John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Louis Midgley]

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm a little slow, but what does that have to do with a group of people on the Internet feeling obliged to criticize this man and question his sincerity? Should we not, first, allow the established ecclesiastical process to play itself out? Or, are we so confident that we "know better" than his leaders so as to compel us to speak out here on a public forum?

No one has tried to take the place of John Dehlin's Stake President.

I am quite well known in my Ward. But I am certain that Professor Peterson knows much more about my academic work than even my wife. If I suddenly go missing and start ranting about Joseph Smith being a liar/lunatic, Professor Peterson would immediately know the facts, while my Bishop and Stake President (who may not even know my name and, if he does, probably knows nothing of my academic endeavors) would have no way of knowing what exactly had gone wrong in my life. Professor Peterson would be obligated to give me a public thrashing, if I started taking hundreds and thousands out of the Church and began talking even about forming my own church. This would be part of his duty to God, and also an expression of love for me, his close friend. His clever and thoughtful prose would be a nice way of urging me to repent, would it not?

John Dehlin is one of my former students. Out of the thousands, one who I remember and had high hopes for. This is true of several of my colleagues, all of whom are deeply concerned about his endeavors since leaving BYU. In 2005 I spent five hours in a entirely calm, fully civil conversation with my former student. I was trying to figure out why he had blasted Professor Peterson and me on his blog. He had announced that we were destroying the Church by the way we were trying to defend it. He actually placed the two of us on some imaginary ultra far right wing of the Church, with the Recovery people on a left wing, and with him and Sunstone right in the solid middle. He told me about his fondness for Grant Palmer and his book. He has never been able to get over this strange opinion. I tried my best to get him to say a word about divine mercy and love, or the atonement, or faith in God. Instead, Immediately he posted on his blog an item in which he reversed his previous opinion of me (and also Professor Peterson). And then he invited Professor Peterson and me to join him in his endeavor to keep people in the Church.

For me, I hope everyone will clearly understand, the real issue is helping people to love and obey God, and to seek his mercy. The obvious fact is that those who don't believe, or never have and are merely nominal Latter-day Saints need to be brought to faith, and not merely given some social reason for continuing to pretend to be members because the LDS community is their tribe, or a nice place to socialize, or lead the music, or raise kids.

And I had to explain to Dehlin that I see myself as a academic. I try my best to be a scholar. He insisted that what I right fails those who confused. One reason is that long essays with many citations don't appeal to those who live by slogan and gossip. That might be true. But I am, I explained to him stuck with being an academic. In addition, I was certain then and he has now confirmed it, that his endeavors have ended up taking most of those he has influence out of the Church.

[Libs]

In addition, I was certain then and he has now confirmed it, that his endeavors have ended up taking most of those he has influence out of the Church.

I'm not sure this is accurate. It was my observation that, as John became more disaffected, he attracted a larger following of those who were already out of the church or more inclined to leave, than not.

[Calm]

There is no real way to measure how much influence he had, even from self reports. All those who stayed might have found another way, all those who left might have gone anyway...perhaps he merely facilitated the process, perhaps it was all cosmetic.

[Louis Midgley]

I'm not sure this is accurate. It was my observation that, as John became more disaffected, he attracted a larger following of those who were already out of the church or more inclined to leave, than not.

Greg Smith's paper goes far to settle this issue. It turns out that it is both. I wish everyone would listen to Dehlin's stunning interview with the Larsens.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is no real way to measure how much influence he had, even from self reports. All those who stayed might have found another way, all those who left might have gone anyway...perhaps he merely facilitated the process, perhaps it was all cosmetic.

Because of the point made here, it is well to consider the source when people claim that this or that drove them out of the Church. Dehlin claims that his survey of a year ago uncovered huge numbers of people who blamed their apostasy on FARMS or FAIR or this or that prominent apologist. My suspicion is that many such individuals were on the way out anyway, that they had bitter feelings toward the Church, and if they could see a way to discredit a fairly effective apologist or apologetics organization, they were going to seize upon it.

But as calmoriah points out here, there is no real way to measure this.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Libs]

Greg Smith's paper goes far to settle this issue. It turns out that it is both. I wish everyone would listen to Dehlin's stunning interview with the Larsens.

I did listen to that interview, when it first came out. I only recently discovered (very sadly) that they had, since, divorced.

I left John's Facebook groups, sometime around last Thanksgiving. It was time for me to move on. But, I did notice a lot of fairly well known anti-Mormons were a part of that group (mostly as observers). It just had more of an anti-Mormon feel to it, at that time, than it did in the beginning (when it truly was more well balanced).

Edited February 5, 2013 by Libs

[Louis Midgley]

There is no real way to measure how much influence he had, even from self reports. All those who stayed might have found another way, all those who left might have gone anyway...perhaps he merely facilitated the process, perhaps it was all cosmetic.

This is a really nice way of putting it.

[Calm]

I did listen to that interview, when it first came out. I only recently discovered (very sadly) that they had, since, divorced.

Are you sure that wasn't another couple? I haven't listened since I don't normally do podcasts, but my memory says there was another couple whose last name started with "L" as well.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I wish everyone would listen to Dehlin's stunning interview with the Larsens.

OK, just to humour myself, I tried just now whilst eating my lunch. If I live to be 101, I will never get podcasts. Do people really have the time and patience in their lives to spend several hours listening to self-important people giggle around a microphone? Give me a transcript I can read at my own pace any day!

[Libs]

Are you sure that wasn't another couple? I haven't listened since I don't normally do podcasts, but my memory says there was another couple whose last name started with "L" as well.

You're right. I was thinking of the McLay's. They are divorced, as well. I did hear about the Larsons, also, but I don't think I saw the interview? I'll have to look it up.

[Libs]

OK, just to humour myself, I tried just now whilst eating my lunch. If I live to be 101, I will never get podcasts. Do people really have the time and patience in their lives to spend several hours listening to self-important people giggle around a microphone? Give me a transcript I can read at my own pace any day!

Yes, they can be time consuming. I usually listen while I'm doing something else (needlepoint or something). I know, some people like to download them and listen to them in their car, while they commute or walk or whatever.

[Louis Midgley]

OK, just to humour myself, I tried just now whilst eating my lunch. If I live to be 101, I will never get podcasts. Do people really have the time and patience in their lives to spend several hours listening to self-important people giggle around a microphone? Give me a transcript I can read at my own pace any day!

I agree!

[ERayR]

OK, just to humour myself, I tried just now whilst eating my lunch. If I live to be 101, I will never get podcasts. Do people really have the time and patience in their lives to spend several hours listening to self-important people giggle around a microphone? Give me a transcript I can read at my own pace any day!

I usually end up with my mind wandering off to other subjects or else falling asleep.

[Louis Midgley]

I am about to give up on message boards. I have in the last few days been lured into reading two threads on some disgusting thing. I cannot believe that someone someone calling himself Kishkumen, who actually teaches at a university somewhere would stoop to post the following rubbish: "So, as long is Midgley is convinced that God has told him to do something, he will do it, no matter how awful it may seem in terms of normal human decency and morality. Obviously, then, this is his defense for savaging fellow LDS people in print, heckling people, shouting out that Michael Quinn is a "queer" in the Tanners' bookstore, implicating John Dehlin in the death of a missionary, and so forth. That's very revealing.Absolute ru

[Sky]

I am about to give up on message boards. I have in the last few days been lured into reading two threads on some disgusting thing. I cannot believe that someone someone calling himself Kishkumen, who actually teaches at a university somewhere would stoop to post the following rubbish: "So, as long is Midgley is convinced that God has told him to do something, he will do it, no matter how awful it may seem in terms of normal human decency and morality. Obviously, then, this is his defense for savaging fellow LDS people in print, heckling people, shouting out that Michael Quinn is a "queer" in the Tanners' bookstore, implicating John Dehlin in the death of a missionary, and so forth. That's very revealing.Absolute ru

I think most of us here have taken a browbeating over there at some point or another. I think it actually means you're doing something right. Rather than simply leaving us alone, they seem to have this strange fascination with finding things that others have written here, and then reporting back about how ridicules we are, as if nothing a believer has to say could ever be intelligent or valuable or rational.

[mfbukowski]

I am about to give up on message boards. I have in the last few days been lured into reading two threads on some disgusting thing. I cannot believe that someone someone calling himself Kishkumen, who actually teaches at a university somewhere would stoop to post the following rubbish: "So, as long is Midgley is convinced that God has told him to do something, he will do it, no matter how awful it may seem in terms of normal human decency and morality. Obviously, then, this is his defense for savaging fellow LDS people in print, heckling people, shouting out that Michael Quinn is a "queer" in the Tanners' bookstore, implicating John Dehlin in the death of a missionary, and so forth. That's very revealing.Absolute ru

Yep. Been there.

You either get used to it and ignore it or give up.

[Daniel Peterson]

i wouldn't blame Professor Midgley at all for giving up message boards.

Kishkumen, of course, is exceptionally hostile and unjust -- though he has occasional episodes of lucidity that can last for a day or two at a time -- but there's just too much nonsense and too much vitriol in general.

[Louis Midgley]

You either get used to it and ignore it or give up.

I plan to leave.

[Louis Midgley]

This morning Professor Peterson drew my attention to a thread on Jason Gallentine's dreadful board that was packed wild speculation. And I actually once thought that the Recovery owned the bottom of a rancid barrel. The difference is that Jason seems to have attracted people who can form an English sentence. But the so-called "intel" is about the same.

[Louis Midgley]

Kishkumen, of course, is exceptionally hostile and unjust -- though he has occasional episodes of lucidity that can last for a day or two at a time -- but there's just too much nonsense and too much vitriol in general.

The folks on that shady thing seem obsessed with what is being posted on this thread. I wonder if Wayfarer busy gathering "intel" for those ever so nice forks who never once say a naughty thing about anyone? Be that as it may, I am told that I should get over myself. And, of course, "DCP's follow up comments about Kish are just ugly."

[why me]

I think John and the whole gang of mormons that found hidden warts in the church just want the church to come clean just as we are taught to do when we sin. We are told the steps of forgiveness is to say sorry to those we've hurt and never do that wrong again. And maybe thanks somewhat to John, it looks like slowly and surely the church will.

Come clean about what exactly? Should the lds church publish a thousand page book addressing all the complaints of the critics and give their own interpretation of events in history? Of course, then the critics will disagree with the interpretation and publish their own versions piece by piece over the internet. The bottom lines are very simple: either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. Either the book of mormon is what it claims to be or it isn't. Either the 3 witnesses had a very special spiritual experience or they lied.

Those are the bottom lines.

[Daniel Peterson]

The folks on that shady thing seem obsessed with what is being posted on this thread. I wonder if Wayfarer busy gathering "intel" for those ever so nice forks who never once say a naughty thing about anyone? Be that as it may, I am told that I should get over myself. And, of course, "DCP's follow up comments about Kish are just ugly."

Getting over yourself means, I think, that you should accept the verdict pronounced upon your head by your moral superiors at that board, who've never met you but are ideologically predisposed to despise you.

And, yes, what I said about Kishkumen above is extremely ugly. Especially when compared with a sample of the sweetness and light that Kishkumen dispensed during just one recent twenty-four hour period: He described you as "scary," "deceptive," "sick," "disturbed," a "prince of demons," "irrational," "nasty," "appalling," "vile," a liar, an "albatross on the neck of the LDS Church," and someone with no "decency." He compared the two of us to "the Inquisition," "barracudas," and "cockroaches," pronouncing us "corrosive," "disgraceful," "rigid," "evil," "bad men" who are guilty of both "intellectual vanity" and "vicious sadism" and who should be dragged before Church disciplinary councils and tried for our membership.

We should learn from Kishkumen to be kinder and gentler, less ugly, in our rhetoric. And we shouldn't resist at all when he and his fellows apply such manifestly fair and even charitable descriptions to us.

[Louis Midgley]

Come clean about what exactly? Should the lds church publish a thousand page book addressing all the complaints of the critics and give their own interpretation of events in history? Of course, then the critics will disagree with the interpretation and publish their own versions piece by piece over the internet. The bottom lines are very simple: either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. Either the book of mormon is what it claims to be or it isn't. Either the 3 witnesses had a very special spiritual experience or they lied.

Those are the bottom lines.

I have a slightly different take on this. I will make my point with a story. Before any LDS missionary had spoken to a single Maori, there were what they called matakite (sees) who had prepared their people for the arrival their message. In one famous instance two LDS missionaries (Alma Greenwood and Ira Hicnckley) turned up at a marae and when they were asked to pray, one of those missionary raised both of his arms above his head. This was exactly what Arama Toiroa had indicated that those with the proper faith would do. Those missionaries soon taught and then baptized large numbers of one tribe. This is, of course, merely a very brief sketch of what took place. Now what is one to do if one finds out by reading diaries that those two missionaries sometimes either drank beer or puffed on a cigar? This is, please keep in mind, hypothetical. In telling this wonderful story, if I find that they sometimes drank beer, am I obligated to include that fact? Now I think that I might include that kind of detail. What if one of them farted after dinner? Must that go in also? Some selection must be made when one approaches any pile of textual materials out of which one is going to fashion a history. Not all bits of information are of equal significance. I have actually seen accounts that good part (at least for me) and then moved immediately to some other bit of information to make some other point. Even the words on uses to refer to Maori seers mold how the reader is likely to understand the story. For example, the English word "prophet" is very often used in telling this story than the Maori word that means "seer." Some would be quite happy to see the farting and beer drinking be stressed and what is to me (and my Maori friends) the really good stuff either played down, ridiculed or even not mentioned.

I have heard the complaint that seer stones are not mentioned in outlines for Sunday School lessons. Urim & Thummin are mentioned instead. But the fact is that seer stones are clearly mentioned in the Book of Mormon. One only has to pay a little attention. Two seer stones are called Interpreters. It was only three or four years after the Book of Mormon was published that someone other than Joseph Smith started talking about a a U&T.

But there is more. It turns out that when the first missionaries tried to teach the Maori, and they had at first to use translators, the Maori asked the missionaries how Joseph Smith got the Book of Mormon. The missionaries told them what they had learned--he got it through the U&T. The Maori wanted to know what that was, and the missionaries had no idea. It was only when they found the language in Mosiah about Interpreters that the Maori were satisfies. And were profoundly impressed that Joseph was a matakite (seer). And all of this interesting transaction ended up taking place while the missionaries thought they were telling the Maori not to gamble or drink beer. Fat chance.

But please note that the Maori, by asking a question--having real doubt--had forced those early missionaries to introduce them to crucial things in the Book of Mormon that a former Honors Student who got A grades had never bother to think about, and ended up claiming that the bad "church" had hidden things from him and others. One cannot possibly turn a Sunday School class into a really good graduate school seminar. But anyone in a Sunday School class can find, with the help of the Holy Spirit--this is crucial--what they need to know and hence what is necessary for them to make a decision to be faithful disciples of the Lord and hence fellow citizens in the Household of God.

Now that is not to say that all of us could not do much better, including those who try to sketch lessons in Sunday School for the Saints. And we are moving steadily forward on these matters. When I first got to BYU some fifty years ago, the seminary and institute program was a total mess. And so was religious education at BYU. But even at BYU it was then much better than it had been before the Brethren ordered that all students study the Book of Mormon. Prior to that, the Book of Mormon had only been taught once for a very few students. I have been involved in and know something about the instruction in LDS Institutes. It is very often excellent. And I have observed what goes on at least in New Zealand in seminary instruction. I was very impressed with the quality of the teaching and with the remarkable results, give the enormous effort that volunteers must make to do the job.

Now ask yourself what exactly should we focus our attention on teaching kids and adults in Mongolia, or Latvia or two dozen places in Africa or in China? I am delighted not to have to make those decisions.

I resent this business of lazy bums announcing that the "church" lied to them. And especially when it seems that this is often a way of bullying and/or justifying their having gone missing and now wanted a way of punishing a faith they never made a real effort to own. And if one listens carefully one will not hear mention of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those making a stink.

I like the idea of baptizing people only after we are sure that they know what they are getting into. And I see much progress these.

[Louis Midgley]

Dan:

TLuke admitted that the two of use do some good scholarship, but that we have the very bad habit of throwing grenades at fellow Latter-day Saints, and that is what spoiled the Maxwell Institute and led our our being given the boot. I am tempted to post his long diatribe. I may. But for now I want to ask everyone who has read that list of insults who exactly to the Nasty One. He seems inclined to see his own worst proclivities in others. I suspect that he is a bright fellow and has good training. Why then all the insults and name-calling? I don't think we are dealing with a pathology. He simply could not survive the dog fights in an academic department in a university if he suffers from a pathology. Why the hatred toward you and now me? Is it that he has an irrational urge to destroy us with insults and violent language because he knows we are on the right track? I would be pleased to know why all the energy and what appears to me to be hatred. And why you (and now me)?

[Louis Midgley]

Someone just opined that he thinks "it i good for his mental health that he can follow this thread. Although his his councious mind will always be controlled by the filter he uses to stay in neverland, his subcouncious mind will need the relief." Then someone on that ever so nice board, clearly aware of the nasty stuff being said about me, asked the following question: ".some of the comments on this board have been ugly toward me...have you made a similiar comment about those comments?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Louis Midgley