The 17 Threats To The True Church

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I remember watching him on BYU Education weeks and that sort of thing and with all  this I am dumbstruck, I hadn't heard a peep about him in the last few years other than his blog, which was strange stuff but his isn't alone in that regard! I don't know what his latest activities are or if he is trying to start anything, I can't find anything out of sorts online, but as others said maybe the brethren knew him and felt he was a threat or a reminder of who can fall away from the Gospel? 

Dehlin I believe suggested some sort of polygamy behind his wife's back and claims of meeting Jesus and Noah. Sounds like some sort of break of a sort. It happens. I remember Rick Jones at BYU who I had a lot of respect for and then he flips out and became one of the top 911 truthers. He then more or less got pressured to early retirement because of his outspokenness on 911 conspiracies. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I believe they are accountable, just not to me. Everyone's personal testimony is their own. They may be lying. They may be deceived or misguided. They may be 100% truthful. But unless there is some concrete evidence to look out - and there's not with subjective pronouncements of belief in deity - then I take people at their word. If God told them the LDS church is true, I believe them. If God told them the local Baptist church is true, I believe them. If they say they are incapable of a belief in God, I believe them. 

I guess i don't understand what you are saying.

If someone is incapable of choosing to believe in God, how can they be accountable for that?  They have no control over it.  

[JulieM]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

No. You really can't claim some kind of parity between Snuffer and Dehlin.

Dehlin goes out of his way to say he is not some kind of replacement leader where as Snuffer is receiving "revelation" for his followers and rebaptizing etc. HUGE difference.

And what is Robert Norman doing, do you know?  Is he trying to get followers?  I just wonder where he fits in here.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Dehlin I believe suggested some sort of polygamy behind his wife's back and claims of meeting Jesus and Noah. 

Dehlin did this?

(And do you mean Steven Jones in the other part of your post about the BYU professor?)

Edited March 1, 2017 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And what is Robert Norman doing, do you know?  Is he trying to get followers?  I just wonder where he fits in here.

I'm guessing Robert Norman is a cautionary tale about how good, intelligent, faithful members can go bad. I think he was well respected among GA's and at BYU. He had many things published in the Ensign and you can find his material at LDS.org so his specific example may have been more jarring to the GA's who know him. But he also represents the danger of any faithful member who digs deep into discrepancies in restoration theology. He's not the only one out there and I think these kind of "respectable apostates" scare church leaders.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Dehlin did this?

Robert Norman apparently was involved in secret polygamy, after saying he saw Jesus, according to Dehlin. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why would he release that? To embarrass the church? No. To start discussions.

 

 

Have they done podcasts and brought to attention everything that has been leaked, or just the stuff that has the potential to make the church look bad or weird?

I haven't been following it so i have no idea, but it seems like that's a really easy way to gauge their motives.  If it's just about starting discussion, then all leaks would be seen as equal in importance and would get equal "airtime".  If it's about trying to make the church look good, only leaks that make the church look good would be focused on.  If it's about trying to make the church look bad only leaks that the people felt make the church look bad would be focused on.

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I predict that they don't. Not beyond very general "stay in the boat" or very general dealing with doubt items. 

Remember Elder Holland's talk, "Safety for the Soul", when he specifically mentions not to believe Ethan Smith and Solomon Spaulding theories? I think mentioning anti-Mormon subjects with the detail such as these names might mean they bring up some subjects in the recent leak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ac3tWeV3I

 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why does McKnight's claim about helping transparency "go out the window"?  I don't see your evidence for that.

The MS podcast panel was not comprised of "various anti-Mormon groups".  Here are the panelists:

• John Dehlin:  excommunicated but still working with many members as a counselor

Let's be honest. John Dehlin is anti- (as in "against") the Church. That he "still works with many members as a counselor" doesn't impute pure motives. His hoped-for niche in counseling is with struggling members --- and not in a way that is supportive to the Church.

• Dr. Gina Colvin:  LDS, runs "A Thoughtful Faith" podcast

Dr. Gina Colvin can safely be labeled as anti- (as in "agains") the Church. I wouldn't be surprised to see her be excommunicated at some point.

• Lindsey Hansen Park: Assistant Director of Sunstone

Sunstone is squarely in the "liberal members who are sharply critical of Church history, doctrine, and practices" camp. I don't know anything about Lindsay Park at all, but dollars to doughnuts she's critical of the Church.

• Pastor John Hamer:  Toronto Community of Christ

May well not be antagonistic towards the Church, but he's a non-Mormon pastor on a MormonStories panel discussing leaks about the Church. What unique perspective did he have on this?

• Ryan McKnight:  Founder of MormonLeaks

I think we all generally agree that he does not mean the Church well and wants to embarrass it through these leaks. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Dehlin did this?

(And do you mean Steven Jones in the other part of your post about the BYU professor?)

Dehlin said that about Robert Norman.

 

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think the church may be blamed for some of this happening to marriages in people's lives. I wonder if they will face the music at judgement day for withholding information about the church in their curriculum or elsewhere.

That seems a bit much especially since most of the information could easily be found among faithful LDS sites. Also you don't know why they got divorced so assuming this was the cause rather than other choices they made seems to be assuming a lot.

[rpn]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

... but the one on a GA getting 200 bucks a month less because his child turned 24?  I don't see how that's possibly putting the Church in a favorable light. 

Did you notice that that GA's allowance was a lot less than 120K annually?    The reduction was to around 4195 per rmonth which makes it around 50K annual.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Dehlin did this?

(And do you mean Steven Jones in the other part of your post about the BYU professor?)

Whoops. Yeah Steve Jones. Rick Jones was the guy who hung out with the Incredible Hulk and Captain America as I recall. My bad.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Have they done podcasts and brought to attention everything that has been leaked, or just the stuff that has the potential to make the church look bad or weird?

I haven't been following it so i have no idea, but it seems like that's a really easy way to gauge their motives.  If it's just about starting discussion, then all leaks would be seen as equal in importance and would get equal "airtime".  If it's about trying to make the church look good, only leaks that make the church look good would be focused on.  If it's about trying to make the church look bad only leaks that the people felt make the church look bad would be focused on.

No. They haven't done podcasts on every leak. But this particular podcast also talked about the leak regarding illegal immigrants that was not intended to make the church look bad. Panelists agreed it was a good policy.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That seems a bit much especially since most of the information could easily be found among faithful LDS sites. Also you don't know why they got divorced so assuming this was the cause rather than other choices they made seems to be assuming a lot.

Much agree! 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, rpn said:

Did you notice that that GA's allowance was a lot less than 120K annually?    The reduction was to around 4195 per rmonth which makes it around 50K annual.

Pay period is two weeks. That'd be 108,000 annual.  The 120k raise was in 2014.  This document is from 2011.  So the raise to the base of 120,000 was not effective as yet. 

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

1) I remember my first (and only) John Dehlin podcast watch was the McLay interview. It was mostly the camera pointed at Dehlin, with him talking at me. 

2) Of course there are strong, active members who resign over troubling issues. McLay appears to be one of them --- although, was he more conservative, or more liberal? I have no idea. It was sad that they got divorced after --- his wife had resigned with him. My experience is that liberal members struggle much more with Church policy and culture --- and this leads to there being a disproportionate amount of struggles with historical issues as well. Conservative members, as others have agreed, tend to be very committed to the Restoration, and when they leave, it is generally because they feel that the drift away from the Restoration is too much. For many liberal members, the Restoration and appendages to it are kind of embarrassing, and they tend to lean toward non-literal scriptures and things like that (much more so than conservative members, who tend to lean towards literal scriptures). 

If you look just on this board here (small sample size, but I'll bet it bears me out), the LDS members who are most often critical of Church doctrine and policy, like you, Gray, stemelbow, HappyJackWagon, etc. . . . . . .  are they politically liberal, or politically conservative?

Assuming that the slide is genuine, I think there is a good reason for the "left/right" portion: left/right is generally a good indicator for whether people might struggle with the Church, and where these struggles might be.

3) In my experience, liberal members tend to be much less active from an attendance and calling standpoint than conservative members. 

I can't speak for the others you mentioned, but I am politically conservative.

I know many people who listen to Dehlin's podcasts and they too are politically conservative.

In my experience, politically liberal members do not tend to be less active from an attendance and calling standpoint.  One of our recent ward RS presidents was a liberal and proudly drove into the church parking lot with her Obama bumper sticker.

I don't see the usefulness of trying to say politically liberal members tend to think this way much of the time while politically conservative members tend to think this way much of the time.  Why not address the issues of why people are leaving rather than trying to attach those reasons to politically ideology?  If someone leaves the church because of polyandry do we care that they were a democrat?  And if someone decides to become a "Snufferite" do we care that they were a Republican?  How does that matter?

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Let's be honest. John Dehlin is anti- (as in "against") the Church. That he "still works with many members as a counselor" doesn't impute pure motives. His hoped-for niche in counseling is with struggling members --- and not in a way that is supportive to the Church.

 

 

No we don't agree.  I don't consider anyone who is critical of the church or not a member of the church to be "anti-Mormon".  I think that's a vastly unfair characterization but I understand that many want to see it that way.

Many of those people you are claiming to be anti-Mormon desperately want the church to live up to the ideals that it proclaims.  Listen to the podcast.

Many here would probably consider me critical of the church for some of my beliefs but I am certainly not an anti-Mormon.

It seems that your definition of anti-Mormon is anyone who doesn't believe in all the truth claims of the church and believes that the Prophet and apostles may have made or be making mistakes.  Am I understanding you correctly?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can't speak for the others you mentioned, but I am politically conservative.

I know many people who listen to Dehlin's podcasts and they too are politically conservative.

In my experience, politically liberal members do not tend to be less active from an attendance and calling standpoint.  One of our recent ward RS presidents was a liberal and proudly drove into the church parking lot with her Obama bumper sticker.

I don't see the usefulness of trying to say politically liberal members tend to think this way much of the time while politically conservative members tend to think this way much of the time.  Why not address the issues of why people are leaving rather than trying to attach those reasons to politically ideology?  If someone leaves the church because of polyandry do we care that they were a democrat?  And if someone decides to become a "Snufferite" do we care that they were a Republican?  How does that matter?

I have become less conservative in the past 3 years but I've never voted for a democratic Pres. nominee (though I didn't vote for Trump either). These caricatures are a bit tired.

Rongo, I especially challenge your assertion that liberal members are less active in attendance and callings than conservative members. I don't see any evidence of that. But I do think church culture leans ultra conservative which could create non-gospel related discomfort for liberal members, and rightly so. You seem to be 0 for 2 in calling "critics" on this board, liberal.

[Buckeye]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I guess i don't understand what you are saying.

If someone is incapable of choosing to believe in God, how can they be accountable for that?  They have no control over it.  

What I'm saying is that I don't judge their capability. If they truly are incapable, then God (as I understand him) would not hold them accountable. 

I apologize, but I thought you were suggesting that someone could insincerely say that they are incapable, even though they could choose belief, and that we should therefore make a judgment as to whether they really are incapable.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can't speak for the others you mentioned, but I am politically conservative.

I know many people who listen to Dehlin's podcasts and they too are politically conservative.

In my experience, politically liberal members do not tend to be less active from an attendance and calling standpoint.  One of our recent ward RS presidents was a liberal and proudly drove into the church parking lot with her Obama bumper sticker.

I don't see the usefulness of trying to say politically liberal members tend to think this way much of the time while politically conservative members tend to think this way much of the time.  Why not address the issues of why people are leaving rather than trying to attach those reasons to politically ideology?  If someone leaves the church because of polyandry do we care that they were a democrat?  And if someone decides to become a "Snufferite" do we care that they were a Republican?  How does that matter?

IMO the right/left thing in the PowerPoint isn't directly about politics. Theologically conservative members are more concerned with orthodoxy (especially following the scriptures in a literalistic way). The equivalent in the Christian world are the sola scriptura Evangelical fundamentalists. They observe that the modern church is inconsistently following the scriptures (or their literal interpretation of scripture), and they find it troubling. The church isn't pure enough for them, and the church isn't inclusive enough for the liberals. I don't think that means that all Snufferites are Republicans, I'm sure not all of them are. 

 

[Duncan]

I for one would LOVE to hear a MS interview with Robert Norman, I want to hear that story!!!

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see the usefulness of trying to say politically liberal members tend to think this way much of the time while politically conservative members tend to think this way much of the time.  Why not address the issues of why people are leaving rather than trying to attach those reasons to politically ideology?  If someone leaves the church because of polyandry do we care that they were a democrat?  And if someone decides to become a "Snufferite" do we care that they were a Republican?  How does that matter?

Simply being aware of it (keeping it in mind) based on approach. One's ideology doesn't matter when one leaves for this or that reason, but certain people tend to be upset over the Church and LGBT issues, while other types tend to be upset over, say, the Church and immigration, or temple changes.

 N

o we don't agree.  I don't consider anyone who is critical of the church or not a member of the church to be "anti-Mormon".  I think that's a vastly unfair characterization but I understand that many want to see it that way.

I think we both mean different things by that phrase. I don't consider "anyone who is critical of any aspect of the Church" or anyone not a member of the Church to be anti-Mormon (and I don't think I've ever given any grounds for saying that. I, myself, am sometimes critical of how the Church does things). I mean, "people who oppose or have animosity towards the Church." Some LDS members fall into this category.

Many here would probably consider me critical of the church for some of my beliefs but I am certainly not an anti-Mormon.

Nor would I consider you to be one. If you were a panelist on a Dehlin podcast, on the other hand . . .  

It seems that your definition of anti-Mormon is anyone who doesn't believe in all the truth claims of the church and believes that the Prophet and apostles may have made or be making mistakes.  Am I understanding you correctly?

Not really. Personally harboring these thoughts would not make one an "anti-Mormon." Publicly trying to convince others to disbelieve in truth claims or the legitimacy of the prophets would be. I think it has to do with behavior, although one could be "anti-Mormon" in one's sentiments, but nobody would know that if they weren't being vocal about it.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rongo, I especially challenge your assertion that liberal members are less active in attendance and callings than conservative members. I don't see any evidence of that. But I do think church culture leans ultra conservative which could create non-gospel related discomfort for liberal members, and rightly so.

There is probably regional variation on this. In ultra-conservative areas, this is the case --- in spades. In areas with more ideological diversity, I'm sure there are more active liberal members. You correctly draw attention to the fact that I have always lived in ultra-conservative areas as an adult, and this colors my perception.

You seem to be 0 for 2 in calling "critics" on this board, liberal.

Well, those I named are very upset over the Church's doctrine and policy on LGBT issues, for instance. I think all of them would also strongly support women ordination. I personally don't know any self-described conservative LDS who feel that way about either issue.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, those I named are very upset over the Church's doctrine and policy on LGBT issues, for instance. I think all of them would also strongly support women ordination. I personally don't know any self-described conservative LDS who feel that way about either issue.

I think you can be a political conservative and support the ordination of women. In that case you'd be theologically liberal but politically conservative.