Dehlin's Latest Hypothesis

[rockpond]

Their problem is now basically just what to criticize the church about. There is really not much that they can now criticize. The church is being much more open about their history, going back to the way things were before the late 80s. So, what is left for them to be critical about? Only the semantics. Thus, john is grasping at straws to find something to write about, to find his justification for his possible attitude toward the lds church.

Grasping at straws? Which part of the OP's Dehlin quote do you disagree with?

[rockpond]

But then returned and we all waited iwith baited breath just what he would now do when he returned to activity. And now we know.

What do we now know?

[USU78]

What do we now know?

Same ol' same ol'

[Tacenda]

Their problem is now basically just what to criticize the church about. There is really not much that they can now criticize. The church is being much more open about their history, going back to the way things were before the late 80s. So, what is left for them to be critical about? Only the semantics. Thus, john is grasping at straws to find something to write about, to find his justification for his possible attitude toward the lds church.

How about the New Essays? It appears to have dried up and the essays presented, still hidden. That's a current beef, so plenty to talk about still. Also, why aren't people like Dehlin being ex'd if he's so bad, what's up with that, why is the church afraid of him and others? It didn't use to be that way. Edited April 30, 2014 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

Anyone familiar with Dehlin's tactics has seen abundant evidence of his intentions.

From what I've seen, Dehlin's intentions have changed back and forth with his activity / inactivity cycle.  He started out trying to help find faithful answers for those with questions since he was trying to stay in the church himself.  Then he got fed up and left the church and leaned more towards exposing things in the church and getting others to leave with him.  Then he went back to church and said that he was hoping to be able to motivate the leaders to make changes from the inside out as an active member.  I do think that he had the ear(s) of some of the GA and they did listen to some of what he had to say.  

 

But now again, he seems bitter about somethings and feels he's been treated poorly in his ward, etc.  I don't know the details, but he does seem to be an honest guy who just can't decide where he falls with his feelings about the church.  He loves the community (but that may have changed with these recent events).  I don't know what his wife and kids feel about attending church and that probably has influence on his decisions too.

 

What I do know is that he has a huge following (facebook and elsewhere) who listens to and reads everything he says.  I also believe the church leaders still take note of what he says.  But who knows how much influence he's really had?

 

His most recent cause seems to be changing the manner in which some of the youth (girls and boys) are asked intimate questions alone with an adult male (Bishop) behind closed doors and some are encouraging him to go to the press about it.  

 

Maybe I'll start a thread to discuss that on here and post what he's written about it.   

Edited April 30, 2014 by ALarson

[rockpond]

Same ol' same ol'

So you're just casting aspersions?

Nice.

[why me]

How about the New Essays? It appears to have dried up and the essays presented, still hidden. That's a current beef, so plenty to talk about still. Also, why aren't people like Dehlin being ex'd if he's so bad, what's up with that, why is the church afraid of him and others? It didn't use to be that way.

I think that the church has become more tolerant of dissenters since the arrival of the internet. Also, why would he be exed? He has done nothing to be exed about. And what about the essays? Why is the lds church the only church that needs to explain its history? I know of no other church that is required to present its history and its interpretation of past events. The whole thing reeks of smelly strawmen. I think that the lds church should rest its case on what it has brought to the world and no one can say that it has brought evil on the world. Just the opposite. And people like john just need to recognize the goodness that the church has given to the world if many in the world would follow its advice, esepcially about alcohol use and tobacco.

[Brian 2.0]

Anyone familiar with Dehlin's tactics has seen abundant evidence of his intentions.

Being very familiar myself with his "tactics" I see his intentions being trying to make "big tent Mormonism". I don't see him trying to tear the church down, but be a voice calling for change.

It's up to you if you want to call that nefarious.

[Bikeemikey]

Clearly unfounded attacks upon the Church and its leaders are.

Regards,

Pahoran

So lets be bad like them...

[rockpond]

Why is the lds church the only church that needs to explain its history? I know of no other church that is required to present its history and its interpretation of past events. The whole thing reeks of smelly strawmen. I think that the lds church should rest its case on what it has brought to the world...

 

The Church doesn't have to publish those essays but I believe the Brethren are trying to stop (or slow) the membership loss.

[stemelbow]

There's plenty of room to have more than one reason. The Church typically doesn't make changes for one reason on anything. I'd say that is probably one reason the Church made the change for missionary age. It's not like there's anything wrong with that.

[why me]

The Church doesn't have to publish those essays but I believe the Brethren are trying to stop (or slow) the membership loss.

Well, this is probably true. The critics seem to use lds history to their own benefit under the notion that the lds history should be perfect and that the church hides its history. However, I have no idea just what that means: the church hides its history. I know of no other faith that tells its members its history covering all interpretations and controversies. But the lds church is certainly singled out by the critics. Why? Because no history is perfect since it is human beings who create history.

[rockpond]

Well, this is probably true. The critics seem to use lds history to their own benefit under the notion that the lds history should be perfect and that the church hides its history. However, I have no idea just what that means: the church hides its history. I know of no other faith that tells its members its history covering all interpretations and controversies. But the lds church is certainly singled out by the critics. Why? Because no history is perfect since it is human beings who create history.

 

I believe it's because our truth claims are rooted in our history.  So it matters to people.  I know that is also true of the Catholic church but their "historical truth claims" are so much older that it becomes more difficult to argue it one way or the other.  The events that shape our restoration are just 200 years old.

 

But, I also think that you are oversimplifying but saying that it is just about the history.  The race and the priesthood article/issue, for example, is about far more than history.

[mormonnewb]

Well, this is probably true. The critics seem to use lds history to their own benefit under the notion that the lds history should be perfect and that the church hides its history. However, I have no idea just what that means: the church hides its history. I know of no other faith that tells its members its history covering all interpretations and controversies. But the lds church is certainly singled out by the critics. Why? Because no history is perfect since it is human beings who create history.

 

I agree with you (surprise) that no other church is put under such pressure about its past history.  For example, when I was a Baptist, we never ONCE asked church leaders to "come clean" about the actions of the Anabaptists in Munster and elsewhere during the early days of the Reformation.  It wasn't even an issue.

 

However, the Baptists also weren't claiming that they were the "one true Church" to whom HF restored ALL priesthood authority because none of the other churches could be trusted with it due to their errors and wickedness.  In short, I think we've set ourselves up for heightened scrutiny because our belief in a Great Apostasy logically implies that HF could withdraw priesthood authority again if His "current" Church strays from the path.  In short, it goes with the territory and unless we're willing to relinquish our exclusive claim to priesthood authority, we're going to have to remain under the spotlight.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So what did he say that was so wrong?  I've been told for years now by active believing members of the church that the most important convert is the missionary.  It's clear that RMs are more likely to remain active and marry in the temple.  I also thought it was common knowledge that the Church lowered the missionary age to increase the number of missionaries and eliminate (for men) the year after high school where a portion of the young men were falling away and not serving missions.   Obviously the Church wants the missionaries to gain converts, but this may be secondary to creating a foundation for lifelong membership in the Church.

Funny thing is that most people I know that fell away from the church were RMs. I have 3 people I know of that are good friends of mine that did not serve missions and were fairly inactive. Once they got married they changed and all 3 of them went to the temple. 2 of them after the civil marriage.

 

On the other side I know of about 5 people that were RM's that fell away.

 

I would like to think that going on a mission increases activity but I am not sure. Has there actually been any studies done on this? My anecdotal evidence tells me other wise. 

Edited April 30, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[why me]

I believe it's because our truth claims are rooted in our history.  So it matters to people.  I know that is also true of the Catholic church but their "historical truth claims" are so much older that it becomes more difficult to argue it one way or the other.  The events that shape our restoration are just 200 years old.

 

But, I also think that you are oversimplifying but saying that it is just about the history.  The race and the priesthood article/issue, for example, is about far more than history.

All christian claims are rooted in history. For example, christ is rooted in history. The new testament is also history, written much after the main event. Catholic history matters very little to most catholics. They either attend church or not attend church. But they are not threatened over their history. This just seems to be a lds thing, propagated by the critics because it works for them.

[why me]

I agree with you (surprise) that no other church is put under such pressure about its past history.  For example, when I was a Baptist, we never ONCE asked church leaders to "come clean" about the actions of the Anabaptists in Munster and elsewhere during the early days of the Reformation.  It wasn't even an issue.

 

However, the Baptists also weren't claiming that they were the "one true Church" to whom HF restored ALL priesthood authority because none of the other churches could be trusted with it due to their errors and wickedness.  In short, I think we've set ourselves up for heightened scrutiny because our belief in a Great Apostasy logically implies that HF could withdraw priesthood authority again if His "current" Church strays from the path.  In short, it goes with the territory and unless we're willing to relinquish our exclusive claim to priesthood authority, we're going to have to remain under the spotlight.

I am sure that the baptists don't claim that they are not the true church. No, this is a mormon critic thing. They have managed to put the conversation with the history. The baptists became the baptists because they thought that they could do it better. The catholics and the orthodox also make a 'truth' claim for their religion.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am sure that the baptists don't claim that they are not the true church. No, this is a mormon critic thing. They have managed to put the conversation with the history. The baptists became the baptists because they thought that they could do it better. The catholics and the orthodox also make a 'truth' claim for their religion.

We are a church that claims Prophets and Apostles after the biblical manner. We claim a restoration actually occurred, with angelic visitations, priesthood restoration etc. We claim that our founding Prophet had a set of gold plates, and translated a historical record that actually happened.

 

President Hinckley said:

It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.

 

These are very strong historical claims that are unique to this church. We claim a falling away and a restoration. Protestants claim authority from the bible. Catholics claim authority from the original church fathers. The foundation of these church claims rely on such things as Jesus' existence, resurrection and mission. They rely on the reliability of the gospel record and they rely on the authenticity of the epistles in the bible. If you think that Christianity has not been attacked on the historicity of Christ, his sayings and his mission, you have not been paying attention.

[rockpond]

All christian claims are rooted in history. For example, christ is rooted in history. The new testament is also history, written much after the main event. Catholic history matters very little to most catholics. They either attend church or not attend church. But they are not threatened over their history. This just seems to be a lds thing, propagated by the critics because it works for them.

Again, there is a difference between 2,000 year old truth claims and 200 year old truth claims. Also, there is the nature of the claims -- SeekingUnderstanding did a great job of explaining that so I won't try to repeat it here.

Also, it's not just about the history, it's about troubling claims (some of which were only recently abandoned) of what God told us to do such as preventing a race of people from having access to saving ordinances.

[Pahoran]

So lets be bad like them...

Not really.

It's more a glass houses/stones thing.

But as far as Mister Dehlin is concerned: he's a self-constructed, self-serving public figure. He generates Mormon-related controversies virtually ex nihilo and places himself firmly in the middle of them. He flatly contradicts the leaders of the Church and expects his little following of NOM's and MINO's to listen to him in preference to them.

Questioning his activities and agenda is entirely appropriate.

And there is simply no question that Mister Dehlin is an actively proselytizing apostate. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that he isn't being up front about what he's really trying to achieve.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Brian 2.0]

And there is simply no question that Mister Dehlin is an actively proselytizing apostate. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that he isn't being up front about what he's really trying to achieve.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

What qualifies someone as an apostate?

 

Is there a set line on this?  I tried to look up definitions on lds.org but failed to find any.

[Brian 2.0]

Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that he isn't being up front about what he's really trying to achieve.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

also... CFR.

 

Shouldn't be hard as there is an abundance of it.

[Storm Rider]

I agree with you (surprise) that no other church is put under such pressure about its past history.  For example, when I was a Baptist, we never ONCE asked church leaders to "come clean" about the actions of the Anabaptists in Munster and elsewhere during the early days of the Reformation.  It wasn't even an issue.

 

However, the Baptists also weren't claiming that they were the "one true Church" to whom HF restored ALL priesthood authority because none of the other churches could be trusted with it due to their errors and wickedness.  In short, I think we've set ourselves up for heightened scrutiny because our belief in a Great Apostasy logically implies that HF could withdraw priesthood authority again if His "current" Church strays from the path.  In short, it goes with the territory and unless we're willing to relinquish our exclusive claim to priesthood authority, we're going to have to remain under the spotlight.

 

Newb, you do have a way of spinning the subject. Tone matters; the way things are discussed matters. How effective would it be if we discussed the Catholic Eucharist only in terms of, "Oh yeah, that is where they all get together in a cannibalistic celebration where instead of eating each other they eat their god."  There is a kernel of truth to such a statement, but it completely undermines the value of their doctrine. Yet, you do this consistently about your own Church...strange.

 

We do not teach that God could not trust others with the priesthood, what we teach and believe is that other churches closed their hearts to God and began to create and value the doctrines of men rather than of God. Wickedness? I suppose one could say this, but it has a lot to do with pride, having itching ears, or attempting to satisfy difficult questions. For example, if a religion is monotheistic how does God have a son? If we teach that he does have a son and we teach that the son is divine, how are we still monotheistic? Humans are good at finding that which satisfies and the evil one does everything he can to find those substitutes of truth. 

 

We are our own worst enemy and we create our own hell. Many of the criticisms the Church endures today is the direct result of leaders who spoke carelessly or who created policies that had nothing to do with revelation. I agree with you, the priesthood is given and withdrawn from individuals. The keys to the priesthood are another matter.

[Pahoran]

What qualifies someone as an apostate?

 

Is there a set line on this?  I tried to look up definitions on lds.org but failed to find any.

 

Open rebellion against the Church and its leaders.

 

also... CFR.

 

Shouldn't be hard as there is an abundance of it.

 

See any of his self-promoting podcasts.

 

For example, his recent "The Ally Within" talk, wherein he marketed himself as the Mormon Vidkun Quisling to the Church's "gay" enemies.

 

You're welcome.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 1, 2014 by Pahoran

[why me]

 

 

These are very strong historical claims that are unique to this church. We claim a falling away and a restoration. Protestants claim authority from the bible. Catholics claim authority from the original church fathers. The foundation of these church claims rely on such things as Jesus' existence, resurrection and mission. They rely on the reliability of the gospel record and they rely on the authenticity of the epistles in the bible. If you think that Christianity has not been attacked on the historicity of Christ, his sayings and his mission, you have not been paying attention.

The lutheran church can make the same claim. They came into existence because catholicism fell away from the true god. So, we have martin luther. We also have Knox, Calvin, and Wesley. They all based their claim on the truth. I think that christianity has been attacked by atheists who attempt ot prove christianity false. But i have no knowledge of a general attack on an established church based on its own history to claim that it is false as it has been done with the lds church in such a concerted effort. We can all look at the three men above and find imperfections, but its members don't seem to care because they most likely have an understanding that no human being is perfect.