John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[why me]

http://mormonstories...ave-the-church/

It is interesting to hear his explanation and his critique of FAIR which begins 30 minutes into the podcast especially the tone of some FAIR members.

Edited February 10, 2013 by why me

[why me]

What I have found difficult to understand is how people who have had countless spiritual experiences in the lds faith and have received a witness to the book of mormon can leave the faith over the issues that John mentions in his podcast. It is as if such spiritual confirmations no longer matter. Such experiences become meaningless and a negation of all spiritual knowledge that they have received becomes the norm.

So, what does this mean? Spiritual witnesses or confirmations are not important because many can leave anyway over an historical issue.

[Teancum]

Perhaps the new knowledge puts the validity of the spiritual experience in a different light. Perhaps they realize they have had similar feelings in other aspects of their life as well and that such feelings can be extremely subjective. Perhaps they understand more about how confirmation bias works on the mind and thus they interpret their experience in light.

[Storm Rider]

Perhaps the new knowledge puts the validity of the spiritual experience in a different light. Perhaps they realize they have had similar feelings in other aspects of their life as well and that such feelings can be extremely subjective. Perhaps they understand more about how confirmation bias works on the mind and thus they interpret their experience in light.

I have heard this type of rationalization before. It is difficult for me to comprehend. I have had warm fuzzies form various different experiences in my life, but nothing that I have ever experienced has ever compared to the spiritual experiences that I have had. I do believe that spiritual experiences differ in number and strength; that is evident to anyone that has read the scriptures, studied the lives of the early saints, or even the latter-day saints. Some may be able to rationalize about spiritual knowledge, but I do not believe that this is common or even the norm. I also believe that Jesus taught clearly that his Church would be built upon the saints gaining a spiritual witness, a revelation of the truthfulness of Jesus' redeeming love and atonement. No, this type of knowledge is not easily interchangeable with other experiences as you have presented. This is not a knowledge built on sand, but on a sure foundation.

[awyatt]

What I have found difficult to understand is how people who have had countless spiritual experiences in the lds faith and have received a witness to the book of mormon can leave the faith over the issues that John mentions in his podcast. It is as if such spiritual confirmations no longer matter. Such experiences become meaningless and a negation of all spiritual knowledge that they have received becomes the norm.

So, what does this mean? Spiritual witnesses or confirmations are not important because many can leave anyway over an historical issue.

At the risk of sounding trite, spiritual experiences didn't keep Laman and Lemuel where they should be.

Faith, which is an active choice, always precedes the miracle/spiritual experience. (Well, 99% of the time.)

-Allen

[Glenn101]

Perhaps the new knowledge puts the validity of the spiritual experience in a different light. Perhaps they realize they have had similar feelings in other aspects of their life as well and that such feelings can be extremely subjective. Perhaps they understand more about how confirmation bias works on the mind and thus they interpret their experience in light.

I have heard this type of rationalization before. It is difficult for me to comprehend. I have had warm fuzzies form various different experiences in my life, but nothing that I have ever experienced has ever compared to the spiritual experiences that I have had. I do believe that spiritual experiences differ in number and strength; that is evident to anyone that has read the scriptures, studied the lives of the early saints, or even the latter-day saints. Some may be able to rationalize about spiritual knowledge, but I do not believe that this is common or even the norm. I also believe that Jesus taught clearly that his Church would be built upon the saints gaining a spiritual witness, a revelation of the truthfulness of Jesus' redeeming love and atonement. No, this type of knowledge is not easily interchangeable with other experiences as you have presented. This is not a knowledge built on sand, but on a sure foundation.

With Teancum's scenario, there would be no sure way of knowing the truth about God and His doctrines. Former President Joseph Fielding Smit said, “When a man has the manifestation from the Holy Ghost, it leaves an indelible impression on his soul, one that is not easily erased. It is Spirit speaking to spirit, and it comes with convincing force” (Answers to Gospel Questions [1979], 2:151).

I myself have had two such experiences and I know that President Smith is correct.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

At the risk of sounding trite, spiritual experiences didn't keep Laman and Lemuel where they should be.

Faith, which is an active choice, always precedes the miracle/spiritual experience. (Well, 99% of the time.)

-Allen

While one may consider Laman and Lemuel's experiences with the angel a "spiritual" experience, it is notthe same as that witness from the Holy Ghost that convinces someone to the bottom of their soul.

Glenn

[robuchan]

I have heard this type of rationalization before. It is difficult for me to comprehend. I have had warm fuzzies form various different experiences in my life, but nothing that I have ever experienced has ever compared to the spiritual experiences that I have had. I do believe that spiritual experiences differ in number and strength; that is evident to anyone that has read the scriptures, studied the lives of the early saints, or even the latter-day saints. Some may be able to rationalize about spiritual knowledge, but I do not believe that this is common or even the norm. I also believe that Jesus taught clearly that his Church would be built upon the saints gaining a spiritual witness, a revelation of the truthfulness of Jesus' redeeming love and atonement. No, this type of knowledge is not easily interchangeable with other experiences as you have presented. This is not a knowledge built on sand, but on a sure foundation.

I don't think that the spiritual experiences LDS have are materially different than the spiritual experiences people of many other faiths have.

A couple answers:

1. They are internally created and not from God.

2. (I like this one best) They are legitimate and come from God. But they are not as specific as we think. A Hindu or Moslem or Mormon receiving a spiritual witness is not God saying: "your religion is exactly true". It is God saying "you're my child, I'm your Father, I love you, I'm proud of you."

[ALarson]

What I have found difficult to understand is how people who have had countless spiritual experiences in the lds faith and have received a witness to the book of mormon can leave the faith over the issues that John mentions in his podcast.

It really doesn't matter how difficult it is for you to understand how people leave the church after experiencing spiritual experiences, it is definitely happening. I completely understand what you are expressing but for many, reality and truth (albeit what they have determined to be the truth) trump any type of feelings. You also need to realize that having spiritual experiences is not exclusive to being an active member of the church and many state they are happier and feel the spirit stronger in their lives since they left.

But, I do believe this is one of the main reasons John Dehlin returned. He knows the truth, warts and all, regarding church history, past doctrines, and so on. He left, but then returned because he did miss the spirit he felt within the church and its community.

[Teancum]

I have heard this type of rationalization before. It is difficult for me to comprehend. I have had warm fuzzies form various different experiences in my life, but nothing that I have ever experienced has ever compared to the spiritual experiences that I have had. I do believe that spiritual experiences differ in number and strength; that is evident to anyone that has read the scriptures, studied the lives of the early saints, or even the latter-day saints. Some may be able to rationalize about spiritual knowledge, but I do not believe that this is common or even the norm. I also believe that Jesus taught clearly that his Church would be built upon the saints gaining a spiritual witness, a revelation of the truthfulness of Jesus' redeeming love and atonement. No, this type of knowledge is not easily interchangeable with other experiences as you have presented. This is not a knowledge built on sand, but on a sure foundation.

That is fine for you personally but your experiences are subjective and unique to and for you. Others filter their own personal experiences through their own lens of life experiences. If you expect respect for your conclusions and how you interpret such things you should respect others interpretations. Often disaffected members that now have knowledge that presents evidence they did not have at the time they may have obtained what we call a testimony rightfully to interpret their experiences in a different way.

For me personally I can tell you that one of the reasons I continue to participate in the LDS Church is in fact due to two, perhaps three very powerful personal experiences that I have had. They still have deep meaning to me. So in spite of things which raise concerns about many things LDS, I stay. I also pray to be open to other direction that may lead me elsewhere. To date none has come.

[Tacenda]

The comment that people find out that the anti-material they had read and then felt guilty for, is actually true and listed on fairlds.com, is a key point he makes, and the other point of why one doesn't get this truth from leaders themselves through CES, SS etc. This is my question and will be for as long as it takes the church to come around, I believe they are, slowly and hopefully, surely.

[ALarson]

The comment that people find out that the anti-material they had read and then felt guilty for, is actually true and listed on fairlds.com, is a key point he makes, and the other point of why one doesn't get this truth from leaders themselves through CES, SS etc. This is my question and will be for as long as it takes the church to come around, I believe they are, slowly and hopefully, surely.

I agree.

I think the leaders are listening to Dehlin, or at least paying attention to what he's saying. What they do with the information will be interesting to see. They have to know that the way they've dealt with people leaving in the past is not working. More and more members are discovering things that are upsetting to them and leaving and very few come back once they've left. It may take them awhile to disconnect and that's where the middle way Mormons play a role.

Someone told me yesterday that in the January Ensign there was an article where "Oliver's rod" and the "seer stone translation" method Joseph Smith used was mentioned. If that's the case, then it's a step in the right direction.

I believe the church needs to trust its members with some of the details in church history they worry may upset them. I feel it may actually give material for some much more interesting discussions and gospel doctrine classes and members would love that. I also believe it won't upset people nearly as much as them finding out through other means and feeling deceived by the church. I hope this continues.

[Tacenda]

I agree.

I think the leaders are listening to Dehlin, or at least paying attention to what he's saying. What they do with the information will be interesting to see. They have to know that the way they've dealt with people leaving in the past is not working. More and more members are discovering things that are upsetting to them and leaving and very few come back once they've left. It may take them awhile to disconnect and that's where the middle way Mormons play a role.

Someone told me yesterday that in the January Ensign there was an article where "Oliver's rod" and the "seer stone translation" method Joseph Smith used was mentioned. If that's the case, then it's a step in the right direction.

I believe the church needs to trust its members with some of the details in church history they worry may upset them. I feel it may actually give material for some much more interesting discussions and gospel doctrine classes and members would love that. I also believe it won't upset people nearly as much as them finding out through other means and feeling deceived by the church. I hope this continues.

Good to know, I'll check them out. I probably shouldn't have let my Ensign subscription elapse. Like everything else, I went paperless with it also.

[why me]

With Teancum's scenario, there would be no sure way of knowing the truth about God and His doctrines. Former President Joseph Fielding Smit said, “When a man has the manifestation from the Holy Ghost, it leaves an indelible impression on his soul, one that is not easily erased. It is Spirit speaking to spirit, and it comes with convincing force” (Answers to Gospel Questions [1979], 2:151).

I myself have had two such experiences and I know that President Smith is correct.

Glenn

And that was my point. Many of these people who have left over an historical issue have also had such experiences and yet, all is forgotten over an historical issue. I find it all rather strange and puzzling. Or is it just satan working overtime on the mormons?

[why me]

The comment that people find out that the anti-material they had read and then felt guilty for, is actually true and listed on fairlds.com, is a key point he makes, and the other point of why one doesn't get this truth from leaders themselves through CES, SS etc. This is my question and will be for as long as it takes the church to come around, I believe they are, slowly and hopefully, surely.

And yet, much of the polgamy is in section 132 of the D and C. It is all there to read...even polyandry if I am not mistaken with verse 41. It states it clearly that Joseph can have more than one wife. John said that polygamy is one issue that church members find surprising with Joseph Smith.

[why me]

I believe the church needs to trust its members with some of the details in church history they worry may upset them. I feel it may actually give material for some much more interesting discussions and gospel doctrine classes and members would love that. I also believe it won't upset people nearly as much as them finding out through other means and feeling deceived by the church. I hope this continues.

I have never known a catholic to be upset with catholic history or a protestant either. Why is it such a crutch for mormons? This is what I find strange: lds testimonies are built on sand and the members spiritual experiences become meaningless very quickly.

[wayfarer]

What I have found difficult to understand is how people who have had countless spiritual experiences in the lds faith and have received a witness to the book of mormon can leave the faith over the issues that John mentions in his podcast. It is as if such spiritual confirmations no longer matter. Such experiences become meaningless and a negation of all spiritual knowledge that they have received becomes the norm.

So, what does this mean? Spiritual witnesses or confirmations are not important because many can leave anyway over an historical issue.

Spiritual witness can remain extremely important and real, especially for those who leave the church over historical and truth claim issues. A spiritual witness is a phenomenological event. The recipient feels something undeniable and powerful in the presence of the spirit. The phenomenology of the event is a true thing: it happened. What is subject to debate is why it happened, and what it meant.

I have read the Book of Mormon many, many times, and each time, I feel powerful spiritual experiences. I feel the Savior's voice in its pages, and through this book, I feel I have come to know the Savior. I do not believe that the Book of Mormon, however, is the literal history of any native americans. When certain apologists state that my lack of belief in the literal nature of the book of mormon makes me less than a full-fledged, faithful latter-day saint, or that my beliefs are incoherent, I find myself distancing myself from the church, because I clearly feel otherwise.

My conclusion is this: to know someone is completely distinct from knowing about someone. to know the spirit of the church through its witings and spiritual teachings is clearly not the same as knowing all there is to know about the church. many LDS confuse the two, and when facts come outmthat dispell widely-held myths, faith can crumble.

As a parable or metaphor, I cite the story of Paul Dunn. On my mission, I got to know Elder Dunn, personally. He was, in my impression, one of the most motivating and powerful spiritual influences in my life. I recognized his ability to spin stories to make things interesting, but I didn't care in the least about the stories, only the moral teachings he taught while weaving the stories to create interest. I knew very little ABOUT Paul Dunn, but I knew him. When the news broke that almost all of his stories were completely made-up, I was neither surprised, nor floored. However, I was disturbed that he was so completely villified by virtue of his fabrications that all the good he did was immediately dismissed.

The issue isn't Dunn, here. It's only a metaphor of a larger problem. When we reject the divinity of the church when we discover its inevitable humanity, we deny ourselves of blessings. When we deny the facts about history and some problems with certain truth claims, we are only postponing a discussion of how we can come to know God and Christ through the church because it is human and not in spite of it. Mature faith can withstand the fact that the historicity of the book of mormon is completely missing. Mature faith can accept that god can make scripture happen through an ordinary egyptian funerary scroll, especially if it has nothing to do with Abraham.

Dehlin, I, and others object to the methods of the apologists because rather than embracing that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham (for examples) are inspired human products, we are encouraged by apologists to hold on to our naive, literalist mindset through a creative relationship with the facts. And, to some (not all), if we don't accept the literalism, our faith is deficient and our reasoning incoherent. Instead of helping one's faith to mature, these tactics simply push off the day of reckoning and tend to overload the faith shelf. These tactics can harm those who are questioning, although some find benefit through a stronger shelf.

In my impression, when we convolude knowing god versus knowing about god, then the "about" claims become important. When we realize that a spiritual experience, whether numinous or mystical, is to come to know god personally, then we should know that it has very little to do with "about" claims. Likewise, a spiritual experience with the book of mormon teaches of the personality of god and christ through what it says. It is normatively and valuatively true. This witness stands without any need for its historicity. By linking historicity to the spiritual witness of the book of mormon, a person's faith an and often does fail when the evidence points to the lack of historical validity. by linking historicity to the truth of the book of mormon, and then playing "all or nothing" games with those whose faith is otherwise, apologists damage faith. not all apologists do this, and not all are damaged by it, but it is a practice that needs to stop, imo.

[Calm]

Why me, the Church uses narratives to teach doctrine, narratives that include our own history. Perhaps when they come to believe the history is false, then that falseness is associated to the doctrine as well.

Plus we have much more historical information about our sources of doctrine, our scriptures have a context that is much easier to access than is the biblical context....and there is an expectation that Joseph and other leaders are much like us, since they spoke the same language, ate many of the same foods, built the same sort of houses and clothes weren't too different and comparatively speaking, it was not that long ago....discounting the level of change that occurred in the last 200 years as opposed to the last 2000.

Edited February 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

And yet, much of the polgamy is in section 132 of the D and C. It is all there to read...even polyandry if I am not mistaken with verse 41. It states it clearly that Joseph can have more than one wife. John said that polygamy is one issue that church members find surprising with Joseph Smith.

I never really learned it being taught much or missed it being taught while in the Primary serving in various callings. I was one of those that disliked being in RS/GD. Not anymore though. Also there are members that read sect. 132 totally different.

[Calm]

My conclusion is this: to know someone is completely distinct from knowing about someone.

Mature faith can withstand the fact that the historicity of the book of mormon is completely missing. Mature faith can accept that god can make scripture happen through an ordinary egyptian funerary scroll, especially if it has nothing to do with Abraham.

In your view, can those with a mature faith, who have come to know the scriptures and not just about them...can those individuals have a literalistic view of the BoM, believe it is founded in history though meant to be a religious script by its authors and not a modern day history text?

[why me]

Why me, the Church uses narratives to teach doctrine, narratives that include our own history. Perhaps when they come to believe the history is false, then that falseness is associated to the doctrine as well.

When I was young I was taught United States history. Now I know that the history was incomplete or biased. But I am still an American. History is never complete and it is full of interpretation. However, when it comes to lds history, I see no lies but certain things are left out in the manuals. But no where in church books do I read that Joseph never practiced polygamy or was never a treasure seeker etc.

[why me]

I never really learned it being taught much or missed it being taught while in the Primary serving in various callings. I was one of those that disliked being in RS/GD. Not anymore though. Also there are members that read sect. 132 totally different.

it is also explicit in the introduction. It says it all there. And also about emma is in that section: she was not a happy camper. How can it be missed? But yes, it is not taught. But it can be read by all.

[why me]

Spiritual witness can remain extremely important and real, especially for those who leave the church over historical and truth claim issues. A spiritual witness is a phenomenological event. The recipient feels something undeniable and powerful in the presence of the spirit. The phenomenology of the event is a true thing: it happened. What is subject to debate is why it happened, and what it meant.

You haven't left the fold. You are still very much in. But what about those who now rationalize all their spiritual experiences away over an historical issue or issues? According to John, bishops, elders quorum presidents, relief society presidents have all left the church over lds history. So, all their experiences have been put to the curb and all their validations with blessing and prayers have come to naught. Seems to be nothing but sand out there.

[robuchan]

You haven't left the fold. You are still very much in. But what about those who now rationalize all their spiritual experiences away over an historical issue or issues? According to John, bishops, elders quorum presidents, relief society presidents have all left the church over lds history. So, all their experiences have been put to the curb and all their validations with blessing and prayers have come to naught. Seems to be nothing but sand out there.

See my post #8 in this thread.

[Wiki Wonka]

Someone told me yesterday that in the January Ensign there was an article where "Oliver's rod" and the "seer stone translation" method Joseph Smith used was mentioned. If that's the case, then it's a step in the right direction.

The January Ensign talks about the seer stone translation, and mentions the fact that multiple instruments (both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stones) were referred to by the Biblical term "Urim and Thummim." The same article discusses how revelations were edited and updated.

The reference to Oliver's divining rod was recently posted on the Church history website "Revelations in Context" in an article titled "Oliver Cowdery's Gift."

https://history.lds....owdery?lang=eng

"Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17: 8 ). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as instruments for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod."

WW

Edited February 10, 2013 by Wiki Wonka