Is John Going Down?

The church has finally discovered the internet and has begun it’s proactive reaction to it in seeking to retake control of the conversation by abridging our first amendment right to free speech via church discipline and fear of potential discipline. It fails however to realize that the old black & white paradigm illusion of a crisp line between TBM vs. Anti no longer exists having been replaced by the uncloseting of all the shades of gray in between. Today TBM morphs into some doubting into more doubting stabilizing somewhat as a NOM for a time then morphing into inactive then exMo, postMo, etc. It’s become an uncloseted continuum with the church maintaining a boundary somewhere in between. The point is the lines are being blured regarding who’s who and we don’t have to pretend to be someone we aren’t as much as we did in the past. They can ex John but given his library of interviews and the out migration of once TBM now questioning members how much will it matter which side of that membership line he’s on?

A recent exMo blog thread did a head count and came up with 12 ex Bishops and 8 ex Relief Society Presidents who are now exMo bloggers.

“I think this is the beginning of the end for John’s membership.”

You may be right, however, it seems to me that the opposite message is being sent by the church leaders.

If the church wanted to do a purge it would have and should have begun long ago.

The church is bending over backwards to avoid the collateral damage of doing a major purge. Particularly when it comes to high profile bloggers and podcasters.

Nobody has more aggressively attempted to publicly embarrass the church on their podcasts than John Dehlin, yet the church is hesitating to do anything, and they are very open about it.

You cannot be much more caustic and antagonistic than John was on the Jeremy Runnells and Alex Beam interviews. You will never see podcasts that get any more antagonistic than those, yet the church continues to turn the other cheek and labor with John.

In those interviews John was not being a neutral interviewer, rather, he was an angry interviewer relishing in the opportunity to stir the pot and further provoke controversy while encouraging, and agreeing with his guests.

In the case of Alex Beam, who was antagonistic toward Mormonism before even writing his book, John was so “over the top” that Alex found himself defending the character of Joseph Smith against the insinuations of Dehlin.

I think the coast is pretty much clear for John to do just about anything he wants from now on without getting exed.

Interestingly, the only thing that seems to encourage him to pretend to be a more balanced interviewer and to consider more positive interview topics, are criticisms from his own audience, not his church leaders.

Nevertheless, interviews with true believers are rare. I wish he would invite guests that actually have a strong belief in the literal historicity of the BofM and the veracity of the LDS Restoration.

His idea of a positive LDS interview is to invite new age liberals that share concepts from Eckhart Tolle and other non-member authors and scholars. (don’t get me wrong. those types of interviews are worthwhile, and they benefit lots of people, but they hardly qualify as balancing out the faith destroying interviews that focus on controversial LDS history and doctrine)

I think the brethren have found that making martyrs out of people like John Dehlin and Rock Waterman who haven’t been active in the church and don’t consider the threat of excommunication as leverage to change their agendas, is not a worthwhile endeavor.

Lessons have been learned from the September Six fiasco.

There are, however, a few high profile people who can still be manipulated by the threat of excommunication. It looks like Tim Malone (http://latterdaycommentary.com) is currently backing down, and has put his blog on hold, but I doubt that will last long.

“Confess your crimes. You will then be sent to reeducation.”

-North Korea

ji,

The church has no ability nor right really to try and gag people in this process. Sure it can tell them that speaking publicly will lead to consequences. That is within their power. It probably isn’t a winning PR strategy or an effective institutional policy, though. The lack of clear, transparent and evenly enforced standards within church discipline is a problem and has been for a long, long, long time. In the age of social media it is just unworkable. It is also among the greatest institutional shames of the church. It has been the site of some of the worst and most damaging expressions of cultural misogony. Covering up egregious sins of well-connected men with informal discipline while women were subject to discipline for being assaulted, abused or even raped. The discipline process used to settle personal vendettas. The random bullying of intellectuals. This is what happens when opacity and power come together, even among the well-intentioned. I will even grant that such instances were relatively rare, but they were systematically gendered and simply not rare enough. And its not like the last time the church went down this path to take on public critics that it turned out very well for them, nor did they trod the path very ethically. Heck, the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor with its mix of truth and sensationalism didn’t turn out very well for the church.

The disciplinary system is just plain broken, especially when it comes to dealing with apostacy (as opposed to straight forward, admitted sexual sin or fraud). We are all just watching it creak along on very rickety legs.

To anser the OP I think if John manages to keep it at even keel for the forseeable future I think we just might see the incentive and thirst to go after him recede. I think a lot will actually depend on what that survey the church recently sent out to gauge the impact of Kate’s excommunication comes back with and how it is ultimately interpreted. We only have anectdotal evidence to know how deeply that was felt by the general membership. I have seen signs both ways – that only a few really even noticed or cared and other signs that it had affects far beyond what was expected. So no idea.

I think KK is viewed as more of a direct confrontational threat to the hierarchal structural than John is, if women are ordained what’s to keep them out of Q15? If you notice all acknowledged church criticism is quickly redefined by “SL” to be a local problem or they throw a few dead prophets under the bus, but it is never the fault of the current administration nor solved at the general level. General leadership pushes everything down or away in order to maintain the status quo at their level and the appearance of current infallibility at the General level. KK’s organization not only threatens that status quo it also demands that our “prophets seers and revelators” magnify that calling by actually seeking revelation (for a change) and they don’t want to be told what to do, after all they are the tellers!

Alice said: “If they ex John, and I agree that he’s leaving them little choice, none of the issues go away but he is even more free and probably more motivated to continue exploring them. I doubt he loses much, if any, of his audience. In fact, he probably gains some general non-Mormon listeners from the notoriety that’s sure to be stirred up.”

i disagree. I think one of the reasons he has stayed as long as he could was because he knows he loses credibility with the people who may need him most, the moment he loses his membership. I would NEVER have listened to mormon stories during my faith crisis if I had thought it was an ex-member. And without mormon stories I still would have eventually left the church, but in a much more bitter/betrayed/antagonistic way.

There are already plenty of great ex-mo voices; we don’t need another John Larsen. I don’t think John Dehlin is interested in getting a bigger following outside of the church unless that somehow helps him fix the problems within the church. Simply being famous or loved wasn’t ever the goal, it was filling a gap and helping people who are hurting, and he can’t do that as easily from outside of the church. But there aren’t many options at this point, he has run his course from within the church, and it may be time for him to move on now that his dissertation is complete, he has a career to focus on, and the church has removed him from the position where he could do the most good (or is trying to).

“I think the fact that John’s membership legitimizes him in they eyes of those who are struggling with their faith, that he uses that legitimacy to lead people away from the Church, and that they are so loyal to him afterwards, makes it pretty clear that he is exercising priestcraft.”

But that’s just it- he isn’t using his legitimacy to lead folks away. He’s using his legitimacy to help people, whether that’s to stay or leave. Like I said, I would have left anyway. John was the reason I stayed as long as I did. John is the reason I can still see the good in the church, that I don’t feel antagonistic, and that I held out hope for so long about the direction the church is going in. John introduced me to SO MANY people who helped me stay while I did, then helped me leave without losing my principles, and without making enemies.
People are leaving, with or without mormon stories; with or without John Dehlin. The fact is, the church doesn’t provide ANY forum or any answers for so many issues- it’s not John’s fault that there are so many people feeling alone and looking for answers. If merely giving people a voice, helping them find each other, and discussing issues and looking for answers together is SO damaging to the church, then the church has much bigger issues than John Dehlin. The fact that folks feel they need to turn to John Dehlin to begin with is the issue the church should be concerned about.

#16

I can see your point that having the stigmata of excommunication will scare some people away. Still, as you also say the problems that drive people into the community of questioners that John has created will not go away. People will still need some frank, fact-based inquiry to achieve some clarity and personal peace.

Meanwhile, I think that you make an important point there. However many people are admonished, shamed or drubbed out, the discordance between official and historic positions and observable reality is not something of John’s creation and will not go away without major systemic adjustments and acknowledgements that the church is unwilling to undertake. Until that happens, John’s major sin of congregating unsettled people will remain a problem for the power structure and a balm for those who suffer the pains of the discord.

I think “doubt your doubts” probably works for about 10 minutes. It’s just not a matter of volition.

So maybe you’re right that those who are frightened away by John’s exing or ambiguous status will remain away. And maybe there won’t be other places with that level of candor sans the vitriol and so the unresolved issues will drive them back. I’m sure I don’t know but I also think I’ll be watching with enormous interest. I know I’ve already been checking Mormon Stories much more in the last 6 months since the church put John and in their sight than I had since he and W&T parted company.

John is enormously popular. I think the church doesn’t want a repeat of the September Six, so they are dragging this out. My guess is that the stake president is consulting with Elder Clayton as to when the right time is to do the deed. There needs to be enough distance between John and Kate so that they are seen as separate episodes. Clearly the purge is going on, but it is more drawn out to limit the impact on members and hopefully keep the focus on dissenters on a slower burn.

I just wonder if the new stake president replaced the old one because the old one didn’t act according to Elder Clayton’s instructions. (That’s what happened when Elder Jeppsen was involved.) We know that in the case of Michael Quinn, his first SP was released for defending Quinn, and the new one went after Quinn.

“But yet, it would also fly in the face of the accusations that these disciplinary actions are driven from the top where John’s connections sit”
We have to remember that “the top” is not a single entity. Members of the 12 have admitted, albeit privately, that there is no consensus at that level about how to handle Kate and John. While there are most certainly folks up there who want John gone, there are folks at high levels who do not. There are power struggles happening right now over OW and “doubters” and apologists and what the church should admit too. It’s that very inconsistency that John is trying to point out.

“If we are to accept the adage that actions speak louder than words, that would be the way I would judge her beliefs.”
How about… we’re not here to judge at all? If she says she believes, and that her beliefs have dictated her actions, then who am I to say no? Perhaps she interprets things differently than me (and she certainly does), but I’m not here to decide whether or not when she says she feels she is doing what God wants her to do, she is being sincere.

I can, however, without judging individuals on either side, say that the message the church is sending to those on the fringe is likely to lose a lot of good, sincere people who have a lot to offer the church.

Personally, I’d rather it did come from “the top” because anything else implies that you are at the whim of local leadership who can clearly have different ideas of what is worthy or discipline, and HOW to discipline.
I’d also hope “the top” would have handled things MUCH better with timing and publicity. The fact “the top” can’t come to an open consensus about what “apostasy” looks like and how to deal with it really shows how fragile and arbitrary the whole church discipline thing is. The fact that as a member, I can hope that the GAs paying attention to me and advising my leadership are Bednar, Uchtdorf or even Holland, rather than Packer, as which apostle is deciding will determine my spiritual future.

“But, since there is no “Church of John” inside the LDS Church, he is not free to divide the church without the church taking exception.”
So who IS free to divide the church without the church taking exception? Is Packer free to do that? Martin Jepson? Whitney Clayton? Because a division has clearly taken place, between the message coming from John’s SP (whether or not it originated higher up), and the message from Uchtdorf at conference- “None of us is quite as Christlike as we know we should be. But we earnestly desire to overcome our faults and the tendency to sin. With our heart and soul we yearn to become better with the help of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If these are your desires, then regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!”

I will freely admit I have made a judgement about the actions of the ORGANIZATION of the church. Since they have stated goals and principles, and I was on board with those goals and principles as a member of the church, I feel no qualms about speaking out when I feel it has departed from those goals and is harming members I love. It is out of a desire to see the church succeed that people like John and Kate speak out. Unfortunately, some people think that faith/love for the church means submission to all priesthood leaders, even when personal revelation contradict them.

Judging an individual’s sincerity and faith is entirely different. While we certainly are “in a position to judge a person’s actions if we choose to”- legally, ethically, no one can stop us, I’m not saying you CAN’T. But I’ll stand by the idea that we shouldn’t judge outside of our stewardship, and when we do judge, it should be with compassion and only after trying to understand the individual. I don’t agree with Kate Kelly, but I have put a lot of effort into understanding her, and I still don’t see anything but a sincere and passionate believer- not in the organization of the church, but in the gospel.

If Kate truly DIDN’T believe in the priesthood, then striving for ordination by PETITIONING THE BRETHREN would be a colossal waste of her time. Fortunately, a small set of members don’t think that faith means being silent, but rather faith means doing what you feel God calls you to do, even when it allows fallible leaders in the church to make pronouncements on your eternal soul.

I’m not really paying much attention to the discussion in general, so apologies to MH for contributing to and enabling Howard in his derail, but

The church is not limiting one’s first amendment right to free speech. One’s first amendment rights to free speech is so that the *federal government* (and through incorporation, state governments) will not restrict most kinds of content of one’s speech.

Private organizations (and especially religious organizations) don’t have the same limitations.

In any event, you can still say what you want. But the church doesn’t have to keep you as a member. The fact that your choice may be associated with high cultural and social costs doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice to say what you want, or that being dissuaded by the high costs means that your “first amendment” rights are being abridged.

If the result is what you’re trying to get at, then you can talk about the result without an inaccurate (yet connotatively emotionally shocking) setup.

I was just using common language to point out that the church leverages the high exit cost into behavioral mod that most organizations wouldn’t be able to.

re 34,

You were just using specific language that is often used incorrectly to point out that the church does stuff that many private organizations also do and that private organizations are absolutely allowed to do.

Got it.

No, I’m pointing out the church’s leverage is greater than most private organizations but perhaps you can demonstrate my error by pointing out those organizations that have and use similar leverage.

You have a First Amendment right not to have the government censor you. Full stop. Nothing else. It’s not a broad right to be free from restrictions on speech of any other kind, and it’s not even really generalizable to a broader moral principle.

Your First Amendment right to free speech is not implicated by other consequences of your speech, formal or informal, from any person or organization, whether you voluntarily agreed to restrictions or not. Nobody is taking away your rights because we’re not talking about rights you have.

Let me give you some examples.

-If I walk around my office talking about how horrible my firm is, I can be fired. This is not a violation of my First Amendment rights, even though it restricts my speech and imposes a high cost.

-If I walk into a restaurant and yell offensive things to patrons, I can be asked to leave and blackballed from ever returning. This is not a violation of my First Amendment rights, even though it restricts my speech and imposes a cost.

-If I tell my wife she is a horrible person and I hate her, she can divorce me. This is not a violation of my First Amendment rights, even though it restricts my speech and imposes a high cost.

-If I tell my mother she is a horrible person and I hate her, the rest of my extended family can decide to shut me out. This is not a violation of my First Amendment rights, even though it restricts my speech and imposes a cost, and even though I did not voluntarily choose to be a member of my family.

Jeff, I’m not saying someone has stewardship over the internet.
My suggestion was just to not judge the state of Kate’s faith. I’m surprised to hear such kickback, as this seems a rather universally accepted principal of mormonism: don’t judge if it isn’t your place, and if you feel it is your place, judge with love, compassion, understanding, discernment…
I also don’t believe stewardship is only for members of the church. Throughout society, there are hierarchies of stewardship, and throughout christendom, there is this idea of loving without judgment. Judge Kate’s actions, if you must, but don’t pretend like it gives you any place to judge her belief.

“I think you may have unjustifiable premises baked into your reasoning.” Care to expound?

Jenn,

If you thoroughly read what I initially wrote, I said I would have no way of knowing what she believes based on her actions. so I can only respond to what I see. And there is no crime in forming an opinion on that. And it is not void of compassion, understanding or discernment as you suggest.

“There is no reason to try to extrapolate someone’s personal beliefs from your perception of their actions. ”

Sorry, but this makes no sense. people’s actions are clearly driven by their beliefs. How in the world could it be otherwise?

Sorry to disagree, but because of our human nature, our testimony often does not line up with our actions. That is why Adam says “hear the words of my mouth,” because our desire for being good and obedient rests in our minds and not always manifested in our actions.

That is ultimately God’s realm to judge. We only have the outward actions to consider. Especially our own.

Andrew S, I appreciate your no. 30. I hope readers will go back up and re-read it again.

Mark Hoffman might disagree with you, Hawk. Not that I’m suggesting Kate Kelly was disingenuous. Just that if someone had a serious ulterior motive, they would probably not blink at using all the traditional language of a true believer.

#55

Whoa! Unkind! And untrue!

What made you say that wreddyornot? Did it seem like I was unfairly slandering Kate Kelly?

Or is it that you think I’m a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

I think it was a pretty poor comparison considering Mark Hoffman is a counterfeiter, forger and convicted murderer.

Well consider the mental state required to be a Mark Hoffman. Do you think he had much of a conscience? Would a conscience be relevant here?

I don’t know whether he had a conscience or not. Clearly he was a very depraved individual, and I would never compare a seemingly normal person to someone like him. He pretended to be a believer when he wasn’t for reasons that were unique to him, and incredibly nefarious. I think, though, that there are innumerable less nefarious reasons for which someone might pretend to be a believer when he or she is not. Again, I have no reason to believe KK believes anything other than what she has claimed to believe. My comments were directed to the general sentiment about the behavior of non-believers, not to KK specifically.

“The evidence that convinced me of Kate’s sincerity as a believer is that she bore testimony i..That doesn’t seem like something a non-believer would do”

Apostate do that all the time. They will stand before a bishop or stake pres and say “I truly believe” “I’m a good person” but they are lying through their teeth…

Also if she did bear her testimony then that probably helped the bishop in the discipline process because one senses that the person is alone when they start talking, that they have as much spirit as an empty bottle of whiskey, and so that helps you as bishop realize that there is definitely something wrong with her, that the Lord isn’t with the person. This is easier to see when they are bearing their testimony more so than when you interview them personally, at least it was from in my experience.

#1 “…for a person to post all these things publicly seems to me to indicate the person is pushing, willingly and purposefully and defiantly pushing, for an excommunication.”

Unquestioning obedience and submission to authority – the Mormon default. Though you know only what you’ve read here, you assume that John should acquiesce to the demands of church authorities, that any degree of refusal is defiance. No consideration of the possibility that the Church could be in the wrong here or that what you label purposeful defiance might actually be a good man acting with integrity. There’s a particular kind of religious organisation that places obedience to authority as its highest value, but Mormons do so hate it when you use the c-word, even in situations where it clearly applies.

#40 “-If I walk around my office talking about how horrible my firm is, I can be fired. This is not a violation of my First Amendment rights, even though it restricts my speech and imposes a high cost…

-If I tell my wife she is a horrible person and I hate her, she can divorce me. This is not a violation of my First Amendment rights, even though it restricts my speech and imposes a high cost.”

And yet, if your firm, or your wife, are actually horrible, to you and to other people, you wouldn’t be wrong to say so, because it would be the truth and may help stop or decrease that harm. When your firm or wife threaten to sever their connection with you in an attempt to control your behaviour, they might not be violating your First Amendment rights, but they would still be in the wrong, and acting in a way that is dishonest and manipulative. Because the LDS Church is legally allowed to behave the way it is behaving does NOT mean that it is in the right, or that its actions are morally acceptable. In fact, they are akin to an abuser threatening a victim to make them stay silent. Should John choose to be silenced? The Church can excommunicate him, but it can’t make him go down quietly and just disappear for their convenience.

I think that its quite likely that John will eventually be excommunicated for his refusal to submit to church authority by silencing himself. This certainly indicates a problem, but that problem is not John Dehlin.

re 70

Debbie,

The important point is that whether the church/someone’s spouse/someone’s place of work/etc., is horrible is a separate question than whether they will take action against what someone says.

In other words, if Person A says their spouse is horrible and the spouse divorces them, the spouse’s decision to divorce doesn’t actually justify anything about Person A’s claims of the spouse’s horribleness. The spouse could have been horrible, or maybe s/he wasn’t. Just because the spouse threatens to sever the connection because of Person A’s actions does not make them wrong.

Like, you bring up an example of an abuser, but this can be easily flipped around in very common cases. For example, obviously, many abusers abuse emotionally…maybe the abuser is the one telling their spouse that they are horrible, and then the spouse threatens and threatens (and perhaps) finally divorces them. Just because the spouse has threatened to sever the connection (and ultimately does) does not make them in the wrong. In fact, you would probably say that people should get away from abusers if they can, that this is their right, and that this right should be protected.

The important thing to note In this case is that the facts about abuse (that we consider abuse to be bad) is a separate issue from aspects of speech and whether speech is tolerated or accepted. But also important is that you would absolutely not say that someone removing the abuser out of their life is “controlling [the abuser’s] behavior,” or “in the wrong” and certainly not violating the abuser’s first amendment rights (although I recognize that you aren’t using that language anyway).

So, in the case of the church, you already believe — because of other reasons — that the church is bad. And, for whatever it’s worth, I’d probably agree with you on many of those reasons. But that should not be confused with the church’s ability to set its criteria for membership.

That should be “it CAN’T just be wiped away…”

It seems to me that the those with the biggest heartburn over these ex-communications are ones who are already outside of the Church or really do not participate.

While any separation from the Church should make us all sad, individual’s own choices typically drive that separation. You may not agree with the church’s position or methodology, but clearly, the individual creates the attention by their actions.

I can appreciate that Kate and/or John may express a testimony during a Fast and Testimony meeting, but so did the Polygamists.

re 73,

chosha,

I’m just saying that if someone’s spouse is horrible is completely independent of whether or not they threaten to divorce them.

I want to address a big theme running through your comment. The church doesn’t want people to lie about its goodness. The church wants people who legitimately believe that it’s good. Here’s the kicker: The church doesn’t want members who honestly believe that it’s bad. The church doesn’t want members who think that the only way you can say you believe it is good is if you are naive, ignorant, or lying.

People get super upset about this. They get upset when people call into question others’ faith. But if you honestly believe the church is bad, it’s reasonable for folks to call into question whether or not you have faith.

If John or anyone has such a problem with the church that he or they feel it would be dishonest or he or they would lack integrity to withhold such criticism, then they are not what the church is looking for. And the church takes action to separate itself from these people, if these people won’t do so themselves.

If you think your spouse is horrible, then I respectfully offer that you should get away from them. If they respond to your protestations by trying to get away from you first, you should be thankful, not complain.

Even if the criticism is true btw (see Oaks).

#78 “I’m just saying that if someone’s spouse is horrible is completely independent of whether or not they threaten to divorce them.”
Yes, I know. I’m just saying that that point is irrelevant to the example at hand. Threatening to excommunicate John is not the point. Threatening to excommunicate John in order to control his behaviour is the point. Further, whether or not the church is horrible is relevant here and not completely independent of its threat of excommunication, because part of the reason for the threat is to attempt to destroy evidence of its horrible actions, policies and history.

“The church doesn’t want people to lie about its goodness. The church wants people who legitimately believe that it’s good.”
The church wants people who legitimately believe that it’s good, but it will settle for people who pretend they believe that it’s good. Which is why doubt is okay, as long as you don’t talk to anyone else about it. This is what I was told, too, when I told a bishopric member my issues with what I was finding out about Joseph Smith. He told me it was okay to doubt, but not to talk to other members about these issues, because it could lead to my excommunication. This was our first conversation on the matter. He then gave me an example of a man in our city who had been excommunicated, and why? Because he had evidence from DNA studies that the Book of Mormon was not historically accurate, and he ‘just couldn’t shut up about it.’ You see, finding that evidence contrary to the Book of Mormon wasn’t the problem. For the church that says it loves and honours the truth, the problem was that he wouldn’t pretend he’d never found it and just bear testimony of the Book of Mormon instead.

“But if you honestly believe the church is bad, it’s reasonable for folks to call into question whether or not you have faith.”
Yes. In fact, they should assume you don’t have faith in the Church any more. The Church’s own definition of faith is to “believe in things that are not seen, but are TRUE.’ If you have sound evidence that the church is not true, not having faith in it would be the appropriate response.

“If John or anyone has such a problem with the church that he or they feel it would be dishonest or he or they would lack integrity to withhold such criticism, then they are not what the church is looking for.”
No, it’s looking for people who think it’s better to lie for the Lord, and preserve people’s faith by not giving them all the information. Because “some things that are true are not very useful.” (Boyd K Packer) Faith is useful. Faithful people pay tithing and go on missions. For Packer, supposedly an Apostle of the Lord, promoting false faith is more important than telling the truth.

“If you think your spouse is horrible, then I respectfully offer that you should get away from them.”
What if they are 30% horrible and 70% what you love and you are being honest with them in the hope that they will be willing to improve their percentage of good? Should you leave then? Because John (somehow) sees a lot of good in the Church.

“If they respond to your protestations by trying to get away from you first, you should be thankful, not complain.”
What if they don’t just leave? What if they call you liar and try to discredit you with the other members of the family? Should you still be thankful? When are you allowed to complain?

re 82,

Threatening to excommunicate John in order to control his behaviour is the point.

The church ultimately doesn’t control John’s behavior. John controls his own behavior. But for any choice one makes, there are consequences. The church is perfectly free to set consequences for certain behaviors, not just in a legal sense, but in a moral sense.

Further, whether or not the church is horrible is relevant here and not completely independent of its threat of excommunication, because part of the reason for the threat is to attempt to destroy evidence of its horrible actions, policies and history.

This is kinda dramatic. The church is not like Arthur Andersen and Enron shredding documents here…The evidence exists no matter what. The church can simply decide that if you want to be a member in good standing of it, then you should not be the one propagating and promoting such information.

The information will exist regardless. People have the right to publish and share that information regardless. But they do not have any right to do so without any consequence to their membership status. They are members of the church at the church’s privilege.

The church wants people who legitimately believe that it’s good, but it will settle for people who pretend they believe that it’s good.

However, earlier, you were the one complaining about integrity and honesty. If someone doesn’t want to pretend they believe it’s good, then that’s utterly ok. They don’t have to be members.

What if they are 30% horrible and 70% what you love and you are being honest with them in the hope that they will be willing to improve their percentage of good? Should you leave then? Because John (somehow) sees a lot of good in the Church.

I’m not a marriage therapist, but if you feel like your marriage is such that you will call your spouse horrible and criticize them publicly in the hopes that they will be willing to improve their percentage of good…..then your relationship is PROBABLY not going to go very well.

What if they don’t just leave? What if they call you liar and try to discredit you with the other members of the family? Should you still be thankful? When are you allowed to complain?

You can complain at any time. But my point, remember, is that complaining is separate from any consequences that arise from it (e.g., their leaving or your leaving.) And if, when you complain and they leave, they then call you liar and try to discredit you, you really have a choice about whether you will continue this cycle, or if you’re going go move on with your life.

For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery; For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts; Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

The source of the disagreement seems to come down to this: does faith in the church mean silent, unquestioning submission to its leaders? Can one believe on some level in the gospel and the restoration narrative without believing that leaders are infallible?

Because if “having faith” means you must also believe leaders are incapable of making major mistakes and above criticism, then no wonder the church wants to keep members from diving into church history. The fact is, things once considered doctrine have evolved, and with each new generation of priesthood leadership, the way the gospel is interpreted and acted on changes. That alone doesn’t invalidate the gospel- in truth, it’s a wonderful part of being a part of a living church that has modern revelation.

So, the main body of the church seems to think that you can’t be faithful while hoping for leadership to make changes and encouraging them as you feel prompted, but this small part of the church (John et al) think that faith is what makes you stay even while hoping that the future of the church looks different- faith is doing what you can to help the church get there.

“Heck, as a religion, it has its own prerogative for establishing the terms of morality for its members, and even the narrative for truth.”

I was not aware that any mortal could decide what is moral for it’s members- I was under the impression that was God’s domain. A religion, made of mortal, fallible leaders, has to be very careful declaring what is moral and what the narrative for truth is (especially when the narrative for truth contradicts public historical record), or the church of mortals may find itself with a morality and truth that are not aligned to God’s.

So Andrew, in your mind that “authority” includes setting aside truth, hiding it and/or redefining it simply because act that way? Does such “authority” come from God or the compliance of the membership? How do you see such “authority” differing from a confidence scheme or mind control?

re 92,

One of the things that’s “up for debate” so to speak is epistemology itself. When you talk about “setting aside truth,” it’s because you are already assuming a certain view of what truth is, what can be known, etc.,

To the extent that the church claims religious authority to speak about spiritual truth, yeah, such authority includes countering such narratives.

Does such “authority” come from God or the compliance of the membership?

It depends on whether you are faithful or not. For the faithful, the compliance comes from knowing that the authority comes from God

How do you see such “authority” differing from a confidence scheme or mind control?

I typically think that anyone who brings mind control into these sorts of conversations is either obtuse or trolling, but ultimately, this still really depends on whether you are faithful or not. If you are not faithful, I’m not saying that you should necessarily see it under the church’s narrative.

But if the church wants you out, it has the right to do so.

For whatever it’s worth, suppose we are talking about a confidence scheme. If you want to speak out against the confidence scheme, the folks within the confidence scheme have every right to push you out. You are not silenced if they do so, because you can still speak out from *outside the scheme*. You just can’t be a member in good standing of the scheme while doing so.

And, to reiterate the other point I have been making, terms of membership and the use of boundary maintenance is a completely separate question from the goodness or badness of an enterprise. The confidence scheme is not immoral for kicking out people who want to ruin the scheme from within. It’s immoral for other considerations.

re 93,

Howard,

I agree with you that authority says nothing about power or truth. But we aren’t really talking about power or truth. We are talking about organizations’ ability to define who is a member and who is not a member. For this discussion, authority matters.

So, whether there is or is not a god (and whether he does or does not speak to the LDS church leaders), the LDS church leaders still have the authority to define who is a member in good standing of the church and who is not.

I’m just pointing out that from the LDS church organization’s own narrative, authority is implicated with God, and loyalty to authority is implicated in the definition of faith. If you do not value or trust or believe the authority of the LDS church or its agents, that is fine, but 1) the organization would then, per its own narrative, define you as not having faith, and 2) the authority of the organization would have right to declare you as not being a member in good standing.

I don’t think the authority card is new, btw. I think it’s been central to orthodoxy for a long time.

Well something like ignoring or covering up the Mountain Meadows Massacre or Joseph’s involvement with women other than Emma is not an epistemology question. To wave epistemology is just a red herring for many of the church’s truth problems.

You discount and dismissal of mind control is unwarranted given concepts like The Psychology of Religion

A confidence scheme is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. You can not only speak out against the confidence scheme, you have the force of law that can be brought against it unless it’s a church.

Howard FWIW, both those items, and others, are included in the new seminary curriculum running this year.

“Howard FWIW, both those items, and others, are included in the new seminary curriculum running this year.”
Most likely because folks like John have brought more church-wide awareness to those issues and shown the church the need for more education/direct response on them. Same with the new essays on LDS.org. Those wouldn’t have happened if people within the church hadn’t been asking questions loudly about them.

We know precisely how transparent the church is without public agitation around issues- look at how forthcoming the church was in the era between correlation and the advent of google.

re 98,

Howard,

I personally agree that those issues are not epistemology issues, but whether those things have bearing or should have bearing on the ultimate truth claims of the church (e.g., one true church, priesthood authority, etc.,) absolutely is an epistemology issue. I think it’s bad apologetics to argue against certain historical ideas…but I think it’s interesting apologetics to say, “Hey, the discussion on polyandry is non sequitur because the prophetic mantle doesn’t depend on someone being an exemplary individual by our modern standard or *even* by the standards of his day. ”

re 99

Jenn,

You don’t have to accept it. But the church does get to say who is a member in good standing of its organization.

Regarding the “authority” card, I’m not surprised there is early president but I don’t remember authority being regularly used this way until recently. It seems to have grown in popularity about the time the church attempted to deconflate power vs authority and now the meaning of authority seems to be being expanded in an attempt to conflate to the point of implying near infallibility or at least a faith/loyalty test. I don’t know about the rest of you but I’d rather take that test with Joseph than my Bishop or Elder Packer.

““Howard FWIW, both those items, and others, are included in the new seminary curriculum running this year.”
Most likely because folks like John have brought more church-wide awareness to those issues and shown the church the need for more education/direct response on them. Same with the new essays on LDS.org. Those wouldn’t have happened if people within the church hadn’t been asking questions loudly about them.”

Jenn, I agree with you on that. And my response was certainly “it’s about time too”. Howard however seemed to me to be commenting in a way that implied those things are still hidden, and going to be.

Andrew: “the church has its own prerogative in establishing the terms of excommunication. Heck, as a religion, it has its own prerogative for establishing the terms of morality for its members, and even the narrative for truth.”

Religions can create their own narrative for truth, but they don’t have the right to defraud their members in order to preserve that narrative. You obviously disagree. In your world it was okay for big tobacco to lie about the cancer-causing nature of its product in order to preserve its profits. Because hey, that’s just what organisations do, right?

“If you don’t believe in the authority of said leaders, you aren’t faithful. If you do, you follow what they say on what is moral and what is the narrative for truth.”

And you’ve just summed up why I left religion and will never be a part of it again.

I’ll end my conversation with you there. As you’ve shown several times, you’re basic argument is that no matter how immoral or damaging the actions of the church, it has every right to deceive to protect itself as an organisation, and to eject anyone who won’t tow the line. If that’s what you think, you are justifying everything from Joseph Smith lying about his polygamy, the Danite killing squads and right through to the suicides of people in the Church’s Evergreen program. Nothing matters in the pursuit of the church ‘having every right’ to protect itself as an organisation. In fact, you go further in dismissing the idea that it causes any damage, or that it can or has that intention.

I think many people on this thread have refuted all of that and that we’ve hit a point where you will just glibly dismiss any valid point that contradicts your main argument, even when its validity is clear to everyone else. At that point it just starts to look like trolling.

hawkgrrrl: “You seem to think Andrew is a TBM with a black & white perspective.”
I don’t think he’s a TBM. He’s made comments that make it clear he isn’t. He has, however, presented a very black and white perspective, claiming that an organisation not only has the right to define its membership, but that it is reasonable for an organisation to use any means possible to preserve itself as an organisation. It is neither reasonable nor acceptable. Self-preservation is not an excuse for absolutely any behaviour even in an individual, let alone an organisation.

” “they don’t have the right to defraud their members in order to preserve that narrative” Historically, this is demonstrably untrue.”
What is historically true is that religions have done that. What is not true is that they had the right to do so.

“These are three very different charges, and the level of immorality in each differs:”
True, but irrelevant. I was giving examples of various kinds of harm. They all constitute harm.

Howard: I understand your point, but I’m not sure if I agree. I’m an atheist since leaving the LDS church and the effect that has on me is that I expect integrity from all kinds of organisations. You can ask what is right and ethical without connecting that to religion. I know a lot more atheists than I used to, and I haven’t met one yet who isn’t living a value-driven life. Good doesn’t only come from God. To be honest, even when I was a believer, I didn’t believe that God was the author of good (which would render the definition of ‘good’ an arbitrary one, because it just becomes whatever God says it is), but rather that he adhered to eternal laws and that was what made him good..

What I do agree with you on is that a church is not a tobacco company. Churches should be held a higher standard of ethics and morality, because they are the organisations that make claims to be moral authorities and to be helping people to reach a higher moral standard. I’m not saying I think they deliver that – many don’t. But when you claim to be the ‘one true church,’ you better freaking act like the one true church, or expect to be criticised.

No, I think my beef with Andrew is that he’s arguing a point in isolation that I think can’t really be usefully viewed in isolation.

Chosha, I don’t know you from adam, but I want to be your BFF. Seriously.

Jenn: LOL. Thanks. :).

I think the gap between the Church’s stated goals and its actual goals is becoming more apparent.

WWTFBACWCJD? is harder to fit on a bracelet. 🙂

#117 “For an atheist, you sure expect a lot. I would say hold yourself to the highest standards and assume that others may not do likewise.”

That may be good pragmatic advise to avoid disillusionment but I think it’s more than fair to expect any person or institution to hold itself to the standards that it advertises for others. “Are you honest in your dealings with others” and “Is there anything in your conduct … that is not in harmony with [your own teachings]” are reasonable and important questions.

…when you “buy” any religion…you have to realize… So buyer beware? Okay that may work for converts with open eyes (less well for the more naive) and it may even explain some of the drop in baptisms per missionary as LDS things to beware of become more available and publicized.

But BIC “believers” indoctrinated on “testimonies are found in the bearing” never really have a crisp point of informed consent until they either go through their conversion or their apostasy and if it’s the apostasy path many face a lot of dissonance due to a high or very high exit cost. So a level of coercion is involved, it’s largely transparent to those not actually experiencing it, to them it appears that the coerced are simply good members and this cooperatively going along by almost everyone with what ever the church says results in the reenforced peer pressure conformance of ALL evolved. One’s introduction the the temple works the same way. (Boy, this sure seems weird to me but all of these people I know seem to be all right with it.) I think it’s this peer reinforcement that causes the many of the orthodox to seek safe blogging space, they need that support to help hold up their shelves in these conversations.

Chosha, you’ve made a couple of statements about certain behaviors of individuals or groups being “unreasonable” and “unacceptable”. On what is that standard based? You didn’t qualify it as your opinion. I’m wondering, as an atheist, from where do you think those standards eminate? Do you believe in absolute or inherent immorality, and if so, where does it come from?

“Chosha, you’ve made a couple of statements about certain behaviors of individuals or groups being “unreasonable” and “unacceptable”. On what is that standard based? You didn’t qualify it as your opinion. I’m wondering, as an atheist, from where do you think those standards eminate? Do you believe in absolute or inherent immorality, and if so, where does it come from?”

As many internet memes have pointed out: you don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t tell right from wrong, you’re lacking empathy, not religion.

It’s still pretty easy to see- based on the church’s own stated goals, and the good those goals can do for individuals and society, their current actions are counter-productive and harming people, and are therefore unacceptable.

#126 “Chosha, you’ve made a couple of statements about certain behaviors of individuals or groups being “unreasonable” and “unacceptable”. On what is that standard based? You didn’t qualify it as your opinion. I’m wondering, as an atheist, from where do you think those standards eminate? Do you believe in absolute or inherent immorality, and if so, where does it come from?”

We could start with the standards that the church has established.

brjones,
The value of WWJD is the question itself, it causes believers to check themselves by applying their own Jesus standard often narrowing the range of acceptable behavior. WWJD is ultimately a completely subjective standard No it’s an objective standard within a range but the range is set by subjective determination…you can never tell another person they’re doing it wrong Right! If you can’t get them to tell themselves they’re doing it wrong by asking them to check their own Jesus standard what business do you have of setting a standard for them and why would you think they would adhere to it? This is just one way to contrast and compare standards. At the end of the day, it’s just a matter of opinion. Again, it’s opinion within a range.

In reality, though, I think the opposite is true. Joseph and brigham made it perfectly clear that there is only one objective “truth”, and it’s whatever the living prophets say it is. Truth is not what a prophet says it is, it’s what God says it is and unless the “prophet” is actually conveying God’s mind on the issue he isn’t being a prophet. Joseph taught a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such The problem is today the evidence strongly suggests that “prophet, seer and revelator” is more an honorary title than it is a job description. Some believers want to argue TSM receives revelation for the church regularly and frequently. Fine. If so what is that revelation? Younger missionaries? That’s the most important thing God has to say to the world? (How’s that “revealed” program working out btw?) Can he really be magnifying his calling as prophet, seer and revelator without revealing?

I have been reading the comments somewhat, although I skipped the last few (I’ll get back to them), but one thing I’ll respond to is this:

But when you claim to be the ‘one true church,’ you better freaking act like the one true church, or expect to be criticised.

I totally expect any organization — whether secular or religious — to be criticized. But I expect that organizations will do what they feel is necessary to defend themselves, and they will especially set terms of membership, so that their spokespeople, representatives, allies, members, etc., are those who actually support the organization. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with *that*, even if there is something wrong with the organization or what they do elsewhere.

But one thing I would say — especially as an agnostic and as an atheist — is that we have no idea what a one true church would look like. What I do know is that scriptures from many religious traditions talk about the inscrutability of God…that his ways or not our ways, his thoughts are not our thoughts. Perhaps even that the “natural man” is an enemy to God, or that God’s ways confound the secular/learned/rational types.

I can certainly as an individual say that there are certain things that I would find unbelievable to be attributed to God or to any church that claims to be his, but hey, that’s why I’m a nonbelieving, nonpracticing Mormon atheist.

But while I can say that certain things about the way the church acts or certain things about the narrative the church preaches are not credible to me, I can’t really say that they are not acting “like the one true church,” because I have no idea what that would look like, and especially as a nonbeliever, it seems to me that if any religion can be the one-true church, it won’t appear particularly obvious about it. I think it could be the case that I die, meet God, see that he is in my eyes a tyrant, and then resign myself to Hell. (in fact, I like views of Hell that are basically like this…that Hell is not some place God sends you, or perhaps not even a place away from God, but being *in the presence of a God that profoundly offends you.*)

And I can also say that if I am not willing to follow what a church says about their claims about what being the one true church involves, then I can’t really be surprised if they want to take action against me being a member of that church, especially if I publicly criticize them.

#136 “Wouldn’t that be tantamount to saying that its one-true-ness would be apparent and obvious to all? If so, which one is it? Why are there different religions at all?”

Yes. It would be tantamount to saying it’s one-true-ness would be apparent and obvious to all. If that doesn’t appear to be true I guess we might conclude that anyone that finds a balance between the larger culture and the individual would be a good choice in each culture. Or, we might conclude that in the age of science ethics and law fit the bill pretty well.

I think you have summarized the conundrum of institutional religion quite nicely.

“I agree that religion isn’t necessary to have morals, values, etc. But if one believes there is no god, how are those morals and values objective?”
They’re not. Religion-based ideas of truth and right are also subjective (some would argue more subjective, because they are constrained by a paradigm of belief and less subject to scrutiny).

Although I think there are many principles that are almost universal, I think the idea that there can be an objective truth or morality is an illusion, because even if it existed, we are too subjective ourselves (affected by our genes, our environment and our experience) to have any surety that we could perceive it objectively.

“Who am I to tell another person their beliefs or behaviors are immoral? At best I can only say they violate my personal view of morality”
Are you sure about that? Do you believe in having laws? How about school or workplace policies? How about family rules in a household? Just because morality is subjective doesn’t mean we can’t apply some collective reasoning to it. (Some) people have this idea that morality comes from religion, but morality precedes religion in human evolution. It was necessary for us to survive in groups and make society something that could work and benefit us rather than not. I’m not suggesting the concept was as developed or complex as it is today, but the elements were there.

I think we also have the right to comment on any behaviour, but not necessarily act. I quite like Mill’s ‘harm principle’ for this – if a person’s behaviour harms you or other people, you have the right to try and stop it. If it only harms them, then you might try to persuade them to stop, but should take no action. And if it harms no-one, then no-one else’s opinion should matter.

It was actually an interesting process for me, when I left religion, to realise that my values had not actually come (at least not solely) from my religion. Like most (all?) people, my values were drawn from my family, my community, my church, my culture and my own reasoning from experience. This was quite a relief, because like many I’d had the notion that if the church wasn’t true, then I’d be set adrift in the world with no sense of how to determine right and wrong. It’s almost comical to me now that I could have thought that way, but it shows how strongly I believed that the church had the truth. That’s how I was brought up and how I continued to think for a long time as an adult.

hawkgrrrl: ““What a strange criticism. Why would being an atheist expect less than a non-atheist.” Simply because atheists are not organized, and organizations are in the “should” business, particularly religions.”
So many assumptions. People don’t have to be organised into a group to care about values and right living. People who do care about values and right living don’t necessarily have the goal to come up with one common set of values that apply to everyone everywhere. And you don’t have to be ‘in the should business’ to care about living a value-driven life or about contributing to building a just society.

“I just wanted to point out that I think Andrew is right that when you “buy” any religion (or really any organization), you have to realize that they 1) don’t live up to their ideals, and 2) may be deceiving themselves or you or both on various points.”

I’m just going to say this one more time, and it would be super great if you could actually take it in. I already know this. I am not denying it. I am only arguing against the idea that it is okay for them to behave this way, even if they are doing it to ‘survive’ as an organisation.

However, I will add that it is unrealistic to think that a true believer will necessarily realise that their church is deceiving them, or expect it to be so. That is contrary to the nature of religious belief, and ignores how a believer’s mind deals with cognitive dissonance.

Andrew: “But while I can say that certain things about the way the church acts or certain things about the narrative the church preaches are not credible to me, I can’t really say that they are not acting “like the one true church,” because I have no idea what that would look like…”

You honestly don’t think that there are any basic principles that can be applied here? For example, as I think alice said in another comment, don’t you think that the very least one could expect from a ‘one true church’ is that it would act in accordance with its own stated teachings on right and wrong? That it would behave at least as well as it expects its members to?

#145

And we can’t breathe underwater either. We are flawed human beings doing the best we can. But there are things we can grasp and tools we can use. So we carry on.

Looking for the obtuse that puts us into moral or intellectual paralysis just isn’t a useful way to approach life. It may be interesting and make for some great conversation but it just isn’t going to stop me from empathizing and putting one foot in front of the other.

How about you?

Chosha, I absolutely believe in having laws, rules, regulations, etc. That doesn’t equate to judging others’ behaviors or beliefs as immoral, though, in my opinion. Laws and rules create functional paradigms based on collectively agreed upon values and ideals. In other words, they’re not based on morality, but rather on shared ideas of how we want society to look. I see that as very different than morals, which carry the air of absolute right and wrong. In fact I avoid the term morality as a rule. I don’t think morality really exists. It’s ultimately just someone’s opinion, even if it’s the shared opinion of a lot of someones.
I guess you could argue that’s a meaningless semantic distinction, and I wouldn’t fight you on the point. But absolute language like “that’s unacceptable” or “we know right from wrong” implies that one subscribes to a static and unchanging source of morality or values. That’s what I find surprising to hear from an atheist. Upon your further elaboration, however, I think I may have read more into what you were saying than was probably intended.

Incidentally, I had a very similar experience to yours when I left the church. One of the first things to go for me was the concept of morality that I had subscribed to my whole life. I discovered that my personal sense of values was different from what I had always believed it was.

Hedgehog #149 “So the constant refrain to get out of debt and to stay out of debt, to avoid debt, in the years leading up to the crisis don’t count for anything?”

Nice try, but no. Just like saying, ‘teach your kids to swim’ wouldn’t have been a heads up on the 2004 tsunami. The general authorities have advised that the two big life expenses that it’s okay to go into debt for are a house and education. One of the biggest contributing factors was risky overlending on mortgages. So while ‘stay out of debt’ is excellent advice, no, it doesn’t qualify as inspired guidance regarding an impending global financial disaster.

And yet, still not specific or relevant enough to be evidence of inspired counsel. My mother gave me the same advice, many times. She also failed to prophesy about the crisis. I’m guessing TSM is about as much as prophet as my mother is.

Fair enough. To be honest, there is such a void of inspired insight into a myriad of aspects of life and the workings of the world (and so many occasions when the ‘inspired’ viewpoint of the church came decades after social change on the same matter) that one apparent match doesn’t really evidence the existence of prophets in any meaningful way.

But hey, at least you didn’t rely on that old chestnut of Joseph Smith forbidding the use of tobacco before we knew just how harmful it was. The church has been using that for a long time to make the prophecy void appear to be a little less empty.

I’d be interested to hear what many of you (Jeff, Angela, MH, etc.) think about Gregory Smith’s detailed and documented dissection of Dehlin (sorry for the unintentional alliteration) in Interpreter. To me, it seems that Smith lays out a pretty clear pattern of deceptive behavior on John’s part that does a lot to hurt his credibility as an “objective counselor.” But there may be a great deal going on of which I am unaware.

From the OP:

2.That my continued public support of same-sex marriage would not allow me (or others in our stake) to remain in good standing with the church, because to him, the public support of same-sex marriage constituted the “support of teachings and doctrines that are not in harmony with the teachings of the church.”

I’m late into this discussion and considering some different things than what has been the main theme of the thread. I find this above condition quite interesting in a couple of ways. If public support of same sex marriage will lead to church discipline, that ramification could extend to some rather notable LDS members.

Barbara Young, wife of former NFL quarterback Steve Young provided the following quote in 2008: “”We believe all families matter, and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Proposition 8.”

Marie Osmond also has made interesting quotes on the subject in this 2013 transcript of a 2009 radio interview:

Osmond, 53, has spoken out in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in previous years, usually citing Jessica’s role in that mindset. “I think everybody should have the right to share homes and finances with somebody that they care about,” she told KOST 103.5 Los Angeles in 2009. “You know on those types of things I’m very supportive. When it comes to marriage…I think that civil rights need to be for all.”

As these two have not, to my knowledge, been called to disciplinary councils, I’m wondering how their cases differ from Johns. If they are no different, then the demands he is under are inherently unfair. I doubt the church has any interesting in seeing these two beloved figures subjected to discipline for their public comments, so they would be well served to reconsider this trend.

Is John’s case, on the other hand, different in that in addition to civil marriage rights, he is being counseled about supporting doctrinal changes within the church for same sex marriage? That would be the main possible difference I could figure–or perhaps in the fact that he has made repeated sustained public support rather than a rare comment.

BTW, thanks to Andrew S. for comments on this thread. Interesting to read logical interpretations of the rights of a private organization with passions on the subjects at hand put aside. But no, not suggesting that he is my BFF. He has trounced me on too many debates in the past.

Well Jeff that’s an interesting summary of John’s basic personality because his flip flopping is (from what I can tell) one of the main issues Gregory Smith is criticizing implying that he’s insincere and gaming the audience(s) with it. I don’t know John and haven’t followed him or his work until recently but most of his podcasts have been very interesting!

Re. 162, thanks, Hawk. That helps a lot. I tend to be pretty analytic about stuff in the absence of other input, but I’d sure hate to be judged on my own consistency from day to day or year to year (in almost any area of thought). I suppose, like most of us, he’s “working out his own salvation with fear and trembling.”

I appreciate everyone’s input on this topic as I navigate my own issues. The expression of compassion is a learned skill, not an instinct, for people like me.

It is not a matter of deception. That isn’t the central problem.

John, unfortunately, is like too many others who draw near to the God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him.

New Iconoclast,

I didn’t read the whole article, but here are my impressions. I don’t attribute malice to John’s actions (as Smith, the author does.) From personal experience, John has changed his mind on things and I think we all go through some ups and downs spiritually. I’d hate to have someone write up a hit piece on my inconsistencies.

John is a polarizing figure. I think there are many “faithful” that think John needs to be taken to task, and the article is written from that point of view. Some of the things Smith takes issue with I do not. For example, there was an issue with John’s representation of the atonement. I did a post a while back on Atonement Theories, This isn’t something typically talked about in Mormon Sunday School classes, but Smith objected to John’s “penal substitution” characterization. I suspect that John was correct that many Mormons (and many Protestants) subscribe to this theory. Smith made it sound like the issue was settled, but I don’t think it is, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Mormon that thought penal substitution wasn’t the Mormon position (even though Ransom or Governmental might be more accurate.)

Smith also took great exception to John’s “unfaithful” reading of Book of Mormon archaeology (specifically in relation to the Michael Coe issue.) Smith felt that John Sorenson (dean of BoM geography theories at BYU) satisfactorily answered Coe and Dehlin’s concerns about archaeology. Once again, I view myself as a believer in the Book of Mormon, and I respect Sorenson, but I disagree with a lot of Sorenson too. I don’t see anything wrong with picking Coe over Sorenson on these topics.

In short, I too know John, and I view his objections as having integrity, not deceit.

#169 Jared “However, from the perspective of the apostles and prophets he isn’t doing wonderful things.”
The apostles and prophets who aren’t even honest enough to admit that the church once considered ‘blacks are people who were not valiant in the pre-existence and that’s why they can’t have the priesthood’ to be doctrine? The same ones who, against the edicts of their own scripture, involved themselves in civil matters to try and prevent marriage equality. The same leaders who would rather excommunicate people than allow discourse or dissent. Those men have lost all credibility. A person pretty much has to displease them just to be living a honest, compassionate life.

“John appears to be starting an offshoot of Mormonism, a new church if you will.”
Ohhh, I see. I didn’t realise you were crazy.

“I hope he will stay a traditional Mormon, he as a lot to offer.”
John can’t offer all that he does offer and be a traditional Mormon. Traditional Mormons just keep their mouths shut and do whatever the prophet says, even when the prophet is wrong. Traditional Mormons value obedience over truth. If John chooses that he’s as crazy as you.

Jared, What did you think we were going to exchange thoughts on…how ‘far from God’ you think John is? Sorry, I don’t want to slag off a person with real empathy who takes action to help those who need it with someone who thinks he’d be better off as a self-silencing ‘traditional’ Mormon.You didn’t attempt to have an exchange of thoughts with me. You just wanted someone to agree with you on how far off track you think John is.

“You shrug off the idea that John appears to be starting an offshoot of Mormonism…You would rather him NOT be a traditional Mormon, but, something else. Like, I dunno, to create a different institution…”

No. Seeking to reform from within is not the same as starting/creating an offshoot organisation. I in no way agreed, even by implication, that John was doing that, or anything like it, or suggested he should.