John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[Scott Lloyd]

Well once a hipster always a hipster even though I now have a steel hip, I am just a cool dude.

I will have to make my kids read that post so they know at least one person in the world thinks I am not a fuddy-duddy.

Well, you are dating yourself just a tad by using words like "hipster" and "fuddy-duddy."

Just sayin'.

[robuchan]

It's not that one didn't know these things that is an issue, it is how one reacted when one found out one didn't know them. People have said this over and over, I don't know how much clearer they can be about it. It's not a level of knowledge, it is how one reacts to learning new things...simply put, does learning itself become a positive or negative experience?

Wrong, it's completely about whether or not one knew about these things. And who has accountability for that. Me or the church or no one. I can accept "no one". I will not accept "me". There is no way you can call me lazy or whatever for not knowing, for example that Oliver Cowdery took a shot at translating the BOM using a divining rod. Tell me a process I should have followed that would have led me to that fact before the internet age.

How I reacted when I received the information? I have no issues with that. I reacted rationally, IMHO. You can judge me for how I reacted to the information, and I have no problem with your judgement on that. My issue is in telling me I was lazy for never knowing some of these facts. It's complete BS. It's smug, condescending, arrogant, mean, and flat out wrong. I wish KC and others would stop asserting this.

[robuchan]

Count me into that too- I can't imagine what you are saying. I joined the church in 1979 at the age of 31 so you can do the math yourself. When I first got baptized I moved to Salt Lake, went to Deseret Book where they sold Sunstone and all the other periodicals and read all I could find cover to cover. There were no guards preventing me from buying them If they generated any questions, I figured out the answers.

As you can see, here I am, and I haven't exactly been excommunicated yet even though some think my views are not "mainstream" though they are to me. I have had, and still do have leadership positions including confidential assignments from my stake president who knows me very well.

You're older than me. I guarantee they weren't selling Sunstone at Deseret Book in 1993. I was taught to avoid Sunstone and other non-mainstream sources. That's fine if you tell me that's member error and not the church's fault. But please don't tell me I was lazy or otherwise morally inferior because I was selecting material to study from that my church leaders endorsed and avoiding the ones they told me to avoid.

Are you guys really trying to tell me that church leadership really really wanted all the members to read Sunstone and get informed on all the anti-Mormon criticisms and they were cut off at the knees by all the local leaders who told people to avoid this material? This picture you guys are painting of Mormonism in the 80's and 90's is so completely foreign to me. The men that guided me: father, bishops, stake presidents, BYU instructors, mission presidents, etc, these men were smart, capable men and would give their lives for the brethren. I'm sure the brethren could have straightened them out very easily if they wanted them to start pushing Sunstone, etc.

[Tacenda]

You're older than me. I guarantee they weren't selling Sunstone at Deseret Book in 1993. I was taught to avoid Sunstone and other non-mainstream sources. That's fine if you tell me that's member error and not the church's fault. But please don't tell me I was lazy or otherwise morally inferior because I was selecting material to study from that my church leaders endorsed and avoiding the ones they told me to avoid.

Are you guys really trying to tell me that church leadership really really wanted all the members to read Sunstone and get informed on all the anti-Mormon criticisms and they were cut off at the knees by all the local leaders who told people to avoid this material? This picture you guys are painting of Mormonism in the 80's and 90's is so completely foreign to me. The men that guided me: father, bishops, stake presidents, BYU instructors, mission presidents, etc, these men were smart, capable men and would give their lives for the brethren. I'm sure the brethren could have straightened them out very easily if they wanted them to start pushing Sunstone, etc.

I agree, and think that maybe it's how we're raised on top if it. My family weren't intellectuals. My dad read mostly the classifieds. But was the most honest charitable person I knew. My mom was a reader but not of Sunstone etc. I inherited her library of church books and in it is quite a collection. But nothing controversial. Makes one think that people that did were a lot more discreet than is being admitted here.

[webbles]

I agree, and think that maybe it's how we're raised on top if it. My family weren't intellectuals. My dad read mostly the classifieds. But was the most honest charitable person I knew. My mom was a reader but not of Sunstone etc. I inherited her library of church books and in it is quite a collection. But nothing controversial. Makes one think that people that did were a lot more discreet than is being admitted here.

My grandfather has quite the collection of books about non-maintstream LDS thought. And he's been an instructor almost his whole life (Seventy's, Elder's, High Priests', and Gospel Doctrine's) and he's talked about these things in his classes. He's also done firesides in local chapels on some of these things as far back as 50's.

[robuchan]

My grandfather has quite the collection of books about non-maintstream LDS thought. And he's been an instructor almost his whole life (Seventy's, Elder's, High Priests', and Gospel Doctrine's) and he's talked about these things in his classes. He's also done firesides in local chapels on some of these things as far back as 50's.

Any of those books talk about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod? Do you have notes from any of his firesides where he mentions this?

[ERayR]

My grandfather has quite the collection of books about non-maintstream LDS thought. And he's been an instructor almost his whole life (Seventy's, Elder's, High Priests', and Gospel Doctrine's) and he's talked about these things in his classes. He's also done firesides in local chapels on some of these things as far back as 50's.

Wrong, it's completely about whether or not one knew about these things. And who has accountability for that. Me or the church or no one. I can accept "no one". I will not accept "me". There is no way you can call me lazy or whatever for not knowing, for example that Oliver Cowdery took a shot at translating the BOM using a divining rod. Tell me a process I should have followed that would have led me to that fact before the internet age.

How I reacted when I received the information? I have no issues with that. I reacted rationally, IMHO. You can judge me for how I reacted to the information, and I have no problem with your judgement on that. My issue is in telling me I was lazy for never knowing some of these facts. It's complete BS. It's smug, condescending, arrogant, mean, and flat out wrong. I wish KC and others would stop asserting this.

And yet with all the "intellectual" information you have been exposed to the problem still remains the same. Which information do I choose to believe? Do I choose believe the worst possible explanation? No matter how much information you have the choice is yours. You can not blame others for your choices.

[ERayR]

Any of those books talk about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod? Do you have notes from any of his firesides where he mentions this?

And of what significance is that little bit of information?

[robuchan]

And of what significance is that little bit of information?

We're now getting into a tangent of a tangent. Just assume it's important for the sake of the discussion. It's one of a long list of facts about the restoration that many LDS only came to know about after internet proliferation after they were well into adulthood.

[ERayR]

We're now getting into a tangent of a tangent. Just assume it's important for the sake of the discussion. It's one of a long list of facts about the restoration that many LDS only came to know about after internet proliferation after they were well into adulthood.

How can I pretend that minutia is important unless you tell me why it is important? It is obviously important to you, since you brought it up, so it can not be a tangent so once again why is it important to you?

Edited February 9, 2013 by ERayR

[robuchan]

How can I pretend that minutia is important unless you tell me why it is important? It is obviously important to you, since you brought it up, so it can not be a tangent so once again why is it important to you?

I'm not addressing you with this, unless you defend KC with his arrogant "don't expect everyone to spoonfeed you" take when good LDS members are surprised they don't learn about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod until they accidentally discover it on the internet well into adulthood.

[volgadon]

I think you may be missing the point. I am reading them as saying that knowledge about certain historical facts isn't something one has to have if one isn't interested in it....in fact it is, in my experience, very hard to teach someone who isn't interested in history anything beyond a superficial treatment...and if someone isn't bothered by that lack of deeper knowledge than I see no need to attempt to hammer it into their heads.

The knowledge is out there, it may take quite a bit of work for some to get to it, but if someone has a desire to educate themselves in a subject, at least here in the US for the last 50 years or so it is possible even if it may be hard at times. Granted that if one doesn't know a certain body of knowledge exists, one isn't likely to ask questions about it, but if one is curious about life or even just a particular aspect of it, then one starts to explore because one wants to know more even if one is certain that what one knows so far is absolutely correct and eventually one learns the questions that need to be asked and how to find the answers to them and even how to correct misinformation that one has received in the past.

The issue they are discussing from my POV is how to respond to new knowledge when one comes to a point where it does become important to an individual where it wasn't that important before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/1123738.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1318374/Children-who-think-Hitler-was-British.html

[Kevin Christensen]

I find myself thinking of Kurt Vonnegut's short story, Harrison Bergeron.

So it goes.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for reminding me of that story. I haven't read it since maybe my sophomore or junior year in high school, but I remember loving it and I look forward, now, to reading it again.

And yes, i can imagine it coming to your mind in the context of this exchange.

So it goes.

[robuchan]

I find myself thinking of Kurt Vonnegut's short story, Harrison Bergeron.

So it goes.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

You could continue to insult me or you could explain to me in what books, which Sunday School lessons, or which General Conference talks I could have learned the true historical context of D&C 8 and Oliver's divining rod. If I was so lazy, please map out a course of study I should have taken to learn all these things.

[ERayR]

I'm not addressing you with this, unless you defend KC with his arrogant "don't expect everyone to spoonfeed you" take when good LDS members are surprised they don't learn about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod until they accidentally discover it on the internet well into adulthood.

Again, Why is Oliver Cowdery's divining rod significant to you? What is significant is the restoration of the gospel not Oliver Cowdery's divining rod. A divining rod or seer stone is merely a device to focus attention.

[awyatt]

You could continue to insult me or you could explain to me in what books, which Sunday School lessons, or which General Conference talks I could have learned the true historical context of D&C 8 and Oliver's divining rod. If I was so lazy, please map out a course of study I should have taken to learn all these things.

Robuchan,

Perhaps you are completely ignoring my comments; it appears that way. I've engaged with you directly on this very point, and you fail to even recognize that engagement. Then you act as if nobody has engaged you. That is frustrating.

Again, go read post #613. You'll find out exactly what you won't hear about such things in Sunday School lessons or General Conference talks.

-Allen

[robuchan]

Again, Why is Oliver Cowdery's divining rod significant to you? What is significant is the restoration of the gospel not Oliver Cowdery's divining rod. A divining rod or seer stone is merely a device to focus attention.

If you want to ask me in another thread, I'll answer, but I want to focus this discussion on KC's insistence that an adult member of the church prior to the internet age is guilty of being lazy, demanding to be spoon fed the gospel, etc, (Lou Midgely chimed in with the term lazy bum) who doesn't become aware of all these historical aspects of the restoration until later in life. And who claim the church has no accountability that all these adult members have a warped/incomplete view of the restoration.

[Tacenda]

If you want to ask me in another thread, I'll answer, but I want to focus this discussion on KC's insistence that an adult member of the church prior to the internet age is guilty of being lazy, demanding to be spoon fed the gospel, etc, (Lou Midgely chimed in with the term lazy bum) who doesn't become aware of all these historical aspects of the restoration until later in life. And who claim the church has no accountability that all these adult members have a warped/incomplete view of the restoration.

You have a definite point. When I first came on the board (it wouldn't let me observe any longer). I was so nervous to bring up my doubts. I was treated the same way and made to feel it was my fault for not knowing that JS had more wives than just Emma. I'm not going to name names, they know who they are. Edited February 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[webbles]

Any of those books talk about Oliver Cowdery's divining rod? Do you have notes from any of his firesides where he mentions this?

Considering that he has probably in the range of a few thousand books (he had a large library room completely filled with shelves and books and he still needed a storage shed to hold the other books), I wouldn't doubt he has a book with that information. Do I have notes? I wasn't even born when he first started. But does he know about the diving rod? I'll have to ask him directly but I'm fairly certain he does. He's known all the other things I've asked him about.

And I was just adding this information as a reply to Tacenda's statement that this must have been discreet. I didn't think firesides was a very discreet way of saying it.

[robuchan]

Robuchan,

Perhaps you are completely ignoring my comments; it appears that way. I've engaged with you directly on this very point, and you fail to even recognize that engagement. Then you act as if nobody has engaged you. That is frustrating.

Again, go read post #613. You'll find out exactly what you won't hear about such things in Sunday School lessons or General Conference talks.

-Allen

An adult LDS says "wow I just learned about XYZ, and I'm feeling kind of pissed off at the church that I never knew this before."

There's a big difference between the two responses.

1. You should have known this already. I knew it. All these other people here on this board knew it. You should have known it. You should have been reading more. Not the church's fault you were lazy. Do you really think the church should spoon feed you. The scriptures are full of exhortations that you obviously ignored. Something's wrong with you. You're a seriously deficient Latter Day Saint.

2. Yeah, hardly anyone knew that stuff and you could really only discover it by going way outside the bounds of safe, authorized LDS study material. But don't be too hard on the church for it, because the church's goals in its seminary/institute curriculum, manuals, and general conference teaching is to focus on gospel principles not history, so you can see why a lot of that stuff just slips through the cracks.

I'm OK with #2. I think the church does have some blame and accountability for this situation, but I see the church's side of it. I completely reject #1. It's arrogant, mean and untrue.

[awyatt]

If you want to ask me in another thread, I'll answer, but I want to focus this discussion on KC's insistence that an adult member of the church prior to the internet age is guilty of being lazy, demanding to be spoon fed the gospel, etc, (Lou Midgely chimed in with the term lazy bum) who doesn't become aware of all these historical aspects of the restoration until later in life. And who claim the church has no accountability that all these adult members have a warped/incomplete view of the restoration.

CFR. The only person here asserting that KC insists that "an adult member of the church prior to the internet age is guilty of being lazy, demanding to be spoon fed the gospel, etc." is Robuchan.

I just went back and read every single post by KC on this thread. Every single one. The word "lazy" doesn't appear once. I could find nothing that could even be considered a synonym for "lazy." So, CFR -- where has KC stated what you've said he stated?

-Allen

[robuchan]

Considering that he has probably in the range of a few thousand books (he had a large library room completely filled with shelves and books and he still needed a storage shed to hold the other books), I wouldn't doubt he has a book with that information. Do I have notes? I wasn't even born when he first started. But does he know about the diving rod? I'll have to ask him directly but I'm fairly certain he does. He's known all the other things I've asked him about.

And I was just adding this information as a reply to Tacenda's statement that this must have been discreet. I didn't think firesides was a very discreet way of saying it.

I'm still waiting for those with judgement for me in this thread: KC, Lou Midgely, etc, to show me which material I should have studied to learn about Oliver's divining rod.

[webbles]

If you want to ask me in another thread, I'll answer, but I want to focus this discussion on KC's insistence that an adult member of the church prior to the internet age is guilty of being lazy, demanding to be spoon fed the gospel, etc, (Lou Midgely chimed in with the term lazy bum) who doesn't become aware of all these historical aspects of the restoration until later in life. And who claim the church has no accountability that all these adult members have a warped/incomplete view of the restoration.

I'm guessing you are talking about post #538 where he says: "I never found a scripture that said, "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, for they shall be spoon fed, and never caught of guard, and never, ever disappointed by anyone." Reading the whole post does not give me the idea that he things people are lazy for not being aware. Instead, it is for people who become aware and then don't look for information. If you happened to find out that Oliver Cowdery used a diving rod and used that one fact to blame the church for not teaching you, that is who he is calling lazy. But instead, if you searched out at that time to find out more about the diving rod (which he was also pointing was possible before the internet age) and still decided it was enough to lose one's testimony, you would not be lazy. But you also wouldn't be able to blame the church because you would have found out that the church does give out that information.

So the lazy person isn't the one who didn't find out about the information until it was presented (which is what you are portraying) but instead the person who was confronted with the information and immediately blamed the church and didn't look for anymore information. Do you see the difference?

[mfbukowski]

Well, you are dating yourself just a tad by using words like "hipster" and "fuddy-duddy."

Just sayin'.

Oh swell. I guess I should have said Daddy-o.

That would have been the bees knees!