let us reason together

[Rivers]

I love the way in which Bro. Mason compared manipulating spiritual experiences with using chocolate and roses to manipulate romance. Such an interesting analogy.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I thought it was very respectfully done.  I didn't see any roads high or low..just two people communicating.

One rational and one spiritual...these are two roads that will never meet. I am reminded of passages from the Book of Mormon..."Have Ye asked of God"..."The Lord maketh no such thing known unto us" (to paraphrase). Therein is the paradox, the wall (if you will) that makes true dialog almost impossible. But we (all) should never stop trying...so we should always attempt to do as the scripture says; "Come now let us reason together". 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

I do not think that this series of podcasts is going to produce anything productive. Those who are struggling with their faith or have already given up may find some comfort in John's musings. 

 

Perhaps the increased exposure to Patrick Mason's way of doing and looking at things in contrast to what is in my opinion the more fundamentalist, undeveloped view of Dehlin will help persuade people into putting more effort into their faith rather than giving up on it.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

stemelbow said:

I'm at a loss as to what is so offensive about that which you quoted from Dehlin.  I think he's right.  We wouldn't give some guy who married other women, some of them teenagers, a pass.  We simply would not, nearly to a man or woman. 

Here is what John Dehilin said, and which you need to reread, stemelbow.

Quote

But when it comes to these sorts of claims or behaviors occurring within your own faith tradition, it appears as though you and others are much more willing to “give Joseph a pass” — and either look the other way, or find justifications that you would otherwise never bother to make in other modern contexts.

Quote

I still feel as though orthodox and progressive Mormons are willing to give Joseph Smith and LDS church truth claims far more latitude than they would anyone/anything else in their own, immediate, material existences.

Dehlin is accusing all Mormons of being dishonest, and being willing to give Joseph a pass, no matter what.  And that is simply not true.  Certainly Richard Bushman is very frank about Joseph's defects in his Rough Stone Rolling, and most Mormon scholars have no problem with owning up to Joseph's shortcomings.

You are giving Dehlin a pass to say that everyone is a liar right at the outset.  That is not how a mutually respectful discussion proceeds.  And this is typical of him.  He is the same sort of hypocrite on censorship, immediately preventing publication of a piece about him which was going to appear in FARMS Review.  His ethical and moral structure is sadly lacking.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I give too many passes to people, I guess--probably why I'm Mormon.  I always expect people to do better and better.  So, in this I'm all for it.  In spite of what some have complained about him as saying in this blog so far, I don't see any reason to question his sincerity. 

I'm eager to see how this continues. 

I've been there, giving passes, I mean.

But I'm now enduring the reality of interacting with a person with evil intentions in my life, moreso than I've ever had to before.

It's awful, and it's made me more wary of others who I feel have deliberately acted in bad faith to the detriment of others.

May God be their eternal judge, not I, but in the meantime, I won't play their games.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Meadowchik

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here is what John Dehilin said, and which you need to reread, stemelbow.

Quote

But when it comes to these sorts of claims or behaviors occurring within your own faith tradition, it appears as though you and others are much more willing to “give Joseph a pass” — and either look the other way, or find justifications that you would otherwise never bother to make in other modern contexts.

Quote

I still feel as though orthodox and progressive Mormons are willing to give Joseph Smith and LDS church truth claims far more latitude than they would anyone/anything else in their own, immediate, material existences.

Dehlin is accusing all Mormons of being dishonest, and being willing to give Joseph a pass, no matter what.

I'm honestly not seeing the charge of dishonesty in the above.  I do think many LDS simply ignore polygamy altogether.  Most know it was practiced, some don't know how Joseph was involved, and most don't know many of the details.  That feels a little like looking the other way.  And nearly all LDS justify any of it because it was revelation from God.  So saying members look the other way or justify it, does not suggest dishonest, at all, as I see it.  And it does feel to me that we LDS do tend to give Joseph more latitude than others.  Mostly because we trust he was a prophet.  But again, I see no charge of dishonesty here. 

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

 And that is simply not true.  Certainly Richard Bushman is very frank about Joseph's defects in his Rough Stone Rolling, and most Mormon scholars have no problem with owning up to Joseph's shortcomings.

That's a fair point that Dehlin could have added.

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are giving Dehlin a pass to say that everyone is a liar right at the outset.  That is not how a mutually respectful discussion proceeds.  And this is typical of him.  He is the same sort of hypocrite on censorship, immediately preventing publication of a piece about him which was going to appear in FARMS Review.  His ethical and moral structure is sadly lacking.

I'm full of forgiveness, Robert.  But in this case I simply don't see him calling everyone a liar.  There's nothing to forgive. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I've been there, giving passes, I mean.

But I'm now enduring the reality of interacting with a person with evil intentions in my life, moreso than I've ever had to before.

It's awful, and it's made me more wary of others who I feel have deliberately acted in bad faith to the detriment of others.

May God be their eternal judge, not I, but in the meantime, I won't play their games.

Ok.  Sorry to hear of the person in your life with evil intentions.  Sounds terrible. 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm honestly not seeing the charge of dishonesty in the above.  I do think many LDS simply ignore polygamy altogether.  Most know it was practiced, some don't know how Joseph was involved, and most don't know many of the details.  That feels a little like looking the other way....

I think he implies dishonesty because he is not saying we ignore everyone doing this or don't hold a particular standard, but that we do not live up to our own standards in the case of church leaders, being willing instead to use justifications we would "never" use elsewhere.  Iow, it is not about seeing nuances of context since we might see those in other situations, it is simply we give our leaders a pass for no other reason than they are our leaders.  To me that is a double standard (making excuses, refusing to look to learn the truth where we would for everyone else) and that is dishonesty and that is lying when we promote those positions knowing we have done this.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Calm

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he implies dishonesty because he is not saying we ignore everyone doing this or don't hold a particular standard, but that we do not live up to our own standards in the case of church leaders, being willing instead to use justifications we would "never" use elsewhere.  Iow, it is not about seeing nuances of context since we might see those in other situations, it is simply we give our leaders a pass for no other reason than they are our leaders.  To me that is a double standard (making excuses, refusing to look to learn the truth where we would for everyone else) and that is dishonesty and that is lying when we promote those positions knowing we have done this.

I'm not sure what you mean, Calm.  Is there any scenario outside of a religious context where you'd give a guy in our western society a pass for marrying multiple women with some of them being teenagers as young as 14?  I thought it was because Joseph thought it was revelation that has given us reason to give him a pass. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  Sorry to hear of the person in your life with evil intentions.  Sounds terrible. 

It's just the same sob story I've told before of the neighbor tenant ward member. But it sucks.

Thank you.

Anyways....

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you mean, Calm.  Is there any scenario outside of a religious context where you'd give a guy in our western society a pass for marrying multiple women with some of them being teenagers as young as 14?  I thought it was because Joseph thought it was revelation that has given us reason to give him a pass. 

I think what we're talking about here is normal human bias and not dishonesty. We give our favorite celebrities a pass on bad behavior because we like them. Even more so our politicians. If a politician on our "team" messes up we might overlook that a lot more easily than if someone from the other "team" did the same thing. 

That is not to say that everyone is totally biased in that way. I think we all are at least a little. Many are very biased in that way - perhaps most!

I have no doubt that John Dehlin has the same biases as anyone else, just applied to different people. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's just the same sob story I've told before of the neighbor tenant ward member. But it sucks.

Thank you.

Anyways....

Oh I remember. Thanks again.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think what we're talking about here is normal human bias and not dishonesty. We give our favorite celebrities a pass on bad behavior because we like them. Even more so our politicians. If a politician on our "team" messes up we might overlook that a lot more easily than if someone from the other "team" did the same thing. 

That is not to say that everyone is totally biased in that way. I think we all are at least a little. Many are very biased in that way - perhaps most!

I have no doubt that John Dehlin has the same biases as anyone else, just applied to different people. 

I agree. 

[Storm Rider]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he implies dishonesty because he is not saying we ignore everyone doing this or don't hold a particular standard, but that we do not live up to our own standards in the case of church leaders, being willing instead to use justifications we would "never" use elsewhere.  Iow, it is not about seeing nuances of context since we might see those in other situations, it is simply we give our leaders a pass for no other reason than they are our leaders.  To me that is a double standard (making excuses, refusing to look to learn the truth where we would for everyone else) and that is dishonesty and that is lying when we promote those positions knowing we have done this.

Dehlin speaks in such a condescending manner - he is enlightened and all you Mormons too stupid to climb the mountain like he has done are either lying or simply ignorant.  For me, I intensely distrust anything he says or does because time and again he has proven himself to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.  

[Atheist Mormon]

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm sorry but I can't respect Dehlin as participating in good faith in dialoguing about the church.

Don't need to be sorry...Dehlin lost his faith along his journey like many of us. He chose a path few would undertake....... 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm honestly not seeing the charge of dishonesty in the above.  I do think many LDS simply ignore polygamy altogether.  Most know it was practiced, some don't know how Joseph was involved, and most don't know many of the details.  That feels a little like looking the other way.  And nearly all LDS justify any of it because it was revelation from God.  So saying members look the other way or justify it, does not suggest dishonest, at all, as I see it.  And it does feel to me that we LDS do tend to give Joseph more latitude than others.  Mostly because we trust he was a prophet.  But again, I see no charge of dishonesty here.

I think it's more a matter of consistency.  Meaning, we like to think that we're using a spiritually based but rational process of judging whether or not Joseph Smith was a Prophet, but at the same time we are willing to put problematic issues aside ("on the shelf?") when those issues might provide too much counter-evidence.  Once you start being selective in your evidence like that, all bets are off and you're just working to maintain belief.

Or, to put it another way, if LDS used the same methodology to judge other religious leaders as they do Joseph Smith (Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, Warren Jeffs etc.), then it is entirely likely that they would have the same result.  Entirely likely, because those peoples' followers do exactly the same thing.

That's what's so weird about "testimony maintenance."  In no other area of my life can I imagine focusing on creating or maintaining a belief in something with such effort and intent.  And I'm pretty sure if I did, I could convince myself of anything. 

[hope_for_things]

On 9/20/2016 at 1:59 PM, stemelbow said:

How far do you think we can take this type of discussion?  it seems like in times past these discussion happen to some extent and then die.  Sides are taken and people refuse to give the other side listen or credence. 

What do you say?  Is this a good thing or a bad thing? 

I think it's awesome. 

I'm very excited about this new blog because I love the way that Patrick Mason approaches these issues.  His book is excellent, his talk at FAIR was great as well.  He is not in the vein of the old school defend at all costs apologetics.  He is much more open and willing to be kindly critical in a balanced way.  He acknowledges opportunities within the church.  I really really appreciate his approach.  Two questions this raises for me. 

1.  Will the old school more orthodox apologists tolerate Patrick's approach or not?  It seems like from past threads on this message board that Patrick's approach rubs some people wrong, and that he's too liberal for the comfort of some.  

2.  Can regular people on both sides of these issues learn to have respectful dialogue on these issues?  

I love that John and Patrick are modeling how to approach a respectful dialogue.  I love that they are expressing their views without demonizing the other.  I think this is so exciting and important.  Can't wait to continue to watch this unfold!  

[Mystery Meat]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm honestly not seeing the charge of dishonesty in the above.  I do think many LDS simply ignore polygamy altogether.  Most know it was practiced, some don't know how Joseph was involved, and most don't know many of the details.  That feels a little like looking the other way.  And nearly all LDS justify any of it because it was revelation from God.  So saying members look the other way or justify it, does not suggest dishonest, at all, as I see it.  And it does feel to me that we LDS do tend to give Joseph more latitude than others.  Mostly because we trust he was a prophet.  But again, I see no charge of dishonesty here. 

That's a fair point that Dehlin could have added.

I'm full of forgiveness, Robert.  But in this case I simply don't see him calling everyone a liar.  There's nothing to forgive. 

No offense to you, but this evaluation of Church membership is just as unfair (I won't call it dishonest, as I don't believe it is intentional) as Dehlin's. My wife, who is highly educated and quite progressive when it comes to women's rights and related issues, doesn't care about polygamy in the 19th Century Church. She could read about all of Joseph's wives, their struggles, Fanny Alger, etc., but what for? It isn't that she is dismissive, but that she knows what she knows. And she knows Joseph Smith is a prophet. All too often, people who want to talk about polygamy want to do it to discredit Joseph Smith. It's not the topic but the intent. My wife is not the only member who falls into this category.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps the increased exposure to Patrick Mason's way of doing and looking at things in contrast to what is in my opinion the more fundamentalist, undeveloped view of Dehlin will help persuade people into putting more effort into their faith rather than giving up on it.

I love Patrick's approach, but I think you mischaracterize Dehlin here.  He has a large following for a reason, because his approach speaks to a lot of people.  Its fine if you want to label these followers of Dehlin as fundamentalist or having undeveloped views.  I'm sure that they don't feel like those labels are accurate.  You could turn those same labels around on the general membership of orthodox LDS members and call them fundamentalist or undeveloped in their views.  I think that those labels are equally unfair, even though I'm sure I've used them before myself.  

Always trying to learn and get more respectful along the way.  I think this new blog conversation is one step in the process.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here is what John Dehilin said, and which you need to reread, stemelbow.

Dehlin is accusing all Mormons of being dishonest, and being willing to give Joseph a pass, no matter what.  And that is simply not true.  Certainly Richard Bushman is very frank about Joseph's defects in his Rough Stone Rolling, and most Mormon scholars have no problem with owning up to Joseph's shortcomings.

You are giving Dehlin a pass to say that everyone is a liar right at the outset.  That is not how a mutually respectful discussion proceeds.  And this is typical of him.  He is the same sort of hypocrite on censorship, immediately preventing publication of a piece about him which was going to appear in FARMS Review.  His ethical and moral structure is sadly lacking.

For what its worth, I think you're over reaching on this point, and I don't see malicious intent here.  I think this is an example of the sensitivity of these issues, but thankfully Patrick didn't respond out of a place of defensiveness or over sensitivity to any perceived offense.  

It takes a lot of maturity to have these kinds of conversations without reacting and that is why I respect Patrick so much for modeling this dialogue.  I respect Dehlin as well and appreciate that they are both willing to produce this content.  

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I love Patrick's approach, but I think you mischaracterize Dehlin here.  He has a large following for a reason, because his approach speaks to a lot of people.  Its fine if you want to label these followers of Dehlin as fundamentalist or having undeveloped views.  I'm sure that they don't feel like those labels are accurate.  You could turn those same labels around on the general membership of orthodox LDS members and call them fundamentalist or undeveloped in their views.  I think that those labels are equally unfair, even though I'm sure I've used them before myself.  

Always trying to learn and get more respectful along the way.  I think this new blog conversation is one step in the process.  

I do think that exmormons tend to be fundamentalists or literalists. But by the same token, fundamentalism seems to be the most popular approach to Mormonism among believers as well. The Mormonism I experienced growing up was totally fundamentalist.

However, I see signs that fundamentalism is starting to lose its grip over the church, just a little. I think the less fundamentalist the church is, the more we'll start to see friendly dialogue between believers and former believers, or people in between. There is no more ardent critic of faith than the fundamentalist who has lost his own faith. There is no more ardent critic of "unorthodoxy" than a fundamentalist. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think it's more a matter of consistency.  Meaning, we like to think that we're using a spiritually based but rational process of judging whether or not Joseph Smith was a Prophet, but at the same time we are willing to put problematic issues aside ("on the shelf?") when those issues might provide too much counter-evidence.  Once you start being selective in your evidence like that, all bets are off and you're just working to maintain belief.

Or, to put it another way, if LDS used the same methodology to judge other religious leaders as they do Joseph Smith (Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, Warren Jeffs etc.), then it is entirely likely that they would have the same result.  Entirely likely, because those peoples' followers do exactly the same thing.

That's what's so weird about "testimony maintenance."  In no other area of my life can I imagine focusing on creating or maintaining a belief in something with such effort and intent.  And I'm pretty sure if I did, I could convince myself of anything. 

I think the difference is that most members don't know the history about Joseph Smith and polygamy or many other controversial issues, so in essence they aren't putting the full story on the shelf, but only a small portion that they may have heard rumor about.  If members understood the whole history, warts and all, and then chose to continue to follow, then that would be a different matter.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I do think that exmormons tend to be fundamentalists or literalists. But by the same token, fundamentalism seems to be the most popular approach to Mormonism among believers as well. The Mormonism I experienced growing up was totally fundamentalist.

However, I see signs that fundamentalism is starting to lose its gripe over the church, just a little. I think the less fundamentalist the church is, the more we'll start to see friendly dialogue between believers and former believers, or people in between. There is no more ardent critic of faith than the fundamentalist who has lost his own faith. There is no more ardent critic of "unorthodoxy" than a fundamentalist. 

I can agree with you that some exmormons are fundamentalist in their views, but I don't think that applies to Dehlin specifically.  The nice thing about this Patheos blog conversation is it tries to put both sides on an equal setting of mutual respect.  So calling Dehlin a fundamentalist exmo or calling Patrick an apologist hack are labels that are unproductive for this conversation in my opinion.  

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can agree with you that some exmormons are fundamentalist in their views, but I don't think that applies to Dehlin specifically.  The nice thing about this Patheos blog conversation is it tries to put both sides on an equal setting of mutual respect.  So calling Dehlin a fundamentalist exmo or calling Patrick an apologist hack are labels that are unproductive for this conversation in my opinion.  

Hmm, it's hard to say. At least from the episodes I've listened to, he doesn't often talk about his own beliefs. I wouldn't imagine that he is one, but I don't have much of a basis to judge. He certainly seems like he's trying to be respectful, with varying degrees of success. 

Anyway, it's an interesting project, I look forward to seeing where it leads. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Gray

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's just the same sob story I've told before of the neighbor tenant ward member. But it sucks.

Thank you.

Anyways....

Don't let the fact they're a ward member change how you treat them. People like that will take advantage, just had to say this. Sorry to the OP!