- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hippo wrote:
This is probably a dumb question, but in light of what is happening to john dehlin, I have to ask it. Is all the stuff that I have read recently, like fawn Brodie’s book, Mormon stories, etc etc the truth? Or can even part of it be false or unconfirmed? Also, is there any record of the church coming forward and saying this “anti Mormon” literature is false? I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around the church trying to excommunicate him for telling the truth. Slander? I totally get it. But if he is interviewing truth, then….
Growing up I remember being warned to not read antimormon literature as it was called. Was I being warned against reading the truth? To be honest, I’m scared to research more because of what more I’ll find out, and also because of the brainwashing to not do it still lingers….
Quote:
I’m going to start a separate thread on this soon today, because it’s a fascinating question to me.Some things are subject to interpretation, including what we call historical facts. Amen, Hawkgrrrl. hawkgrrrl wrote:Some things are subject to interpretation, including what we call historical facts.
Admittedly I have only taught high school history – but this much I know: history is written by the winners and it is subject to change depending on the current political climate.
I agree that some things are subject to interpretation. Ah, the inexplicable experience of mortality never ceases to amaze me. First and foremost, I don’t think that what either of these individuals set out to do was wrong. To have thoughtful discussions about anything really (I mean I could go on about the laws in this country and yet I will always be an American) is NOT bad. However, I do think that
howit is approached needs to attended to. I haven’t followed John Dehlin really at all. I have a small picture of what he does, but nothing really big. I have somewhat followed the OW story and the biggest thing I can see is their methods. I think some of them are good (IE asking the leadership to ponder and ask for revelation), but some of them leave me feeling icky. I fear that because the focus might be on the What of these people/groups instead of also the How, a lot of people might get offended because they believe the process that they’re using to be infallible. That’s the crux of almost every situation, in my opinion. If what you’re asking and how you’re asking is never up for evaluation, then I fear for you my friends because the answer you’re seeking might be bigger than the box you have to receive it. shoshin wrote:The church is a theocracy. Literally, this means “rule by God” and of course in practice it’s basically “follow the prophet.”….You agree that this is the actual church of Christ and He leads his church through a prophet. I firmly believe God wants us to use our minds and ask questions. However,
if you oppose the prophet publicly and lead public opposition to him you are actively opposing Christ– you are saying you don’t believe Christ is directing this church. That is a foremost core doctrine of Mormonism. If you do this you are already outside the church, whether you realize it or not. …
100% agree.
Couldn’t have said more plainly. This is the church I belong to.
Which is why it becomes hypocrisy to excommunicate a person who says blacks deserve the priesthood, a year later allow it, then 35 years later say it was never a doctrine. Thank God for his unfailing church. 
Joseph allowed questioning…he didn’t run a theocracy with God as the absolute ruler…that came later
Quote:Joseph allowed questioning.
1) This isn’t simply about allowing questioning, and framing it that way over-simplifies a complex situation in a way that can’t lead to real understanding – for either side of the issue.
2) Sometimes, Joseph allowed questioning. Other times, he quashed it quickly. Other times, he argued forcefully either for or against it, depending on what the actual “questioning” entailed. What he rarely, if ever, brooked was open defiance – and, sometimes, even direct criticism.
See, almost all of history really is open to interpretation and personal perspective. It is incredibly important to recognize and deal with that simple fact.
Old-Timer wrote:Sometimes, Joseph allowed questioning. Other times, he quashed it quickly
When he ordered the destruction of the Expositor’s printing press, he quashed it quickly. That analogy reminds me of John Dehlin’s quotation of Elder Holland in his lunch meeting in which JRH said people can hold opinions but “don’t go out and buy a printing press”.
I think the Church has a bit of a conundrum here too — they are going after people with printing presses. And I have a feeling that both Katy and John will likely continue posting if excommunicated — and many people will see it. I only learned about the September 6 a few years ago since back in the Sept 6 days, all we had was newspaper and radio.
Do you see the church imposing some kind of requirement that John/Katy they want back into full fellowship from any level of punishment (probation, disfellowshipment, excommunication), John/Katy cannot disclose the outcome of their disciplinary councils (assuming they happen)?
I personally could see the church do this.
And this would be sad — already many of us feel saddened by this iteration of disciplinary councils, and I think this would only alienate and potentially, polarize the people on the fringe away from the prescribed path in Mormonism.
I won’t pretend that I know John well, but I can tell you how I see him. I believe he is a tortured soul, seeing so much that is wrong with the church that is so much a part of him. For months, I have thought he won’t find much peace as long as he continues running mormonstories the way he has. Continuously discussing church problems is a bit like someone focusing on the negative attributes of their spouse. A happy marriage this does not make.
I also discuss issues regarding the church and it has been a miserable experience, but he has gone far deeper than I have and I believe his podcasts keep the negative at the forefront. Maybe this process can somehow change his focus from church issues to finding peace with God. Oh, how I wish I could do that! In short, I just hope some good can come of this for John.
Amen, Shawn. What a wonderful comment. That is my ultimate hope, as well. The plot thickens: http://rationalfaiths.com/courted-out-of-mormonism/ cwald: I’m not convinced this is entirely top down. Where does the buck stop? I don’t think we should underestimate the patriotism of aspiring mid-level leaders in the church. Loyal dogs often leave evidence of their kills on their masters’ doorsteps hoping to find approval. That sounds harsher than I mean it. It’s a parallel I’ve seen so many times in my experience as a leader in large corporations. Ambitious employees want recognition for doing whatever they think will be rewarded, even if they are essentially leaving a mess on your doorstep. Well, I’ll know by Sunday afternoon. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
hawkgrrrl wrote:cwald: I’m not convinced this is entirely top down. Where does the buck stop? I don’t think we should underestimate the patriotism of aspiring mid-level leaders in the church. Loyal dogs often leave evidence of their kills on their masters’ doorsteps hoping to find approval. That sounds harsher than I mean it. It’s a parallel I’ve seen so many times in my experience as a leader in large corporations. Ambitious employees want recognition for doing whatever they think will be rewarded, even if they are essentially leaving a mess on your doorstep.
I think that certainly explains JD’s situation. The stake president is new and has never met with him so it looks like he’s just showing everyone there’s a new sheriff in town.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.