I am incensed about the events surrounding the inquisition of John Dehlin. The more I think about it, the madder I get. And then it hits me. I am the one to blame.
Why? For thinking.
If there is one thing the LDS Church does not want its members to do, it is think. Any organization that depends for its success on strict conformity finds thinking a risky proposition. That is why Shakespeare has Julius Caesar tell Marc Anthony:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look.
He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.
It is safest if Mormons do not think but only obey. As Tom Joad put it, “You’re bound to get ideas if you go thinking about stuff.” But isn’t it enough to let the leaders do the thinking and then simply follow their lead? 
Thoreau answered that proposition: “No doubt another may also think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so to the exclusion of my thinking for myself.”
And this was John Dehlin’s cardinal sin—not only that he thought for himself, but that he invited other Mormons to do the same.
Life Outside the Cave
John Dehlin is a latter-day Plato coming back into the cave to tell the benighted occupants about the blazing sun outside; and though most disbelieved him and called him mad, not all did. And the few that went outside came back and told their friends until so many were leaving the cave, something had to be done.
But the something that had to be done was not to introduce everyone to the sun, or even to the fire burning behind them, but instead to brand John Dehlin as an apostate; to give him the official imprimatur of a madman in hopes no more Mormons would listen to him, and would just be content with viewing shadows on the wall.
And so John Dehlin had to be disciplined, while all the world looks on in wonder. And many Mormons wonder, too. What do they wonder? They wonder why it is a church that claims to teach the truth is so afraid of those who pursue it. Why is the official response to marginalize those who seek it out? Surely if the information John Dehlin is digging up and making easily available is not truth, that fact should be readily demonstrable. But no such demonstration is forthcoming.
(Some Mormons are even wondering how it is the same church Elder Oaks assured us last week does not ask for apologies nevertheless demands one from John Dehlin.)
And many Mormons wonder why it is the Church is lashing out at its own in this way. 
Why does the Church kill the messenger instead of dealing with the issues? The answer seems obvious—the Church is disciplining the messenger because they have no response to the message; because the message is true. So we are left with the spectacle of an institution claiming to be the only true Church disciplining a member for speaking the truth.
What are Mormons to make of this? That maybe the pure and undiluted truth the Church claims to possess is something different from the truth the Church teaches—that maybe what the Church teaches is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That maybe it has holes in it; that maybe some things have been changed; that maybe the Church has kept a lot of the truth from its members. That when Elder Packer said, “Some things that are true are not very useful,” maybe what he really meant is the Church will tell only one side of its story, and keep the less “useful” truths hidden.
But John Dehlin wanted to tell the other side of the story. He dwelt among the untrodden ways. He dealt in the truths less “useful.” And for that, John Dehlin had to go.
I walked, with other souls in pain,
Within another ring,
And was wondering if the man had done
A great or little thing,
When a voice behind me whispered low,
“That fellow’s got to swing.”
Over the Mountains of the Moon
The problem with John Dehlin in this regard is two-fold. Not only does he show us truth’s sometimes less attractive aspects, but his revealing of the dark side of the moon suggests to some Mormons that the Church has not been straight with them. That the Church that demanded so much time, money and sacrifice was holding out on them, and giving them only a one-sided and much-abbreviated version of the story. Some Mormons even got sore about it. Imagine that.
What John Dehlin has done is make available to the general audience the truth about the LDS Church that the LDS Church should have been making known to its members all along. 
And now John Dehlin must pay for it. And he must pay with even the potential loss of his salvation.
Why? As Orwell put it, “In a time of universal deceit—telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
By disciplining John Dehlin, the Church has shown its moral bankruptcy.
More words of Shakespeare come to mind:
That England, that was wont to conquer others
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
And again from the Bard:
O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourished over us.
Why should I speak of treason? Surely that is too harsh. Is there any treachery afoot? I think there may be.
Treachery! Seek it out!
The treachery is in betraying the cause of truth; the very cause for which the LDS Church claims to stand.
The treachery is in dividing up the truth into different parts; one truth that is permissible for Mormons to talk about and the other truth that Mormons will be disciplined for bringing up.
The treachery is in taking a white-washed, correlated and sanitized version of the truth, then capitalizing it, underscoring it, putting a copyright symbol next to it, and claiming that is all there is.
The treachery is to John Dehlin who sought truth out of the best books, and then is disciplined by the very Church who taught him to do so.
Some will say it wasn’t John Dehlin’s beliefs or opinions that got him into trouble, but in speaking out about them; or in letting other speak out about theirs.
I have had enough of Church leaders telling questioning members 
they are welcome to have their doubts and opinions–so long as they keep them to themselves. As if the freedom to think is some kind of boon bestowed by the Church! You mean we can actually think for ourselves? That is no gift. For what you cannot give me nor take away is no gift at all. I may think what I like and there is nothing another can do about it.
But the right to think is worthless without the right to speak.
This is why the U.S. Constitution says nothing about the right to think, but only about the right to speak, write, worship and assemble. The right to think is a given for the rest. And the right to think is meaningless without the rest.
This is why Joseph Smith wrote not of just a right to religious “conscience,” but clarified that this was manifested in the right to worship “how, when or what they may.”
This is why Joseph Smith referred to the U.S. Constitution as an inspired document; a sentiment repeated by countless Church leaders since; and a sentiment that would presumably also apply to the First Amendment.
Infringing the Right to Think
Did I say the Church cannot take from its members the right to think? I was wrong about that. There is one way–by withholding information. Only with all the information can one make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision to pursue a certain course.
But the Church wants its members to make the most important decisions in their lives with only partial information. And they are put out with John Dehlin for providing the rest. So he must be put out, too.
Put out the light, and then put out the light.
It is John Dehlin who is allowing Mormons to think by providing the rest of the story, 
and it is the Church that is trying at all costs to put the brakes to it. And the Church has decided that putting the brakes to it means disciplining Dehlin.
And yet, making matters stranger still, John Dehlin is being disciplined for the crime of making generally available information that the LDS Church has now proudly published on its own website–or at least reluctantly buried there. The official Church essays say pretty much everything that John Dehlin is being disciplined for discussing. That is very strange indeed.
It leads some Mormons to wonder who is in charge of the Church. Why is the Church clamping down on the free-flow of information at the same time it is being more transparent than it has ever been in its history?
Are the Inmates Running the Asylum?
Two factions seem to be fighting for control of the LDS Church. One faction backs the essays published on the LDS website—essays which John Dehlin was ironically largely responsible for in the first place. Another faction backs the discipline of those who talk publicly about the content of the essays.
At the same time as we are seeing an unprecedented openness about history and doctrine in the LDS Church, we are seeing a retrenchment reminiscent of the Mormon Reformation of the 1850’s. 
These two factions are like elephants battling for supremacy. And there is an old African saying that when elephants fight, the grass suffers.
The grass that is suffering while these factions duke it out is John Dehlin. And not only John Dehlin, but his family. And not only his family, but the tens of thousands of listeners to Mormon Stories.
The Power of Mormon Stories
Listeners to Mormon Stories have found a fascinating world of Mormonism exists outside the staid and watered-down version repeated ad nauseum at church. Listeners have found there are other Mormons like themselves with questions and issues about the Church. Listeners have found other Mormons intelligently and articulately explaining their experiences and insights, and have found their souls expanding and minds being enlightened in the process.
All this and more John Dehlin has given to me and to so many others. I have mowed the summer lawn while listening to John Dehlin interview Terryl and Fiona Givens. I have collected firewood while listening to John Dehlin interview Richard Bushman. I have laid in a hammock under a sky full of stars while listening to John Dehlin interview Joanna Brooks. And on, and on, and on.
John Dehlin has breathed new life into my experience with Mormonism. 
Mormonism’s response is to take all the oxygen out of the room. The only good Mormonism for some, it seems, is a dead Mormonism.
John Dehlin’s leaders don’t want Mormonism to be interesting or vibrant, or to circumscribe all truth into one great whole. They want Mormonism to be torpid, banal and vapid. Only a moribund Mormonism will do.
These are Mormons who have defined damnation as lack of progression, and then created a church to match the definition. And that’s the way they want to keep it. They want a Mormonism that fits Paul’s description of “ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
A Place For Us?
The question remains for the rest of us whether there is oxygen enough in the Church to continue to exist; to live and move and have our being. In personal terms, the question is whether there is room enough for me in a church that does not have room enough for John Dehlin. In disciplining John Dehlin, is the LDS Church serving notice on me and all Mormons like me that we are not wanted, either?
This is the question many Mormons are asking themselves today. 
Do they even want to be associated with an organization that will discipline members for seeking out the truth the organization has systematically kept from them? Do they want to continue sacrificing their time, talent and money to a church that seems to value them for little else? Or like Maria at the end of West Side Story, will they leave Tony’s still-cooling corpse to try one more time to get the Sharks and Jets to hold hands and dance off the stage together?
I don’t know where the path will lead me, much less the thousands of John Dehlin’s followers who must each consider these questions for themselves. But I do know John Dehlin has been a most welcome guide to me on my spiritual journey over the last several years, and something tells me he isn’t through yet.
I want to give John Dehlin a personal thank you for a job well done; for not compromising his values; for not allowing the cause of truth to be trampled by its most vocal promoters. And finally, I want to leave John Dehlin with the following words that conclude Thoreaus’s Walden; words that seem to have a singular application to John Dehlin and his work:
Such is the character of that morrow which mere lapse of time can never make to dawn. The light which puts out our eyes is darkness to us. Only that day dawns to which we are awake. There is more day to dawn. The sun is but a rising star.
God speed our friend.
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
Is this satire?
Get some new material, Patrick. That’s the comment every meat head who comes around here and doesn’t agree with something says.
How about you take even 10 minutes out of your day and come up with a cogent argument rather than slinging snark? Too much for you to handle?
Sorry, but I don’t believe that either this ridiculous post (which initially included a freaking picture of a noose hanging from a tree) or your hypersensitive and indignant response deserve much more than snark.
Snark on, Patrick.
I hope I didn’t offend you on the off chance you have an aversion to nooses.
Just an aversion to any sort of rhetorical or visual comparison between the (unfortunate) excommunication of John Dehlin and the lynching of African Americans (or anyone, for that matter).
John Dehlin was excommunicated because he is an apostate. How do we judge he is an apostate? Because he tells us so on his website, where he confesses to a slightly different take on Church doctrine:
• The Church is not the true church
• The President of the Church is not receiving privileged revelation to guide the Church
• The Book of Mormon is not a translation from actual plates prepared anciently and delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel
• The Book of Abraham is a fraud as well
• Baptism is of no moment. Every scriptural reference that God requires it is bogus.
• All the ordinance work done in the temple has no validity whatsoever. If there is no Spirit World, then of course the work is useless. If there is one, temple work is of no benefit and of no interest to anyone there.
• Jesus Christ is not the Savior and may not have even lived
And in case we’re not getting the general drift, Dehlin helpfully adds that no one has any idea what God is like or what happens after we die. (Suppose God tells or shows someone about these things, John? Wouldn’t they know then? Presumably, God is an expert on religion.)
So: no revelation. And with no revelation – no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There’s a term for those who hold such beliefs: Non-members.
Look again at the list. Kind of a lot to object to, isn’t it? Which “fundamental LDS church truth claims” does this leave intact? Dehlin kicks to the curb every distinctive doctrine of the Church. When faith in Jesus is jettisoned – the first principle of the Gospel – haven’t you hit rock bottom? What’s left? Who cares what the Church’s policy is toward gay marriage or priesthood ordination if its primary truth claims are false from the get-go? Is this what the tens of thousands of full-time Mormon missionaries should be sharing: “Look folks, we are here to testify to the truth of the doctrines of the Restored Gospel. But we should also tell you there are great reasons to doubt every single one of them – Want to join?”
But Dehlin doesn’t just have doubts, he broadcasts them to the world: What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches is false. His website actively solicits and posts the testimonies of those who claim the Church has ruined their lives. Who would want this guy shadowing their missionary efforts? His ministry and influence are the opposite of convert retention.
Dehlin has followed a well-worn path to apostasy:
1. Run everything the Church teaches past the World for a second opinion.
2. Resolve any conflicts in favor of the World.
Yet another smart guy who has thought himself right out of the faith.
The fact is that John Dehlin had already excommunicated himself. The Church had every right to do so formally.
I’m puzzling and puzzling over this. I consider myself an outside of mainstream liberal Mormon. I’ve supported gay rights for longer than John. But I can’t relate to this post. I’m not saying it is impossible that it speaks your truth, I’m just saying that I read stuff like this and I just feel no resonance whatsoever with my experience:
“John Dehlin is a latter-day Plato coming back into the cave to tell the benighted occupants about the blazing sun outside; and though most disbelieved him and called him mad, not all did. And the few that went outside came back and told their friends until so many were leaving the cave, something had to be done.”
Maybe we just have very different upbringings or wards, or both? My parents were seminary teacher, Relief Society president, Stake YW president, and ward Exec Sec. But they have also always been very liberal. I learned acceptance of gays from my mom. Her best friend when I was growing up was a woman in the ward who had left the church after deciding she didn’t believe. She drank wine in front of us and once when I said something disparaging about medical marijuana, my mom snapped at me saying it had been invaluable for that friend. My dad writes stuff for Sunstone and Dialogue. But we didn’t miss a Sunday, or a prayer at meals, or a milestone award. Heck fire awaited any who dated before 16 or watched an R movie. To me, this is what David Foster Wallace called “water,” meaning this is my “normal.” This is Mormon life. Full of the sacred, the profane, the mundane (probably disproportionately the latter!), and the contradictions, and the love. I had wacky-ass Skousenite Sunday school teachers and seminary teachers. I had super liberal ones too. The seminary teacher who told us that Pink Floyd was religious music to him, and went to the desert rock climbing near every weekend (taking groups of us sometimes), he was awesome! But so was the Skousenite. Sure she taught us some stuff that was crazycakes, but in doing so she taught me how to think for myself because my parents said you’re doing to have to use your own compass and discernment to decide what to accept and what not to from her, but doing it with the humility of knowing there is some chance you die and find out on the other side she really was right about the center of the earth or whatever (ok probably not, but the point is humility).
So, I don’t know, that’s my Mormon story. It doesn’t invalidate yours. I’m just sort of sifting through the the pieces of my life trying to figure out what accounts for the fact that despite some similarities of opinions on things, I just can’t relate to this post. Can’t even make sense of it, not even a little.
I appreciate your sharing your experience, Cynthia. I only wish all Mormons had your experience.
Thanks for your comments!
First of all, John Dehlin is no Plato.
Second, he and his family don’t seem to be suffering too much. His salary has skyrocketed along with the vast increase in donations that the extra media attention (which he has carefully sought out) has brought him.
I think there is a place for what he is doing, but there is clearly something else going on in terms of his testimony and level of commitment to the covenants he has made. That’s between him and his SP to discuss and work out.
I hope he isn’t excommunicated. I hate to see that for anyone. I don’t think he cares, which I think is part of his problem.
The main question that remains if and when he is excommunicated, is whether that will decrease his audience and income from listener/supporter donations or if it will drive a steady increase.
When Denver Snuffer was excommunicated, I think there were a few people who stopped listening to him, but overall he has not seen a drop in followers. I have seen a dramatic change in Denver’s writing, where he goes quite a bit further “out there” than before. That clear shift, I think, was something that he was holding off making to try to remain a member. But his SP knew what was in his heart, from meeting with him, and when excommunication released him to be true to himself, it has become apparent how far he has strayed.
It will be interesting to watch with John Dehlin if something similar happens. Does he take the freedom excommunication offers him to go push things further or will it humble him and temper him? Time will tell, but it will be interesting to watch if his course remains steady or if he swings one way or the other afterwards.
Thanks for your comments, Don.
My understanding is that John Dehlin will unveil the decision of his disciplinary council at 11:00 Mountain Time this morning.
Brilliantly said Corbin. The nebulous directive that thinking doubts are ok, just don't talk or advocate them is not only impossible but invites its own local leadership interpretation problems. (isn't talking about them de facto advocation?)
Attempts to silence contrary narratives really uncovers insecurity, both institutional and personal, in the solidity of the "truth" foundation. If the foundation can be so easily reasoned away, aren't fear and threats some of the more effective tools (and easiest to implement) to defend it?
The more difficult tools would be leadership addressing them, discussing them, teaching about them. This is a course the current leadership seems unwilling to do. (unofficial apologetics or anonymous essays quietly posted on a website do not show leadership, imho)
In the musical, 1776, Rhode Island representative Stephen Hopkins returns from the “necessary” in time to find the Congress has split 6 to 6 on the proposition of debating the question of independence, and that his vote will break the tie.
When asked what his vote will be, Stephen Hopkins says with relish:
“Well, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!”
Cynthia L.,
“John Dehlin’s leaders don’t want Mormonism to be interesting or vibrant, or to circumscribe all truth into one great whole.”
Whatever the cause of our different outlooks, this is where the rubber meets the road on conclusions. Is it really that impossible to believe that they do want this, but that John has crossed certain lines that they feel shouldn’t be crossed? If a person does A and B and is excommunicated, you can’t extol A and bemoan that someone would be excommunicated for A without at least entertaining that B might have been the problem, right? I think excommunicating John is a mistake. I’m not defending that at all. What I am saying is that hyperbole like the above doesn’t follow logic. And, as I said before, doesn’t even emotionally resonate for me with my experience.
I hear what you are saying, Cynthia, and I appreciate your saying it.
But I stand by what I wrote as a genuine expression of my point of view.
And when all is said and done, mine is the only point of view I can express.
Individual preference may vary.
Where’s your post titled “Did John Dehlin lie?”
To be crystal clear, that’s not an attack on John, who I’m behind, that’s an attack on this overblown and deifying post. When Kate was in this position you publicly called her a liar and haven’t pulled that post. Meanwhile you call John one of the greatest philosophers of the ages. Ridiculous and self-serving.
I did not call Kate Kelly a liar. I simply asked some basic questions about possible discrepancies I saw in her story. Not the same.
Nor did I call John Dehlin one of the greatest philosophers of the ages. I likened what he has done to Plato’s parable of the Cave. Again not the same.
But even if I had, I am at a loss as to how this could be called “self-serving.”
Thanks for your comment, just the same!
And you’re getting called out on the very obvious discrepancy in how you’ve treated these two figures. And it is obvious, regardless how you want to split hairs over “calling” them this or that. It’s blatantly silly.
If John Dehlin starts giving conflicting versions of his story, I will ask him some questions.
Just like I did with Kate Kelly.
Why are you so afraid of the truth?
Is a person not allowed to ask questions anymore?
Or does it depend on the person asking?
And the person being asked?
You’ve already made it abundantly clear that you think Kate Kelly is worth questioning and John isn’t. The question you seem to be afraid to ask yourself is to deeply ask why.
Why treat Kate with a side-eyeing, “I’m not saying she is, but here’s the reasons she might be,” criticism piece and go so off-the-wall laudatory for John?
“I’m just asking questions,” is prevaricating dither. There is a glaring discrepancy in your overall treatment of the two people, and you’re not making it better by shrugging and saying it’s just what’s deserved. You may relate to the issues that one of them brought up more than the other, and that’s fine, but that is the literal opposite of being objective about your approach to them so let’s not pretend that objectivity is what’s happening.
You could find things to “question” about John if you cared to. You could find things to praise about Kate if you cared to. Just admit you don’t care to. Don’t foist the fault of it off on the people who notice where your care lies, . . . and where it doesn’t.
Care about John, by all means. But maybe you can make a little more room in your caring besides that as well.
.
How exciting! I read this post and it’s like being present at the founding of the Strangeites or or the FLDS or some other offshoot branch. Can’t wait to see if this founding document ends up successfully founding some new variant on the faith. Good luck!
And if you look closely, you will find it is written entirely in chiasmus.
It's interesting to me that John's followers seem to think he is the only source of information in the universe. This post strikes me as odd because John Dehlin has abundantly withheld information that was 'true, but not useful', including heavy censoring of his web properties. See, for example, https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/john-dehlin-and-censorship/
especially the comment section.
I am not sure what I posted that led you to think I believe John Dehlin is “the only source of information in the universe.”
I am a fan because he has brought me a world of new knowledge and insight–primarily through his interviews of others.
That’s a world of new knowledge.
Not a universe.
Big difference there.
The use of the noose picture (now, apparently removed) is especially telling in highlighting a huge blindspot of white progressive Mormonism whether in or out of Church membership. I have huge problems with Dehlin’s approach to history generally speaking (puerile wouldn’t be an inapt word to describe his handle on historical methodology), but in particular to race issues. Only the latest example was his embarrassing interview on the Indian Placement Program and the interview with Darron Smith before. The latter in which he attempted to compare his plight as an unorthodox Mormon with that of African Americans. Darron was quick to remind him that he doesn’t wear his unorthodoxy on his skin as well as other things. And in the former, we saw John admitting he’d never heard of the “Red Power” movement. Of course not. His concern never was indigenous peoples, only to use them as wedge points in his approach to Mormonism and the Church institution. I think a lot of upper middle class white Americans who find themselves marginalized in Mormonism truly see themselves cast in the mold of persecuted racial minorities in America, which is extremely misguided and, well, infuriating.
You’re right, Jared.
No white man has ever been hung in a noose like that.
And of course there’s no reason that racial minorities have extra reason to be upset by the lynching imagery or the co-option of their narratives. It’s their job to look at it how the white guy sees it.
Not cool, dude.
I can only imagine how much you brighten up the conversation at dinner parties.
Wah, wah, my personal character must be so terrible and unattractive because I’m calling you out on some dismissive and prevaricating BS in your responses to people here. Way to elevate the conversation. I can’t possibly be making a valid point because you wouldn’t invite me to dinner. Wow. Much logic. Such respectable. Many win.
As if to prove my point, I’m getting word that JD made either a direct or a veiled comparison between his excommunication and the imprisonment/persecution of Civil Rights leaders. Frankly, I’m speechless for how offensive and wrong that comparison is, but given my previous observations, I’m not surprised. JD and others similarly minded, including this post’s author, whether in or out of the Church, need a serious opportunity for some self-reflection. Stop riding the tide of the blood of America’s racial violence for your own self-serving purposes. Stop. Don’t justify it, don’t give explanations. Just STOP IT.
Thank you very much for these points. I hope that everyone who reads them gives them a lot of weight.
I give it about the weight of a baby duck feather, as I do with any hyperbole or over exaggerations.
No. Just no. Primarily relating to the struggles of oppressed groups as far as they serve as a metaphor for one’s own feelings is a problem, and it’s one that does come up a lot, for whatever reason, in progmo circles. Accusing those who point it out of overreaction and stating that to you it’s infinitesimally trivial just makes you someone who’s gonna hurt a lot of people before they finally figure things out.
No. Just no. Sorry, but you don’t know me, and can’t really gleam enough information about me from a single post on an online forum to make an accusation like that. You are welcome to criticize and pick apart my comments all you wish though, that doesn’t offend me one bit (in fact I welcome it, and welcome diversity in ways of thinking or seeing things. In fact I often applaud it.) I do believe there is some overreaction going on here, especially with responses such as your rash judgment of me.
I know what you said here. I know that your response to the particular raised concern was to dismiss it as overreaction. I know who’s going to be hurt by it.
If you don’t believe me or Jared T. that there is a harm to be examined there proportional to his representation, you’ll keep dismissing the problem, and the same people will keep feeling the hurt. Not exactly a stretch of logic.
If you want to prove me wrong, you can start by not so flippantly dismissing the concern that Jared T. brought up.
Concentrating on whether Dehlin compared himself to civil rights leaders sounds like a bit of smoke and mirrors to me. “See? Dehlin is a hack! Nothing to see here people!”
It doesn’t change the fact that he’s being disciplined for publicly talking about issues the church has covered up for decades and is only addressing now because the internet is forcing its hand.
You’re not adding anything to the discussion by screaming “I don’t like John Dehlin.” JD is the symptom here, not the disease.
Time for some blood-pressure medication, Jared.
You’re going to pop a vein if you’re not careful.
Corbin,
I think you are more upset than John is about his excommunication (watch his post-disciplinary council press conference).
You are thinking like an insider, but once you are on the outside like me and John, you will understand that this exercise of “power” is not so life-changing or upsetting.
If John has shown you the light, come enjoy the sun with us on the outside. John will be alright, I hope you will be too.
What is it Sarah says at the end of the Labyrinth movie to the Goblin King?
Oh, yeah.
“You have no power over me.”
Bye-bye, Goblin King!
“As if to prove my point, I’m getting word that JD made either a direct or a veiled comparison between his excommunication and the imprisonment/persecution of Civil Rights leaders. Frankly, I’m speechless for how offensive and wrong that comparison is,”
Struck by how grasping at straws “I’m getting word” (Well, thank you Brian Williams) doesn’t offend your sensibilities. Where is a site for these accusations?
Rune: let’s give “a lot of weight” to rumors. Well done for encouraging irresponsibility. You folks are unbelievable.
Jared T.: Do you vomit up every innuendo and rumor in the hope of underscoring a point?
Persecution may differ in aspects of motivation; race, gender, sexuality, religion or ideals. However, persecution of any American for speech and religious belief is where we see lines now drawn. That’s the point of this article. Religious authorities stepping on civil rights. Last time I checked, this is a concern that “We the people” should be concerned about as it transcends race, gender, etc.
What make struggles of this type truly great is that it BRINGS TOGETHER people of diverse backgrounds, including ethnicity, beliefs, and religious ideology. Great people who march together. Civil rights for all Americans.
This debate is specific. It concerns the big, powerful entity controlling speech; and retaliation by same, against those who step out of the crowd (often alone) to oppose lies, damaging rhetoric, and oppression.
Good points, Kalapana!
John Dehlin’s excommunication has the power to bring people together, but instead it looks like the Balkans in the 1990’s.
Wilde, Othello, Walden, Plato, West Side Story… best canon ever! fabulous. Great post Corbin. What happened to Dehlin is sad, but not for him as much as for Mormonism as a whole.
I agree the message the Church is trying to send with John Dehlin’s excommunication is very different from the message being received by the rest of the planet . . . including a lot of Mormons, I think.
Thanks!
This post seems a little bombastic. None of the “troubling” aspects of Mormonism or its history topics are unique to JD or his insight. Just because, for example, JS polygamy isn’t mentioned in the manual “Truth Restored” and part of Sunday School manuals doesn’t mean the church is hiding its past or encouraging us not to think. Considering the importance the LDS church puts on personal study, it seems like it does a lot to encourage more thinking and not less.
JD put his LDS membership in jeopardy because he is an atheist that denigrates the church, its mission, doctrine, and practices very loudly with his LDS membership seal of approval. Perhaps church membership should be wide enough that you can disbelieve everything that it stands for as long as you like some small aspects of its culture.
Honestly not sure why JD wants to keep his membership if we believes as he does. He has certainly has distanced himself from church participation long ago.
My 37-year experience as a Mormon strongly suggests the LDS Church does not encourage thought. At least not any kind of thought that could be considered independent or free.
The LDS Church will encourage free thought in word, but when the rubber hits the road, the only thought that is considered valid is Mormon Group Think.
If your thinking does not lead you to the predetermined “correct” conclusion, you must think some more.
If your prayers do not yield the predetermined “correct” conclusion, you must pray some more.
Because obviously the answers to your prayers are coming from the “wrong” source.
Why?
Because they don’t yield the “correct” conclusion.
It’s somewhat insidious, really.
Corbin, by your definition, Lucifer is the model of a “free thinker.” Is it any wonder, then, that the Church would prefer certain parameters of thought? Isn’t the Church’s goal to help us become like God? Wouldn’t that then require us to learn to avoid thought that is not like His?
Maybe you don’t have much experience working with standards, but in my line of work, they’re indispensable. If you have a requirement to meet certain standards, “free thinking” is not an option. There is always room for innovation and improvement, but within the framework of the standards.
That’s what the Church teaches, not Lucifer’s counterpart that says “anything goes” or “whatsoever a man [does] is no crime.”
Very well expressed! Thank you for your comment. I agree, their are bounds the Lord has set, period. People don’t like it join an easier Church or don’t believe in organized religion. I love the Church! I get a sense of true peace joy and love from God and I feel this love for others. I need parameters. Like a good architect or good physician there are rules and parameters of practice that if followed lead to success. Or as a biochemist my example would be formulas and their products and how they are achieved.
Dear Kitty Chemist,
The “bounds the Lord has set” should not be confused with the “bounds the Church has set.”
I find the former much more expansive than the latter.
But if the LDS Church brings you a true sense of peace and joy, then I am sincerely happy for you.
Wasn’t it Boyd Packer who said the three enemies of the church are the feminists, the homosexuals, and the intellectuals? Seems they are vigorously attacking all three lately!
Yes, it was Elder Packer who said that.
And it looks like John Dehlin hit the trifecta.
Russell,
JD said he hoped there is a God in the August 2014 transcription of the meeting with King. Do you know something we don’t when you call him an atheist? Or are you simply in the habit of telling other people what they believe?
Thanks for the thoughtful personal reflection, Corbin. My feelings resonate with many parts of it.
Thanks, Ryan!
It’s nice to know there is some resonance going on out there!
No worries.
I’ll give them all the weight they deserve, Rune.
I found the referenced saying “when elephants fight, the grass suffers” to be intensely poignant. Indeed there are a lot of forces in tension and at play in our small Mormon world, and at this point I think everyone — on all sides — feels trampled.
This news was more painful than I expected it to be. Not because the Church chose to excommunicate John, but because I wasn’t surprised when they did. That speaks volumes, in my mind, about the state of things. The grief is very great.
Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place; Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite: for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him. And when they lifted up their eyes afar off, and knew him not, they lifted up their voice, and wept; and they rent every one his mantle, and sprinkled dust upon their heads toward heaven.
So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great.
(Job 2:11-13)
Thanks for your wonderful comment, Tay.
I agree with you whole-heartedly.
I have to confess, though, that the way things are going with the comments, I at first expected you to take me to task for my racial insensitivity for referencing an African saying.
Thanks for not going there.
You’ve jumped directly to dismissive ad hominem and gaslighting against the people who’ve given you what is some really quite mild pushback. But, no, totally, they’re the ones who are being just so very mean.
Sorry about the gaslighting, Rune.
I’m always that way after radishes.
Time will tell whether John Dehlin implodes the way Kate Kelly did after her excommunication.
I am hoping he does not.
If you see some discrepancies in John Dehlin’s story, please feel free to point them out to me.
I am all about finding the truth.
Bull you are “all” about truth. You’re not a bastion of objectivity.
You have a clear double-standard on burden of proof between the two cases. Kate’s validity and sincerity must be examined and picked apart and scrutinized and questioned and poked and prodded and any potential negative thing is weighted heavily against her and treated as the starting point to examine her from. You start from the assumption that her sincerity and validity is unproven.
You approach it completely the other way around with John. You start from the position of the things you like and admire about him, and it’s up to other people to make you consider that he might have faults. You start from the assumption that his sincerity and validity is in evidence.
That’s not objective truth seeking, that’s the definition of bias. And, as I said, it’s FINE if you relate to John more than Kate. But stop pretending that there’s nothing but pure rationality there and you are above having that bias pointed out to you.
Thank you for your constructive criticism, Rune.
From one bastion of objectivity to another.
True story: After reading some verses in the D&C which contradict how some current principles are taught, I turned to a high priest in my ward who was seated nearby. He’d been a bishop, a high councilor, and had at least 10 to 15 years on me. With a sincere desire to understand, I pointed out the verses and posed my question. His response was simple. “You think too much.” I never did get an answer.
That experience has become representative of so many others where the words weren’t so clear and audible but the implication was the same.
Along those same lines, I have received the responses “Your problem is you need to know too much.” and “Sometimes you don’t need to know everything.” And that is the end of it. No further inquiry addressed.
I remember getting this same kind of response when I asked too many questions in Primary.
One would hope that the answers would get a bit more meaty past that age. 🙁
It’s a hope I carried for a long time. It’s a hope I still carry this day, but these are sadly answers I have received in the last few months.
Admittedly, it does at times make me feel like I am defective as a person for having certain questions, or for so strongly valuing the truth (even if it seems harmful to me at first.)
Thanks for the comment, Dusty.
Along those lines, I have often received the response, “It’s not necessary to my salvation.”
I sometimes ask how they would know that.
There is something in Mormonism at large that treats the ability to not think about things as a virtue.
And it is something I think a lot of us really struggle with. Being told you don’t need to know, or something isn’t necessary only seems like it will lead to that next step of logical questioning “How do you know that?”
Such utterances are nearly all within the category of “thought–terminating cliches,” designed to stop critical, independent thinking.
Thank you so much for a comment that actually has something to do with the blog, Cate.
You are a breath of fresh air!
I have encountered the same kind of thing as you relate. With many Mormons, the way we do things now is the ultimate trump card in testing truth–it even trumps the scriptures. Even the uniquely LDS scriptures.
And the only way he can respond is to say you think too much? That almost sounds like a slam. I hope he would have said the same thing to a man who posed your question.
Thinking–bad.
Not thinking–good.
This is the kind of anti-intellectualism Elder Boyd K. Packer champions and that Elder Hugh B. Brown eschewed.
I favor Brown.
Your racial OCD has been duly noted.
Thank you.
I’m afraid this means I will have to cancel our reservation at Sardi’s this Friday.
Well bless me, you’re so coy.
You’re not so bad yourself.
I’ll believe you think that if and when you pay some respect to what I’m actually saying. Until then, I’m actually kinda creeped out by that response to this exchange.
That is one of the most sexist things I have ever heard anybody say.
I do have respect for you, Rune.
For what you’re saying, not so much.
My heart grieves for John Dehlin. And the trajectory his life will take from now on will continue to be a beautiful journey but a difficult one. I've experienced the pain and a change in life's direction from my former religious institution. Leaders who impose this practice on others do not see the long term denominational damage they do to their own community of faith. You might stifle the conversation for a while until it all goes underground in a church subculture. Then the real division occurs. In Romans chapter 16, we are told to take note of those who cause division among you which in Greek implies simply to notice the unethical behavior of those who practice teachings which are not in accord with the general community. So, Paul is asking the membership to exercise a gift of discernment. Bad religious practice will not allow members to simply withdraw their membership and continue their journey in another venue. To a top down system of polity, that is the biggest threat that can be issued. As a priest in Anglo Catholic traditions, I love many things about the LDS church and have wonderful relationships with LDS scholars. We are far more on the same page than many members of our diverse faith communities would believe. Denominations go through six basic stages of development over a duration of 200 years. Denominational growth suggests conservative liberal paradigms begin to emerge after approximately 150 years and new paradigms must be introduced every 75 years to stay current with the spiritual needs of members and the society at large. This is what is causing such tension in the LDS faith. Some denominations have created different synods, conferences or Holy Orders to deal with the diversity their communities express. If these groups are not allowed to exist within the faith tradition, the household of faith will begin to crumble. C.K Chesterton once said, "Without understanding the faith of others, it is impossible to understand my own." Many LDS church leaders have not have the privilege of a formal theological education. These lay ministries are a blessing of opportunity for LDS Christians but they are a curse unless the priesthood begins to read widely and think critically so it can serve the needs of the growing faithful. Even the D & C, section 121 would not uphold this dastardly practice that many churches practice today. A lack of openness shows fear and the inability to deal honestly with the questions posed by its own members. Even missionaries are not always allowed to read LDS scholarly publications. Why can't these young men be encouraged to learn about the depths of LDS thought within their own tradition? Let us all pray for the unity of the Christian Body and to encourage Brothers and Sisters to journey together and to share our faith from a Gospel perspective that will engender true love and ministry for those who are in search of a deeper walk with the Master. Respectfully Submitted by Father Tom Roberts, PhD, DD
Dear Father Roberts,
Thank you so much for your beautiful and thoughtful comments.
This is what I think Kalapana meant when writing that incidents such as the excommunication of John Dehlin should bring us together rather than force us further apart.
I join you in your prayer for the Unity of the Christian Body.
And by that, I do mean all Christians everywhere.
Not just Mormons.
Very nicely said.
Well. Glad SOMEbody was paying attention in their humanities survey courses.
Okay. Now THAT was funny!
Touche, Schwa!
Now, if you can identify the hint of Hamlet, the allusion to Acts, and the whiff of Wordsworth embedded in the blog (but not highlighted or quoted), you will get extra credit!
I like what you say in this Corbin. It feels like an emotional battle going on inside right now, and like the question of “Is there really room for me here?” Is like a blaring siren inside my head now.
I was on my way out of Mormonism when I found John Dehlin, and the Rational Faiths blog (in particular, your articles and those of Lori Burkman’s.) It helped me realize that there were a lot of people that questioned, and saw things in much the same way and I suddenly didn’t feel so alone, and did feel like maybe there is a place inside of Mormonism for me. Ultimately I stayed because of it. Started attending again. Tried to be a respectful part, but also bring whatever it is I may have to offer to it. It just feels like whatever little contribution I, or others like me may have is not welcome. And John Dehlin didn’t offer just a little contribution, he offered a significant, compassionate contribution toward those that often feel marginalized. His work toward the LGBT community and trying to promote understanding about that is a fine example of compassion.
I just don’t know where to go from here, or how to answer the questions “Where do we go from here?” and “Is there room for us here anymore? Are we even wanted?” Or maybe I’m just afraid to face the answer, because it’s not what I want to hear. And maybe it is fear that is keeping me here in the first place. The fear of possibly losing out on eternity with people I love so dearly, and hope to have more than just this short lifetime knowing them. If fear is all I feel from it, have I really found truth, and love? If the scriptures are to be believed and “There is no fear in love.” then why does the church proclaim love, but seem to want to make us afraid of them if we seek truth? I just don’t know, and welcome any insight, because I am disheartened from even the idea of excommunicating people like John Dehlin, and Kate Kelly from months ago.
Dear Dusty,
Your experience is so much like my own. I think the Church sees John Dehlin only as leading people away–and I’m not sure they have any real hard data on that, anyway.
What the Church does not see is how many members have stayed precisely because of the breathing room John Dehlin and his podcast allowed them.
And what the Church is probably going to see is how many of those will leave now that they have been given notice via John Dehlin’s excommunication that they are not welcome.
You raise important questions about your own personal journey and the questions you are asking yourself as a result of this Church action.
I don’t know the answers for you. I wouldn’t presume to try to tell you. That is something you must find out for yourself.
(And even as I write this, I find myself echoing what John Dehlin has said countless times. John Dehlin has not “led” anybody out of the Church. He treats people like adults and allows them to make their own decision. What he does not do is insist that only his way is the right way. Perhaps others could learn from his example.)
I would suggest that you do what you have been taught during your entire Mormon life and follow the light of Christ that God has given you as a birthright.
If you follow the light as God gives you the ability to see the light, you should be fine. It can be really dark out some times, and often there isn’t a lot of light around, but I am convinced God always gives us enough light to see at least the next step.
And some times he just gives us friends who will listen.
And often that is enough.
And if you don’t have even that thin ray of light right now, wait a bit until you do. It will come.
Of that I have no doubt.
"Any organization that depends for its success on strict conformity finds thinking a risky proposition."
Hmm, can you say "political correctness?"
You lost me at this point in the article.
And here I thought that sentence was the most axiomatic part of the post.
“One of the most important things in the world is freedom of the mind; from this all other freedoms spring. Such freedom is necessarily dangerous, for one cannot think right without running the risk of thinking wrong, but generally more thinking is the antidote for the evils that spring from wrong thinking.”
Guess who said that?
Hugh B. Brown in 1969. When he was in the First Presidency.
President Brown continued:
“There are forces at work in our society today which degrade an intellectual quest for knowledge. These forces are nothing new. They have always been powerful. They are anti-intellectual. . . . Germany in the thirties saw the burning of books and the glorification of barbaric emotion as part of the tragedy of Hitlerism.”
***
“Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.”
***
“We have been blessed with much knowledge by revelation from God which, in some part, the world lacks. But there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover.
“Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers–that we in fact have a corner on truth, for we do not.”
“the glorification of barbaric emotion…” That certainly sums up the excommunication process to me, and the resulting seemingly happy/”we feel justified now” responses I have seen from a fair amount of faithful members across social media.
Fortunately I don’t see a lot of social media, Dusty.
But I can just imagine . . .
Interesting because I’ve been a member for 55 years and have studied the gospel extensively. I also happen to have known John Dehlin when he was much younger. We were in the same ward.
I have the exact opposite experience about the church. I don’t see them discouraging thinking, only that we don’t stop thinking, or praying, or pondering, once we come across a stumbling block that gives us an excuse to not live up to the covenants we made.
You seem to think that people who demand answers to these questions are the deep thinkers and the intellects. I have the exact opposite opinion. It’s very easy to stop thinking once you have an excuse to deny the things that The Spirit once bore witness to you.
I understand. Living the gospel is hard. I’d much rather sleep in on Sundays. I’d much rather do the things I want to do with my time instead of going home teaching or paying tithing. I’d much rather not fast every month or have to remember to pray or read my scriptures. It’s very tempting to throw all that out once I get a juicy tidbit out of someone’s journal that lets me find a chink in some prophet or some apostle’s statements.
What’s hard is to keep doing those things and keep studying and keep thinking and keep praying after you find those stumbling blocks.
It’s easy to give up on a jigsaw puzzle once you come across a piece that doesn’t seem to fit anywhere. It takes maturity and discipline to put that piece aside and keep working on the puzzle, having faith that you’ll eventually come to find out how it fits
It also takes maturity and discipline to ask the questions, and stand up for things even when you know you will be branded in unfavorable ways, or accused of taking the easier path and making excuses.
It takes maturity and discipline to seek the truth, even when the truth isn’t what you’ve been told your whole life.
It takes maturity and discipline to be humble enough to doubt yourself, and continue to seek no matter what side of the faith spectrum you fall on.
The problem comes when the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle start fitting together to reveal a completely different picture than the one the Church has been teaching you all along.
Christ prayed that we might be one even as He is one with His Father. The love that we show to each other is how we will be recognized as His disciples. Let us follow the admonition of Elder JamesTalmage, (The parable of the lantern) and let the light of Christ shine brightly through us and let us never disparage the light shinning though others
What a sheltered life you must lead.
You took it seriously?
Corbin Volluz,
Come on now, don’t be Schrödinger’s Asshole.
behttp://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015968.html
What a life you must NOT lead.
Now, now, Rune, that wasn’t a very ladylike thing to say.
I think by now you should understand there is nothing you can say or do that will whittle me down to that Procrustean politically correct bed to which you are content to confine yourself.
While listening to John Dehlin and Michael Coe talk about the damning lack of evidence for iron arrowheads and brass helmets against what strikes me as the obvious lack of mention of either item in the Book of Mormon, I have to wonder about the notion here of Dehlin as a reader, searching out of “the best books,” bringing heretofore unseen light to benighted, ignorant Mormons. One thing that struck me as obvious from the six interviews I listened to is that John, as he often admits, doesn’t read much. And it shows, at least, it shows to people who do read. And he doesn’t seem to retain much, forgetting many important things that run contrary to his agenda, that, for example, Brian Hales talked about when interviewing another author on the same topic later. And after I had posted at Mormon Stories on the lack of iron arrowheads and brass helmets in the Book of Mormon, John boldly deleted my comments from the thread. It is important where and upon whom one goes about shining uncomfortable light. And incidentally, it wasn’t Dehlin who interviewed Daniel Peterson for Mormon Stories. It was Dan Wotherspoon.
Dear Kevin,
I presume you are THE Kevin Christensen whom I have to thank for introducing me to the work of Margaret Barker in your “Paradigms Regained” paper?
If so, I want to express my appreciation.
Thanks for the correction about Dan Wotherspoon interviewing Daniel C. Peterson. For some reason, I had it in my head it was John Dehlin, though I guess that might have been unusual considering everything that was going on between the two of them back at the time, what with the quashing of Greg Smith’s “hit-piece” from the Book of Mormon Review and everything.
Also, as to your comments about the Michael Coe interview. I remember listening to that and thinking first that Michael Coe seemed a very engaging speaker who certainly knew his stuff about Mesoamerica.
But it soon became clear to me that he did not know as much about the Book of Mormon.
The main thing I remember is when Michael Coe recapitulated the Mesoamerican civilizations (Olmec-Mayan) with dates that matched closely with the Book of Mormon time-line (Jaredites/Nephites) . . . only to say it did not match the Book of Mormon time-line at all.
I hoped John Dehlin would have been familiar enough with the subject to point that out, but it did not happen.
So I hear where you are coming from with regards to that interview.
But I think you are right that John Dehlin at least admits to not being an expert in any of these particular fields. What he does best is to schedule people of interest on his podcast and then interview them adroitly.
On the other hand, though, I also remember when John Dehlin interviewed Sandra Tanner, politely allowing her to tell her story, but toward the end, when it got into theology, John Dehlin pressed her a bit on her born-again beliefs, suggesting (at least to me) that maybe they didn’t make that much sense.
On the other-other hand, I remember when John Dehlin interviewed Brant Gardner about his interpretation of the places where the Book of Mormon mentions the curse on the Lamanites causing their skin to turn dark.
John Dehlin seemed abrupt and somewhat dismissive of Brant Gardner and his conclusions. It was unusual for John Dehlin to act that way, and it struck me as out of the ordinary.
The very next episode, John Dehlin mentioned he had received comments about the way he conducted himself in that interview.
And guess what? John Dehlin apologized. Publicly. With no strings attached.
He also vowed he would strive to do better to bring a more balanced approach to his future interviews.
I thought that was good of him. And the right thing to do. And he kept his word and did better after that.
So no, John Dehlin has not claimed himself to be perfect, or an expert in all of the many fields in which he conducts interviews.
But I am still very grateful for all the wonderful interviews he has done and how much knowledge and insight it has brought into my life personally.
And again, I appreciate the insight you have brought into my life, as well, Kevin.
I am not sure it matters whether Dan or John interviewed Daniel Peterson. What is important here is that Mormon Stories was the kind of forum that successfully offered to pulpit to both Daniel Peterson (and other apologists) and also anti-Mormons. What comes out of this achievement is a better sense of the humanity to both. Obviously, FAIR and the old Maxwell could not do that because of their missions to defend the faith. But, these outfits not only did not value what John accomplished in humanizing all participants in these debates, they aggressively attacked John and sought to shut him down. The attack on John is as much a judgment of the organizations that perpetrated them as it is on John himself. Perhaps more.
Corbin,
More ad hominem? What you are apparently unwilling to do is engage with me in a manner that doesn’t rely on fallacy, prevarication, dismissal, and commonly identifiable bad-form internet forum behaviors. So, congrats. You are unreachable. You’re all walled away from listening. That must make you feel so powerful and secure.
When you have something of substance to say regarding the actual blog I wrote, do let me know.
Corbin,
Re “John Dehlin interview Daniel C. Peterson”, if you’re referring to the Mormon Stories interview, it was Dan Wotherspoon who interviewed Dan Peterson, not Dehlin. As far as I’m aware, Dehlin has never interviewed Dan Peterson.
Cheers.
Thanks for the correction, Ray.
It definitely makes more sense it would have been Dan Wotherspoon doing that particular interview than John Dehlin.
I thought Professor Peterson came off pretty well in the interview.
It was interesting to hear him tell his own Mormon Story.
I hope you are well.
Dear Ray and Kevin,
In the interests of accuracy, I went back and substituted “Richard Bushman” for “Daniel C. Peterson.”
There were plenty to choose from to fill in the blank!
Again my thanks for calling this to my attention.
Corbin,
It’s an easy enough mistake (misremembering) to make. I make them all the time, and I put it down to the growing number of “rings” in the tree trunk, oddly called “growth rings”, but which I call “senior moments”.
Cheers.
Thank you for your excellent post. I can completely relate and agree.
Corbin Volluz,
I contrasted your approach in this post with your approach in another, and then objected to your manner of engagement, which has a direct effect on whether anything of substance can actually be discussed. But, whatever. Your fingers in are in your ears and you’re going, “lalala, I can’t hear you.” Have fun feeling smug and superior about it.
Your criticism might have more bite if I had not publicly defended LDS women’s rights here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/father-mother-god/
Here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/molotov-cockails-priesthood-meeting/
And here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/sinners-hands-angry-goddess/
Not to mention taking on male leader Ezra Taft Benson here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/fourteen-fundamentals-falsifying-prophet/
Challenging male leader Elder Oaks here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/elder-oaks-adds-scriptures/
Questioning male Elders Packer, Oaks and Nelson here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/last-temptation-satan/
Pointing out the conflict between statements made by males Elder Faust and Elder McConkie here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/rewriting-mormon-history/
And calling out the conflict between the male President Kimball and disinformation put out on the LDS website here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/lying-lord/
Not to mention calling the all-male Church leadership out on not apologizing for the priesthood and temple ban on blacks here:
http://rationalfaiths.com/apology-priesthood-ban/
I have an established record of calling out many more males on inconsistencies than the one female with whom you seem obsessed.
In my book, females are just as open to questioning as males.
Kate Kelly doesn’t get a pass just because she is female.
It’s called equality.
Deal with it.
If we’ve learned nothing else in these comments, we are now well aware that Rune lives to hold a grudge.
John Dehlin was excommunicated because he is an apostate. How do we judge he is an apostate? Because he tells us so on his website, where he confesses to a slightly different take on Church doctrine:
• The Church is not the true church
• The President of the Church is not receiving privileged revelation to guide the Church
• The Book of Mormon is not a translation from actual plates prepared anciently and delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel
• The Book of Abraham is a fraud as well
• Baptism is of no moment. Every scriptural reference that God requires it is bogus.
• All the ordinance work done in the temple has no validity whatsoever. If there is no Spirit World, then of course the work is useless. If there is one, temple work is of no benefit and of no interest to anyone there.
• Jesus Christ is not the Savior and may not have even lived
And in case we’re not getting the general drift, Dehlin helpfully adds that no one has any idea what God is like or what happens after we die. (Suppose God tells or shows someone about these things, John? Wouldn’t they know then? Presumably, God is an expert on religion.)
So: no revelation. And with no revelation – no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There’s a term for those who hold such beliefs: Non-members.
Look again at the list. Kind of a lot to object to, isn’t it? Which “fundamental LDS church truth claims” does this leave intact? Dehlin kicks to the curb every distinctive doctrine of the Church. When faith in Jesus is jettisoned – the first principle of the Gospel – haven’t you hit rock bottom? What’s left? Who cares what the Church’s policy is toward gay marriage or priesthood ordination if its primary truth claims are false from the get-go? Is this what the tens of thousands of full-time Mormon missionaries should be sharing: “Look folks, we are here to testify to the truth of the doctrines of the Restored Gospel. But we should also tell you there are great reasons to doubt every single one of them – Want to join?”
But Dehlin doesn’t just have doubts, he broadcasts them to the world: What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches is false. His website actively solicits and posts the testimonies of those who claim the Church has ruined their lives. Who would want this guy shadowing their missionary efforts? His ministry and influence are the opposite of convert retention.
Dehlin has followed a well-worn path to apostasy:
1. Run everything the Church teaches past the World for a second opinion.
2. Resolve any conflicts in favor of the World.
Yet another smart guy who has thought himself right out of the faith.
The fact is that John Dehlin had already excommunicated himself. The Church had every right to do so formally.
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan – it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”
~Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section Page 5 May 26, 1945~
Tim Bone,
I agree! I’m new to this blogging stuff and I find myself on a journey to find the truth of new things recently brought to light within the Church. So I’ve started following some of these blogs. Some I enjoy more than others and this is one of them. I guess I don’t know why anyone would be upset by Dehlins excommunication. I’m not sure I understand why Corbin is so upset by this ex. John isn’t a Mormon who has questions of the gospel. He says he already has the answers–No Jesus Christ, etc. Why would he even care about the Church if he already knows there’s no reason to have the church. Why would he want to blog with those of us who are seeking answers when he “knows” there’s no God, Jesus Christ, etc. unless he wants to pull us down the same road he’s on.? I’m certainly not an intellectual like most on these blogs but….I’m not interested in hearing his opinion about the gospel. I want to listen to people who still believe in something. I’m sorry he’s lost his belief system but I’m not interested in following him down that road. Hopefully I’m allowed my opinion on this. Thanks.