- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi Bishop. Many of us ay staylds and NOM are concerned about how we will be treated by local church leaders when they find out we participate at MS and advocate a “middle way” to remain in the church for those who struggle.
Question. Do you see JD and Joanna Brooks as a threat?
Can the church ignore JD forever? Is the time coming where SLC will either have to validate JD’S vision and work, or discipline him as an apostate?
In your opinion, are the “John Dehliners” sheep in wolf clothing? Do you want us teaching SS in your Ward, and sitting on your Ward council?
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I think this is a good question. My answer is that in former times, the church would have definitely looked at John Dehlin and others as wolves in sheep’s clothing. The presence of the Strengthening the Members Committee (which in my view, sounds a bit Orwellian at times, although I realize they ultimately want to do what is good for the church and maybe the members second) shows that there is a modern day policing group meant to root out apostates. Would I want them teaching SS? Probably not, as I’m afraid of what they might start telling the members. I think posting unorthodox ideas on the Internet about the church can hurt a person’s progression in the church (if that is important to a person), and pose threats to their membership status if they make other mistakes, or cross any lines. Kind of like the person who gets in a fender bender while driving, which then highlights to the police officer that no one had their seat belt on. These things would not likely come to light or be “searched for” had there been no accident.
Going unorthodox is like wearing your seat belt — and sometimes, you get pulled over for that only, particularly if you grandstand the fact or call attention to it.
Now, this isn’t to imply that I think we are doing anything wrong here at StayLDS, but Bishops, just like police officers, vary in their beliefs about what is actionable and how much of a penalty to extract from a person.
The way I see it, there are some members who are simply not “called” to try to bridge the gap between the fringe and insiders. There are some who are only going to be able to help insiders like themselves. They just can’t relate to anything else. People want to define the borders of the membership where they are personally comfortable. John has talked to members of the Q12 who agree that the largest tent possible is best. I think we tend to overestimate the negative reaction from the top leadership, while realistically being concerned about the negative reaction from local members and leaders. Frankly, I’m not concerned about negative reaction from anyone – not because I don’t think anyone would react negatively in my ward or stake (I’m not that naive.), but because I’m not doing anything wrong; everything I’m doing is an attempt to help people and the LDS Church; I am a faithful, active member of the Church; I’m open about my involvement online and with members who are struggling with a faith crisis of some kind; I’ve never tried in any way to hide my identity; etc. I am 100%, totally, completely at peace with what I do, so I have no fear about possible consequences – and that peace is evident, I think, to my leaders. Nobody sees me as a threat in any way, because I’m not a threat in any way. I make mistakes here and there, but I’ve learned over time what I can say and how I can say it – but I still challenge the status quo regularly. I simply do it with a smile on my face, while being involved in the social structure of the Church. That makes a HUGE difference.
If my involvement were to hinder my possible callings in the Church, so be it. I believe I am doing God’s work to the best of my ability, and that is all I can do. I also am not into calling seeking, so it wouldn’t bother me a bit to remain a Sunday School teacher for the rest of my life. I LOVE teaching the youth, and I would die happy if I never became a Bishop or any other particular calling. It’s just not something I covet in any way. That wasn’t the case earlier in my young adulthood, but it is now.
Finally, if “we” try to preach heterodoxy in a way that is like seeking converts, I wouldn’t want “us” in some callings if I was a leader. If, rather, we try to help people consider multiple perspectives and determine which view works best for them in building a solid testimony about and relationship with God, I would want us in any calling. That’s how I feel about the orthodox, as well. It’s not about someone’s specific beliefs, for me; it’s about their approach to learning and service.
Quote:Question. Do you see JD and Joanna Brooks as a threat?
No, I think his approach at times does the opposite of his mission. His mission statement seems to help “non fundamental” members still find a way to fit in yet I see many of his podcast assisting others into deeper faith crisis and further out of the church. That said, This generation is going to find difficult info on the church and in wading through that one needs answers. I beleive his podcast with Bushman, Givens, Peterson, guys from Fair have been benefiscial to the individual in Faith Crisis who needs good answers but also needs the tough questions asked.Quote:Can the church ignore JD forever? Is the time coming where SLC will either have to validate JD’S vision and work, or discipline him as an apostate?
I think the church is ok with assisting “middle wayers” and those with dificult issues to find belonging. His difficulty will come IMHO if he comes accross as pushing more to help members out of the church then to help them in. Right now I see it as 50/50. That doesn’t mean that his helping the individual is 50/50. Please don’t misunderstand me. I think those struggling find in Dehlin one who will share their burdens and make them lighter, but when that is done at the cost of their exiting the church then it becomes an church issue.
Quote:In your opinion, are the “John Dehliners” sheep in wolf clothing? Do you want us teaching SS in your Ward, and sitting on your Ward council?
There is a brother in my ward who sees things much like Dehlin though still reserving judgement on the historicity of the church, and I ask him all the time to put in his two cents as they add so much to our discussion and help us better grasp what is doctrine and truth and what isn’t. There is a line where one can’t push their agenda, but one who simply offers another view and helps us all take a step back and evaluate whether we are on track or not as helpful. In other words if one wants to correct false doctrine (in the eyes of the church not by pushing their own pet theories) then great ex: declaring when someone advocates evolution as herasy and standing up to that and saying the church has no official position regardless of what a few select leaders have said is benefiscial. But if on the other hand you want to push an agenda, for example teaching that same gender marriage should be allowed in the temple then I am absolutely against that.
does that help?
Quote:I think we tend to overestimate the negative reaction from the top leadership, while realistically being concerned about the negative reaction from local members and leaders
Right on.
Elder Holland is likely much more flexible, empathtic, forgiving, and less dogmatic then we would likely find in the median of leaders of our wards and stakes. This is due to what the perception of church teachings, doctrine, and theology are then what the reality of those things are. Many Leaders will adopt what they perceive and miss reality slightly and box themselves dogmatically It also has to do with most people being in stage three of the stages of faith. When I hear a leader say we must be obedient and to follow the leaders at all cost, that to me is a sign they are still in stage three. When they tell me Moroni 7: 15-16
Quote:“For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.”
It indicates to me they are in stage 4 or better yet satge 5.
Whether you accept the BOM as true or not, whoever experienced the story of the slaying of Laban (Nephi or the fiction’s author – obviously I believe firmly it was nephi) started in stage 3 before that event and by the end was in stage 4 or 5. Thou shalt not murder is black and white… Killing Laban is certainly progressed out of stage 3 though it seems very unwillingly and hesitantly.
By the way I think Joseph at this age was incapable of thinking stage 4 or 5 which makes it harder for me to accept him as a possible creator of the story
Bishop. Can you explain or justify why the professional paid apoligists for church express so much anger and fear and loathing for those of us who praise John’s work, and truly believe on a middle way to Mormonism? I’m talking about Peterson and crowd, especially what I experienced at MDDB.
I’m not asking to trash talk and belittled…only trying to understand why they, AND MY OWN FAMILY, see me as such a threat and apostate….that they would accuse me if being gay, satanic and go to great lengths to get me excommunicated. I just don’t understand the mindset if such extreme members of the church.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Quote:Bishop. Can you explain or justify why the professional paid apoligists for church express so much anger and fear and loathing for those of us who praise John’s work, and truly believe on a middle way to Mormonism?
First CWALD do me a huge favor, it would mean the world to me. From now on please call me Bill, DB, DBMORMON, ect.., as I am not your Bishop (though I think we would be great friends if in the same ward), nor Am I wanting to use my title to give me more weight to my opinions. I do acknowledge though they my experience in the calling may offer additonal ways to see things or experiences to share, it does not make my opinion more or less valid. Thanks!!
In regards to your question:
Most people on the MDD board whose methods I detest are not paid apoligists. They are wannabe apoligists who are always looking to increase their rep points and not win hearts. That said, the Men on there who have at least contrinuted to LDS publications (brant Gardner, Kevin Christensen, Benjamin McGuire, ext..) have all been kind and empathetic and supportive. When they did think I crossed a line they told me so respectively. Now there are 3-5 individuals who are not known outside the board who are unchristlike in their approach and most of them don’t even share a real name, wonder why? Those folks give apoligetics on that board a bad name. Now I hear a lot about Dan Peterson and others like him. But I have not experienced any of that personally so I feel unqualified to speak about them. In my limited interaction I felt some of the individuals in that circle are too anxious to share their side of the story when they perceive they are being wronged, but I have been known to do the same… so no added comment there either.
I think they frown on John’s work because by offering a middle way it takes away on some level a desire to see the church in the way the church itself is asking to be seen. In other words if the Church is true in the way it claims, then by saying a middle way is valid, that idea creates a plateau where one may no longer desire to try and see the church as it is asking to be seen and one may settle seeing it as it fits best to them. If progression is the ultimate goal, then the same is true in regards to truth and belief. Now the kicker is I am not judge on which direction is the true pursuit of truth and correct belief and each of us must follow the spirit and decide and none of us in and out of the church will know for sure until we exit this life.
OK. On the first two paragraphs. Though I think you are very wrong about asking not to be called Bishop. It DOES make your opinion more valid for This board…and it demonstrates that there are local leaders who are trying to understand the issues of those who struggle. But I will do as you ask.
Hmmm? Not sure if you explained much on the third paragraph. Nope…doesn’t help much.
That is okay though…its all good.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
On the NOM board, we have two bishops. Stealth Bishop and Southern Bishop. It is a GREAT reminder to not judge and put all church leaders and faithful members in the same box. Many church leaders struggle and understand faith crisis are open to dialogue and differing opinions. But most NOMS and stayldsers wont believe it.
But…yes, I will do as you ask.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
How about “Mr. Bishop, Sir”? 😆 I also think most apologists simply are doing the best they can to express how they personally see things – but, by definition, most of them see things the way the Church wants members to see things. (
and I don’t mean anything negative at all in saying that) Apologists, by definition, tend to be orthodox. I agree there are egos involved with many – but that’s true to a degree with almost all of us. I also think there is a subconscious fear that multiple, individual, differing and sometimes competing views (middle ways) might destroy unity and lead to schism and dissent – and I think that probably is the root of their feelings for John. Frankly, as much as I like and admire John, I can’t say I disagree completely with that concern. Zealotry of any kind is difficult to predict – and it adds an edge of danger that is very threatening to those whose chief focus and mission (in a very real and important way) is stability.
So… What do you see in the near future Ray? Validation or extermination? Surety the church cannot continue to pretend like john dehlin doesn’t exist indefinitely? Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Honestly, cwald, I think that depends on John – and I don’t think the Church is pretending he doesn’t exist. I think he is a good example of how the Church’s response to members who struggle is changing in a positive way. If John had done 20 years ago what John has done recently, he would have been excommunicated, imo. If he goes over the cliff in the future or remains where he is now is in his hands.
Others can choose to see the change cynically, but I really do believe there has been a fundamental shift in the way the top leadership views “apostasy” over the last 20 years – and I believe that largely because of how many times messages have been given during General Conference that illustrate that change. I’ve heard it multiple times from that pulpit, so I believe it is sincere.
The water hasn’t reached the end of all the rows yet (as you can attest), but it’s being dispersed from the source, if you will.
Old-Timer wrote:Honestly, cwald, I think that depends on John – and I don’t think the Church is pretending he doesn’t exist. I think he is a good example of how the Church’s response to members who struggle is changing in a positive way.
If John had done 20 years ago what John has done recently, he would have been excommunicated, imo. If he goes over the cliff in the future or remains where he is now is in his hands.
Others can choose to see the change cynically, but I really do believe there has been a fundamental shift in the way the top leadership views “apostasy” over the last 20 years – and I believe that largely because of how many times messages have been given during General Conference that illustrate that change. I’ve heard it multiple times from that pulpit, so I believe it is sincere.
The water hasn’t reached the end of all the rows yet (as you can attest), but it’s being dispersed from the source, if you will.
Fair response.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:So… What do you see in the near future Ray? Validation or extermination? Surety the church cannot continue to pretend like john dehlin doesn’t exist indefinitely?
Depends on how big of a tent they want to allow. There is no right or wrong answer. They have a right to determine the rules and regulations of the church. If they are willing to allow a wide range of belief and those who are outside the standard line to share their position with other TBM’s. Is their more benefit for the middlewayers in allowing this over how many TBM’s it hurts the testimony of. That is the question at hand. Me personally, I am all for Middlewayers being encompassed in the tent of faithful LDS and received in a way that they are not looked down upon, as long as they individually can support the Doctrine of Christ, and other truths as the church stands behind and proclaims and not look to teach gospel hobbies, speculation, or other fringe ideas that sway people their way. Once one does that it is apostacy and should be handled on a case by case basis
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.