David Bokovoy on Mormon Stories

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I will really try to listen to this one.  Thanks for your input regarding the interview.

I honestly feel that no one here should be making derogatory comments about it when they have not even listened to the podcast. 

I have listened to a number of Dehlin's podcasts.  Not much of a difference between them.

To be sure, I want to listen to what some of his interviewees have to say.  I just wish we didn't have to slog through so much to get it.

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Seems a bit odd to me and I hope anyone who wants to taken seriously about their opinion will take the time to actually listen and if they choose not to, that they'll refrain from posting the negative comments.  I'll do the same regarding my opinion (not comment until I've listened to the interview).

"Refrain from posting negative comments?"  Why? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

About two weeks ago.

Which one did you listen to?

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

To be sure, I want to listen to what some of his interviewees have to say.  I just wish we didn't have to slog through so much to get it.

This is a fair point... they tend to be long.  If I didn't spend so much time behind the wheel (for work and travel) I doubt I'd listen to many of them.  But, I do find enlightenment in the small details that emerge as interviewees are given the time to tell their stories.  For me, it's much like the difference between texting or calling someone when you need to ask them a couple questions as opposed to asking them out to lunch.  The former is a more efficient way to get answers but the latter is likely to yield better results.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Which one did you listen to?

Dusty Johns.  About 2.5 hours long.  Oi.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is a fair point... they tend to be long.  If I didn't spend so much time behind the wheel (for work and travel) I doubt I'd listen to many of them.  But, I do find enlightenment in the small details that emerge as interviewees are given the time to tell their stories.  For me, it's much like the difference between texting or calling someone when you need to ask them a couple questions as opposed to asking them out to lunch.  The former is a more efficient way to get answers but the latter is likely to yield better results.

I suppose.  I'll listen to Bill Reel's interview because of his notoriety, not because I expect to get much substance from him (based on his behavior on this board, and on my interactions with him).  There are a few more that merit some attention as well (the list is here).

That said, the bulk of his content is - as you put it - people "tell[ing] their stories."  I must admit that I'm not super-duper interested in such things.  Many end up consisting of a lot of navel-gazing and seeking validation of their antipathy toward the Church (both of which Mr. Dehlin facilitates, to the detriment of the podcast, IMO).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Refrain from posting negative comments?"  Why? 

Well, it's up to you whether or not you want to post negative comments about a podcast you actually haven't listened to (yet)....but it seems odd to do so, IMO. 

And, I definitely will not take anything you say to be very informative or knowledgeable on that topic since you didn't even listen to the interview.

But on the podcasts you did listen to, I have read your comments with interest (and also your comments about Dehlin in general regarding his interview style, etc.).  I have only listened to one of his podcasts and I enjoyed it, but I haven't had experience with enough of them to really form much of an opinion on that yet.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

"Refrain from posting negative comments?"  Why? 

Well, it's up to you whether or not you want to post negative comments about a podcast you actually haven't listened to (yet)....but it seems odd to do so, IMO. 

I thought we were discussing John Dehlin's podcast in general, not necessarily the specific one with David Bokovoy.

Quote

And, I definitely will not take anything you say to be very informative or knowledgeable on that topic since you didn't even listen to the interview.

I don't think I have posted any "negative" comments about the Bokovoy interview.

Quote

But on the podcasts you did listen to, I have read your comments with interest (and also your comments about Dehlin in general regarding his interview style, etc.).  I have only listened to one of his podcasts and I enjoyed it, but I haven't had experience with enough of them to really form much of an opinion on that yet.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 26, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Dusty Johns.

Good choice!

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll listen to Bill Reel's interview because of his notoriety, not because I expect to get much substance from him (based on his behavior on this board, and on my interactions with him).

I've listened to a lot of Bill's own podcasts so I don't plan to listen to his interview by Dehlin.  While I appreciate Bill's perspective's, I generally try to listen to the podcasts that will give me something new to ponder.

[Rivers]

I haven’t watched or listened to Dehlin for long time but I watched parts of the David Bokovoy interview because I’ve always liked him.  I’m saddened that the LGBT issue  drove him and most of his family away.  This issue seems to be really tearing the church apart.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Rivers

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, it's up to you whether or not you want to post negative comments about a podcast you actually haven't listened to (yet)....but it seems odd to do so, IMO. 

And, I definitely will not take anything you say to be very informative or knowledgeable on that topic since you didn't even listen to the interview.

But on the podcasts you did listen to, I have read your comments with interest (and also your comments about Dehlin in general regarding his interview style, etc.).  I have only listened to one of his podcasts and I enjoyed it, but I haven't had experience with enough of them to really form much of an opinion on that yet.

I highly recommend the Bokovoy interview. He is the surfer/barbeque/free spirit/intellectual person that the church or any organization needs. His passion for what he believes is infectious and it comes out in this interview. The church lost when he left.

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.

Help me out here.  I am not saying anyone has to agree with what Bill says.  But please show where Bill has made a statement about a GA, where he has not provided data to back up his assertions..

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

I haven’t watched or listened to Dehlin for long time but I watched parts of the David Bokovoy interview because I’ve always liked him.  I’m saddened that the LGBT issue  drove him and most of his family away.  This issue seems to be really tearing the church apart.

 

I would not say it is tearing the Church apart.  It causing certain individuals to leave but the Church as a whole is fine.   A lot of this will turn around as time moves on as the world gets worse and worse.  War, famine, drought, ect will focus the minds on more important things.

Edited November 27, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would not say it is tearing the Church apart.  It causing certain individuals to leave but the Church as a whole is fine.   A lot of this will turn around as time moves on as the world gets worse and worse.  War, famine, drought, ect will focus the minds on more important things.

War, famine, and drought have been with us for my entire 48 years on the planet.  Their existence doesn’t make us ignore issues like the plight of the LGBTQ community. 

From where I sit, this issue is most certainly tearing the church apart.  Public figures, like Bokovoy, who leave because of this issue are the tip of the iceberg.  Under the surface, you’ve got more people than you may imagine who have lost faith in church leadership and have become active non-believers.  That is where the fabric of the church begins to fray and come apart over the long-run. 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From where I sit, this issue is most certainly tearing the church apart.

Perhaps in the US and similar countries.  From what I am reading not much effect elsewhere.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Public figures, like Bokovoy, who leave because of this issue are the tip of the iceberg.  Under the surface, you’ve got more people than you may imagine who have lost faith in church leadership and have become active non-believers.

No doubt there are places on this planet where being an 'active non-believer' makes sense. This is certainly not one of them, and I doubt few places are. We have had a handful of members leave after finding this issue to be a stumbling block. There have always been stumbling blocks for the Lord's people. In the meantime, the vast majority of Saints whom I know personally are grateful to belong to a church that is loyal to divinely revealed truth as opposed to being carried about by shifting social winds.

I recently picked up a Facebook friend from Uganda. He's a recent convert and is preparing to serve a mission. He lives in a village of 1,000 people, where, according to what he told me, we have a rather new branch of the Church with 70-80 active members. The Church will be just fine.

[flameburns623]

Bill Reel posted this:

http://www.fullerconsideration.com/units.php

Which reportedly shows a massive downsizing and restructure of stakes and wards in Mexico and California.

Someone else posted a graphic suggesting that LDS Church activity has dropped from a high of around 40% in the 1980's to around 21% presently: apparently this was someone's projected decline,  but if reflective of the truth, it confirms that the Church is headed for crises, or already in one. 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by flameburns623

[smac97]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Quote

Not really.

Help me out here.  I am not saying anyone has to agree with what Bill says.  But please show where Bill has made a statement about a GA, where he has not provided data to back up his assertions..

I was responding to this statement: "One thing about Bill Reel is that he backs up any accusations that he make with facts."

I previously outlined my impression of Bill Reel's erudition here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

I highly recommend the Bokovoy interview. He is the surfer/barbeque/free spirit/intellectual person that the church or any organization needs. His passion for what he believes is infectious and it comes out in this interview. The church lost when he left.

If the church is true, Brother Bokovoy lost a lot more.

Glenn

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps in the US and similar countries.  From what I am reading not much effect elsewhere.

 

The Church is fairly dependent on the strength of its membership in North America.  

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No doubt there are places on this planet where being an 'active non-believer' makes sense. This is certainly not one of them, and I doubt few places are. We have had a handful of members leave after finding this issue to be a stumbling block. There have always been stumbling blocks for the Lord's people. In the meantime, the vast majority of Saints whom I know personally are grateful to belong to a church that is loyal to divinely revealed truth as opposed to being carried about by shifting social winds.

I recently picked up a Facebook friend from Uganda. He's a recent convert and is preparing to serve a mission. He lives in a village of 1,000 people, where, according to what he told me, we have a rather new branch of the Church with 70-80 active members. The Church will be just fine.

So you aren’t even accepting that there are active non-believers in our wards and stakes?

 

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No doubt there are places on this planet where being an 'active non-believer' makes sense. This is certainly not one of them, and I doubt few places are. We have had a handful of members leave after finding this issue to be a stumbling block. There have always been stumbling blocks for the Lord's people. In the meantime, the vast majority of Saints whom I know personally are grateful to belong to a church that is loyal to divinely revealed truth as opposed to being carried about by shifting social winds.

I probably fit the stereotype of an active non-believer, although thats not the title I would self identify as.  I live in Utah and I'm participating and lately feeling pretty good about my participation.  Would you care to elaboration on your comment that this doesn't make sense?  I feel good personally about the way I'm approaching my church activity, which is all that really matters to me.  But I am curious about your opinion and it might help me to better navigate the ways I interact with others you may share similar opinions in my local ward.  

Edited November 27, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

If the church is true, Brother Bokovoy lost a lot more.

Glenn

If? What is this "if" Glenn?

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No doubt there are places on this planet where being an 'active non-believer' makes sense. This is certainly not one of them, and I doubt few places are.

That's my sense as well.  "Active non-believer" would seem to fall into a "First World Problem" sort of category.  Outside the U.S. (perhaps even outside the Intermountain West), if a voluntarily-associated member of a religious group stops believing, they usually stop attending.

I am not advocating that, of course.  I hope that people continue to attend as they sort out their faith.  I hope they continue to get as much good out of the Church as they can get or are willing to accept.  But I hope they do it honestly.  I hope they don't use deceit to present one face to the Church in order to hold a calling and get a temple recommend and such, but then go online and hide behind a pseudonym to speak against and tear down and disparage the Church, and to persuade others to do the same.  I have a hard time with such behavior. 

Pres. Harold B. Lee put it this way:

Quote

We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. … We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church.

I wish the "active non-believers" luck in their effort.  Truly.  I hope they don't devolve into what is described above, though.

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We have had a handful of members leave after finding this issue to be a stumbling block. There have always been stumbling blocks for the Lord's people. In the meantime, the vast majority of Saints whom I know personally are grateful to belong to a church that is loyal to divinely revealed truth as opposed to being carried about by shifting social winds.

Same here!   I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and are themselves revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

War, famine, and drought have been with us for my entire 48 years on the planet.  Their existence doesn’t make us ignore issues like the plight of the LGBTQ community. 

From where I sit, this issue is most certainly tearing the church apart.  Public figures, like Bokovoy, who leave because of this issue are the tip of the iceberg.  Under the surface, you’ve got more people than you may imagine who have lost faith in church leadership and have become active non-believers.  That is where the fabric of the church begins to fray and come apart over the long-run. 

It’s creating a lot of noise and spectacle — or, to use a Shakespearean phrase, sound and fury. Whether that amounts to the Church being torn apart is highly dubious, though I have no doubt a fair number of people wish it were so. 

Where I think it may be having a more pronounced effect is in the number of outsiders who are dissuaded from the outset from giving the Church of Jesus Christ a fair hearing, evidenced, perhaps, in the diminishing of the rate at which people embrace the restored gospel. This should not be altogether surprising, as we have been warned in the record of Nephi’s vision that, though the Church will be over the face of the earth, its numbers will be relatively few by reason of the devil’s influence. 

One thing we cannot do in reaction is to capitulate and compromise our core principles and values, for if we did so, the Lord would reject us as a people. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s creating a lot of noise and spectacle — or, to use a Shakespearean phrase, sound and fury. Whether that amounts to the Church being torn apart is highly dubious, though I have no doubt a fair number of people wish it were so. 

Where I think it may be having a more pronounced effect is in the number of outsiders who are dissuaded from the outset from giving the Church of Jesus Christ a fair hearing, evidenced, perhaps, in the diminishing of the rate at which people embrace the restored gospel. This should not be altogether surprising, as we have been warned in the record of Nephi’s vision that, though the Church will be over the face of the earth, its numbers will be relatively few by reason of the devil’s influence. 

One thing we cannot do in reaction is to capitulate and compromise our core principles and values, for if we did so, the Lord would reject us as a people. 

it's funny, our perspective.  Last year, nearly one year ago to the day, my wife decided she's done.  She hasn't been back since.  I was done too, in a different sense of course.  I still go on occasion.  But since that time, we've seen so many others who have "left the Church".  We keep running into new ones.  We keep hearing people's stories and it feels as time goes by that there are millions of us.  But this last week I woke up and found myself with some time and headed in for sacrament meeting.  Looking around, its obvious most of those who we went with to Church for a good decade (as we lived int his particular house) are still there.  If anyone in that ward followed our same course, we don't know it, not yet.  

Also on my wife's side, everyone remains active in the Church.  On mine?  The same, except for a niece.  

In one measure it feels like everyone's joining us in calling it quits in another it feels like no one is.  With that said, I think the Church has plenty to fix, plenty of things to move on, or else some of the trends we've seen in the larger world-size perspective, will only get worse.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

it's funny, our perspective.  Last year, nearly one year ago to the day, my wife decided she's done.  She hasn't been back since.  I was done too, in a different sense of course.  I still go on occasion.  But since that time, we've seen so many others who have "left the Church".  We keep running into new ones.  We keep hearing people's stories and it feels as time goes by that there are millions of us.  But this last week I woke up and found myself with some time and headed in for sacrament meeting.  Looking around, its obvious most of those who we went with to Church for a good decade (as we lived int his particular house) are still there.  If anyone in that ward followed our same course, we don't know it, not yet.  

Also on my wife's side, everyone remains active in the Church.  On mine?  The same, except for a niece.  

In one measure it feels like everyone's joining us in calling it quits in another it feels like no one is.  With that said, I think the Church has plenty to fix, plenty of things to move on, or else some of the trends we've seen in the larger world-size perspective, will only get worse.  

There is no doubt a sifting going on. I’m not persuaded that amounts to a rupture in the Church. I’ve not seen anything yet to suggest that. 

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One thing we cannot do in reaction is to capitulate and compromise our core principles and values, for if we did so, the Lord would reject us as a people. 

Like when we rejected polygamy?  Mormons at the time rejected that core principle and value.

John Taylor famously quoted that the church would never abandon “the principle.”  “The Kingdom of God or Nothing!” he famously said in defense of polygamy in 1857 when it was commonly taught that practicing polygamy was essential to exhalation to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. 33 years later that all changed when his successor Wilford Woodruff revealed what would become OD 2.

Things change in the church. Things that have been held onto dearly have been let go. I suspect that this can and will continue. What ‘doctrines’ and practices will be changed  no one knows.