John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[semlogo]

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

There is no evidence that it happened. If it did, I would certainly have nothing to do with such a God.

[ERayR]

There is no evidence that it happened. If it did, I would certainly have nothing to do with such a God.

So you are an atheist then? Or a Buddhist? Or what?

[Alvino]

There is no evidence that it happened. If it did, I would certainly have nothing to do with such a God.

Do you think there was someone put to dead for being homosexual? Do you think a God commanding that is a God you would like to have something with?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Alvino

[Darren10]

There is no evidence that it happened. If it did, I would certainly have nothing to do with such a God.

OK. I was told not to continue this topic so I'll not continue this topic.

[Darren10]

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.

HUH???

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the ^aearth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou ^bbelievest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

1 Nephi 11.

Who is "above all"? "the Lord, the most high God" is "above all". Who is the "most high God"? It is the Father of the "most high God". The Son s Jesus Christ and his Father is God the Father, none else. The doctrines regarding the Father having a God, who had a God, etc. is speculation; not part of the official LDS faith or worship. According to LDS faith and worship, the doctrines of the creation in Genesis, the Pearl of Great Price, the temple all point towards the Father being the beginning of all. Any doctrines regarding beings before the Father are not part of that line of official doctrines which found the LDS faith and worship.

[Brian 2.0]

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 witnesses and confirmations are a lot more difficult to define than your post seems to indicate. For example:

A mother says she has received a spiritual witness that the child she is carrying is a boy. She feels God has told her that through a strong spiritual experience she had. The baby is born and it's a girl. The mother then has to go back and figure out what happened. She obviously wasn't carrying a boy, so did she make it up? Did God just give her a spiritual experience to instill love for her child and she added to it her own desires to have a boy?

You may often have to go back to spiritual experiences and re-evaluate them based on new information. And I think that is what happens to a lot of people that come across new information about historical issues.

This thread is about a podcast. The thread will be closed if the derail continues.

[Brian 2.0]

woah. sorry.

I was responding to the original posters 2nd post. I assumed he was asking that in conjunction with his link. He posted and link then immediately asked a question. I was answering that question.

I did not have time to read all the post in the thread yet. Sorry if this has been discussed already.

[semlogo]

So you are an atheist then? Or a Buddhist? Or what?

I'm LDS

[semlogo]

Do you think there was someone put to dead for being homosexual? Do you think a God commanding that is a God you would like to have something with?

First question: Yes

Second question: No

[semlogo]

HUH???

1 Nephi 11.

Who is "above all"? "the Lord, the most high God" is "above all". Who is the "most high God"? It is the Father of the "most high God". The Son s Jesus Christ and his Father is God the Father, none else. The doctrines regarding the Father having a God, who had a God, etc. is speculation; not part of the official LDS faith or worship. According to LDS faith and worship, the doctrines of the creation in Genesis, the Pearl of Great Price, the temple all point towards the Father being the beginning of all. Any doctrines regarding beings before the Father are not part of that line of official doctrines which found the LDS faith and worship.

What does "all" mean? There is plenty of "official" doctrinal support for God having started out as a mortal.

[Teancum]

Well then back to my main point in regards to the OP. Spiritual experiences are highly subjective. And they are exclusive to the individual. In addition, as with anything we strongly believe, we can have confirmation bias play a significant role. Further, the Church ( as well as other Churches) can create an expectation as well as an environment for an experience that is often interpreted as a spiritual witness where as it may be nothing more than a nice strong emotional experience. Just look at the comments on this thread about the various ways individuals express their experiences that they call the spiritual witness.

And again, I think there is nothing wrong with re-examining such experiences in light of new information, developments in one’s life and so on. If I buy a car or something I may really love it till I find out that the odometer was tampered with and the miles recorded were inaccurate and now the car is breaking down. Perhaps my good feeling when I bought the car should be interpreted in light of this new knowledge and I may now sue the criminal who sold it to me. Same for an investments where full disclosure was withheld and now the investors have lost their money. A lot of people felt pretty good about Bernie Madoff till they found out he had lied to them.

My point is we often change our view of prior experiences in decisions we make when new light and knowledge comes forward. Why should spiritual experiences be given cart blanche exception to this?

[Teancum]

This thread is about a podcast. The thread will be closed if the derail continues.:

The person starting the thread followed up his first post with this second post:

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

Seems to me that the thread is about how one can ingore a spiritual witness they had once had as well.

[Darren10]

semlogo posted:

Per LDS doctrine, actually, God the Father is NOT supreme above all. There is no such doctrine.

I responded (om fuller text here):

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the ^aearth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou ^bbelievest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

semlogo responded to that saying:

What does "all" mean?

QUAINT!!!

And, no there is no "official doctrine" which includes the Father having a Father who had a Father, etc in LDS faith and worship. Do so to your own understanding but don't declare it as an official position of the LDS church cuz it's not.

OK, I'm done with all tangents on this tread. Sorry to push the issue with this post.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Darren10

[why me]

This thread is about a podcast. The thread will be closed if the derail continues.:

The person starting the thread followed up his first post with this second post:

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

Seems to me that the thread is about how one can ingore a spiritual witness they had once had as well.

In a way yes. But we need to tie it all in with the podcast of why members leave. My point was simple: if the best and the brightest are leaving according to John and the GAs were shocked by these findings, what role do spiritual witnesses actually play in the church when people can leave the faith regardless of how often such spiritual experiences were experienced?

It seems that members experiences were built on sand. Of course, we can rationalize such experiences away. We can also claim that people realize that others experience these experiences too outside the church, but that should not lessen our own spiritual experiences. I would have no idea just what others experienced or why. But I would know what I have experienced.

Also, as I have shown, much of John's podcast were about historical issues and yet, I have shown that at least two of the concerns: members finding that joseph used a hat at one time and seer stones have been in the Ensign. And Joseph's polygamy has been in the seminary manual and of course it is in the d and c section 132 and perhaps polyandry is in verse 41.

Edited February 12, 2013 by why me

[Brian 2.0]

It seems that members experiences were built on sand. Of course, we can rationalize such experiences away. We can also claim that people realize that others experience these experiences too outside the church, but that should not lessen our own spiritual experiences. I would have no idea just what others experienced or why. But I would know what I have experienced.

It can lessen our own spiritual experience if we say a spiritual experience has told us TRUTH A and someone's spirutual experience outside the church has told them TRUTH B and those two truth are in conflict with each other. To reconcile that coflict you need to either dismiss the other person's spiritual exerience as invalid, your own as invalid, or look at your own exerience and theirs in a way that could possibly make them NOT in conflict any longer.

Also, as I have shown, much of John's podcast were about historical issues and yet, I have shown that at least two of the concerns: members finding that joseph used a hat at one time and seer stones have been in the Ensign. And Joseph's polygamy has been in the seminary manual and of course it is in the d and c section 132 and perhaps polyandry is in verse 41.

No one is going to read every edition of the Ensign or even attended seminary (or been awake through it). If those two issues were not in common discourse in their missionary lessons, ward meetings, family teachings, etc... these people could very well have constructed their beliefs on the "sand" that JS did not practice polygamy or that he translated by the sole means of the artwork commonly used that does not show a hat. Then when they find out these things they have to adjust how they have contructed those events in their head, and that changing of view of "how things happened" can be troubling for some, and they may have to give up some beliefs that they held about JS that no longer seem to be true.

The point of John's podcast was not to belittle or blame the struggling member for building their testimonies upon "sand," but help them reconstruct a more appropriate view and help them build upon the "rock"

I have been a VERY active member since birth, attended seminary, served a mission, etc. and I didn't learn about Joseph and the hat until the last 5 years. I'm not blaming the church for that. And I don't think I should be blamed for not knowing.

[why me]

I have been a VERY active member since birth, attended seminary, served a mission, etc. and I didn't learn about Joseph and the hat until the last 5 years. I'm not blaming the church for that. And I don't think I should be blamed for not knowing.

But here is another point. I have shown that that hat was mentioned in the Ensign years ago. And if that is the case, what does a shocked member do when they learn that it was not hidden? That such a fact was in the Ensign? And seer stones too? Or that Joseph's polygamy is in the d and c? Should you be blamed for not knowing about the hat? No. But it cannot be claimed that the church is hiding it as the critics do. And so what then for that now wavering member?

Here is again the article about the translation process complete with hat:

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

Edited February 12, 2013 by why me

[why me]

No one is going to read every edition of the Ensign or even attended seminary (or been awake through it). If those two issues were not in common discourse in their missionary lessons, ward meetings, family teachings, etc... these people could very well have constructed their beliefs on the "sand" that JS did not practice polygamy or that he translated by the sole means of the artwork commonly used that does not show a hat. Then when they find out these things they have to adjust how they have contructed those events in their head, and that changing of view of "how things happened" can be troubling for some, and they may have to give up some beliefs that they held about JS that no longer seem to be true.

But now that the hat has been in the Ensign, they can now become a part of your family teachings. Likewise for polygamy. Nothing wrong with discussing all of d and c 132 with the family.

And as far as the art work...it is not misleading. Some have claimed that this was how it was done. Sadly, Joseph never expounded on the process. But what we do know is that all present regardless of the way and means the translation was done, had a very strong spiritual experience that they could not forget or deny.`No one was having a belly laugh during the hat trick. They were amazed however and certainly to hear david tell it...something extraordinary had happened.

Bottom line: What else matters but the experiences of the people present?

Edited February 12, 2013 by why me

[Darren10]

I just listened to Dehlin's podcast while working on other things on the computer and while he was letting the apologists have it he was making a solid case for members being offended by the apologists. From that alone he should rework his graphs to significantly lengthen the one which indicates that people left the Church because they felt offended by other members. And his recommendations to domembers in faith crisis? please. Southerton? Isn't he an admitted adulterer and liar?

http://www.fairblog.org/2009/02/06/current-biology-smgf-and-lamanites/

People falling away from the Church does tend to come about after individuals deny their spiritual witness of its truth.

[Darren10]

It can lessen our own spiritual experience if we say a spiritual experience has told us TRUTH A and someone's spirutual experience outside the church has told them TRUTH B and those two truth are in conflict with each other. To reconcile that coflict you need to either dismiss the other person's spiritual exerience as invalid, your own as invalid, or look at your own exerience and theirs in a way that could possibly make them NOT in conflict any longer.

The best way I know of to go about that is to rely even more on the Spirit of the Lord.

[Darren10]

Brian;

The point of John's podcast was not to belittle or blame the struggling member for building their testimonies upon "sand," but help them reconstruct a more appropriate view and help them build upon the "rock"

Dehlin's admonishment to be charitable and to love doubting members unconditionally is dead on correct. And, by the way, you'll see that as the norm on this website filled with active Mormons. Beyond this though, Dehlin's words are almost meaningless. His recommendations for doubting members and for research are horrible. Mormon Think? Good grief that site is horrifically poor on the "facts".

Edited February 12, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Brian;

I have been a VERY active member since birth, attended seminary, served a mission, etc. and I didn't learn about Joseph and the hat until the last 5 years. I'm not blaming the church for that. And I don't think I should be blamed for not knowing.

Is he now a false prophet in your mind. If not than what's the big deal? I heard about it in my youth and never thought much of it though now I like the symbolism I see in it that God's light will shine in the dark and illuminate and reveal truth to those who look towrads that light. To me it's symboic of prayer, fasting, scriptures, and listening to the words of living prophets.

[Brian 2.0]

But it cannot be claimed that the church is hiding it as the critics do. And so what then for that now wavering member?

I, personally, am not claiming the church hid it. Nor do a lot of members who struggle with it. Yes, there are some claiming the church hid it, but for a lot of people it's just the fact that IT HAPPENED. Then in the look for answers of WHY or HOW, the members sometime feel they don't find satisfactory answers to help them reconstruct. I think John was pointing to some apologetic responses that simply don't help people reconstruct well.

Take for example Polyandry. A member can hear about that and not be comfortable with it. Believe it's not something prophet should do. You can show me references to where the church talks about it happened. Even if you showed me a lesson in this years gospel principles book that said "Joseph Smith sometime married other active member's wifes." The acknowledgement isn't the issue for some. Some just want to know why and how he would ever do that, because THEY believe God would never inspire someone to do that. Then in that search for answers of how to reconcile that fact, they just don't find answers that convince them, or answers that make them feel comfortable with.

It's not about the "hiding" that bother some. It's the simple fact that IT HAPPENED.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian;

Is he now a false prophet in your mind. If not than what's the big deal? I heard about it in my youth and never thought much of it though now I like the symbolism I see in it that God's light will shine in the dark and illuminate and reveal truth to those who look towrads that light. To me it's symboic of prayer, fasting, scriptures, and listening to the words of living prophets.

The stone in the hat wasn't something that shook my testimony of JS. Weird at first, sure. But like you said, "what's the big deal." There are some other issues though that have caused me to question JS, at least in the sense that maybe sometimes what he thought was revelation, maybe wasn't revelation (i.e. some Polyandry/Polygamy issues).

But... my issues and stuff is a tangent (shame on your for asking and trying to derail this again!) just kidding of course. But I do think we should not continue this. I know navel gazing it prohibited.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Darren10]

Brian;

Weird at first, sure.

I think that's important to state because it is weird at first. I think it's weird and despite never "thinking much about it", yes, it is weird. And i think that's a big reason why it's not included in misssionary discussions of lesson manuals. Just imagine an investigator's reaction to a missionary flip chart which did the following...

"We testify that Joseph Smith, through the power of God, translated the Book of Mormon". [The missionary than takes out a visual]:

Is he puking? That's a divine work he's engaged in? Those would be my thoughts and reactions were I an investigator. On the pragmatic side, it's just not smart to whip out the image when initiating others to Mormonism. If the question arises from an investigator, than, sure, talk about it but this is not Joseph Smith looking his best from a visual point of view.

just kidding of course

PHEW!!!

Edited February 12, 2013 by Darren10

[why me]

Brian;

I think that's important to state because it is weird at first. I think it's weird and despite never "thinking much about it", yes, it is weird. And i think that's a big reason why it's not included in misssionary discussions of lesson manuals. Just imagine an investigator's reaction to a missionary flip chart which did the following...

Is he puking? That's a divine work he's engaged in? Those would be my thoughts and reactions were I an investigator. On the pragmatic side, it's just not smart to whip out the image when initiating others to Mormonism. If the question arises from an investigator, than, sure, talk about it bu this is not Joseph Smith looking his best from a visual point of view.

We don't know much about the hat trick. In fact, I would assume that his eyes could not handle such light being produced in a hat. So, something else was also happening. Place your head in a hat to translate a book and pretend a light is forming inside with words. My eyes couldn't handle it. So, could it actually be as your picture assumes? Also, there were other means that the translation occurred. What to do with multiple accounts? Have a picture of all of them? But we have nothing from Joseph...only second hand accounts. It would have helped if Joseph would have described it.

I would also have problems breathing since my mouth is in the hat and if my mouth is completely inside the hat saying words, the scribe would hear nothing but mumbling.

Edited February 12, 2013 by why me