John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[why me]

I'll agree with you there. I recently told some folks who asked me that I thought that the Ensign has become utterly boring apart from the First Presidency message and the Conference issues (the only parts that I have been regularly reading, until the January issue came out).

Now the Improvement Era had a ton of interesting stuff...

WW

I think that the change came in the late 80's. I have no idea why. If the editors would have kept to the old format much now would have been avoided. I have this feeling that the editors felt that such information as they had in the past was no longer necessary. If so, it was a mistake. The january article is definitely faith promoting as much of church history is. Just need to be bold to print it.

[Alvino]

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.

So, basically, you are saying this knowledge of yours is built on the very solid foundation of "It feels REALLY strongly".

Also, please realize that experiences are not knowledge. Let's say you have a very strong experience where you are uplifted to the point of thinking your soul can't take more while you were reading the BoM's account of Christ's coming to the Americas.

What do you think follows from that? God made me feel this experience to tell me it's incorrect? He probably made me feel this experience to tell me this account here is historically correct? The Devil made me feel this experience because Catholicism is actually the correct religion? This is just me getting worked up? This I read must be true? I couldn't possibly have this experience unless the Spirit tells me this book is of the Devil? I couldn't possibly have had this experience unless the Spirit tells me Joseph Smith is a great author?

Some of those questions might seem a bit weird, and they are, to make the point that just because you have an extremely strong experience it doesn't follow anything because experiences are not propositions in the first place - you know, the kinds of things that can be true or false.

Or maybe you could try and answer a simple question for us: Would you accept the idea that non-Mormons or even atheists can have the same experiences you call "spiritual" in kind and intensity?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

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 is that puzzling? Many little events contribute to work on one's testimony and to build it, yet these testimonies sometimes seem to be based on a few assumptions. If these assumptions are revealed and shaken by a few or even one experience, then everything could crumble.

[Wiki Wonka]

I think that the change came in the late 80's. I have no idea why. If the editors would have kept to the old format much now would have been avoided. I have this feeling that the editors felt that such information as they had in the past was no longer necessary. If so, it was a mistake. The january article is definitely faith promoting as much of church history is. Just need to be bold to print it.

The milk watered down the meat.

Last year I was teaching the HP lesson - I had been asked to do it on the spur of the moment, so I had no time to prepare. The lesson was about Joseph Smith's First Vision. During the course of the lesson, I happened to mention that there were several accounts of the vision that had been written by Joseph. This information came directly from the Ensign. A high councilman took issue with it and talked with me after the lesson. He told me "milk before meat."

I pulled up the Ensign article on my smartphone and showed him - THIS IS IN THE ENSIGN.

This is what happens when our definition of "milk" becomes "water."

WW

[Calm]

Why in the world would HPs need milk before meat? I would think that was the one group in the Church you could practically guarantee to have been around long enough to have developed some spiritual teeth.

[3DOP]

Darren10

Nonesense. If God tells His people to enter into a new land and kill every native man woman and child than killing every man woman and child is the right thing to do. You don't necessarily have to enjoy doing it but it is the morally right thing to do. When God says to do something, you do it. Period. Attempting to declare God unworthy of worship because you do not fully accept His command is blashpemous.

3DOP

You got a rep point from me for that despite "nonesense". It wasn't the spelling that bothered me. I am getting more sensitive to overuse of words like that. That aside, I found your view very refreshing. God bless you for your fidelity to the Scriptures.

[why me]

I pulled up the Ensign article on my smartphone and showed him - THIS IS IN THE ENSIGN.

This is what happens when our definition of "milk" becomes "water."

WW

It also shows ignorance. Who can we blame for that? The HC must have had egg on his face. And I am sure that the brothers appreciated the lesson.

[Darren10]

Yea when God tells someones to fly planes into buildings they better do that now moral task. And when he tells someone to blow themselves to bits on a bus of people they should to that too I guess. And you see there is the problem. Lots of people think God is telling them to do lots of things they would not normally do. And lots of humans over the years have told us that God is telling them to do something or another. So here is the deal, if someome tells me God is telling them to tell me or us to do something that we would normally view as repugnant we better be very sure God is really telling them this. Problem is it is really hard to know for sure if God is telling them that something or another. Better course of actions in such cases is to ignore the immoral now allegedly moral command and run away, really fast.

God hasn't confirmed to me that what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 was from Him. Has he confirmed it to you? How is it that the only Abrahamic religion today which wages a "holy war" throughout the world upon "nonbelievers" is within Islam? Isn't it interesting that no such thing exists among Judaic and Christian sects?

we better be very sure God is really telling them this

I totally agree. Nephi would agree as well.

Problem is it is really hard to know for sure if God is telling them that something or another. Better course of actions in such cases is to ignore the immoral now allegedly moral command and run away, really fast.

Not if God is really telling you to do it, it's not. Jonas would agree.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Darren10

Nonesense. If God tells His people to enter into a new land and kill every native man woman and child than killing every man woman and child is the right thing to do. You don't necessarily have to enjoy doing it but it is the morally right thing to do. When God says to do something, you do it. Period. Attempting to declare God unworthy of worship because you do not fully accept His command is blashpemous.

3DOP

You got a rep point from me for that despite "nonesense". It wasn't the spelling that bothered me. I am getting more sensitive to overuse of words like that. That aside, I found your view very refreshing. God bless you for your fidelity to the Scriptures.

LoL - Thanks for the compliment. Would "hogwash" be better?

[Darren10]

Agree wholeheartedly, and find it difficult to believe in that kind of God. There have been too many nut jobs in our day and age who say God tells them what to do.

The single best way to combat them is for *you* and *us* to obey God's commandments. All of them.

[Calm]

I've listened to the entire thing, and I get the impression that he is unaware that the FAIR Wiki exists, or that it is by far more popular than the FAIR Website. The Wiki and the Ask the Apologist function have been FAIR's main focus for at least five years now.

WW

This conversation created a thought for me and you are probably the one best able to answer it...how does the traditional FAIR site compare to the FAIR wiki for volume of material? When I do searches the wiki is coming up more and more before the regular site so in that way it seems like the wiki is surpassing the traditional version (though it is laughable to me to think of "tradition" in terms of the Internet and computers...tradition for me is supposed to take longer than six months to become 'traditional').

The FAIRwiki has been the centrepiece of FAIR since before I stopped going to the conferences...so definitely five years at least. When did Greg Smith get the 'Defender of the Faith' award for his work on the wiki, that was the year I remember it taking root. And then you got on board and made it blossom like a rose...or cover everything in sight like kudzu depending on what metaphor you like best.

If someone is unfamiliar with it, they don't know much about what FAIR actually is and I have to question any judgment drawn because of that apparent gap in their knowledge.

Edited February 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

It is not difficult to understand that people have left Mormonism from the beginning for a variety of reasons, and yet the Church continues to grow. Much of this religious switching has nothing to do with a real understanding of religious doctrine or history, but is based on emotional desires and social needs. One needs to feel comfortable within one's chosen group.

I have yet to meet an ex-Mormon who has a legitimate argument against the religion, either on a historical basis, or on a theological basis.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................

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.

Sorry, wayfarer, but are you actually defending a defenseless "fairy faith"? Do you apply the same absurd strictures to the Bible and to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Do you realize the implications of such yokelization of key tenets of christian faith? Is this what John Dehlin stands for?

[wayfarer]

It is not difficult to understand that people have left Mormonism from the beginning for a variety of reasons, and yet the Church continues to grow. Much of this religious switching has nothing to do with a real understanding of religious doctrine or history, but is based on emotional desires and social needs. One needs to feel comfortable within one's chosen group.

I have yet to meet an ex-Mormon who has a legitimate argument against the religion, either on a historical basis, or on a theological basis.

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

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.

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.

Sorry, wayfarer, but are you actually defending a defenseless "fairy faith"? Do you apply the same absurd strictures to the Bible and to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Do you realize the implications of such yokelization of key tenets of christian faith? Is this what John Dehlin stands for?

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

Edited February 11, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

I think that the change came in the late 80's. I have no idea why. If the editors would have kept to the old format much now would have been avoided. I have this feeling that the editors felt that such information as they had in the past was no longer necessary. If so, it was a mistake. The january article is definitely faith promoting as much of church history is. Just need to be bold to print it.

Reason 1: "The Mantle is far far greater than the Intellect". 1981

Reason 2: Leonard Arrington is summarily dismissed as Church Historian without a releasing vote of thanks. - 1982.

Reason 3: if you're the editor of the Ensign in the 1980s, reason 1 and 2 are highly motivating toward keeping the contents firmly at the 'milk' level.

[Stargazer]

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.

Yes, and that makes me think that a lot of people mistake the good feeling they get in an uplifting movie, or the feeling they get when they are brought to tears over a beautiful story, with the confirmation of the spirit. For example, I have wept over certain stories in the Book of Mormon, and I initially mistook this for a spiritual witness, but later I came to realize that the confirmation of truth provided for by the Holy Ghost is more profound.

The witness of the spirit does not necessarily get you "all choked up" like you might get in an emotional response. I really like Katy Perry's song "Firework" and it can bring tears to my eyes and so on, but that is not a witness that Katy Perry or that song is "true". It means that its message touches me on an emotional level.

But the times when I had a question I was deeply concerned with and received a matter-of-fact message through the Spirit, there was no emotional component to those at all. One of the two times I was in an emotional reaction to my seeking an answer, but the answer itself was not coucned in the emotion, and obviously came from outside. The other time came in response to a simple "I wonder" question expressed out loud -- which was incidentally predictive, since it was an answer to the question of what was going to happen.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter whether that witness was spiritual or merely emotional. Dr. Peterson tells a story where a brother on a mission received a revelation that he and his companion would baptize a person at a particular address, and although it happened, this brother later apostasized anyway. The story can be found

. Sorry I can't give you the time hack -- no time, I'm late to work already.

[Wiki Wonka]

It also shows ignorance. Who can we blame for that? The HC must have had egg on his face. And I am sure that the brothers appreciated the lesson.

His concern was that there was a new member of the Church attending the quorum, and he was worried that I would mess the guy up somehow. The funny thing is, that very same person came up to me after the lesson and told me that it was one of the best he had heard so far.

Just wait until I get my hands on a lesson where I get to talk about "Oliver Cowdery's Gift" or the "Urim and Thummim." The words "not in the manual" will take on a whole new meaning in the coming year I suspect.

WW

[semlogo]

Nonesense. If God tells His people to enter into a new land and kill every native man woman and child than killing every man woman and child is the right thing to do. You don't necessarily have to enjoy doing it but it is the morally right thing to do. When God says to do something, you do it. Period.

The Book of Mormon states that if God were to do wrong, He would cease to be God. It therefore follows that what God commands cannot be right simply because God commanded it. There must be a standard of morality that exists independent of God. From a practical standpoint as well, we must have a standard of morality that God cannot violate - otherwise we run the risk of participating in extremism and atrocity.

Besides, there is no good evidence that the genocides described in the OT ever happened.

Edited February 11, 2013 by semlogo

[why me]

Reason 1: "The Mantle is far far greater than the Intellect". 1981

Reason 2: Leonard Arrington is summarily dismissed as Church Historian without a releasing vote of thanks. - 1982.

Reason 3: if you're the editor of the Ensign in the 1980s, reason 1 and 2 are highly motivating toward keeping the contents firmly at the 'milk' level.

This is not exactly true. In this article the head in the hat and seer stones are mentioned and this was in the early nineties.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng&query=translation+process+head+hat

Edited February 11, 2013 by why me

[Teancum]

God hasn't confirmed to me that what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 was from Him. Has he confirmed it to you? How is it that the only Abrahamic religion today which wages a "holy war" throughout the world upon "nonbelievers" is within Islam? Isn't it interesting that no such thing exists among Judaic and Christian sects?

I totally agree. Nephi would agree as well.

Not if God is really telling you to do it, it's not. Jonas would agree.

No he has not confirmed it to me that he told the 9/11 attackers to fly into a building. But can you really miss my point that badly? THEY thought he was telling them and likely they thought it as much as you think God is confirming something to you. And thus your whole premise of if God says do it you do it really even if it seems morally wrong simply falls to pieces and is in fact very dangerous.

[Darren10]

No he has not confirmed it to me that he told the 9/11 attackers to fly into a building. But can you really miss my point that badly?

Nope. Here's your following statement:

So here is the deal, if someome tells me God is telling them to tell me or us to do something that we would normally view as repugnant we better be very sure God is really telling them this.

I'm absolutely positive that Gdo did not tell the 9/11 hijackers to fly the planes and hit innocent targets. I also highly doubt the hijackers thought God was drecting them as well. They went out drinking and going to strip clubs then ight before they were to take their "holy" actions against the U.S. doesn't the Koran speak against alcohol consumption and lustful lifestyles?

THEY thought he was telling them and likely they thought it as much as you think God is confirming something to you.

Beyond simple assumptions, what do you base that on?

And thus your whole premise of if God says do it you do it really even if it seems morally wrong simply falls to pieces and is in fact very dangerous.

It's not dangerous at all. If God says to do something from not bearing false witness to slaughtering every man, woman, and child in a new land, then that's the right thing to do. It's far more dangerous NOT to do as God commands.

This is off topic and is heading into Godwin's Law territory. Further derailment may result in removal from thread.

[Darren10]

The Book of Mormon states that if God were to do wrong, He would cease to be God. It therefore follows that what God commands cannot be right simply because God commanded it. There must be a standard of morality that exists independent of God. From a practical standpoint as well, we must have a standard of morality that God cannot violate - otherwise we run the risk of participating in extremism and atrocity.

Besides, there is no good evidence that the genocides described in the OT ever happened.

HUH???

The Book of Mormon does not say "if God were to do something wrong" He would cease to be God. It says if God were to ignore justice, He would cease to be God. Does that mean that God would loose his mantle? Or does that mean that Gd would simply be irrelevant to man? That no matter what man does, he'll be eternally blessed and happy.

I am familiar to Ian Skousen's The Atonement of Christ, as I used to listen to it often. I used to believe that God was held to an eternal standard of morality but an institute instructor one time asked if law hasd compassion. No. Does it have a body? No. Is law exalted? No. Then how can something not exalted be superior to an exalted being? I thought that was poignant and changed my position. I simply think we do not know the eternal nature of God and morality to determine "which comes first" but by our LDS faith and worship, God the Father is supreme above all, even law. We don't know how it all plays out but our faith firmly and clearly places the Father as supreme.

[Darren10]

Besides, there is no good evidence that the genocides described in the OT ever happened.

It happened a long time ago. I think it did happen as written and I'm fine with it.

[Darren10]

This is off topic and is heading into Godwin's Law territory. Further derailment may result in removal from thread.

My thoughts exactly.

[semlogo]

HUH???

The Book of Mormon does not say "if God were to do something wrong" He would cease to be God. It says if God were to ignore justice, He would cease to be God. Does that mean that God would loose his mantle? Or does that mean that Gd would simply be irrelevant to man? That no matter what man does, he'll be eternally blessed and happy.

I am familiar to Ian Skousen's The Atonement of Christ, as I used to listen to it often. I used to believe that God was held to an eternal standard of morality but an institute instructor one time asked if law hasd compassion. No. Does it have a body? No. Is law exalted? No. Then how can something not exalted be superior to an exalted being? I thought that was poignant and changed my position. I simply think we do not know the eternal nature of God and morality to determine "which comes first" but by our LDS faith and worship, God the Father is supreme above all, even law. We don't know how it all plays out but our faith firmly and clearly places the Father as supreme.

Wouldn't it be wrong to rob justice? The point is that even God must be held to an independent standard, or He ceases to be God. The test of right or wrong cannot be "did God command this (or did someone claim that God commanded this)."

Per LDS doctrine, actually, God the Father is NOT supreme above all. There is no such doctrine. God isn't even the most supreme being, as he had a Father, and a Grandfather, and so forth.