Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[stemelbow]

I can see why faithful Mormons would see John as "hurting" people by exposing them to information that leads to them leaving the Church.  Yet, I simply don't see it that way.  We can only truly exercise our agency when we know the facts.  And that is what John has done -- exposed people to the facts.

 

Now, I do understand that some will argue that John has only shown one side of the facts, but that is simply not true.  He's had faithful Mormons on his podcast to give the apologetic response on such topics as polygamy, BOM historicity, etc.  If, at the end of the day, a saint comes to the conclusion that the Church isn't what it claims to be, then how has Dehlin harmed them?  Was he supposed to not give the facts; many of which facts the Church has disclosed in its own essays over the last year or so.

 

Besides, if Church leaders emphasized the two measures of "truth" taught by Christ himself (our love and our fruit), our testimonies wouldn't be so brittle.

 

For some strange reason, I seem to have a heightened sense of ex-modar.  I can pick out an ex-Mormon at 100 yards.  And amazingly, I tend to constantly find myself in contact with them.  For example, my hairdresser (long story) and my doctor are both ex-Mormons.  We've talked a fair bit about the Church and, even in their eyes, the Church passes both of Christ's tests (our love and fruit).  In fact, I have yet to meet the ex-Mormon who says that Church members on the whole are full of hate and that the Church produces greedy, self-centered and downright evil people.  Just about everyone of these people will be sure to tell you that they have wonderful and kind parents and that they grew up under the authority of kind and loving bishops, YM/YW leaders, primary teachers, etc.

 

Even Dehlin himself has said the same things about the Mormons in his life on several occasions.  Now, sure, on occasion, members get offended and have disputes with other members.  But, by and large, I have yet to find the ex-member who claims that the Mormons who raised and nurtured him/her were evil people who provided terrible examples of how to live life.

 

However, for whatever reason (and despite pretty clear scriptural instruction to the contrary), we teach our kids to base their testimony on amorphous feelings.  Then when they discover real world evidence that would seem to contradict those feelings, they began to doubt those feelings ... as they should.  At present, my 10 yo son has a burning in his tiny little bosom about Santa Claus (yes, 10 yo is a little old for that).  Eventually, he will come across enough real world evidence that will shed considerable doubt on the feasibility of Santa delivering BILLIONS of toys in a single 24-hour period.  Should he simply ignore this evidence and continue believing because he once felt good about it?  Or should my wife and I ban the Internet from our home or perhaps, prevent him from progressing past his current cognitive state in order to shield him from the Santa apostasy?

 

Interestingly, despite the fact that he will soon enough discover that Santa Claus isn't what we claimed him to be, it won't shake his faith in being a Newb.  He will weigh our (well-meaning) deception in this one instance against the wider arc of love that we have shown him and come to the conclusion that the Newbs are true.  Because even my naive boy understands that the value of our family isn't based on the factual accuracy of the tales we tell (thank Heavens!), but rather on the lives we live (the love and the fruit).  Perhaps, we should work to build that understanding amongst the rest of the saints.  In that case, no set of facts (or if you wish, lies and half-truths) about JS, the BOA, or what have you would shake their testimony in the Church (i.e., the ecclesia, the congregation, the people).

Some people believe and want to believe, some people don't. I'm not commenting on whether he should be excommunicated or not. that's not really my place at all. I will say, though, I'd be very uncomfortable making the decision to excommunicate anyone. I don't really see myself doing that. I have a few little stories that I know about, that I hold in my head where the once excommunicated felt great relief and gratitude for the decision to excommunicate them. It helped them on the road they needed--type of thing. If it happens, I'll leave it to the players involved. I won't support it or oppose it. I honestly don't know what Dehlin wants. he kinda seems like he wants to be excommunicated. He kinda seems like he doesn't. Mostly it seems he just wants things to work out for the business he hopes to start or has started--counseling those who leave the Church or approach the beliefs in a progressive way. He doesn't want any sort of excommunication or discipline to hurt that and I think he's feeling more and more it won't. So as this time has approached he seems ok with it.

I realize he'd love to spearhead a division or faction within the Church that doesn't really believe the core elements of the faith and would like the ability to complain or criticize the Church's decisions, actions and doctrine--the last little while he has brought this up many many times. But, recently I also have heard him say he'll cut off friendships on facebook for anyone who posts stuff that may seem offensive to active LDS people, noting his inevitable future of not really being in the Church any longer as the reason.

With that said, I like to listen to his podcasts, for the most part. he gets some interesting participants and brings up interesting topics, sometimes. I'm a little bit of throwing in difficult issues in lessons type of person, while in Church. I think they are important to talk about. More and more people in Church are hearing about them--even if most want to just shut down conversation about them by shouting out faithful things instead. I don't care, I think it's important. We must learn the actual difficulties we face in terms of doctrine and our history if we want to get the most out of this, at least that's how I see it. So I guess, I'll always keep an ear out for the dissenting voice. Good always comes out of it for me--even if my faith takes a hit as I struggle to reconcile things.

[Kevin Christensen]

I can see why faithful Mormons would see John as "hurting" people by exposing them to information that leads to them leaving the Church.  Yet, I simply don't see it that way.  We can only truly exercise our agency when we know the facts.  And that is what John has done -- exposed people to the facts.

Certaintly that is the narrative that John wants to sell. But it happens that I've read enough to recognize what John leaves out when he so gallantly and unselfishly exposes people to the hard facts so that they can truly exercise their agency. And I've got enough background to recognize that it's not really objective facts that John is selling, but a narrative laced with carefully selected facts, many excluded facts, all swirled in a sauce of opinion and innuendo. John used to be better about balance, but in recent years, the trend is clear. And his own knowledge never seems to change, no matter how many people he talks to. He's at the same gossipy level. Talking to scholars does not make a scholar. Talking to experts does not make an expert.

For example, he has lately been saying that "The evidence summarized in http://cesletter.com shows pretty conclusively (to me, and many others) that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham are translations of ancient records. An analogy would be….if we found a photography of Abraham Lincoln wearing an iPod, we would know for sure that the photo was a fake. The evidences against the Books of Mormon and Abraham are equally troublesome (or even worse) for anyone willing to seriously consider the evidence."

I wrote a long essay responding to the CES Letter for the Interpreter. Daniel Peterson responded at FAIR. Neal Rappleye responded. FAIR has built up a huge point-for-point response on their website. Is there any evidence that John Dehlin has considered the facts that we have provided? Or that he points his audience towards such information so that they can exercise their agency in light of that information?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-1-to-jeremy-runnells.html

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-2-to-jeremy-runnells.html

John says "In my view, anyone willing to fairly review the evidence, with an open mind, will conclude that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are NOT what they claim to be. At all. They are not translated ancient records. They are fiction. Authored by Joseph Smith."

(For the quotes here, see https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/ )

Well, here is a problem. One obvious fact is that other people have fairly reviewed the evidence, not only with open minds, but far more willingness to go to the sources and contexts than Dehlin has ever shown. (Dehlin often admits that he does not read much, and that shows.)

So how does he explain this inconvenient fact?

Rather than honestly explore and consider the evidence, he works to discredit anyone who has done so: "In my experience, anyone who is smart, who has looked at the evidence, and who is not willing to concede this — almost always has some set of forces bearing down upon them (e.g., familial, social, financial, psychological) that prevent them from being able to acknowledge this reality. But it is reality."

John attempts to discredit believers without ever confronting the actual reasons for our belief. He claims that we cannot acknowledge reality. He never demonstrates his case, and never directly confronts our case. He simply smears us all with an undemonstrated, unargued, untested hypothesis.)

Othello is convinced that Honest Iago has simply exposed him to the facts about Desdemona. John has argued that when people experience a sense of betrayal upon coming across new information (as opposed to experiencing, "Oh... is interesting. I had not heard that before. I wonder where I can go to learn more about it?"), what they need most is understanding and sympathy, not criticism or correction. Think about it. Is that what Othello really needs while he is strangling the life out of his innocent wife? To be surrounded by sympathetic enablers, rather than those who would defend and protect Desdemona?

 

Now, I do understand that some will argue that John has only shown one side of the facts, but that is simply not true.  He's had faithful Mormons on his podcast to give the apologetic response on such topics as polygamy, BOM historicity, etc.  If, at the end of the day, a saint comes to the conclusion that the Church isn't what it claims to be, then how has Dehlin harmed them?  Was he supposed to not give the facts; many of which facts the Church has disclosed in its own essays over the last year or so.

Was he not supposed to expose the members to the hard and unpleasant fact that there is no evidence for iron arrowheads or brass helmets in Mesoamerica? When I pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions either iron arrow heads or brass helmets, should he not have let my posts remain on the Mormon Stories discussion under the Coe interview?

John is not ominiscient or infallible. I think he means well, and I respect his starting ideals, and for a while he claimed he really wanted to make an interview with me happen. But he is also remarkably ill-informed on many important subjects. Particularly with respect to the hard truths he wants so much to openly discuss. If there happen to be good answers for many of his concerns, and the hard truths in many instances are not nearly as hard as he thinks, then the heroic pose that he wants to strike while publically facing them becomes merely that. A pose. And one that strikes me as at once comic and tragic rather than heroic.

 

Besides, if Church leaders emphasized the two measures of "truth" taught by Christ himself (our love and our fruit), our testimonies wouldn't be so brittle.

My testimony isn't brittle. I've even written extensively on what makes testimonies brittle. (See Paradigms Crossed from 1995 in RBBM 7/2). And as a lifetime member, now sixty years old, I do have a great deal of experience with what church leaders have emphasized. I've listened to 55 years of conferences, and attended meetings in three countries and at least 16 states. Love and fruit are right up there.

SNIP

However, for whatever reason (and despite pretty clear scriptural instruction to the contrary), we teach our kids to base their testimony on amorphous feelings.

SNIP

Ever read a passage about "study it out in your mind?" "Seek out of the best books words of wisdom." Perform an experiment on the word? Etc.

I do not teach anyone to base their testimony on amorphous feelings. And that, I think, is one of the reasons why I do not have a brittle testimony.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 4, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Mars]

stemelbow, good thoughts.  i just had one comment:

 

 

 

More and more people in Church are hearing about them--even if most want to just shut down conversation about them by shouting out faithful things instead. I don't care, I think it's important.

 

i admit i like to throw in a statement here or there - alluding to the sticky issues - while in person at church, whatever the setting.  well, i haven't done it in a talk yet, but that's beside the point.  i want people to talk about it and face it because spending so much time here and other sites like this make it feel like this is a fight that's being fought EVERYWHERE.

 

but i dunno man, i don't think it's fair to characterize most people as reacting this way.  in my non-internet mormon experience, most people haven't heard of things things, ask a few follow on questions when i mention a sticky issue, or acknowledge them, and then the conversation turns elsewhere.  i haven't pressed the issue outside of my close knit friends and they most certainly don't react this way.  i honestly haven't had one person react in such a way where i could tell that they were upset and wanted to silence the conversation and regurgitate faithful things.

 

totally not meant to sound douchey but probably will: why do you say it is like this?

Edited February 4, 2015 by Mars

[stemelbow]

Certaintly that is the narrative that John wants to sell. But it happens that I've read enough to recognize what John leaves out when he so gallantly and unselfishly exposes people to the hard facts so that they can truly exercise their agency. And I've got enough background to recognize that it's not really objective facts that John is selling, but a narrative laced with carefully selected facts, many excluded facts, all swirled in a sauce of opinion and innuendo. John used to be better about balance, but in recent years, the trend is clear. And his own knowledge never seems to change, no matter how many people he talks to. He's at the same gossipy level. Talking to scholars does not make a scholar. Talking to experts does not make an expert.

For example, he has lately been saying that "The evidence summarized in http://cesletter.com shows pretty conclusively (to me, and many others) that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham are translations of ancient records. An analogy would be….if we found a photography of Abraham Lincoln wearing an iPod, we would know for sure that the photo was a fake. The evidences against the Books of Mormon and Abraham are equally troublesome (or even worse) for anyone willing to seriously consider the evidence."

I wrote a long essay responding to the CES Letter for the Interpreter. Daniel Peterson responded at FAIR. Neal Rappleye responded. FAIR has built up a huge point-for-point response on their website. Is there any evidence that John Dehlin has considered the facts that we have provided? Or that he points his audience towards such information so that they can exercise their agency in light of that information?

John says "In my view, anyone willing to fairly review the evidence, with an open mind, will conclude that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are NOT what they claim to be. At all. They are not translated ancient records. They are fiction. Authored by Joseph Smith."

(For the quotes here, see https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/ )

Well, here is a problem. One obvious fact is that other people have fairly reviewed the evidence, not only with open minds, but far more willingness to go to the sources and contexts than Dehlin has ever shown. (Dehlin often admits that he does not read much, and that shows.)

So how does he explain this inconvenient fact?

Rather than honestly explore and consider the evidence, he works to discredit anyone who has done so: "In my experience, anyone who is smart, who has looked at the evidence, and who is not willing to concede this — almost always has some set of forces bearing down upon them (e.g., familial, social, financial, psychological) that prevent them from being able to acknowledge this reality. But it is reality."

John attempts to discredit believers without ever confronting the actual reasons for our belief. He claims that we cannot acknowledge reality. He never demonstrates his case, and never directly confronts our case. He simply smears us all with an undemonstrated, unargued, untested hypothesis.)

Othello is convinced that Honest Iago has simply exposed him to the facts about Desdemona. John has argued that when people experience a sense of betrayal upon coming across new information (as opposed to experiencing, "Oh... is interesting. I had not heard that before. I wonder where I can go to learn more about it?), what they need mostis understanding and sympathy, not criticism or correction. Think about it. Is that what Othello really needs while he is strangling the life out of his innocent wife? To be surrounded by sympathetic enablers, rather than those who would defend and protect Desdemona?

 

Was he not supposed to expose the members to the hard and unpleasant fact that their is no evidence for iron arrowheads or brass helmets in Mesoamerica? When I pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions either iron arrow heads or brass helmets, should he not have let my posts remain on the Mormon Stories discussion under the Coe interview?

John is not ominiscient or infallible. I think he means well, and I respect his starting ideals, and for a while he claimed he really wanted to make an interview with me happen. But he is also remarkably ill-informed on many important subjects. Particularly with respect to the hard truths he wants so much to openly discuss. If there happen to be good answers for many of his concerns, and the hard truths in many instances are nearly as hard as he thinks, then the heroic pose that he wants to strike while publically facing them becomes merely that. A pose. And one that strikes me as at once comic and tragic rather than heroic.

 

My testimony isn't brittle. I've even written extensively on what makes testimonies brittle. (See Paradigms Crossed from 1995 in RBBM 7/2). And as lifetime member, now sixty years old, I do have a great deal of experience with what church leaders have emphasized. I've listened to 55 years of conferences, and attended meetings in three countries and at least 16 states. Love and fruit are right up there.

Ever read a passage about "study it out in your mind?" "Seek out of the best books words of wisdom." Perform and experiment on the word? Etc.

I do not teach anyone to base their testimony on amorphous feelings. And that, I think, is one of the reasons why I do not have a brittle testimony.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I agree with this so much. I see people saying things like, "he's just trying to get the facts out there" or "he's exposing people to hard facts". Not really. He's selling a narrative. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though, nor a pernicious thing. But it is not just putting the facts out there. It is not just trying to make people familiar with difficult issues. It's weird he speaks so negatively of the Church's narrative, implying dishonesty as needed for his narrative, but is unwilling to accept that his narrative is no different. That is the biggest issue I've had with him, I think.

[ERayR]

Of course.  But it doesn't mean one can fund a campaign without paying taxes.

 

Your claim that the Church violated participation rules for non-profit entities, including churches, is simply false and shows that you do not know and understand the rules or you are being extremely disingenuous. 

[stemelbow]

stemelbow, good thoughts.  i just had one comment:

 

 

 

 

i admit i like to throw in a statement here or there - alluding to the sticky issues - while in person at church, whatever the setting.  well, i haven't done it in a talk yet, but that's beside the point.  i want people to talk about it and face it because spending so much time here and other sites like this make it feel like this is a fight that's being fought EVERYWHERE.

 

but i dunno man, i don't think it's fair to characterize most people as reacting this way.  in my non-internet mormon experience, most people haven't heard of things things, ask a few follow on questions when i mention a sticky issue, or acknowledge them, and then the conversation turns elsewhere.  i haven't pressed the issue outside of my close knit friends and they most certainly don't react this way.  i honestly haven't had one person react in such a way where i could tell that they were upset and wanted to silence the conversation and regurgitate faithful things.

 

totally not meant to sound douchey but probably will: why do you say it is like this?

I don't mean to sound douchey either. It certainly has been a mixed bag for me. Some get pretty upset and defensive. Recently in Elder's quorum I brought up polygamy in Nauvoo. I don't know that anyone had read the recent essays. But one guy stood up a little upset and told me, "my wife is the smartest person I know and she says polygamy was started because there were less men and women needed someone" a little red in the face at this point. I don't know why he said that. it was clearly wrong. There is no way at all to support that type of reasoning. But he did. Afterward, I spoke with him and told him I didn't mean to offend anyone. He was ok, but he did indicate he has a problem with my lessons because I offer challenges in a way that undermines faith, Which I tried to clarify that is not my intent at all. I guess that's an example of what I meant. I said it poorly and as you say many to most LDS react similar to what you describe too. I got carried away in that description.

[Mars]

certainly those responses stick out the most in our minds...

 

no lie - i once heard of a lady who thought people buried dinosaur bones in the earth and then "found" them as a way to discredit the idea of a 6000 year old earth, promote evolution, and ultimately atheism.  i was in total disbelief that anyone could think that.

 

anyway, not to thread de-rail.  carry on.

[rockpond]

Your claim that the Church violated participation rules for non-profit entities, including churches, is simply false and shows that you do not know and understand the rules or you are being extremely disingenuous.

Please re-read. I made no such claim.

[The Nehor]

I don't mean to sound douchey either. It certainly has been a mixed bag for me. Some get pretty upset and defensive. Recently in Elder's quorum I brought up polygamy in Nauvoo. I don't know that anyone had read the recent essays. But one guy stood up a little upset and told me, "my wife is the smartest person I know and she says polygamy was started because there were less men and women needed someone" a little red in the face at this point. I don't know why he said that. it was clearly wrong. There is no way at all to support that type of reasoning. But he did. Afterward, I spoke with him and told him I didn't mean to offend anyone. He was ok, but he did indicate he has a problem with my lessons because I offer challenges in a way that undermines faith, Which I tried to clarify that is not my intent at all. I guess that's an example of what I meant. I said it poorly and as you say many to most LDS react similar to what you describe too. I got carried away in that description.

"Get out more and meet someone smarter then your wife."

[bluebell]

If government sanctioned marriages are not a religious right, how is it a religious right to discriminate against those marriages? How do you justify that?

I guess I'm not sure what needs to be justified.  Government sanctioned marriages is not a religious right in America.  It's not a right that is protected under the religious freedoms section of the constitution (for lack of a better way to put it-not that there's a 'religious' section).  If it was, then polygamy would be legal.

 

But being able to vote according to our morals, even if those morals stem from our religious beliefs, is something that is a right guaranteed by the constitution.

 

That's how i justify it.

 

And by advocating against legal recognition for gay marriage, how are we following Elder Holland's counsel to guard the rights we want guarded for ourselves?

I think that's a good question.  

 

Knowing that Elder Holland doesn't support SSM, how do you think that we can follow His counsel?  

 

Having read the transcript from the news conference where Elder Holland spoke these words it seems clear to me that he's talking about very specific rights.  He's talking about religious rights guaranteed by the constitution, and he's talking about personal rights guaranteed by the constitution.  The right to marriage whoever you want is not the right he's addressing.

 

He says in part-"With understanding and goodwill, including some give and take, none of these rights guaranteed to people of faith will encroach on the rights of gay men and women who wish to live their lives according to their own rights and principles."

 

That especially seems to be a huge clue in understanding what Elder Holland is talking about.  He's specifically talking about constitutional rights, of which marriage is not one.

 

Prop 8 obviously doesn't affect God's affirmation of marriage. And, assuming you are heterosexual, Prop 8 didn't affect you at all. So why, if it isn't about religion, did our church get involved?

 

 

Why did all those heterosexuals who didn't want prop. 8 to pass get involved?  

[bluebell]

An atheist view is that there is no valid religion, yet they were forced to live by marriage laws that were defined by religion.

 

I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

 

Every time a law passes that we don't agree with we are all, each one of us, being forced to live by opinions that were defined by something we don't believe in or agree with.  

 

Whether or not those opinions we disagree with are--according to us--based on a false religion, or someone being stupid, or faulty logic, or whatever else really doesn't make a difference.  

 

It is what it is and we get over it or work to change things legally because agreeing with the reasons behind every law is not something that is guaranteed to us and we know that.  

 

So, no, when an atheist is forced to live under a law that comes from moral beliefs he disagrees with it's not a breach of his religious rights.  

[Robert F. Smith]

I guess I'm not sure what needs to be justified.  Government sanctioned marriages is not a religious right in America.  It's not a right that is protected under the religious freedoms section of the constitution (for lack of a better way to put it-not that there's a 'religious' section).  If it was, then polygamy would be legal.

 

But being able to vote according to our morals, even if those morals stem from our religious beliefs, is something that is a right guaranteed by the constitution.

 ............................................................   

Having read the transcript from the news conference where Elder Holland spoke these words it seems clear to me that he's talking about very specific rights.  He's talking about religious rights guaranteed by the constitution, and he's talking about personal rights guaranteed by the constitution.  The right to marriage whoever you want is not the right he's addressing.

 

He says in part-"With understanding and goodwill, including some give and take, none of these rights guaranteed to people of faith will encroach on the rights of gay men and women who wish to live their lives according to their own rights and principles."

 

That especially seems to be a huge clue in understanding what Elder Holland is talking about.  He's specifically talking about constitutional rights, of which marriage is not one.

........................................................   

It is not a matter of a right to marriage, but rather a right to "equal protection of the law" (Amendment 14, U. S. Constitution).  If you have a right to get married, why wouldn't someone else with differing views on marriage have the right to marriage (same sex marriage, polygamous marriage, polyandrous marriage, etc.)?  If a state statute allows heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman, why wouldn't "equal protection of the law" not allow other forms of marriage?  This is the question before the courts.

 

Marriage is not a constitutional right, but a statutory provision in each state.

[bluebell]

Sure they can. It's their opinion that it is a fact...just like it's your opinion that it is not a fact. But it seems you have an argument with Elder Oaks not them--at least Elder Oaks from 30 years ago.

Let me put it this way. I can believe that abortion is murder, and i can find people who have had an abortion and tell them they are going to hell for murdering someone, but i can't expect people who don't believe abortion is murder to approach the issue as if they are murderers.

So yes, people can view SSM as a civil right, and they can accuse people who don't support it of being horrible people who will burn in hell (or whatever the atheist option is), but they can't expect people who don't believe it's a civil right to engage the issue with them as if it is.

I've heard people say that SSM must be supported because it's a civil right to people who don't believe it's a civil right. Do you see why that's not a valid argument?

Edited February 4, 2015 by bluebell

[why me]

I've been around from the beginning, maybe I'm not where I can see what you're talking about. Is it in FB groups that you're seeing this? Where would you see these things?

 

John's facebook page is a case in point. According to people on a different board he changed his position again. He no longer wants posts that are negatively aggressive toward the church. So, all those people who were so, have been asked not to post such posts or he will defriend them from his page. If this is true, more people will be betrayed. I am reading complaints from these people on a different board.

 

Though I agree, John has changed his tune somewhat, and probably bitter since he see's that the LGBT issues aren't being fixed. And I've been listening to old podcasts. But yesterday and on other occasions I read a woman's FC coming about entirely from reading the church essays, so now who's to blame? The Santa Claus analogy is spot on, the church certainly makes it so there is no middle ground either.

 

John has changed his tune more than somewhat. Most who have been following him from the beginning know that he has changed his tune drastically over time. He has flipped flopped all over the place. I don't think that john is bitter about the church and gay rights. Most would know that the church could not change its stance. I am not even sure if the gay community takes him seriously now. I am sure that you are doing a lot of reading on the web but people have been leaving the church since it began. The difference now is that we can read them on the web immediately. You do seem to like to read such stuff and I am sure that your head must be buzzing around. And this is the problem. You have been here for quite some time and many have tried to get you to see a different way. But it doesn't seem to be working. The church cannot have a middle ground when it comes to actively saying that the book of mormon is not true. The church cannot have members speaking from pulpits about how the book is false etc. Likewise no EV church can have people speaking from the pulpit that the bible is a fairy tale.

 

They aren't necessarily taking their cues from people like the Givens, etc. It's been stated from the pulpit that it's all true or it's all a fraud. Why can't it just be a church of faith and hope? Instead we get these changes, significant changes that cause people to wonder/question. Or info that trickled in here and there just to keep them honest. Almost like small print. And now with the internet more has been done to share the info, well kind of. When the essays came out, he was glad to see it printed in the Church News and Deseret News. But haven't seen much since.

 

Does the pope takes his cue from a catholic scholar or from a catholic member? Does the catholic church or protestant churches? Can christian churches have pastors who proclaim that the bible is false but it is okay because god is love? The mormon church believes in certain things that are either true or false, such is the restoration. But all churches have the same understanding when it comes to the trinity, bible, and doctrine. Why pick on the mormons?

Sorry for the blue lines but I must save my posts.

[bluebell]

It is not a matter of a right to marriage, but rather a right to "equal protection of the law" (Amendment 14, U. S. Constitution). If you have a right to get married, why wouldn't someone else with differing views on marriage have the right to marriage (same sex marriage, polygamous marriage, polyandrous marriage, etc.)? If a state statute allows heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman, why wouldn't "equal protection of the law" not allow other forms of marriage? This is the question before the courts.

Marriage is not a constitutional right, but a statutory provision in each state.

I agree that's the question before the courts.

The constitution gets amended sometimes and this could be one of them.

Edited February 4, 2015 by bluebell

[stemelbow]

Let me put it this way. I can believe that abortion is murder, and i can find people who have had an abortion and tell them they are going to hell for murdering someone, but i can't expect people who don't believe abortion is murder to approach the issue as if they are murderers.

So yes, people can view SSM as a civil right, and they can accuse people who don't support it of being horrible people who will burn in hell (or whatever the atheist option is), but they can't expect people who don't believe it's a civil right to engage the issue with them as if it is.

I've heard people say that SSM must be supported because it's a civil right to people who don't believe it's a civil right. Do you see why that's not a valid argument?

Sure there is validity to the argument. As it is the courts have already said marriage is a right given by the government. That people disagree with that, doesn't mean one who argues it as a right, isn't posing a valid argument. It'd be dismissive to say that. It'd put a halt to a conversation and respect gets lost.

 

This is the last warning to everyone to keep this on topic. 

[Tacenda]

Sorry for the blue lines but I must save my posts.

Thanks for your input.  I understand what you mean about the Catholics, LDS, and EV's each having their own doctrine per say, and having to stick to them.  But in our church there seems to be a lot of wiggle room in some areas where things have changed significantly.  I guess that is the beauty of our faith, that it has that clause, it can change over time with a living prophet and being guided through revelation or the spirit.  I just don't like that our church didn't give me enough trust from the beginning to let it all hang out.  When I was 8 yrs. old and went into the bishops office for my baptismal interview, I had no idea the real JS story.  I had the Santa Claus version.  Though I totally believe in the Santa Claus version as far as the spirit of it's meaning comes.  So in that respect I think I can strive to believe in Mormonism and lean on the spirit of it all.  Since I really don't believe anyone has seen Christ when they were alive and Christ was resurrected except for the apostles and Mary etc.  I'm still trying to accept Christ now, because once that bubble burst I'm trying to pick up those pieces and not lose Christianity.  I really liked the cut and dry, but it didn't sink in enough that the church can change or that we have fallible prophets.  I was truly one of the ones that believe he should be infallible.  Lame I know!  

[ERayR]

An atheist view is that there is no valid religion, yet they were forced to live by marriage laws that were defined by religion.

 

This is in error.  In the USofA marriage laws are defined by the state.

[bluebell]

Sure there is validity to the argument. As it is the courts have already said marriage is a right given by the government. That people disagree with that, doesn't mean one who argues it as a right, isn't posing a valid argument. It'd be dismissive to say that. It'd put a halt to a conversation and respect gets lost.

 

This is the last warning to everyone to keep this on topic. 

 

I see we've been warned so we'll just have to agree to disagree!  

[Storm Rider]

Thanks for your input.  I understand what you mean about the Catholics, LDS, and EV's each having their own doctrine per say, and having to stick to them.  But in our church there seems to be a lot of wiggle room in some areas where things have changed significantly.  I guess that is the beauty of our faith, that it has that clause, it can change over time with a living prophet and being guided through revelation or the spirit.  I just don't like that our church didn't give me enough trust from the beginning to let it all hang out.  When I was 8 yrs. old and went into the bishops office for my baptismal interview, I had no idea the real JS story.  I had the Santa Claus version.  Though I totally believe in the Santa Claus version as far as the spirit of it's meaning comes.  So in that respect I think I can strive to believe in Mormonism and lean on the spirit of it all.  Since I really don't believe anyone has seen Christ when they were alive and Christ was resurrected except for the apostles and Mary etc.  I'm still trying to accept Christ now, because once that bubble burst I'm trying to pick up those pieces and not lose Christianity.  I really liked the cut and dry, but it didn't sink in enough that the church can change or that we have fallible prophets.  I was truly one of the ones that believe he should be infallible.  Lame I know!  

 

I don't know if it is lame, but it is naive. Jesus said that no prophet is accepted in his own country in Luke 4.  Why do you think that is?  What makes a prophet's own people, his own country, unwilling to believe in him?  That's right, the same reasons why those who want to know everything about any prophet's daily activity and every little, tiny thing he said don't believe in these individuals as prophets.  Prophets have always been fallible; they have never been perfect; they have often been very flawed as individuals, but they love the Lord and accepted to be an instrument in God's hands.  

 

The ancient Jews were not perfectionists; they understood that men were human and they had the same problems people today have in believing that man that grew up down the street could actually be a prophet or an apostle.

 

We should not glorify our prophets and put them so high on a pedestal that all they can do is fall off.  Is we want to assess blame for why people don't believe we can blame everyone, but at the end of the day a relationship with God is personal and we either have faith or we don't.  

 

As a disciple we make sure our lamp is full of oil and we remain prepared for the coming of the bridegroom.  The alternative is eternal loss.  What do we want?

[Scott Lloyd]

Certaintly that is the narrative that John wants to sell. But it happens that I've read enough to recognize what John leaves out when he so gallantly and unselfishly exposes people to the hard facts so that they can truly exercise their agency. And I've got enough background to recognize that it's not really objective facts that John is selling, but a narrative laced with carefully selected facts, many excluded facts, all swirled in a sauce of opinion and innuendo. John used to be better about balance, but in recent years, the trend is clear. And his own knowledge never seems to change, no matter how many people he talks to. He's at the same gossipy level. Talking to scholars does not make a scholar. Talking to experts does not make an expert.

For example, he has lately been saying that "The evidence summarized in http://cesletter.com shows pretty conclusively (to me, and many others) that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham are translations of ancient records. An analogy would be….if we found a photography of Abraham Lincoln wearing an iPod, we would know for sure that the photo was a fake. The evidences against the Books of Mormon and Abraham are equally troublesome (or even worse) for anyone willing to seriously consider the evidence."

I wrote a long essay responding to the CES Letter for the Interpreter. Daniel Peterson responded at FAIR. Neal Rappleye responded. FAIR has built up a huge point-for-point response on their website. Is there any evidence that John Dehlin has considered the facts that we have provided? Or that he points his audience towards such information so that they can exercise their agency in light of that information?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-1-to-jeremy-runnells.html

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-2-to-jeremy-runnells.html

John says "In my view, anyone willing to fairly review the evidence, with an open mind, will conclude that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are NOT what they claim to be. At all. They are not translated ancient records. They are fiction. Authored by Joseph Smith."

(For the quotes here, see https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/ )

Well, here is a problem. One obvious fact is that other people have fairly reviewed the evidence, not only with open minds, but far more willingness to go to the sources and contexts than Dehlin has ever shown. (Dehlin often admits that he does not read much, and that shows.)

So how does he explain this inconvenient fact?

Rather than honestly explore and consider the evidence, he works to discredit anyone who has done so: "In my experience, anyone who is smart, who has looked at the evidence, and who is not willing to concede this — almost always has some set of forces bearing down upon them (e.g., familial, social, financial, psychological) that prevent them from being able to acknowledge this reality. But it is reality."

John attempts to discredit believers without ever confronting the actual reasons for our belief. He claims that we cannot acknowledge reality. He never demonstrates his case, and never directly confronts our case. He simply smears us all with an undemonstrated, unargued, untested hypothesis.)

Othello is convinced that Honest Iago has simply exposed him to the facts about Desdemona. John has argued that when people experience a sense of betrayal upon coming across new information (as opposed to experiencing, "Oh... is interesting. I had not heard that before. I wonder where I can go to learn more about it?"), what they need most is understanding and sympathy, not criticism or correction. Think about it. Is that what Othello really needs while he is strangling the life out of his innocent wife? To be surrounded by sympathetic enablers, rather than those who would defend and protect Desdemona?

 

Was he not supposed to expose the members to the hard and unpleasant fact that their is no evidence for iron arrowheads or brass helmets in Mesoamerica? When I pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions either iron arrow heads or brass helmets, should he not have let my posts remain on the Mormon Stories discussion under the Coe interview?

John is not ominiscient or infallible. I think he means well, and I respect his starting ideals, and for a while he claimed he really wanted to make an interview with me happen. But he is also remarkably ill-informed on many important subjects. Particularly with respect to the hard truths he wants so much to openly discuss. If there happen to be good answers for many of his concerns, and the hard truths in many instances are not nearly as hard as he thinks, then the heroic pose that he wants to strike while publically facing them becomes merely that. A pose. And one that strikes me as at once comic and tragic rather than heroic.

 

My testimony isn't brittle. I've even written extensively on what makes testimonies brittle. (See Paradigms Crossed from 1995 in RBBM 7/2). And as a lifetime member, now sixty years old, I do have a great deal of experience with what church leaders have emphasized. I've listened to 55 years of conferences, and attended meetings in three countries and at least 16 states. Love and fruit are right up there.

Ever read a passage about "study it out in your mind?" "Seek out of the best books words of wisdom." Perform an experiment on the word? Etc.

I do not teach anyone to base their testimony on amorphous feelings. And that, I think, is one of the reasons why I do not have a brittle testimony.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

This has my nomination for post of the year.

 

Of course, the year is still very new, but I doubt there will be anything come along to top it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with this so much. I see people saying things like, "he's just trying to get the facts out there" or "he's exposing people to hard facts". Not really. He's selling a narrative. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though, nor a pernicious thing. But it is not just putting the facts out there. It is not just trying to make people familiar with difficult issues. It's weird he speaks so negatively of the Church's narrative, implying dishonesty as needed for his narrative, but is unwilling to accept that his narrative is no different. That is the biggest issue I've had with him, I think.

Selective presentation of "facts". "Selling a narrative." Ignoring rebuttals that have already been made. Seems like garden variety anti-Mormonism to me. Nothing really new here except an unusually skillful and demonstrably effective mix of marketing and energetic use of Internet technology. I'll give him that.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

Sorry for the blue lines but I must save my posts.

All of your points are valid, but they seem to be based on the assumption that Dehlin is an ecclesiastic leader (eg, no church could have someone who thought the Bible was a fairy tale speaking from the pulpit).

I agree that Dehlin shouldn't be a bishop or teaching SS, EQ, YM, primary, etc. And I suspect that my dear brother has no desire to do so. However, I think there is a difference between being disqualified from positions of leadership in the Church and being disqualified from MEMBERSHIP.

[mormonnewb]

Selective presentation of "facts". "Selling a narrative." Ignoring rebuttals that have already been made. Seems like garden variety anti-Mormonism to me. Nothing really new here except an unusually skillful and demonstrably effective mix of marketing and use of Internet technology. I'll give him that.

That's funny because I'm reading this thread on a mobile device and so I scrolled upon the text of your post before seeing who wrote it. I originally thought it was from someone on my side of the aisle because that same description could apply the Church's narrative. In fact, I'd argue that if the Church wasn't so "selective" in its retelling of the facts (recent efforts excepted) and so confident in its SEO optimization strategies (someone earnestly seeking "truth" will go past the first page of results), Dehlin wouldn't have much of an audience to speak to.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's funny because I'm reading this thread on a mobile device and so I scrolled upon the text of your post before seeing who wrote it. I originally thought it was from someone on my side of the aisle because that same description could apply the Church's narrative. In fact, I'd argue that if the Church wasn't so "selective" in its retelling of the facts (recent efforts excepted) and so confident in its SEO optimization strategies (someone earnestly seeking "truth" will go past the first page of results), Dehlin wouldn't have much of an audience to speak to.

See my sig line, the part in red.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd