John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[Daniel Peterson]

There've been several attempts to supply examples of the viciousness characteristic of my quarter-century "reign of terror" (as one critic called it) at the FARMS Review.

The yield has always been sparse and unimpressive -- because the criticism is false.

It was instructive and edifying, though, to see John Dehlin's professions of joy at, he hopes, hurting others for their alleged "unchristlikeness."

[BFUBFBEO'Brien]

There've been several attempts to supply examples of the viciousness characteristic of my quarter-century "reign of terror" (as one critic called it) at the FARMS Review.

The yield has always been sparse and unimpressive -- because the criticism is false.

It was instructive and edifying, though, to see John Dehlin's professions of joy at, he hopes, hurting others for their alleged "unchristlikeness."

I therefore look forward to the cessation of slander against me and my fellow members of FAIR from Mr. Dehlin. I'm not naive enough to look forward to a different tone toward you and Lou, but I think that Facebook thread has amply shown that he has nothing to back up those accusations, either. Dan, thy friends do stand by thee.

[why me]

I therefore look forward to the cessation of slander against me and my fellow members of FAIR from Mr. Dehlin. I'm not naive enough to look forward to a different tone toward you and Lou, but I think that Facebook thread has amply shown that he has nothing to back up those accusations, either. Dan, thy friends do stand by thee.

I think that if John is now an active member, he will need to give up his attacks about dan. Not good for the soul or for the spirit. Also, a little reflection would be in order for him. Why depend on information from critics? Or hearsay?

[Scott Lloyd]

There've been several attempts to supply examples of the viciousness characteristic of my quarter-century "reign of terror" (as one critic called it) at the FARMS Review.

The yield has always been sparse and unimpressive -- because the criticism is false.

It was instructive and edifying, though, to see John Dehlin's professions of joy at, he hopes, hurting others for their alleged "unchristlikeness."

Yes, the carefully crafted image of the benevolent and pious rebel seems to be a bit tarnished.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes, the carefully crafted image of the benevolent and pious rebel seems to be a bit tarnished.

Oh no. He's still good. He appears to have erased all of those inconvenient facebook posts. I'm sure it was in the interest of being open and honest.

[ALarson]

Oh no. He's still good. He appears to have erased all of those inconvenient facebook posts. I'm sure it was in the interest of being open and honest.

It seems he deleted posts on other forums too or they disappeared somehow. I think John really got himself into a jam and has ended up making people on both sides of the issues angry. I think he's also lost credibility with most.

He is working on a new podcast and has asked for help (he's interviewing Brian Hales tomorrow). Here's the link, if anyone wants to add a question for him to ask Hales:

http://mormonstories.org/reconciling-joseph-smith-polygamy-with-brian-hales/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It seems he deleted posts on other forums too or they disappeared somehow. I think John really got himself into a jam and has ended up making people on both sides of the issues angry. I think he's also lost credibility with most.

He is working on a new podcast and has asked for help (he's interviewing Brian Hales tomorrow). Here's the link, if anyone wants to add a question for him to ask Hales:

http://mormonstories...th-brian-hales/

I have really enjoyed all of John's Mormon Stories interviews with faithful mormons. I think that format worked really well for him and I look forward to the Brian Hales interview as well. John does have a history of deleting conversations (his own words) that put him in a less than favorable light. The most public example I remember was this one: http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/mormon-matters-massacre/

[Libs]

It's not easy going through the confusion and questioning, over spiritual matters, that John has gone through in the last few years...it's not easy doing that in private, let alone in the public eye.

I wish he would step back from these public "fights" that only cause more animosity...and stick to what he does well...the podcasts.

I'm looking forward to the Brian Hale interview.

[Aminadab]

I would say that the fact he is doing a Brian Hale interview shows an intent to move forward on a good trajectory from here on out.

[Scott Lloyd]

An excellent question. I strongly doubt that those who have complained the loudest about FARMS/FAIR apologetics were concerned that these writings have been harmful. That's a bogus narrative, imo. What they really seem upset about is that the apologists just don't concede to their arguments that the Book of Abraham isn't true, that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and on and on. An apologist by definition defends something. They just can't seem to stomach the idea that someone could defend the church and its truth claims. They want the apologists to just shut up and concede to their ideas. Claiming that apologists do more harm than good is an attempt to shame them into silence. And it's rubbish.

The possibility that by forsaking one's faith, one has made a serious error is not an appealing thought.

Like it or not, apologists bring such folks face-to-face with that dreaded notion. By discrediting and vilifying apologists, perhaps those who have fallen away believe they can silence the apologists, hence the incessant noise about apologists allegedly driving people out of the Church.

That's my well-considered theory, at any rate.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Darren10]

So...John hasn't responded here for quite some time, despite direct appeals from several of us to tell FAIR how to improve and desnarkify...may we conclude that John's only problem with FAIR is its association with Dan? Or has he messaged you personally, WikiWonka?

I'm 100% convinced that John Dehlin's problem with FAIR is John Dehlin's association with John Dehlin.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[William Schryver]

The possibility that by forsaking one's faith, one has made a serious error is not an appealing thought.

Like it or not, apologists bring such folks face-to-face with that dreaded notion. By discrediting and vilifying apologists, perhaps those who have fallen away believe they can silence the apologists, hence the incessant noise about apologists allegedly driving people out of the Church.

That's my well-considered theory, at any rate.

This is, for lack of a better term, what we vicious apologists call "the gospel truth."

[Darren10]

I was one of those at FAIR who has always granted him the benefit of the doubt. I always assumed that he was sincere. The recent Facebook meltdown has purged me of those notions.

I showed him the benefit of the doubt despite finding his conclusions hard to accept I just saw it as the morally right thing to do, despite how that line of reasoning turned out. And ditto on the fecabook meltdown. That has solidified my clear doubts that John Dehlin is not sinciere in his pursuit of 'bridgebuilding" and proclaiming Chrislike love for all. In fact he's been anything but Christlike towards Dan, Lou, and FAIR in general.

His final parting post on Facebook was what did it for me. He talked about how "thrilled" he was to have played a small part in getting people fired from the Maxwell Institute and how happy he was that their "reputation has been significantly tarnished." He thanked Greg Smith for writing the article, claiming that it was "manna from heaven." He ended by saying that these individuals "have made Mormonism better by undermining yourselves."

His declaratives "screed" I guess you can say, show that his goals was to destroy. Period. And that's coming to a conclusion via his own words. As for erasing his own posts, that shows me he has no interest in "bridsgebuilding" but to follow only a specific agenda which I have an educated guess as to what it is but truly who knows where it'll actually take John Dehlin and his roughian crew?

This is the man who wishes to help FAIR become more Christlike in their interactions.

And, as we can see, that's hardly the case via his actions.

If Morgan Davis is around I'd sure like to know from him if he still thinks contacting John Dehlin on Greg Smith's was the right thing to do and if he still thinks it'll bring shame upon Smith, Peterson, and the Maxwell Institute?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Dan, thy friends do stand by thee.

OK. Group hug, y'all, group hug.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

It seems he deleted posts on other forums too or they disappeared somehow. I think John really got himself into a jam and has ended up making people on both sides of the issues angry. I think he's also lost credibility with most.

That's almost an inevitable result when on'es goal is to appease all.

He is working on a new podcast and has asked for help (he's interviewing Brian Hales tomorrow). Here's the link, if anyone wants to add a question for him to ask Hales:

http://mormonstories...th-brian-hales/

Hales is the man regarding LDS's polygamous history. Hope his interview with Dehlin goes well.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I have really enjoyed all of John's Mormon Stories interviews with faithful mormons. I think that format worked really well for him and I look forward to the Brian Hales interview as well. John does have a history of deleting conversations (his own words) that put him in a less than favorable light. The most public example I remember was this one: http://messengeranda...tters-massacre/

That sounds big. And I sure do hope that the LDS Church does NOT apologize for Proposition 8.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Calm]

I have really enjoyed all of John's Mormon Stories interviews with faithful mormons. I think that format worked really well for him and I look forward to the Brian Hales interview as well. John does have a history of deleting conversations (his own words) that put him in a less than favorable light. The most public example I remember was this one: http://messengeranda...tters-massacre/

He has a history of rejection of past supporters if they differ from him as well:

We don't try to build the kind of pseduo-religion that Dehlin does. Our events consist solely of live recordings and things like family picnics.

For Dehlin, the podcasts have become secondary to his primary purpose of building the Mormon Stories conferences and community networks.

Dehlins [communities] are heavily [censored and moderated] and there have been dustups between the liberals and ex-Mormons in Phoenix, Boise and Salt Lake as well as the nearly constant back and forth on the online communities. In the interest of full disclosure, both my wife and I have been "ex-communicated" from the Dehlin communities.

2 main issues. John ossolates between courting ex-Mormons and Mormons. When he is courting ex-Mormons he tends to focus on tolerance of communication. When he is courting Mormons, he tends towards censorship of the more strident critical voices. They are then shown the door and asked not to return.

The second issue is that John has many great talents and is a wonderful guy in a lot of ways, but he strongly values loyality and will go after anyone he believes has crossed him or is not showing due support for his ideas. He has had many run ins with almost all of the ex-Mormon and liberal Mormon online communites.

Also, Dehlin's followers can be fairly zealotus and will go after folks too.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is, for lack of a better term, what we vicious apologists call "the gospel truth."

I just posted the following message on another thread. I'll post it here for visibility, because it has relevance to both threads:

The talking point du jour seems to be that apologists drive people from the Church because the arguments and logic they provide to answer concerns and allay doubts are not satisfactory. To this, I would reply that apologetics, like any form of opinion writing or expression, is more persuasive to some people than it is to others. That is the nature of public discourse. Some hearers and listeners for one reason or another, are not open to being persuaded. Some, due to prejudice, past influences, or whatever reason are inherently predisposed not to change their minds, no matter how reasonable the argument.

Does it make sense to blame apologists and apologetics organizations for people leaving the Church just because the apologists are not successful in every instance? To say -- implicitly or explicitly -- that they ought not be doing apologetics, because they do more harm than good?

I liken it to the following scenario.

A guard is poised at the edge of a steep mountainside to prevent a group of children from tumbling over the edge. He employs a variety of approaches ranging from gentle persuasion and humor to stringent warning to sharp reproach to outright threats to get them to come away from the edge.

Some heed him. Others, convinced that he is bent on hindering their enjoyment, ignore his warnings. He actually rescues a few just as they are going over the edge and sets them back on safe ground. One or two he grabs as they are going over, but he lacks the strength to hold them. They slip from his grasp and are seriously injured.

Later, at a town meeting, some people assert that the guard should be removed from his post because he has done more harm than good and that his efforts have actually driven children over the edge.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

You must not get out much to meet a lot of people.

Been around the block a few times, wayfarer (over 70 years worth), and have doubtless met many more types and kinds of Mormons and non-Mormons than you will ever have the opportunity to meet. Including on this Board, I have yet to meet anyone who has left the LDS faith for a legitimate reason. Even you based your own disappointments on non-doctrinal assumptions which have turned out to be false.

I would submit that the Church's position vis-a-vis blacks and the priesthood, having no basis whatsoever in anything other than Brigham Young's dogmatic pronouncement, is a legitimate argument against the religion. I had to teach blacks during my mission who would never be able to participate in the ordinances of exaltation. Then, from one day to the next, all the doctrine taught prior was nil.

There was no such doctrine. Pres. McKay and his associates sought in every way possible to determine why such a policy existed, but could not find any doctrinal justification. Right wing Mormons are still in denial on this issue, and are not even aware that Joseph and his brethren were ordaining Black people to the priesthood and sending them on missions, nor that Joseph actively sought to end slavery.

I didn't go inactive, but the way it was handled prior to 1978 speaks volumes to the prophetic vacuity of the Church, at least on that principle. And has there been an apology? No. Very bad form. This is simply one example of a 'legitimate argument'.

Perhaps in some illogical or non-historical manner.

And while the argument is 'legitimate', it is not sufficient, if we understand that humans make mistakes and yes, sometimes even the prophet will lead the church astray, as did Brigham Young on this issue, and on Adam-God.

To dismiss the legitimacy of some ex-mormons' complaints because you haven't met one says more about your lack of social exposure than anything else.

I spent many years in regular association and conversation with anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons (including very pleasant conversations with Sandra Tanner -- even going to her & Jerald's church), reading nearly everything they and their predecessors had to say. Again, much of what I found in the anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon positions were typically anti-intellectual, ahistorical, and presentist in nature. Unfortunately, a good deal of hatred and contempt, as well.

As for growth rate, LDS growth rate has been around double the world population growth rate, or as of 2009, around 2.5% average in the past decade. Official Church membership statistics count members of record, not limited to active members. When we figure in the higher biological growth of LDS members due to larger family size, and then consider the inactivity rate of new converts, I hardly think the Church is growing at all. Since there is no transparency about what percentage of members fall out, and iirc, the census populations of Mormons in countries that ask 'religion' is significantly lower than LDS-reported membership numbers, I think there is cause to believe that the church is not growing at all at this point. Again, no tangible data exists, from what I can tell, that really demonstrates it one way or another.

As the LDS Church continues to grow worldwide, you will no doubt continue to say these very same things. Denying the obvious, and claiming that it's not growing, or that it's getting smaller, or that "no tangible data exists" by which one could make a determination is a copout.

I have no idea what you are talking about. none.

What I said.

That's my point!

[Robert F. Smith]

I just posted the following message on another thread. I'll post it here for visibility, because it has relevance to both threads:

The talking point du jour seems to be that apologists drive people from the Church because the arguments and logic they provide to answer concerns and allay doubts are not satisfactory. To this, I would reply that apologetics, like any form of opinion writing or expression, is more persuasive to some people than it is to others. That is the nature of public discourse. Some hearers and listeners for one reason or another, are not open to being persuaded. Some, due to prejudice, past influences, or whatever reason are inherently predisposed not to change their minds, no matter how reasonable the argument.

Does it make sense to blame apologists and apologetics organizations for people leaving the Church just because the apologists are not successful in every instance? To say -- implicitly or explicitly -- that they ought not be doing apologetics, because they do more harm than good?

I liken it to the following scenario.

A guard is poised at the edge of a steep mountainside to prevent a group of children from tumbling over the edge. He employs a variety of approaches ranging from gentle persuasion and humor to stringent warning to sharp reproach to outright threats to get them to come away from the edge.

Some heed him. Others, convinced that he is bent on hindering their enjoyment, ignore his warnings. He actually rescues a few just as they are going over the edge and sets them back on safe ground. One or two he grabs as they are going over, but he lacks the strength to hold them. They slip from his grasp and are seriously injured.

Later, at a town meeting, some people assert that the guard should be removed from his post because he has done more harm than good and that his efforts have actually driven children over the edge.

Just so.

[noel00]

Perhaps they see the apologist more as a lawyer than a scholar trying to get their client(the Mormon church) off the hook.

"I found in the anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon positions were typically anti-intellectual, ahistorical, and presentist in nature"

Show some proof of this bold assertion.

Wes Walters used the historical data to give a clearer picture of what was going on in the area regarding revivals. Milton Backman chose to ignore his articles in his book and according to rumour did not want to darw attention to it.

In his review of Inventing Mormonism, Bushman has some complimentary things to say about the book

Edited February 22, 2013 by noel00

[why me]

Proof?

Letter from the First Presidency Aug 17, 1949

QED

Elder McConkie:

“We have revelations that tell us that the gospel is to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the second coming of the Son of Man. And we have revelations which recite that when the Lord comes he will find those who speak every tongue and are members of every nation and kindred, who will be kings and priests, who will live and reign on earth with him a thousand years. That means, as you know, that people from all nations will have the blessings of the house of the Lord before the Second Coming.

“We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said,

or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter

any more.

“It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.”

(All Are Alike Unto God, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Second Annual Church Educational System

Religious Educator’s Symposium, August 17-19, 1978)

[why me]

Proof?

Letter from the First Presidency Aug 17, 1949

QED

I think that the point is simple: who defined it as doctrine? Where is the revelation? However here is a definition of doctrine:

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2.something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3.a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Also, Robert said that there was no doctrinal justification for the policy.

Edited February 22, 2013 by why me

[Kevin Christensen]

Proof?

Letter from the First Presidency Aug 17, 1949

QED

The problem here is that if you look through LDS scripture and records for this "direct command from the Lord" you won't find it. But if you look at Western Culture as a whole, and the direct heritage of early LDS leaders, you find this, as reported by Stirling Adams in BYU Studies, writing on the "The Curse of Ham and Noah's Curse."

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7674

A taste of the whole article:

DAVID M. GOLDENBERG. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

STEPHEN R. HAYNES. Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Two recent books explore how the Genesis account of Noah cursing his grandson Canaan came to be used as a primary justification for enslaving black Africans. In doing so, the books add to the understanding of how this and other biblical stories were previously viewed within Mormonism as support for race-based classifications. Genesis tells of Ham finding his father Noah drunk and uncovered in his tent. Ham informs his brothers Shem and Japheth. They, walking backward so as not to see their father’s nakedness, cover Noah with a garment. After Noah awakes from his drunkenness, he curses—not Ham, and not himself—but Ham’s son Canaan by pronouncing: “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” (see Genesis 9:20–27). There is no reference to dark skin, to any skin color, or to Africa, and Noah does not say the curse applies to Canaan’s descendants. Yet this story, as it was amplified and changed in extrabiblical interpretations, became the ideological cornerstone used to justify the slavery of black Africans thousands of years afterwards.

David Goldenberg is a Jewish studies scholar and has been editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review, President of Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, and Associate Director of the Annenberg Research Institute for Judaic and Near Eastern Studies. In The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Goldenberg seeks to answer how and when the Genesis story became a “curse of Ham” condemning black Africans to slavery.

When a person moves from looking for some kind of "proof text" to looking at the overall history and cultural context in which the LDS ban began, and ended, it is possible to come to a much clearer understanding of what was really happening. It is true that many LDS believed that the ban was due to a direct command, but it is also true that none of them had received that command directly. It was rather, an assumption drawn from the larger Biblical culture, taking a misreading of Genesis story as unquestioned revelation. The revelation to end the ban was very direct.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[wayfarer]

Been around the block a few times, wayfarer (over 70 years worth), and have doubtless met many more types and kinds of Mormons and non-Mormons than you will ever have the opportunity to meet. Including on this Board, I have yet to meet anyone who has left the LDS faith for a legitimate reason. Even you based your own disappointments on non-doctrinal assumptions which have turned out to be false.

I think it better that you don't make assumptions as to my experience or background. You have defined 'legitimate' in a way that makes your statement true by tautology, not by any validity, as shown in messages above and I will here as well. To say that a person's reason for leaving the church is less than legitimate is to ignore the harm the church, and people like you are doing to by dismissing the challenges in our history and evolving doctrine.

There was no such doctrine. Pres. McKay and his associates sought in every way possible to determine why such a policy existed, but could not find any doctrinal justification. Right wing Mormons are still in denial on this issue, and are not even aware that Joseph and his brethren were ordaining Black people to the priesthood and sending them on missions, nor that Joseph actively sought to end slavery.

What percentage of the Church, say in the early 1970s when I served my mission, believed that "no such doctrine" existed? All the deliberations you mention with McKay were done in private with no apparent loosening up of the policy until it was announced. I was working in the Church Office Building the day it was announced, and while I remember that the air was electric with excitement, most everyone was quite surprised. As noted in the evidence Poly provided above, the Church referred to the restriction as "doctrine" over and over again.

The reason I raised this is that it is but one example of a "legitimate" reason to leave the church. When the Church in official meetings makes the claim that the Prophet will never lead the Church astray, and this "policy" becomes a prevailing doctrine of the church for 125 years, ESPECIALLY in as far as it was never officially documented as revelation, then there is a legitimate disconnect between a claim of prophetic infallibility and the action of the Church for those 125 years. Personally, I fully and completely accept that the removal of the ban was revelation -- I was there where and when it happened (not obviously in the rooms, but in contact with those that were), and it was glorious. Few have had that experience -- so for me, it's a non-issue. But the Church never has accounted for the fact that it was a mistake -- albeit McConkie's admission is refreshing. Without an official apology, and the ongoing claim of prophetic infallibility, I think there is a very legitimate reason to doubt the church's sincerity and authenticity, if I did not have a personal testimony otherwise.

I spent many years in regular association and conversation with anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons (including very pleasant conversations with Sandra Tanner -- even going to her & Jerald's church), reading nearly everything they and their predecessors had to say. Again, much of what I found in the anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon positions were typically anti-intellectual, ahistorical, and presentist in nature. Unfortunately, a good deal of hatred and contempt, as well.

good for you. I spent years in regular conversations in the formation of the first internet usenet newsgroups supporting members and was the proponent, with Peggy Rogers, of soc.religion.mormon, as well as being the LDS representative for the largest interfaith council in the US. The hatred and contempt by the anti-mormons is well known, but the anti-intellectual, ahistorical, and presentist characterization cuts both ways. Mormon apologists have constructed a very narrow interpretation of history in order to justify an near-infallible church and scriptural history that largely gets ignored by mainstream historians (e.g. LDS claims of Book of Mormon historicity are not supported by a consensus of non-mormon native american archaeologists). To say that anti-mormon claims are anti-intellectual or ahistorical is to ignore the facts before us. What I find strange is that people like you make such absolutist claims when a more mature, sanguine judgment of the situation is in order.

As the LDS Church continues to grow worldwide, you will no doubt continue to say these very same things. Denying the obvious, and claiming that it's not growing, or that it's getting smaller, or that "no tangible data exists" by which one could make a determination is a copout.

Given the lack of transparency in the data, and the known fact that Church rolls contain significantly higher numbers than respective census data, I simply question whether the Church is in fact growing in terms of total active members over and above biological growth. It's a legitimate question. Do you know the answer? I don't.

The problem here is that if you look through LDS scripture and records for this "direct command from the Lord" you won't find it. But if you look at Western Culture as a whole, and the direct heritage of early LDS leaders, you find this, as reported by Stirling Adams in BYU Studies, writing on the "The Curse of Ham and Noah's Curse."

https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=7674

A taste of the whole article:

When a person moves from looking for some kind of "proof text" to looking at the overall history and cultural context in which the LDS ban began, and ended, it is possible to come to a much clearer understanding of what was really happening. It is true that many LDS believed that the ban was due to a direct command, but it is also true that none of them had received that command directly. It was rather, an assumption drawn from the larger Biblical culture, taking a misreading of Genesis story as unquestioned revelation. The revelation to end the ban was very direct.

That is all a very refreshing view, and I agree, whole-heartedly. Yet so many church leaders and many here demand absolute obedience to every utterance of the prophets, even if and when there is no clear revelation from the Lord of why we do something. To say that there are 14 fundamentals of following the prophet, to say the the prophet will never lead the church astray, to require uncompromising loyalty from members on controversial political issues is to ignore that sometimes well meaning leaders, receiving revelation in their own language and erring thereby, get it profoundly wrong on occasion.

If I am committed to liberty, and Jefferson's oath that I swear on the altar of god eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man, then how shall I, as a moral and ethical person (by intent, at least), interpret a moral imperative to speak out and oppose tyranny when I see it in my church? I have personally experienced the harm the ban on blacks having the priesthood had on people. I have personally experienced the harm Proposition 8 has on those incapable of living the Church standards on chastity given their sexual orientation. I have personally seen the division of families when a person who doubts the literalness of church claims becomes vilified by their spouses, families, and church leaders who read Midgley's and Smith's polemic evisceration of those who question, who ask "why stay". I have seen as well how the denigration of those who have a non-literal view of Book of Mormon historicity are condemned by the Bill Hamblins of the world who insist on a "blind-faith" test of liternalness in order to be considered a Latter-day Saint.

I sat down yesterday with a dear friend and former member who would like to return to the Church after 20+ years of being outside, because he dearly loves his wife and would love to support her fully in the Church. He is a very good man, as good as they come, but cannot set aside his mind and accept the extreme minority view that the Book of Mormon is literally true, and that God the Father literally has a body, etc. He has a lot of faith, but can't go lliteral, and the Stake President refused to approve rebaptism accordingly. It's sad to see. I told him that faith is not have a perfect knowledge of things, but to hope for certain things, to accept them, even if we don't know. He said he wouldn't prostitute his mind in that way. I really don't think he's overly proud here, just being in his own way, intellectually and spiritually honest with himself. He's a truly authentic person, and I admire this.

Edited February 22, 2013 by wayfarer