John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Kevin Christensen]

People who think or believe one way, regularly change their minds and think or believe different ways, as they pass through life and accumulate increased knowledge and experience. There doesn't need to be a moral explanation for it. Usually we have positive words to describe this general pattern, like progress or evolution.

SNIP

I'm more specific. I refer to the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth and Thomas Kuhn and Paradigm Shift. There are patterns in all things. And Joseph Smith expressly said people are only accountable within their own cultural context. But it is amazing how quickly that context can change, as the fall of the Iron Curtain has shown.

To the extent that people are given a choice, they are accountable. And over time, eventually, people have choices to make, even if only to choose whether to be a survivor or a victim.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[webbles]

Umm, how did the above post (#473) get started by wayfarer and then edited by Kevin?

Edited to add: it is apparently fixed now. It shows two comments (473 and 474) now.

Edited February 7, 2013 by webbles

[mfbukowski]

Are you referring to the post where I said, "I want to stand up and scream THEY ARE ALL IDIOTS?" Yes, I want to say that, Dr. Peterson. As well, I feel like an idiot for having to deal with you in this way -- it's not the best of us, as I have pointed out so many times to you. I want you to know that when I post a thoughtful answer to your accusation that I'm bearing false witness and Dr. Midgley's accusation that I "changed the subject", and both of you ignore it, that it makes me want to scream. Can you blame me? I went out of my way to answer Dr. Midgley's musings in another post, and instead of answering me directly, he went on to post five bizarre third-person commentaries on my post, none of which actually answered anything I said. Why don't either of you simply answer my posts instead of making a caricature of my paltry efforts to point out a problem that we can easily solve?

Uh, that wasn't exactly even half of it

This is what you actually said:

No, I should have been convinced already that the mopologists are a lost cause. I keep trying to be optimistic, I keep thinking that they are smart guys and can for one second be self-aware. Not happening. Ever.

I keep wanting to scream out loud at the top of my lungs, WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!!! but I realize, that in engaging with them, I prove myself an idiot as well. Then there is the chorus of fawning sycophants... heavens.

there is such a serious disconnect in these guys ability to read someone's message and properly respond. It's just completely wacko.

I am getting renewed respect for dehlin in how he survived all this.

I mean this is school yard stuff.

You come here and are all respectful and sweet and play the victim and then go over there and post this stuff.

You are one way to the schoolmasters and another way with your buddies on the playground. You like the role of the "bad boy" over there I guess.

Definitely tough on the credibility.

[rockpond]

I wish we had metrics on this. I am left to wonder if it hasn't eased people out more often than helped them stay.

Yet he also did podcasts on the McLays and Grant Palmer, and almost released one on Tom Phillips: Are these the type of messages that help people stay in the Church?

My experience and my answer is yes. Why, yes? Because someone was willing to talk about these things in an open way that allowed me to work through my faith crisis. FAIR (for all the good that it does) was not helpful during my crisis. This board would not have helped me to stay.

For me, however, I have been in and through the MormonStories community. Personally, I don't see the benefit. While it may help others, the goal of MormonStories seems to be more about sharing disaffection and why we got to that point, rather than a productive outcome: what are we going to do about it. I'm not saying that the MS community doesn't try to resolve this, most have landed on something other than a faithful position vis-a-vis the Church. What is in common among all MormonStories participants is their disaffection, never a path 'back', but many paths 'forward', and no consensus there.

This is the same problem with John's current powerpoint deck -- Yes, we get it -- people get disaffected. Now what?

I think your description of Mormon Stories being "more about sharing disaffection and why we got to that point, rather than a productive outcome" is a bit simplistic. There are plenty of active, faithful members who discussed the beauty of our religion & theology. They also talk about how they see some of the issue in church history or doctrine that are stumbling blocks for some people. Consider the podcasts by these brothers & sisters:

Greg Prince

Richard & Claudia Bushman

David Bailey

Michael MacKay

Bill Bradshaw

Grant & Heather Hardy

Daniel C. Peterson

Terryl & Fiona Givens

Charles Harrell

Scott Gordon

Bill Reel

Philip Barlow

Ralph Hancock

Many of these were critical in helping me rebuild my faith and testimony. Not because they sat there and said "here's the way back..." but because of the dialogue itself. And yes, Dehlin interviews disaffected and ex-mormons as well but, for me, the balance adds depth and meaning.

His powerpoint presentation and research don't offer much in the way of answers. I agree. But they help progress the dialogue in what I consider to be a meaningful way.

You ask the important question: "Are these the type of messages that help people stay in the Church?"

That's a great question. I wonder who is working to answer it?

[rongo]

As well, Jesus is quoted in NT to having said that there would be those 'in this generation' who wouldn't see death before his second coming. And absent a special interpetation of this prophecy, it would appear that Jesus's 'prophecy' was unfulfilled.

This isn't a very good example. It doesn't take "special interpretation" or special pleading to apply this to John the Beloved. I know that NOM, Middle Wayers, et. al. roll their eyes at the drollness of believing in translated beings (like the three Nephites, John, City of Enoch, city of Salem, who knows what others, etc.).* Come to think of it, this statement of Jesus doesn't present much of a problem to most believing non-Mormons, either.

*As late as 1994, I heard from Elder Wirthlin (mission conference, Hamburg Germany) that John the Beloved was instrumental in the opening up of Eastern Europe for the preaching of the gospel.

[mfbukowski]

The difference between a person encountering new information and concluding "I've been lied to and betrayed! The sky is falling!" and another person encountering the same information and concluding, "Oh.. that's interesting. I did not know that before. Either my teachers did not know, or I was not paying attention, or both. I wonder where I can go to learn more?" does not appear to be addressed in John's work. That is, the data does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Why do people interpret the same information so differently? Why does the same information that causes a crisis for some, have no such effect on someone else? The cycle of disaffection narrative that John offers does not address this point. It validates one path of interpretation without exploring the existence and the underlying reasons for different interpretations. It is about passive victim-hood, not about active choices by agents.

While on my mission in 73-75, I got interested in the question of why things that seemed obvious to me did not seem obvious to other people. So over the years I've been interested in the Parable of the Sower, Myers Briggs Type Theory, Thomas Kuhn and paradigm construction and change, and the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. All of these have been helpful. I had a particularly powerful epiphany when I decided to study up on the arguments that Biblical people gave for rejecting Biblical prophets. I came up with about 70 distinct arguments. It came as a shock to realize that none of them had gone out of date. And I eventually realized that all of them fall into one of two categories. People were either saying that the prophet was not agreeing with what they thought, whether in word or action, or not telling them what they wanted to hear, not catering to their desires. People were either deciding based on false information combined with good premises, or false premises applied to good information. Or both false information and false premises. I also noticed that the Bible had several very good passages on what to do to see truth. (There is a lot more to it than going by feelings.) And in every case, there was a direct correlation between the failure to apply those good practices, and the specific arguments used in rejection. (My FAIR Wiki paper on Discerning True and False Prophets goes into this.)

I do understand and sympathize with John's concerns. I've written on the topic myself in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. An earlier version of the material that eventually became "Paradigms Crossed" was titled "Disillusion and Enlightenment." For about a year and a half, I had an open offer to be interviewed myself. I was a little dismayed last week, on going back to look at some of the listener comments on the Mormon Stories Coe Interview to find that most of my comments have been removed. That is, censored, suppressed. I have to wonder whose concerns were being addressed by removing my comments? I gave specific corrections to specific comments in the interview, including references to sources. Who did it help to remove answers to questions raised? Who is boldly facing the facts wherever they may lead?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

As usual, I could not agree more.

Added to this prescription I would add a good dose of Wittgenstein with a dash of Heidegger and a pinch of Nagel to understand linguistic contexts and the difference between objective and subjective experience.

That would be my prescription. Take those and call me in the morning.

[wayfarer]

That's the one! Unbelievable!

Uh, that wasn't exactly even half of it

This is what you actually said:

I mean this is school yard stuff.

You come here and are all respectful and sweet and play the victim and then go over there and post this stuff.

You are one way to the schoolmasters and another way with your buddies on the playground. You like the role of the "bad boy" over there I guess.

Definitely tough on the credibility.

Hardly schoolyard, I have much more choice words -- not even permitted on that particular forum -- for how someone like me gets treated on this site. The a-priori conclusion is "apostate" and it goes down from there. Love it.

As it always works both ways -- I struggle with your way of acting, providing deference only for the core cabal, whilst failing to acknowledge a position remarkably similar to your own -- that to me really is a conundrum: it's a behavior I would call 'sycophant', and I'm sorry if that is direct, but that's where I come from. I watch a number of people here click on the 'reputation' button on the core cabal, regardless of how thought-out it is, and it gives me a very distinct impression of the 'spirit' of this site. There's potential here, but there's also a specific 'spirit'. In deference to that 'spirit', I recognize that as a pariah to the cabal, I have to be extremely careful about what I say, lest I be banned. I simply would appreciate that the cabal answer the questions I pose, and they do not. The other site allows me to express that frustration, . rbecause the idea that Dr. Peterson and Dr. Midgley can say anything they want and completely abuse others, while if I simply stand up for what I have been trying to say, I can say nothing. And since I know you know this, I'm completely befuddled by your response here.

Edited February 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[Calm]

I struggle with your way of acting, providing deference only for the core cabal, whilst failing to acknowledge a position remarkably similar to your own

Always interesting to see how varied interpretation is.

[wayfarer]

As usual, I could not agree more.

of course you couldn't. and calmoriah gives you a reputation point because you don't! A great system, imo.

[awyatt]

Always interesting to see how varied interpretation is.

Example two:

...the idea that Dr. Peterson and Dr. Midgley can say anything they want and completely abuse others, while if I simply stand up for what I have been trying to say, I can say nothing.

I see no evidence for being able to "say nothing," since there are many of your comments on this and other threads.

-Allen

Edited February 7, 2013 by awyatt

[mfbukowski]

Do I think it is all about orthodoxy, in this case Biblical orthodoxy? No. I think it is all about "further light and knowledge." Look at the scriptures for "seeing truth" in my FAIR Wiki essay. They do not describe either orthodoxy nor authority figures, nor tradition as a be all, end all. Rather, they invite us to engage ourselves in an ongoing, open-ended process.

No. I quote D&C 1 at least a dozen times a year on this topic. It expressly says that the LDS faith is imperfect morally and intellectually, and non-exclusive with respect to both truth and revelation. It expressly declares of the LDS leaders that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest" and points out that revelation is an ongoing process, conditioned on seeking and expedience. And I quote D&C 93 on truth as "knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come." Anything short of omniscience is open to further light and knowledge. We have no legitimate claim to a Big Book of What to Think. D&C 1 does not even contain the phrase "only true church." It says something quite different, using many more words to express a concept that is far more tolerant and robust.

I do not include it because I did not find it in those examples. And I've found the same condition has held to be the case in the various LDS controversies that I have investigated over the past 40 years. The DNA arguments depend on a reading of the Book of Mormon that ignores a great deal in the text. (Roper was very good on that. I'd noticed several key verses myself.) I'm not at all concerned with what LDS tradition has passed on because, thanks to D&C 1, I'm not bound to LDS tradition. Joseph Fielding Smith's young earth creationism? Not a problem. I have different readings available that are much more amenable. Nibley and Barker, for instance. Joseph Smith and Polygamy? God would not allow that! But what about Abraham, Israel, Moses, etc. Mountain Meadows? I can read the Bible and find equally unpleasant things. The chosen people have opportunity and accountability,not a guarantee of virtue.

See D&C 1 and quite a lot more. The expectation of perfection is a false premise. I did locate 28 tests for true and false prophets in the Bible. I also noticed that the best known, regarding prophesy, turns out to the one most qualified by precept and example, and the one most abused even within the Bible. The abuse is based on the notion that it's easy to apply the test, and that any perceived error will do.

The logical advantage of insisting on perfection is that it makes imperfection, and only that, decisive. It's quite another thing to ask whether Joseph Smith, or Joseph Fielding Smith, ever received real inspiration. Testing that calls for an entirely different problem field, method, and standard of solution.

Sure. D&C 1. "Inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest." And, in Paradigms Regained, I made the case that the unfilled expectations in the New Testament are quite nicely fulfilled in 3 Nephi 8-30.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I have added bolding and underling.

wayfarer, my advice would be to read this thoroughly and really "grok" what Kevin is saying. (Probably dating myself there!)

Ironically Kevin and you are not very far apart- at least philosophically, but Kevin has an entirely different attitude about self-identifying as a TBM and indeed I agree with him. With an attitude like Kevin's (and I would hope mine as well) there is no need to self-identify as "middle way" or anything other than mainline LDS.

There is a level of understanding of the true gospel that transcends contextual relativity and sees it all for what it is. Once you get that, the world is a changed place and you will be a changed person.

I of course do not speak for Kevin and I hope I have gotten his view correctly.

Edited February 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[awyatt]

of course you couldn't. and calmoriah gives you a reputation point because you don't! A great system, imo.

Does anyone even pay attention to reputation points? I know I don't. I'm not sure I see them as persuasive evidence of anything at all. (Do you? Really?)

-Allen

[wayfarer]

wayfarer, my advice would be to read this thoroughly and really "grok" what Kevin is saying. (Probably dating myself there!)

Ironically Kevin and you are not very far apart- at least philosophically, but Kevin has an entirely different attitude about self-identifying as a TBM and indeed I agree with him. With an attitude like Kevin's (and I would hope mine as well) there is no need to self-identify as "middle way" or anything other than mainline LDS.

There is a level of understanding of the true gospel that transcends contextual relativity and sees it all for what it is. Once you get that, the world is a changed place and you will be a changed person.

I of course do not speak for Kevin and I hope I have gotten his view correctly.

I actually, I agree almost entirely with what Kevin says in his posts...who cannot? That's not the issue. The issue is simply the rote "as usual, i agree completely" response, that then gets a reputation point. it's rather sycophantish, as well as completely nauseating. Then, in the third person, you diss what I say, and act as if I'm not here. That's insulting, and equally nauseating, since I know your capabilities and understanding.

If you have a problem with me, then you deal directly with me. When I deal directly with Drs. Peterson and Midgley, what do they do? Snide commentary in the third person. If I tangibly fight back on that -- I get banned here. It makes me want to scream. I thought you were better than that.

Edited February 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[robuchan]

To the extent that people are given a choice, they are accountable. And over time, eventually, people have choices to make, even if only to choose whether to be a survivor or a victim.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I'm curious what you thought of my Soviet Russia example. The man who in 1985 in his 30's finally discovered how biased his worldview was and how many things he assumed about Western Society and capitalism were manipulations and half truths. Is it fair for him to feel like an institution or a culture or some entity was at blame for this?

[Calm]

of course you couldn't. and calmoriah gives you a reputation point because you don't! A great system, imo.

That is not why I gave him a rep point. I gave him one for his suggestion of increasing understanding linguistic contexts. It is one of his consistent themes he talks about, including in posts that have nothing to do with critics or those having doubts, that I support.

You shouldn't assume people do things for the same reasons you would do them.

[wayfarer]

I see no evidence for being able to "say nothing," since there are many of your comments on this and other threads.

ah. there are limits, my friend, there are limits.

[go_utes01]

I actually, I agree almost entirely with what Kevin says in his posts...who cannot? That's not the issue. The issue is simply the rote "as usual, i agree completely" response, that then gets a reputation point. it's rather sycophantish, as well as completely nauseating. Then, in the third person, you diss what I say, and act as if I'm not here. That's insulting, and equally nauseating, since I know your capabilities and understanding.

If you have a problem with me, then you deal directly with me. When I deal directly with Drs. Peterson and Midgley, what do they do? Snide commentary in the third person. If I tangibly fight back on that -- I get banned here. It makes me want to scream. I thought you were better than that.

Wayfarer,

I have not been on this site for all that long, so I may be missing some historical context to your posts, but it seems that you have a pretty heavy dose of a martyrdom complex/syndrome. That might have been a bit hyperbolic (and will probably only feed into your victim mentality). What I mean is, I have been reading this thread and you seem to play the victim very well, while in reality, I have not seen the abuse you complain of. If you agree with Kevin, why not just give him a reputation point or post a similar response to mfb? Why, instead, see agreement as a sign of sycophantism?

Edited February 7, 2013 by go_utes01

[why me]

We tend to forget that most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired. It has only been with the internet do we see claims being made without fact or good research. But back in the day, no one left that I knew over history or the Journal of discourses of brigham young or MMM etc. They just got tired or lost interest.

And I would think that the same is for today also. Now of course, when a member goes to the internet and discovers the critics interpreting this or that about the church that this member did not know...well...it can have a bad affect on that member. And why not when such interpretations are written to get members to doubt. But...being a member of the church is not easy. And people have been leaving the fold because of lifestyle changes too.

I have found that we seem to complicate the reasons for people leaving.

[Calm]

Does anyone even pay attention to reputation points? I know I don't. I'm not sure I see them as persuasive evidence of anything at all. (Do you? Really?)

-Allen

I do rep points mainly as a way to say "hi, I've read your post and there is something in it that I like". I even rep posts where I disagree with part of what they say if there are points that particularly well stated in my view.

There are actually very few of us who give rep points on the board on a regular basis, so few in fact that I am surprised that wayfarer even noticed. volgadon and myself are the most regular of point givers, I've notice. Scott Lloyd, ERayR and a few others are also regular, but I doubt they ever max out their numbers much.

[Calm]

The issue is simply the rote "as usual, i agree completely" response, that then gets a reputation point. it's rather sycophantish, as well as completely nauseating.

Mindreading tends to be nauseating as well in my view.

[why me]

Wayfarer,

I have not been on this site for all that long, so I may be missing some historical context to your posts, but it seems that you have a pretty heavy dose of a martyrdom complex/syndrome. That might have been a bit hyperbolic (and will probably only feed into your victim mentality). What I mean is, I have been reading this thread and you seem to play the victim very well, while in reality, I have not seen the abuse you complain of. If you agree with Kevin, why not just give him a reputation point or post a similar response to mfb? Why, instead, see agreement as a sign of sycophantism?

On this board we have seen it often that people can have dual personalities. One personality for this board and another for a different board. One reason for this is because on this board, a poster needs to be writing without mocking or bashing or insulting another poster. But on the other board, one can be one's true self.

[wayfarer]

So, mfbukowski, you tell me that I only quoted part of something, then you made a point:

Uh, that wasn't exactly even half of it

This is what you actually said:

then you quoted ONLY PART of my message:

No, I should have been convinced already that the mopologists are a lost cause. I keep trying to be optimistic, I keep thinking that they are smart guys and can for one second be self-aware. Not happening. Ever.

I keep wanting to scream out loud at the top of my lungs, WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!!! but I realize, that in engaging with them, I prove myself an idiot as well. Then there is the chorus of fawning sycophants... heavens.

there is such a serious disconnect in these guys ability to read someone's message and properly respond. It's just completely wacko.

I am getting renewed respect for dehlin in how he survived all this.

In so doing, you characterized this as 'school-yard stuff'. Yet you yourself snipped off the REASON I said what I said above:

after my interaction with Lou tonight, I don't see any coherence whatsoever in his arguments. Thus I see no evidence at all that he is capable of knowing that there is no defense for the indefensible. Honestly, in just a few interactions with him, I felt like I fell down the rabbit hole.

I answered his question directly, then he writes, in the third person, as if I don't exist or am not human, that I evaded his question and didn't adequately defend him from the nasty words that [iRL name deleted] published here about him. Huh? WTH?. Once again, my optimism that one can reason with these guys and explain things in plain english was dashed. Unbelievable.

Accusing me of saying only part of the story, then snipping off another part of the story that doesn't support your case is not exactly what builds the best argument, wouldn't you say?

[Calm]

We tend to forget that most people go inactive or leave not based on history or the internet. But rather because they have lost interest or have become tired. It has only been with the internet do we see claims being made without fact or good research. But back in the day, no one left that I knew over history or the Journal of discourses of brigham young or MMM etc. They just got tired or lost interest.

Have to disagree here. While not as common...because we didn't have the internet to hear about them for one thing...I did hear of exit stories including disagreement over history and such. The Tanners' story is a rather famous one, IIRC. And they certainly didn't lose interest. Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[wayfarer]

On this board we have seen it often that people can have dual personalities. One personality for this board and another for a different board. One reason for this is because on this board, a poster needs to be writing without mocking or bashing or insulting another poster. But on the other board, one can be one's true self.

Correction: you can mock, bash, and insult on this board as well -- you just have to be in the cabal, that's all.

[wayfarer]

Mindreading tends to be nauseating as well in my view.

true. As is observable behavior. I'm only observing the behavior, that's all.