John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Scott Lloyd]

There are some things the church has been manipulative about, for example the picture of Joseph and Oliver studying with the plates on the table. The encouragement of believing Joseph's marriages were spiritual in nature only. I could think real hard and give you a list if you want. Changing in wording in Book of Commandments to alter original meaning. Stuff like that.

But really, I'm not one of those guys blasting the church for this. I understand. I don't agree, but I understand. And I'm not demanding an apology from the church or for it to change or whatever.

What I don't like is for people to point their finger at me and tell me why I'm lazy or at fault for not knowing any of this stuff until late in life and the internet age. It's arrogant, unempathetic, unfair, and flat out wrong. There is no reason why I as a good LDS, living and studying my religion should have known and understood any of these issues. KC tells me I should have been reading Dialogue and Sunstone. Well I want to BYU at a time when people got excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone and it was clearly taught that we should stay away from this kind of material.

(emphasis added for reference)

CFR. Who got excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone and what credible documentation do you have that affirms that's what happened?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

No! He's my sycophant, not yours! Hands off.

From what I gather from wayfarer, there is plenty of sycophantery here to go around.

[robuchan]

(emphasis added for reference

CFR. Who got excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone and what credible documentation do you have that affirms that's what happened?

Oh geez, you guys know what I mean. The September Six, the anti-Sunstone sentiment at the time. All that. I'm just describing the environment and the attitudes toward uncorrelated publications back then.

[Calm]

From what I gather from wayfarer, there is plenty of sycophantery here to go around.

Do you want to be my sycophant too? I've decided to start collecting them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course....that is the ideal.

As I said, earlier, I have not, recently, considered coming back, unless I thought it could be one hundred percent.

I think this must be the talk that John Dehlin said was quite shocking to him, after what he was told in private.

No, I listened to Dehlin's podcast, and I don't think it is the one he was referring to. It is too recent to fit the time frame.

Elder Holland has given a couple of bold and emphatic conference addresses affirming LDS orthodoxy. I think it must have been one of those that bothered John Dehlin, since he rejects so much of the orthodoxy and, I gather, would prefer to see it fade away.

It seemed a contradiction, to him. I don't think it really is a contradiction, though. I can see an Apostle saying that we want you in the church, even if you're one foot in and one foot out...but, the hope and goal would be to get you all the way in....and not have that "halfwayness" as a permanent condition.

Except for the supposition that this is the talk John was referring to, I agree with you. I don't believe it's a contradiction either. I brought it up lest there be some who think we are living in some sort of nebulous, I'm-OK-You're-OK new age with regard to what is accepted in the Church as belief.

While the Church welcomes those who are struggling, it is not going to de-emphasize its core teachings as a price for having them remain in the fold. It is vain to hope otherwise.

Fact is, it probably is a permanent condition for some, though.

It needn't be. I think that's what Elder Holland was getting at.

Is it better to be halfway in, than not at all? I guess that's a personal decision. It wasn't good for me. I tried it...twice.

That's a choice only you can make. I hope you come back, though.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you want to be my sycophant too? I've decided to start collecting them.

I'd be honored. Do I get a ribbon to wear?

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh geez, you guys know what I mean. The September Six, the anti-Sunstone sentiment at the time. All that. I'm just describing the environment and the attitudes toward uncorrelated publications back then.

I gather, then, that you're backing away from the assertion that people were excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone.

And by the way, contrary to another of your statements, I have never been taught authoritatively in the Church that I should "stay away from this kind of material." I think that too is a spurious assertion.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[robuchan]

I gather, then, that you're backing away from the assertion that people were excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone.

And by the way, contrary to another of your statements, I have never been taught authoritatively in the Church that I should "stay away from this kind of material." I think that too is a spurious assertion.

How old were you in 1993?

[awyatt]

There are some things the church has been manipulative about, for example the picture of Joseph and Oliver studying with the plates on the table.

Do you have evidence that such paintings are, in fact, manipulation? I've heard this from some people, and when I ask they often say "what else would it be?!?" That seems to be jumping to conclusions without evidence. It could be that whoever created it picture got it wrong (didn't know any better). After all, historians don't normally paint, and most artists aren't historians. An artist asked to "paint something that shows Joseph and Oliver translating" would probably get stuff wrong.

So if you have evidence of actual manipulation, I'd love to see it.

The encouragement of believing Joseph's marriages were spiritual in nature only.

I've never heard this in Church, and certainly not from official sources. There is a train of thought that says they were spiritual in nature, and another that says that spirituality was only a part of it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the jury is still out on this.

I could think real hard and give you a list if you want. Changing in wording in Book of Commandments to alter original meaning. Stuff like that.

Not sure which changes you have in mind, but if the changes were done by prophets (like Joseph), that is certainly within their purview. (There is even biblical precedent for it.)

But really, I'm not one of those guys blasting the church for this. I understand. I don't agree, but I understand. And I'm not demanding an apology from the church or for it to change or whatever.

What I don't like is for people to point their finger at me and tell me why I'm lazy or at fault for not knowing any of this stuff until late in life and the internet age. It's arrogant, unempathetic, unfair, and flat out wrong.

Did you miss my earlier post on this topic? You should look it up -- #613.

None of us like to hear that something might be our fault, even though it may be. I can't answer whether it is your fault or not; only you can do that. If you determine that it isn't your fault, then stop being the victim. Just because someone says you are wrong doesn't mean you have to accept that you are wrong.

There is no reason why I as a good LDS, living and studying my religion should have known and understood any of these issues. KC tells me I should have been reading Dialogue and Sunstone. Well I want to BYU at a time when people got excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone and it was clearly taught that we should stay away from this kind of material.

I don't think KC said you should have been reading Dialogue and Sunstone. He said that he was reading Dialogue and Sunstone. (Big difference there.) He said that there were many, many historical resources available, and he is right. If you didn't read them, that was (obviously) your choice. It is not necessarily a wrong choice, but it seems counterproductive to say that you feel betrayed because you didn't learn about something that was available through open sources.

Again, you should read what I wrote in #613.

-Allen

[Calm]

I'd be honored. Do I get a ribbon to wear?

Oh yes. I am in fact heading down to the fabric store to get some yarn for my daughter's new obsession of knitting and will look for an appropriate colour, something properly royal and snobbish, don't you think?

[Scott Lloyd]

How old were you in 1993?

Thirty-nine.

I had already been working at the Church News for eight years. I was a former subscriber to Sunstone. There was a stack of back issues on our shelves in the office that I perused on occasion. I never, before or since, have had the impression that I was forbidden to look at it.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you have evidence that such paintings are, in fact, manipulation? I've heard this from some people, and when I ask they often say "what else would it be?!?" That seems to be jumping to conclusions without evidence. It could be that whoever created it picture got it wrong (didn't know any better). After all, historians don't normally paint, and most artists aren't historians. An artist asked to "paint something that shows Joseph and Oliver translating" would probably get stuff wrong.

I'm not even willing to concede that it's wrong, per se. Even if Joseph never looked directly at the plates during the actual translating, it is reasonable to conceive that he looked directly at them at some point, on one or more occasions. What about when he was copying off the characters for Martin Harris to take to Professor Anthon? I realize this was before Oliver Cowdery arrived, but my point is it is unreasonable to insist that Joseph never, ever looked at the plates and that therefore the painting is inaccurate.

And at long last, what difference does it make. The point of the painting is to convey the uncomplicated idea that Joseph translated the Nephite record. The mechanics by which this transpired are of no great moment in the final analysis.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[robuchan]

Thirty-nine.

I had already been working at the Church News for nine years. I was a former subscriber to Sunstone. There was a stack of back issues on our shelves in the office that I perused on occasion. I never, before or since, have had the impression that I was forbidden to look at it.

Interesting. I experienced a completely different Mormon church than you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting. I experienced a completely different Mormon church than you.

Well, my anecdotal evidence cancels out yours, then.

Do you have any documentation?

[Daniel Peterson]

Well I want to BYU at a time when people got excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone and it was clearly taught that we should stay away from this kind of material.

People got excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone?

When on earth was that?

I've published in Sunstone, and been interviewed in Sunstone, and had editors of Sunstone as friends, and I'm still a member in good standing. (Unless your anonymous source at BYU knows better than I do on that last point.)

[robuchan]

People got excommunicated for publishing in Sunstone?

When on earth was that?

I've published in Sunstone, and been interviewed in Sunstone, and had editors of Sunstone as friends, and I'm still a member in good standing. (Unless your anonymous source at BYU knows better than I do on that last point.)

I was not precise with that language. I acknowledged it a few posts back.

[blackstrap]

What would be the point of the Lord's admonition to Oliver ,that he should study it out in his mind, if there was nothing to look at to study??

Edited February 9, 2013 by blackstrap

[robuchan]

What would be the point of the Lord's admonition to Oliver ,that he should study it out in his mind, if there was nothing to look at to study??

You're either a clever critic using sarcasm or you're a defender who has no idea the historical context of the verse you're referring to. It actually is another good example of what I mean of the church whitewashing things.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're either a clever critic using sarcasm or you're a defender who has no idea the historical context of the verse you're referring to. It actually is another good example of what I mean of the church whitewashing things.

What's wrong with his context?

[robuchan]

What's wrong with his context?

I could be wrong, but I assume if he is a defender, he's picking up on my mention of the painting where Joseph and Oliver were studying the Golden Plates.

The irony would be that the verse he quotes is actually another good example of my point about changing the language in the Book of Commandments and also another good example of church manipulating history to suppress the weird stuff (ie Oliver's divining rod).

[rongo]

Oh geez, you guys know what I mean. The September Six, the anti-Sunstone sentiment at the time. All that. I'm just describing the environment and the attitudes toward uncorrelated publications back then.

Sorry, robuchan. Channeling "Myth Makers" again. You above reminded me of this:

Howe: May I call the Chairman's attention to the fact that he is overlooking a good deal of the concrete evidence which he says is lacking. Here is a "seceder from the delusion" who can prove Smith a fraud. He was at a meeting once and heard him speak in tongues.

Chairman: Your name, sir?

James H. Hunt: He prefers not to tell his name. But listen to his story.

Seceder: I was present at a meeting in an upper room in Kirtland, where were assembled from fifteen to twenty elders and high priests.

Chairman: When was this?

Seceder: On a certain occasion, Joseph Smith gave a sermon and "next arose, and passing round the room, laying his hand upon each one, spoke as follows, as near as the narrator can recollect:— 'Ak man oh son oh man ah ne commene en holle goste en haben en glai hosanne hosanne en holle goste en esac milkea jeremiah, ezekiel, Nephi, Lehi, St. John,' &c., &c."⁴⁹

Chairman: What does the double et cetera stand for?

Seceder: Well, it was things like that.

Chairman: And why didn't you capitalize jeremiah and ezekiel as you did Nephi and Lehi?

Hunt (indignantly): The question is absurd. The man didn't speak in capitals!

Chairman: Why did our witness capitalize the other names, then? He is the one who claims a knack for detecting when Smith spoke in capitals or lower case. You assume, sir, that if you put in an etc., etc., any reader will be able to carry on the speech at will?

Seceder: Well, you get the idea.

Chairman: And once one has the general idea, one is free to compose what one will, and attribute it to Joseph Smith as his actual words—or deeds?

Seceder: It is not as bad as that.

Chairman: Are these Smith's actual words?

Seceder: As nearly as I can remember.

Howe: This is only one of many such experiences. "This gibberish was for several months practiced almost daily" at that time in Kirtland.⁵⁰

Chairman: Indeed. Could you describe some other such events?

Hunt: No! Please don't! "We will not dwell upon this part of our history. A particular recital of such scenes of fanaticism gives too much pain to the intelligent mind, and excites a contempt for our species."⁵¹

Chairman: Then the reason you people do not give specific details is that the whole business offends your sensibilities? You are afraid of exciting too much contempt?

Hunt: That is correct.

Chairman: Then why did you write your book at all, Mr. Hunt?

Hunt: "It has been our purpose to set Mormonism in such a light before those whose reason cannot perceive the truth, that they may nevertheless see its inherent grossness, and look upon it with utter contempt."⁵²

Chairman: Yet you expect to achieve that end by avoiding unpleasant details? I think it is plain enough, sir, that you are by no means lacking in the will to publish the worst things about the Mormons, and the worse the better. I believe that the delicacy with which you avoid a recital of particulars is dictated only by the fact that you have none to recite.

Hunt: But we were just considering such particulars, sir, when you changed the subject!

Chairman: Forgive me. When did this meeting take place, by the way?

Seceder: Early in 1833.

Chairman: And when did you report it to Mr. Howe?

Seceder: In December of that year.

Chairman: And for a year you remembered Smith's nonsense-syllables to the letter?

Howe: As near as the narrator can recollect.

Chairman: Let us test his recollection again. The clerk has taken the words down—now would the witness mind repeating them again?

Seceder: Well, it was almost a year, and there were lots of other meetings, I can hardly be sure . . .

Chairman: Not a year, sir; three minutes! It has been barely three minutes since you recited those words.

Hunt: This is hardly fair. You are confusing the witness.

Chairman: If he is a genius with a phenomenal memory, a little thing like that should not disturb him.

Hunt: He makes no claim to be a genius.

Chairman: Very well, then, let us spare his feelings, and ask you, Mr. Hunt, or Mr. Howe, or anyone else in the room—or for that matter, let us ask the reader of this report—to repeat those words we all heard a few minutes ago without looking at them. Bear in mind that our witness, who claims to be no mnemonic wizard, heard those words just once, and yet from that one hearing he can repeat them almost a year later. Will anyone offer to repeat the thirty nonsense syllables that the witness uttered a few minutes ago?

Howe: But can't you see that the witness is only referring to the general kind of speech uttered—the sort of thing that went on?

Chairman: I see it only too clearly. Everybody knows the kind of nonsense Joe Smith would utter, so everybody can fill in that "&c., &c." And now it is plain enough that that is all the witness himself is doing. Either he is making up the speech attributed to Smith, or else he is remembering it. It is clear that he does not remember it, though he maintains that they are Smith's actual words . . .

Howe: "As near as the narrator can recollect." Please remember that!

Chairman: That is the whole point, in fact. If you are going to exploit this man's memory as a deadly weapon, you can hardly ask us to excuse him in case his memory breaks down! It was his idea to tell the story that way, and the strength of his testimony is no more nor less than the strength of his memory. Have you nothing better than this?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=964

[Scott Lloyd]

I could be wrong, but I assume if he is a defender, he's picking up on my mention of the painting where Joseph and Oliver were studying the Golden Plates.

The irony would be that the verse he quotes is actually another good example of my point about changing the language in the Book of Commandments and also another good example of church manipulating history to suppress the weird stuff (ie Oliver's divining rod).

As I understand, it was Joseph Smith himself who altered the wording for subsequent publication. And I think it was awyatt who made the point that it is the prerogative of a prophet, acting under inspiration from God, to alter or clarify the wording of a revelation as needed from how it was originally written down.

Moreover, there is no conclusive proof that Oliver was using a divining rod in his attempt to translate the Book of Mormon, or that he even possessed such an instrument (see this link).

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, robuchan. Channeling "Myth Makers" again. You above reminded me of this:

http://maxwellinstit...d=77&chapid=964

Very entertaining.

Was it Nibley who wrote that? One of my pet peeves about Maxwell Institute is that they don't give by-lines to their on-line articles.

[rongo]

Moreover, there is no conclusive proof that Oliver was using a divining rod in his attempt to translate the Book of Mormon, or that he even possessed such an instrument (see this link).

Although I think it's all but certain he did, on both counts. Doesn't bother me at all --- I wish I had a divining rod!

Have you ever read Richard L. Anderson's "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching?"

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5659

It goes into great depth on this, as well as others of the Brethren who had divining rods, and their recorded fulfilled prophecies in their journals. Particularly striking was Heber C. Kimball, who "inquired through the rod" at times of crisis, like the Martyrdom or the invasion during the Utah War.

[Louis Midgley]

No! He's my sycophant, not yours! Hands off.

She is right. I am sort of taken.