The New Passive Dissent -- "Mormonstories"

[Libs]

I've listened to John's podcasts along with the Mormon Expression podcast over the years and when all is said and done I think that it is reasonable to take the approach that if the church is true, then there is nothing to worry about. Truth will rise triumphant. But OTOH, I think that with a sense of balance it is also appropriate to consider the question, "If the church isn't true, wouldn't you want to know?" The prophet Joseph Smith said that it is through the proving of contraries that truth is made manifest. President Hinckley said not long before he passed away that either mormonism is truth restored or it is a fraud. In General Conference no less. John Dehlin has provided an avenue of exploration by which an individual may weigh things in the balance and then ask themselves, "Is it TRUE?" or "Is it false?".

Those on this thread that condemn John and call him a wolf among the flock may be right...if the church is indeed True. But, the truth is, there are many people that look at thorny issues in mormonism as a necessary part of the path of exploration to make an educated choice unmarred by omission of information. These folks look at his work as being a natural outgrowth of a church that has a readable and recent history, but has been less than forthcoming to the general church membership concerning those things, that when known, cause one ask questions about historicity, truth, honesty and so on.

The possible harm, if there is any, is when one limits their source of information to only biased sources at either end of the spectrum. If a person who questions the truth claims of the LDS church gains all of their "inspiration" and information simply through listening to Dehlin's podcasts but fails to do their own thinking, their own praying, their own studying, their own introspection as to what does or doesn't make sense to them, they are likely to make an unbalanced decision. Same thing holds true if a person fails to do their own thinking, own praying, and so on, in response to hearing the correlated version of the mormon story whether from the missionaries, the church auxilaries, or teachings received in an orthodox LDS home while growing up.

Balance seems to be a worthy goal as the mormon story is put out there for public consumption. I think that Elder Jensen and others in church leadership are getting on board in this respect.

Mormon Stories and John Dehlin have been providing an important avenue of exploration that up to this time hasn't been as readily available. The conversation is ongoing, but only because there is a wider spectrum of information now accessable in the public domain.

Regards,

MG

Excellent post, MG. I very much agree that John has filled a void in that place, in between, where so many people have been living and honestly questioning. People like John Dehlin (and I have to include Michael Ash and his book Shaken Faith Syndrome) gave me hope and a reason to keep trying. And, even though I did, eventually leave, I so much appreciated those safe places to explore, away from critics on both sides.

It is really disturbing to see John characterized as "a sheep in wolves clothing" or some such. He is not trying to "steal" anyone out of the church.

[DeeAnn]

Excellent post, MG. I very much agree that John has filled a void in that place, in between, where so many people have been living and honestly questioning. People like John Dehlin (and I have to include Michael Ash and his book Shaken Faith Syndrome) gave me hope and a reason to keep trying. And, even though I did, eventually leave, I so much appreciated those safe places to explore, away from critics on both sides.

It is really disturbing to see John characterized as "a sheep in wolves clothing" or some such. He is not trying to "steal" anyone out of the church.

I don't know what his real intentions are, but when I listened to his podcast with Michael Coe, I was very frustrated. It seemed that John was either very misinformed or he was purposely trying to lead the discussions so that someone would discount the Book of Mormon. I actually felt sorry for Dr. Coe because all the arguments he was using and John was readily supplying and agreeing with, were debunked ages ago. It's like they'd gone back to the 70's and were rehashing all the issues from that period.

Maybe John fills a void for those who are doubting, but he's definitely not leading them back to the church. And for someone like me, who is a staunch believer in the church, it's hard to trust someone like that.

[Libs]

John has already said, he has made many mistakes. Who hasn't? Plus, he has already made it clear that he is not trying to "lead" anyone in or out of the church. I haven't seen the Coe interview - I don't watch all of them, so I don't know anything about that. I've never seen John claim to be any kind of authority on the Book of Mormon, though.

For me, it's not a matter of "trust", at least, not trusting him as the final word or authority on the church (or on anything, for that matter). I don't think most people look to John for answers. It is about his openness and willingness to allow people to question and explore without judgment...people on both sides of the issue, not just those who agree with him. There are tons of critics out there who will "steal the sheep" without batting an eye (because they believe the LDS church is satanic)...John is most certainly not in that category and deserves respect, in large part, because he always gives it, whether you agree with him or not.

Edit: John's "StayLDS, actually, did encourage me, for awhile, to try and stay in the church.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Libs

[mentalgymnast]

We have been warned about this:

http://www.latterday...e-not-deceived/

Ezra T. Benson said,

“The Church,” says President McKay, “is little, if at all, injured by persecution and calumnies from ignorant, misinformed, or malicious enemies.” (The Instructor, February 1956, p. 33.)

"It is from within the Church that the greatest hindrance comes. And so, it seems, it has been. Now the question arises, will we stick with the kingdom and can we avoid being deceived? Certainly this is an important question, for the Lord has said that in the last days the devil will “rage in the hearts of . . . men,” (2 Nephi 28:20) and if it were possible he shall “deceive the very elect.” (See Joseph Smith 1:5-37.)

“The adversary,” said Brigham Young, “presents his principles and arguments in the most approved style, and in the most winning tone, attended with the most graceful attitudes; and he is very careful to ingratiate himself into the favour of the powerful and influential of mankind, uniting himself with popular parties, floating into offices of trust and emolument by pandering to popular feeling, though it should seriously wrong and oppress the innocent. Such characters put on the manners of an angel, appearing as nigh like angels of light as they possibly can, to deceive the innocent and the unwary. The good which they do, they do it to bring to pass an evil purpose upon the good and honest followers of Jesus Christ.” (JD 11, 238-239.)

"Those of us who think “. . . all is well in Zion . . .” (2 Nephi 28:21) in spite of Book of Mormon warning might ponder the words of Heber C. Kimball when he said, “Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills . . . but I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God. Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming.” (Heber C. Kimball, 1856. Quoted by J. Golden Kimball, Conference Report, October 1930, pp. 59-60.)"

This is all fine and good if one is inside of the box of orthodox mormonism and accepts these quotes from "stalwarts" in the faith as being unassailable. And the fact is, they are unassailable within the context of the time and place in which they were spoken because for all intents and purposes they may have been referring to only their time or a few years into the future, because that is what they knew. Then again, they may not have been referring to their time and they were prophesying ten years down the road, or fifty years, or a hundred years...but we don't know that to be a fact although we can choose to see it that way. We can imagine that they're referring to us in 2012 or 2015 or 2020. So in a sense, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Gee whiz, Joseph Smith had it revealed to him that he might be around to see the second coming of the Savior if he could live to a certain age. Was he thinking of this revelation when he and his brother were riding away from Nauvoo heading west just before he returned back across the river to subject himself to the martyrdom? Who knows? The fact is, Joseph saw the possibility of the Savior's second coming within his lifetime. So did the saints after they settled in Utah. So it's all relative. We see what we think/want see because of our own cultural conditioning, experience, etc.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that these quotes may not be decribing our day. But to draw the correlation by connecting the dots through time beyond the then and there and the here and now gets rather fuzzy.

I think you are directing these quotes to folks such as John Dehlin. But, I don't see how you can do this in the absolute sense, knowing for a fact that you are right, although I can see how you would come to think that this is so while thinking within the box that you've constructed for yourself. But the fact is, it's possible that these guys are whistling Dixie (for us) and they're just saying stuff that was "hands on" for their time. They had a lot of opposition going on in their own time and place directly applicable/associated with what they were prophecying about and concerned with. If you've read this book:

http://www.gregkofford.com/products/this-is-my-doctrine

you're probably aware that there's a bunch of proof texting going on from one generation to the next. If you're as old as I'm getting to be, you probably can remember going to seminary back in the late sixties and early seventies and being convinced that the second coming and all of the associated prophecies were just around the corner as we marched towards the year 2000.

It becomes a matter of faith or conjecture, at least as far as I can see, for you to pin down these quotes you've posted to a direct and pointed prophecy to our specific time and place rather than the time and place (or shortly thereafter) in which they were given.

But again, you may be right. These quotes may be pointed directly at John Dehlin and his compadres. But then again, maybe not. A lot of stuff to muddle through between there and here, now and then.

Regards,

MG

[Bill Hamblin]

Everyone needs to realize that Dehlin, by his own public admission, does not believe in God. He rejects Jesus and the Atonement, he believes Joseph Smith was a fraud and the Book of Mormon a forgery. He is, quite clearly, a MINO (Mormon in Name Only). This, of course, does not necessarily make him a bad person.

What is problematic are his claims that he is objective, unbiased, and simply wants to tell the truth. (Anyone who makes such claims should be immediately inherently suspect.) Dehlin's pretense to be a thoughtful Mormon who is simply searching for the truth and asking questions is simply preposterous. Undoubtedly it was true at one point years ago, but it is clearly no longer the case. He can, of course, believe whatever he wants to believe, and say what he wants to say. That's fine with me. But why the pretense? Why not just forthrightly and clearly say what he really believes?

But what is most disquieting is his recent attempt to suppress and censor the publication of an article that is critical of his activities. His behavior in this regard is absolutely shocking. This is, quite simply, reprehensible and utter hypocritical. I object in the strongest way possible to this type of censorship. And anti-Mormons do it all the time. Signature Books tried to sue FARMS. They did it to Schryver, and Dehlin doing it again. Why does he object to the publication of an article, even if it is fundamentally flawed or completely wrong-headed. Let it be published and respond to it. If Dehlin has any intellectual integrity, he would not engage in this type of censorship. It is both immoral, pointless, and counter-productive. After all, its going to come out on the web eventually, no doubt with a lengthy appendix explaining how Dehlin tried to censor it.

(He is also woefully ignorant on very basic issues regarding Church history and the Book of Mormon as many of his podcasts amply demonstrate--but that is a different matter.)

At any rate, I'm off to Ireland for a month. I simply want to make a strong public stand against such behavior before I go.

[Log]

At any rate, I'm off to Ireland for a month. I simply want to make a strong public stand against such behavior before I go.

I guess the Emerald Isle has no internet access. I would love to see the article of which you speak.

[Daniel Peterson]

It remains my policy not to publicly discuss the background of editorial and personnel decisions. But I think I should say that Bill Hamblin's brief account of the immediate background of l'affaire Smith-Dehlin, above, is correct.

I say this simply because I've noticed that others elsewhere, who don't actually know the back story (and who, by their own admission, haven't read the article in question), are deriding Bill for getting it wrong. He hasn't.

[CA Steve]

It seems strange that all by himself he is able to stop the publication of an article like this.

[Daniel Peterson]

If you want the full story, I'm afraid you'll have to go elsewhere. (See my brief policy statement, above.) They may well not know what they're talking about, but they can go on for twenty pages or more telling you all the details -- and, along with their narrative, you get passionate moral commentary and lots of eloquent condemnations of The Bad Guys, at no extra charge..

[Bill Hamblin]

I guess the Emerald Isle has no internet access. I would love to see the article of which you speak.

I'm sure they do. Just not in the types of places I can afford to stay in. Besides, why should I go to Ireland to play on the internet?

[Log]

Tru dat. Well, I hear the locals piss on the Blarney stone, so watch where you put your lips.

[BCSpace]

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.).

This alone brings me into agreement with Will characterization about leading sheep to the ambush. I have no problem "exploring" the history, the doctrine, and the culture, even critically (something that is against the guidelines and the effect of moderation on this board unfortunately). The problem is when it's done in a fashion that is automatically unbelieving. The assumption that it's not true is already there and the personal examples are often from those who are not active in Church and unwilling to serve which is an anti-testimony. The Church should never allow the issues to be approached from the position of unbelief and yellow journalism under it's own auspices. That side should come from nonmembers and ex LDS. Yes, I do agree that there should be another side; opposition in all things, parable of the Sower, etc.

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.

Well stated. However, there is a board, Dr Shades board, in which the pro LDS view is allowed to and would flourish if more LDS posted there (they could survive mentally and spiritually by ignoring the other stuff and/or posting in the Celestial forum). But otherwise, the antiLDS denizens there do sing the same tune and walk together in lockstep, steeped in boorish self-congratulations.

[Bill Hamblin]

It remains my policy not to publicly discuss the background of editorial and personnel decisions. But I think I should say that Bill Hamblin's brief account of the immediate background of l'affaire Smith-Dehlin, above, is correct.

I say this simply because I've noticed that others elsewhere, who don't actually know the back story (and who, by their own admission, haven't read the article in question), are deriding Bill for getting it wrong. He hasn't.

The people over at Bedlam are among the most full-of-**** morons I've ever seen. And that's the nice way to put it.

[Bill Hamblin]

It seems strange that all by himself he is able to stop the publication of an article like this.

The world is a strange place. Very strange. But the fact that he tried to suppress the article doesn't mean that he will succeed. I'm sure you'll all get to read it eventually, one way or another.

I've got a copy, and it's a superb piece of work. I'm tempted to post it on the internet right now ... But I have to go pack for Ireland. Erin go Braugh!

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm certainly not going to disagree with either of Bill's posts above.

Sure would like to go to Ireland, though. Never been there, but, as it happens, I'll be dropping in very briefly in July.

.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Bill Hamblin]

Tru dat. Well, I hear the locals piss on the Blarney stone, so watch where you put your lips.

I've kissed many strange things in my time, but lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine!

[Tarski]

But the fact that he tried to suppress the article doesn't mean that he will succeed. I'm sure you'll all get to read it eventually, one way or another.

What actions did he take to suppress exactly? By what power was he able to succeed thus far?

I've got a copy, and it's a superb piece of work. I'm tempted to post it on the internet right now

what stops you?

[Bill Hamblin]

What actions did he take to suppress exactly? By what power was he able to succeed thus far?

what stops you?

Ask him.

I didn't write it and don't have permission from the author to post it. Be patient.

[Storm Rider]

John has already said, he has made many mistakes. Who hasn't? Plus, he has already made it clear that he is not trying to "lead" anyone in or out of the church. I haven't seen the Coe interview - I don't watch all of them, so I don't know anything about that. I've never seen John claim to be any kind of authority on the Book of Mormon, though.

For me, it's not a matter of "trust", at least, not trusting him as the final word or authority on the church (or on anything, for that matter). I don't think most people look to John for answers. It is about his openness and willingness to allow people to question and explore without judgment...people on both sides of the issue, not just those who agree with him. There are tons of critics out there who will "steal the sheep" without batting an eye (because they believe the LDS church is satanic)...John is most certainly not in that category and deserves respect, in large part, because he always gives it, whether you agree with him or not.

Edit: John's "StayLDS, actually, did encourage me, for awhile, to try and stay in the church.

People claim many things, Libs; the problem lies in not what they say, but what they do. Having listened to his podcasts for a while I no longer listen. He is not asking questions, but his agenda has moved from discussion to leading to conclusions. Gentleness? If I listened to every gentle word and assumed it was going to lead me to green, peaceful pastures then I would be the fool that gladly took Satan's hand and gently walked down to hell.

I have no problem with questioning, discussion, or anything of the nature; I have a giant problem with attacking faith in the attempt to destroy it. I ignore his presentation and look at what actually happens. I reject his actions just as much as I reject those of many of the LDS Church's most sensational critics. As I have stated before, he is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing. I will trust his words when his actions follow them.

[Daniel Peterson]

What actions did he take to suppress exactly? By what power was he able to succeed thus far?

Ask the folks over at the Stalker's board.

They don't actually know, but, amidst much huffing and puffing and accompanied by lots of melodramatic attitudinizing, they'll tell you.

[Bond...James Bond]

The people over at Bedlam are among the most full-of-**** morons I've ever seen. And that's the nice way to put it.

I was asked to extend an invitation since many feel you'd fit in. I'll PM you the URL to Bedlam.

[Daniel Peterson]

I know you are, James, but what am I?

Neener neener neener.

And your mother wears army boots.

Etc.

Enjoy your board. Follow your bliss. Personally, I enjoy no longer posting there.

[Bond...James Bond]

I know you are, James, but what am I?

Oh my friends in Bedlam asked me to extend an invitation to you as well. All are welcome in Bedlam!

[Daniel Peterson]

But only a few truly wretched souls are likely to be comfortable in Bedlam, and to enjoy it.

[Pahoran]

I know you are, James, but what am I?

Neener neener neener.

And your mother wears army boots.

Etc.

Enjoy your board. Follow your bliss. Personally, I enjoy no longer posting there.

Speaking of the Sty...

Dan, you may be interested to know that the "disciple" mentioned in a recent blog post of yours has commented extensively upon your blog. He is waxing hot in his indignation, suggesting that your mention of him is "defamatory" and implies that he is mentally unstable. The poor fellow seems to have overlooked a couple of relevant points:

1) Just because he recognised himself as the "most vocal disciple" does not mean that others will, nor that they will connect his Internet activities with his real-life identity. Is it really possible to "defame" an Internet pseudonym?

2) A "sockpuppet" is a fictitious online persona, a cyber-ventriloquist's dummy. To say that a fictitious character exhibits whatever negative personality features does not ascribe those features to the author who created him/her/it. Thus, to say that a given sockpuppet may present as mentally disturbed says nothing about the actual mental state of his creator.

I also note that the "vocal disciple" seems unclear as to whether he is supposed to be the Malevolent Stalker's sockpuppet or the other way around; possibly because that permits him to milk his sense of grievance to the greatest extent. But it seems quite unambiguous to me.

Regards,

Pahoran