The New Passive Dissent -- "Mormonstories"

[Senator]

... 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]

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]

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]

... 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:

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]

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]

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]

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

[why me]

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]

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]

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.

[William Schryver]

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

/snip/

I'm comforted by the confidence I have that the majority of the Saints are sufficiently discerning such that they are not deceived by your rhetorical acumen.

I do regret that you never invited me on one of your podcasts.

[Senator]

I'm comforted by the confidence I have that the majority of the Saints are sufficiently discerning such that they are not deceived by your rhetorical acumen.

A majority of the saints have probably never heard of Dehlin or Mormonstories. So, I'm not quite sure how you've gained such confidence.

[Mark Beesley]

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

Well, if you are that mistake-prone, perhaps you should get out of the business of informing people.

I'm with Will . . . beware of the wolf who minimizes his own treachery.

[searchinguy]

Well, if you are that mistake-prone, perhaps you should get out of the business of informing people.

Would you suggest the same to LDS leaders and the Church they lead? By their own accounts they are fallible and have made mistakes along the way....many in my view. Should they "get out of the business" of speaking for God?

Last time I checked John didn't claim to be getting continuing revelation from God on what he's doing. For that reason I guess I'm willing to cut him a little more slack.

[Mark Beesley]

Would you suggest the same to LDS leaders and the Church they lead? By their own accounts they are fallible and have made mistakes along the way....many in my view. Should they "get out of the business" of speaking for God?

Last time I checked John didn't claim to be getting continuing revelation from God on what he's doing. For that reason I guess I'm willing to cut him a little more slack.

Big difference between "thousands of mistakes" made in a few years and a few mistakes made by individual leaders over the course of 150 years.

[Libs]

I would guess over 150 years, it was more than "just a few" mistakes.

I am really disappointed in the tone of this discussion.

[searchinguy]

Big difference between "thousands of mistakes" made in a few years and a few mistakes made by individual leaders over the course of 150 years.

Well, obviously I think John was exaggerating and perhaps being a bit self-critical when he spoke of the 'thousands of mistakes.' Probably not a surprise either that I see more than just a few mistakes by individuals— many of which were speaking in their roles as leaders of the LDS Church— over the 185 years or so. I personally think the mistakes have been more institutional and prevalent than you suggest.

Funny how differently people can see things.

[mathilde]

Mormonstories and John Dehlin fill a void. The discussions on the podcasts -- where else can someone go for that? Where else can you listen to questions being discussed like that? There is a gentleness still at work in the way that John Dehlin conducts these interviews in contrast to some other forums that are out there. I really appreciate the conversation he sparks.

If you want to call what he does "passive dissent" then so be it. From what I can read and hear of him, it definitely doesn't sound like he is trying to get anyone to walk a path that he hasn't walked himself, or that he is trying to get anyone to do anything except perhaps have a place to talk and have information, a bit of freedom to question, to even form the question. I don't think it is all that passive, but I also don't think that dissent has a negative connotation. Where there is no dissent, is there freedom?

I think what mormonstories does for people (like me) is to make a little room, a little bit of breathing space, so that we can keep going to church (or not) whether we think we have all things figured out or not.

[mentalgymnast]

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

[Pahoran]

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

I think you have misunderstood John. Whatever his problems may be, I have not heard that he has ever attempted to play that notorious canard, which is only claimed by the relentlessly dishonest.

But then again, perhaps I have misunderstood you, and you were not attributing that statement to John.

If that is the case, what were you trying to say, exactly?

Regards,

Pahoran