John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[Darren10]

And here's section D as part ofthe official lesson (bold mine):

D.

God is the Supreme Being in the universe.

1. God the Father is greater than all (see Ephesians 4:6; John 10:29).
   
2. As the Supreme Being, God the Father should be the object of our love and worship (see D&C 18:40; 20:29; Joshua 22:5; Mark 12:30; D&C 4:2; Luke 4:8).
   
3. God created all things through His Son (see Hebrews 1:1–2; Moses 1:32–33; 2:1
   

1. 
   

Edited February 12, 2013 by Darren10

[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.

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? ..... 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?

Darren10, you are either misreading, reading into, or putting words into John's mouth as to what he is "admitting to" on this thread. Please review below.

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.

Nowhere in this is John saying or agreeing that "the spirit told him the church is true" He may very well believe that, but re-read what he is quoting and saying "completely true" to.

Saying that you "miss the spirit you felt while in the church and it's community" is NOT saying "the spirit told me that the church is true."

What he is saying "completely true" to in this tread he also expressed fully on his podcast.

[Darren10]

Brian;

You're right I did miss read it. Feeling the Spirit is not the same as feeling the pirit of a community. I'm glad Dehlin returned to the fold and hope he stays. That said there is nothing more powerful and influential than the third person of the Godhead to speak directly to one's soul the Church is true.

[Brian 2.0]

You're right I did miss read it.

No worries. The way i have to skim through these fast growing threads... I misread all the time.

[semlogo]

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?

Who says the universe is "all"? There may be an infinite number of them. "All" can mean many different things.

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...

Why would the church teach something that went against "official doctrine"? If the church teaches it, then it's official doctrine. By putting this in the manual intended to be studied by students, they are teaching it as doctrine.

No, I'm afraid you can't claim that. That God was once a man has been doctrine since the days of Joseph Smith.

Edited February 12, 2013 by semlogo

[Teancum]

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.

I have not left but my testimony is not what is once was and it was certainly not built on sand. I had as strong a testimony as anyone I think. I expressed it quite frequently. And really your historical examples are pretty thin though I agree I too am amazed when someone says they no nothing about plural marriage when it is right in the D&C. Though I do think you are reaching to think that polyandry is easy to pick out of those verses if you are not aware of it.

[Darren10]

Who says the universe is "all"? There may be an infinite number of them. "All" can mean many different things.

While God may have his own private universe aside from other universes, within LDS faith and worship, the Father is supreme above all. That's declared explicitly in LDS doctrine and I've cited at least three sources, not including your own, where that explicit statement ihas been made. If there are other universes and creations and other gods before the Father than so be it. I'm fine with that but we do not even begin to comprehend such a thing and we absolutely do not incorporate it into our official worship or faith.

Why would the church teach something that went against "official doctrine"?

I showed you that the Church did not teach other universes as official doctrine. The Father having a God is a supportive reading. nothing more. It's a suggestion, if you will. Personally I have no idea what said reading supports in the official lesson but, oh well. Supportive reading is NOT an official andorsement by the Church. It's safe to pursure its suggestied readings but it's not official doctrine.

If the church teaches it, then it's official doctrine. By putting this in the manual intended to be studied by students, they are teaching it as doctrine.

They are suggesting it to support the official doctrine.

No, I'm afraid you can't claim that. That God was once a man has been doctrine since the days of Joseph Smith.

In so far as "doctrine" means "teaching", yes, you are correct but it has NEVER been endorsed by the First Presidency, let alone the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. But the Standard Works have.

[Darren10]

No worries. The way i have to skim through these fast growing threads... I misread all the time.

And thank you for clarifying things for me.

[Darren10]

semlogo;

Also, since we exist in our Father's universe, whether it be His own prive universe, or literally all universes in one, so far as our faith and worship go, "all" things that exist are subject to Him. Period.

[TwirlnWhirl]

I think it would be nice if we shared the whole truth with our investigators and more importantly our children in primary. Why is it I have to wait until I am 35 years old to find out about these different translation methods from a stone found while digging a well? This is a huge problem for me and many of my LDS friends. We lie to our own children. Not telling the whole truth is a lie, that I was taught in sunday school. As far as polyandry goes Darren10 is just fine with Joseph Smith doing it but anybody doing it today is discredited and not to be trusted.....

I asked my bishop recently about why some of these historical issues are not discussed at church? Such as using the Journal of Discorses. He told me why would we do that that would make the church look bad. So, as long as the church looks good all is well and throw the truth out the window. Why did Joseph have to lie to the saints in Nauvoo about not only polyandry but also polygamy itself if it was indeed from god? These are all legitimate questions and we feed the youth lies and now the time of reckoning is at hand.

Just my humble two cents.

We have zero tolerance for people coming to this board to call other people liars. A difference of opinion or viewpoint does not make anyone a liar or dishonest. You will be banned if you continue continue to throw bombs.

[Darren10]

Why is it I have to wait until I am 35 years old to find out about these different translation methods from a stone found while digging a well?

Huh? What well?

We lie to our own children.

Speak for yourself.

As far as polyandry goes Darren10 is just fine with Joseph Smith doing it but anybody doing it today is discredited and not to be trusted.....

If God says to do something than doing it is the right thing to do. (Why is this a hard concept?)

I asked my bishop recently about why some of these historical issues are not discussed at church? Such as using the Journal of Discorses.

Journal odf Discourse is NOT official LDS doctrine though it most definitely may be used to back up or substantiate official LDS doctrine. Otherwise, it's a complete waste of time at church to discuss. As the current Gospel Doctrine teacher for my ward, I have no interest in preaching from non official doctrinal sources. I mention them only to move the official lesson forward. If you or anyone else wants to delve in them, feel free. And by all means, share what you learn. I'll be interested in learning what you learn.

He told me why would we do that that would make the church look bad.

My guess is that you're badly paraphrasing what his response was. But who knows for sure? And who knows the context and setting behind your conversation?

Why did Joseph have to lie to the saints in Nauvoo about not only polyandry but also polygamy itself if it was indeed from god?

To avoid the onslaught of persecution. I find that very insightful of him to withhold the knowledge of the practice of polygamy. Look what happened to him by publicly declaring and living the truth. The Saints as well.

we feed the youth lies and now the time of reckoning is at hand.

Ohhhhh dear!!!

[ERayR]

I think it would be nice if we shared the whole truth with our investigators and more importantly our children in primary. Why is it I have to wait until I am 35 years old to find out about these different translation methods from a stone found while digging a well? This is a huge problem for me and many of my LDS friends. We lie to our own children. Not telling the whole truth is a lie, that I was taught in sunday school. As far as polyandry goes Darren10 is just fine with Joseph Smith doing it but anybody doing it today is discredited and not to be trusted.....

I asked my bishop recently about why some of these historical issues are not discussed at church? Such as using the Journal of Discorses. He told me why would we do that that would make the church look bad. So, as long as the church looks good all is well and throw the truth out the window. Why did Joseph have to lie to the saints in Nauvoo about not only polyandry but also polygamy itself if it was indeed from god? These are all legitimate questions and we feed the youth lies and now the time of reckoning is at hand.

Just my humble two cents.

We have zero tolerance for people coming to this board to call other people liars. A difference of opinion or viewpoint does not make anyone a liar or dishonest. You will be banned if you continue continue to throw bombs.

Why do you choose to believe the interpretations offered by critics of the church when with just a little effort you can find they are misreading, misunderstanding thus misrepresenting these issues.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ERayR

[Helen47]

If as many wives of Jospeh have testified they were his wives in the true sense of the word, would Smith had to not be upcoming about where he really was when he met with these woman? St Valentines day tomorrow, would Smith had time to romance any of those women, make them all feel special?

[ERayR]

If as many wives of Jospeh have testified they were his wives in the true sense of the word, would Smith had to not be upcoming about where he really was when he met with these woman? St Valentines day tomorrow, would Smith had time to romance any of those women, make them all feel special?

Huh!!

[Darren10]

Huh!!

My thoughts exactly.

[mormonstories]

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.

I believe that FAIR should not fear MormonThink. I believe that FAIR (and the church) should look at MormonThink as the tiger in "Life of Pi" -- as the "enemy" that keeps them alive and makes them stronger.

Please consider using MormonThink as a way to sharper your arguments. The issues won't go away...so use MormonThink to make your approaches stronger. Fearing MormonThink or trying to avoid/ignore/suppress it won't help anyone get stronger in faith. In my opinion, FAIR needs to become so good at what it does that MT becomes irrelevant.

Responding to the other question -- I believe that FAIR/M.I. deserve criticism until they change their tactics and renounce Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley-like approaches. My advice to FAIR/M.I. -- If it isn't charitable/Christlike/loving....step away from it. DP and LM's tactics are driving people away from the church. I promise you they are. It's hard feedback to hear...but it's true. That's why I made the criticisms of FAIR...because you are hurting yourselves with your associations to DP and LM (at least with regards to their tactics in the past). I think they're both good, smart, well-meaning men...just very, very flawed in their approaches to LDS apologetics. That was CLEAR feedback from our survey, and it's very, very common feedback with disaffected Mormon folks. When FAIR is associated with thuggish tactics....it's a clear sign that they do not have confidence in their own arguments....and it reflects poorly on an organization which claims to follow Christ.

My 2 cents.

Edited February 13, 2013 by mormonstories

[rpn]

That's why I made the criticisms of FAIR...because you are hurting yourselves with your associations to DP and LM (at least with regards to their tactics in the past). I think they're both good, smart, well-meaning men...just very, very flawed in their approaches to LDS apologetics. That was CLEAR feedback from our survey, and it's very, very common feedback with disaffected Mormon folks.

I'm all for Christ like and loving, and I agree that I've seen responses that I can't see as helpful. But this statement is simply flawed. You were telling people that Dan was doing/orchestrating a hit piece, and you were playing the victim and that FARMS was a problem. You and a whole lot of others have been hearing a whole lot of trashtalk (most, if not all, defamatory) on various boards about Dr. Peterson for at least several years. The dissaffected group has the same confirmation bias as the rest of us do. Of course your survey was going to produce feedback about how awful Dr. Peterson's approach is/was. People who tried to get correct information out there in defense of faithful interpretation were an easy target.

Making Bro Peterson the problem was not some groundswell of the disaffected (and why should the disaffected get to decide who stands up or how?). It is the carefully orchestrated attempt on the part of the dissaffected movement (I'm not talking those who are doubting or trying to work it out and remain faithful, I mean those who have left and want others to leave with them, and who describe someone else as the reason(s) they are doing it, and vilify the LDS church --- those Dr. Peterson and people like him are trying to be sure cannot do that with impunity).

I'm not sure how you would obtain feedback that has any reliability, unless you were allowed to survey members randomly. Let's face it, those who are in the trash Dr. Peterson camp were also more likely to respond to your survey. Everyone has known for a long time that Dr. Peterson has become the lightning rod/straw man for critics. And you aided and abetted that in the course of your personal hurt.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

[sheilauk]

I think it would be nice if we shared the whole truth with our investigators and more importantly our children in primary. Why is it I have to wait until I am 35 years old to find out about these different translation methods from a stone found while digging a well? This is a huge problem for me and many of my LDS friends. We lie to our own children.

Not telling the whole truth is a lie, that I was taught in sunday school.

Not telling the whole truth is not lying, it is not telling the whole truth. This is why the oath in a Law Court specificially mentions having to tell the whole truth! Have you told your children yet about fairy stories - that Cinderella didn't exist? That Santa is based on Saint Nicholas and doesn't come down chimneys? When did you tell them? At what age?

We don't tell children everything in primary because they are young and would not understand all or grasp the nuances. Some of it may be thought to be fun (eg using a seer stone), but how do you explain polygamy? Primary teaches them the principles we believe they need to live their life by. I'm sure that the manuals should be regularly reviewed and that teachers are not perfect. I'm also sure that they try their best and hope to deliver the information necessary. But I have taught in primary and in YW and I never get to finish my lesson, so we can't hope to cover everything. We have to deliver the essentials and then suggest that people make their own investigations if they are interested. I imagine the same applies to investigators. I was an investigator four years ago. I found out all these things before and after my baptism by searching the internet, reading the Ensign and other books in the library and asking questions. It was not in the lessons I received, there wasn't enough time to teach me all about everything. I was learning the basic principles and doctrines. The missionaries had limited time, I wasn't back at school, studying for 6 hours a day! If something struck me as interesting or I wanted to know more, I looked. I have spoken to other new investigators and converts since and they make the investigations they feel they need to make. Each of us must learn at our own pace and in our own time and we should never make people move ahead faster than they want. And teachers must therefore go at a slow pace - no one should be left behind. This may mean repeating the basics a lot and those who want more must have patience and search for themselves. If your children need to know more or you think they should know more, you can teach them, can't you? The material is out there. I accept there may have been less material easily available to seekers in years gone by (i wasn't there and am only going on what I've seen various people discuss on this board), but the Church now should not be judged on its past.

I asked my bishop recently about why some of these historical issues are not discussed at church? Such as using the Journal of Discorses. He told me why would we do that that would make the church look bad. So, as long as the church looks good all is well and throw the truth out the window. Why did Joseph have to lie to the saints in Nauvoo about not only polyandry but also polygamy itself if it was indeed from god? These are all legitimate questions and we feed the youth lies and now the time of reckoning is at hand.

Your bishop is protecting his Church and his flock in the best way he knows how and that is all he can do. He cannot speak for the Church. The Church is making the material available to those who wish to seek it. You can find others who have discussed and speculated on your question. I have no comment on your last sentence.

[Tacenda]

Not telling the whole truth is not lying, it is not telling the whole truth. This is why the oath in a Law Court specificially mentions having to tell the whole truth! Have you told your children yet about fairy stories - that Cinderella didn't exist? That Santa is based on Saint Nicholas and doesn't come down chimneys? When did you tell them? At what age?

We don't tell children everything in primary because they are young and would not understand all or grasp the nuances. Some of it may be thought to be fun (eg using a seer stone), but how do you explain polygamy? Primary teaches them the principles we believe they need to live their life by. I'm sure that the manuals should be regularly reviewed and that teachers are not perfect. I'm also sure that they try their best and hope to deliver the information necessary. But I have taught in primary and in YW and I never get to finish my lesson, so we can't hope to cover everything. We have to deliver the essentials and then suggest that people make their own investigations if they are interested. I imagine the same applies to investigators. I was an investigator four years ago. I found out all these things before and after my baptism by searching the internet, reading the Ensign and other books in the library and asking questions. It was not in the lessons I received, there wasn't enough time to teach me all about everything. I was learning the basic principles and doctrines. The missionaries had limited time, I wasn't back at school, studying for 6 hours a day! If something struck me as interesting or I wanted to know more, I looked. I have spoken to other new investigators and converts since and they make the investigations they feel they need to make. Each of us must learn at our own pace and in our own time and we should never make people move ahead faster than they want. And teachers must therefore go at a slow pace - no one should be left behind. This may mean repeating the basics a lot and those who want more must have patience and search for themselves. If your children need to know more or you think they should know more, you can teach them, can't you? The material is out there. I accept there may have been less material easily available to seekers in years gone by (i wasn't there and am only going on what I've seen various people discuss on this board), but the Church now should not be judged on its past.

Your bishop is protecting his Church and his flock in the best way he knows how and that is all he can do. He cannot speak for the Church. The Church is making the material available to those who wish to seek it. You can find others who have discussed and speculated on your question. I have no comment on your last sentence.

The bolded part is what concerns me. Should the church renounce polygamy in the D & C 132? If it is afraid of the primary children hearing of it doesn't it make it wrong somewhat? Shouldn't we think that JS was flawed and made a mistake, a terrible one? Or is polygamy a doctrine and needed for our salvation in the hereafter? Some people believe this and some don't, it's such a division that really needs to be answered by our current prophet, maybe Pres. Monson could go to the Lord in prayer for an answer, I know it's the total reason I falter in my testimony.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[Kevin Christensen]

The thing I noticed about the testimonials that John included in his email copied to Daniel, is that none of the testimonials about how terrible Daniel and FARMS is included any specific evidence. What we get is assertion without evidence. We get generalization without any concrete foundation. It takes specific information, a fair representation and broad perspective to justify sweeping assertions about character, not just of Dan and Lou but of FAIR and FARMS as a whole. I also get the impression that John doesn't see that the lack of specifics is a problem. Unsupported assertion becomes unexamined evidence. We can trust our case to the objectivity of the prosecution. No need to "prove contraries" that truth might be "made manifest." No need for a broadly based survey to see what really is typical and what is exceptional. For the record, I have read all 40 volumes of the Review and think that gives me some claim have personally considered the evidence, and that my opinions are based on a personal broad survey, rather than vicarious cherry picking summaries, without the actual cherries.

It was very clear to me in reading the responses to the Mormonstories interview with Daniel Peterson that many people were startled by the disconnect between the Daniel they had expected based on such complaints and the Daniel they actually encountered. Why don't those positive expressions by Mormonstories listeners get quoted, or considered when making sweeping generalizations about Daniel, or included in emails designed to suppress what fear and gossip unquestionably proved would be an irresponsible hit piece?

Paradigms are created by means of standard examples. Yet this paradigm of Daniel and Lou as bad for faith doesn't bother to show specifics to test and place in perspective. Without specifics, how does this paradigm offer itself for testing? Are the predictions is makes accurate? Is it comprehensive (broadly based), and coherent (fitting together with broad categories and widespread information)? Is it fruitful? Is it aesthetically pleasing and simple, or it is cludgy and ramshackle? Does it offer any future promise?

And of course, with reference to charitable/Christlike loving, we don't get a clear and detailed picture of how Jesus actually talked, spoke, and taught. We get an airbrushed, selective picture of a Jesus who would never actually suggest that anyone except Dan and Lou might have anything to repent of, who would never call Peter, say, to repentance, or make unsavory or divisive comments about important and respectable people, behavior, or ideas.

The call to denounce Dan and Lou (and to imply that all contributors to FAIR and FARMS can safely be denounced in conjunction) actually brings to my mind the writings and work of Rene Girard, on the scapegoat. And the point he makes is that for the scapegoating mechanism to work, that the accusation must never be doubted or questioned for a moment. The difference between Oedipus and the Gospels, is that Oedipus is guilty and Jesus is actually innocent. I don't suppose John has read Girard.

I have several times commented that I sympathize with John's ideals and concerns, and have actually raised the core issues that later became in his program in my 1995 essay in the Review, "Paradigms Crossed."

Take note that those who send out the young unprepared, or who create faulty background expectations for them, have just as much to answer for as those who stand in the great and spacious building, zealously or morbidly pointing out problems. Whether they intend to or not, both camps can lead innocent individuals to feel shame at clinging to the iron rod, and to lose their way, and wander lost in the broad roads. The disillusioned got their illusions somewhere.

I don't see his kind of unfair generalization and unsupported accusation as helpful to anyone. If you have criticisms, be specific, give details, and don't neglect the broader perspectives. Jesus didn't go around saying, "We all know that guy has warts, and that warts are bad, and probably contagious. And that is all you need to know. You know where to find the stones. My hands are clean."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 13, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[ERayR]

I believe that FAIR should not fear MormonThink. I believe that FAIR (and the church) should look at MormonThink as the tiger in "Life of Pi" -- as the "enemy" that keeps them alive and makes them stronger.

Why do you think FAIR fears MormonThink? One doesn't have to be fearful to answer their erroneous rhetoric.

Please consider using MormonThink as a way to sharper your arguments. The issues won't go away...so use MormonThink to make your approaches stronger. Fearing MormonThink or trying to avoid/ignore/suppress it won't help anyone get stronger in faith. In my opinion, FAIR needs to become so good at what it does that MT becomes irrelevant.

Already accomplished thank you.

Responding to the other question -- I believe that FAIR/M.I. deserve criticism until they change their tactics and renounce Daniel Peterson and Lou Midgley-like approaches. My advice to FAIR/M.I. -- If it isn't charitable/Christlike/loving....step away from it. DP and LM's tactics are driving people away from the church. I promise you they are. It's hard feedback to hear...but it's true. That's why I made the criticisms of FAIR...because you are hurting yourselves with your associations to DP and LM (at least with regards to their tactics in the past). I think they're both good, smart, well-meaning men...just very, very flawed in their approaches to LDS apologetics. That was CLEAR feedback from our survey, and it's very, very common feedback with disaffected Mormon folks. When FAIR is associated with thuggish tactics....it's a clear sign that they do not have confidence in their own arguments....and it reflects poorly on an organization which claims to follow Christ.

My 2 cents.

Opinion noted but not necessarily agreed with. Bullies usually don't go away until confronted. (my experience)

[mfbukowski]

The disillusioned got their illusions somewhere.

Brilliant.

[semlogo]

While God may have his own private universe aside from other universes, within LDS faith and worship, the Father is supreme above all. That's declared explicitly in LDS doctrine and I've cited at least three sources, not including your own, where that explicit statement ihas been made. If there are other universes and creations and other gods before the Father than so be it. I'm fine with that but we do not even begin to comprehend such a thing and we absolutely do not incorporate it into our official worship or faith.

I showed you that the Church did not teach other universes as official doctrine. The Father having a God is a supportive reading. nothing more. It's a suggestion, if you will. Personally I have no idea what said reading supports in the official lesson but, oh well. Supportive reading is NOT an official andorsement by the Church. It's safe to pursure its suggestied readings but it's not official doctrine.

They are suggesting it to support the official doctrine.

In so far as "doctrine" means "teaching", yes, you are correct but it has NEVER been endorsed by the First Presidency, let alone the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. But the Standard Works have.

Every teaching manual has to go through correlation, a committee headed by general authorities. If they thought the idea that God was once a man was false doctrine, they wouldn't put it in the manual.

Personally, if I want a generic Christian idea of God, there are churches on every corner willing to teach it. But the LDS Church teaches that God was once a man. You shouldn't be ashamed of that.

[mfbukowski]

I wonder what would have happened if the human being known as Isaiah had posted his prophecies on the internet, or who would have published them today.

Edited February 13, 2013 by mfbukowski

[semlogo]

semlogo;

Also, since we exist in our Father's universe, whether it be His own prive universe, or literally all universes in one, so far as our faith and worship go, "all" things that exist are subject to Him. Period.

Yes, so long as "all" does not include God's Father, His Father's Father, etc.