Npr: The Latest From John Dehlin

[thesometimesaint]

You mention John got two things wrong, but fail to mention here, that he and others like Dr. Coe mention, got right.  Though I admire you for standing up for the BoM, it's what you believe in.  If what you say is true and John didn't come clean and just deleted your comment, that isn't cool, wish he had more integrity than that.  But OTOH, why don't you address the things that are anachronistic in the BoM?  Maybe because there are too many to count.  I remember downloading a few pages of them.  I think I hid them from myself.  But I'm sure Fair has addressed them to the best of their ability, I'll have to go back and read it.

 

ETA:  Just saw this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon  Did you write about these?  This needs another thread or we can look at older posts, I'm sure there are zillions.  

 

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml

[rockpond]

Or they focus on hard TRUTHS without providing the best context or paradigms to make sense of the harder truths.

 

This is, of course, the real reason why church members don't like Dehlin & MS.  The irony is that, in the end, Dehlin's work is making the church stronger by getting it/us to stop ignoring those hard truths and to figure out ways to put them into faith-promoting contexts.

 

Decades down the road, the church will be a place that Dehlin wants to be.  But, similar to the story of Lester Bush, we won't get him back.

[Kevin Christensen]

You mention John got two things wrong, but fail to mention here, that he and others like Dr. Coe mention, got right.  Though I admire you for standing up for the BoM, it's what you believe in.  If what you say is true and John didn't come clean and just deleted your comment, that isn't cool, wish he had more integrity than that.  But OTOH, why don't you address the things that are anachronistic in the BoM?  Maybe because there are too many to count.  I remember downloading a few pages of them.  I think I hid them from myself.  But I'm sure Fair has addressed them to the best of their ability, I'll have to go back and read it.

 

ETA:  Just saw this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon  Did you write about these?  This needs another thread or we can look at older posts, I'm sure there are zillions.

I've actually written several things on the notion of anachronism in the Book of Mormon.

For instance,

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1467&index=7

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

And I've responded at length to Runnells in ways that would never occur to Dehlin simply because Dehlin doesn't bother to read.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

Others, well qualified to do so have dealt at length with all sorts of other Book of Mormon questions: For instance, John Sorenson responded directly to claims in the Coe interview.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

And of course, there are lots of obvious problems in the Wikipedia essay. For instance, "The Book of Mormon mentions the use of chariots as a mode of transportation five times.[58] There is no archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica." Notice the jump from "chariots" to "wheeled vehicles." The Book of Mormon never mentions wheels. The Hebrew for chariot simply means "riding thing." Wheels are not required by the text. That means the argument here is based on a questionable interpretation, rather than a hard and stable fact.

Also notice the language here:

"Mormon scholar John L. Sorenson believes that there are several materials which were used in Mesoamerica which the Spanish called "silk" upon their arrival.[68] He alleges that the inhabitants of Mexico used the fiber spun by a wild silkworm to create a fabric.[69]"

If you've read Mormon's Codex, and other things by Sorenson, he actually provides evidence rather then mere airy "belief" on this point. Notice the word "alleges" rather than the more accurate choice of "demonstrates." That kind of language is not accidental, but involves a deliberate choice on the part of the editors who control the essays. They downplay the existence of evidence in order to convey an impression that the defense is weak.

My point is that the Wikipedia article is not a dispassionate survey of all the evidence, but rather shows a definite slant in selection and rhetoric. The FAIR responses on this topic are far more reliable, and provide a far better explanation of the LDS response due to the fact that it actually is an LDS response rather than a pretense of objectivity.

And of course, there are these interesting critters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomphothere

Notice that at one point in the essay we see new evidence changing the extinction date from 30,000 years ago to around 11,000 years ago.

At one point John asked for interviews with LDS apologists. I said I was game, but he never contacted me. I reaffirmed my willingness later, and he emailed that he wanted it to happen. But he didn't. My own guess is that I never became a priority because I'm neither a celebrity nor a victim of my church.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 2, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[stemelbow]

This is, of course, the real reason why church members don't like Dehlin & MS.  The irony is that, in the end, Dehlin's work is making the church stronger by getting it/us to stop ignoring those hard truths and to figure out ways to put them into faith-promoting contexts.

 

Decades down the road, the church will be a place that Dehlin wants to be.  But, similar to the story of Lester Bush, we won't get him back.

Interesting ideas. I can probably agree other than the irony part. I'm not sure he's helping to put them in faith-promoting contexts. I think Kevin, above, is right--he tends to ignore and reject such attempts. But that's ok. I still think he raises some pretty good topics of discussion that I think would benefit many in the Church, even if some of the ideas presented are terrible, or short-sighted.

[Tacenda]

I've actually written several things on the notion of anachronism in the Book of Mormon.

For instance,

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1467&index=7

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

And I've responded at length to Runnells in ways that would never occur to Dehlin simply because Dehlin doesn't bother to read.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

Others, well qualified to do so have dealt at length with all sorts of other Book of Mormon questions: For instance, John Sorenson responded directly to claims in the Coe interview.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/

And of course, there are lots of obvious problems in the Wikipedia essay. For instance, "The Book of Mormon mentions the use of chariots as a mode of transportation five times.[58] There is no archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica." Notice the jump from "chariots" to "wheeled vehicles." The Book of Mormon never mentions wheels. The Hebrew for chariot simply means "riding thing." Wheels are required by the text. That means the argument here is based on a questionable interpretation, rather than a hard and stable fact.

Also notice the language here:

"Mormon scholar John L. Sorenson believes that there are several materials which were used in Mesoamerica which the Spanish called "silk" upon their arrival.[68] He alleges that the inhabitants of Mexico used the fiber spun by a wild silkworm to create a fabric.[69]"

If you've read Mormon's Codex, and other things by Sorenson, he actually provides evidence rather then mere airy "belief" on this point. Notice the word "alleges" rather than the more accurate choice of "demonstrates." That kind of language is not accidental, but involves a deliberate choice on the part of the editors who control the essays. They downplay the existence of evidence in order to convey an impression that the defense is weak.

My point is that the Wikipedia article is not a dispassionate survey of all the evidence, but rather shows a definite slant in selection and rhetoric. The FAIR responses on this topic are far more reliable, and provide a far better explanation of the LDS response due to the fact that it actually is an actual LDS response rather than a pretense of objectivity.

And of course, there are these interesting critters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomphothere

Notice that at one point in the essay we see new evidence changing the extinction date from 30,000 years ago to around 11,000 years ago.

At one point John asked for interviews with LDS apologists. I said I was game, but he never contacted me. I reaffirmed my willingness later, and he emailed that he wanted it to happen. But he didn't. My own guess is that I never became a priority because I'm neither a celebrity nor a victim of my church.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Sometimes the apologetic answer can be so overwhelming, could there be something more fine tuned of your studies elsewhere Kevin?  The critics narrow them down, could the faithful narrow it down too?  For the lazy reader or the people that don't understand the deep stuff like me?  In other words a paper for "Dummies" like me?  

 

I wish I could find a way for you to be on MS's podcast, unless you're totally against the idea now that John's in big trouble.  Or it might taint your reputation.  Or because he ignored you so. Because I think you would give the balance to Mormon Stories that it needs now.  I think it would give him more credibility if he puts out he wants to help people with faith crisis.  I don't want to completely shut the door if there is some way to hold on.  But as it stands w/o the church maybe even saying we just don't know, how can they say they do know?  During F&T meeting yesterday, there was testimony from a couple of older gentlemen that stood up and said they know that God lives and loves each one of us.  How do they "know" that?  It's like people are just use to hearing it so much they say it's true.  

[rockpond]

Interesting ideas. I can probably agree other than the irony part. I'm not sure he's helping to put them in faith-promoting contexts. I think Kevin, above, is right--he tends to ignore and reject such attempts. But that's ok. I still think he raises some pretty good topics of discussion that I think would benefit many in the Church, even if some of the ideas presented are terrible, or short-sighted.

 

I wasn't saying that Dehlin puts the hard truths in a faith-promoting context.  Some of his podcasts guests have, but not really Dehlin.  But he has helped make us face those hard truths.  And we'll grow stronger for it.

[why me]

My guess is that Dehlin will appeal to the First Presidency, in order to prolong the attention that he is receiving from the media.

 

Who else agrees?

I think that he burned his bridges. He has done this already and got a sympathetic ear. He then returned to church. An article about him was crushed, an article which most likely spoke the truth. This was not too long ago. Now he is gone again. I think that the GAs have lost patience with him. Plus, he is now denying the book of mormon etc and going public with it. What can anyone do to save him from being exed?

 

Tacenda: john is not interested in balance. Unfortunately, members have no time to read scholarly stuff. I suppose that they need a spoonful of sugar. However, if the critics put things simply it may be because their position would not hold to a scholarly position.

Edited February 2, 2015 by why me

[juliann]

 

Did anyone read what Anne McMullin Peffer (co-Mormon Stories Founder, non-believer) wrote in several Mormon Groups? It makes me think this whole thing is even crazier.

 

 

 

Is she the one who regularly posts about her secret knowledge about him that she will someday disclose....but never does? Although I think she gave a good summation, she seems to see him as almost supernatural or something. Is there any instance of an exed member remaining influencial in any way?  Margaret Toscano is/was very influencial in OW...but she could only do it anonymously. Kate Kelly has disappeared like a shooting star over the horizon.

 

We have September Six, but that only proves the point. I'll bet no more than one in a hundred could name even some of them. The only thing that has influence is the meme not the people. Once Dehlin is exed, what is his draw? He is now in the huge pool of non-LDS who are for social justice and who have much higher profiles. At best, he will still be on the media's rolodex to give a sentence or two for the opposition in random church related articles that quickly disappear.

 

So is it possible that despite Dehlin's undeniable PR skills to date..... he is making a mistake in thinking his influence, which has been dependent on the credibility of being a member, will continue? Or will he be content to remain quietly in the background?

[Ahab]

Is he still a member of the Church now?

There would be less confusion in the world about the Church if we stopped calling someone like this guy a Mormon.

[Kenngo1969]

... But then he strayed off course and contributed to people leaving because he became a critic. And then he returned, disapoointing those who left the church because of his MS chapters, conferences and podcasts. And now, he is back in the critical stage. One lesson to learn in all this is: don't follow john.

Or, at least be prepared for a heckuva ride if you do.

[Kenngo1969]

... But then he strayed off course and contributed to people leaving because he became a critic. And then he returned, disapoointing those who left the church because of his MS chapters, conferences and podcasts. And now, he is back in the critical stage. One lesson to learn in all this is: don't follow john.

Or, at least be prepared for a heckuva ride if you do.

[Calm]

Is he still a member of the Church now?

There would be less confusion in the world about the Church if we stopped calling someone like this guy a Mormon.

His council is this Sunday, I believe. It was delayed two weeks due to the death of the SP's father.

His name is on the records, he has not stated he is not a Mormon. Given those two conditions, I think he qualifies as a member at this point even if he is anonbeliever according to his own statements.

[stemelbow]

I wasn't saying that Dehlin puts the hard truths in a faith-promoting context.  Some of his podcasts guests have, but not really Dehlin.  But he has helped make us face those hard truths.  And we'll grow stronger for it.

I'm disagreeing is all. I don't know there is anything that is a "hard truth" that I've learned from him. No offense to him. I just don't think he's been the pioneer on hard truths quite like it seems you think.

[stemelbow]

Is she the one who regularly posts about her secret knowledge about him that she will someday disclose....but never does? Although I think she gave a good summation, she seems to see him as almost supernatural or something. Is there any instance of an exed member remaining influencial in any way?  Margaret Toscano is/was very influencial in OW...but she could only do it anonymously. Kate Kelly has disappeared like a shooting star over the horizon.

 

We have September Six, but that only proves the point. I'll bet no more than one in a hundred could name even some of them. The only thing that has influence is the meme not the people. Once Dehlin is exed, what is his draw? He is now in the huge pool of non-LDS who are for social justice and who have much higher profiles. At best, he will still be on the media's rolodex to give a sentence or two for the opposition in random church related articles that quickly disappear.

 

So is it possible that despite Dehlin's undeniable PR skills to date..... he is making a mistake in thinking his influence, which has been dependent on the credibility of being a member, will continue? Or will he be content to remain quietly in the background?

I'm thinking he feels like he's created enough of a following to maintain his influence, at this point. none of the sept 6 nor Kate Kelly has set themselves up quite like he has in terms of being able to remain an influence. And that's ok, if you ask me. He brings up some topics of discussion that I think we can all benefit from. Not sure he's the best moderator on the topics from a believers perspective but then again who would be better?

[Kenngo1969]

And yet, there are those who claim Dehlin stopped them from leaving the Church. I suppose he can still serve the purpose outside of it.

That's the thing about Ol' Scratch and those who (wittingly or not) follow him: without even realizing it, they play right into the hands of their opponents (even when they do things by which they intend the exact opposite).  

[rockpond]

I'm disagreeing is all. I don't know there is anything that is a "hard truth" that I've learned from him. No offense to him. I just don't think he's been the pioneer on hard truths quite like it seems you think.

 

Ah... he's definitely not the pioneer.  Nor is he the "content expert" on hard truths.  He just created the space for a lot of us to listen, learn, process, etc.  And I think he brought a lot of publicity to the issues.  Who else in Mormon history has received quite the same media attention, interview requests, etc.

[Mystery Meat]

Sometimes the apologetic answer can be so overwhelming, could there be something more fine tuned of your studies elsewhere Kevin?  The critics narrow them down, could the faithful narrow it down too?  For the lazy reader or the people that don't understand the deep stuff like me?  In other words a paper for "Dummies" like me?  

 

I wish I could find a way for you to be on MS's podcast, unless you're totally against the idea now that John's in big trouble.  Or it might taint your reputation.  Or because he ignored you so. Because I think you would give the balance to Mormon Stories that it needs now.  I think it would give him more credibility if he puts out he wants to help people with faith crisis.  I don't want to completely shut the door if there is some way to hold on.  But as it stands w/o the church maybe even saying we just don't know, how can they say they do know?  During F&T meeting yesterday, there was testimony from a couple of older gentlemen that stood up and said they know that God lives and loves each one of us.  How do they "know" that?  It's like people are just use to hearing it so much they say it's true.  

 

So basically you don't want to read the full answer, you want the reader's digest version. This just seems lazy and you have no one to blame but yourself if you are ill informed.

[Kevin Christensen]

Sometimes the apologetic answer can be so overwhelming, could there be something more fine tuned of your studies elsewhere Kevin?  The critics narrow them down, could the faithful narrow it down too?  For the lazy reader or the people that don't understand the deep stuff like me?  In other words a paper for "Dummies" like me?

Look at the FAIR pages on the topic. They do an excellent job. They have extensive materials, well organized into bite sized bits, and specific questions.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Basic_principles

And things like the old FARMS books "Re-exploring the Book of Mormon"

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/reexploring-the-book-of-mormon/

And Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/pressing-forward-with-the-book-of-mormon-the-farms-updates-of-the-1990s/

Lots of topics and short little chapters summarizing the best research on important questions.

I wish I could find a way for you to be on MS's podcast, unless you're totally against the idea now that John's in big trouble.  Or it might taint your reputation.  Or because he ignored you so. Because I think you would give the balance to Mormon Stories that it needs now.  I think it would give him more credibility if he puts out he wants to help people with faith crisis.

 

After the events of 2012 at the Maxwell Institute, and John Dehlin's comments about that, I decided that I could not in good conscience participate in that forum. So I emailed him to take myself off the list of candidates. He gave no response. In the meantime, I've been interviewed for three other podcasts, two at FAIR, and one by Bill Reel. I'm not a celebrity, so I have little reputation to taint. I don't think it harmed Daniel Peterson, or Terryl Givens or Richard Bushman to be interviewed for Mormon Stories. My issue with Mormon Stories is that balance is the last thing on his mind. He uncritically swallowed everything Coe said, no matter how ill informed, and pumped him for stories about LDS archeologists loosing faith. Then, when for balance, he interviewed Brant Gardner, he actively resisted everything Brant said. "But, but but but but..." There is no point in pretending to balance when his thumb is always on the scale.

I don't want to completely shut the door if there is some way to hold on.  But as it stands w/o the church maybe even saying we just don't know, how can they say they do know?  During F&T meeting yesterday, there was testimony from a couple of older gentlemen that stood up and said they know that God lives and loves each one of us.  How do they "know" that?  It's like people are just use to hearing it so much they say it's true.

Sometimes older gentlemen have been around. "Knowing" is a spiritual gift for some. For others, it is to believe on their words. I love Alma 32's contrast between the notion of once and for all final "knowing" and an open-ended "cause to believe."

I've got a lot of "cause to believe" that does not show up on Mormon Stories because John didn't see me as a priority. I have a lot of cause to believe that does not show up on Wikipedia because the editors of the Book of Mormon essay don't know or care what I have done.

I know what I know. That does mean that I know everything, or that my knowledge is perfect. But there is something real, and much about the Book of Mormon that critics like Dehlin haven't bothered to seek out, perhaps because they don't have any desire to find out whether such things are so. After all, Mormons are unpopular, and Mormonism is expensive, restrictive, and inconvenient. I wrote a long essay for FAIR on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. One of the more interesting things in there is that it turns out that all Biblical arguments against Biblical prophets involve people saying basically, "It's not what I think," or It's not what I want." It turns out that in 3 Nephi when Jesus calls for the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, he is asking people to risk what they think and what they want.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Kenngo1969]

Sometimes the apologetic answer can be so overwhelming, could there be something more fine tuned of your studies elsewhere Kevin?  The critics narrow them down, could the faithful narrow it down too?  For the lazy reader or the people that don't understand the deep stuff like me?  In other words a paper for "Dummies" like me?  

 

This isn't intended as a criticism of you specifically and personally, Tacenda.  It's simply a general observation of one advantage enjoyed by doubters, critics, skeptics, the disaffected, et cetera (pick your word) over believers: unfortunately, sound bites are more effective at luring those who are on the fence into disbelief than substantive analysis is at persuading those who are on the fence to believe, but it's not possible to refute sound bite criticisms with sound bite rebuttals in return.  Critics know this, and they take full advantage of it.  

[Mystery Meat]

Sometimes older gentlemen have been around. "Knowing" is a spiritual gift for some. For others, it is to believe on their words. I love Alma 32's contrast between the notion of once and for all final "knowing" and an open-ended "cause to believe."

I've got a lot of "cause to believe" that does not show up on Mormon Stories because John didn't see me as a priority. I have a lot of cause to believe that does not show up on Wikipedia because the editors of the Book of Mormon essay don't know or care what I have done.

I know what I know. That does mean that I know everything, or that my knowledge is perfect. But there is something real, and much about the Book of Mormon that critics like Dehlin haven't bothered to seek out, perhaps because they don't have any desire to find out whether such things are so. After all, Mormons are unpopular, and Mormonism is expensive, restrictive, and inconvenient. I wrote a long essay for FAIR on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. One of the more interesting things in there is that it turns out that all Biblical arguments against Biblical prophets involve people saying basically, "It's not what I think," or It's not what I want." It turns out that in 3 Nephi when Jesus calls for the sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, he is asking people to risk what they think and what they want.

 

 

Beautiful. There is growing trend in Mormondom to discount the people who say "I know." I don't claim to know, but I believe that there are people who do. I can't remember which, but one of the Book of Mormon anti-Christ's taught that it was impossible to know. I say that is false doctrine and projecting on the part of the person who does not know.

[Mystery Meat]

This isn't intended as a criticism of you specifically and personally, Tacenda.  It's simply a general observation of one advantage enjoyed by doubters, critics, skeptics, the disaffected, et cetera (pick your word) over believers: unfortunately, sound bites are more effective at luring those who are on the fence into disbelief than substantive analysis is at persuading those who are on the fence to believe, but it's not possible to refute sound bite criticisms with sound bite rebuttals in return.  Critics know this, and they take full advantage of it.

 

I should have said it like this...

[Mars]

This isn't intended as a criticism of you specifically and personally, Tacenda.  It's simply a general observation of one advantage enjoyed by doubters, critics, skeptics, the disaffected, et cetera (pick your word) over believers: unfortunately, sound bites are more effective at luring those who are on the fence into disbelief than substantive analysis is at persuading those who are on the fence to believe, but it's not possible to refute sound bite criticisms with sound bite rebuttals in return.  Critics know this, and they take full advantage of it.

 

In other words:

 

A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

[Kenngo1969]

So basically you don't want to read the full answer, you want the reader's digest version. This just seems lazy and you have no one to blame but yourself if you are ill informed.

In the past, I have gotten frustrated with doubters (Tacenda included) for this, but see my reply to her, above.  Sadly, sound bite criticisms often are better at luring fence-sitters into disbelief than substantive responses to such criticisms are at persuading them to believe.  While it may be true that doubters are largely responsible for their plight, critics' recognition of the uneven playing field (along with their determination to take full advantage of it) deserve an enormous share of the blame, as well.

[Mystery Meat]

This isn't intended as a criticism of you specifically and personally, Tacenda.  It's simply a general observation of one advantage enjoyed by doubters, critics, skeptics, the disaffected, et cetera (pick your word) over believers: unfortunately, sound bites are more effective at luring those who are on the fence into disbelief than substantive analysis is at persuading those who are on the fence to believe, but it's not possible to refute sound bite criticisms with sound bite rebuttals in return.  Critics know this, and they take full advantage of it.

 

I would also like to add that if there is one thing worth spending the time to research it is matters concerning your faith. If a person truly wants to have a place for faith over doubt, there is no way they can do it with the cliff notes version of the issues. Life is messy and trying to solve the mysteries of the kingdom with condensed answers is impossible (not to mention human interaction, bias, and history).

[Mars]

All the more reason for believers to demonstrate patience and refrain from frustrated outbursts.

 

Not that they don't tax us...