Mormondiscussion Podcast - Apoligetics And Bad Criticism

[DBMormon]

I have been working on a podcast as many of you know.

My newest episode deals with the critical explanations of our beliefs by those outside our faith. How they get lots of things wrong and how members might better understand how to deal with bad criticism.

These are basic misinformation that a newer member is more likely to encounter. This does not cover the deeper more difficult issues.

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/

METHODS OF THE CRITIC pt. 1/3

This episode is a little different. This is a three part series where I take the evening program of another church and comment on it. This evening Program is about ... duh duh... duhhh the Mormons. The speaker though respectful, gets a lot of information and descriptions of our beliefs wrong so here is my effort to show how one must be careful when hearing someone criticize our faith. I would love Feedback... please let me know. If you loved it or hated it. I was too nice... or too mean. Let me know. Either Comment here or send me a message via the links below.

http://www.facebook.com/LDSLeadership

reelmormon@gmail.com

mormondiscussion.podbean.com

Edited September 4, 2012 by DBMormon

[Nemesis]

Couldn't you work on the name? I mean just seeing those Mormon and discussion together makes me feel like I just ran into the Knights that go

Nemesis

[DBMormon]

I like the name... Mormon Stories was taken. So was Mormon Matters and Mormon Expression... So I typed in FAIRBLOG... taken too. Then I thought ok what would no one else use... so I tried Mormon Miscellanous... taken... So I was left with Mormon Mallay or Mormon Discussion.... it was close

[Calm]

Mormondiscourse or Mormonconversations would have worked...

[Teancum]

The name might link you to a discussion board by that name that is rather rough, tumble,critical of the Church and depised by many here.

[Nemesis]

Oh the horror!

[DBMormon]

Mormondiscourse or Mormonconversations would have worked...

Good thoughts, hadn't tried those.... shucks... too late now

[Darren10]

How about Mormondisputations?

[why me]

The name might link you to a discussion board by that name that is rather rough, tumble,critical of the Church and depised by many here.

It might be a great thing that he co-opted that name. But for DB's podcast to succeed it will all depend on the content.

[DBMormon]

For a podcast to succeed I need interviews anyone interested?

[The Grimace]

And as a follow up, I think an interesting podcast would be to explore critical viewpoints of the church that are correct that many members wrongfully reject, and how to deal with those criticisms.

[DBMormon]

I have thought about that but only see Prophets are not infalliable and not all things said are doctrine. that's too short

What else do you see as needed?

[DBMormon]

hey grimace you have a private message in your mailbox at the top of your screen that you haven't read yet from a day or two ago.

[Verum]

Mormondiscourse or Mormonconversations would have worked...

Mormonconversations is pretty much taken too.

http://mormonchannel.org/conversations

[Bob Crockett]

I've listened to your podcast. My own personal opinion is that you should not be appearing on this type of podcast, while identifying yourself as a church bishop, without obtaining church approval. OK to appear on the podcast, I suppose, and not trot out your bishop card. But not OK to use your bishop credentials as a way to lend credence somehow to what you are saying.

I think many of your podcast positions are untenable and contrary to established doctrine and procedure. You're a fast-talking salesman but John Dehlin ran circles around you in terms of knowledge and intellect. You're in way over your head.

Examples:

1. Breach of the seal of confidentiality, talking about your ward members and their failings in such a way that when your members hear your podcast, they'll suspect you're talking about them. This is rather horrific. In the Catholic Church, this is one of the very few grounds for excommunication. You can be a priest molesting boys and you won't be excommunicated, but if you hear a confession and recount it, out you go. You're recounting exact conversations and identifying whom you're speaking with -- how can you justify this, really? No bishop should ever recount the problems his members reveal to him, whether attributed or not, without consent. But you recount your stories in such a way that your penitents are going to easily identify themselves.

2. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the Church's position on grace and works.

3. Answering hypothetical questions about the church's stance on homosexuality, and answering questions that no church authority would ever ask. "Would you remain celibate if a stake president asked you to do so?" I can tell you have little clue about the church's teachings on homosexuality and how to respond to a penitent. I very much suspect that you've never counseled a homosexual, nor should you disclose the fact that you have.

4. Having little clue about the challenges of homosexuals. As Dehlin trots out his studies and research dealing with homosexuals, the Church and suicide, you obviously have done no reading on the subject specifically with respect to the Church or on the subject of homosexuality and suicide generally. Homosexuals in general, at least some of them, want to change their orientation (and whether that is good or bad, I have no opinion) and, in general, are a higher suicide risk than the general population (and why that is the case is a complex sociological question). When the words "shock therapy" came out of your mouth, I cringed. I don't think you know what that is.

5. Comparing the church to the Rotary Club in explaining how homosexuals should follow the rules is a very superficial understanding of church doctrine and homosexual urges.

6. You don't know the difference between fallible and infallible, even after Dehlin corrected you.

I strongly urge you to correct your misspellings and grammar errors before venturing forth in the blogosphere as a bishop of the Church engaging in apologitics.

Please don't PM me. We've been down that route before.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Dcharle]

As a former Bishop myself, I would be very careful with your use of the "bishop" title, you are adding credence to viewpoints that are simply not Church doctrine and are just apologetic speak. As one who was once a TBM and no longer accepts the church's exclusive truth claims due to what I would call "bad apoligetics and good criticism" of actual history, you need someone who can come on and add opposing viewpoints.

[KevinG]

Lots of apostate Bishops on the internet. I'm just sayin'

[DBMormon]

I've listened to your podcast. My own personal opinion is that you should not be appearing on this type of podcast, while identifying yourself as a church bishop, without obtaining church approval. OK to appear on the podcast, I suppose, and not trot out your bishop card. But not OK to use your bishop credentials as a way to lend credence somehow to what you are saying.

I think many of your podcast positions are untenable and contrary to established doctrine and procedure. You're a fast-talking salesman but John Dehlin ran circles around you in terms of knowledge and intellect. You're in way over your head.

Examples:

1. Breach of the seal of confidentiality, talking about your ward members and their failings in such a way that when your members hear your podcast, they'll suspect you're talking about them. This is rather horrific. You're recounting exact conversations and identifying whom you're speaking with -- how can you justify this, really? No bishop should ever recount the problems his members reveal to him, whether attributed or not, without consent. But you recount your stories in such a way that your penitents are going to easily identify themselves.

2. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the Church's position on grace and works.

3. Answering hypothetical questions about the church's stance on homosexuality, and answering questions that no church authority would ever ask. "Would you remain celibate if a stake president asked you to do so?" I can tell you have little clue about the church's teachings on homosexuality and how to respond to a penitent. I very much suspect that you've never counseled a homosexual, nor should you disclose the fact that you have.

4. Having little clue about the challenges of homosexuals. As Dehlin trots out his studies and research dealing with homosexuals, the Church and suicide, you obviously have done no reading on the subject specifically with respect to the Church or on the subject of homosexuality and suicide generally. Homosexuals in general, at least some of them, want to change their orientation (and whether that is good or bad, I have no opinion) and, in general, are a higher suicide risk than the general population (and why that is the case is a complex sociological question). When the words "shock therapy" came out of your mouth, I cringed. I don't think you know what that is.

5. Comparing the church to the Rotary Club in explaining how homosexuals should follow the rules is a very superficial understanding of church doctrine and homosexual urges.

I strongly urge you to correct your misspellings and grammar errors before venturing forth in the blogosphere as a bishop of the Church engaging in apologitics.

Please don't PM me. We've been down that route before.

Ouch...

So to be a Bishop one must have good grammar? sorry. these numbers match yours

1.) Not sure how I breached confidentiality - The apostles also share stories of those they speak with who make mistakes and repent or struggle without naming names... are they in error too

2.) I am well aware of the church's teachings on grace and works... you may want to read Brad Wilcox "His Grace is suffcient" in last month New Era, Bob Millet's "Why speak of the atonement" and "Grace: after all we can do", or Elder Lund's Salvation by Grace or Works?" in one of the 1981 ensigns, or Elder McConkie's "What think ye of salvation by Grace"

I am very comfortable in my understanding of Grace and works.. Do I know everything? nope, I am young (33) been a member only 16 years. Missed Primary, YM's, a Mission (my choice). I am still learning.... though while I read and study continually I am grateful for what I do know and where my understanding is.

3.) John Dehlin asked for an outline and the two issues of SSA and youth sexuality issues were not in my outline nor was I told they were on the table. But no matter, he asked and I answered, and they are my answers. I admitted on the interview of not having addressed SSA with anyone yet so you are correct but obviously you didn't catch that I admitted as much...

4.) I may not be well read in some issues and SSA may be one of them... Are you well read in every area? Do you have areas you are not profecient or do you know everything as your criticism implies?

5.) superficial - perhaps. your welcome to your opinion

For every person who has been critical like you, I have had Bishops and stake presidents both in and out of my stake write me or notify me of how grateful they were for my interview and how well they thought I did. Personally your opinon matters very little. Do I make mistakes... yep. But I count their opinion ten-fold over yours.

Now, it may happen tomorrow, but no-one from the church who has authority over me has called me and notified me the interview was innapropriate or asked me never to do it again. We could assume they are unaware, but that is unlikely as we know Dehlin is on their radar. So until that happens perhaps you may consider you don't have the church's stance on every one of your thoughts as you insinuate thye are one in the same.

[Bob Crockett]

Ouch...

So to be a Bishop one must have good grammar? sorry. these numbers match yours

Even this short snippet I've quoted is full of error. Generally speaking, a person with a sixth-grade command of the grammar and the King's English is one who has not read much. So, yes, having a decent command of English is, to me, a necessary condition to weighing forth in public as a bishop and an expert.

1.) Not sure how I breached confidentiality - The apostles also share stories of those they speak with who make mistakes and repent or struggle without naming names... are they in error too

It is very quite evident you've breached the seal of confidentiality. To cite to general authorities as your example? I'm pretty sure they get consent to tell their stories. I know when I've spoken in stake conferences as an authority of the church in the long distant past I've obtained consent if it involves a confidential communication.

2.) I am well aware of the church's teachings on grace and works... you may want to read Brad Wilcox "His Grace is suffcient" in last month New Era, Bob Millet's "Why speak of the atonement" and "Grace: after all we can do", or Elder Lund's Salvation by Grace or Works?" in one of the 1981 ensigns, or Elder McConkie's "What think ye of salvation by Grace"

No you don't, nor can you articulate it.

3.) John Dehlin asked for an outline and the two issues of SSA and youth sexuality issues were not in my outline nor was I told they were on the table. But no matter, he asked and I answered, and they are my answers. I admitted on the interview of not having addressed SSA with anyone yet so you are correct but obviously you didn't catch that I admitted as much...

You really feel good about claiming to be a bishop and weighing forth on such subjects as shock therapy, celibacy, suicide and such? Really, my good man, you're in way over your head.

4.) I may not be well read in some issues and SSA may be one of them... Are you well read in every area? Do you have areas you are not profecient or do you know everything as your criticism implies?

At least I can spell "proficient." Usually. I've appeared on the radio speaking on church subjects. I am a published expert in the area in which I've appeared on the radio. I am published in journals on the subject of religion and religious history; I consider myself an expert in those areas.

5.) superficial - perhaps. your welcome to your opinion

All we have is our opinion. Some of us have informed and educated opinions, some just want to be heard.

For every person who has been critical like you, I have had Bishops and stake presidents both in and out of my stake write me or notify me of how grateful they were for my interview and how well they thought I did. Personally your opinon matters very little. Do I make mistakes... yep. But I count their opinion ten-fold over yours.

I'd say that in this case, I don't believe you. What would be more influential to me is to hear from your own stake president. Look, there's lots of folks on this board who can't spell, have a sixth-grade command of the English, and claim to be experts. I never, or almost never, comment upon their technical deficiencies. What makes you different is that you haul out your bishop card. That's offensive. You have not that right.

Now, it may happen tomorrow, but no-one from the church who has authority over me has called me and notified me the interview was innapropriate or asked me never to do it again. We could assume they are unaware, but that is unlikely as we know Dehlin is on their radar. So until that happens perhaps you may consider you don't have the church's stance on every one of your thoughts as you insinuate thye are one in the same.

And it is not my job to bring it to their attention.

But to be a bishop and accuse Joseph Smith of dishonesty, or to cave into the notion that salvation is not exclusive to the Church, is to be thinly-read.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

Lots of apostate Bishops on the internet. I'm just sayin'

I suppose. I just enjoy engaging them when they pop up. At least this guy isn't anonymous. One or two complaining members in his stake and he'll be gone, but that is just my opinion.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Dcharle]

Lots of apostate Bishops on the internet. I'm just sayin'

Labels like "apostate" are not helpful to the discourse. Now that I have a more complete knowledge of church history, for me, it strains credulity to accept Joseph as a true "stone-in-hat" translator.

[KevinG]

Labels like "apostate" are not helpful to the discourse. Now that I have a more complete knowledge of church history, for me, it strains credulity to accept Joseph as a true "stone-in-hat" translator.

Please don't let my use of the dictionary definition of someone who has renounced their religious faith http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy be a stumbling block to our discourse. Let me know if you prefer lapsed, cultural, fringe, former, recovering, anti, no-mo-momo or any other variant on he who no longer believes.

I wouldn't want to be insulting to anyone who implies their more complete knowledge of church history has enlightened them beyond mere Mormons to the point they feel comfortable using "stone-in-hat" translator as a title for the Prophet Joseph Smith.

[KevinG]

Well to be perfectly honest I'm sure I will have fun deriding your derision. But congratulations on going from righteous indignation to insulting your former coreligionists in a mere two posts. that may be a record.

[Bob Crockett]

So, Mr. Reel: Do you really believe what you told John Dehlin, that salvation (or, in LDS parlance, exaltation) is not exclusive to the Mormon priesthood?

[Dcharle]

I wouldn't want to be insulting to anyone who implies their more complete knowledge of church history has enlightened them beyond mere Mormons to the point they feel comfortable using "stone-in-hat" translator as a title for the Prophet Joseph Smith.

A good example of such historical distortion is found in the methods and process of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Consider the portrayal of Joseph Smith in many of the churches sacred narratives and art work that have been used over the last century depict him engaged in the translation process either by himself, or with Oliver Cowdery viewing the plates of gold in deep concentration, as if receiving revelation from God who is conveying to Smith the interpretation of the “reformed Egyptian” characters found on the gold plates. The term often used by the church to describe this translation process as “by the gift and power of God”. Very rarely is much more said beyond this. Anthony Ivins clearly relays the common belief among the faithful in his 1909 CG talk:

“So He gave us the Book of Mormon, containing the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, in its plainness, simplicity and truth. . . . it was a truth that God revealed these things to him; it was a truth that Moroni delivered the plates into his hands; it was a truth that this book was translated by the gift and power of God, through the medium of the Urim and Thummim. Now, we spend a good deal of time trying to determine how that was brought about. What does it matter how it was brought about? It was done by the gift and power of God, that is sufficient for me. It was done by means of the Urim and Thummim-not a new method either of learning the will of the Lord, for the ancients had it. The High Priests in Israel had it, and with it they ascertained the mind and will of the Lord for the guidance of the people; just as with it the Prophet Joseph was able to translate this record.”

(Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report April 1909, First day Afternoon Session)

The question of many informed Mormons and those outside the church is, why does the actual historical record differ so greatly from what the leaders of the church have been professing for well over a hundred years? If, as Anthony Ivins said, “It was done by means of the Urim and Thummim-not a new method” then why was a new method used?

Why is the “stone-in-hat” method not fully disclosed? Some may say, does it really matter what method Joseph used when translating the book of Mormon? Honesty and integrity demands that truth be told, why obfuscate, there is no middle ground, cannot truth stand on its own?