Dehlin'S Methodology?

[Bit]

Childish? I don't think so. But if it is, itis no more or less childish than the "I am a Mormon" videos or the missionary effort. Cannot Mormons simply live their faith without all of the hoopla of such things as "Mormon helping hands" t-shirts? Mind you, I am not critical of these things. I am just saying, that many LDS think they can boldly and strongly proclaim their faith and challenge the world, but when they get a little bit of pushback, they call foul.

Proclaiming and evangelizing faith is one thing, and it is most certainly not unique to Mormonism. It is not disrespectful to anyone to say "I'm a Mormon."

Organizing a group of people upon a place that Latter-day Saints hold dear, to "[boast] 'Finally ExMormon,' 'Research the church' and 'Transcend Mormonism,' [and to chant] 'freedom' to the valley below" is quite another thing altogether. For me, this is akin to whining and teenage rebellion for the sake of rebellion. It is easy to not be a member: simply do not participate. Why the public performance?[

The Church had exactly the right response to us. Good on Mike Purdey.

I have a similar response. We love you, and we hope that someday you will embrace us once more.

[why me]

Anyway...check your messages.

Okay, you asked how can I defend the lds church and be inactive. Right? I did not get your recent message and so I will go with that one. And I will do it here and not in a PM. Are you ready? I became inactive years ago when I got a chronic illness that has no cure but can be controlled by medication. No, it is not HIV: Before that time I lived in a bubble but when I was 18 and I was informed of the illness, the news knocked me off my perch and I never recovered from it. And I have been inactive ever since. I defend the church because I see the critics being quite unfair toward the lds church in their criticisms. I have no ill feelings toward the lds church at all. And I personally owe it a great deal. But I cannot do what is required of me when it comes to activity.

I have come to the conclusion that I am no different from many of the 11 witnesses. They had a spiritual experience like I did. I felt the holy spirit when I prayed about the book of mormon, as they saw and felt what they felt and saw and could not deny it. I cannot deny that witness. And I am sure that the witnesses would also defend the lds church and their experience as I am doing.

Each of us need to work through our own complications and hope for the best.

Now back to the discussion.

Edited July 3, 2012 by why me

[John Larsen]

I have a similar response. We love you, and we hope that someday you will embrace us once more.

We can embrace right now. Acceptance shouldn't be contingent on us reaccepting your views. It sound like you are trying to withold affection until we meet your requirements.

[Bit]

We can embrace right now. Acceptance shouldn't be contingent on us reaccepting your views. It sound like you are trying to withold affection until we meet your requirements.

Do you accept the LDS faith? If so, why protest it? Why organize a (relatively) large gathering of people holding signs and declaring their "freedom" from it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

but when they get a little bit of pushback, they call foul.

A little push back and we cry foul. Ok.

I am not taking about anything specificity just generally.

[mrmandias]

Childish? I don't think so. But if it is, itis no more or less childish than the "I am a Mormon" videos or the missionary effort. Cannot Mormons simply live their faith without all of the hoopla of such things as "Mormon helping hands" t-shirts? Mind you, I am not critical of these things. I am just saying, that many LDS think they can boldly and strongly proclaim their faith and challenge the world, but when they get a little bit of pushback, they call foul.

Who's they? I don't think the Church cares that you are supporting an act of contempt and hostility as a gesture of understanding and reconciliation. *I* do.

You are right that we use publicity to promote our beliefs. That's not what y'all did. You were just rejecting. What do you have in common, beyond the thinnest platitudes? Rejection.

When we start running "And I'm not a Catholic, because ewww" videos on youtube, get back to me. Especially if we say we're doing it to promote good relations with Catholics.

Edited July 3, 2012 by mrmandias

[mrmandias]

Indviduals created there own signs. You would have to ask those. For me the rally was about reducing the overall stigma about coming out by having more people come out. The freedom message doesn't resignate with me.

So you reduce the 'stigma' LDS people have against apostates by trying to make apostasy as public and hostile as possible?

I want to say that doesn't make sense, but truth is it doesn't even pass the Turing test. I could be persuaded at this point that you hav left this defense of yours to a bot programmed with self-fulfillment buzzwords to randomly generate a response.

Edited July 3, 2012 by mrmandias

[wenglund]

When we start running "And I'm not a Catholic, because ewww" videos on youtube, get back to me. Especially if we say we're doing it to promote good relations with Catholics.

And, especially after the Catholic's confront us about our hypothetical public hostility and we turn and blame them for creatong the hostility, but agree to embrace nevertheless.

It beggars belief. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 3, 2012 by wenglund

[John Larsen]

Do you accept the LDS faith? If so, why protest it? Why organize a (relatively) large gathering of people holding signs and declaring their "freedom" from it?

Depends on what you mean by accept. I probably accept the LDS faith in the same way you accept Greek Mythology or Star Trek. I don't believe it is "true" and I think the Church is a generally harmful force in the world.

[John Larsen]

Who's they? I don't think the Church cares that you are supporting an act of contempt and hostility as a gesture of understanding and reconciliation. *I* do.

You are right that we use publicity to promote our beliefs. That's not what y'all did. You were just rejecting. What do you have in common, beyond the thinnest platitudes? Rejection.

When we start running "And I'm not a Catholic, because ewww" videos on youtube, get back to me. Especially if we say we're doing it to promote good relations with Catholics.

Reject is just a matter of prospective. Given the foundational teaching of the "Great Apostasy" you could view all of LDS teaching and practice as a rejection of historical Christianity.

[John Larsen]

When we start running "And I'm not a Catholic, because ewww" videos on youtube, get back to me. Especially if we say we're doing it to promote good relations with Catholics.

They are not videos, but I can show you plenty of Books and speeches from my library either published by the Church or its general authories that say just such a thing.

I know, I know... they were speaking as men. So were we.

[John Larsen]

So you reduce the 'stigma' LDS people have against apostates by trying to make apostasy as public and hostile as possible?

I want to say that doesn't make sense, but truth is it doesn't even pass the Turing test. I could be persuaded at this point that you hav left this defense of yours to a bot programmed with self-fulfillment buzzwords to randomly generate a response.

I think you have crossed the line from civil discourse to just trying to be insulting. Good day, I am done responding to you.

[cinepro]

John, you should invite the major personalities in this thread into a group discussion on your podcast. It could be very interesting.

[Tacenda]

Deleted

Edited July 3, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

It won't happen. Too many variables. No one is ever going to prove the church true or false. It's been investigated and has several facts and logic trying to disprove, but as long as a person believes a man is speaking for the Lord, no proof can compare. Not even the proof that the papyra is a book of breathings according to egyptologists, not the BOA. But there's always an answer when you have a prophet on the earth.

[why me]

I'd pay $ for that. But it won't happen. Too many variables. No one is ever going to prove the church true or false. It's been investigated and has several facts and logic trying to disprove, but as long as a person believes a man is speaking for the Lord, no proof can compare. Not even the proof that the papyra is a book of breathings according to egyptologists, not the BOA. But there's always an answer when you have a prophet on the earth.

The mormon story would have fallen like a house of cards if the mormon story wasn't so compelling and unbelievable. We have at least 13 people involved with the foundation and all would have been in on the fraud if there were a fraud. And yet, not one gave it up. This is quite compelling for many people. Not to mention the confirmation of the truth claim in Moroni. There would have been a lot of variables for the church to fail and certainly if joseph were a fraudster the odds were against him.

[John Ping Pong]

And yet Dehlin told us that we have more downloads than he does. About 20,000 active listeners and growing. Maybe you should check your facts. Since most of our listeners tend to not be trying to make the middle way work, they don't cause as much sturm und drang.

Sturm und Drang?

Sturm und Drang?

Ja, ich liebe das

Sturm und Drang!

[Libs]

Depends on what you mean by accept. I probably accept the LDS faith in the same way you accept Greek Mythology or Star Trek. I don't believe it is "true" and I think the Church is a generally harmful force in the world.

Hi John. I was wondering why you believe the Church is "a generally harmful force in the world"? Not sure this is the place to discuss that, but I am curious. You can just give me the basics. Are you an Evangelical? Sorry, I am not very familiar with your work. I am formerly LDS (inactive, but still a member of record) and my general feeling about the Church is that it is, actually, very beneficial to some, and does a lot of good in the world (minus one particular political/moral issue, in which I believe there is some harm done, to those who are SS attracted)..but, generally speaking, I'd have to say there is a lot of positive in the Church. I also believe there is some truth in the Church (although, not as in "the only true religion on earth"), but some basic truths that can help people live good lives.

[wenglund]

They are not videos, but I can show you plenty of Books and speeches from my library either published by the Church or its general authories that say just such a thing.

I know, I know... they were speaking as men. So were we.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more absurd... Unbelievable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cwald]

Okay, you asked how can I defend the lds church and be inactive. Right? I did not get your recent message and so I will go with that one. And I will do it here and not in a PM. Are you ready? I became inactive years ago when I got a chronic illness that has no cure but can be controlled by medication. No, it is not HIV: Before that time I lived in a bubble but when I was 18 and I was informed of the illness, the news knocked me off my perch and I never recovered from it. And I have been inactive ever since. I defend the church because I see the critics being quite unfair toward the lds church in their criticisms. I have no ill feelings toward the lds church at all. And I personally owe it a great deal. But I cannot do what is required of me when it comes to activity.

I have come to the conclusion that I am no different from many of the 11 witnesses. They had a spiritual experience like I did. I felt the holy spirit when I prayed about the book of mormon, as they saw and felt what they felt and saw and could not deny it. I cannot deny that witness. And I am sure that the witnesses would also defend the lds church and their experience as I am doing.

Each of us need to work through our own complications and hope for the best.

Now back to the discussion.

Fair enough.

[John Ping Pong]

Do you know why I love John Larsen and his podcasts?

Because he is able to say the things I can only think; the things I dare not share with the fellow Mormons in my ward.

Three cheers for Mormon Expression!

[Bit]

Depends on what you mean by accept. I probably accept the LDS faith in the same way you accept Greek Mythology or Star Trek. I don't believe it is "true" and I think the Church is a generally harmful force in the world.

More harmful than any other religious group? Are you anti-religion in general?

I find your "harmful force" statement to be pretty offensive, and deeply uninformed. Could you demonstrate how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "generally a harmful force in the world?"

[Bit]

Do you know why I love John Larsen and his podcasts?

Because he is able to say the things I can only think; the things I dare not share with the fellow Mormons in my ward.

Three cheers for Mormon Expression!

Why can't you share the things you think? Who's stopping you?

[wenglund]

It won't happen. Too many variables. No one is ever going to prove the church true or false. It's been investigated and has several facts and logic trying to disprove, but as long as a person believes a man is speaking for the Lord, no proof can compare. Not even the proof that the papyra is a book of breathings according to egyptologists, not the BOA. But there's always an answer when you have a prophet on the earth.

I am glad you said this because I think it illustrates very well, and in several ways, what I have mention multiple times earlier about the disconnect of those who have lost faith. They don't accurately get what the gospel is really about and how it works.

For one, you speak of proving the Church true or false, whereas, the gospel is actually about growth in faith towards becoming like Christ. The Church is simply a vehicle for that growth, and ultimately its "truth," is function of results--i.e. it "truth" is manifest in the ability of the gospel to bring people to Christ and enable them to become like him.

Similarly, the gospel isn't about whether portions of the extant papyri were the source document for the Book of Abraham, and whether Joseph translated the Egyptian correctly. Instead, and again, the Book of Abraham is an aspect of the gospel vehicle. It is intended to facilitate growth in faith unto Christ. The "truth" of the Book of Abraham, as with the gospel of which it is a part, rests in whether it is revealed of God and brings us to Christ and enables us to become like him.

Third, the way we come to know whether it is of God or not, isn't by an appeal to Egyptologists (since they have no authority to speak for God nor are they in a position to know the things of God), but rather by asking God and by applying the precepts he has revealed to see if they bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him, as the are designed.

In short, your view and mode for examinating of the gospel actually represents your own private gospel, You put your faith in man instead of God, You are focused on proving irrelevancies true or false rather growing in faith unto Christ. And, the object of your faith and attention isn't Christ and the things of Christ, but whether the extant portions of the papyri is the source document for the Book of Abraham. Your gospel couldn't be further from the actual restored gospel.

If anything, this is really why "it is not going to happen" with good folks like you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Ping Pong]

Why can't you share the things you think? Who's stopping you?

Mormons like you, frankly.