Further Light and Knowledge

Vahn makes a thoughtful point here. Also, I would like to commend John Larsen, who does a great job with the podcasts.

Let's not have someone leave over an issue of semantics, or the difference between "hate" and "revile" or some such. It's not necessary that anyone should leave this board over an opinion about John Dehlin or any of the thousands of people who choose to remain in the church, but not of it- the definition of a NOM.

We may not find JD's work relevant to ex-Mo's, but it is possible that his work helps many who need to stay in order to keep their families intact or who need to "straddle the fence" for the time being.
Let's not get into that false dichotomy of "either with us or against us." Sounds like something that an apologist, or GBH would write. ( I realize it was written as a joke-- but still). I hope that Subversive Asset stays and remains part of the board. -- Wndr.

I've been around the DAMU for a while, but I haven't really followed the trajectory of Dehlin's involvement in it. From what I have seen, however, I find him to be a fascinating guy.

I would surely not come to the conclusions he has reached. If I listened to his recent work or talked to him I would probably disagree with a lot. And that's what fascinates me. He has run a course so few have run, and he's done it so publicly. Straight-up apostates like me are plentiful and I can understand what makes us tick. TBM devotees are also plentiful, and I can understand their thinking because I once had it. But guys like John...? I'm baffled and it makes me want to pick his brain.

One of the best things about leaving the church has been leaving behind the idea that I have to pronounce judgment on everything, call everything good or bad. And that includes John Dehlin and those few like him.

It's a viewpoint I've come to hold with a lot of stuff about Mormonism. As soon as it no longer had a grip on me, it was suddenly so much more interesting.

Note: The above should not be construed as a commentary, criticism or attack on any of the other posts or posters in this thread. Just musing here.

_________________
"As cucumbers now are, pickles once were. As pickles now are, cucumbers may become."
2 Moby Joe 7:29

I don't read the bloggernacle at all, and I find Mormonism boring as a topic of converation to begin with. Yet I have an overwhelming testimony that I was propmpted to be on this board at this time on this computer. Navigate that paradox!

He flits here; he flits there; that John Dehlin flits everywhere. He calls ex-Mos miserable, then pops over to FLAK or Cherry to chat with les miserables. And vice versa. I've no problem with people who maintain contacts in both the Mo world and the ex-Mo world. Plenty of us do that. But we don't forcefully throw one group under the bus when we're with the other. No, we convene a death panel and deny them medical care instead.

I agree with you, Chad. John Dehllin is helping people find a way to stick with the fraud. I don't think it's a good choice, it just may be the lesser of two really bad choices he has at this current crossroad in life.

And thanks to Wndr.

-Vahn

This is a fascinating perspective. My situation was very similar to yours (at least at the outset) and I ended up in counseling as well for a short period of time. In the end, though, my wife and I were able to come to grips with our different views of the world.

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a few questions:

- Do your children know the extent of your disbelief? If not, why not? In my own view this was the number one reason why I could not bear to suffer in silence. The thought I would assist in the indoctrination of my children into a lie without any knowledge of my doubt was worse to me than the threat of divorce. I could not and cannot bear to think that I would be complicit in passing the lie on to my children and their children. I would do anything, and I mean anything to prevent that.

- How can you suggest that it's only three hours per day? Are you saying you don't pay tithing? You have no calling? You never attend the temple? You don't shuttle kids to and from activities? You don't home teach? You don't have to maintain a level of lie-proliferating involvement in order to be "worthy" to participate in ordinances and whatnot? If it were only three hours per week, there would be absolutely no issue whatsoever, but we all know that is a complete and utter fallacy.

- Is there not any demand your wife or family could make of you that you would consider unacceptable? Nothing at all? I'm skeptical.

--KF

I agree with your sentiment, Vahn. Like I said, though, the huge difference is that Dehlin seems to be defending the *church*, which is indefensible.

You can go to church every sunday for all I care. Many flak'ers do and no one *ever* gets called on the carpet for that. But it's different to say "stay in the church because the church is good." It's not good. It's a mindfuck, it's cultish. It may be good to put aside your personal feelings about the church for the sake of family. That doesn't validate the church one bit.



That was pretty much the point of the joke.



That's fine. It's the basis of his reasoning I have a problem with. The basis for staying should be your family, not the church.

Go to church for your family, but don't think you have to rationalize a bunch a bullshit to do it.

_________________
He never said it would be worth it; He only said it would be easy.

I have read several, threads on this same subject from different mo forums. I have never understood the reaction when his name is mentioned.

My original question could have been better written I suppose. Sorry for the confusion.

_________________
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."-Thomas Jefferson

After reading several threads on several forums you still don't understand the reaction? I've seen the point re-iterated a few times in this very thread why Dehlin gets the reaction he does. He thinks the church is a fraud yet he calls it good. I think that sort of speaks for itself.

_________________

True, and I do agree with your summation. Clear and to the point.

When I left for good, I had been inactive for many years and basically stumbled onto some exmo forums. The threads I read were very heated and I had no previous exposure. I never knew that people existed to help others deal and overcome so when I first learned of him, I did not have the mormon background that many of you have had. It was my life but it was not an everyday, in your face, every facet of your life, that many of you have had.

It would have been better to say that I do understand the reaction but only later learned some of the reasoning behind it. Yes, the point has been re-iterated several times but I am trying to convey that I am only recently learning that many people feel strongly about him.

eta: Sorry I am probably rambling and probably not being able to type what I want I think.

_________________
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."-Thomas Jefferson

See this thread at Postmo with John Dehlin's 22 points on page 2 or 3. My response point by point is on page 10 of that thread. [/url]

_________________
"Let go of what you know and honor what exists."--David Bazan

http://www.equalitysblog.typepad.com

When I wanted the church to be true, I told myself that maybe I wasn't cut out for the church (and going to hell as result), but maybe it would be better for my kids. Now I understand that it wouldn't be doing my kids any favors to hide my disaffection and help keep them in the church, so that they could keep their kids in the church, and so forth. Why would anyone who believes the church is a fraud want to perpetuate the cycle?

Boyd Packer told people to bear testimony that the church is true if they hoped it was true. Enough doubting people who bear testimony gives the appearance of no doubt, and tells the doubters that they are alone. If I had gone through life letting my children think I truly believed what the church taught, how many generations might it have been before someone left? How many doubting people in Nauvoo decided to follow BY to Utah? How many of their descendants are still ensnared?

The church lies and cheats and obfuscates and even threatens to keep generation after generation as members. It's one thing to keep going so you don't get divorced and lose your kids. It's another thing to lose your kids and grandkids and great-grandkids to the church because you *encouraged* them to go, and pretended it was good.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

_________________
I reject your reality and substitute a Star Trek episode of my own choosing.

I agree. I don't think the argument that the church has become less dogmatic is tenable. I think the movement of the institution since the 1970s bears that out. What seems to be happening is that the church is slowly de-emphasizing some of its once distinctive doctrines in favor of an amped-up hyper-orthopraxy. Maybe people aren't quite as obsessive about hieing to Kolob anymore, but they're insane about doing the things that identify you as a community member. And that is absolutely on par with what the brethren have been pushing. More obedience, more loyalty, more inflexibility.

The church's response to people leaving will no doubt at some point force them to reconsider their direction, but it hasn't done so yet. As far as I can tell, the current generation of leaders is still very much in the our-way-or-the-highway mindset. The church could, I suppose, radically re-invent itself, but it'd cease to be the LDS church that we know. It could still call itself that and still lay claim to the lineage and heritage, but in reality it'd be just as different from the church of today as the church of today is from the church of 1890.

_________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." -- Charles Darwin

Inspirational irony. You gotta love it.

_________________
"Mormon culture is a combination of well-intentioned naïveté, the Stepford Wives, and the Holy Inquisition." ~Dr.Todd Ormsbee
http://froggey.wordpress.com

What struck me when I read the postmo thread was his insistence that it's the exmos who are stuck in the true/false dichotomy, though he acknowledged that it's "alive and well" in "some" parts of the church. WTF?

The church perhaps more than ever insists that it is all true or all false. The dichotomy is of its own making. The idea that those who stay are those who are sophisticated enough to see the shades of gray is ludicrous.

Again, as I told my dad, people like John and my dad might be able to see things in shades of gray, but their kids will grow up in stark black and white.

_________________
"You can only talk rubbish if you're aware of knowledge." --Karl Pilkington

Runtu's Rincon: http://runtu.wordpress.com

That reminds me of these quotes.

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true.”

“Each of us has to face the matter. Either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God or it is nothing." (Gordon B. Hinckley)

It is the church that has created the dichotomy, not the disaffected or ex members. It is the church that does not allow unorthodox beliefs to be openly shared in its mettings. It is the church's teachings that break families apart when some find that they disbelieve.

_________________
The truth will set you free, but first it will tick you off.

www.youtube.com/user/flackerman