David Bokovoy on Mormon Stories

[Calm]

5 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

 The LDS excommunicated  Quinn and yet David has views that a a really challenge to LDS orthodoxy.

You can't really compare Quinn's level of orthodoxy or lack of it to Bokovoy's due to the added complication of Quinn's sexual orientation, even if he wasn't officially public about it yet.  

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, you think Quinn was disciplined more for his sexual orientation, or at least in part? Do you have any proof of this?

See the essay by Lavina Fielding Anderson on Quinn in Mormon Mavericks.  She quotes from correspondence with Quinn's local leaders, provided by Quinn.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/20/2018 at 7:37 AM, hope_for_things said:

... Same thing with people taught other things like certain addicts with testimonies about their recovery.  Its [sic] important to me to be respectful of others even though I have knowledge that informs me differently.  

So if an addict bears personal, first-hand, percipient witness that the Addiction Recovery Program saved his life by dissuading him from committing suicide, actually, we can depend on your "knowledge that informs [you] differently" that, whatever the addict says about his own experience, you know better.  I see.  Well, thanks for clearing that up.   Or something.    

[Exiled]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

You can't really compare Quinn's level of orthodoxy or lack of it to Bokovoy's due to the added complication of Quinn's sexual orientation, even if he wasn't officially public about it yet.  

So, you think Quinn was disciplined more for his sexual orientation, or at least in part? Do you have any proof of this?

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Lots of things might be considered "natural and healthy" not not natural and healthy.   Marriage is not natural and some might say is not healthy.  Monogamy is not natural.   Stealing can be considered natural and healthy.  Animals don't respect property rights and they take from each other all the time.  It is natural for one to take from another.  Our religion however goes above this.  It teaches that the natural man is an enemy to God.  So simply giving the ok to what is considered natural and healthy in the standards of man might get one condemned by God.  We are asked to put off the natural man and conform our lives to Christ and that includes sacrificing what we might desire or be inclined to do naturally.  Some people are psychopaths. It is better that they do not do what comes naturally to them even if it is healthy for them to give into their inclinations.

My question for you is how should a person evaluate whether something is "condemned by God" or not?  Many religions have different behaviors that they consider taboo and outside what their religion prescribes.  It seems to me that all of these behaviors are unique to culture, time and place.  If you're claiming there is a standard that isn't relative to culture, time and place, then what evidence do you have to support that assertion.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So if an addict bears personal, first-hand, percipient witness that the Addiction Recovery Program saved his life by dissuading him from committing suicide, actually, we can depend on your "knowledge that informs [you] differently" that, whatever the addict says about his own experience, you know better.  I see.  Well, thanks for clearing that up.   Or something.    

No, I've never asserted that I'm an expert to be consulted on these kinds of issues.  I'm making an appeal to actually consult the professional psychological community, and do the exact opposite of what you're saying.  Not to trust individual testimony, but to trust the studies and practices of the most knowledgeable people on the subject matter.  

[hope_for_things]

I just wanted to post that I finally got a chance to listen to the podcast with David Bokovoy yesterday and it was really excellent.  What a good person he seems to be and a real tribute to his Mormon tradition.  I'm so happy to learn more about the lives and experiences of others within our great community and the good people that we have that are such a tribute to our faith.  Really is inspirational to me personally.  

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So if an addict bears personal, first-hand, percipient witness that the Addiction Recovery Program saved his life by dissuading him from committing suicide, actually, we can depend on your "knowledge that informs [you] differently" that, whatever the addict says about his own experience, you know better.  I see.  Well, thanks for clearing that up.   Or something.    

 

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I've never asserted that I'm an expert to be consulted on these kinds of issues.  I'm making an appeal to actually consult the professional psychological community, and do the exact opposite of what you're saying.  Not to trust individual testimony, but to trust the studies and practices of the most knowledgeable people on the subject matter.  

Fair enough, but you are the one who's advocating the position that the "experts," because of their expertise, know more about what works to turn the lives of addicts around than the addicts themselves, from their own lived experience, do.  Ever hear the old saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime"?  Essentially, your position (whether you want to admit it or not) is that it's better for the "expert fishermen" to hoard their knowledge by sharing only their fish rather than to benefit everybody by sharing their knowledge of how to fish.  The paradigm which holds that "professionals" know best and that addicts can, should, and must depend on said professionals to "make" them well hasn't held sway for at least a generation.*  

If I'm dependent upon a professional to "make" or to "keep" me well, what happens when the professional isn't there?  Yes, absolutely, professionals can suggest avenues of exploration, can provide guidance and insight as that exploration occurs, can act as sounding boards, can give a client the tools to facilitate his own recovery, and so on, but, ultimately, it's the addict who's responsible for his own recovery, else what happens when the fish run out or when the fishermen die, retire, or otherwise are unavailable?   "Professional"-directed recovery makes an addict or someone else who has a behavioral health diagnosis dependent upon . . . the professional.  I'll grant you, most professionals are competent, caring, and so on, but in that situation, what happens when the client's recovery takes a bad turn or goes south?  Who do you think gets the blame?  "Self"-directed recovery, by contrast, makes the person dependent upon . . . who?  Oh, that's right!  Himself!  Professionals can provide invaluable help, but, ultimately, they are not responsible for my recovery!  I am!  Accord, see The Ten Principles of Recovery at the following address:

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Health/pages/conditions.aspx?hwid=ug4392&amp

[carbon dioxide]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

My question for you is how should a person evaluate whether something is "condemned by God" or not?  Many religions have different behaviors that they consider taboo and outside what their religion prescribes.  It seems to me that all of these behaviors are unique to culture, time and place.  If you're claiming there is a standard that isn't relative to culture, time and place, then what evidence do you have to support that assertion.  

I guess it is for every man to figure that out for themselves.  In an LDS framework, what is normal, healthy, or natural really is not an excuse for certain types of behavior regardless of whether they are seen as healthy or natural.  Almost all sin follows some degree of something be normal or natural.  It is not normal, healthy, or natural to keep the sabbath day.  Nor to live the law of chastity or not to steal.  Beyond sins, many behaviors may not be sins but they are not something that should be encouraged.  My ADHD son has many things that he does that are normal and natural and perhaps "healthy" in his perspective but they are actually disruptive and can lead to problems.   If the gospel was about living as we are programmed or what is found in nature, that would be one thing.  The gospel is not about following our impulses but sacrifice and obedience to things that we rather not want or naturally inclined to do.

Edited November 25, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just wanted to post that I finally got a chance to listen to the podcast with David Bokovoy yesterday and it was really excellent.  What a good person he seems to be and a real tribute to his Mormon tradition.  I'm so happy to learn more about the lives and experiences of others within our great community and the good people that we have that are such a tribute to our faith.  Really is inspirational to me personally.  

Fair enough.  I'm sure Professor Bokovoy is a nice guy,  and I'm inclined to live-and-let-live if someone holds a view about the genesis of the Book of Mormon that I do not (I wasn't there, and from an empirical perspective, I can understand why someone might be skeptical or might opt for a version of events that completely excludes the supernatural or whatever).  But I'd rather believe that Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, et al were real people and be wrong than be standing in front of one or more of them sputtering, "B ... Bu ... But ... Professor Bokovoy said ..." (see 2 Nephi 9:29).

See also the Q & A portion of Grant Hardy's 2016 FAIRMormon Conference presentation:

Quote

 

When people talk about “inspired fiction,” it’s worth thinking harder about what they might mean. Perhaps that the Book of Mormon is a product of human genius, like other literary or religious works. Or it may be the product of general revelation, in which God or some higher power makes himself known to humans, who then communicate that encounter with the Divine though various scriptures such as Buddhist sutras or the Daodejing or the Bhagavad Gita or the Qur’an. Or there may be special revelation in which God inspired Joseph to create the Book of Mormon in such a way that it exemplifies specific truths of unique importance. In any case, however, we might ask, “Can faith in the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction be a saving faith?” My answer is, “Absolutely!” I believe that if someone, at the judgment bar, were to say to God, “I couldn’t make sense of the Book of Mormon as an ancient American codex, given the available evidence, but I loved that book, I heard your voice in it, and I tried to live by its precepts as best I could,” then God will respond, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

For me, I expect to see the resurrected Nephi and Moroni at the judgment bar. It matters to me that they are real individuals. At the same time, I’m not sure that God will ask, “Did you believe the right things about the Trinity, Joseph Smith, the plan of salvation, and the nature of revelation,” let alone my opinions about polygamy, same-sex marriage, blacks and the priesthood, women’s ordination, politics, or Mormon history. Rather, I believe he will say, “Were you my disciple? Did you strive to know me better? Were you constantly trying to refine your ideas and actions in light of your growing understanding? Were you fully engaged in the Church? How did you treat those with different beliefs and values? And by the way, you were wrong on a number of things you felt strongly about.”

 

See the full presentation here: https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/more-effective-apologetics.

As for me, my own thoughts echo Brother Hardy's second paragraph above:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/joseph-moroni-me/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/encouragement-from-those-in-the-scriptures/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/the-imperfect-book-of-mormon/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/alma-32-book-of-mormon-historicity/

[Tacenda]

On 11/24/2018 at 8:32 AM, Exiled said:

So, you think Quinn was disciplined more for his sexual orientation, or at least in part? Do you have any proof of this?

Ironic that Quinn is a believer and Bokovoy isn't anymore, yet Quinn is ex'd.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Ironic that Quinn is a believer and Bokovoy isn't anymore, yet Quinn is ex'd.

Not really, since there is a variety of reasons people are excommunicated and David chose to resign (I am assuming that is what he means when he says no longer supports, but perhaps he hasn't) and thus cannot be excommunicated.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

On 11/24/2018 at 8:32 AM, Exiled said:

So, you think Quinn was disciplined more for his sexual orientation, or at least in part? Do you have any proof of this?

I am merely saying it is not an equivalent situation to the best of our knowledge.  We cannot tell if orientation and behaviour had an effect in Quinn's excommunication or not.  Anderson's info does seem to suggest it did though.  From what I have been told, Quinn may not have been out officially, but he wasn't trying to hide his orientation prior to the council.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Ironic that Quinn is a believer and Bokovoy isn't anymore, yet Quinn is ex'd.

I wonder if Bokovoy will face excommunication as well. He doesn't believe in the church's truth claims, doesn't like the church's politics concerning LGBT rights and is vocal about it. Soon, someone might view him as dangerous to the flock.

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, Exiled said:

He doesn't believe in the church's truth claims, doesn't like the church's politics concerning LGBT rights and is vocal about it. Soon, someone might view him as dangerous to the flock.

We have a former president of our ward's predecessor branch who doesn't believe in the Church's truth claims, doesn't like the Church's teachings about sex and marriage, and is vocal in his disbelief/disagreement. He also attends church most Sundays with his wife. No one sees him as 'dangerous' because he hasn't set himself up as a missionary for the other side, i.e., he doesn't actively seek to use his Church membership or his presence at church as a tool of active deconversion. This is a very important distinction. The Church is welcoming of and respectful towards those who disagree. As Joseph Smith said in relation to including non-members on the Council of 50, it is essential to recognise and accept that good people will reach different conclusions. One has to work quite hard to make himself a target for excommunication, but seeking to not just disagree but to actively tear the Church down or destroy the faith of others will do that.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Exiled]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We have a former president of our ward's predecessor branch who doesn't believe in the Church's truth claims, doesn't like the Church's teachings about sex and marriage, and is vocal in his disbelief/disagreement. He also attends church most Sundays with his wife. No one sees him as 'dangerous' because he hasn't set himself up as a missionary for the other side, i.e., he doesn't actively seek to use his Church membership or his presence at church as a tool of active deconversion. This is a very important distinction. The Church is welcoming of and respectful towards those who disagree. As Joseph Smith said in relation to including non-member on the Council of 50, it is essential to recognise and accept that good people will reach different conclusions. One has to work quite hard to make himself a target for excommunication, but seeking to not just disagree but to actively tear the Church down or destroy the faith of others will do that.

Perhaps it will change for the former president if people start believing his views. Also, being vocal about one's disagreement with the church at church can be problematic depending on how vocal one becomes. How do you know what the former president believes? Does he express his disbelief in the middle of Sunday school or at the pulpit? Or is it expressed privately in the foyer?

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Ironic that Quinn is a believer and Bokovoy isn't anymore, yet Quinn is ex'd.

Seldom, if ever, is mere disbelief, without more, grounds for excommunication.  Not a few people who still believe are and have been excommunicated.

[flameburns623]

David Bokovoy has stopped attending but he has not resigned as I recall. 

I don't have the impression he intends to become an activist about his views. No podcasts, no blogs, etcetera. He may have granted this interview as a way of preparing for an upcoming release of the second volume in what appeared to be a planned series on the Old Testament.  

But: I am speculating on this last.  Purely opining. 

[jerryp48]

On 11/17/2018 at 5:59 PM, flameburns623 said:

I listened to the whole thing. 

He was very distraught over the 2015 LGBTQIA policy. He came to see himself on the wrong side of history. This was heightened by his daughter coming out as gay. 

His wife and his sons stopped attending church over The Policy. As of July, 2018 he has stopped attending church. He rsigned all callings.

He has left the Church Educational System. He took a pay cut to administer higher educational services to persons in prison. 

He says he loves The Church, but he clearly no longer believes. He is grieved by what is happening to Bill Reel but is not going to be surprised if at some point it happens to him as well. 

Can someone point me to anything I can read regarding why so many have a hard time with the policy?  I don’t want to derail this thread but i’ve never understood why people struggle so much with this policy.  My former wife came out and we have 3 children between us so it’s not like I’m completely disconnected from this topic.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Seldom, if ever, is mere disbelief, without more, grounds for excommunication.  Not a few people who still believe are and have been excommunicated.

Right because people can start believing again.  Especially if emotions play a role in things.

[carbon dioxide]

53 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

Can someone point me to anything I can read regarding why so many have a hard time with the policy?  I don’t want to derail this thread but i’ve never understood why people struggle so much with this policy.  My former wife came out and we have 3 children between us so it’s not like I’m completely disconnected from this topic.

I don't understand either.  Though I am not a big fan of the policy, it really is not that important of a thing.  Affects very few people.  I think for a number it is just an excuse to be angry at the Church.  There are other issues going on.  Nobody goes from 100% committed LDS to inactive over something like this.  Perhaps the policy is less about gay people and their kids and more about seeing where members generally are at.  If they can't handle something like this, they are surely not going to handle more difficult things as we get closer to the 2nd Coming in a variety of areas both temporally and spiritually. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Seldom, if ever, is mere disbelief, without more, grounds for excommunication.  Not a few people who still believe are and have been excommunicated.

Well you're right about that. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I wonder if Bokovoy will face excommunication as well. He doesn't believe in the church's truth claims, doesn't like the church's politics concerning LGBT rights and is vocal about it. Soon, someone might view him as dangerous to the flock.

Well, Bill Reel went for a long time without being ex'd. I guess if Bokovoy were to start his own podcast and it were to lead people away from the church in alarmingly speedy rates, more speaking about John Dehlin's Mormonstories podcast...or like Bill Reel did, call an apostle a liar and continue disparaging the church leaders for a variety of reasons, will be the time the leaders take action. 

Sidenote, I remember wanting to take David Bokovoy's class at the U of U a few years ago but it was so darn expensive. It was a class on the BoM and reading it in a different way, now I can't remember exactly what that was. Oh, just found a link to it, it was a class about reading the BoM as literature. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=28233103&itype=storyID

Edited November 26, 2018 by Tacenda

[sunstoned]

14 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't understand either.  Though I am not a big fan of the policy, it really is not that important of a thing.  Affects very few people.  I think for a number it is just an excuse to be angry at the Church.  There are other issues going on.  Nobody goes from 100% committed LDS to inactive over something like this.  Perhaps the policy is less about gay people and their kids and more about seeing where members generally are at.  If they can't handle something like this, they are surely not going to handle more difficult things as we get closer to the 2nd Coming in a variety of areas both temporally and spiritually. 

There are many reasons for people to be upset over this policy, not the least of which is its intentional disregard of the savior's commandment concerning little children.  

[sunstoned]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, Bill Reel went for a long time without being ex'd. I guess if Bokovoy were to start his own podcast and it were to lead people away from the church in alarmingly speedy rates, more speaking about John Dehlin's Mormonstories podcast here...or like Bill Reel did, call an apostle a liar and continue disparaging the church leaders that will probably be the time the leaders will take action. 

I remember wanting to take David Bokovoy's class at the U of U a couple of years ago but it was so darn expensive. It was a class on the BoM and reading it in a different way, now I can't remember exactly what that was.

Many people are put off by Bill's tone.  One thing about Bill Reel is that he backs up any accusations that he make with facts.  

Edited November 26, 2018 by sunstoned