Protecting Mormons online

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

In the here and now perhaps.  Observing him from afar for the past decade has led me to conclude he can be rather changeable and listening to him with one audience does not provide a very complete picture, which is not unusual.

Greg's paper allows people to "listen to him" in a variety of contexts over time (up to that point).

Yes, he has changed over the years.  I think I've said that a number of times.  His podcasts have really highlighted his journey over the past 12 years.

 

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm sure Juliann is capable of understanding behaviors have multiple reasons driving them.  But in that statement she implies cog dis coming from Dehlin not wanting to lose his "high paying job" by succeeding in getting the church to change.  IOW - he's in it for the money.

So you think he would dedicate himself full time to it with a family but without the money. Interesting.

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you think he would dedicate himself full time to it with a family but without the money. Interesting.

I am not really repping this comment, but one or two of your comments on a certain other thread I got booted off of. I just wanted to rep you. However, I kind of dislike the term microaggression, although I think it was probably appropo in this case.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you think he would dedicate himself full time to it with a family but without the money. Interesting.

I think very few of us could dedicate ourselves to a full-time job without pay.  But that doesn't create cognitive dissonance.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm sure Juliann is capable of understanding behaviors have multiple reasons driving them.  But in that statement she implies cog dis coming from Dehlin not wanting to lose his "high paying job" by succeeding in getting the church to change.  IOW - he's in it for the money.

No, that is your interpretation.  You have to rewrite it in order for it to say that.  Those are your words, your meaning.  Not hers.  

Someone can be aware of a benefit and want to have that benefit without it being the sole reason for action.  I want my son to live by us so I get to see his family all the time.  I also want him to have the experience of living in certain places he expressed a desire to live in when he was younger.  The two desires cause some discomfort...minor because it is not my decision.

Dehlin gets clients in his view because in part the Church sets off turmoil in their lives.  Dehlin pushes for that to change.  He desires clients.  He desires change.  He works for both and more. He desires many other things as well (such as having a chance to understand the why and how of the interaction of church and family for a variety of reasons).  If change happens, one desire is answered, the other may not be.  Other desires may or may not be impacted.

It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.  Cognitive dissonance occurs because of multiple pulls, the very fact she used cog dis demonstrates a recognition of multiple motivations, in this case at least two conflicting ones.  If she thought he just desired the money, she wouldn't believe he wants the Church to change.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No, that is your interpretation.  You have to rewrite it in order for it to say that.  Those are your words, your meaning.  Not hers.  

Someone can be aware of a benefit and want to have that benefit without it being the sole reason for action.  I want my son to live by us so I get to see his family all the time.  I also want him to have the experience of living in certain places he expressed a desire to live in when he was younger.  The two desires cause some discomfort...minor because it is not my decision.

Dehlin gets clients in his view because in part the Church sets off turmoil in their lives.  Dehlin pushes for that to change.  He desires clients.  He desires change.  He works for both and more. He desires many other things as well (such as having a chance to understand the why and how of the interaction of church and family for a variety of reasons).  If change happens, one desire is answered, the other may not be.  Other desires may or may not be impacted.

It shouldn't be that difficult to understand.  Cognitive dissonance occurs because of multiple pulls, the very fact she used cog dis demonstrates a recognition of multiple motivations, in this case at least two conflicting ones.  If she thought he just desired the money, she wouldn't believe he wants the Church to change.

Juliann wrote:  "He would be out of a very high paying job if he succeeded. That must cause some cognitive dissonance."

What did she say would cause the cog dis?  Losing his "high paying job".  She even emphasized it with italics.  The "he succeeded" referred to her previous statement about "blowing up the good the church does".  She didn't make reference to any other motivations.  But she is welcome to clarify what she meant.

 

Obviously, I'm not going to get anyone here to change their opinion on Dehlin anymore than anyone else will get me to change my opinion on him after listening to him for many, many hours.  But I think it is ridiculous to keep scapegoating him as if HE is the problem.  Dehlin didn't create the issues that are causing people to leave the church. Dehlin's popularity didn't arise out of his horribly amateur interviewing style.  It came about because the church and our culture didn't give people any other good option for having these discussions and getting support.  So they turned to Mormon Stories.  

I wouldn't mind if Dehlin faded away, out of the picture.  But we need to figure out what it will take to make that happen.  And I don't think we, as a church, are quite doing that yet.  But I am a bit more hopeful after gen con this month and the encouragement that we heard, in this regard, from the pulpit. 

And with that, I'm out.  It's Easter.  I hope everyone has a beautiful day filled with hope and peace. 

Edited April 16, 2017 by rockpond

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Since I'm not blindly rooting for a team than I don't fit your definition either.

O.K. then:  With your eyes wide open.  

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, he has changed over the years.  I think I've said that a number of times.  His podcasts have really highlighted his journey over the past 12 years.

 

He's also saved peoples' lives by creating a space where their distress is acknowledged and validated.

In reference to another comment of yours, I don't think Dehlin will be going away that soon.  There are simply more and more people who are finding and using online support after leaving the church.

There are women who haven't had a friend in decades who understands their place but who are finding others like them thanks to Dehlin and other resources, many of which are places where people are directed based on their need at the time.

And I think that as long as the First Discussions and Sundays Schools present an LDS founding story that is shockingly different from the peepstone and polygamy drama that the church acknowledges, more people will be effectively trained up to need Dehlin in the future, be it sooner or later, or even their decendents.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  But when I was young we didn't teach that the church would diminish, we taught (and looked forward to) its amazing growth.  That's what I was referring to.

The Church is not diminishing. To my knowledge, it has never diminished in its history.

I don't know what you mean by "amazing growth," but the Church would never have to become predominant in the world prior to the Second Coming ("its numbers were [comparatively] few") to be consistent with any prophecy of the scriptures I am aware of. It would have to have a global presence ("over all the face of the earth") to be consistent with the prophecy Nephi beheld in vision. And it does have that global presence, or at least is on the way to establishing such a presence.

Even if you or others in the past failed to grasp the prophecy in Nephi's vision, or failed to take cognizance of it, that does not invalidate it.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

On 4/16/2017 at 0:28 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church is not diminishing. To my knowledge, it has never diminished in its history.

I don't know what you mean by "amazing growth," but the Church would never have to become predominant in the world prior to the Second Coming ("its numbers were [comparatively] few") to be consistent with any prophecy of the scriptures I am aware of. It would have to have a global presence ("over all the face of the earth") to be consistent with the prophecy Nephi beheld in vision. And it does have that global presence, or at least is on the way to establishing such a presence.

Even if you or others in the past failed to grasp the prophecy in Nephi's vision, or failed to take cognizance of it, that does not invalidate it.

Don't get me wrong, Scott.  I love this narrative and Nehpi's vision.  It's just not what I was raised on.  And, of course, what I was taught growing up greatly influenced how I interpreted Nephi's vision.

Ironically, I first remember hearing this explanation of the Church's future from Terryl Givens on Mormon Stories.  It immediately resonated with me but the idea that we only needed a presence on the earth (with the priesthood keys) rather than needing to give every soul an opportunity to accept/reject saving ordinance was new to me.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Don't get me wrong, Scott.  I love this narrative and Nehpi's vision.  It's just not what I was raised on.  And, of course, what I was taught growing up greatly influenced how I interpreted Nephi's vision.

Ironically, I first remember hearing this explanation of the Church's future from Terryl Givens on Mormon Stories.  It immediately resonated with me but the idea that we only needed a presence on the earth (with the priesthood keys) rather than needing to give every soul an opportunity to accept/reject saving ordinance was new to me.

It works really well in the practical.  It says many things to me as well.  It's not so important to be LDS, as we like to think.  there are many noble and greats one that are outside the Church and remain there, perhaps even many who leave the Church to get God's work done in other ways.  The Church, as it turns out, is far less about being the Kingdom of God that people must come into (I've never really liked the Church=Kingdom thing), and more about one little tool in God's tool kit.  I really like that view of the Church.  And yes, its a far cry from what the Church has traditionally taught, and currently tries to promote. 

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Ironically, I first remember hearing this explanation of the Church's future from Terryl Givens on Mormon Stories.  It immediately resonated with me but the idea that we only needed a presence on the earth (with the priesthood keys) rather than needing to give every soul an opportunity to accept/reject saving ordinance was new to me.

I found the Mormon focus on growth numbers starting in the late 70's to be somewhat problematic. Not inherently pleased with it but the kind of triumphantalism some brought to the growth. That seemed inappropriate. We're still one of the faster growing religions but right now we are struggling in the international church IMO.

Not sure what Givens said on Mormon Stories, but I do think the Church has always been small relative to the population of the earth. My sense is learning the gospel in this life isn't the crucial thing for most people. Otherwise God would have done things quite differently. That's not to deny in the least it as a benefit to many. But for a long time I've thought the primary work - especially for LDS - is preparing missionaries to the spirit world. We brought this up in our Easter family home evening this weekend. One of the things Christ did at his crucifixion was break open the doors to spirit prison and start missionary work. While I personally think there was some work done for the dead in Palestine prior to the apostasy (and who knows with the Nephites) the main work of ordinances for the spirit world is us. And the main missionary force is us as we go to the spirit world. That's a huge endeavor and it's there that I think most will encounter God's grace in a fashion that enables them to be exalted.

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I found the Mormon focus on growth numbers starting in the late 70's to be somewhat problematic. Not inherently pleased with it but the kind of triumphantalism some brought to the growth. That seemed inappropriate. We're still one of the faster growing religions but right now we are struggling in the international church IMO.

Not sure what Givens said on Mormon Stories, but I do think the Church has always been small relative to the population of the earth. My sense is learning the gospel in this life isn't the crucial thing for most people. Otherwise God would have done things quite differently. That's not to deny in the least it as a benefit to many. But for a long time I've thought the primary work - especially for LDS - is preparing missionaries to the spirit world. We brought this up in our Easter family home evening this weekend. One of the things Christ did at his crucifixion was break open the doors to spirit prison and start missionary work. While I personally think there was some work done for the dead in Palestine prior to the apostasy (and who knows with the Nephites) the main work of ordinances for the spirit world is us. And the main missionary force is us as we go to the spirit world. That's a huge endeavor and it's there that I think most will encounter God's grace in a fashion that enables them to be exalted.

Interesting perspective and I agree with your statement about triumphantalism being problematic. I think much of the growth in the church is coming internationally from places like South America and Africa even if it is simultaneously constricting in areas like Europe. I also think growth has slowed dramatically in the US. I really don't think we're among the "faster growing" religions. At least it's easy to see others that are growing faster, like Jehovas Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists, among others.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting perspective and I agree with your statement about triumphantalism being problematic. I think much of the growth in the church is coming internationally from places like South America and Africa even if it is simultaneously constricting in areas like Europe. I also think growth has slowed dramatically in the US. I really don't think we're among the "faster growing" religions. At least it's easy to see others that are growing faster, like Jehovas Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists, among others.

It's slowed in the US somewhat although still growing. I think growth/retention in Latin America is starting to be an issue. I do agree that internationally Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists are growing faster. In Asia Evagelicals are growing faster too. As I've said I think our problem is a combination of short term missionaries and a message pedagogy focused on converting pre-existing Christians.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 But for a long time I've thought the primary work - especially for LDS - is preparing missionaries to the spirit world. We brought this up in our Easter family home evening this weekend. One of the things Christ did at his crucifixion was break open the doors to spirit prison and start missionary work. While I personally think there was some work done for the dead in Palestine prior to the apostasy (and who knows with the Nephites) the main work of ordinances for the spirit world is us. And the main missionary force is us as we go to the spirit world. That's a huge endeavor and it's there that I think most will encounter God's grace in a fashion that enables them to be exalted.

That is very thought provoking, I've never heard it before.

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is very thought provoking, I've never heard it before.

It's a full chapter in Talmage. Joseph F. Smith was meditating on 1 Peter 3:18–20 when he had the vision we now have as D&C 138.

Lorenzo Snow said, 

 “When the Gospel is preached to the spirits in prison, the success attending that preaching will be far greater than that attending the preaching of our Elders in this life. I believe there will be very few indeed of those spirits who will not gladly receive the Gospel when it is carried to them. The circumstances there will be a thousand times more favorable” (“Discourse by President Lorenzo Snow,” Millennial Star, Jan. 22, 1894, 50)

The Ensign had a good article on the topic a few years back. There also was a good article last month.

Edited April 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[juliann]

I'd never extended that to our over reaching purpose as a church being missionary training for that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Don't get me wrong, Scott.  I love this narrative and Nehpi's vision.  It's just not what I was raised on.  And, of course, what I was taught growing up greatly influenced how I interpreted Nephi's vision.

Ironically, I first remember hearing this explanation of the Church's future from Terryl Givens on Mormon Stories.  It immediately resonated with me but the idea that we only needed a presence on the earth (with the priesthood keys) rather than needing to give every soul an opportunity to accept/reject saving ordinance was new to me.

Oh, I still believe every soul will be given an opportunity to accept or reject the saving ordinances. I also believe in the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in connection with his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The problem is that many people over the years have misunderstood the timetable. I earnestly believe that our task prior to the Second Coming of Christ is primarily to set the stage for what will come later. We are establishing the Savior's kingdom throughout the earth preparatory to His coming in glory. Christ has set upHis Church in latter days to be as a city on a hill, a light shining in the darkness, a leaven for the loaf in an increasingly dark and wicked world. That is why it is so very essential that His Church hold fast to eternal values and standards, resisting and avoiding shifting trends such as the redefinition of marriage and the destruction of the family as an institution. If the Church were to succumb to these shifting trends, it would lose its power to accomplish its task of preparing the world for the coming of Christ in glory. He would have to reject us as a people, because we would no longer be in a position to fulfill that divine role.

What's going on right now is part of the panorama. But the really epic events will take place after Christ's coming. That's when we will see the stone rolling forward to break down all other kingdoms and to fill the earth.

Immediately after Christ's coming, the vast majority of the world -- perhaps even a proportionately larger majority than today -- will not yet belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. But from that point on, there will be a rapid and exponential conversion of the peoples of the earth until virtually all have accepted the saving ordinances.

A couple of factors will have facilitated this:

For one, the wicked will have been destroyed through cataclysmic events preceding the coming of Christ, leaving only those who are disposed to righteousness to survive.

For another, Satan will be bound during the thousand years of Christ's millennial reign and will not have power to blind the eyes or darken the minds of the people. With their inborn light, they will recognize the truth when they see it.

Furthermore, the coming of Christ in glory will be as the dawn that spreads forth into the bright light of day. The truth will be so obvious that people will be obliged to recognize it and receive it.

As people accept the gospel and receive the saving ordinances, they will in turn take it to others who will also receive. Again, the growth will be exponential. And all these converted souls will perform vicarious ordinances of salvation in the temples of the world for those who have died. Those departed spirits will in turn receive the gospel on the other side of the veil.

So Daniel's prophecy commenced with the Restoration of the gospel and priesthood keys and authority through the Prophet Joseph Smith and it will culminate during the millennial reign of Christ when ultimately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord and that the fullness of the gospel is being proclaimed by emissaries of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm not acquainted with what Terryl Givens said to John Dehlin in the church of the holy podcast, but if it is consistent with the above, I say good for him. I very much agree with him in that event.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh, I still believe every soul will be given an opportunity to accept or reject the saving ordinances. I also believe in the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in connection with his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

The problem is that many people over the years have misunderstood the timetable. I earnestly believe that our task prior to the Second Coming of Christ is primarily to set the stage for what will come later. We are establishing the Savior's kingdom throughout the earth preparatory to His coming in glory. Christ has set upHis Church in latter days to be as a city on a hill, a light shining in the darkness, a leaven for the loaf in an increasingly dark and wicked world. That is why it is so very essential that His Church hold fast to eternal values and standards, resisting and avoiding shifting trends such as the redefinition of marriage and the destruction of the family as an institution. If the Church were to succumb to these shifting trends, it would lose its power to accomplish its task of preparing the world for the coming of Christ in glory. He would have to reject us as a people, because we would no longer be in a position to fulfill that divine role.

What's going on right now is part of the panorama. But the really epic events will take place after Christ's coming. That's when we will see the stone rolling forward to break down all other kingdoms and to fill the earth.

Immediately after Christ's coming, the vast majority of the world -- perhaps even a proportionately larger majority than today -- will not yet belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. But from that point on, there will be a rapid and exponential conversion of the peoples of the earth until virtually all have accepted the saving ordinances.

A couple of factors will have facilitated this:

For one, the wicked will have been destroyed through cataclysmic events preceding the coming of Christ, leaving only those who are disposed to righteousness to survive.

For another, Satan will be bound during the thousand years of Christ's millennial reign and will not have power to blind the eyes or darken the minds of the people. With their inborn light, they will recognize the truth when they see it.

Furthermore, the coming of Christ in glory will be as the dawn that spreads forth into the bright light of day. The truth will be so obvious that people will be obliged to recognize it and receive it.

As people accept the gospel and receive the saving ordinances, they will in turn take it to others who will also receive. Again, the growth will be exponential. And all these converted souls will perform vicarious ordinances of salvation in the temples of the world for those who have died. Those departed spirits will in turn receive the gospel on the other side of the veil.

So Daniel's prophecy commenced with the Restoration of the gospel and priesthood keys and authority through the Prophet Joseph Smith and it will culminate during the millennial reign of Christ when ultimately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord and that the fullness of the gospel is being proclaimed by emissaries of the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm not acquainted with what Terryl Givens said to John Dehlin in the church of the holy podcast, but if it is consistent with the above, I say good for him. I very much agree with him in that event.

Fascinating to me that the one essential eternal value you think to mention, as the church needing to hold to, is avoiding the "redefinition of marriage" rather than anything that Christ actually taught during his mortal ministry.  Then again, that obsession seems to me to be part of the reason for our declining growth.  Which I guess is, to you, a fulfillment of prophecy.  So, right on, brother!

I don't know of a "church of the holy podcast".  I know that our church is one that values gospel study (including when done through the spoken word) and the Terryl Givens interview certainly fits well.  I'd highly recommend it.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Fascinating to me that the one essential eternal value you think to mention, as the church needing to hold to, is avoiding the "redefinition of marriage" rather than anything that Christ actually taught during his mortal ministry.  Then again, that obsession seems to me to be part of the reason for our declining growth.  Which I guess is, to you, a fulfillment of prophecy.  So, right on, brother!

I don't know of a "church of the holy podcast".  I know that our church is one that values gospel study (including when done through the spoken word) and the Terryl Givens interview certainly fits well.  I'd highly recommend it.

I see the redefinition of marriage as symptomatic of a broader evil, which is the destruction of the family unit. And the eternal nature of the family is indeed part of the everlasting gospel.

Furthermore, to limit the teachings of Christ to what the New Testament gospels happen to record that He said during His mortal ministry is myopic indeed. Which is why I treasure the doctrine pertaining to ongoing revelation and the open canon.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 3:25 PM, juliann said:

He would be out of a very high paying job if he succeeded. That must cause some cognitive dissonance. Don't get me wrong about not having ill will against him personally, that doesn't mean I like or respect what he has done and how he has done it. But there is no point in going after him as a person, just like any position in the church, there will always be someone else to do the job. 

CFR that Dehlin has a "high paying job" related to his OFS and MS work.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 5:58 PM, juliann said:

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

So no answer for your unfounded comment. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see the redefinition of marriage as symptomatic of a broader evil, which is the destruction of the family unit. And the eternal nature of the family is indeed part of the everlasting gospel.

Furthermore, to limit the teachings of Christ to what the New Testament gospels happen to record that He said during His mortal ministry is myopic indeed. Which is why I treasure the doctrine pertaining to ongoing revelation and the open canon.

I didn't say we should limit the teachings of Christ to what the New Testament says.  Just pointed out that the "essential" thing you thought to mention was "redefinition of marriage" (which doesn't actually destroy anyone's family unit).

I would argue that Christ never taught about gay marriage nor is there any revelation on the subject that has been attributed to Him but that's a dead-end convo for you and I and a total derail of the thread.

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

CFR that Dehlin has a "high paying job" related to his OFS and MS work.

Cause I know stuff. Believe what you want, I'm not declaring it on every page and we aren't even talking about it anymore. He is below the poverty line. There.

[Teancum]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 7:25 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

This sadly reminds me of the failed psychohistory of Fawn Brodie.  As you do, she wrote out of bitterness and anger (so said Mike Quinn in my presence), projecting her own cynicism upon others.  Instead of dealing with substance, you attack and thus miss the point of scholarship, which knows no dogmas -- except those of best scholarly practice, which includes sincerity, which you might try to adopt.  Would help you a lot not to so constantly be on the attack.  Your deep-seated partisanship does not become you, Teancum.

You are such a bore Robert,  You have no desire to understand the people you interact with. You have such a deep seated need to be right and defend your own religious and personal views to the point you have to just attack and marginalize others. I used to think you were someone who could be broad and open and have dialogue with. I see I was wrong.  But I can tell you I say noting out of bitterness or anger. I seek. I try to dialogue. But I Know you and others of your ilk need to brans people like me as such. 

Stay in your bubble. It is not worth it to try to be reasonable with dogmatic demagogues. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Teancum