The Dehlin Affair–The Current Uncivil War

[Glenn101]

I appreciate you efforts Glenn but almost nothing you write above resonates with me except perhaps this. While much of what I once thought was true, thought the Holy Ghost had born witness to me about, all what you say above so much of that is gone. However, I had at least three very powerul spiritual experiences in my life that resonate deeply with me. These keep me grounded and and remaining a Latter-day Saint even though I interpret how I view the Church, God really all religion in a very much different way. I am still happy to remain LDS unless God tells me differently. I ask, and he has not so directed.

I have no more responses except to say hope all goes well with you in your journey. When it was discovered that a sheep was missing, the shepherd did not offer any opinions on how the sheep was lost because of this thing or that thing, he just went after it. I hope the shepherds in your area are that helpful.

Glenn

[ERayR]

Sure rebutt anyone you want to rebutt. Free speech is a wonderful thing. I just think many,most get beyond the influence of many rebuttals. Hard to put the genie back in the bottle sometimes.

See post # 148 by glen 101.

[Kenngo1969]

Sure rebutt anyone you want to rebutt. Free speech is a wonderful thing. I just think many,most get beyond the influence of many rebuttals. Hard to put the genie back in the bottle sometimes.

There's only one kind of butt that's spelled with two "t's," and it's not in the word rebut. The word rebut is spelled with one "t," but the other kind of ... um ... butt ... is spelled with two "t's." But, although the the word rebuttal is spelled with two "t's," the word rebut is only spelled with one "t" . . . if you can get behind what I'm sayin' here. (But, it's OK if you can't!) Just sayin'! (Sorry; couldn't resist.)

Sincerely,

Ken

Captain of the Spelling Division of the Grammar Police,

Recently Transferred Over from the Homophone Division of the Grammar Police

Edited March 4, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[volgadon]

Ken

Captain of the Spelling Division of the Grammar Police,

Recently Transferred Over from the Homophone Division of the Grammar Police

A true brother in arms.

[blackstrap]

Sincerely,

Ken

Captain of the Spelling Division of the Grammar Police,

Recently Transferred Over from the Homophone Division of the Grammar Police

Captain, please explain the reasoning behind the spelling and pronunciation contrasts between : but,butt,put,putt and putt; other than an outboard motor

[Robert F. Smith]

That, after careful examination, you have come to believe it is not what you thought it was.

I started to say, "have come to believe it is not true"...but, that seems a little too black and white.

Would you stay in a church that you felt was, basically, false?

I'm not saying that is "my" position, but it is the position of a lot of good people, who have left.

I don't think we can judge for others what is "legitimate". We each have to live in our own skin.

I agree with you. Of course people who leave usually believe that they are leaving for a very good reason or reasons, and that applies equally well to those who return -- and publicly discuss the reasons for their return.

However, careful research shows that religious switching is almost always an emotional matter, rather than a question of doctrine or morals. People want to feel comfortable, and so they gravitate to a religion which suits their social, political, or emotional needs.

When matters of history or doctrine (theology) are raised, they are rarely the real reason for someone leaving, or joining. That is why fellowshipping is emphasized. Uncomfortable people naturally begin to feel that something is amiss, and then conclude that the church in question must be false, or at least illegitimate. Normally, any excuse will then be latched onto as justification. I have yet to find that a factual basis for separation is used in such instances.

[Libs]

Well, I see your point, Robert, but you didn't ask about the most common reason for leaving. You asked, if there was even one good reason for leaving.

Also...becoming uncomfortable with something in the church could very well be a good reason for leaving. Depends on what it is. A lot of people left the Catholic Church after finding out about the abuses and cover-ups, etc. I'm sure they believed their "discomfort" was very justifiable.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Libs

[Glenn101]

Well, I see your point, Robert, but you didn't ask about the most common reason for leaving. You asked, if there was even one good reason for leaving.

Also...becoming uncomfortable with something in the church could very well be a good reason for leaving. Depends on what it is. A lot of people left the Catholic Church after finding out about the abuses and cover-ups, etc. I'm sure they believed their "discomfort" was very justifiable.

I would tend to disagree with that. If I were a member of the Catholic church after finding about the abuse and cover ups, I would not want to leave the Catholic church because of that. I would want to see those abuses and coverups cease and my leaders be righteous men or removed from office and the church if they engaged in activity that was abusive or covered up the abuses.

But, those abuses and coverups have no bearing upon the truth claims of the Catholic church. The only reason I would want to leave the catholic church is if I found it to be untrue, from the only source that can mak such a determination.

The same is true for my membership in the LDS church. All of the stumbling blocks that exist right now that people cite for having doubts about the church existed before they became members for those who converted from another faith or before those who received a spiritual affirmation for those who were raised in the church.

The only thing that changes is the discovery of certain things that do not sit well with many people. But a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. It is as Paul said "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (Corinthians 13:12)

People want answers to those thorny questions right now. The light will shine on evgerything eventually, but unstil that light does shine, we have to be led by faith. The time will come when everyone will know without a doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Then there will be no more faith required.

Glenn

Glenn

Edited March 4, 2013 by Glenn101

[Teancum]

There's only one kind of butt that's spelled with two "t's," and it's not in the word rebut. The word rebut is spelled with one "t," but the other kind of ... um ... butt ... is spelled with two "t's." But, although the the word rebuttal is spelled with two "t's," the word rebut is only spelled with one "t" . . . if you can get behind what I'm sayin' here. (But, it's OK if you can't!) Just sayin'! (Sorry; couldn't resist.)

Sincerely,

Ken

Captain of the Spelling Division of the Grammar Police,

Recently Transferred Over from the Homophone Division of the Grammar Police

Opps!! Sorry about that! Your response was very funny.

[Tacenda]

Okay, let's take a hypothetical person (who actually is not hypothetical) and say that he/she really wants to know if the restored gospel is true. He/he prays about it fervently, "with real intent", and gets a remarkable, unforgettable, spiritual experience that affirms the truth of the Restored Gospel, that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God, and that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.

Upon receiving that revelation, the person joins the Church and begins a faithful church member. Then comes the information about any and all of the things that you have mentioned. Does any of those things trump the revelation via the Holy Ghost that the church is true? What actual knowledge have you received that voids that revelation? not to me. I cannot "interpret" the answer I have received differently due to any knew knowledge I have received. I know that the only person from whom we can know the full truth is the Lord, via the conduit of the Holy Ghost. That is the only way that we can ascertain the truthfulness of the gospel.

If you rely upon your own understanding, unaided by any spiritual resource, your understanding will only take you as far as your own intellect can carry you. Your intellect will not carry you to the celestial Kingdom.

When it comes to the polygamy and so called polyandry question, I have received a witness that Joseph was (and is) a prophet of God. So, if he was wrong, lied about the polygamy thing, then God will handle that, just as he handled other of his prophets who erred.

The varying first vision accounts are not even a blip on my radar. I have read the varying accounts that Paul gave of his conversion in the New Testament. And I still have received that spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God.

The same goes for each and every stumbling block you have mentioned. I have received a spiritual confirmation that the Gospelis true. I never received a spiritual confirmation that the "Adam-God Doctrine" was ever a doctrine. I have read as much as I can on the affair and I think I understand what Brigham was saying, but Brigham himself said that it was not binding on the church. So I let it rest.

Once one really receives that spiritual conviction, it cannot be "reinterpreted". It can be denied, maybe or rationalized away, but I cannot do that for myself. I know what I experienced. And I cannot describe it any more than I can describe the color orange to someone who has never seen color.

I don not know what level of spiritual experience that you or any of the others posting here that have doubts have gone through. I can only know what I have gone through and I cannot, and do not even want to, deny it, or forget it. I know that at some point of time in the future, all will be revealed. I am not ashamed of my testimony and do not worry about anything or anyone that mocks the source of my knowledge.

Glenn

This may be going out in left field here, way out there but here goes...the Book of Mormon, is very bible centered, KJV centered. Could it be they are getting a witness that the Bible is true? If they prayed about the D & C first would they get that same witness? Edited March 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Well, I see your point, Robert, but you didn't ask about the most common reason for leaving. You asked, if there was even one good reason for leaving.

Also...becoming uncomfortable with something in the church could very well be a good reason for leaving. Depends on what it is. A lot of people left the Catholic Church after finding out about the abuses and cover-ups, etc. I'm sure they believed their "discomfort" was very justifiable.

The problem of leaving because one has become uncomfortable with something is that most do so without ever investigating the validity of the information they are uncomfortable with.

[ERayR]

This may be going out in left field here, way out there but here goes...the Book of Mormon, is very bible centered, KJV centered. Could it be they are getting a witness that the Bible is true? If they prayed about the D & C first would they get that same witness?

I do not follow your reasoning. If you ask for a witness of the Book of Mormon and get a witness, it is a witness of the Book of Mormon. If you want a witness of the Bible ask for it.

Also how do you know when you ask for a witness of the Bible you are not actually getting a witness of the Book of Mormon. Do you now see why I am not following your reasoning?

[Tacenda]

I do not follow your reasoning. If you ask for a witness of the Book of Mormon and get a witness, it is a witness of the Book of Mormon. If you want a witness of the Bible ask for it.

Also how do you know when you ask for a witness of the Bible you are not actually getting a witness of the Book of Mormon. Do you now see why I am not following your reasoning?

Sure, and I told you I was going left field. Should we as LDS introduce the D & C also? In there is the majority of our doctrine.

[ERayR]

Sure, and I told you I was going left field. Should we as LDS introduce the D & C also? In there is the majority of our doctrine.

Yes we should ask for a witness of the truthfulness of the D&C.

[Darren10]

Is your name Midgley?

His username was why me and despite my not being Midgley neither, I second why me's declarative.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Then I described my conflicts and confrontations with Cleon Skousen and how those led many of the faculty in Religious Education to see me as unfaithful. All that changed when many years latter, in the 1980s a Vice President insisted that I be allowed to address the Religious Edcation faculty. I scolded them for not lifting a finger to deal with the doubt and misgivings of students about the founding narrative. And how they had done nothing to defend the Book of Mormon from the then just emerging rubbish about it not being an authentic history but one does not throw a car away because it has a flat tire. But, they objected, "you challenged Skousen and we thought..." that you were not a believer. Right then and there a picture of me faded and I became good friends with the lot. (That is real authentic bridge building.)

That to me is not "bridge building" but simple LDS living. Forgiving others which includes getting over differences and not prejuding are central tenets to LDS faith and living. "Building bridges" naturally results in living by such standards. By making "bridge building" the central tenets and standards, John Dehlin will, ironically, fail to build any such bridge.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Dr. Midgley, that is very interesting about Grant Palmer. I've not read his book or even seen the podcast, but I've been aware of him, as a critic of the church, as he is often mentioned by other critics. So, John is aware of these problems you pointed out? If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt) it goes way beyond simple inaccuracies. The disaffected have more than enough to deal with in the things that are true, without adding the extra burden of things that are made up, by some critic.

I think it's been over a year ago now at The Blaze a certain HankScram offered praise for Grant Palmer and his works questioning Mormonism. At tha point I knew nothing of Palmer so I went to FAIR. I simply did a "grant palmer" search from within FAIR Wiki and got a hit on five reviews of grant Palmer's book. The reviews really did polverize Palmer's work.At the time I had no idea who louis Midgley was but here's one take acradited to him:

In 1985 a Hofmann forgery known as the Salamander letter became public. Midgley shows how this letter affected Palmer’s faith. When Palmer became aware of the book The Golden Pot, he saw parallels between the Salamander letter and the fictional story. Palmer saw in this connection a secular explanation for the origins of Mormonism.

When the true nature of the Salamander letter as a forgery became known, Palmer was apparently unwilling to rethink his position and thereby remained bereft of faith. He apparently began writing his book during this time, as in 1987 Midgley came into possession of an early draft. Palmer first used the name Paul Pry, Jr., a pseudonym also used by an early anti-Mormon writer active in the 1800s. Midgley indicated that “y hiding behind the name Paul Pry, Palmer signaled his anti-Mormon agenda in the first draft of his book.”⁸

The evidence indicates Palmer turned from his faith based on a Mark Hofmann forgery and E.T.A. Hoffman’s fairy tale, and then wrote this book to justify his new found beliefs. Palmer wrote his book with the goal of publishing it even as he maintained the fiction of being a believer in order to maintain his employment with the Church. He waited until he had retired to bring the book forward for publication. How can this be considered the work of a faithful “insider” in the Church?

http://www.fairlds.o...-mormon-origins

I think Palmer put all his hopes into one salamander basket and when that reputle proved false, I get the sense that Palmer was perhaps too proud and/or unwilling to admit that he placed his faith in essentailly a dumb idol (the Salamander Letter). So when Palmer wrote his book he forlonged, obviously intentially, to include evidence of him being deceived. And, like Dehlin, Palmer sought credibility for merely being a member of the LDS Church.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Darren10

[Kevin Christensen]

It is almost always more than one issue. Often the accumulation is really what finally creates the breakdown.

This reminds me of Kuhn. he talks about "accumulation of anomalies" that lead to a break down of the rules for normal research. A rejection of one paradigm is always simultaneously the adoption of another that seems better from that perspective. It's not a matter of facing self-evident facts but of having a model that best accounts for the observations at hand. But Ian Barbour also points out that there are always networks of assumptions involved, and always, a limited set of observations, and always a limiting set of methods and assumptions.. And that rather than reject an overall paradigm, one can often make adjustments within a network of assumptions.

It is important that anomaly can only appear "against a background of expectation," so if it turns out that one's expectations were faulty, and that a more tolerant and robust set of expectations can very often account for the same information that that another set of expectations experiences as anomalous. An expectation of perfection in people immediately sets up imperfection as potentially decisive. Even the appearance of imperfection will do, as Shakespeare's Othello demonstrates in his painful tragedy. Othello does not end after the murder of Desdemonia with a shrug and a comment that, "Well, it was an honest mistake. What else should I have done? Wouldn't you have done the same in my place? You have no right to judge me. Whatever happened to unconditional love and tolerance and free expression?" (If we were to cast the various roles in Othello from the participants in the Dehlin affair, who would play what parts?)

It is one thing to come across something like Mountain Meadows and decide, "God would not let such things happen among his people!" and quite another to ask, "How could such a thing have happened again?" since this sort of thing has happened often enough in human history under specific conditions, that a specific pattern of instigating circumstances and consequent human behavior emerges.

It is one thing to look at the First Vision accounts and say, "I would have expected every account to be identical!' and quite another thing to demonstrate the validity of that expectation against a broad sampling of human behavior.

It's one thing for a person to come across new information and decide "I've been lied to" and another coming across the same information to decide, "Oh.. that's interesting. I did not know that. Either I was not paying attention, or my teachers did not know. I wonder where I can go to find out more so I understand it better?" The information does not interpret itself, any more than a seed plants and nourishes itself.

Or say, if I look at the Ensign full of conference reports, and see "Whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" I could assume that this is an absolute statement, declaring that every LDS authority speaks with the full authority of God's sock puppet. Or I could read the passage in the context of D&C 1 as a whole and see that the God is just saying that he stands by what he says, via whatever transmission medium, but that I expressly should expect that not everything that his servants say is his word, because "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest" and that revelation is not done, complete, and on the shelf, but ongoing. And it's easy to go further and look at why a person might want to believe that their authority figures are all knowing and perfect and would never ever disappoint them in any way. That is one of the reasons I find the Perry Scheme and Myers-Briggs types so helpful. It lets me appreciate human diversity and gives me a much more tolerant and robust set of expectations.

The whole point of the parable of the sower is that the same seed [word] is not going to produce the same effects in every context. It's not just the self-interpreting list of hot button issues, but the soil, context, protection from predation, and the kinds of care and nurture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Darren10]

If you are asking me to do that because of a previous post, I think you misread it. I spoke directly to Lou, and never referenced you at all. I did not use your name. I don't have to scroll back very far to find comments about palmer or dehlin, by lou. you on the other hand, I don't have a reference in mind, right now.

that said, your executive editor resigned today. you are the chairman of the board at the interpreter. smith's piece was published under your watch, after your review, and following many consequences related to the authorship and editing of the piece. please tell me yourself, whether or not you would like to stand by the assertion made by lou, that you have never published anything about dehlin.

if lou is right, that means you allow things to be written, and posted on a blog, and that your name is not associated with it in any way. perhaps that is your position. if it is, i suspect there will be a few more on your team that might look for an exit strategy. without your support, or your willingness to attach your reputation and name to anything published by your group, they may need to consider different leadership. just sayin, "the buck stops with smith," is not a real powerful position.

I'm sure there's been responses to this post by now, Mayan Elephant, but here's my take.

You're correct in that you have not spoken about Dan Peterson but Lou did. He did so because both Dan and him (Lou) have been criticized for a paper neither wrote nor commissioned to be written regarding John Dehlin and Mormon Stories. Also, what Peterson did at the Interpreter is get Greg Smith's permission to publich his article on John Dehlin and Mormon Stories after being berayted by John Dehlin and called upon directly by John Dehlin to hae that paper published. Neither Dan nor Lou have said or written much at all, and perhaps next to nothing if not anything at all regarding John Dehlin and Mormon Stories before this article was published. I think that's what Lou was getting at in his #91 post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60186-the-dehlin-affair%e2%80%93the-current-uncivil-war/page__st__80#entry1209231405

[pmccombs1]

Who is this John Dehlin fellow that gets so much air time in this forum?

The man must be a first-rate trouble maker.

[Calm]

I think Palmer put all his hopes into one salamander basket and when that reputle proved false, I get the sense that Palmer was perhaps too proud and/or unwilling to admit that he placed his faith in essentailly a dumb idol (the Salamander Letter).

The Golden Pot claim was the only original idea that Palmer had, IIRC. When the alleged link to Joseph Smith was destroyed by being declared a forgery, for some reason he could not let go of the claim. In order to bolster it, he filled his work with other nonoriginal claims that would result in the same conclusion...Joseph made it up one way or another without requiring much rigor in determining how to use his sources.

Perhaps the best thing one might say of Palmer's book was that it is pretty much a one stop to pick up all of the foundational criticisms you might be interested in.

[Calm]

Who is this John Dehlin fellow that gets so much air time in this forum?

The man must be a first-rate trouble maker.

He is a man who has stated he leads more people out of the Church than into it. For those who love the faith and want others to enjoy in its gifts, this is troubling.

[Glenn101]

This may be going out in left field here, way out there but here goes...the Book of Mormon, is very bible centered, KJV centered. Could it be they are getting a witness that the Bible is true? If they prayed about the D & C first would they get that same witness?

I don't know. We are not given the promise that we will receive a testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price if we pray about it. We are given that promise about the Book of Mormon.

I don't really think that when a person prays about the Book of Mormon they are actually receiving a revelation that the Bible is true. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon is unique in its time and is promoted as coming forth by the power and authority of God. Of course when the Book of Mormon is presented to prospective converts in this era, especially in foreign countries, those people probably are not aware of its history and the controversy surrounding it.

I do believe that all too many of our current converts never really receive that convincing spiritual testimony but arewon over in their hearts by the sincerity of the missionaries, the warmth and friendliness that they find in the wards and branches, and maybe because the message strikes a chord with them, answers something within that they may have not known until it was stirred by the message they received.

I don't think that most members of the church realize how hard it is to really acquire an unshakeable testimony. Those who are raised in the church and the converts are not taught how hard they must work to strengthen that grain of faith that they have at baptism. They need to understand that just going to church faithfully, praying dutifully, accepting callings dutifully does not in and of itself build that testimony, although they do help. For most people, the unshakeable testimony does not happen in one great burst of enlightenment. It is a process, a progression that involves constant study, pondering and praying "with real intent". That is what has happened to me, although I have had a couple of personal spiritual experiences which have solidified that testimony. But I know that if I do not stay with it, the imprints of those experiences can fade until they are no longer relevant and more easily dismissed.

That did happen to me one time in my life. I had drifted far away until something happened that brought me to my knees. I received the second spiritual experience then that brought into remembrance the first. I know that I must remain diligent, endure to the end, in order to continue to progress with my testimony. I think that is the case with everyone.

Glenn

[Darren10]

.

How about if someone determines Mormonism is false. Is that a legitimate reason?

That's part of the point: no one has proven Mormonism false.

[Calm]

That's part of the point: no one has proven Mormonism false.

Generically speaking perhaps, but for themselves....many have done so.