Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[bsjkki]

I really don't like listening to podcasts or Mormon Stories. My sister mentioned this case and said she read one of the reasons he left was because of not being able to do anything about a predator in his ward and he went directly to the police even though leaders above him counseled against it. Is this in that interview or at all accurate? 

[bsjkki]

27 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I really don't like listening to podcasts or Mormon Stories. My sister mentioned this case and said she read one of the reasons he left was because of not being able to do anything about a predator in his ward and he went directly to the police even though leaders above him counseled against it. Is this in that interview or at all accurate? 

I read the transcript on youtube (not a very copy/paste format). The story is at 2:16:00 about. 

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

Quote

You sometimes say unkind things about my faith. 

Deservedly so.  

Oh, the irony.

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your faith is not something that has a right to be excluded from criticism.  

I quite agree.  I have acknowledged this many times.  

And yet by your tendentious reasoning, you are publicly (!) "shaming" and "shunning" me by your unkind words.  

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Much or Mormonism deserves to be criticized. This is one of them.

Huh.  Then people who are publicly (1) "shamed" and "shunned" in other watered-down-to-the-point-of-absurdity ways "deserve to be criticized."

"It's different when I do it, because shut up," he explained.

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Do you accept that this amounts to "publicly shaming" and/or "shunning" me?  If not, why not?

I am not sure where you want to go with this.

Just trying to figure out your reasoning. 

You dislike the Church.  I get it.  One of your criticisms is that it publicly (!) "shames" and "shuns" its members via means that, in my view, are nothing close to shaming or shunning ("memberships restrictions or removal, limits on participation like partaking of the sacrament, sending missionaries home for a variety of reason, heavy handed rules and 'commandments,' confession ... Shaming can come in many ways and on many levels").  

These are all private behaviors, most are confidential.  The Church does not publicize "membership restrictions or removal," or limitations on religious participation, or the reasons missionaries are sent home, or the contents of confessions."  And yet you persist in calling all of these "public shaming and shunning."  I find that characterization to be unreasonable, even absurd.

Meanwhile, you have spent many years publicly disparaging and insulting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  "Deservedly so," you say.

Again, do you think that what you do, by your reasoning, amounts to "public shaming and shunning"?  If not, why not?

For my part, I think it does (but only according your reasoning).  I think you are intending to shame and shun the Latter-day Saints because of their membership in the Church and their acceptance and observance of the principles it espouses.  You certainly have every right to do this.  Free Speech and all that.  I just find it notable that either 

• A) you do not think that your public disparagements amount to public (!) shaming/shunning (perhaps as much as, if not more so than, say, not-publicized-at-all things like membership restrictions/removal), or
• B) you do think that your behavior falls within this watered-down rubric of public shaming/shunning, but that it (public shaming/shunning) is okay when you do it.

A few concluding thoughts:

1. I find virtually no merit or substance to your accusation that the Church "publicly shame{s}" its members in the ways you describe above.  Not a one of the things in your list can be reasonably characterized as "public," or as "shaming" or "shunning."  

2. The Church is a voluntary community.  Those who join it (and choose to stay in it) agree to accept and abide by behavioral codes of conduct.  Latter-day Saints, foible beings as they are, will sometimes mess up in their observance of such things, sometimes even seriously so.  If and when that happens, the Church seeks to work with the individual to encourage them to repent and turn away from their misconduct.  None of these efforts involve the Church taking "public" measures.  These efforts are, instead, overwhelmingly and calculatedly kept private and confidential.

3. There are some religious groups (and other types of groups) that require or encourage the individual to publicly confess their sins, or else announce such things publicly, or else otherwise do things that can reasonably be characterized as "public shaming or shunning."  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not one of them. 

4. Interestingly (even ironically), a group that can be reasonably characterized as being into "public shaming and shunning" is the ragtag, unified-only-in-their-hostility confederation of folks who answer to the designation of "Anti-Mormon."  Publicly shaming and shunning the Latter-day Saints is often their bread and butter.  But by their reckoning, the Latter-day Saints deserve to be publicly shamed and shunned, so it's okay when they do it.

5. As noted above, I largely reject your watered-down and tortured usage of "public shaming or shunning" as applied to the things in your list.  However, if we were to accept this watered-down notion, it would assuredly apply to your behavior on this board.

6. The Church and its members have their flaws.  And they are not immune from or above public critique and commentary.  But regarding your accusations that it publicly shames and shuns its members, I think you are bearing false witness against us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Oh, the irony.

Look in the mirror.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  I have acknowledged this many times.  

Rarely.  You fight every almost every battle with the energy of a zealot.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet by your tendentious reasoning, you are publicly (!) "shaming" and "shunning" me by your unkind words.  

Wow.  This board has what.  Maybe 15 or 20 active participants?  Really public. 🙄

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  Then people who are publicly (1) "shamed" and "shunned" in other watered-down-to-the-point-of-absurdity ways "deserve to be criticized."

"It's different when I do it, because shut up," he explained.

I do not think I stated that the church engages in a program of public shaming.  But the church is full of other ways of using shame to control its member.  Historically, as I noted, it was worse than today.  But elements are still there.  There is no way around it.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Just trying to figure out your reasoning. 

You dislike the Church. 

Better put there are things I dislike about the church.  There are also some things I like.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

I get it.  One of your criticisms is that it publicly (!) "shames" and "shuns" its members via means that, in my view, are nothing close to shaming or shunning ("memberships restrictions or removal, limits on participation like partaking of the sacrament, sending missionaries home for a variety of reason, heavy handed rules and 'commandments,' confession ... Shaming can come in many ways and on many levels").  

These are some examples of public shaming.  The church has other ways to shame that are not public.  But these are public.  But it is good we are beyond the days of announcing the the MP who was given the boot.  Remember the days of "We would like excuse the Aaronic Priesthood."  We would always wonder who got excommunicated and eventually we would know.  I mean come on. If a member has the membership taken away you don't think it will over not to long of a time period be known widely?  

The fact that in your view such things are nothing close to shaming or shunning is really meaningless.  Maybe you should ask those who go through it.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

These are all private behaviors, most are confidential.  The Church does not publicize "membership restrictions or removal," or limitations on religious participation, or the reasons missionaries are sent home, or the contents of confessions."  And yet you persist in calling all of these "public shaming and shunning."  I find that characterization to be unreasonable, even absurd.

They are public. And my position is not absurd.  But as noted, it is not just public shaming I was talking about. I just gave valid and real example of where there is still a public shame element on how  the church approaches such things.  And what to further absurd is you arguing against these facts even after you posted a list from the manual of mandatory vs maybe items for church discipline.  I doubt you would find many religions with such a directive.

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, you have spent many years publicly disparaging and insulting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Good lord you are whiny.  As I have said at least a hundred times here, the only place I criticize really is here.  How public is that? Not very.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

"Deservedly so," you say.

 

Yes it is deserved.  Institutions that do harmful things deserve to be criticized. Institutions that are dishonest should be criticized. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, do you think that what you do, by your reasoning, amounts to "public shaming and shunning"?  If not, why not?

No.  My criticism are focused on an institution.  And there is no element of shame in them.

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For my part, I think it does (but only according your reasoning).  I think you are intending to shame and shun the Latter-day Saints because of their membership in the Church and their acceptance and observance of the principles it espouses. 

I think this is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen you make.  And I do not shun Latter day Saints.  I have family and good friends that are LDS.  I don't shun them.  Good lord.🙄 Dude this is a discussion board.  That welcomes critics.  

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You certainly have every right to do this.  Free Speech and all that.  I just find it notable that either 

• A) you do not think that your public disparagements amount to public (!) shaming/shunning (perhaps as much as, if not more so than, say, not-publicized-at-all things like membership restrictions/removal), or
• B) you do think that your behavior falls within this watered-down rubric of public shaming/shunning, but that it (public shaming/shunning) is okay when you do it.

More specious and ludicrous argumentation

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few concluding thoughts:

1. I find virtually no merit or substance to your accusation that the Church "publicly shame{s}" its members in the ways you describe above.  Not a one of the things in your list can be reasonably characterized as "public," or as "shaming" or "shunning."  

I don't care.  You are wrong. Totally.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2. The Church is a voluntary community.

For those born into and LDS family and indoctrinated and raised LDS it is NOT  voluntary. And disengaging from it is hard.  Hell one has to jump through hoops to have their name removed.  And  often that step, or even deciding not  to participate but remaining a member, like I have, is fraught with challenges and difficulties.  High demand religions are hard to leave.  And to stay one must conform.  So no, neither you or I were initially a Latter day Saint voluntarily.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

 

3. There are some religious groups (and other types of groups) that require or encourage the individual to publicly confess their sins, or else announce such things publicly, or else otherwise do things that can reasonably be characterized as "public shaming or shunning."  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not one of them. 

So what?  Other religions are worse than the church.  What relevance does that have here?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

4. Interestingly (even ironically), a group that can be reasonably characterized as being into "public shaming and shunning" is the ragtag, unified-only-in-their-hostility confederation of folks who answer to the designation of "Anti-Mormon."  Publicly shaming and shunning the Latter-day Saints is often their bread and butter.  But by their reckoning, the Latter-day Saints deserve to be publicly shamed and shunned, so it's okay when they do it.

You are really reaching here.

 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

5. As noted above, I largely reject your watered-down and tortured usage of "public shaming or shunning" as applied to the things in your list.

Yours is the only tortured argument here.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 However, if we were to accept this watered-down notion, it would assuredly apply to your behavior on this board.

Pure unadulterated horse pucky.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

6. The Church and its members have their flaws.  And they are not immune from or above public critique and commentary.  But regarding your accusations that it publicly shames and shuns its members, I think you are bearing false witness against us.

Thanks,

-Smac

No.  The truth is just something you can't deal with apparently.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, the irony.

I quite agree.  I have acknowledged this many times.  

And yet by your tendentious reasoning, you are publicly (!) "shaming" and "shunning" me by your unkind words.  

Huh.  Then people who are publicly (1) "shamed" and "shunned" in other watered-down-to-the-point-of-absurdity ways "deserve to be criticized."

"It's different when I do it, because shut up," he explained.

Just trying to figure out your reasoning. 

You dislike the Church.  I get it.  One of your criticisms is that it publicly (!) "shames" and "shuns" its members via means that, in my view, are nothing close to shaming or shunning ("memberships restrictions or removal, limits on participation like partaking of the sacrament, sending missionaries home for a variety of reason, heavy handed rules and 'commandments,' confession ... Shaming can come in many ways and on many levels").  

These are all private behaviors, most are confidential.  The Church does not publicize "membership restrictions or removal," or limitations on religious participation, or the reasons missionaries are sent home, or the contents of confessions."  And yet you persist in calling all of these "public shaming and shunning."  I find that characterization to be unreasonable, even absurd.

Meanwhile, you have spent many years publicly disparaging and insulting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  "Deservedly so," you say.

Again, do you think that what you do, by your reasoning, amounts to "public shaming and shunning"?  If not, why not?

For my part, I think it does (but only according your reasoning).  I think you are intending to shame and shun the Latter-day Saints because of their membership in the Church and their acceptance and observance of the principles it espouses.  You certainly have every right to do this.  Free Speech and all that.  I just find it notable that either 

• A) you do not think that your public disparagements amount to public (!) shaming/shunning (perhaps as much as, if not more so than, say, not-publicized-at-all things like membership restrictions/removal), or
• B) you do think that your behavior falls within this watered-down rubric of public shaming/shunning, but that it (public shaming/shunning) is okay when you do it.

A few concluding thoughts:

1. I find virtually no merit or substance to your accusation that the Church "publicly shame{s}" its members in the ways you describe above.  Not a one of the things in your list can be reasonably characterized as "public," or as "shaming" or "shunning."  

2. The Church is a voluntary community.  Those who join it (and choose to stay in it) agree to accept and abide by behavioral codes of conduct.  Latter-day Saints, foible beings as they are, will sometimes mess up in their observance of such things, sometimes even seriously so.  If and when that happens, the Church seeks to work with the individual to encourage them to repent and turn away from their misconduct.  None of these efforts involve the Church taking "public" measures.  These efforts are, instead, overwhelmingly and calculatedly kept private and confidential.

3. There are some religious groups (and other types of groups) that require or encourage the individual to publicly confess their sins, or else announce such things publicly, or else otherwise do things that can reasonably be characterized as "public shaming or shunning."  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not one of them. 

4. Interestingly (even ironically), a group that can be reasonably characterized as being into "public shaming and shunning" is the ragtag, unified-only-in-their-hostility confederation of folks who answer to the designation of "Anti-Mormon."  Publicly shaming and shunning the Latter-day Saints is often their bread and butter.  But by their reckoning, the Latter-day Saints deserve to be publicly shamed and shunned, so it's okay when they do it.

5. As noted above, I largely reject your watered-down and tortured usage of "public shaming or shunning" as applied to the things in your list.  However, if we were to accept this watered-down notion, it would assuredly apply to your behavior on this board.

6. The Church and its members have their flaws.  And they are not immune from or above public critique and commentary.  But regarding your accusations that it publicly shames and shuns its members, I think you are bearing false witness against us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, it definitely starts with the interviews with the youth and a few adults perhaps in interviews. For instance on masturbation, it has not been in the church handbook since I believe 2010. Heard this in the MS's podcast with four former LDS bishops. So why then are the youth asked if they masturbate? 

Publicly, Pres Nelson shamed a few so called "lazy learners" as well. Which IMO, has no merit really. Maybe lazy at other things such as not serving as much as they did while active perhaps, raise my hand on that one. But lazy learner is pretty far off. In many's faith journey, they spend hours and hours of research about the history of the church and other subjects. Even using actually church books to back it up. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well, it definitely starts with the interviews with the youth and a few adults perhaps in interviews. For instance on masturbation, it has not been in the church handbook since I believe 2010. Heard this in the MS's podcast with four former LDS bishops. So why then are the youth asked if they masturbate? 

Publicly, Pres Nelson shamed a few so called "lazy learners" as well. Which IMO, has no merit really. Maybe lazy at other things such as not serving as much as they did while active perhaps, raise my hand on that one. But lazy learner is pretty far off. In many's faith journey, they spend hours and hours of research about the history of the church and other subjects. Even using actually church books to back it up. 

The phrase "lazy learner" or some version of it ("lazy scholar") has been used by church leaders for at least as far back as John Widstoe.    Elder Renlund used the phrase in 2016 and President Nelson in 2021.  

Here is an article from Jana Reiss that partly addresses it. 

How Mormons handle doubt: Blame the victim (religionnews.com)

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, it definitely starts with the interviews with the youth and a few adults perhaps in interviews. For instance on masturbation, it has not been in the church handbook since I believe 2010. Heard this in the MS's podcast with four former LDS bishops. So why then are the youth asked if they masturbate? 

I can't speak to that.  Bishops are not supposed to be asking about this.  I never did.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Publicly, Pres Nelson shamed a few so called "lazy learners" as well.  Which IMO, has no merit really.

If presenting criticism or corrective counsel amounts to "shaming," then you do that all the time on this board.

Here is Pres. Nelson's comment:

Quote

Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith.

He did not call anyone out.  He notes that "lazy learners and lax disciples" exist, and that by being lazy and/or lax, they will likely struggle in developing faith.  

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe lazy at other things such as not serving as much as they did while active perhaps, raise my hand on that one. But lazy learner is pretty far off.

"Far off" from what?

This seems to be an "if the shoe fits, wear it" kind of thing.  A student who is "lazy" or "lax" in their efforts to master a subject will likely have limited success in their efforts.  That seems almost axiomatic in its accuracy.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In many's faith journey, they spend hours and hours of research about the history of the church and other subjects.

Who are "they"?

And if they are "spend{ing} hours and hours  of research about the history of the church and other subjects," how are "they" characterized as "lazy learners"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak to that.  Bishops are not supposed to be asking about this.  I never did.

\

Your experience is not the bright line test for all others.  You will say you don't think it is but you sure act like it. Great.  You did not ask probing questions about the law of chastity when you were a bishop.  Neither did I.  But a lot of bishops do and cross the line.  And I am sure you know this so you really can speak to that.  My daughter was asked extremely in appropriate questions by a bishop.  When I was a bishop a member of my ward who was attending BYUI was suspended due to law of chastity issues.  When she came home I was assisting her through her repentance process and she told me what her leaders had asked her as well as her RM boyfriend. It was appalling.  

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If presenting criticism or corrective counsel amounts to "shaming," then you do that all the time on this board.

 

Your argument is specious and fallacious.  Criticizing an institution and behavior that that institution promotes is not shaming. It is not shaming you or any particular member.  It is not focused personally.  Your need to die on every hill results in you making quite frankly stupid arguments and this is one of them. If I criticize the Republican Party for capitulating to authoritarianism, Trumpism and the  MAGA movement it is not shaming anyone.  It is criticiing an institution. Example of this abound.   

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here is Pres. Nelson's comment:

He did not call anyone out.  He notes that "lazy learners and lax disciples" exist, and that by being lazy and/or lax, they will likely struggle in developing faith.  

"Far off" from what?

This seems to be an "if the shoe fits, wear it" kind of thing.  A student who is "lazy" or "lax" in their efforts to master a subject will likely have limited success in their efforts.  That seems almost axiomatic in its accuracy.

President Nelson was speaking in the context of those who have left the church and implied such persons were lazy learners.  It was a remark aimed at sharing such persons and also giving a verbal weapon to those who still believe to use against those who have left. At least that is how many disaffected members interpreted the remark.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Who are "they"?

And if they are "spend{ing} hours and hours  of research about the history of the church and other subjects," how are "they" characterized as "lazy learners"?

Thanks,

-Smac

The "they" are those who were not lazy but devoted countless hours of study as they exited Mormonism. I am sure many were like me and tried all they could to find something that would keep them active believers including apologetic material.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

The phrase "lazy learner" or some version of it ("lazy scholar") has been used by church leaders for at least as far back as John Widstoe.    Elder Renlund used the phrase in 2016 and President Nelson in 2021.  

Here is an article from Jana Reiss that partly addresses it. 

How Mormons handle doubt: Blame the victim (religionnews.com)

The article above is a fine example of how the church shames people.  And it directly refutes @smac97's fallacious argument.

[paulhadik]

Hi Stargazer

As a Reformed Protestant we definitely don't have the faithful program that the LDS church has. And while I spent about 25 years in Micronesia I did not go out as a "missionary" but as a believer who is also an educator.  I think this is the Great Commission that we are called to. Not all of us need to be preachers or missionaries in the traditional sense of the word, but I do believe we are all commanded to be cities on a hill. I sometimes think that American Christians have forgotten that verse doesn't require we all live on the "same hill" as it were. As for Protestants in general they tend to spend several years raising funds to be "full time missionaries" on the field. I am not sure that is the Biblical method as I am not a fan of the 4-5 years often spent raising the funds, nor the "insulating" themselves as missionaries when they get to the field (and I am generalizing here).  I think believers are called into the world and we should all go: medical workers, teachers, musicians, accountants etc. Be lights of Christ throughout the world.

[Stormin' Mormon]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

President Nelson was speaking in the context of those who have left the church and implied such persons were lazy learners.  

How do you figure? I went back and read the talk, and he introduces his theme of increasing faith as the first step to "allowing God to prevail in our lives." In past remarks, President Nelson has tied membership in the House of Israel as those who "let God prevail" in their lives. The only context I see here is that these remarks are directed at members of the Church who are affirmatively numbering themselves with the House of Israel, not those who have left or no longer want to be members of the Church.

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

The "they" are those who were not lazy but devoted countless hours of study as they exited Mormonism. I am sure many were like me and tried all they could to find something that would keep them active believers including apologetic material.

You obviously were not a lazy learner. Why would you assume these remarks were directed at you? Denying the antecedent is a common error in syllogistic logic.

If L (lazy learner) then S (struggle with faith). Not L. Therefore Not S. This is not a valid syllogism.

Consider this syllogism: If Smac lives in Logan, he lives in Utah. Smac does not live in Logan. Therefore he does not live in Utah.

There are other cities one can live in and still be a resident of Utah. There are other reasons why someone would struggle with their faith besides being a lazy learner.

By the same token, affirming the consequent is no more valid than is denying the antecedent. This is also a common error that is being used to misconstrue President Nelson's remarks.

If L then S. S. Therefore L. This is not a valid syllogism, either.

Consider the example I used above. If Smac lives in Logan, he lives in Utah. Smac lives in Utah. Therefore, he lives in Logan. 

Of those who live in Utah, some of them live in Logan, but not all of them do. Likewise, of those who struggle with their faith, some might be lazy learners, but not all of them are.

Edited February 10, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

Another way of visualizing the logic underlying President Nelson's statement is using a venn diagram.

In this case, the "Lazy Learner" circle is entirely enclosed within the "struggle with faith" circle, such that, if you are in the LL circle you are also in the SWF circle. However, it remains logically possible to be outside the LL circle, but still be inside the SWF circle.

In other words, all lazy learners struggle with faith, but not all who struggle with faith are lazy learners.

[Amulek]

So, it’s been a while since I listened to the podcast, but I did make it through pretty much the whole thing. I did a lot of fast forwarding over anyone other than Nick because I really wasn’t that interested in all of the extra filler / commentary.

Here’s a quick rundown on some of the things I wanted to comment on…

Pronunciation Guide
So it turns out that John Dehlin’s last name isn’t pronounced like mellon (only with a ‘d’) after all, which is how I had always read it in my mind. It’s apparently supposed to be pronounced more like mandolin (only without the ‘man’). Interesting.

Biggest Issues
He cites the following as being his biggest issues with the church. I’m going to paraphrase here, but if you want to listen it’s around the 2-hour 22-minute mark in the video, shortly after he makes what I’m sure he (now) believes is a really witty comment about how “Mormonism is trying to say that 2 plus 2 equals pizza.”

• Polygamy
  • He doesn’t want to have more than one wife and his wife doesn’t want to share him. Okay.
• Joseph Smith practicing polygamy and marrying young girls
  • I’m not really clear on what his specific issues were here, but I can accept that there are some problematic things surrounding Joseph’s practice of polygamy – though I suspect my thoughts on that subject aren’t exactly what he has in mind.
• Historicity of the Book of Mormon
  • He believes the BoM claims all Native Americans are Jews; oh, and that Mormonism teaches racism to boot. He’s got a problem with that, of course, because he has black friends. (Yes, he actually says something like that…without irony).
• Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • He believes it was fabricated, couldn’t have happened as or when described, etc. I did some googling based on what he mentions earlier in the interview, and I’m fairly certain this is the article he read that ‘broke his shelf.’
  • Spoiler alert: I have read the article, as he suggested, and have not yet felt the need to resign my own membership. Sorry.

It seems like Joseph Smith really was the biggest issue for him. He says earlier in the video about how he had a testimony of Joseph Smith even before he had a testimony of Jesus being the Christ (which, as he later informs listeners, is not actually Jesus’ surname  ), so I can certainly see why that might be the case. All the more reason to do as the church actually teaches and center your faith on Christ.

What They Take From You
At the 3-hour 6-minute mark he tells this story about how freeing it is to be out of the church now. He gives an example of how they were sitting in their backyard and his wife comes over and sits on his lap. He then says, “I put my hand up her back and it was the first time I'd ever done it and felt her skin - best thing ever, and I was like oh my gosh they even took that from me.”

Um…okay. I’m sorry, but I scratch my wife’s back all the time. So, unless your wife only wears thermal onesies year-round (in Mississippi?), then that one is on you.

Robbing the Poor
Okay, so this is one of the stories he tells that kind of bothered me. At around the 3-hour 13-minute mark he tells a story about this poor woman in is ward who didn’t have two pennies to rub together but who would still pay her $8 in tithing. He gets a little emotional when telling the story because, you see, this poor woman would write $8 on the tithing slip but put $11 in the envelope because she couldn’t even count it. He found what the church was doing – robbing these poor people – to be so offensive that you will never guess what he did:

“I would help them. I’d pay their bills. I’d make sure if they paid $8, I made sure they got everything.”

Yes, how magnanimous of him to…literally do what a bishop is supposed to do.

Celestial Material
This is another one that kind of bothered me. At the 3-hour 24-minute mark he tells a story about how freeing it is to be out of the church. So he’s going into this cannabis shop to buy some herbs to take for pain relating to a bicep injury (okay) and he – well, I’ll just let him tell it:

[I see] this girl sitting here and she's got nose piercing, she’s really pale, tattooed, and in the church I would have just - I wouldn't have given her a second of my time; she wasn't Celestial enough. And in an instant, all of a sudden, she was so important to me; she needed to know that I was interested in who she was and that she was somebody to me and what was interesting is because I had that Paradigm Shift she wasn't giving me the time of day either but all of a sudden I asked how she was doing what she liked and everything changed.

Wasn’t “Celestial enough”?

Seriously? Like, honestly, WTF!?!

This was the part in the video where I thought to myself, and not a negative way, that maybe it really is for best that this guy left the church. If he is able to be more Christlike out of the church than in, then good on him. I wish him best in his continued progression.

 

Addendum - On Being Ignored...

Oh, I forgot to add the bit about members ignoring them. Apparently, when he says that all but a couple of members of their ward have ignored them since he stepped down as bishop, what he really means is that only a couple of families have physically come to their house to talk with them in person. Of note, he doesn't say anything about him going to anyone else's house. Also, they live out on 30-acres in the country, so it isn't like a Utah neighborhood where everybody sees everyone all the time. He also mentions that he "got a slew across the stake of text messages of 'we just want you to know we love you.'" But apparently, in his mind, that doesn't count. Whateves.

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, it’s been a while since I listened to the podcast, but I did make it through pretty much the whole thing. I did a lot of fast forwarding over anyone other than Nick because I really wasn’t that interested in all of the extra filler / commentary.

Here’s a quick rundown on some of the things I wanted to comment on…

Pronunciation Guide
So it turns out that John Dehlin’s last name isn’t pronounced like mellon (only with a ‘d’) after all, which is how I had always read it in my mind. It’s apparently supposed to be pronounced more like mandolin (only without the ‘man’). Interesting.

Biggest Issues
He cites the following as being his biggest issues with the church. I’m going to paraphrase here, but if you want to listen it’s around the 2-hour 22-minute mark in the video, shortly after he makes what I’m sure he (now) believes is a really witty comment about how “Mormonism is trying to say that 2 plus 2 equals pizza.”

• Polygamy
  • He doesn’t want to have more than one wife and his wife doesn’t want to share him. Okay.
• Joseph Smith practicing polygamy and marrying young girls
  • I’m not really clear on what his specific issues were here, but I can accept that there are some problematic things surrounding Joseph’s practice of polygamy – though I suspect my thoughts on that subject aren’t exactly what he has in mind.
• Historicity of the Book of Mormon
  • He believes the BoM claims all Native Americans are Jews; oh, and that Mormonism teaches racism to boot. He’s got a problem with that, of course, because he has black friends. (Yes, he actually says something like that…without irony).
• Joseph Smith’s First Vision
  • He believes it was fabricated, couldn’t have happened as or when described, etc. I did some googling based on what he mentions earlier in the interview, and I’m fairly certain this is the article he read that ‘broke his shelf.’
  • Spoiler alert: I have read the article, as he suggested, and have not yet felt the need to resign my own membership. Sorry.

It seems like Joseph Smith really was the biggest issue for him. He says earlier in the video about how he had a testimony of Joseph Smith even before he had a testimony of Jesus being the Christ (which, as he later informs listeners, is not actually Jesus’ surname  ), so I can certainly see why that might be the case. All the more reason to do as the church actually teaches and center your faith on Christ.

What They Take From You
At the 3-hour 6-minute mark he tells this story about how freeing it is to be out of the church now. He gives an example of how they were sitting in their backyard and his wife comes over and sits on his lap. He then says, “I put my hand up her back and it was the first time I'd ever done it and felt her skin - best thing ever, and I was like oh my gosh they even took that from me.”

Um…okay. I’m sorry, but I scratch my wife’s back all the time. So, unless your wife only wears thermal onesies year-round (in Mississippi?), then that one is on you.

Robbing the Poor
Okay, so this is one of the stories he tells that kind of bothered me. At around the 3-hour 13-minute mark he tells a story about this poor woman in is ward who didn’t have two pennies to rub together but who would still pay her $8 in tithing. He gets a little emotional when telling the story because, you see, this poor woman would write $8 on the tithing slip but put $11 in the envelope because she couldn’t even count it. He found what the church was doing – robbing these poor people – to be so offensive that you will never guess what he did:

“I would help them. I’d pay their bills. I’d make sure if they paid $8, I made sure they got everything.”

Yes, how magnanimous of him to…literally do what a bishop is supposed to do.

Celestial Material
This is another one that kind of bothered me. At the 3-hour 24-minute mark he tells a story about how freeing it is to be out of the church. So he’s going into this cannabis shop to buy some herbs to take for pain relating to a bicep injury (okay) and he – well, I’ll just let him tell it:

[I see] this girl sitting here and she's got nose piercing, she’s really pale, tattooed, and in the church I would have just - I wouldn't have given her a second of my time; she wasn't Celestial enough. And in an instant, all of a sudden, she was so important to me; she needed to know that I was interested in who she was and that she was somebody to me and what was interesting is because I had that Paradigm Shift she wasn't giving me the time of day either but all of a sudden I asked how she was doing what she liked and everything changed.

Wasn’t “Celestial enough”?

Seriously? Like, honestly, WTF!?!

This was the part in the video where I thought to myself, and not a negative way, that maybe it really is for best that this guy left the church. If he is able to be more Christlike out of the church than in, then good on him. I wish him best in his continued progression.

 

Addendum - On Being Ignored...

Oh, I forgot to add the bit about members ignoring them. Apparently, when he says that all but a couple of members of their ward have ignored them since he stepped down as bishop, what he really means is that only a couple of families have physically come to their house to talk with them in person. Of note, he doesn't say anything about him going to anyone else's house. Also, they live out on 30-acres in the country, so it isn't like a Utah neighborhood where everybody sees everyone all the time. He also mentions that he "got a slew across the stake of text messages of 'we just want you to know we love you.'" But apparently, in his mind, that doesn't count. Whateves.

 

Ohh, he's got some interesting ideas of what "mormonism" is.  I'm with you, it's probably better that he left if this is an example of what his thinking was while in.  My only issue is that the poor guy doesn't even know how foreign his beliefs of mormonism would be to a lot of active members.  He thinks he's mainstream but he's so not if he thinks that most members wouldn't think a tattooed and pierced girl wasn't worth their time.

(the garments and touching the skin on her back for the first time part made me snort.) 

[Teancum]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ohh, he's got some interesting ideas of what "mormonism" is.  I'm with you, it's probably better that he left if this is an example of what his thinking was while in.  My only issue is that the poor guy doesn't even know how foreign his beliefs of mormonism would be to a lot of active members.  He thinks he's mainstream but he's so not if he thinks that most members wouldn't think a tattooed and pierced girl wasn't worth their time.

(the garments and touching the skin on her back for the first time part made me snort.) 

I think @Amuleks reporting of the event was full of a lot of spin doctoring.  But I have no interest in picking his post apart. But I will say that I listened to the interview and I did find his mannerisms rather arrogant and his approach a bit haughty. I also found his understanding of the issue a bit shallow but I give him the benefit of the doubt.  It was a live interview and he was answering on the fly.  He may have had more substance behind what he takes issue with when it comes to the church if you were simply having a conversation with him. 

[cujo22]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

This was the part in the video where I thought to myself, and not a negative way, that maybe it really is for best that this guy left the church. If he is able to be more Christlike out of the church than in, then good on him. I wish him best in his continued progression.

I have a few friends that have left the church with kind of the standard sequence of events that gets discussed on here (the church essays, the CES letter, etc). I don't understand their thinking entirely of course; I read all that stuff and come away with very different conclusions. Yet I somehow see God's hand in all of it. It's painful for them and for me, but this way of thinking about it has made it less so. The whole purpose of life per our doctrine is to learn and grow to become more like and draw closer to God. With the two people I'm thinking of, they both think that they have become more loving, a little kinder, a little wiser, etc. And it's funny, through my discussions with these friends and delving into some of these topics that trouble them, I sort of think I've become a little more loving and understanding, a little kinder, a little wiser, etc. So the plan is working! I see God's hand in it somehow. I've mostly decided that when people act with true integrity in their lives, the plan works. Whether someone is acting with true integrity is a difficult one even to answer for ourselves. But insomuch as we're doing that, I believe the plan works. So it's a bit confusing to explain, but I do see God's hand in all of this.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cujo22 said:

So the plan is working! I see God's hand in it somehow. I've mostly decided that when people act with true integrity in their lives, the plan works. Whether someone is acting with true integrity is a difficult one even to answer for ourselves. But insomuch as we're doing that, I believe the plan works. So it's a bit confusing to explain, but I do see God's hand in all of this.

Well said….

[Amulek]

On 2/16/2024 at 1:33 PM, Teancum said:

I think @Amuleks reporting of the event was full of a lot of spin doctoring.  But I have no interest in picking his post apart.

It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive overview of the interview. Some of it was meant to be informative, but mostly it was just a collection of things that stood out to me while I was listening that I wanted to comment on. 

As a faithful Latter-day Saint, I would think it unsurprising that many of the things which caught my attention were comments I took issue with. 

Still, I provided quotes and time-stamps where possible so people could watch those sections themselves if they wanted. 

The only other significant thing that came up during the course of the interview that I really took issue with was the level of detail he went into in discussing private ecclesiastical matters during his time as bishop. This guy is from a small town in the South, and while I don't know any of the people he referred to, I'm pretty sure anyone in his home ward can piece together who most of the people he was talking about were. I know he didn't name names, but still. Not cool. 

 

Quote

But I will say that I listened to the interview and I did find his mannerisms rather arrogant and his approach a bit haughty. I also found his understanding of the issue a bit shallow but I give him the benefit of the doubt.  It was a live interview and he was answering on the fly.  He may have had more substance behind what he takes issue with when it comes to the church if you were simply having a conversation with him. 

Perhaps. And, for the record, I think he seems like a nice enough guy. 

I just also happen think that he had a rather immature, rigid view of the gospel. 

Like I said before though, I honestly believe that if he can be a better person as a generic Christian than as a Latter-day Saint, then I'm kind of happy for him. 

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive overview of the interview. Some of it was meant to be informative, but mostly it was just a collection of things that stood out to me while I was listening that I wanted to comment on. 

As a faithful Latter-day Saint, I would think it unsurprising that many of the things which caught my attention were comments I took issue with. 

Still, I provided quotes and time-stamps where possible so people could watch those sections themselves if they wanted. 

Fair enough.  I retract my spin doctoring comment.  

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

The only other significant thing that came up during the course of the interview that I really took issue with was the level of detail he went into in discussing private ecclesiastical matters during his time as bishop. This guy is from a small town in the South, and while I don't know any of the people he referred to, I'm pretty sure anyone in his home ward can piece together who most of the people he was talking about were. I know he didn't name names, but still. Not cool. 

I am glad you mention this. This bothered me. A lot.  I have not been a bishop since the end of 2008.  I never reference anything in a public setting about what as spoken to me in confidence.  I even try to avoid it here and if I do I try to be vague.  But even now, if I were on a live interview with Dehlin, or some other setting, I would not talk about such things.

 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

 

Perhaps. And, for the record, I think he seems like a nice enough guy.

Maybe you liked him better than I did. He did not come across as someone I want to hang out with.

 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I just also happen think that he had a rather immature, rigid view of the gospel. 

Maybe.  I would not pass that judgement till I could hear his side in a different setting.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Like I said before though, I honestly believe that if he can be a better person as a generic Christian than as a Latter-day Saint, then I'm kind of happy for him. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

thought this was okay to put here, since who knows, this former bishop could do the same as these people on this podcast. I looked in on the exmo reddit group and someone posted this. I guess it happens more often than I previously thought. People coming back to the church after a crisis of faith or other situations. 

https://www.comebackpodcast.org/

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

thought this was okay to put here, since who knows, this former bishop could do the same as these people on this podcast. I looked in on the exmo reddit group and someone posted this. I guess it happens more often than I previously thought. People coming back to the church after a crisis of faith or other situations. 

https://www.comebackpodcast.org/

I’ve been seeing quite a few stories of people coming back after leaving. I’m not sure if that’s indicative of a growing trend of if the internet bots are causing it to show up more than usual. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I’ve been seeing quite a few stories of people coming back after leaving. I’m not sure if that’s indicative of a growing trend of if the internet bots are causing it to show up more than usual. 

I just can't seem to get myself in my ward's pews! I want to each Sunday, but wish it was day one of when we moved to the neighborhood/ward. Because many know of my falling out of belief. I wish I could start anew w/o them knowing my disbelief. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just can't seem to get myself in my ward's pews! I want to each Sunday, but wish it was day one of when we moved to the neighborhood/ward. Because many know of my falling out of belief. I wish I could start anew w/o them knowing my disbelief. 

That makes so much sense to me, I completely understand it.  Maybe show up at a different ward just to test the waters in a more neutral environment?