John Dehlin has posted an update to his discussions with his Stake President. The stake president has asked John several things in regards to his Mormon Stories and Facebook groups. There is one item that John has agreed to do. He was asked to “Resign my status as an ordained minister in another faith” (I signed up here once to be able to marry a friend, though the opportunity never materialized)” John agreed to “resign from the web site listed above, and seek to find another means to conduct marriages if the need arises.”
However, I think the other items are going to be major sticking points. The Stake President asked John to
- “Publicly renounce and apologize for the false concepts you have widely expressed regarding God, Jesus Christ, the Atonement, the restoration of the Gospel, and the Book of Mormon.
- Cease providing a public forum for any person who is critical of Church doctrine.
- Stop promoting groups or organizations that espouse doctrines contrary to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
For clarification, this means
- That simply having doubts or criticisms regarding the church are not (in and of themselves) grounds for church discipline. Instead, that it has been my decision to discuss these doubts and concerns publicly (via Mormon Stories Podcast, via radio and newspaper interviews, and via my Facebook page) that is a primary cause of my membership status being jeopardized.
- 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.”
- That my public support of Ordain Women would also not allow me to remain in good standing with the church.
It seems the action items include
- That I publicly renounce and apologize for any/all past doubts and criticisms that I have made regarding the church, its theology/doctrine, its historicity, or its policies.
- That I do my best to remove any past podcast episodes, blog posts, or Facebook posts that contain the public expression of either doubt about, or criticism of, the LDS church – whether these comments were made by me, or by any of the people I have interviewed over the past nine years.
John doesn’t seem to be budging from his support of Mormon Stories.
For the record, our plan is to continue doing what we have been trying to do for the past nine years on Mormon Stories podcast: interview Mormons of all types (faithful/believing, struggling, disbelieving) — with as much balance and constructiveness as we are able to muster. In addition, we are working towards conducting more interviews in the coming months that deal with the practical considerations of those who want to live happy/healthy lives in either a post-Mormon or a post-orthodoxy paradigm. Some of the topics we hope to focus more deeply on include 1) navigating a mixed-faith or a post-Mormon marriage, 2) raising children in an unorthodox or a post-Mormon home, and 3) how to more effectively communicate with believing family/friends as a non-believer, or as an unorthodox members.
Also, we will unabashedly continue our public support of same-sex marriage and Ordain Women, and I continue to reserve the right to express my beliefs/doubts/concerns regarding the church, its history, and its leadership, as the need arises.
Thanks for everyone’s concerns and support during this difficult time. In summary, we will seek to be even more balanced and constructive with Mormon Stories podcast, but we do not anticipate that much will be changing on our end in terms of content. If things change with President King, we will update you as we are able.
It seems to me that this is the beginning of the end of John’s membership, because I think (1) his affiliation with Mormon Stories, (2) support of Ordain Women, and (3) support of same-sex marriage is going to be an impasse. The stake president is “taking a wait and see approach, and that his future decisions will be based on our future actions,” but I think this is the beginning of the end for John’s membership.
In July, John posted a very interesting conversation with Christine Jeppsen Clark, Daughter of General Authority Malcolm Jeppsen. In the interview, Malcolm Jeppsen was a driving force behind the September Six excommunications in 1993, and there was a concerted effort against these church members. Malcolm was heavily involved in the excommunication of Avraham Gileadi. It is a very interesting podcast, and some excerpts are found here. Part 3 was the most relevant to the current “purge” of John, Kate Kelly, Kirk Caudle, Rock Waterman, and Denver Snuffer. (To be fair, only Kate and Denver have been exed so far, Kirk resigned, and John and Rock seem to be in a slow path toward excommunication.)
What are your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
All I know is what I have read here — but 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. It seems he has made his choice, and the wheels are turning, and in front of his cheering supporters he is taunting his stake president to proceed to the next step or to back down. Sad.
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?
What I find most interesting is that John has now included his wife in all this. Seemed to me, she stayed on the sidelines most of the time, even objecting to some of his activity and they separated for a time. Now, it looks like they are united (or at least she’s there). Could be a good sign for their marriage right now, a less positive sign for their future.
Howard, TBM is a made up term and really describes no one. Just like all those other terms are a means of pejoratively classifying people. You should know that most people are never that specific.
Those of use who have a have history with John know he has been for these many years all over the map on his church views and his membership and his ventures within John Dehlin Enterprises. I suppose it now comes down to his choice. He now has the word from his local leadership.
After all, this isn’t Burger King.
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.
There’s a reason terms are made up Jeff, they provide a short hand so that we don’t have to write this much to make the point. To parse a term that is a deliberate generalization is kind of a waste of time isn’t it?
“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.
I think it’s a matter of time before John is exed, and I think he knows it. But I admire him for not going down quietly just to appear to be compliant, but to bring public attention to an inherently unfair (and “secret”) process. He knows he has done what is right according to his own conscience, he has no reason to not only be quiet going forward, but to also retroactively undo everything he has said and done for the last 10 years, as the SP is asking him to do.
As for Margi, any discussion about John’s membership affects her, and affects her children. If her husband is exed, she loses her ticket to the celestial kingdom.
The worst part is the church doesn’t seem to realize they are shooting themselves in the foot. John has done so much to either help members stay (albeit with unconventional testimonies) or to help them leave gracefully. The church NEEDS more John Dehlins. They are shooting the messenger rather than looking at what the CHURCH did to cause this fallout.
“Confess your crimes. You will then be sent to reeducation.”
-North Korea
Watcher I hope you’re correct that the brethren have learned that making martyrs isn’t worthwhile, I’ve assumed it was John’s leadership connections that have protected him this far.
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 wish the Stake President had stuck with the Mormon Stories line. I’m convinced that it is the antagonistic interviews cited by Watcher that are what John is in trouble for, and nothing else. If Mormon Stories consisted entirely of interviews like Bushman’s, John’s support for Ordain Women and same-sex marriage would not register on anybody’s radar screen.
I really don’t like church discipline being used to silence diverse voices. John’s been all over the map, and he’s been open about where he is throughout that process. It also seems to me that Kate Kelly, a believer, was ex’d even though she believes, some speculate because she believes. John, an open doubter, has been more successful talking to his leaders in large part because he’s a man and understands how to talk to these stake level hierarchical leaders and be heard, where to bend, where he doesn’t have to. What insight does a woman have into that structure? What practice does a woman get in how to talk to these people? Very very little, and it’s a huge disadvantage. Others are saying that John’s time will come, but that his local leaders will wait until there will be less press. I can’t imagine when that would be.
I think John articulates and represents certain hard truths about Mormonism that are right there in everyone’s view if they are curious enough or courageous enough to face them. Some of them are historic and they are what they are. Some are ongoing as in the way the church deals with individuals and groups and, for good or for ill, the leadership owns them.
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 also feel for his wife and kids. I hope they have every opportunity to weigh in and direct their own futures.
And, since the question of excommunication has come up again, Kate Kelly’s appeal is still in limbo and I suspect that and the position of women in the church becomes current conversation again. I, for one, am most interested in how John’s outspokenness is treated in relation to Kate’s.
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!
From what I understand, they aren’t bothering John particularly about the LGBTQ ally stuff. On paper, it’s strictly about OW and mormon stories- the church knows it can’t afford to bungle more LGBT issues.
As far as the inconsistencies between John and Kate’s processes and how they are handled, it has more to do with geography than we care to admit. Whatever regional authority your area reports to is going to affect how “apostate” OW is considered. Privately in correspondence with some OW folks, some members of the 12 have admitted that the 12 are not in agreement on the subject of how to handle OW, there isn’t consensus, so it just comes down to who has power over your area, in addition to the usual game of priesthood leadership roulette we all play.
I don’t believe John’s belief is in such a place that being excommunicated can really harm him. Unlike Kate, I don’t think he believes that priesthood leadership has authority over his spiritual future. That’s why Kate’s excommunication hurt so much- she actually believes. Whereas John, he has stayed in the church more because of his love of the people and his hope of improving the organization. That love of the people and the desire to fix what is broken is the same thing that is making him not back down and be quiet- it’s more important to bring attention to what needs fixing than it is for him to stay a member.
As for me- this young apostate trying to maintain a positive relationship with the church of my youth (the church my family is still a part of)- if they ex John after having exed Kate, I will take it as a VERY loud and clear message that I am not welcome or wanted and there is little hope of the church ever being an organization I want to be a part of again.
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.
I don’t see how the Church can afford to leave him his membership.
Though I do not doubt the Church is learning much in the meantime about how to make a truly safe space for those who are questioning the faith of their childhood.
“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.
It might be interesting to be able to see through the opacity of church finance, given what has been leaked about Mission Presidents we may learn that our beloved apostles are engaged in some level of priestcraft as well. I don’t see John living high, rather his contribution seems to far outweigh his material desires.
#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.
First the stake presidents lays down the conditions John has to abide by to stay LDS. John then basically answers that he can do one of them (resign the internet church) but not the other more important items, ie stop supporting gay marriage and OW but also adds to it by saying that he wont remove any critical post from MS and reserves the right to even be critical of church leaders if he thinks it is warranted.
So after all that the stake president responds with “taking a wait and see approach”? ..What a wimp. With what John has already said he has more than enough to hold a counsel but now it seems he is turning yellow! Maybe the publicity involved in excommunicating the “John Dehlin” gave that stake president cold feet.
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.
Certainly, John’s self-proclaimed status as crusader with inside connection creates legitimacy among groups of people. 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. But, a lot of people conveniently forget stuff so as to fit their particular narrative and perspective.
John’s back and forth over the years should have most people utterly confused as to where he really stands. in the end, he will ultimately do what he thinks is in his own best interest.
Now, as to the certainty that some here seem to have as to Kate Kelly’s believer status. I would have no way of knowing what she believes based on her actions. If we are to accept the adage that actions speak louder than words, that would be the way I would judge her beliefs.
“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.
John’s stake president’s “wait and see” position only means that John’s statement of intent to do nothing different is not the same as doing nothing different. Were John to now act in the way he has been counseled, his stake president would (and should) take no action based on John’s stated intent, which is as it should be.
If John were “fooling around” and the stake president asked him to stop seeing his new interest, he could puff himself up and tell the stake president that he would not dump her, but would continue as he had before, and the stake president would/should do nothing. But, if he had reports that John was continuing to wine and dine the woman, spend evenings at her home until way after decent people went home to bed, he would/should follow through on the actions he had before discussed.
Regardless of John’s NOM apologetics, he is not free to define “an LDS member in good standing.” The rest of the 15 million members have not granted him that right. Admittedly, he may do that for himself. And since he holds no keys, I don’t think I care what he does. Except… that it may confuse others. And I don’t grant that right either to the Wooley family, or the Jeffs or Barlows, Twice a year, I raise my hand and indicate my consent that one man, with the support of 14 other men, has that right. And when he decides it appropriate to put before us a change, we all consent to the change.
John is free to leave, to go and start a church (The Church of John) based on how he sees things, and to entice others to follow. 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.
It’s hogwash to raise 1st ammendment issues. No one has restricted John’s right to speak, only his right to hold himself out as anything other than he is; a confused doubter.
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!”
Jenn,
“How about… we’re not here to judge at all?”
Since when? i am certainly in a position to judge a person’s actions if I choose to. I am not in a position to judge their eternal salvation, which I am not.
You’ve obviously made a judgement about the Church.
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.
15 million members? Really? Seems a lot of them are pretty hard to find these days.
Members first amendment rights to free speech are NOT abridged by LDS leadership? I was born in captivity there are high cultural and social costs for leaving so it’s not like I just checked a box saying I agreed to the terms and conditions so I can download a new application is it? Many men would would have to give up their wives and children to leave. This is the hold the church has over many. There is an implied noose and trap door waiting for many who choose to go. So many are coerced into giving up their first amendment rights.
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.
It’s just a matter of semantics Andrew S, I’m addressing the result.
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.
#19 Howard on August 25, 2014 at 9:33 AM Re “It might be interesting to be able to see through the opacity of church finance, given what has been leaked about Mission Presidents”
What exactly has leaked about Mission Presidents?
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.
#25 “only means that John’s statement of intent to do nothing different is not the same as doing nothing different. Were John to now act in the way he has been counseled, his stake president would (and should) take no action based on John’s stated intent, ”
But John has stated that he will not abide by the stake presidents requests and requirements, not that his intent is to do nothing against the church. ie his intent is to disobey, is it no? unless we are reading different summaries here.
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.
Human beings in any kind of society or group have numerous hard and soft “behavioral mods” placed on their speech. There’s not even necessarily anything inherently objectionable about 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.
“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 hadn’t realized that someone has stewartship over the Internet and that we are not allowed to judge someone outside of OUR stewartship when they are acting outside of their own.
And I think you’d have to be IN the Church to even have a stewartship….
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.
But when the behavioral mods involve censorship/coercion to silence, it belies fundamental problems in the organization. Especially when the thing being forbidden is talking about truth and one’s own experiences.
“But John has stated that he will not abide by the stake presidents requests and requirements, not that his intent is to do nothing against the church. ie his intent is to disobey, is it no? unless we are reading different summaries here.”
His intent is indeed to disobey his local leaders, yes. What the bigger question is, is obeying local leaders more important than doing work that you feel God wants you to do to help His church meet its longterm goals? What is more important- obeying local leaders, or following your inner conscience and helping people when you feel leaders have made errors (and historically, it is abundantly clear that leaders can and do make errors)?
If he sees his work as helping the people of the church, and he puts a higher importance on doing what’s right than on obeying authority, then I’d think less of him if he did give in and obey. Which would the church prefer- people who care so deeply that they build their lives around finding the truth and helping people not feel alone, or people who obey blindly and stay silent when asked?
Unfortunately, the church seems to think that they can’t survive if people don’t toe the line and stay quiet. Which is sad, because it doesn’t have to be that way (John tried to demonstrate that). The church can survive more honesty, more doubt, more forums for people to discuss. What it CAN’T survive is giving members no legitimate, safe internal path for finding answers.
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.
“I think you may have unjustifiable premises baked into your reasoning.” Care to expound?
Minime,
The2006 Mission Presidents Handbook shows the family living expenses that are reimbursed to the Mission President. John’s family living expenses are not (likely) reimbursed by the church.
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.
Yes, you said you would judge her beliefs off her actions (word for word: “If we are to accept the adage that actions speak louder than words, THAT WOULD BE THE WAY I WOULD JUDGE HER BELIEFS.”) Whereas I say, judge her actions if you must but NOT her beliefs. There is no reason to try to extrapolate someone’s personal beliefs from your perception of their actions. Especially when your perception leads you to doubt another individual’s testimony (both personal and publicly stated).
“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?
Of course they are. I’m not saying they aren’t. I’m saying we shouldn’t try the backwards math to try to figure out externally what someone else’s motivations and beliefs are. I’m saying we have no reason to judge another person’s internal, personal faith based on our interpretation of their actions. I didn’t say it was a crime, but I will say that I think it is wrong- and you will often reach the wrong conclusions- to make guesses at someone’s internal motivations and testimony simply because you don’t understand why they do the things they do. Especially when your guesses invalidate their own spoken testimony.
It drives me crazy when people do this to me, and I can’t just sit quietly when people do it to Kate Kelly or John Dehlin.
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.
Exactly. “Especially our own.” At least we’re agreed there.
Just know that if you make assumptions about a person’s personal beliefs and motivations when you don’t understand why they do what they do, you are likely to be wrong a majority of the time, in a way that can hurt people and hurt the church- especially with something as complex and personal as testimony. Aside from the fact we are so liable to make mistakes when guessing about people’s faith, we have absolutely no Christlike reason to even try to make guesses about another person’s inner testimony.
With John, we can at least hear from his lips why his actions may not match our perception of his beliefs. http://mormonstories.org/john-dehlin-why-i-stay/
Both Kate and John have spoken publicly about their beliefs, and I’ve never seen any reason to doubt that they believe what they are saying is true. I may disagree with their beliefs or the way they act on them, but that’s very different from saying they don’t believe what they say they do.
Andrew S, I appreciate your no. 30. I hope readers will go back up and re-read it again.
The evidence that convinced me of Kate’s sincerity as a believer is that she bore testimony in F&T meeting the month before her excommunication. That doesn’t seem like something a non-believer would do.
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.
Mark Hoffman and brjones have about the same credibility problem here, don’t they?
#55
Whoa! Unkind! And untrue!
Thanks for answering alice. I wasn’t certain so I was just asking.
What made you say that wreddyornot? Did it seem like I was unfairly slandering Kate Kelly?
It seemed like you were unfair but not necessarily slandering.
Or is it that you think I’m a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
#59 I honestly didn’t mean it that way. I have no reason to question Kate Kelly’s sincerity, and I definitely don’t have an axe to grind against her beliefs or movement. I was really just addressing Hawk’s general point that a non-believer wouldn’t bear proactive testimony. I think there are probably a lot of people who do just that, for various reasons. But I genuinely didn’t mean to ascribe that to KK.
I think it was a pretty poor comparison considering Mark Hoffman is a counterfeiter, forger and convicted murderer.
I fail to see the problem, Howard. First of all, I didn’t compare Kate Kelly to Mark Hoffman. In fact, I specifically clarified that I wasn’t accusing her of being disingenuous. Hawk made the statement that a non-believer probably wouldn’t bear his or her testimony in testimony meeting. Mark Hoffman is just one high profile example of a non-believer who pretended, for whatever reason, to be a believer and engaged in exactly that kind of behavior. I was in no way comparing the two individuals. Frankly I’m a little surprised at the level of emotion clouding people’s reasoning on this subject.
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?
No problems, brjones. That’s why I asked. Let’s just say I’m a lot surprised by the magnitude of ugly emotion you elicited by using an example like disingenuous convicted murderer Mark Hoffman over against Kate, who many of you seem to see as ingenuous.
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.
I’m not being snarky, wreddyornot, but could you explain that for me? I disagree with the characterization of my comment as using anything “against” Kate. In fact, my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with Kate Kelly. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I was honestly just addressing Hawk’s general point, and Mark Hoffman was the first, most obvious example that came to mind. Hawkgrrrl made a very broad statement, and I responded with just one example to raise a counterpoint. In retrospect, I could have been clearer that I wasn’t saying KK was similar to Hoffman, but honestly, I think if you go back and read my comment, it’s pretty clear I wasn’t drawing any comparisons between the two. And for the record, I don’t consider Kate Kelly ingenuous or disingenuous. I think a decent could be made either way, and the way that argument goes is going to depend largely on one’s personal feelings about the matter. Regardless, though, my point was definitely not to insinuate that she was a non-believer posing as a believer.
“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.
As to John going down, I only wish him and *all* of us the very best, not matter what. Sorry to detract from the post.
#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.
As to whether or not John is ‘going down’, I can’t say, but what does strike me about this is that not only do we get the ‘terms’, but we also get clarification on it. If I were writing a legal argument, and using case citations for precedent – this is really spelling things out.
I wonder if this isn’t the whole point in this with John. He’s pushing them to set terms, and to clarify, and then he’s sharing it publicly so that people know. The church clearly has not drawn a line in the sand that’s in black and white prior to this. To this point, things seem to have been fairly subjective regarding discipline, exing, etc. It almost seems so unlike the other cases within the last year or so that a part of me wonders if John isn’t somehow working WITH the church on it. Even people that have been open and posted about their church disciplinary proceedings in the past don’t actually have much to say because the church has been pretty vague about it.
What upsets me the most about it is that the church seems to have a lot of consternation over ‘public’. The reason this upsets me is because I don’t care if you are a member with no doubts, or an ex mormon, this should be a huge red flag. Any time any person or organization can’t be open, honest, and above board about whatever it’s dealings are, there’s a more sinister reason. There should be nothing wrong with expressing any sort of concern or problem, including publicly. This is the reason mormons get a bad rap as ‘morgbots’ that can’t thing for themselves. It seems that any time somebody wants to question, it becomes a huge ordeal – the church is all about keeping up appearances, which personally makes me nauseated.
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.
#72 Andrew, you’ve just flipped around to every possible variation, basically claiming that the two things are separate and we ‘just don’t know’ what the real situation is when someone says their spouse is horrible. Sure, true, but not relevant to this situation. We know exactly what the church’s behaviour has been here and we know what John’s behaviour has been. We know from years of experience that John’s criticisms of the church are valid and we know that rather than answer those claims, or give a member the right to dissent, the church NOT ONLY wants to take disciplinary action against John, but it is using the threat of excommunication to try and wipe John’s criticism from existence. The church wants John to pretend he said those things in error. It wants him to discredit his own podcasts by removing them and renouncing the ideas in them. It wants him, in short, to silence himself AND destroy any evidence that he ever had anything negative to say. Do you really not get how serious that is? It can just be wiped away by saying, ‘if you want to be a member, you have to follow the Church’s rules.’ What’s happening here goes far beyond that. The LDS church teaches honesty and integrity and it is showing that it has neither of those things. It preaches accountability and expects members to confess serious wrongdoing, yet it lies, actively hides those lies and then threatens members who won’t do the same. The Church’s hypocrisy in this situation is staggering. Do you honestly think there is a single person on Earth who got baptised thinking that one of the criteria for membership was that they had to lie for the church? NOBODY signed up for that.
Of course the LDS Church can define its criteria for membership, and of course it can excommunicate people who don’t meet those criteria. But it doesn’t get a free pass to do that with impunity. People (including members) can say if they think those criteria are screwed up, and if a member’s subsequent excommunication demonstrates how screwed up those criteria are, so be it.
Having the right to do something doesn’t automatically make you right when you do it.
That should be “it CAN’T just be wiped away…”
I have listened to John’s podcasts quite a bit over the years. When I was leaning towards leaving the church, he was the one that helped me give the church another chance. What I have noticed lately, and John has said this himself, is that these excommunication efforts by his leaders have upset him. In my mind, if he gets excommunicated, so be it but he is past the point of changing his ways. If the church doesn’t want his brand of openness, he is willing to pay the price.
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.
Which Polygamists? The one’s that led the LDS church or the ones forced out of it?
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.
Well the church does want the naive and ignorant, it even cultivates those traits and they also want you regardless of what you believe as long as you remain silent about it. If you’ll pray, pay and obey and they defiantly want you. What they don’t want are critics and vocal skeptics.
Even if the criticism is true btw (see Oaks).
It is not altogether unreasonable for an organization not to want critics or vocal skeptics, even if the criticism is true.
#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?
I think you’d find MANY active members are affected by these excommunications. It’s just that the apostates are louder about it, we have less fear of retaliation.
I have a good friend (very active in the church, recently on an RS presidency until a PH leadership change changed her status from faithful to apostate because of her involvement with OW) who was literally physically ill and sobbed for a week over the Kate Kelly thing. She can’t deny her testimony of the restoration, so she stays, even though it hurts and she lives in fear of any changes in priesthood leadership. I know at least 10 members who months ago had felt solid and hopeful about their future in the church who are now seriously considering leaving and trying to maintain their testimony on their own.
There are few things that the church can do that would really make me want to get involved again. I haven’t been active on this blog (or any other in the bloggernacle) for a long time, I feel like I’ve moved on. But then this John/Kate stuff came up and showed that I’m not beyond a place where the church’s actions still hurt me.
During my disaffection, I had to put up with so many accusations and assumptions and the ONLY active members who seemed to understand, who wanted to help without accusation, that acknowledged the legitimacy of my concerns and was willing to find answers with me, was John and his peers.
It hurts in a surprising way to find out that my few remaining allies in the church that ever believed my pain and my experience, who had the potential of helping other people avoid what I went though… that they’re being forcibly removed by the very people who tell us that: we didn’t have to leave, we could have stayed and been welcome, that our leaving was our fault, our choice, the church has answers and allows questions.
If the church wants people who seek answers and seek to find others going through the same terrifying and painful process of finding the truth… if they want us to leave, they need to say so honestly. But telling us with one hand we are welcome and we’re imagining our pain while on the other hand cutting off the few sources of solace and legitimacy that we had… it’s hypocrisy and it is currently hurting people I care for.
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.
It is not altogether unreasonable for an organization not to want critics or vocal skeptics, even if the criticism is true.
It’s not that simple given who the church purports to be. The church elevates faith promotion above the truth. In other words it uses faith promotion as a distraction from, cover up of and a substitute for inconvenient truths while at the same time expecting even demanding it’s member’s honesty and repentance which it does not reciprocate in kind. Faith promotion is used to spin and perpetuate propaganda while purporting to be telling you and selling you the truth for a tax equal to 10% of your income. I know Andrew is an atheist but to others who believe in a God, is this what God want’s his church to be? To me this hypocrisy seems more like a cross between a scam to fund building construction and the adversary’s plan from the preexistence.
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 church ultimately doesn’t control John’s behavior.”
Again, the point is the church is threatening John to try to control his behaviour. Whether or not it is successful in that is not relevant.
“The church is perfectly free to set consequences for certain behaviors, not just in a legal sense, but in a moral sense.”
Excommunicating someone for telling the truth is immoral. Well sure, I guess the church is free to be immoral if it chooses.
“The church is not like Arthur Andersen and Enron shredding documents here…”
It’s trying to shred evidence-based podcasts on matters that discredit it by revealing truths about it. What’s the difference exactly?
“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.”
You keep saying this as if it is reasonable and moral behaviour. It’s not.
“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.”
You are oversimplifying a very complex set of circumstances. You do not take into account the deep emotional connection some people have to their membership, or to the church culture of which they are a part, or the effect that leaving the church may have on their family relationships, their marriages. Depending on where they live, it could mean they lose employment or that their kids will get bullied. You write as if walking away is easy for people. It often isn’t.
“…you really have a choice about whether you will continue this cycle, or if you’re going go move on with your life.”
Again, it’s not that simple. John Dehlin has literally saved people’s lives with the work he has done with LGBT Mormons. Do you think he can just walk away, move on, and just leave his compassion for the plight of LGBT Mormons at the door as he goes? This goes for many ex-Mormons who people like you say ‘can’t leave the church alone.’ No, we can’t, because it’s still negatively impacting the lives of people we love and care about.
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.
re 87,
chosha,
Says you. But you are not the church, and 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.
The church is saying, “If you want to be a member in good standing, you can’t criticize us publicly like this.” It’s not taking John’s podcasts and documents and putting them through a shredder. The only thing really being potentially shredded is John’s membership record.
In any case, the information still exists. John’s podcasts — unless JOHN chooses to take them down — will still exist. But what the church is saying is that if John wants to keep those podcasts up, then he is not a member in good standing.
It’s John’s choice whether he cares more about the podcasts or being a member in good standing.
It is absolutely reasonable for an organization to protect itself like this. Your contentions about morality basically drill down that it is immoral for the church to exist and protect itself. And I’m saying that you could definitely make a case for this. (You could make a case that it’s immoral for the big tobacco lobby to exist and protect itself.) But this case is separate and distinct from whether an organization can make decisions about its member. Even if you made the case that it’s immoral for the big tobacco lobby to exist and protect itself, it wouldn’t be immoral for big tobacco to decide that it doesn’t want to hire — and in fact, it will fire — folks who lobby against their interests.
I am not ignoring these factors. I’m already implicitly assuming that these factors will get taken into consideration about whether someone considers it more important to be a member in good standing or host podcasts.
John Dehlin is utterly free to continue working with LGBT Mormons whether he is a part of or not a part of the church.
If he keeps the podcast, people can and will continue to listen to the podcast after his excommunication. The podcast doesn’t vanish with his excommunication. His ability to serve in the ways that he feels necessary doesn’t vanish with his excommunication. He simply cannot continue to say that he is a member in good standing as he does whatever he does.
“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.
re 90,
Jenn,
Of course, the faithful narrative is that the leaders of the church receive revelation from God and have authority to act in his behalf.
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.
At the very least, if we completely remove the presumption of truth or whatever, we can simply say that regardless of whether the church is actually divinely inspired or not, they absolutely have every prerogative to act in accordance with a belief that they are.
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?
Andrew,
It’s been very interesting to observe the “authority” card become the new orthodox talking point to support mindlessly or blindly following the brethren. Authority says absolutely nothing about power or truth, it is simply a license, the license can’t drive the car by itself! Even more interesting any power involved must come from God, an entity (or concept?) you have no belief in. So I don’t get your position in this, are you playing an apologist or does this really make sense to you? If so please explain.
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.
“Of course, the faithful narrative is that the leaders of the church receive revelation from God and have authority to act in his behalf.”
Yes, but for some people the faithful narrative includes more, that members are obligated to pray for themselves, and either get confirmation or pass back up the chain the questions that should be asked of God for further clarification. Both John and Kate have not declared to speak for the church- both have clearly had the goal all along of engaging with leadership, and both have been shut down. If they wanted to undermine leadership then they wouldn’t be trying so hard to engage with them. The only “undermining” aspect has been that they have found others with the same questions, which makes things more public and can make the church look bad when the church responds the way it has.
If leadership had responded to OW with “we understand your concerns [which would have required actually engaging with OW and taking them seriously] but have prayed on behalf of the church and the answer is “not now” for ordination, but let’s talk about other improvements or guidance we can give to help allay your concerns” and she had continued to say “ordination or bust”, then yes, I’d say it’s apostasy. But we still have no reason to believe that leadership has taken it to the Lord on behalf of the church, no leadership ever responded to Kate on behalf of the Lord. (And don’t say Elder Oaks’ talk at priesthood session- ironically delivered only to men- answered OW question’s because it actually raised more questions than it answered, which is why this needs to be a dialog and not back-and-forth of PR statements).
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.
re 95,
Jenn,
I totally buy that. But when the individual’s personal faithful narrative runs into the institution’s, that’s when they have to make a choice. i personally agree with Kate Kelly’s choice to follow personal revelation rather than to submit to the institution. I personally think it’s to the church’s loss not to listen or change. But then again, I’m an apostate anyway, and I don’t run the church.
It’s good that you imagine some possibilities for when the church can declare what apostasy is. But since you don’t actually run the church, your definition is not applicable.
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.
“It’s good that you imagine some possibilities for when the church can declare what apostasy is. But since you don’t actually run the church, your definition is not applicable.”
I’m not saying it is. What I’m saying is just because the church declares things one way (and has the right and capability to do so) doesn’t mean we have to accept it without hope of it changing.
I believe the church is harming itself and bringing itself away from its mission by the way it defines apostasy. I want to point that out not because I think my definition supercedes the churches, but because I have hope that church will someday do things better.
FWIW I’m also an apostate and think that with john dehlin particularly, it is the church’s loss, not John’s. But I still care enough about the church that I don’t want it to lose the John Dehlins from its membership.
Howard FWIW, both those items, and others, are included in the new seminary curriculum running this year.
Howard: “It’s been very interesting to observe the “authority” card become the new orthodox talking point to support mindlessly or blindly following the brethren.” Just to add to Andrew S’s note, JS originally used a loyalty test when determining whether or not to excommunicate people. If they declared their personal loyalty to him, they didn’t get ex’d. If you look at the record, I believe Oliver Cowdery was ex’d while he was in fact right about JS and giving him wise council that JS couldn’t bear. So that’s an early precedent.
“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.
I think more people would be able to view it dispassionately if it weren’t for the betrayal and the very high exit cost. Losing your family, your friends, in some cases your job is a very high price to pay for something you never give informed consent to! Consequently many remain in the church as closet NOMs until they can no longer maintain the charade and the irony of waking up to realizing the church duped you isn’t a pleasant experience, often triggering anger and betrayal.
There is an element of coercion involved that allows a high level of leverage to be applied to behavior modification, compliance and boundary maintenance. But the unearthing of these manipulative methods and a healthy dose of sunlight is causing a shake out that will continue.
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.
“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.”
I guess I’m confused as to why we’re going back and forth on this. No one is saying the church doesn’t get to say who is a member- at least, I’m definitely not. If the church exes John, then he will not be a member, by definition. No argument from me there. They CAN set their own terms however they want, and I can do nothing about it. Whether or not they SHOULD set their terms the way they currently are is definitely up for discussion, with the hope the discussion is productive and helps lead the church to a point when they don’t shoot themselves in the foot.
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.
I know John Taylor disagreed with President Brigham Young regularly on points of critical doctrine, and he was not only not exed, he was his successor, and immediately changed those points of doctrine upon Brigham’s death (adam-god, anyone?).
But, um, doctrine is unchanging and leaders don’t make mistakes.
““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.
Hedgehog,
Actually I was using MMM and Joseph’s women as a example of issues that an epistemology test/argument does not apply. It’s in the church’s best interest and the member’s best interest to acknowledge it’s controversies in order to inoculate to avoiding triggering betrayal. I’m glad it’s happening, thanks for mentioning it.
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.
chosha: I think you grossly misunderstand Andrew’s perspective. His arguments are not a defense of the church, just of any organization’s rights (without regard to the validity of that organization) to define who can be part of them. You seem to think Andrew is a TBM with a black & white perspective. I can assure you Andrew is not what you think he is. If you look closer at what he is and is not saying you may see that. He is no troll. I’ll take a crack at some of your latest assertions:
“they don’t have the right to defraud their members in order to preserve that narrative” Historically, this is demonstrably untrue. Caveat emptor. All religions are selling a narrative because that’s what they have to sell (now that indulgences are off the table). Those narratives are true or false or a mix of both, but when it comes to buying any narrative, buyer beware.
“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.” These are three very different charges, and the level of immorality in each differs: 1) Danites murdering people is, well, murder, 2) creating a narrative that contributes to self-loathing and suicide for homosexuality is obviously morally wrong, but not a clear cause & effect either, more a sin of omission (not preventing suicide), and non-LDS homosexuals have committed suicide due to familial or societal disapproval, and 3) an individual lying about his infidelity (assuming that’s what you mean here) is between him and the other individuals he lied to, primarily his wife, but also other women and men in this case. Lying to get sexual access to multiple partners is still wrong, but it’s not a matter of life & death; it’s not murder. His version of that may be true or untrue, but whether we believe it or not is up to us. Likewise, I may not believe that Lourdes appeared to those school children, but I choose not to believe it because I’m not Catholic. It doesn’t hurt me if Catholics believe it. Even if I were Catholic, believing it wouldn’t really hurt me, whether it’s true or a lie.
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.
I think the problem with Andrew’s perspective here is that he’s an atheist and when one removes God from the situation a church starts to look like any other organization (except with even more protection under law to be abusive) so from an atheist perspective the irony and outrage goes missing. WWJD becomes irrelevant and he seems to find it perhaps unattractive but permissible for the church to be a self serving predator.
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.
You can ask what is right and ethical without connecting that to religion…I expect integrity from all kinds of organisations. Indeed. Churches should be held a higher standard of ethics and morality I’m not sure Andrew agrees with this. So your disagreement with Andrew is ethics based?
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.
“you better freaking act like the one true church, or expect to be criticised” Those are certainly the alternatives. The church doesn’t have the right to not be criticized (nobody does really). No organization or individual is above reproach, but when we are talking about the harm an organization does, well, unless it’s against an enforceable law, organizations and people can and do wrong things all the time (your harm argument). It’s against the law to murder. When the Danites were in action, the church was on the fringes of the frontier, often outside the reach of the law. And polygamy and lying about infidelity are both very difficult to prosecute as the state of Utah has found. No, it’s not morally right. But we don’t have a right to avoid being deceived. The church will tell the version of truth it believes to be right, meaning either 1) accurate or 2) ends justifying the means.
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. I believe in these words from the Gestalt prayer: “I do my thing and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, And you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful. If not, it can’t be helped.” I too believe that we should live a moral life with or without religion, and most people do. Sometimes they do things I find immoral or wrong. Humans have an enormous capacity for rationalization. That’s why I, perhaps like Andrew, assume nobody and no organization is truly moral acting. They will self-preserve.
Chosha, I don’t know you from adam, but I want to be your BFF. Seriously.
I’m atheist in action though not belief (I believe there is something, I just don’t pretend to have any clue what it is or let it guide my life) but I agree that being atheist alone doesn’t mean giving religious organizations a free pass to do as they will. I see the value in religion. I see the value in mormonism. Just because I don’t believe in the truth narrative of the church doesn’t mean I don’t want to see it succeed, especially if success means making people more compassionate, making stronger families, providing a community…
I think the church is working against those goals, and it hurts people I love, so even though I have zero belief- I guess “WWJD” still applies but for me it’s more like “What Would the-fictionalized-But-Admirable-Character-We-Call-Jesus Do”- I can still express dismay when I see the church bringing itself away from its most worthy goals.
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. 🙂
hawkgrrrl: “unless it’s against an enforceable law, organizations and people can and do wrong things all the time.”
Of course they do. I’m not arguing they don’t. I’m arguing that they shouldn’t.
“But we don’t have a right to avoid being deceived.”
No, but fraud is both morally wrong, and a crime.
“For an atheist, you sure expect a lot.”
What a strange criticism. Why would being an atheist expect less than a non-atheist.
“I would say hold yourself to the highest standards and assume that others may not do likewise.”
Good philosophy. The sentiment in the Gestalt prayer seems to be something that would best apply to people who don’t actually interact with each other or affect each other’s lives.
“That’s why I, perhaps like Andrew, assume nobody and no organization is truly moral acting. They will self-preserve.”
Again, I’m not arguing they don’t. I’m arguing that they shouldn’t. Particularly when self-preservation will not just morally compromise them, but will also cause harm to others.
#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.
“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. Governments don’t even really try to comprehensively dole out “shoulds,” leaving many immoral things legal. It’s wrong to lie, but not illegal. That’s kind of the most basic one. And all churches have lies and inaccuracies in them. No church is 100% truthful because they are human organizations.
I don’t disagree with many of your points. 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. We can say they should do better, true enough, but they probably won’t, and we aren’t protected from them not doing better unless laws are broken (and even then we rely on imperfect governments to intervene).
…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.
So are you saying, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone?” Because there is sure a lot of stone-throwing going on….
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?
Howard, don’t you see the peril in injecting “wwjd” into the discussion? That’s ultimately a completely subjective standard, and if you want to use that standard, you are obliged to allow others to apply their interpretation of that same standard. Which ultimately means you can never tell another person they’re doing it wrong. For that matter, why is “what would jesus do” any better than “what would joseph do” or “what would gordon do”? At the end of the day, it’s just a matter of opinion. For most mormons, they don’t have to engage in such debates, because modern revelation is the ultimate trump card, which card, by the way, joseph played with regularity. I think you feel like you’re arguing for a position of objective truth with which the church has failed to comply. 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.
“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.
#125 “So are you saying, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone?” Because there is sure a lot of stone-throwing going on….”
And if no one ever tells the Emperor he’s naked is there really any reason for him to get dressed?
#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.
“So are you saying, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone?” Because there is sure a lot of stone-throwing going on….”
It would be stone-throwing if we were making value statement about individuals or condemning them/wishing bad things to happen to them based on our perceptions of their flaws.
It’s not “stone-throwing” to discuss the worthiness of ACTIONS (not individuals) that affect us all. I may say I don’t like the choices a certain general authority makes, but that’s very different from saying I think he is a bad man or accusing him of malicious intentions.
That’s the problem- so many in the church think all constructive criticism is an attack or a judgment of character. Saying “we can and should do things better” is valid and productive. Saying “people who disagree with me are lesser or immoral people” is not.
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?
Actually, this thread is an interesting little laboratory that the church might consider before deciding to ex John Dehlin and before they rule on Kate Kelly’s appeal. The discussion of John and his worthiness to be or not be excommunicated stopped quite some time ago and was replaced by an examination of the church’s own worthiness. You have to wonder how often that will happen in the wake of their coming decisions.
PS Why has the KK appeal taken so long? Surely the Spirit knows her heart and the sincere need of the church moving forward so why the delay?
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:
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.
“…I have no idea what [a one true church] 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.”
It might not be self-congratulatory and prideful about it, but do you really think that if there were such a thing as a One True Church that it wouldn’t have an inherent moral superiority that was apparent? It seems axiomatic that it would have to be qualitatively superior and, consequently, notable. I can tell a first rate apple or elegant design. If it were our purpose here to find our way back to Heavenly Father why would discerning the One True Church and its teaching be opaque?
alice: “if there were such a thing as a One True Church that it wouldn’t have an inherent moral superiority that was apparent?” 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?
Everyone decides this for him/herself, but so far it looks an awful lot like everyone just chooses either what they were born into and find most comfortable or something new they find that is superior to what they were born into. People don’t evaluate all possible choices, and when they do, they don’t see the same things.
Jenn, 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? Religious adherents believe those standards are eternal and absolute and come god. If one doesn’t believe in god, isn’t one compelled to accept that all morals and values are essentially subjective? 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. Consequently, I don’t think you can declare behaviors absolutely unacceptable from a moral standpoint, at least without the qualifier “in my opinion.”
#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.
brjones: “if one believes there is no god, how are those morals and values objective? Religious adherents believe those standards are eternal and absolute and come god.”
First of all, many Mormons don’t believe that morality originates from God but that there is a universal morality, a natural law, that God also must follow (because God is an exalted man). Some Mormons do believe that God creates morality or decides what is moral, but (to me) that seems like a borrowed idea from Protestantism. Either way, here are the possibilities in answer to your question:
1 – there is a universal morality that is natural law.
2 – there is a universal morality that originates with a God (and he is always consistent)
3 – there is a morality that originates from God, but he is not consistent and his laws change
4 – morality is subjective
5 – morality is partly objective, partly subjective, and we can agree on what’s objective
6 – objective morality is mostly a misnomer because things people say are objective are often cultural assumptions mixed with personal values.
I think #1 and #6 are probably closest to my view.
“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.
I’m familiar with the divine command theory debate, Hawk, so I get that not all Mormons or religious adherents believe that god “invented” morality. But I guess I would argue generally that religious believers believe in #1, at least to some degree, and atheists probably reject #1. I assume that most atheists are obliged to believe #4 or #6, because belief in any variation of universal or absolute morality is really tantamount to a belief in some kind of higher power. Which brings me back to my original point. It seems a bit discordant to hear a self-proclaimed atheist calling any belief or behavior absolutely wrong or immoral or false or unacceptable.
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.
“The problem is today the evidence strongly suggests that “prophet, seer and revelator” is more an honorary title than it is a job description.”
LOL! That is so perfectly put. I will be borrowing that. 🙂
“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?)”
Seriously. I’d certainly be interested to hear God’s view on Gaza right now. And how helpful might have been an inspired heads up on the factors leading the global financial crisis?
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?
re 135,
alice,
WAAAAAY back in the Mormon Matters days, i wrote an article that asked a question: what if truth is not simple or easy to understand? There are some concepts in math which are counterintuitive. Even professional mathematicians botch them up because they are not easy to grasp. In physics, it looks like we’ve addressed all the low-hanging fruit. Now we’re getting at stuff that can’t really be drawn in a diagram.
And that’s just math or physics…fields which ostensibly are based around empirical fields. It’s not like the reality of the universe is hiding from us here and yet…it’s so difficult to get at it (although we have approximations that we are OK with, because they let us build pretty cool things.)
We have no freakin clue.
#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?
I am absolutely and thoroughly a pragmatist. So I don’t really talk about truth and ideals, because I’m more about what is practical.
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.
Chosha #143, “And how helpful might have been an inspired heads up on the factors leading the global financial crisis?”
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?
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.
“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.”
Sure, but they emphasised over and over a modest mortgage. The risky lending was far from modest, being a greater multiple of annual income than was ever sensible.
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.
Well Chosha, all I can say is the constant emphasis was evident to many I mixed with at the time. It was definitely commented on over several years that this seemed to be a huge priority for them. Sure, you can classify it simply as good advice if you want to. But that’s the advice they were giving whilst many were borrowing far beyond their means.
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.
“so many in the church think all constructive criticism is an attack or a judgment of character. Saying “we can and should do things better” is valid and productive. Saying “people who disagree with me are lesser or immoral people” is not.”
First, you’d have to think the criticism is constructive. Agreement on criticism and morality are to different things.
Much of the so-called criticism is either self-serving or speaks to a point the critic believes. If the Church and/or its members don’t agree, the critic tends to throw a fit because of it.
Morality does not enter into it. Morality may be a secondary judgment made about he critic, but it is separate from the criticism.
And in the end, if one puts themselves outside of the Church or any organization of their own free will, who really care what one thinks about it, once he or she has separated themselves.
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.
N.I.,
I’m on page 58/100 of Gregory Smith’s Dubious Mormon Stories… and while it is carefully constructed (as any legal brief should be) there isn’t much meat to it (if you grant John humanness) and I’m mostly bored out of my mind reading it! John doesn’t claim near infallibility or to be divinely guided or that he’s a scholar so shouldn’t he be granted at least a fraction of the tolerance given to those who make a habit of lying for the Lord? All the way through John explains he’s going though a faith transition but this emotionally driven inconsistency and his tailoring comments to fit different audiences ( à la President Hinckley or Elder Oaks) is offered as implied evidence against him! Where’s the beef???
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.
New Iconoclast,
Haven’t had the time to read those two very long articles, but I will say that a few of us here have had experience with John’s on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again relationship with the Church. We’ve even been subjected to his wrath and accusation while blogging at Mormon Matters, which directly led to the creation of Wheat and Tares.
I, for one have never been a fan of John’s interview techniques because he comes off as having a hidden agenda with each interview subject and his questions tend to be very leading toward that agenda. Having said that, I have, in the past, thoroughly enjoy many of the interviews because of the subject, not his interview style. I seldom, if ever, listen today.
I’ve always thought John’s heart was in the right place, but many things seemed to get in the way of that. His desire to accomplish so many things diluted the effectiveness of most things, his quest to support his family through his ventures often clouded the purpose of them and finally, his flip-flopping about the Church and the gospel was nearly impossible to keep up with.
Can’t say I didn’t learn a lot over the last 8 or 9 years. I really did.
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!
I have actually taken great comfort in John’s flip-flopping. It’s nice to know that I am not the only one all over the map!
I don’t need to read 100 pages of analysis on John because I know him. I don’t believe he is willfully deceptive. His views, as do many people’s, change from time to time.
I don’t know him, so I am curious about this. Do you think his unwillingness to comply with the demands is based on principle or popularity? It would be easy enough to feign contrition while moving to behind the scenes organizing if the worth of a membership was deemed to be greater than the impetus to the causes at hand generated by media scrutiny.
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.
Rigel – I think he is complying to the extent his conscience will permit and hoping that’s enough for his SP.
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.
#166 “John, unfortunately, is like too many others who draw near to the God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him.”
If all those years of compassion, acting to save families and lives, integrity of purpose and personal sacrifice are indicative of being ‘far from God,’ then God is not worth knowing.
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.
#167 Chosha
I didn’t say John wasn’t a wonderful person. He has done some wonderful things from the perspective of those who see things as he does. However, from the perspective of the apostles and prophets he isn’t doing wonderful things.
John appears to be starting an offshoot of Mormonism, a new church if you will. He has a choice, he needs to decide if he wants to be a Mormon as defined by what his Stake President outlined or go in a different direction. The choice is his. I hope he will stay a traditional Mormon, he as a lot to offer.
#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.
Chosha-
I’m sorry that I attempted to have an exchange of thoughts with you. Take care.
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.
chosha,
You can disagree with Jared with substantive comments. However, if some of your retorts merely consist of making side comments like, “I didn’t realise you were crazy,” that’s not substantive. That’s not an exchange.
It doesn’t even seem like you disagree with Jared on this point. You shrug off the idea that John appears to be starting an offshoot of Mormonism, but then in your very next response, you point out that John can’t offer all that he does offer and be a traditional Mormon.
You would rather him NOT be a traditional Mormon, but, something else. Like, I dunno, to create a different institution to support his “years of compassion, acting to save families and lives, integrity of purpose and personal sacrifice”
“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.