John Dehlin Morphs Into Grant Palmer.

[Kenngo1969]

Also, when Palmer first came out to expose some unnamed leader, speaking on his behalf or whatever it was, I thought he had indicated that this leader was of the opinion that a number of other high profile authorities also did not believe.  Can't remember if Mattson suggested that after he came out, though.

Yeah ... like everybody in the Twelve ... except for "poor Dieter" (my term).  It took him longer to catch on that the Church of Jesus Christ is a fraud because he was an outsider.

[Calm]

What blog is this?

FairBlog "these are our sisters"

[Kenngo1969]

Ha!  I am faster than the WikiWonka!  I am impressed.

No offense, but the way you "cyber-read" minds actually is kinda creepy, if you ask me!   

 

[Kenngo1969]

I think we should clear up one thing. Dehlin does not have "followers." 

 

There are plenty of subtle ways one can encourage someone else to follow him, on the one hand, without saying, "Do this," or "Follow me," on the other hand.  Even if Brother Dehlin isn't doing the latter, that doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't doing the former.

 

Now, that we've cleared that up, you can continue to decide amongst yourselves whether he should be a member of Christ's family (good luck with that one).

 

Provided he does not actively establish his own channels and/or promote his own views that are contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ, he's always welcome, in my book.  While it may not be the place of anyone who is not his bishop and/or his stake president to decide his standing in the Church, a listener needs to evaluate what he says and what he does and what his motives and methods are (which are discernible, to a considerable extent, by what he says and what he does) to determine what to do, if anything, with the information he provides.

[Scott Lloyd]

Having listened to the meeting that was part of it, it definitely was a big deal for some.

I have read the transcript of the unauthorized recording of the meeting, and I agree it is a big deal for some.

Perhaps what is meant is that the public focus on it, including Mattsson's drawing attention to it, has given it a larger-than-life status that is not reflected in the attitude of the typical Church member in Sweden.

I strongly suspect (and hope) that is the case.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Okrahomer]

Arrgh! You are correct. When I corrected David T's spelling (he used sen instead of son) I meant to include the double s.

 

As a returned missionary who served in Sweden, I should and do know that as well as I know how to spell my own name.

 

It stems from the Swedish patronymic form, when one's surname was formed from the given name of one's father, i.e. son of Matt, or Matt's son, or, in Swedish, Mattsson. That is why all the son constructions in Swedish names have a double s.

 

I thank you for the correction, even though I am chagrined.

 

Don't be chagrined...but do be thanked for helping me understand how Swedish surnames are constructed.  I have spent some time in Sweden and remember it as a very beautiful country.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Okrahomer

[Tacenda]

I want there to be a place for doubters and cultural Mormons as well. But I don't think they can campaign to change the doctrine and gospel. I would welcome John to church with me any time, but the second he takes it upon himself to be a prophet and goes against the divine order of things I would remind him that is not his stewardship.

I see a problem with having the doubters and cultural Mormons stay involved in the church.  I've seen quotes of several that will give lessons or talks in church that lean in favor of their doubting and think they are going to change things from the inside out.  So it can cause a dichotomy of sorts.  Thus, the members listening will tend to believe what is said because sublimely they believe that whomever is talking to them have the authority just by virtue that they have been called to speak in Sacrament or have been called to teach.  Maybe more are able to discern, but some may be like I have been and internalize what has been said as truth. 

 

So as much as I'd like to see a big tent approach, I see the possibility that a wolf in sheep's clothing can occur.  The only way it would work is if someone is labeled a certain way, for the members that differ in their belief to come right out at the beginning of the talk or lesson and say they disagree with some things and want to add their two cents.  That's the only way I approve of the doubters being in the church and not of the church.  That's why I turned down the calling to teach but just help in class.  I didn't want to tarnish anyone's belief.  Of course I'm still on the fence, the ultimate fence sitter, and not everyone in the church knows this, but the minute I teach a lesson or give a talk, I'll let my audience know of those doubts. 

[stemelbow]

I see a problem with having the doubters and cultural Mormons stay involved in the church.  I've seen quotes of several that will give lessons or talks in church that lean in favor of their doubting and think they are going to change things from the inside out.  So it can cause a dichotomy of sorts.  Thus, the members listening will tend to believe what is said because sublimely they believe that whomever is talking to them have the authority just by virtue that they have been called to speak in Sacrament or have been called to teach.  Maybe more are able to discern, but some may be like I have been and internalize what has been said as truth. 

 

So as much as I'd like to see a big tent approach, I see the possibility that a wolf in sheep's clothing can occur.  The only way it would work is if someone is labeled a certain way, for the members that differ in their belief to come right out at the beginning of the talk or lesson and say they disagree with some things and want to add their two cents.  That's the only way I approve of the doubters being in the church and not of the church.  That's why I turned down the calling to teach but just help in class.  I didn't want to tarnish anyone's belief.  Of course I'm still on the fence, the ultimate fence sitter, and not everyone in the church knows this, but the minute I teach a lesson or give a talk, I'll let my audience know of those doubts. 

 

It's weird to me that we're so scared.  WE're a terrified people it seems.  We want to throw people out because they may potentially impact another person's thoughts? 

 

I simply can't stand this mindset.  I grant that there is some reasoning behind it, but I find it unhelpful on the whole.  Big tent would mean, yes, some guy in elder's quorum is going to disagree with some of the dogmatic things that is preached in the manuals, and he'll be free to say so.  Without saying so, other's won't be able to hear it, determine if there is a way to address the concern. 

 

Sorry, if this came off harsh, but it's frustrating we're so afraid.  I want to see openness, appreciation, love, long-suffering.  That's what I want to be a part of.  Not dogmatic, robotic teaching.  Not scared and fearful isolation.  Leave me out of that.  If that's where we go with Church I'm out.

[Tacenda]

It's weird to me that we're so scared.  WE're a terrified people it seems.  We want to throw people out because they may potentially impact another person's thoughts? 

 

I simply can't stand this mindset.  I grant that there is some reasoning behind it, but I find it unhelpful on the whole.  Big tent would mean, yes, some guy in elder's quorum is going to disagree with some of the dogmatic things that is preached in the manuals, and he'll be free to say so.  Without saying so, other's won't be able to hear it, determine if there is a way to address the concern. 

 

Sorry, if this came off harsh, but it's frustrating we're so afraid.  I want to see openness, appreciation, love, long-suffering.  That's what I want to be a part of.  Not dogmatic, robotic teaching.  Not scared and fearful isolation.  Leave me out of that.  If that's where we go with Church I'm out.

I'm talking of those that are staying only for their loved ones, or their hearts are not in it or those that mock the church.  And those that don't like the current doctrine and feel it should be changed.  I'm probably not like you, I don't know if I'd like to stay in the church unless certain things happen.  But someone like you, by all means, be "in" the church.  I'm sorry if I've discounted you and others like you. 

 

I'd like to see that church you speak of,  but until it happens, I feel like I need to stay out of their (members) conversations because they are happy with it like it is.  I think John Dehlin actually started a group recently, I'd have to go find the link, of people that meet together almost like a church.  This is semi recent but it may have fizzled.  When I first saw it I was taken back.  I thought for sure that would get Dehlin ex'd.  It almost sounded like they started another church setting.  Do you know about this?  This might be the reason people started it, because they feel the way you do.  So yes, the big tent would be a Godsend to them.  But I just don't see it happening, especially if you believe conversation on other boards, with doubters that feel the church is being more black and white, with a "believe it or you're out!" kind of approach.      

[David T]

No. In his tall tales, Palmer has alleged secret meetings with a prominent General Authority (not an Area Seventy), one who is still serving.

 

By the way, there is no such thing as an "emeritus Area Seventy." Mattsson (note the correct Swedish spelling) was mistaken when he identified himself as such. Area Seventies, after they have served for a period, are simply released, as with other Church callings. Emeritus status is only given to members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, after they have reached age 70.

 

 

 But the correct spelling actually appears to be:  Mattsson--with a double "t" as well as a double "s".  (From his sustaining during April 2002 General Conference.)

 

Corrections noted and appreciated.

[wenglund]

Sheeples? How ironic? I believe that's what a lot of them would call us. Considering that many of us are wearing the exact same underclothing at this very moment, we might want to keep this type of name-calling to a minimum.

 

Great advice...and I truly appreciate this modern example of the mote and beam.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rongo]

" Mattsson (note the correct Swedish spelling) was mistaken when he identified himself as such. Area Seventies, after they have served for a period, are simply released, as with other Church callings. 

Is Mattsson completely inactive, mildly inactive, active? Is he suffering doubt issues over fundamentals (like the existence of God, the atonement, etc.)?

 

Anyone know where he currently is at?

[Buzzard]

Is Mattsson completely inactive, mildly inactive, active? Is he suffering doubt issues over fundamentals (like the existence of God, the atonement, etc.)?

 

Anyone know where he currently is at?

Last I had heard (and I have not followed his situation closely), he retired to Spain, and was still active. 

[mormonnewb]

It's weird to me that we're so scared. We're a terrified people it seems. We want to throw people out because they may potentially impact another person's thoughts?

I simply can't stand this mindset. I grant that there is some reasoning behind it, but I find it unhelpful on the whole. Big tent would mean, yes, some guy in elder's quorum is going to disagree with some of the dogmatic things that is preached in the manuals, and he'll be free to say so. Without saying so, other's won't be able to hear it, determine if there is a way to address the concern.

Sorry, if this came off harsh, but it's frustrating we're so afraid. I want to see openness, appreciation, love, long-suffering. That's what I want to be a part of. Not dogmatic, robotic teaching. Not scared and fearful isolation. Leave me out of that. If that's where we go with Church I'm out.

Brother, I hear you. But I wouldn't expect the leadership of this church (or any church) to foment dissent. That is our job.

Also, I find that the fear to speak up is largely self-induced. As "unorthodox" as I am, my local leaders have called me to teach and even to speak at stake conference. I've even spoken twice at the Lord's Law School -- ASU (just a playful jab to my BYU peeps).

Now, I must confess that very few members possess my disarming wit, devilish good looks and becoming modesty. And even fewer have my Get Of Counsel Of Love Free card -- being black. Let's face it. This church would need a VERY good reason to throw out one of its eight or so African-American members.

All of that being said, I think that we "oddballs" tend to silence ourselves; and to the detriment of fellow members. For example, whenever I feel moved to share on Open Mic Sunday (first Sunday), I invariably receive an e-mail or two from someone thanking me for saying what they've been thinking for years.

Of course, I get my share of dirty looks from the more, shall we say, "seasoned" members, but even they have welcomed me into the fold. In fact, some of the "scowlers" were amongst the first people to show up when my wife and I received our endowments.

In short, the tent is larger than we may realize.

Edited March 28, 2014 by mormonnewb

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Brother, I hear you. But I wouldn't expect the leadership of this church (or any church) to foment dissent. That is our job.

Also, I find that the fear to speak up is largely self-induced. As "unorthodox" as I am, my local leaders have called me to teach and even to speak at stake conference. I've even spoken twice at the Lord's Law School -- ASU (just a playful jab to my BYU peeps).

Now, I must confess that very few members possess my disarming wit, devilish good looks and becoming modesty. And even fewer have my Get Of Counsel Of Love Free card -- being black. Let's face it. This church would need a VERY good reason to throw out one of its eight or so African-American members.

All of that being said, I think that we "oddballs" tend to silence ourselves; and to the detriment of fellow members. For example, whenever I feel moved to share on Open Mic Sunday (first Sunday), I invariably receive an e-mail or two from someone thanking me for saying what they've been thinking for years.

Of course, I get my share of dirty looks from the more, shall we say, "seasoned" members, but even they have welcomed me into the fold. In fact, some of the "scowlers" were amongst the first people to show up when my wife and I received our endowments.

In short, the tent is larger than we may realize.

Love that!

Edited March 28, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Calm]

 

 

Sorry, if this came off harsh, but it's frustrating we're so afraid.  I want to see openness, appreciation, love, long-suffering.  That's what I want to be a part of.  Not dogmatic, robotic teaching.  Not scared and fearful isolation.  Leave me out of that.  If that's where we go with Church I'm out.

But a big tent open, appreciative, loving and longsuffering approach is going to have to include those who are at a place where they experience fear for whatever reason.  There is a good reason why many people have fear in their lives and those of us who don't at the moment should be very grateful it isn't us (for now at least) and understanding of those who do, imo, rather than resentful that we have to alter our lives to take into account how others feel.

Edited March 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

Brother, I hear you. But I wouldn't expect the leadership of this church (or any church) to foment dissent. That is our job.

Also, I find that the fear to speak up is largely self-induced. As "unorthodox" as I am, my local leaders have called me to teach and even to speak at stake conference. I've even spoken twice at the Lord's Law School -- ASU (just a playful jab to my BYU peeps).

Now, I must confess that very few members possess my disarming wit, devilish good looks and becoming modesty. And even fewer have my Get Of Counsel Of Love Free card -- being black. Let's face it. This church would need a VERY good reason to throw out one of its eight or so African-American members.

All of that being said, I think that we "oddballs" tend to silence ourselves; and to the detriment of fellow members. For example, whenever I feel moved to share on Open Mic Sunday (first Sunday), I invariably receive an e-mail or two from someone thanking me for saying what they've been thinking for years.

Of course, I get my share of dirty looks from the more, shall we say, "seasoned" members, but even they have welcomed me into the fold. In fact, some of the "scowlers" were amongst the first people to show up when my wife and I received our endowments.

In short, the tent is larger than we may realize.

 

 

You are so right.  I most recently taught elder's quorum.  I got the dirty looks, the disapproval, the comments, and the tattle telling.  But in the end, I was happy to speak out and say what I felt on many of the topics we discuss.  I seemed to get more support overall, more appreciation.

[mormonnewb]

You are so right.  I most recently taught elder's quorum.  I got the dirty looks, the disapproval, the comments, and the tattle telling.  But in the end, I was happy to speak out and say what I felt on many of the topics we discuss.  I seemed to get more support overall, more appreciation.

Yep! Yep!

The challenge is to make sure that we stay the "loyal" opposition. My model for this is J. Golden Kimball. He would (humorously) blast the church leaders, but he would be the first one out in the mission field. Likewise, I TRY to be the first person to volunteer for cleaning the temple or working on the farm, so that my brothers and sisters know that I'm "down for the cause."

[Duncan]

Yep! Yep!

The challenge is to make sure that we stay the "loyal" opposition. My model for this is J. Golden Kimball. He would (humorously) blast the church leaders, but he would be the first one out in the mission field. Likewise, I TRY to be the first person to volunteer for cleaning the temple or working on the farm, so that my brothers and sisters know that I'm "down for the cause."

 

 

that's the difference though, Elder Kimball was loyal and not trying to lead anyone away from the presiding brethren

[stemelbow]

that's the difference though, Elder Kimball was loyal and not trying to lead anyone away from the presiding brethren

 

I don't think anyone is saying we do that, necessarily.