John Dehlin Responds By Podcast

[Darren10]

Here's the thing ERayR, if it is revelant in the hereafter I need to know. Why are we afraid of stating what has been taught in the earlier church if it isn't wrong? We don't think it is revelant? Then is temple worship revelant? How are we to be Gods/Goddesses without it? All those spirit children, JS and BY believed they needed to get started on their worlds, that is their reasoning for them having the extra wives and is the current reason in the fundamental churches that are living it. That's why there is needed clear and consise revelation. It is not only myself who struggles it is the whole reason others say we are not a Christian church because we believe we can be Gods/Goddesses. It would be nice to hear from an authority on the subject. I've even heard from a non LDS Christian, that if we threw out section 132 in D & C, he'd (Shawn McRaney) call us Christian.

Who really cares what Shawn McRaney says regarding LDS being Christians? We are Christians because we believe in and worship and emulate the Lord Jesus Christ.

As far as the doctrines of exaltation are concerned, that's an area man really knows little to nothing about. Yes, the purpose of this life is to become like God. That doctrine has a long standing and righ history in Christiaity, though the Restoration takes it to a more extreme end compared to what Christians interpret to "becoming like God" means. But, still, there's not much to say as far as I can tell. We believe it can happen and should happen through obedience to God's laws and according to His infinite mercy. But that's all we really know for sure.

And the LDS church should never deemphasize that we are here to be humble servants to God. Exaltation should never stand in contradiction to the fact that we are subject unto the Son of God who is subject to the Father.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Darren10

[mormonstories]

FWIW, I totally agree that Mormon Think often hits below the belt. What I don't know if FAIR realizes is that people who claim to be followers of Jesus must hold to a higher standard if they don't want to be viewed as hypocrites.

[Brian 2.0]

We have a problem with the flawed idea. Many of the women who agreed to be sealed to Joseph received a very powerful witness that the principle was true, zina was one of these women and was a polyandrous wife. My belief is: the persecution that the saints were about to experience trumped the principle. Without that possible persecution, we may still have polygamy.

I think this is the proverbial rock and hard place that the Church may be in, or that the critics want the church to be put into. If as an church today you claim that revelations (well documents and spoken as revelations) from the past were not actually revelations from God but pronouncements from imperfect men who were well intentioned and thought they were receiving a revelation for God... you open up a the can of worms to say, "well then how am I to know your well documented revelations from today aren't in the same category?" It makes "following the prophet" a much more difficult and nuanced proposition.

This is why I don't think you will see a declaration that the Priesthood and Temple Ban was definitively NOT from God in the first place and why you won't see a reversal on the LGBT stance where the church says it's okay for a homosexual couple to engage in sex within the bounds of a lawful marriage.

I'm not saying the church would want to say those things, or that those things are even true... but people push for those statements to be made by the church with a "why can't you just say this" attitude without understanding how big of a actual thing those reversals would mean.

I say that, but I'm sure there were people saying the same thing back in the day when the idea of lifting the Temple and Priesthood ban was being discussed (i.e. saying that if they lifted the ban it would be a can of worms that would domino). Church handled that just fine, so maybe I'm wrong they actually could weather the consequences of what I said.

[mormonstories]

why me,

In spite of its many, many flaws, I believe that Mormon Think (along with FAIR) is one of the two most comprehensive sites on the Internet attempting to directly address the difficult issues within Mormonism.

Is it biased and at times underhanded -- absolutely. I'm not defending any of that. I'm only making the point that just like Richard Bushman does not hesitate to cite Fawn Brodie, I don't hesitate to refer folks to Mormon Think. That doesn't make Bushman or me anti-Mormon....we just feel like even anti-Mormon sources can be valuable at times.

[ALarson]

FWIW, I totally agree that Mormon Think often hits below the belt.

Can you give an example of where you believe they "often" hit "below the belt"?

It seems to me John that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth now. At one time, you agreed with and supported what was written on Mormon Think.

What do you disagree with now? Just curious. Thanks!!

[semlogo]

LoL - I'm not ashamed of teaching god was once a man. I think its's true orat least there's truth to it but it is NOT part of my faith orworship as an LDS member. I do not recognize God having a God, having a God, havng a God but render all my praise and glory tothe Father as the first being of all and the Supreme Being of all.

That's fine, but it's still a doctrine that the church has taught for most of its history, and continues to teach today in its curriculum. There is no church doctrine that members must worship any Heavenly Grandfather, I'm not saying that.

Edited February 13, 2013 by semlogo

[mormonstories]

I want to know how representative are these people. Are they randomly selected, or self-selected, and if self selected, from what kind of pool? There is a famous picture of Harry Truman holding up a newspaper with the headline, Dewy beats Truman. The problem in that case was a telephone poll. The problem with the poll was that Democrats were less likely to have phones.

Kevin - It's easy to attack the sample, and I am sure that our sample has a million holes.

All I'll say is....if you don't like our sample of 3,000....do you have a better one? That would be a much stronger argument than solely attacking the work others have done.

I invite...and even challenge....FAIR to conduct a better survey. Until they/you do....this just might be the best data "out there"...and the results are clear (to me). Apologetics often fail these people who struggle for longer than a year....and in many, many cases LDS apologetics clearly appears to accelerate the disaffection. Ya'll may not like to hear this....but the data suggest otherwise. The data also seems to indicate pretty clearly that LDS apologetics (including Peterson and Midgley) are perceived as being un-Christlike and mean-spirited in their approach. And unfortunately, perception is often reality.

Again..if you don't like our data....I encourage you to get better data. That's how social science works (as you know).

Edited February 13, 2013 by mormonstories

[Darren10]

why me,

In spite of its many, many flaws, I believe that Mormon Think (along with FAIR) is one of the two most comprehensive sites on the Internet attempting to directly address the difficult issues within Mormonism.

Is it biased and at times underhanded -- absolutely. I'm not defending any of that. I'm only making the point that just like Richard Bushman does not hesitate to cite Fawn Brodie, I don't hesitate to refer folks to Mormon Think. That doesn't make Bushman or me anti-Mormon....we just feel like even anti-Mormon sources can be valuable at times.

But you never pin down what is good about Mormon Think. Sure anti-mormon sites can have "their good parts". So what are they at Mormon Think beyond comprehensively addressing concerning issues? Bad people throughout history have their good parts as well. That does not negate the fact that these bad people are still bad and that anti-Mormon sites like Mormon Think is a poor place to send doubting LDS members.

[Brian 2.0]

In spite of its many, many flaws, I believe that Mormon Think (along with FAIR) is one of the two most comprehensive sites on the Internet attempting to directly address the difficult issues within Mormonism.

I agree. And at least the "conclusions" are listed as such. I often refer to MormonThink to get some details and facts. I don't give much stock to their conclusions, I just want to form my own. I also don't give much to when they say, "this is what the apologists say" I'll look at those sections, but I would much rather get that from the horses mouth over at FAIR.

I just like to know everything so i can form conclusions of my own. I'm not going to MormonThink to find out the church's response to the Kinderhook Plates. I'll go to FAIR. But I actually will go to MormonThink to find out the "issues" of the Kinderhook plates as outlined by the critics. Then at FAIR I will see if they actually dispute of the facts, or simply dispute the conclusions regarding the facts I read at MormonThink.

I would hate for either site to be taken down. As a jury member I don't want to listen to the prosecution only with them saying "let me tell you what the defense will say so you don't have to listen to them." Or just listen to the defense only with them saying "let me tell you what the prosecution will say so you don't have to listen to them." I would like to hear both sides.

[Darren10]

Kevin - It's easy to attack the sample, and I am sure that our sample has a million holes.

All I'll say is....if you don't like our sample of 3,000....do you have a better one? That would be a much stronger argument than solely attacking the work others have done.

I invite...and even challenge....FAIR to conduct a better survey. Until they/you do....this just might be the best data "out there"...and the results are clear (to me). Apologetics often fail these people who struggle for longer than a year....and in many cases clearly appears to accelerate the disaffection. Ya'll may not like to hear this....but the data suggest otherwise.

Again..if you don't like our data....I encourage you to get better data. That's how social science works (as you know).

Do you ever get upset with the pot holes on the streets you drive? Just wondering.

Besides, what's wrong with Keven's critique? I thought you supported comprehensive critiques? And Kevin makes some good points. Why can't you get better data and find out exactly why people cast blame on FAIR and apologists. What exactly did they say or write that got them worked up? Why do you disassociate yourself from the LDS apologist plight? Why are you not concerned in providing a comfortable zone where their side can be explained and build bridges? How come you don't show them charity and love them unconditionally?

/Sigh

Edited February 13, 2013 by Darren10

[mormonstories]

Can you give an example of where you believe they "often" hit "below the belt"?

It seems to me John that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth now. At one time, you agreed with and supported what was written on Mormon Think.

What do you disagree with now? Just curious. Thanks!!

semlogo,

I stand by what I just wrote...which is that MT is one of the two most comprehensive sites on the internet for difficult Mormon issues. And I believe that MT works super hard to be accurate and to present "both" sides of the issues.

The biggest criticism I would have of MT is something that I have (admittedly) been guilty of in the past as well...which is that they attempt to create the appearance of being as neutral as possible (which I think is a good thing), but I sometimes get the impression that those who run MT have the goal/intent of leading people away from the church. So in a sense....it's not up-front/candid about its motivations.

Again...I've been guilty of this at times as well....so I have a huge beam in my eye in this regard. But at least FAIR is clear and open in its motives.

Reactions? Is this your impression as well? Am I wrong?

Edited February 13, 2013 by mormonstories

[mormonstories]

I agree. And at least the "conclusions" are listed as such. I often refer to MormonThink to get some details and facts. I don't give much stock to their conclusions, I just want to form my own. I also don't give much to when they say, "this is what the apologists say" I'll look at those sections, but I would much rather get that from the horses mouth over at FAIR.

I just like to know everything so i can form conclusions of my own. I'm not going to MormonThink to find out the church's response to the Kinderhook Plates. I'll go to FAIR. But I actually will go to MormonThink to find out the "issues" of the Kinderhook plates as outlined by the critics. Then at FAIR I will see if they actually dispute of the facts, or simply dispute the conclusions regarding the facts I read at MormonThink.

I would hate for either site to be taken down. As a jury member I don't want to listen to the prosecution only with them saying "let me tell you what the defense will say so you don't have to listen to them." Or just listen to the defense only with them saying "let me tell you what the prosecution will say so you don't have to listen to them." I would like to hear both sides.

Amen Brian 2.0! I hope to meet you someday in real life, if I haven't already

[ALarson]

semlogo,

I stand by what I just wrote...which is that MT is one of the two most comprehensive sites on the internet for difficult Mormon issues. And I believe that MT works super hard to be accurate and to present "both" sides of the issues.

The biggest criticism I would have of MT is something that I have (admittedly) been guilty of in the past as well...which is that they attempt to create the appearance of being as neutral as possible (which I think is a good thing), but I sometimes get the impression that those who run MT have the goal/intent of leading people away from the church. So in a sense....it's not up-front/candid about its motivations.

Again...I've been guilty of this at times as well....so I have a huge beam in my eye in this regard as well. At least FAIR is clear and open in its motives.

Reactions? Is this your impression as well? Am I wrong?

Still no examples of where you feel they "hit below the belt". Do you still stand by that statement?

I do agree that their analysis and conclusions are biased, but I feel they do present information that is both on their site and also on FAIR. IMO, that is not hitting below the belt. I like to form my own conclusions and don't put much stock in Mormon Think's conclusions.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ALarson

[mormonstories]

Do you ever get upset with the pot holes on the streets you drive? Just wondering.

Besides, what's wrong with Keven's crituque? I though you suported comprehensive critiques? And Kevin makes some good points. Why can't you get better data and find out exactly why peope cast blame on FAIR and apologists. What exactly did they say or write that got them worked up? Why do you disassociate yourself from the LDS apologist plight? Why are you not concerned in providing a comfortable zone where their side can be expained and build bridges? How come you don't show them charity and love them unconditionally?

/Sigh

Darren10 - I think that FAIR would do well to gather their own data. And I'd sincerely be happy to help them. And I am actually totally interested in providing a comfort zone and bridges for those struggling. Also, if I have been uncharitable or unloving, I apologize. That's not my intent.

[mormonstories]

Still no examples of where you feel they "hit below the belt". Do you still stand by that statement?

I do agree that their analysis and conclusions are biased, but I feel they do present information that is both on their site and also on FAIR. IMO, that is not hitting below the belt. I like to form my own conclusions and don't put much stock in Mormon Think's conclusions.

ALaron,

I don't have examples, and maybe I would phrase it a bit differently. My bad.

I believe that MT's biggest vulnerability or ethical dilemma is that MT seems to be trying to create the appearance of objectivity and neutrality, when in reality the motive/intent is (possibly?) to lead people away from the church/faith....and that these biases are not stated up front....so that people know the motive/intent of those who provide the information.

As I said before, I've probably been guilty of this myself....but I do think that this might be true. Your thoughts?

[mormonstories]

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.

I agree that there's plenty of blame to go around. I personally have made a ton of mistakes that I will admit to.

But to deny or ignore the data that the Peterson/Midgley approach (attack the messengers) isn't a fundamental flaw in 20th-21st century LDS apologetics....then I think that ya'll are missing a really important piece of the puzzle (if your intent is to be more effective).

Edited February 13, 2013 by mormonstories

[why me]

And so have other women believed charismatic leaders in the more current decades. David Koresh to name one. He also proclaimed to speak to God. Maybe both did in the beginning.

This is not just a belief but a strong spiritual experience that these women had to convince them that it was a correct principle. Without it, they would not have said yes. Of course, we can question the experience but these women never said a bad word about Joseph Smith even after he was murdered. Why?

[mormonstories]

This is quite interesting, to me. In his podcast where he had himself interviewed (John Dehlin and Faith Reconstruction), John recognized that some people leave the Church over the content of his podcasts, but explicitly refused to take responsibility for any negative fallout related to the material he produces. He said that people doubting their testimonies (i.e., being driven from the Church) after listening to his podcast were not his fault. After all, he is just the messenger.

Yet here (and in other places) John demands that FAIR/MI be held accountable for driving people from the Church. (Actually, this call, above, is quite a bit more demanding and strident than past similar demands.) He takes the responses of disaffected people in his survey as "gospel truth," assuming that they are telling the truth--even though it is possible that they are citing after-the-fact justification for their choices.

If FAIR/MI must, according to John, take responsibility for the effect on people of their approaches to apologetics, shouldn't John also take the same responsibility? If not, what is the reasoning behind such a double standard?

-Allen

I'm definitely willing to take responsibility for any mistakes I've made.

Believe it or not, I'm sincerely trying to help FAIR become more effective. But I don't expect you to believe me.

In my opinion (and based on the data I've seen), attacking the messenger is less affective in Christian apologetics than strengthening your own arguments. That's all I'm trying to say.

[why me]

Do you believe we may still have polyandry as well?

Maybe not. But I do think that we know very little about it and what happened with the women. But one thing that I do know is that these women never said a negative word about him. I see no proof of lust or libido.

[ALarson]

This is not just a belief but a strong spiritual experience that these women had to convince them that it was a correct principle. Without it, they would not have said yes. Of course, we can question the experience but these women never said a bad word about Joseph Smith even after he was murdered. Why?

I don't think that's in dispute. But so have the women involved with David Koresh and others (stated they a strong spiritual feelings from God, etc.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by ALarson

[why me]

I'm definitely willing to take responsibility for any mistakes I've made.

Believe it or not, I'm sincerely trying to help FAIR become more effective. But I don't expect you to believe me.

I believe you. But have you tried to contact them and offer good advice and do some writing yourself for the fair site?

[Brian 2.0]

A question to those who don't think questioning members should go to MormonThink...

If I were to write an academic paper on the JS papyri... what they say, and how it all relates to the BoA... Should I only look into the papers written by FARMS/FAIR and other LDS Egyptologists like Gee, Nibly and such? Or should I also look at the works of non-LDS Egyptologists like Rittner or Baer?

If the answer is, "yes for an academic paper your should look at those people as well" then why should it be different for someone who is questioning and want to understand all the intellectual approaches to it?

[rongo]

I don't think that's in dispute. But so have the women involved with David Koresh and others (stated they a strong spiritual feelings from God, etc.)

Friendly CFR. Have David Koresh's women stated they had strong spiritual feelings from God (akin to Joseph's wives' testimonies)?

Maybe they have. If so, I would be interested in seeing them and comparing them to polygamous wives' written or quoted testimonies.

[Wiki Wonka]

What I don't know if FAIR realizes is that people who claim to be followers of Jesus must hold to a higher standard if they don't want to be viewed as hypocrites.

Most of the work that FAIR does takes place in private between individuals. People who write to Ask the Apologist receive personal, one-on-one answers. In five years, I have never seen a member of FAIR respond to such a questioner with anything but Christ-like empathy. Many of us at FAIR have been in the situation of those who are asking us questions. Some of us ended up at FAIR because we asked FAIR questions. I am one of those.

Even those few who write to us who are obvious trolls, we are still required to treat them as genuine questioners.

The rest of the work that FAIR does is to take the answers that are provided through AtA and format them for inclusion in the FAIR Wiki. That is the visible component of FAIR at this time. As I said previously, we have made efforts to remove what we call "snark" from those articles.

So I'm afraid that I find your characterization of FAIR as not understanding what it means to be Christlike to be patronizing and false. You call us hypocrites? You don't have visibility into most of what FAIR does, so how can you stand in judgement of us in this manner?

WW

Edited February 13, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[why me]

I don't think that's in dispute. But so have the women involved with David Koresh and others (stated they a strong spiritual feelings from God, etc.)

We could always lower ourselves to the worst common denominator. But on the other hand we need to look at the bigger picture and what the lds church has become and what they became after the murder of Joseph Smith. What we do know is that the book of mormon is special. And how it came to be in joseph's hands was special. And the translation process was special and the visitation of of john the baptist and the apostles to restore the priesthood was special and certainly all involved never denied this experience either. And so, we must put it all in one basket and count just how many good eggs are in that basket.