The New Passive Dissent -- "Mormonstories"

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Given your personable knowledge of people being chastized and disciplined for publicly presenting unorthodox ideas, why were you surprised when John Dehlin commented as he did?

I'm not trying to attribute feelings you didn't have with the word "surprising", just lacking a better word.

Of course, I don't really think that either Lavina or Gene said or wrote anything "unorthodox" or condemnatory of the faith, and any suggestions about that could have been handled entirely privately. There need never have been a public humiliation of those two.

After all his interviews with a wide variety of people, I had thought that JD would be less credulous about all the paranoia expressed in some quarters. Brant wasn't expressing views any more radical than those of John Sorenson or of the late Hugh Nibley.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Obviously, you couldn't have been saying that it wouldn't occur to you that public chastisements and discipline for unorthodoxy occur.

Were you saying that it never occurred to you that it would happen to Brant because of his particular views?

Correct.

[Antoni]

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.

FIrstly I've not read the last two pages as this thread keeps getting longer as I work my way through the posts!!

Sepaking as an investigator the above is VERY helpful. I've listened to most of the podcasts in my investigation and enjoyed a great many bu tI too noticed a change in more recent ones. The fact that Dehlin rejects God, BoM etc is a surprise to me. I'd imagined he was struggling/liberal, whereas if he does believe the above then he by definition is "anti". I was also saddened by his reaction to the recent article and lost a huge amount of respect for him/mormon stories due to that.

I think there is now another agenda at work and he needs to be careful he does let mormonstories become his idol and identity. Perhaps another sabatical from it is required just to let some steam evaporate?? I hope it does return to being a helpful podcast for both those who have left and those that are in, I feel for now it has become a stumbling block more for Dehlin than anyone else.

ps. As an investigator do you know what scriptures impress me the most in the BoM/D&C?? The amount that say how the Lord feels about contention.

Light Love and Peace

[mercyngrace]

Of course, I don't really think that either Lavina or Gene said or wrote anything "unorthodox" or condemnatory of the faith, and any suggestions about that could have been handled entirely privately. There need never have been a public humiliation of those two.

After all his interviews with a wide variety of people, I had thought that JD would be less credulous about all the paranoia expressed in some quarters. Brant wasn't expressing views any more radical than those of John Sorenson or of the late Hugh Nibley.

I couldn't agree more about all Edwards, England, and Brant Gardner.

I just wasn't sure what you meant initially. (This is where that thumb's up smiley would go if I could get the board to function...)

[Bob Crockett]

A very dear friend of mine, Lavina Fielding Anderson,

[snip]

Anyhow, I should have thought that a very famous and prominent professor at the UofU (now departed) would have been more eligible for excommunication due to his public apostasy, but for various reasons he was given a pass -- as Lavina should have been given.

[snip]

I read England's brilliant but private effort at theological harmonization after he was publicly humiliated for writing it. I heard from Gene first hand how he had sent a copy directly to Elder McConkie for his approval.

[snip]

As we read these anecdotes, keep in mind that we only have Anderson's and England's side of the story, as the Church does not explain its disciplinary actions. (England wasn't disciplined).

Some of us have a different perspective. I was one of England's students. I got to know his writings. I didn't really like them, didn't think they were consistent with what the Brethren taught, and criticized the Brethren in a particularly passive and uninformed way. [it seemed that he wrote first, researched second.] I supported his anti-Gulf War stance but beyond that, I thought his writings pompous in a strangely self-effacing way. I can see how somebody like Elder McConkie would have had a long prior history with England before his private rebuke. But England wasn't disciplined.

As to Anderson, we cannot know exactly what went into her excommunication but as far as I can tell her writings show an unrepentant unbeliever, somebody who cares little as to whether she is fully and financially supportive of the church or one who is a cultural belonger alone. Of course, I have no way of knowing her relationship with the Lord or the Church and can only base my conclusions on her writings, as I do not live in the Wasatch Front Bubble. So I could be wrong. But she is too public and too much in the public eye in taking positions critical of the Brethren, and consistently so.

As to your unnamed law professor, whom I knew somewhat and with whom I have a shirttail family relationship, I submit that it is improper to compare his status with Anderson's as some way to be critical of Church procedure. Church discipline is not a cookie cutter affair. One person may come into his bishop's office and confess to fornication and retain his rights and priesthood, and another may come into the same bishop's office and confess to something short of fornication and be subjected to a disciplinary council and lose his priesthood. In the case of Professor X, he saved the world with the MX Missile stance and persuaded President Kimball to adopt it and stand up to Reagan, and for that alone his exaltation seems secure, at least to me. Or should be.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[mrmandias]

England,

I was a student of England's at one point, and found out that he was pretty darn intolerant of dissenting views in his students (of views that dissented from his own, that is, especially in a more conservative or 'orthodox' direction). Thanks for this additional information on the man's experiences, it helps me understand and overlook a little more.

[Calm]

The fact that Dehlin rejects God, BoM etc is a surprise to me. I'd imagined he was struggling/liberal, whereas if he does believe the above then he by definition is "anti".

It actually doesn't.....and you may not mean this as the rest of your comments seem to indicate a more limited view, but I am just pointing this out for clarification. Don't mean to come across as harsh as I likely did originally.

Rejection of God and/or the BoM identifying someone as "anti" would make all the atheists in the world "anti-mormon" even if they never heard of the LDS Church and would make all investigators who never believed the BoM is what it claims to be "antis".

An anti-mormon is someone who opposes the Church and opposition is not just rejection, but an active behaviour working against something.

I am not saying one way or the other what John Dehlin is, just pointing out that rejection in and of itself is not "anti" behaviour. If "anti-mormon" is to remain a meaningful word with the power to properly identify, we need to be careful to use it correctly.

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

As we read these anecdotes, keep in mind that we only have Anderson's and England's side of the story, as the Church does not explain its disciplinary actions. (England wasn't disciplined).

Bob,

I said that Gene was publicly humiliated (in the absence of a Church council). I am willing to believe that this was a mistake, and that it was very much regretted by the Brethren. It was not the first and won't be the the last time that mistakes are made by human leaders. We need to have compassion for them, and we need to do more than lackadaisically sustain them and then forget what that means. I'm sure you agree on that last statement.

As to Anderson, we cannot know exactly what went into her excommunication but as far as I can tell her writings show an unrepentant unbeliever, somebody who cares little as to whether she is fully and financially supportive of the church or one who is a cultural belonger alone. Of course, I have no way of knowing her relationship with the Lord or the Church and can only base my conclusions on her writings, as I do not live in the Wasatch Front Bubble. So I could be wrong. But she is too public and too much in the public eye in taking positions critical of the Brethren, and consistently so.

We are clearly discussing two very different Lavina Fielding Andersons. The one I know is married to Paul L. Anderson, and both of them are strong believers in the LDS Church, Lavina attending Church regularly and actively participating in Relief Society despite being an excommunicant.

As to your unnamed law professor, whom I knew somewhat and with whom I have a shirttail family relationship, I submit that it is improper to compare his status with Anderson's as some way to be critical of Church procedure. Church discipline is not a cookie cutter affair. One person may come into his bishop's office and confess to fornication and retain his rights and priesthood, and another may come into the same bishop's office and confess to something short of fornication and be subjected to a disciplinary council and lose his priesthood. In the case of Professor X, he saved the world with the MX Missile stance and persuaded President Kimball to adopt it and stand up to Reagan, and for that alone his exaltation seems secure, at least to me. Or should be.

I wasn't speaking about that Law Professor you honor (he and his son are good men, despite their apostasy). I had in mind a far more famous figure who held an endowed chair at the UofU, who has long since passed on, but who was once U.S. Commissioner of Education. His Great Issues Forum debate with Hugh Nibley was noteworthy, and he often publicly stated his disbelief in the Book of Mormon.

I think that the Brethren were right to ignore him, or to treat him with kid gloves.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

Well, you know Sis. Anderson and I only know her by her writings and panel discussions. She seems to revel in her excommunicant status as some sort of way to get additional traction in her writings, but I admit that such is most subjective. Had she gone quietly, it would have been improper to discuss her, but she is a public figure because of her post-excommunication positions.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[cinepro]

I am not saying one way or the other what John Dehlin is, just pointing out that rejection in and of itself is not "anti" behaviour. If "anti-mormon" is to remain a meaningful word with the power to properly identify, we need to be careful to use it correctly.

Here's my definition of an "anti-Mormon".

Imagine a box with a button on it. If the button is pressed, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disappears. It files for bankruptcy, sells all its assets, dissolves the corporate entity, and stops publishing any materials. While existing members may form smaller splinter groups, there is no longer a worldwide organization with an aggressive missionary effort, and membership would dwindle and "Mormons" would become an almost irrelevant part of the religious equation.

If you would push the button, you're an "anti-Mormon". If you wouldn't (or don't know, or don't care) then you aren't.

Simple as that.

And for the record, if I were given such a button for the Church of Scientology, I would push it.

[Brant Gardner]

She seems to revel in her excommunicant status as some sort of way to get additional traction in her writings, but I admit that such is most subjective.

Perhaps actually knowing her makes a difference in perception. I don't get that from her writings at all, and not even a hint at it from personal interactions (which I actually cherish).

[KevinG]

Here's my definition of an "anti-Mormon".

Imagine a box with a button on it. If the button is pressed, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disappears. It files for bankruptcy, sells all its assets, dissolves the corporate entity, and stops publishing any materials. While existing members may form smaller splinter groups, there is no longer a worldwide organization with an aggressive missionary effort, and membership would dwindle and "Mormons" would become an almost irrelevant part of the religious equation.

If you would push the button, you're an "anti-Mormon". If you wouldn't (or don't know, or don't care) then you aren't.

Simple as that.

And for the record, if I were given such a button for the Church of Scientology, I would push it.

Anti-

"One that is opposed"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-

Why torture words to make them fit your definition?

My test for an anti-Mormon would be the question "what would you change to make Mormonism acceptable?" If they cannot conceive of a situation where Mormonism would be acceptable then they are opposed to Mormonism in general and therefore "Anti-Mormon".

If they are not "anti-Mormon" they may just be disaffected, complainers, critics, hyper-critics, mild critics, ignorant, misinformed, devils advocates, loyal opposition, arc steady-ers, inquisitive, smart aleks, apostates, struggling faithful, liberal, Sunstoned, free thinking, can't put it on the shelf, academic, intelligentsia, reformed or any other number of adequate adjectives.

Something about people that doesn't like a label. But if you take a position (any position) you will be labelled. I am particularly fond of the current negative use of "apologist" (with all the frothing and spitting implied). What a terrible and frightening thing it is to be a defender of your faith. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist?show=0&t=1337018722

[Bob Crockett]

Well, I'm out here in the boondocks and what do I know. Very little.

[KevinG]

Well, I'm out here in the boondocks and what do I know. Very little.

If it weren't for this site I would know almost nothing of these various interest groups. Here in Georgia we are worried about attending our meetings, teaching our families, saying regular prayers, reading our scriptures, planning our lessons, taking the YW and Scouts camping, doing our home teaching (or feeling guilty for not getting to it yet again), doing service and disaster relief, putting now shingles on a widows roof, moving that new couple from their apartment to apartment (even if they are leaving the ward) offering to teach the gospel to our neighbors and other basic activities of being a Mormon.

A lot of these news items are very Utah centric or at least Intermountain West centric.

Edited May 14, 2012 by KevinG

[mercyngrace]

A lot of these news items are very Utah centric or at least Intermountain West centric.

The internet has changed that.

[cinepro]

My test for an anti-Mormon would be the question "what would you change to make Mormonism acceptable?" If they cannot conceive of a situation where Mormonism would be acceptable then they are opposed to Mormonism in general and therefore "Anti-Mormon".

So are you anti-Catholic? Or anti-Muslim? Or anti-Amish? Or can you conceive of situations where each of those could change to be acceptable to you?

[KevinG]

So are you anti-Catholic? Or anti-Muslim? Or anti-Amish? Or can you conceive of situations where each of those could change to be acceptable to you?

They are all acceptable to me and I do not criticize any of them. I have been complementary of the Catholic and Amish faith on this board. I have complemented Muslims on this board while being critical of those who use Islam as an excuse for murder. I don't even critique my former faith of Methodism. I am an admirer of many religions but not an adherent.

To be an adherent to any of them they would have to be what I believe to be fully authorized churches of God on the earth. While they have truth they do not have the fullness of the Gospel as I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does.

Edited May 14, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

The internet has changed that.

Only for those interested in looking up the local gossip and news. Honestly my reaction to the latest inner circle intelligentsia spats is "oh they are still at it back in happy valley?" And i only have that reaction because I heard about a few of them while at BYU two decades ago.

[mercyngrace]

Only for those interested in looking up the local gossip and news. Honestly my reaction to the latest inner circle intelligentsia spats is "oh they are still at it back in happy valley?" And i only have that reaction because I heard about a few of them while at BYU two decades ago.

I think it's true that people don't necessarily care about the goings on but I disagree that they don't know.

I found this place in one of its previous incarnations while looking for scholarship on an issue that came up in conjunction with the gospel doctrine lesson I was preparing.

My brother encountered attacks and defenses of the church online when I mentioned a talk by Boyd K. Packer that I thought was exceptional but unavailable at LDS.org Google introduced him to the fact that some homosexual and ex-Mormons really hate Elder Packer. He remains active, believing LDS, but his induction into internet Mormonism began there.

If you think people don't just bump into this stuff, you are mistaken. And the more google knows your online behavior the more it tailors ads and searches to your tastes. So the more time you spend studying the gospel online, the more apt you are to turn up these kinds of results. At least that has been my experience.

[KevinG]

I think it's true that people don't necessarily care about the goings on but I disagree that they don't know.

I found this place in one of its previous incarnations while looking for scholarship on an issue that came up in conjunction with the gospel doctrine lesson I was preparing.

My brother encountered attacks and defenses of the church online when I mentioned a talk by Boyd K. Packer that I thought was exceptional but unavailable at LDS.org Google introduced him to the fact that some homosexual and ex-Mormons really hate Elder Packer. He remains active, believing LDS, but his induction into internet Mormonism began there.

If you think people don't just bump into this stuff, you are mistaken. And the more google knows your online behavior the more it tailors ads and searches to your tastes. So the more time you spend studying the gospel online, the more apt you are to turn up these kinds of results. At least that has been my experience.

Among those looking for information on the Mormons online you are correct - they bump into this stuff. This is a small sub-set of the general LDS population. I am often amazed at what the average member I talk to is not aware of outside of major news outlets and the e-mail/facebook chain.

[mercyngrace]

Among those looking for information on the Mormons online you are correct - they bump into this stuff. This is a small sub-set of the general LDS population. I am often amazed at what the average member I talk to is not aware of outside of major news outlets and the e-mail/facebook chain.

I think this is increasingly common. Did you read the story I posted on Cal's thread about FAIR? The one about our (then) 13 year old home teacher?

My kids go online for information about the church/the gospel the way I turned to McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

If this weren't the new shift of the tides, the church wouldn't have launched "I'm a Mormon" online. We wouldn't have been invited specifically to join the conversation about faith online. And we wouldn't be receiving counsel about how to best represent and discuss our faith online.

IMO, it would be exceptionally naive to think these things weren't reaching an increasingly wide audience, even if they don't get discussed in "polite" LDS society (i.e. church functions, home teaching visits, or social interactions with ward members whose levels of knowledge and interest are unknown).

edit.... even in Jawjah

Edited May 14, 2012 by mercyngrace

[why me]

My brother encountered attacks and defenses of the church online when I mentioned a talk by Boyd K. Packer that I thought was exceptional but unavailable at LDS.org Google introduced him to the fact that some homosexual and ex-Mormons really hate Elder Packer. He remains active, believing LDS, but his induction into internet Mormonism began there.

Boyd K. Packer is perhaps the most hated GA on the web among exmormons. Not surpising that much negativity came up about him from critic boards. I think that people who begin to search about mormonism come across all sorts of information. And this is a problem when people who are investigating the church come across such information by making a honest search of mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, you know Sis. Anderson and I only know her by her writings and panel discussions. She seems to revel in her excommunicant status as some sort of way to get additional traction in her writings, but I admit that such is most subjective. Had she gone quietly, it would have been improper to discuss her, but she is a public figure because of her post-excommunication positions.

True enough, Bob,

But she is a Fielding you know (a couple of them have been presidents of the LDS Church). They seldom go quietly.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

England,

I was a student of England's at one point, and found out that he was pretty darn intolerant of dissenting views in his students (of views that dissented from his own, that is, especially in a more conservative or 'orthodox' direction). Thanks for this additional information on the man's experiences, it helps me understand and overlook a little more.

I often thought of Gene as a man of great spiritual power. He and Elder McConkie clearly had more in common than McConkie realized, as you note in seeing him as quite conservative or orthodox.

On the other hand, there is the true story of the blessing of the Chevrolet at http://www.eugeneengland.org/blessing-the-chevrolet .

[Robert F. Smith]

"Open and decentralized"? Are you kidding me? It may be that there are some aspects of the Church that are "open" and "decentralized", but to the degree that this is the case, I suspect it is only because Church leaders feel they have no other choice due to the size of the Church.

Ultimately, is there any aspect of the Church that is not directly accountable to Salt Lake City? Is there any latitude given in teaching or administering the Church that is independent of the Church Office Building? Sure, local leaders may have some degree of latitude in picking carpet samples for the foyer or organizing youth dances, but beyond that, there are policies and manuals that are supposed to be followed.

But, to the degree that Jesus is leading the Church through his prophets and apostles, this isn't a bad thing. Why would I want to have openness or decentralization when Jesus is at the center, and the more "closed" I get the closer I get to him?

cinepro,

See now Matthew Bowman, "Priest to profit: How the Mormon church teaches priesthood holders to lead," Washington Post, May 13/14, 2012, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/priest-to-profit-how-the-mormon-church-teaches-priesthood-holders-to-lead/2012/05/13/gIQAsYocNU_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines . An excellent example of LDS decentralization.