Assessing statements for Apostasy

[Anonymous]

I have two quotes here I think would be worthwhile to assess for Apostasy. They are items from the transcript or statements of the church that John Dehlin made.

Quote:

“I think the probability that Jesus actually really lived and was resurrected is actually really low. And I’m actually not invested in that.”

He’ softening language here, but he is allowing for the fact that it COULD be true. We just aren’t used to people expressing their belief in things as probabilities. For me, this doesn’t fully pass the Apostasy test on its own.

Quote:

“All I can say is… if God and Jesus really do exist… I believe that they have a lot of ‘splaining to do. Especially if they endorse the stories in the Bible, and the LDS Church as the one true church.”

I see nothing at all wrong with this one. I have thought the same thing — that so much doesn’t make sense (not because it’s not true, but because life is full of contradictions and claims based on things we can’t verify).

Here are a couple more to assess..

Quote:

1. The Book of Mormon is fiction. There is no other plausible explanation (in my view). Joseph (along with whomever) simply made it up.”

Quote:

2. “What I can say for sure is that… [t]he Book of Mormon is not a translation of gold plates provided by an ancient American civilization via an angel (which it claims to be).”

Quote:

“3. [A]nyone willing to fairly review the evidence, with an open mind, will conclude that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are NOT what they claim to be. At all. They are not translated ancient records. They are fiction. Authored by Joseph Smith.”[/quote[

Quote:

4. t’s incumbent upon all of us, when we speak of these books, to openly acknowledge that they are not translations of ancient records, as they claim. At their core, they are based on a deception.”

Quote:

“5. [T]he evidence against [the Book of Mormon] as [a] translation… of ancient documents is OVERWHELMING to anyone who is objective.

[Anonymous]

Good examples, SD.

It isn’t the claims themselves that bother me; it’s the sweeping dismissal of all who disagree (or even are open to multiple possibilities) that concerns me the most. That is the biggest change I’ve seen over the years – and it is that willingness to use “deception” as a descriptor of Joseph Smith and anyone who believes it is a translation of a historical record that, imo, illustrates the heart of the issue (along with monetizing his work, which I think can’t be over-emphasized when trying to understand how his leadership sees him).

[Anonymous]

Where I feel the statements went too far is when he asked whether faith required believing in that which is “demonstrably false.” Now, on the one hand, I don’t doubt this good stake president, based on his own statements, along with many many members does in fact believe things that are of “demonstrably false,” that doesn’t mean that everything John or others say is demonstrably false is demonstrably false. A thing can’t be demonstrated false due to lack of evidence that it exists. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. People believed for thousands of years that the city of Troy was a mythological story. Then, they found it. Pretty much right where the legends said it would be. The lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon is a problem for many, and I don’t dismiss it; the real issue, though, is that if you struggle to believe in angels or that God exists, the lack of steel and horses just conforms to that view. And yet, many archaeological sites throughout the world from that era are largely unexcavated.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“All I can say is… if God and Jesus really do exist… I believe that they have a lot of ‘splaining to do. Especially if they endorse the stories in the Bible, and the LDS Church as the one true church.”

I’m a little surprised by that one. If god and Jesus really do exist I believe the answer will be “Yeah, people did a lot of stuff in my name.

Quote:

“3. [A]nyone willing to fairly review the evidence, with an open mind, will conclude that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are NOT what they claim to be. At all. They are not translated ancient records. They are fiction. Authored by Joseph Smith.”

The other quotes include lots of definitive language but this one takes it to the next level. Any reasonable person will arrive at my conclusion. If you don’t arrive at my conclusion you aren’t being reasonable.

Quote:

4. t’s incumbent upon all of us, when we speak of these books, to openly acknowledge that they are not translations of ancient records, as they claim. At their core, they are based on a deception.”

This one can be softened considerably and still create space for people. It’s incumbent upon all of us, when we speak of these books, to openly acknowledge the possibility that they may not be translations of ancient records.

Quote:

“5. [T]he evidence against [the Book of Mormon] as [a] translation… of ancient documents is OVERWHELMING to anyone who is objective.

That’s another one that falls into the same category as #3. The implication is that you are not being objective, reasonable, intelligent, etc. if you arrive at a different conclusion. While I’d like to see more space created for people with nuanced beliefs I don’t want to create that space by crowding out the people with a more traditional faith. We’re working on the philosophical plane, there’s enough room for everyone.

Maybe that’s what makes up a statement of apostasy. Crowding out others to carve out space for yourself. Both sides of the argument can do that.

People are probably recording every little thing that JD has said and words stick around much longer in writing than they do in the consciousness of the person that spoke them. If people wrote down everything I’ve uttered in moments of frustration I bet it would paint me in an unfavorable light. That said, JD knows that certain statements are being recorded and this very well could be the message that he currently wants to leave with people.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“I think the probability that Jesus actually really lived and was resurrected is actually really low. And I’m actually not invested in that.”

To state the above won’t get you a temple recommend but as long as you’re not actively trying to get others to believe it, it’s probably not apostasy.

Quote:

All I can say is… if God and Jesus really do exist… I believe that they have a lot of ‘splaining to do. Especially if they endorse the stories in the Bible, and the LDS Church as the one true church.

Something that many of us have felt and nicely articulated. I think we are allowed to be frustrated with the things that life has dealt us which includes that darn “veil” drawn across our memories of the preexistence.

Quote:

3. [A]nyone willing to fairly review the evidence, with an open mind, will conclude that the Books of Mormon and Abraham are NOT what they claim to be. At all. They are not translated ancient records. They are fiction. Authored by Joseph Smith.

4. t’s incumbent upon all of us, when we speak of these books, to openly acknowledge that they are not translations of ancient records, as they claim. At their core, they are based on a deception.

“5. [T]he evidence against [the Book of Mormon] as [a] translation… of ancient documents is OVERWHELMING to anyone who is objective.

Now these are more strongly stated and the implication is that IF you believe in such things, you are deluded, foolish or an idiot. If I were his stake president (glad i’m not), I would have a hard time ignoring such statements even if they weren’t in the public eye. They communicate a scorn for central concepts of the Church that might need to be addressed.

I think there is room in the Church for people who respectfully question but there may not be space for those who are so publicly disdainful. How much should local authorities and the Church tolerate? Wherever you set that bar, SOMEONE is going to feel it is too high or too low.

Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

One member of the Salvation Army told me they frown on “outward expressions of an inward act”.

My thought, in reading about how excommunicated and disfellowshipped members cannot take the sacrament, is that it’s the heart that matters — not the act of consuming the bread and water.

If excommunicated, I would not take the sacrament after being told not to do so, but I wouldn’t feel that my repentence was at all inhibited by not having it.

In a sense, I see taking the sacrament as a ritual in our church that is meaningful to many people. But I have not experienced any kind of forgiveness or spiritual peace associated with taking it, so it is not very meaningful for me.

Aye, there’s the rub. My experiences early in my life with local leadership, which forced me to separate the church, from my relationship with God, has really turned the church into an ambiguous purveyor of spirituality for me. I have seen the many mistakes, and heartless decisions of the leaders who represent the official church. I saw them excommunicate Helmut Hubener under the Hitler regime because he spoke out against the Nazis, only to reverse it many years later. Individual salvation is not based entirely on individual actions; it is a collision of individual actions, circumstances, the personality of church leaders, and policy.

At times, I have felt that church administration is a kind of laboratory of learning for so many people, that I’m not even convinced God will honor the decisions these people make to the extent everyone believes — notwithstanding scriptures that indicate priesthood holders have power to bind contracts on earth and in heaven.

[Author]

Posts