halconero Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 how are the Maple Laffs doing? hmmmm.... that's what I thought!! I'm from BC. Toronto has no hold on my heart, just my tuition and brain for the next four or so years. 2
why me Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Im fine with the church having members included in our umbrella who think this way. Obviously there should be a limit what roles they can fulfill in the church, but given that baptism is about faith, repentance and loving christ im not sure we should limit baptism to only those who believe the BOM to be historical. Edit: Perhaps this should be its own spin off thread.I think that it would be rather difficult to be in a ward where half the members believed that Joseph wrote the book of mormon and the other half believed it was a religious text from ancient prophets. How would such a ward function. Then if we would include women becoming priests and a third believed it was okay and the rest didn't, I just can't see such a ward functioning. How to chose teachers? And testimony meetings? It would certainly be a crazy ward with all that going on.
Duncan Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I'm from BC. Toronto has no hold on my heart, just my tuition and brain for the next four or so years. I know where you're from!!!!hahha!
why me Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) "The Book of Mormon is fiction. There is no other plausible explanation (in my view). Joseph (along with whomever) simply made it up. We believe(d) it largely because our parents and/or social groups taught and/or pressured us to believe in it. Any time spent trying to legitimize the historicity of the Book of Mormon is a fool's errand. You may as well try to locate Narnia or Mordor. Those who insist on historicity do so (primarily) for social reasons, again in my view - even if they aren't aware of that fact. The book simply isn't credible from any perspective other than a social and/or emotional perspective....and even from those perspectives, mileage will vary."Published today. Any comments? Not surprising in my view.If this is a recent quotation from John, I would probably think that the GA who interfered with Greg's piece must be having nightmares. John is flip flopping all over the place. However, he is now losing is credibility and if this quotation is recent, we need to feel sorry for him. Those of us who have known of him for years can see a problem that he has with the church as he flips and flops here and there. That is of course if this quotation is recent. I hope that it isn't. If it is, I am not sure what to make of it since he only recently came back to church. I do think that the church needs to be of one mind when it comes to the book of mormon. The church could never survive if half its active members believed that it is fiction and publically made it clear. Edited March 30, 2014 by why me
Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 for sure, like for me I am supposed to report to a man on the High Council who is Catholic. he attends our Church but also attends the Catholic Church with his wife and he told the elders he likes our Church for the friends and activities and whatnot, like great and all but give me a breakWhat in the world is he doing on the high council? Definitely taking the "big tent" thing too far! Does your stake president know about this?
Brian 2.0 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Soooo... You missed the "published today" part? "Published yesterday" means nothing in relation to when the quote was. Whatever was published today, if anything, could have contained this quote form him from long ago. Say the supposed "hit piece" was what was behind published... I'm sure that contains quotes from John form long ago. Either way... we now have had 4 CFRs on the quote with no response yet. I also googled various phrases form the aledged quote and the ONLY result that comes up is THIS thread. I'm not saying John didn't say it, I'm saying a reference is definitely in order before people starting maligning the man. Edited March 30, 2014 by Brian 2.0
Duncan Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 What in the world is he doing on the high council? Definitely taking the "big tent" thing too far! Does your stake president know about this? that I am not sure of, my Stake clerk bro. knows, all the missionaries in our ward know, the Bishop knows. One elder called them a couple of months ago to invite them to an activity and he got rebuffed, 'you have your thing and we have ours' and yet he does his calling. I honestly don't get it, I have complained to the Stake President about him but that was before I knew of his Catholic connection. I kind of think...that he and a few others have those callings to keep them active, which is sad but it is what it is. One thing I know if is he a SMOOTH talker and I think he likes being around "big" people Mormon or not.
Rivers Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 There are certainly those who don`t find the BOM historical, but still find it to be the word of God. Did he qualify what he was saying? Otherwise, as happens too often, it is disappointing. For some ways of interpreting the BOM as having some possible anachronisms or Josephs input, there are some middle areas. Knowing Brother Joseph Again by Karl Sandberg, The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Text by Blake Ostler and more recently David Bokovoy has a chapter in his Authoring the Old Testament about the BOM. They all provide for the book being inspired and the word of God. I don`t know why Grant Palmer or John Dehlin couldn`t adapt one of these theories, but maybe they just don`t believe it is the word of God.A lot of people find those types of theories too convuluted. It can be a lot easier to say that it is all historiecal and true or it is all fraudulent. I am in the camp that leans toward a very loose translation of the Book of Mormon. IMO, that is the only way all of the anachronisms can be explained. This leads me to ask the question of what exaclty was written on the gold plates. I see strong evidence for their existence from the testimonies of witnesses while I also see strong evidenence of Joseph's own language, culture, and worldview incorporated into the translation of the plates. A tight translation of the Book of Mormon would probably be very foreign to us.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 that I am not sure of, my Stake clerk bro. knows, all the missionaries in our ward know, the Bishop knows. One elder called them a couple of months ago to invite them to an activity and he got rebuffed, 'you have your thing and we have ours' and yet he does his calling. I honestly don't get it, I have complained to the Stake President about him but that was before I knew of his Catholic connection. I kind of think...that he and a few others have those callings to keep them active, which is sad but it is what it is. One thing I know if is he a SMOOTH talker and I think he likes being around "big" people Mormon or not. If it were me, I'd definitely be taking it to a higher level. I wouldn't push for kicking him out of the Church, but calling someone as stake high councilor is not a proper instrument for reforming an unbeliever. 2
readstoomuch Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) I actually think that it matters what you mean by fiction or written by Joseph Smith. I am not saying that I think it is fiction, but take the Dialogue article from 1987 by Blake Ostler-The Book of Mormon as Modern Expansion of an Ancient Document. David Bokovoy quotes from that article in his most recent book. It helps explains anachronisms and some of the modern details of the Book of Mormon. Yes, I know that some of the anachronisms have been explained and what some have thought was evidence against it has been weighed differently. Much of David Bokovoy`s book is about higher criticism and the word of God. It is really quite a profound and uplifting book. It is the most original book about theology/doctrine that I have read in a long time. Some people can only hope or want to believe. For whatever reason the spiritual witness does not come. It is obvious to me that not every ancient ruin in Central or South America is from the Book of Mormon and not every book written by a Mormon is factual. I also don`t think this supposed statement from John Dehlin does justice to the Book of Mormon. I think that the truth is somewhere in between those extremes. Poor writing or logic on either end of the spectrum does not explain this miraculous book. Just to further clarify FARMS, FAIR, Maxwell Institute, Teryl GIvens and many others write very good information about the BOM. I enjoy them and have read them. They never quite got me there as far as the BOM. Mix those with some of the writings that I have been bringing up and I feel like I have arrived somewhere in my understanding of the book. Edited March 30, 2014 by readstoomuch
nealr Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) "Published yesterday" means nothing in relation to when the quote was. Whatever was published today, if anything, could have contained this quote form him from long ago. Say the supposed "hit piece" was what was behind published... I'm sure that contains quotes from John form long ago.Either way... we now have had 4 CFRs on the quote with no response yet.I also googled various phrases form the aledged quote and the ONLY result that comes up is THIS thread.I'm not saying John didn't say it, I'm saying a reference is definitely in order before people starting maligning the man.Dude, it is his own Facebook comment, time-stamped March 27, 2014 5:14pm, posted to the Mormon Stores Podcast Community group page (a page closed to those not in the group... I'm not in the group, or else I would have gotten you screen shot). So I'm pretty sure it represents his current thinking, and is not a misrepresentation (unless you think he is misrepresenting himself--which, given who we are dealing with, is not really far fetched, I suppose).EDIT: Adding the link, though if you are not in the group, it won't do you any good (unless you decide to join, just to see this post, I guess):https://www.facebook.com/groups/mormonstories/permalink/775045735840234/?comment_id=775799295764878&offset=0&total_comments=35 Edited March 30, 2014 by nealr 1
Duncan Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 If it were me, I'd definitely be taking it to a higher level. I wouldn't push for kicking him out of the Church, but calling someone as stake high councilor is not a proper instrument for reforming an unbeliever. those are my thoughts exactley!!!! Sadly this is definately not the first time something like this happened in our stake, giving men these callings to reactivate them. I had dinner on thursday with a super nice guy, and his wife and the sisters, who is nominally active. A few years ago They needed him to serve in the YSA Bishopric so they made him a High Priest and so for 3? years served and then he got released and surprise surprise remains nominally active, he comes maybe once every 2-3 months and doesn't always stick around for the full block. Something else too is our Stake patriarch went inactive and so they called another brother. Sometimes the members and leaders just drive me bonkers.
The Nehor Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 He really strikes me as one of those double-minded people who Paul said are unstable in all things.
mormonnewb Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I do think that the church needs to be of one mind when it comes to the book of mormon. The church could never survive if half its active members believed that it is fiction and publically made it clear.Spoiler alert! I'm not sure that I agree.I will grant that (at least for now) the Prophet must believe in the truth of the BoM, but every rank and file member? And how much of it must we believe -- all of it? And the OT and NT too? Do we have to believe in a literal flood encompassing the entire earth? Or that all of creation came into being in 144 hours?As I get older and wider (mostly the latter), I am starting to think some of the OT stories may be parables. We know that Christ taught using parables and he didnt identify them as such. He didn't say, "I'm now going to tell you a fictional story to make a point ..." He would simply say, "There once was a ..." I think that its plausible that HF was doing the same thing with Noah, Jonah, etc.By the way, this doesn't make the OT "fictional" or "made up" by Moses et al. I truly believe it is the inspired word of God, but it doesn't mean that HF attempted to explain the creation of the world in intricate detail to a bunch of people who thought that centrifugal force was the primary weapon in a classic 1970s arcade game (a reference for those 45 yo and up).All of that being said, I would agree that this isn't a view that should be taught by a member in Sunday School, RS or the like. As an EQ instructor, it is my duty to teach the doctrines of the organization on the name of the door, and it is NOT the Church of Mormonnewb of Latter-day Newbs. My views are just that -- mine and if you come to my house, then I MIGHT share them. But when someone comes to the Church, they are there to learn what the Church thinks about the matter.And so that's where I'd draw the line -- members are allowed to believe what we want (and even say so PUBLICLY). But when acting on behalf of the Church in our callings, we must teach the Church's doctrines. A member who attempts to use their calling in the Church to teach a "false doctrine" has overstepped their bounds and should be called to repentance and then maybe released from the calling, disfellowshipped or worse, put in charge of primary.Thus sayeth the Newb! 3
readstoomuch Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I am in the Mormon Stories Podcast group and I cannot find the quote from the last day or two. It doesn`t mean he didn`t say it. A few days ago he mentioned the historical and scientific problems that are almost insurmountable with the Book of Mormon. My paraphrasing and not my opinion.
readstoomuch Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 i went through them again. There it is, exactly as it is written in the post. It is not a quote from a podcast he gave five years ago or before his recent attempts at coming back to church. It was in response to a post and it was him personally. As he says it is "pure fiction." I don`t get him. Does he read the scriptures or believe in God? He does flip-flop, so I suppose something could change. As I was writing, I thought about how the Church is accused of flip-flopping on doctrines and attitudes. I think John Dehlin is proof that it is a weakness of us mortals.What worries me the most about Dehlin`s comments is that there are newbies fairly often through Mormon Stories. No one really winked an eye after he posted his comment. I have never met any one who personally went to Mormon Stories and came out still active in the Church. I read about some saying it strengthened their faith on the boards. For those I know personally, it seemed to be "Mormon Kryptonite." 1
readstoomuch Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I thought I was always destined to be at odds in some way with Mormonnewb, but I really like what he said above. 1
Tramper Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 https://www.facebook.com/groups/mormonstories/permalink/775045735840234/
Tramper Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 I have a print screen that can verify the quote. John wrote his comment in a thread on Facebook yesterday.
mormonnewb Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 What worries me the most about Dehlin`s comments is that there are newbies fairly often through Mormon Stories. No one really winked an eye after he posted his comment. I have never met any one who personally went to Mormon Stories and came out still active in the Church. I read about some saying it strengthened their faith on the boards. For those I know personally, it seemed to be "Mormon Kryptonite."I'm torn on this point. I certainly wouldn't ever suggest any of the "unofficial" Mormon podcasts (Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, Mormon Expression, Mormon Expositor) to a TBM. In fact, at times, I've had members ask how, as a convert, I know about some of the quirky things of Mormonism (e.g., the three Nephites or that the Holy Spirit goes to sleep at midnight). I NEVER tell them that I heard it on, say, Feminist Mormon Housewives podcast. I caused enough trouble joining the Church in the first place.On the other hand, if someone came to me struggling with a particular issue, I might point them to a particular episode that I found helpful in coming to grips with the issue. For example, Dehlin once did a 4-5 hour interview with an apologist on the historicity of the BoM. The apologist gave answers to the questions of horses, steel, DNA, etc. that might allow the person to hold onto their testimony. Also, John Wotherspoon of Mormon Matters has some really powerful ways of constructing a non-literal understanding of the BoM.Ironically, I am not sure that I'd be in the Church today without these podcasts. Take Dehlin, for example. As I understand it, he did the normal TBM thing (mission, temple marriage, etc.) and ran smack dab into the Internet. He found some way to cobble together some form of testimony and then set up the StayLDS website to try to help others running into these issues. That, to me, says something about Mormons, because when I find, say, a faster way through airport security, I don't set up a website TrickTSA to help others.To make a long story short, this whole process seems to have led him to leave what seemed like a successful IT career to get his doctorate in psychology so that he can help people going through faith crises. You can debate how much "help" these people will get, but it's not debatable that it will be 1,000% more help than they are going to get from me if it means quitting my job and going back to school. I hate to admit, but I wouldn't quit my job to help my own momma through a faith crisis (that's what she gets for looking at anti-Baptist sites on the Internet).Seriously, a part of my testimony of the Church is that it produces people who are so invested in their faith community that they are willing to turn their lives completely upside down in an EFFORT to help them. It also produces people like Wade Englund, so my testimony still needs a little work .(And yes, I'm teasing Wade. We go WAY back ... in disagreeing).
readstoomuch Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I would not be in the church if I hadn't worked through the issues. I did so through book study. Now people podcast or message board. A relative trusts Fawn Brodie because MStories told her it was reliable. It is full of bad research and yet Brodie is very readable. I can't get her to read Rough Stone Rolling. RSR does get air time on MS, but she seems set on Brodie. I looked upevery reference in Brodie. It took me a whole summer to do so. Danel Bachman's thesis on plural marriage helped counter Brodie. It was about the best available, still is a great source. I actually wrote the Church History dept who gave me some honest answers. They sent part of Bachman's thesis and s pamphlet about the Adam God theory by Van Hale. These and orher things they did helped me to feel that they weren't hiding anything. Of course they were sent through my stake president. Grant Palmer gets slot of air time and when I read it I was underwhelmed by his apparent lack of quoting relevant literature that disagreed with. By that time I owned most of the resources he left out. Easy to look up. 20 something's listen to podcasts more than actually reading. Grant Palmer seems to have help bring down a number of members. He Podcasts with John. A few podcasts are good. Maybe 10% on MS. 2
Bikeemikey Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I think that it would be rather difficult to be in a ward where half the members believed that Joseph wrote the book of mormon and the other half believed it was a religious text from ancient prophets. How would such a ward function. Then if we would include women becoming priests and a third believed it was okay and the rest didn't, I just can't see such a ward functioning. How to chose teachers? And testimony meetings? It would certainly be a crazy ward with all that going on. Just follow the policy the church already has... namely calling people to important callings from temple recommend holders.
Bikeemikey Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I have a print screen that can verify the quote. John wrote his comment in a thread on Facebook yesterday. So thus far you have started a thread with a quote attributed to John Dehlin and three pages in still no response to the CFR. Next time include the link to the source in the opening post otherwise you run the risk of posting libel. Thanks.
Recommended Posts