Trail Blazer Brings Hard Choices To Church

[mfbukowski]

I think one of his main points, for some time now, has been that active, believing, members need to have a better understanding of why people leave the church and the complexities that accompany the loss of faith. I did listen to the presentation you're referring to and had some mixed feelings about it. Got interrupted by the kiddos at the end so I want to listen to that part again because I missed the discussion of ways "uncorrelated Mormons" can gather to help socialize and whatnot and I think that is what seems like the creation of an organized distinct identity.

Has anyone else listened to the presentation? Is he proposing a kind of loose therapeutic fellowshipping or something more defined?

All I did was download the powerpoint which I quoted earlier and clearly seeks even another name for what he seeks to establish.

His analogy was "Reformed Judaism".

Ok I looked him up.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1583

Here again is that quote; this time I will insert comments so it is clear what I find indicative of apostasy. Remember- I don't even know this guy- have heard no mp3's- all I have is this power point right in front of us.

His words are in dark red, my comments are in black

Could we create together

Support for alternative approaches to a moral framework

What does that mean? What's wrong with the morals we have?

Support for alternative forms of spirituality

What does that mean?

A dating service for singles/divorced

Local communities

We have those

For children -- Local play groups

Wait a minute- we want to teach kids the "middle way"? Primary and TBM friends from church are not good?

For teens -- EFY’s

For college students -- College meet-up groups

We have these- we want alternate doctrine EFY's and non-institute institutes?

For couples/families – Book clubs, study groups

A new collective identity? (“Reform Judaism”)

NOT a church/religion

Uh, it sure sounds like one to me! Alternate belief groups for everyone?

Can co-exist with church/religion

We already have a widely diverse understanding of doctrine- again, Ostler says we only have orthopraxis- what does he want?

Positive, constructive approach

Implying we don't have one now?

Carry forward the good in what got us here

Agreed!

Heavy emphasis on love/service

Already have it- IF you participate- why would the disaffected suddenly do their "home teaching" when they don't do it now?

Support of families (all types)

I presume he is talking about "gay families"- that is clearly opposed by the church doctrinally and in the temple recommend interview, and would constitute "a group opposed to the doctrines and policies of the church"

Strong communities of support

Some of us think we have that now.

Encouraging healthy living

We don't do that?

Leave behind the less desirable things

Belief in harmful doctrine/theology

Bigotry

Sexism

Authoritarianism

Patriarchy

Elitism

Anti-intellectualism / anti-science

Strong appreciation of science

Rooted in common sense values/ethics

The implication is that these are actually what TBM culture is about, which I find highly objectionable.

At this point it appears that he is trying to organize an organization opposed to church doctrine and policy.

That is called "apostasy" per church standards, and I think that would hold for any church out there.

If that's not what he's doing- that's another story. I am not his judge.

[Calm]

All I did was download the powerpoint which I quoted earlier and clearly seeks even another name for what he seeks to establish.

His analogy was "Reformed Judaism".

Does he realize that Reformed Judaism is a different denomination than Orthodox Judaism and not just an addition to that belief system?

[Calm]

I will look, I really believe this is true. I believe the answer is on Mormon stories where he first anounced that he was starting it back up again, but of course there are hours and hours of material there ... but I will try

Thank you for looking.

[mfbukowski]

Does he realize that Reformed Judaism is a different denomination than Orthodox Judaism and not just an addition to that belief system?

That's why I think this would be called "apostasy".

[mercyngrace]

All I did was download the powerpoint which I quoted earlier and clearly seeks even another name for what he seeks to establish.

His analogy was "Reformed Judaism".

...snip...

At this point it appears that he is trying to organize an organization opposed to church doctrine and policy.

That is called "apostasy" per church standards, and I think that would hold for any church out there.

If that's not what he's doing- that's another story. I am not his judge.

This is the section I missed earlier - it's at the end of the presentation. I read the powerpoint but haven't listened to him explain what he means in the podcast yet. I'll finish it up in an hour or so after the kids are in bed and report back.

I have to say though, if he didn't get called in for the whole Mormons for Marriage business, I'm kind of shocked that merely suggesting fellowship among less orthodox Mormons would get him an invite to the SP's office...

[mfbukowski]

I have to say though, if he didn't get called in for the whole Mormons for Marriage business, I'm kind of shocked that merely suggesting fellowship among less orthodox Mormons would get him an invite to the SP's office...

In fact, that is a church program, it's called "rescuing the less actives"!

[Duncan]

This is the section I missed earlier - it's at the end of the presentation. I read the powerpoint but haven't listened to him explain what he means in the podcast yet. I'll finish it up in an hour or so after the kids are in bed and report back.

I have to say though, if he didn't get called in for the whole Mormons for Marriage business, I'm kind of shocked that merely suggesting fellowship among less orthodox Mormons would get him an invite to the SP's office...

JD is on my facebook list so I am anticipating some kind of an announcement

[Pahoran]

This is the section I missed earlier - it's at the end of the presentation. I read the powerpoint but haven't listened to him explain what he means in the podcast yet. I'll finish it up in an hour or so after the kids are in bed and report back.

I have to say though, if he didn't get called in for the whole Mormons for Marriage business, I'm kind of shocked that merely suggesting fellowship among less orthodox Mormons would get him an invite to the SP's office...

Of course none of us really knows the purpose of the invitation. I will, however, make a few general observations.

First: If we have to choose between being (1) a community of shared belief, i.e. a Church, and (2) a mere social club for people who like to sing "Come, Come Ye Saints," would anyone who really isn't trying to white-ant the Church honestly prefer the second option?

Second: Sometimes a process takes a period of time; and sometimes a very small "last straw" will appear to trigger an event when the real cause is something bigger that happened previously. IOW, a Priesthood leader might act on something that would normally fly well under the radar just because the individual concerned has been drawing attention to themselves in other ways.

Third: While none of us is in a position to judge another person's heart, there is one fact that you can absolutely take to the bank: if a person sustains his priesthood leaders, and is playing a straight bat with them, he will not be providing a blow-by-blow commentary of his dealings with them on some website somewhere. The person who does provide such a commentary -- however lily-white he may paint himself -- is attempting to subvert the process and exploit it to his own advantage, and IMHO his actions are entirely unworthy of any respect.

Fourth: Once upon a time, Church disciplinary councils were referred to as "Church courts." In that light, they were sometimes explained as "courts of love." However, they were never called that, whether formally or informally; the only people who ever have used that phrase as the first reference to a Church disciplinary council, did so for the purposes of heavy-handed sarcasm.

That is a rule to which I have never seen a legitimate counterexample. Not in this forum, and not elsewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[blackstrap]

Duncan,as an example of what seems to be proposed,think "United Church of Canada " Perhaps a good name would be " United Compartmentalized Reformed Neo-protestant Freethinking Semi-enthusiasts.

By the way,since when did the High Council become a bastion for the wayward? I must have missed the memo.

[mfbukowski]

Third: While none of us is in a position to judge another person's heart, there is one fact that you can absolutely take to the bank: if a person sustains his priesthood leaders, and is playing a straight bat with them, he will not be providing a blow-by-blow commentary of his dealings with them on some website somewhere. The person who does provide such a commentary -- however lily-white he may paint himself -- is attempting to subvert the process and exploit it to his own advantage, and IMHO his actions are entirely unworthy of any respect.

Exactly, precisely, unequivocally, nailed it cold.

Period.

[mercyngrace]

In fact, that is a church program, it's called "rescuing the less actives"!

Okay. After listening to that segment of the podcast again without my entourage, I still have mixed feelings. Some of the conference participants were offering suggestions that bordered on forming a new religious subgroup of Mormons who are more liberal but Dehlin was very clear when he started addressing the subject of gathering those he calls "uncorrelated mormons" that he was not talking about starting a new religion, he was just presenting a smattering of possibilities for meeting the fellowshipping needs of those who self-identify as Mormon and do not desire to jettison that identity in spite of a significant level of disaffection.

He made one comment I thought was particularly astute concerning the ex and post mormon communities. He referred to their social community as reactionary rather than productive. His proposition was that people gather in ways that build community and faith and yet maintain ties to their mormon identity.

I felt that through much of this segment, Dehlin was speaking more as a psychologist than as a member of the church, but I did feel this was several steps further outside the church than some of his earlier podcasts.

Just my take on it.

[mercyngrace]

Pahoran,

I'm not sure why you chose to respond to me since your comments have nothing to do with anything I've written but I'll address them anyway.

Of course none of us really knows the purpose of the invitation. I will, however, make a few general observations.

First: If we have to choose between being (1) a community of shared belief, i.e. a Church, and (2) a mere social club for people who like to sing "Come, Come Ye Saints," would anyone who really isn't trying to white-ant the Church honestly prefer the second option?

Your third point begins "While none of us is in a position to judge another person's heart...". That applies here. I have no idea why people make the choices they do. I can make educated guesses but unless specifically informed by the individual or the Lord, I try to not to play the clairvoyant.

Second: Sometimes a process takes a period of time; and sometimes a very small "last straw" will appear to trigger an event when the real cause is something bigger that happened previously. IOW, a Priesthood leader might act on something that would normally fly well under the radar just because the individual concerned has been drawing attention to themselves in other ways.

If you're suggesting that something could have been in the works regarding church discipline long before now.... yep. Anything's possible. However, if you read earlier in the thread, I never said I thought his meeting was for disciplinary purposes. In fact, given that he is asking people to share their stories of struggling in the church prior to the meeting, I was hoping the meeting was going to be an informal query by a concerned Stake Pesident into ways we can better help people stay in the church.

edit: My exact words from the 4th comment on the thread were "I haven't seen anything suggesting church discipline".

I merely expressed surprise that after other more public acts of separation, recent events would be more of a cause for discipline.

Third: While none of us is in a position to judge another person's heart, there is one fact that you can absolutely take to the bank: if a person sustains his priesthood leaders, and is playing a straight bat with them, he will not be providing a blow-by-blow commentary of his dealings with them on some website somewhere. The person who does provide such a commentary -- however lily-white he may paint himself -- is attempting to subvert the process and exploit it to his own advantage, and IMHO his actions are entirely unworthy of any respect.

I haven't read any blow-by-blows from him. If he's posted any, I haven't heard of them. All I heard about was a request for people to share their stories of struggling within the church so that he could pass them along to the church leader with whom he was meeting.

Fourth: Once upon a time, Church disciplinary councils were referred to as "Church courts." In that light, they were sometimes explained as "courts of love." However, they were never called that, whether formally or informally; the only people who ever have used that phrase as the first reference to a Church disciplinary council, did so for the purposes of heavy-handed sarcasm.

That must have been before 1972.

That is a rule to which I have never seen a legitimate counterexample. Not in this forum, and not elsewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

See link above.

[Jeff K.]

The history of the church is full of those who were somewhat charismatic who allowed themselves to eventually be led away by their own press. Whether it be Sidney Rigdon or this individual, they eventually leave the church (while claiming the church left them) and lament the presumed harshness of the church and forgetting that doctrine, not popularity, is what we adhere too.

Frankly he will be forgotten like so many others.

[Duncan]

Duncan,as an example of what seems to be proposed,think "United Church of Canada " Perhaps a good name would be " United Compartmentalized Reformed Neo-protestant Freethinking Semi-enthusiasts.

By the way,since when did the High Council become a bastion for the wayward? I must have missed the memo.

Now that makes sense! I know what you mean about the High Council, the stories I could tell...but whatever

[Avatar4321]

Still have no idea why this person is a trail blazer or why should be concerned with his personal life as if we know anything about it.

[Jeff K.]

He is not a trailblazer. He was called one, but then a tail being called a leg doesn't make a dog five legged either.

[Hayds]

I have spoken with John on several occassions years ago before he was as popular as he is now. I haven't followed him in awhile. He was a decent guy and I respected what he was trying to do. I think now he is on the church's radar because he has such a big following and it appears he is now trying to organize or create some kind of group or organization who meet up and that has the church riled. His pitch used to be: "Don't be worried if you come across some negative church history, culturally and morally the church still has a lot to offer and its better than any alternatives." Now he has a pretty large following and it seems he is saying "Don't be worried if you come across some negative church history, culturally and morally it is still better than any alternatives, but hey, lets all meet up regularly and hold conventions about how we disagree with the church but want to remain." Who knows, maybe he is trying to find ways to monetize his movement and make some dough off of it. If he has, I am disappointed as it would mean he has gotten far away from what he originally intended to start.

[Duncan]

I have spoken with John on several occassions years ago before he was as popular as he is now. I haven't followed him in awhile. He was a decent guy and I respected what he was trying to do. I think now he is on the church's radar because he has such a big following and it appears he is now trying to organize or create some kind of group or organization who meet up and that has the church riled. His pitch used to be: "Don't be worried if you come across some negative church history, culturally and morally the church still has a lot to offer and its better than any alternatives." Now he has a pretty large following and it seems he is saying "Don't be worried if you come across some negative church history, culturally and morally it is still better than any alternatives, but hey, lets all meet up regularly and hold conventions about how we disagree with the church but want to remain." Who knows, maybe he is trying to find ways to monetize his movement and make some dough off of it. If he has, I am disappointed as it would mean he has gotten far away from what he originally intended to start.

I think he wants people to donate for his podcasts and stuff like that but then a lot of people who have podcasts do that type of thing, fish for funds

[frankenstein]

Third: , there is one fact that you can absolutely take to the bank: if a person sustains his priesthood leaders, and is playing a straight bat with them, he will not be providing a blow-by-blow commentary of his dealings with them on some website somewhere. The person who does provide such a commentary -- however lily-white he may paint himself -- is attempting to subvert the process and exploit it to his own advantage, and IMHO his actions are entirely unworthy of any respect.

Regards,

Pahoran

i have agreed with much that you have posted on this thread, and found the part about navel-gazing quite funny. However, what can you provide to support what you state above?

I hope that you could explain why we can take to the bank that a person is not sustaining their leaders, and why a person is not playing a straight bat, because that person provides a commentary on his dealing with his priesthood leaders.

Why is providing a commentary a sure thing that a person does not sustain his leaders and is not being honest?

[Nemesis]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: I am closing this thread for 1. Its a personal matter and even if John talked about it, it would be very one sided. 2. Its very personal and John doesn't really participate here to warrant a thread dedicated to him. 3. What does this have to do with apologetics except for the fact that John is against it. Please do not open another thread there are other boards where you can discuss peoples personal lives and speculate all you want about them.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff