John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Calm]

A board nanny is someone who takes it upon themselves the job of telling people how to behave.

[phaedrus ut]

A board nanny is someone who takes it upon themselves the job of telling people how to behave.

Ok I see. I was attempting to be diplomatic with my observation. Next time when I'm thinking someone is a completely horrible person I should just come out and say it.

BTW, Cal you've always been pleasant.

Phaedrus

[Calm]

Ok I see. I was attempting to be diplomatic with my observation. Next time when I'm thinking someone is a completely horrible person I should just come out and say it.

BTW, Cal you've always been pleasant.

Phaedrus

Thank you. You could just report them so you don't get yourself kicked off which would be a shame....I do on occasion when I am unsure that a specific rule is being violated but the poster is just being all around not nice and the mods frequently act on the report.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Dan Peterson on me saying "no one has the actual correct stance said" -

Except you, apparently. Your stance that no one has the actual correct stance is correct. Right?

Nothing is permanent except change, including every single cultural, doctrinal, and practice in religion, science, history (as Nibley noted it [history] is always being re-interpreted), medicine, philosophy, cosmology, economics, for the simple reason that as our scientists have oh so properly shown, everything moves. Without movement there is not change. Since everything moves, then everything changes. There can be no final correct automatic stance that one can stick a stake in and say "THIS is IT!" From here I move no more forever. That is simply impossible because of two things, movement, and the Second law of Thermodynamics, which simply states, things always run down. Nothing has ever come here on earth which is permanent and final yet has it? We know, thanks to our understanding of how the universe actually works, that far off into the future, based on our inferences from the past, and knowing what happens in our present that things will continue with their inexorable march towards one thing.....non-permanent change. This is what I was thinking when I typed those words. No philosophy or group of ideas has ever nor can they remain as they were originally proposed, because new knowledge always comes in to change the old "truth" of how things "really are." Even the truth continually expands, morphs, changes, extends, and changes as circumstances dictate. Joseph Smith was exactly right here. What was truth in an earlier time is no longer truth today. Interestingly, even though an Almighty source supposedly gave that truth, it was not final, nor of a fundamental unchangeable nature, but entirely circumscribed within a cultural setting which never remained permanent.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Kevin Christensen]

If I accept that truth is "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come" and that my knowledge is constantly changing, I don't see truth as changing, but rather, my knowledge of it, and that is a very different thing, particularly if I expect and even seek such changes.

Kuhn pointed out that "anomally emerges against a background of expectation." That is nothing seems wrong unless you expect something else. It's the expectation that drives the experience. An expectation of stasis makes change an anomaly. Does such an expectation demonstrate a "knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come"? If the expectation changes, does that mean truth has changed or that I've learned something, perhaps moving from Stage Two of the Perry Scheme to Stage Five?

The expectation of change means that I have to let go some kinds of certainty. But not all. I've told the story of how when I was a child, my father took us to the Cleveland Lloyd dinosaur quarry, where I first saw the bones in the rocks. As soon as I could read, I read books, and over the years read more books. What the scientists said about the bones changed a great deal over the years. But the bones themselves remain a constant reality that calls for explanation. A lack of absolute certainty about somethings, a lack of information about somethings does not change the fact of the bones themselves. I may have been a child when I first saw the bones, but the bones remain. And there are more of them. If anything, there are more of them to explain.

The Book of Mormon remains something to account for, just as the bones remain. When I was a child, listened to stories, but I knew nothing about Nibley, or Sorenson, or Gardner, or Poulson, or Clark, or the Astons, or chiasmus, or Barker, or NDE accounts, or Kuhn and Alma 32, or Survivor Witness and the Book of Mormon, or the Hebrew festivals and King Benjamin, or Alma's sons and the Passover, or Lehi and qasida, or Nahom, or a thousand other things.

Because my faith is based on the existence of a range of different kinds of experience, and a wide range of information, I can have a "cause to believe" open to ongoing processes of growth, expecting branches to sprout, roots to thrust down, even dead bits to fall off now and then. I do not desire or long for an absolute knowing that is static, unchanging, and final. Such a thing would require here and now absolute omniscience, and with it, a here and now absolute accountability.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT

[volgadon]

If I accept that truth is "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come" and that my knowledge is constantly changing, I don't see truth as changing, but rather, my knowledge of it, and that is a very different thing, particularly if I expect and even seek such changes.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

West Jordan, UT

I think that you are absolutely correct on this. I also think that the chapter strongly implies that we rarely see the true essence of things.

[canard78]

My word, I only had to read a few pages of this thread to remind myself why I so often leave this board feeling spiritually worse than when I arrived.

Some of the comments from so-called defenders of the faith is an embarrassment. Do you realise how much you undermine your credibility when you make comments like this?

Board nannies are being removed.

[Calm]

John Dehlin may not have intended to, but I know of several families that have been divided because of the 'process' he took one of their members on. In addition, board members have seen up close and personal some calculating attacks of his on some they view as friends, for some of us very good friends and workmates, attacks including threatening letters sent off to employers with all that implies.

There are some extreme comments made here that are understandable, Dehlin has made himself into quite a polarising individual...it is not some kind of intellectual diversion, for many Dehlin made it personal and that is going to bring out some strong emotion. No excuse for poor behaviour though, it should be reported to the mods even if one understand it (with or without agreeing with the extreme).

I did warn you, canard, to stay away from the main forum...should have listened.

Edited February 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

Here are my views on this recent "John Dehlin episode" after reading through this entire thread again.

I have watched Dehlin for awhile now and listened to some of his podcasts. I liked a few of them but didn't care much for others.

I don't really agree with him saying that the middle way just does not work as I know of many who have made it work for them. Is it ideal? No. Would the great majority of them like to actually stop attending? Yes. (That's what I have found, even though a small percentage are happy still attending as a non or part believer). Nearly all of them still attend because of family / spouse issues. I think that's understandable. Also, most of them attend and do not pay tithing and many do not attend the temple anymore.

What I don't think works is trying to change the church from the inside. This seems to be one of the biggest hopes and dreams of Dehlin's followers. That he would be able to do this. I never understood believing this would happen.

There were even NOMs who wanted to make bumper stickers with the question on it "WHO IS JOHN DEHLIN?" (like in the book, Atlas Shrugged and the question, "Who is John Galt?"). His followers actually believed they could form a community and draw such attention to it, that the church and its members would take note and make changes. That was never going to happen.

John could have most likely made the middle way work for him if he'd stayed out of the public view and not tried to have a following and replace the community of the church for him (and others). Now he's back and from what I see, he's is truly trying the middle way this time (attending but not truly believing). It may work if he leaves the public forum of his behind.

[why me]

My word, I only had to read a few pages of this thread to remind myself why I so often leave this board feeling spiritually worse than when I arrived.

Some of the comments from so-called defenders of the faith is an embarrassment. Do you realise how much you undermine your credibility when you make comments like this?

I think that you gave a somewhat passive-aggressive response. Defenders are human beings with emotions and passions too. This may seem hard to believe but the lds church is not a cult. Members are free to be passionate and emotional about what they believe to be true. In a cult, people can be subdued, without passion and emotion. But as you can see, the lds are a mixed bag of people. And yet, we are doing our best.

[why me]

Now he's back and from what I see, he's is truly trying the middle way this time (attending but not truly believing). It may work if he leaves the public forum of his behind.

This will never work. The lds church requires too much work for it to work. However, one can follow a believing middle way. Believe but are not strong in the gospel. That can work. But there is no way that one can be active and yet not believe. Too much to do in church: teach sunday school, go home teaching, have other callings, give talks, pray etc. It will be a hard life for john to follow this course.

And much will depend on his family. If his wife believes, it will be easier for him but still difficult.

[rodheadlee]

I say, Welcome Back John! It's always good to have a lost sheep return. I myself having been a lost sheep. I experienced some of the things John has, different but the same. All of my friends quit coming over as soon as the drug supply dried up and were replaced with Bible study. These were long time old friends not just aquaintances. It's also tough to live your life publically on blogs, Facebook or whatever. The repercussions of your change of life will be public, people who felt they were wronged will make it public too. People who felt they were led astray and are now left holding the bag have no one to blame but themselves. Ultimately you are responsible for your own savation and you should only put your faith in Jesus Christ, that He will not lead you astray.

[wayfarer]

This will never work. The lds church requires too much work for it to work. However, one can follow a believing middle way. Believe but are not strong in the gospel. That can work. But there is no way that one can be active and yet not believe. Too much to do in church: teach sunday school, go home teaching, have other callings, give talks, pray etc. It will be a hard life for john to follow this course.

And much will depend on his family. If his wife believes, it will be easier for him but still difficult.

As we have discussed before, I am active, faithful, but do not believe in any traditional sense. And I have not 'believed' in any traditional sense for 25 years. And I was, during this period, HP 1st assistant for 10 years, Ward Mission Leader, Gospel Doctrine teacher (full course - four years), regularly and faithfully do home teaching, have a temple recommend -- never lapsed, give talks frequently, and provide prayers and testimony. And I have been Choir Director for 21 of the 25 years...my favorite calling.

so... at least there is one piece of evidence that says it can work. I'm not sure it will work for Dehlin...when I have talked to him, he seemed at the time to be a bit too caught up in the white or black false dualism and may not be able to deal with the rigor of determining for oneself what is true, through the spirit and test of Alma 32. This self-discovery makes up a key component of the Middle Way, and it's very hard work, but rewarding. But I'm not in a place to tell -- it's his life and problem.

Edited February 3, 2013 by wayfarer

[ALarson]

But there is no way that one can be active and yet not believe.

That is completely untrue, IMO.

I know of many who are active and do not believe that the church is the one true church or even that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon is historically factual.

Maybe our definitions of "active" are different but I know there are many who attend weekly and do not believe anymore. People attend for all different reasons.

[why me]

That is completely untrue, IMO.

I know of many who are active and do not believe that the church is the one true church or even that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon is historically factual.

Maybe our definitions of "active" are different but I know there are many who attend weekly and do not believe anymore. People attend for all different reasons.

If you noticed, I did not just say attend. I said that there is a lot of work involved in being an active member in terms of time and callings. I just can't someone who does not believe doing it. But attend...yes.

[why me]

As we have discussed before, I am active, faithful, but do not believe in any traditional sense. And I have not 'believed' in any traditional sense for 25 years. And I was, during this period, HP 1st assistant for 10 years, Ward Mission Leader, Gospel Doctrine teacher (full course - four years), regularly and faithfully do home teaching, have a temple recommend -- never lapsed, give talks frequently, and provide prayers and testimony. And I have been Choir Director for 21 of the 25 years...my favorite calling.

But you do believe in a non-traditional sense. It is my understanding from the posts that John does not believe anymore but will consider himself active. But how to do callings when one does not believe will be difficult.

[Calm]

If you noticed, I did not just say attend. I said that there is a lot of work involved in being an active member in terms of time and callings. I just can't someone who does not believe doing it. But attend...yes.

I know a couple, each has their own reasons...it is a continuation of much they have done in the past. If something is a habit, sometimes the habit persists after the reason for it goes...and that reason is replaced with a desire for stability or something else.

[Daniel Peterson]

My word, I only had to read a few pages of this thread to remind myself why I so often leave this board feeling spiritually worse than when I arrived.

Some of the comments from so-called defenders of the faith is an embarrassment. Do you realise how much you undermine your credibility when you make comments like this?

I'm provisionally assuming that you're not referring to me.

If you are referring to me, I'd like to know precisely what it is about what I've written that offends you.

[mfbukowski]

Nothing is permanent except change, including every single cultural, doctrinal, and practice in religion, science, history (as Nibley noted it [history] is always being re-interpreted), medicine, philosophy, cosmology, economics, for the simple reason that as our scientists have oh so properly shown, everything moves. Without movement there is not change. Since everything moves, then everything changes. There can be no final correct automatic stance that one can stick a stake in and say "THIS is IT!" From here I move no more forever. That is simply impossible because of two things, movement, and the Second law of Thermodynamics, which simply states, things always run down. Nothing has ever come here on earth which is permanent and final yet has it? We know, thanks to our understanding of how the universe actually works, that far off into the future, based on our inferences from the past, and knowing what happens in our present that things will continue with their inexorable march towards one thing.....non-permanent change. This is what I was thinking when I typed those words. No philosophy or group of ideas has ever nor can they remain as they were originally proposed, because new knowledge always comes in to change the old "truth" of how things "really are." Even the truth continually expands, morphs, changes, extends, and changes as circumstances dictate. Joseph Smith was exactly right here. What was truth in an earlier time is no longer truth today. Interestingly, even though an Almighty source supposedly gave that truth, it was not final, nor of a fundamental unchangeable nature, but entirely circumscribed within a cultural setting which never remained permanent.

So what are we arguing about then? You are the one who seems to think that scientific truth is the end of everything- facts facts facts! But if science changes- and I agree that it does and that truth itself changes, what are we arguing about?

What's the problem with a church which believes in ongoing revelation ?

[mfbukowski]

If I accept that truth is "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come" and that my knowledge is constantly changing, I don't see truth as changing, but rather, my knowledge of it, and that is a very different thing, particularly if I expect and even seek such changes.

I completely agree with your post- except I think for some semantic differences.

For me, "truth" is a property of sentences- only sentences can be true or false. "TRVTH" is not something out there-an unchanging absolute thing floating like a Platonic Form somewhere.

I think one can formulate sentences which are always true- for example I think that perhaps the sentence "We should always live by the golden rule" is one of those sentences.

But I don't think you meant to take issue with that view- it is just another way of expressing your idea of "my knowledge of truth is constantly changing", perhaps.

[Louis Midgley]

ALarson pointed out that some may not believe a thing and still be in some sense "active" in the life of the community of Saints. But it simply does not make sense to think of them as faithful to God, which is ultimately all that matters. What we imagine, apart from our covenant duty to God, has exactly nothing to do with being faithful to God. If the gospel of Jesus Christ is true--which it is--those who turn away from God to some idol, however attractive it may seen now, will end up in profound misery. A strictly utilitarian ethic--a what-works-for-me sort of thing--can lead to the justification of every imaginable evil. For example, one could use it would justify cannibalism. And I have heard people in prison explain in painful detail how such an ethic justified child rape, and then caused them to end up in utter misery and also how they regret the evil they inflicted upon others. And I think I see signs that John Dehlin has now seen a bit of the light on some of these issue. This is clearly troubling to his followers and admirers..

[The Grimace]

I can't remember. When did I pull the Smith/Dehlin essay? Wasn't it late May -- and not late March?

Why not publish the essay now? Clear up the whole mess? Are you beholden to some instruction not to publish the essay? I mean, if you aren't going to publish, why not just stop talking about it? And if you are going to publish, why not just say when?

[Sky]

I just got through listening to all three loooooong podcasts regarding John Dehlin's faith reconstruction. My initial impression of him being a nice person still sticks, but I can't help but notice that he seems to be a deeply conflicted individual. He does seem genuine. And then reading the responses here from Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgley and others (whom I also respect) have been most interesting. I regret that a misunderstanding and disagreement of this magnitude has occurred between seemingly good, well-meaning members of the Church, because "if we are not one, we are not His."

I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to be able to judge Dehlin's motives or sincerity, or who's version of the story is the most accurate. But I have my reservations from listening to the podcasts that he has undergone a complete transformation from skepticism and unbelief to total belief. From what I heard, a large part of his motives in returning to Church activity are to keep his family together, and I can't really blame him for that. I don't think he has a literal belief in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, or even Jesus Christ. I don't know if his return to the faith will last, but I honestly want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope that eventually he does return to full belief. And that he can baptize his son.

As a side note, I do not understand why Daniel Peterson was let go from the Maxwell Institute. I mean, good grief, he was arguably the best and most visible defender that the Church had, and it was something he was passionate about. It seems like if the MI wanted to go in a different direction, there should have been a better way to go about it than firing one of the main contributors and supporters of it.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

So what are we arguing about then? You are the one who seems to think that scientific truth is the end of everything- facts facts facts! But if science changes- and I agree that it does and that truth itself changes, what are we arguing about?

What's the problem with a church which believes in ongoing revelation ?

Nothing. It's what it continually says and teaches about everything else that does not jive with it that bothers me. It's anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-evolution comments that bother me. It pays lip service to believing truth, but when truth comes along that is tested and verified and shown to be accurate and true, the church dismisses it if it does not fit into its own paradigm, because the assumption is Mormonism is THE truth, it has THE truth, and ONLY anything that fits with it can be accurate or true. It is THIS that really bothers me because it is simply false. It is the picking and choosing and selectivity that bothers me. It is the denigrating of other truths that are true that bothers me. It's like I have seen posted elsewhere the Mormon interpretation is If your church changes its apostasy, when my church changes its revelation.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[why me]

As a side note, I do not understand why Daniel Peterson was let go from the Maxwell Institute. I mean, good grief, he was arguably the best and most visible defender that the Church had, and it was something he was passionate about. It seems like if the MI wanted to go in a different direction, there should have been a better way to go about it than firing one of the main contributors and supporters of it.

You are right. And he still is passionate about defending the faith. And MI could handled it better. And the apologists were correct about John, he was an enemy in sheep's clothing until he came back. But if he is in it for his family, it may not last. Too many callings and work to do for someone who is not 100 percent active or even 50 percent active in mind and in body.

Edited February 4, 2013 by why me