John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

The FAIR Wiki was created in 2006 originally as a sort of library to hold information. Over time it became apparent that the Wiki could be used to store responses to the Ask the Apologist so that we could use the information again. I joined FAIR in 2008 and spent the next four years beefing up and restructuring the Wiki. The Wiki is now the primary FAIR Website. The way the Wiki is structured now, it performs extremely well in Google search for a variety of apologetic subjects. Any work that FAIR does now is always directed toward the Wiki. So when someone focuses on fairlds.org instead of fairmormon.org, they are missing the real target.

WW

[Calm]

So when someone focuses on fairlds.org instead of fairmormon.org, they are missing the real target.

That was exactly my reaction to Dehlin's limited commentary.

[Alvino]

@Darren10:

Boy did that last post of yours have me laughing a while.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Alvino

[mormonstories]

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.

Completely true.

[Darren10]

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.

What about translated eyes? In fact, whenever God reveals Himself to man, doesn't God essentially alter man's natural mortal state in one degree or the other?

So, could it actually be as your picture assumes?

That's a good queston which supports your opening statement. We simply do not know much about the translating process Joseph Smith utilized to translate the plates. We only know that it was from the gift and power fo God. Evidence does also allow us to conclude that he did indeed place his head into a hat, at least at times, to do the translations.

What to do with multiple accounts? Have a picture of all of them?

I would agree. it would be ridiculous to show pictures of all the accounts regarding the methods Joseph Smth used to translate the plates. Sticking with just one and one that the vast majority of people can readily connect with is prudent.

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.

I don't think anyone would disagree when I say that we, including yourself, are all glad you weren't the prophet.

[Darren10]

@Darren10:

Boy did that last post of yours have me laughing a while.

It was my pleasure, sir.

[Darren10]

Completely true.

And how sad he doesn't testify to this publicly. Wouldn't that mean John Dehlin is burying his talents?

Edited February 12, 2013 by Darren10

[Tacenda]

And how sad he doesn't testify to this publicly. Wouldn't that mean John Dehlin is burying his talents?

"Mormonstories" is John (I think), so he testified in that post and his podcast! John if your reading, it'd be great if you would join in the threads that are talking about you. Edited February 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Wiki Wonka]

That was exactly my reaction to Dehlin's limited commentary.

It has been the reaction of everyone at FAIR to Dehlin's commentary. He is unaware of what FAIR site we concentrate our efforts on, which is the site that people visit the most. It's probably our own fault for maintaining multiple sites.

The same misunderstanding between "fairlds.org" and "fairmormon.org" happened when one of the more well-known editors at MormonThink was comparing site statistics between MT and FAIR over on RFM. He compared MT's stats to fairlds.org, noting that much of the search engine traffic was driven to the FAIR Web site by searches for "lds.org." This is unsurprising, since the string "lds.org" is a subset of "fairlds.org." However, he completely missed the FAIR Wiki, which has been the primary FAIR website since 2008. If he were to have looked at those stats, he would have discovered that the FAIR Wiki "fairmormon.org" is more popular than "fairlds.org," and he would have discovered that the search term "mormonthink" was among the four or five top search terms driving people to the FAIR Wiki.

WW

[ERayR]

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.

Simple explanation. It was a way to get complete focus. If you will note these methods were discontinued once he learned to focus without exterior aids.

[Damien the Leper]

I like that he demonstrated the top 5 myths as to why people leave or become disaffected. Now, if only we can get that information publicized in the local wards so as to put a stop to some of the silliness.

[semlogo]

semlogo posted:

I responded (om fuller text here):

semlogo responded to that saying:

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.

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-1-our-father-in-heaven?lang=eng

“… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible".

It's right there on the church website

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

I, and every other member of FAIR, wishes to know what the following statement by Dehlin refers to:

"But finally, one of the biggest reported problems with the Mormon apologetic resources is that many find the tone and the tactics used by LDS apologists to be un-Christlike. I definitely believe that this is an avoidable problem, and I know that it’s something that FAIR and the Maxwell Institute are currently working on to try and fix. But you see it very clearly in the quotes by the respondents of our survey, so I’ll just read to you a few of their responses…"

WW

[why me]

Completely true.

However, John you made a mistake with recommending MormonThink as a source for helping members stay in the church. That site can only damage a member's testimony.

[Brian 2.0]

However, John you made a mistake with recommending MormonThink as a source for helping members stay in the church. That site can only damage a member's testimony.

John mentioned over and over and over that MormonThink is critical of the church. He didn't say, "this is run by faithful members" etc. He specified a great deal that MormonThink is critical. He was just providing a links from across the spectrum. He said, they were critical of the church but that they tried to lay out the arguments for and against.

[Brian 2.0]

And how sad he doesn't testify to this publicly. Wouldn't that mean John Dehlin is burying his talents?

I thought that exactly what he did in the podcast. About as "public" as you get.

[awyatt]

John mentioned over and over and over that MormonThink is critical of the church. He didn't say, "this is run by faithful members" etc.

He used to. Good to see he can change; sad to see it took so long.

[cinepro]

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.

What were the "other means" and "multiple accounts" of the post-116 pages Book of Mormon translated methods? Were there any witnesses to the process that describe something other than the face-in-a-hat method?

And to be clear, if someone sees something and describes it, it isn't a "second hand account". Certainly, we might not know exactly what Joseph Smith was seeing (so David Whitmer's statement about the writing in the stone would be a second hand account), but if someone was in the room and they describe how Joseph Smith was situated, that's a first hand account.

Edited February 12, 2013 by cinepro

[Darren10]

"Mormonstories" is John (I think), so he testified in that post and his podcast! John if your reading, it'd be great if you would join in the threads that are talking about you.

Same name though the tone is quite different than John's.

[Darren10]

I thought that exactly what he did in the podcast. About as "public" as you get.

that the Spirit testified to him that the church was true? All I heard was him saying he was active, left the Church, or just about left it, came back and needed to "reconstruct" his testimony. Could you queu up the part where he says he knows by the Spirit that it's true? My understanding is that his motely crue of disaffected Mormons were getting a little wild in their get togethers which included spouse swapping. That seemd to have shaken him a bit and then decided to go back to church where it's safe. But does not necessarily mean he knows by the Spirit that it's true. And if it is he sure seems to valiantly question the church on such frivolous grounds such as not finding metal weapons in the Americas or Irsaeli DNA in Indians (which isn't entirely true). If he knows by the Spirit that the church is true why did I fail to hear in his hour long sermon on the podcast advocation for concerned members to seek the Spirit to know it's true?

Edited February 12, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

semlogo;

You make it hard to keep my word. You called out my understanding and provided a link to support your claim. Here's straight from your link. The bold is mine. Bold red is the most pertinent part of the quote.

The prophets have taught us that God is the Almighty Ruler of the universe. God dwells in heaven (see D&C 20:17). Through His Son, Jesus Christ, He created the heavens and the earth and all things that are in them (see 3 Nephi 9:15; Moses 2:1). He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. He made man in His own image to be a ruler over His other creations (see Genesis 1:26–27).

God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is “the Great Parent of the universe,” and He “looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 39).

Precisely as I have said. I'd ask you where exactly does it say, "“… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible", from "the church website". That's not the Church's statement but a quote from King Follett's Report which what we have today is a hodge podge of several recounts of that event and which fails to provide the context of what Joseph Smith supposedly said. Neither this report nor any other reporting from any other church authroity of God the Father having a Father who had a Father, etc. is accepted as official doctrine by the Church but worshiping the Father as the Supreme Being most assuredly is.

Now, let's not derail this thread. I'm liking it. I'm done responding unless my integrity is somehow called into question or, of course, you make responding way too easy for me.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

John mentioned over and over and over that MormonThink is critical of the church. He didn't say, "this is run by faithful members" etc. He specified a great deal that MormonThink is critical. He was just providing a links from across the spectrum. He said, they were critical of the church but that they tried to lay out the arguments for and against.

So why is he referring doubting members to websites that doubt the doctrines of the Church? At the same time he a) bashes apologetic sites relentlessly after giving superficial praise to them and b) mentions nothing in seeking the counsel of the Holy Spirit. His methods and advocation only spawns more doubt so far as I can tell.

[Darren10]

Wiki Wonka inspired me to go see fairmormon's website and right there on the front page one can currently read the following regarding Mormon Stink Think (bold mine):

The web site MormonThink.com claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in objectively presenting the "truth" about Mormonism. In reality, only the webmaster retains his membership, and he admits that he does so in order to retain credibility so he can more easily influence other members to accept his claims. The remaining website contributors are ex-Mormons who frequently post on anti-Mormon message boards. The webmaster is, by his own admission, pretending to be semi-active in order to destroy members' and missionaries' testimonies from within the social structure of the Church. The site pretends to be "balanced" by presenting information and links to apologetic sites, however, the conclusions reached by the site consistently reflect negatively on the Church's truth claims. The site also recently contained a large amount of Temple content, which, according to the webmaster, was removed because it was discouraging the still-active spouses of those maintaining the website from reading the rest of its material.

This, of course is a bit dated since the mebmaster has since left the Church completely and did so mocking its doctrine. Why in the world would a believing member of the Church, (reconstructed et al,) refer doubting LDS members to such a website?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page

[semlogo]

semlogo;

You make it hard to keep my word. You called out my understanding and provided a link to support your claim. Here's straight from your link. The bold is mine. Bold red is the most pertinent part of the quote.

Precisely as I have said. I'd ask you where exactly does it say, "“… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible", from "the church website". That's not the Church's statement but a quote from King Follett's Report which what we have today is a hodge podge of several recounts of that event and which fails to provide the context of what Joseph Smith supposedly said. Neither this report nor any other reporting from any other church authroity of God the Father having a Father who had a Father, etc. is accepted as official doctrine by the Church but worshiping the Father as the Supreme Being most assuredly is.

Now, let's not derail this thread. I'm liking it. I'm done responding unless my integrity is somehow called into question or, of course, you make responding way too easy for me.

Sorry, I believe I posted the wrong link. The quote is located here:

http://www.lds.org/m...lt on an earth"

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. … If the veil were rent today, … if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. …

“… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible”

Edited February 12, 2013 by semlogo

[Darren10]

semlogo;

First off, here's section D from your link (bold mine):

D.

God is the Supreme Being in the universe.

“By definition, God (generally meaning the Father) is the one supreme and absolute Being; the ultimate source of the universe; the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 317).

“God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift and every good principle dwell; and that he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently, and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings center for life and salvation” (Joseph Smith, comp., Lectures on Faith, 10).

“Our relationship with the Father is supreme, paramount, and preeminent over all others. He is the God we worship. It is his gospel that saves and exalts. He ordained and established the plan of salvation. He is the one who was once as we are now. The life he lives is eternal life, and if we are to gain this greatest of all the gifts of God, it will be because we become like him” (Bruce R. McConkie, “Our Relationship with the Lord,” in Brigham Young University 1981–82 Fireside and Devotional Speeches, 101).

Interesting, eh? Then there's section E:

E.

The Father presides over the Godhead.

“Three glorified, exalted, and perfected personages comprise the Godhead or supreme presidency of the universe. … They are: God the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost. …

You said there's no such doctrine in the LDS Church stating that God is Supreme above all and yet you've twice linked to Church weblinks stating just that. This time to show me that there's official Church doctrine that God had a God there's direct statements saying that God the Father is indeed Spureme. Here he's the one Supreme ruler. Futhermore, you should not take that as official doctrine of our faith and worship since this is in a class manual under "supporting statements". Read before the supporting statements under the official lesson and where does it state that God had a God or where does it state there *or anywhere* that we are to doubt that the Father is supreme above all?

“What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children” (Smith, Teachings, 347–48).

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. … If the veil were rent today, … if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. …

“… It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible” (Smith, Teachings, 345–46).

Neither one of these statements is endorsed by the Church. They are cited in the lesson manual as supporting statements which is the proper role for Teachings ofthe Prophet Joseph Smith. Same goes for Journal of Discourse. That said the following is fficial doctrine...

“God is Father of the spirits of all flesh, not only of those that fear him, but of those who do not fear him, and who disobey His laws. He is the father of the spirits of all, and as is spoken of in the Scriptures, ‘We are His offspring and emanated from him.’” (John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, 21:14).

Since it follows doctrines in the standard works. God having a God having a God does not. Personally, I think that infinite regression is a deeply cool and beautiful doctrine but it is not part of LDS faith or worship.

Now, let's not derail the thread.