.

[Bob Crockett]

I have not condemned Dehlin for his being a critic.  I rather like his website.  I just wonder why he just doesn't spell out his criticisms or issues a little more clearly, and I further question why his website won't work on my Ipad.

[William Schryver]

Xander, on 09 May 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

... blood sucking wolves and disingenuous disloyalty.

If it is true that Greg Smith has written a critique of John Dehlin's seditious MormonStories apostate fifth-column movement, then I really look forward to its publication.  Greg is one of the finer thinkers/writers among 21st century LDS apologists, and seems consistently mindful of this ageless truth:

Quote

Alma 5


59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

[BCSpace]

Quote

At that time I argued that Dehlin (and his ideological cohorts) were what I termed "vegetarian wolves in sheep's clothing". They don't want to actually rend flesh and sup blood themselves, but they're more than willing to guide unwitting sheep to the ambush.

Since that time, I have become increasingly convinced of the accuracy of my original characterization.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the Church has within the last decade or so adopted a "wheat with the tares" stance with regards to this kind of thing.  I personally think it's very dangerous but I don't have the benefit of receiving revelation/inspiration for the whole Church/World.  The leadership is doing a very deft job of navigating the political waters and also maintaining the best possible reception for it's overall message and the missionaries.  When the times are right and the wheat is strong, the tares will be removed as the angels are indeed crying day and night for the harvest.

I am fairly certain that no doctrines are slated to "evolve" or be over turned.  Their presentation and packaging to the world will evolve though.  It really is an act of faith because of course, those in the leadership believe and have strong testimonies.  They believe that the teaching of the doctrine and living (and yes, even voting) by it will protect us and they fully believe and expect most members, if they do these things, will not be moved.  The Gospel, now more than ever, will be tried in our lives and found to be more than adequate to the task if one actually believes and follows the doctrine.  Unfortunately, as one can plainly see from this board alone (and the organization of "Noms" as evidenced by Dehlin), many otherwise strong members have succumbed to the lure of itching ears and if they don't actually teach it, they hope and pray for a different doctrine.  The elect are being deceived.  It's part of the process described in the scriptures (Parable of the Sower).

[mormonstories]

This is John.  I just want to briefly clarify what we consider our goals to be.

Non-goals:
1) To be dissenters
2) To criticize
3) To influence church leadership in order to effect change in the church
4) To persuade anyone to leave the church
5) To persuade anyone to stay in or join the church

Goals:

1) To explore, and to inform as many people as possible about the historical, doctrinal, and cultural complexities of Mormonism -- so that people can navigate their lives and relationships with the church in ways that are more fully informed.  Because traditional, active church membership requires so much of its members, and has such a significant impact on individuals and society, we believe that people deserve to be fully informed about the church before they make such decisions.  Since the church tends to focus more on the positive and correlated portions of Mormonism, we try to explore "the rest of the story."  We try to be as neutral as we can in our exploration, as evidenced by our willingness to interview both believing members (Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, Terrell Givens, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Charles Harrell, etc.) and non-believing members (Grant Palmer, Margaret and Paul Toscano, the McLays, Simon Southerton, etc.).  

2) To provide open forums for sharing and discussion regarding these tougher Mormon-related issues, where people will not be feel judged for their thoughts, feelings, experiences, or ultimate decisions regarding church affiliation.  If people decide to stay in the church: awesome.  If people decide to leave the church: that's totally their decision.

3) To provide resources and communities of support for people who are struggling with a Mormon-related transition, whether they be experiencing a faith transition, marital discord, mental health concerns, or struggling with their sexual orientation.  Ultimately our goal is to reduce Mormon-related depression, anxiety, familial strife, divorce, and suicide -- and to increase Mormon joy and happiness.

That's what we're trying to do, anyway -- though we make thousands of mistakes along the way.

But just to repeat -- dissent, criticism, organizational change, and causing people to leave or stay in the church are not even really on our roadmaps.

You can read more about our goals/objectives here: http://mormonstories.org/about/

Thanks for giving me the chance to respond.

[mormonstories]

Bob Crockett, on 09 May 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I have not condemned Dehlin for his being a critic.  I rather like his website.  I just wonder why he just doesn't spell out his criticisms or issues a little more clearly, and I further question why his website won't work on my Ipad.

Bob - I thought I fixed the iPad problem.  Can you check one more time?

[William Schryver]

mormonstories, on 09 May 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

"All the better to hug you with, my dear ..."

[why me]

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

John is not the least bit hostile...and I don't really see him as an "ark steadier".  He is a person who has suffered a loss of faith, and it has been very painful for him, as it has been for many of us.

I don't think that john is hostile. But he certainly has an agenda now. I think that John's loss of faith occurred years ago when he was doing his podcasts. He was seeking answers and had the opportunity to speak with faithful members about the issues that were troubling him. But unfortunately, these members did not have too much of an effect on him. And yet, his podcast about masonry and blacks and the priesthood were very good. Likewise for his several part interview with Bushman. But john drifted in the other direction.

Here is the problem with loss of faith: the church has not been proven false so any loss of faith must be based on a weak foundation and the question of 'what if' still remains. And there is the pain. Now if the church was proven false, I think that many people would be in shock...but the pain of 'what if' would not be there. It would be definite and one can begin the move on process without second guessing.

[why me]

mormonstories, on 09 May 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

  We try to be as neutral as we can in our exploration, as evidenced by our willingness to interview both believing members (Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy, Terrell Givens, Daniel Peterson, Brant Gardner, Charles Harrell, etc.) and non-believing members (Grant Palmer, Margaret and Paul Toscano, the McLays, Simon Southerton, etc.).  

Do you really believe that you are neutral? I am afraid that this is an impossibility since your own belief system must play a role in your questioning process with the people you are interviewing. In mormonism, nothing is neutral when it comes to a member, questioning member or exmember. All take sides and this is reflected in the interview.

[why me]

Xander, on 09 May 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Yeah, this doesn't sound like a cult at all.

What was all that talk about free thinking?

All I see is scary imagery of blood sucking wolves and disingenuous disloyalty.

You say you have nothing to fear from criticism or free thinking Mormons.... and then we get threads like these.

One sign that mormonism is not a cult is that the lds church has members such as these on this forum. Believing members are disagreeing with each other and have great debates. No cultish behavior here. In fact, it seems that the exmembers are living in a cult since most play the same tune on their violin. I see very little difference of thought on exmormon boards and the more prolds posts are deleted or the poster banned. Such is a cult.