John Dehlin: Initial Criticisms and Impressions Part II

[Guest]

And heck, even if they do eventually excommunicate him, that won't stop anything. It would just make it less likely that those who do have a crisis of faith will stay in the church.

But John Dehlin has no problem whatsoever with assisting people having a crisis of faith in leaving the Church. That's one of the central attractions of his project (and there are far better people than him to help people negotiate a crisis of faith, in my view. Sending someone with a crisis of faith to John Dehlin is a bit like sending someone having suicidal thoughts to see Jack Kevorkian).

Loran, does the 11th Article of Faith mean anything to you?

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

No, actually, it would be like sending an alcoholic to see you.

You wouldn't care one way or another if I destroyed my life.

I do care if Mormonism is destroying your life. Continue to get help for it here; I hope you'll leave that destructive lifestyle behind, Loran.

- VRDRC

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy I may respond more to you OP later.

But it seems you take exception to Dehlin's proposal that one can self-identify as LDS/Mormon even if one does not believe or practice all or even most of it. Right?

So let me ask you a question. My Father has not been active in the LDS Church since he was 18. He is 78. He drank heavily and still does some. He was not faithful to my mother and that plus a a few other things ended their marriage. He has strived to atone to his children for that many mistake he made and for the poor father he was when I was growing up with my two brothers. He has become a fairly decent human being and a great grandfather. He has over the years studied LDS doctrine and history as well as the LDS scripture extensively. Yet he has not attended. He made it to Priest in the LDS Priesthood.

He is still on the records of the Church. He accepts a HT, a few years ago he decided to start to pay tithing. But that is it. For all these years he considered himself a Mormon. Does he have the right to do so? The Church counts him still though he has only attended a few times as an adult.

Really if someone like my father cannot self-identify as LDS then the Church should not count him, as it does, in the 14million.

[_Kevin Graham]

Really if someone like my father cannot self-identify as LDS then the Church should not count him, as it does, in the 14million.

That's the irony isn't it? The Church counts most people on the rolls as members even though most of them do not self-identify as LDS. At the same time its apologists want to marginalize those who do self-identify as LDS.

I just got back from Utah recently where I discovered my wife's entire LDS family believe they can drink coffee so long as it is decaffeinated. They've done so all their lives because it is such a Brazilian thing to do, but most of them are temple recommend Mormons.

So should they be considered LDS even though they break a commandment and then lie about it during temple recommend interviews? Oh, they also use wine in their fried foods, and sometimes beer. They reason that the cooking kills the alcohol but leaves the flavor.

My brother-in law from Brazil is a bishop and tried to tell them they were wrong, but he didn't really press it enough to the point that they understood they had been breaking a serious commandment of the Church. He knew it would only escalate emotions as these people refuse to believe they've been acting "non Mormon" all these years, especially the man of the house who takes pride in being the spiritual authority over his household. They've been paying their tithes and believe that they should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not "caffeine" is the reason why tea and coffee are disallowed. Speaking of which, they also drink decaffeinated tea. I tried to explain it to them as well, referencing LDS talks on the subject, and they'd come back at me with the same kinds of reasoning we hear from apologists, about how not everything they say is perfect because they are just fallible opinionated people like anyone else. The more I tried to explain their religion to them, the more agitated they became. Very much like trying to reason with apologists who refuse to come to grips with issues proving the Church is bogus.

I joked with my wife telling her that they were no more temple worthy than I am. The main difference is that I am truthful when I answer these questions from the Bishop. They just do what most believers have to do, which is come up with their own rationalizations in order to maintain faith. When I found myself resorting to these kinds of self-deceptions, is when I started working my way out of the Church. I have too much respect for intellectual honesty. Mormon apologists do not.

[_Droopy]

That's the irony isn't it? The Church counts most people on the rolls as members even though most of them do not self-identify as LDS.

CFR

At the same time its apologists want to marginalize those who do self-identify as LDS.

Apologtics is concerned with defending the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, which means its central truth claims, not with sociocultural and linguistic technicalities.

I just got back from Utah recently where I discovered my wife's entire LDS family believe they can drink coffee so long as it is decaffeinated. They've done so all their lives because it is such a Brazilian thing to do, but most of them are temple recommend Mormons.

How one could not have paid attention for that many years to the obvious makes one pause...

So should they be considered LDS even though they break a commandment and then lie about it during temple recommend interviews?

Oh, they do know the correct Church doctrine and counsel, and they're lying (like Harmony) to keep their Temple recommends current?

They will have their reward - with the rest of the foolish virgins, whether members or no.

My brother-in law from Brazil is a bishop and tried to tell them they were wrong, but he didn't really press it enough to the point that they understood they had been breaking a serious commandment of the Church. He knew it would only escalate emotions as these people refuse to believe they've been acting "non Mormon" all these years, especially the man of the house who takes pride in being the spiritual authority over his household. They've been paying their tithes and believe that they should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not "caffeine" is the reason why tea and coffee are disallowed.

They don't. The Lord' anointed servants in our day do, and have the mantel and authority as prophets, seers, and revelators to do so for the Church. The covenant and the blessings promised through obedience to it are the crux of the matter.

Speaking of which, they also drink decaffeinated tea. I tried to explain it to them as well, referencing LDS talks on the subject, and they'd come back at me with the same kinds of reasoning we hear from apologists, about how not everything they say is perfect because they are just fallible opinionated people like anyone else. The more I tried to explain their religion to them, the more agitated they became. Very much like trying to reason with apologists who refuse to come to grips with issues proving the Church is bogus.

You're convoluted sophistry impresses no one with the slightest actual grasp of the doctrines of the church, and the keys by which its various teachings can be understood. You're own hell-bent, personal, self justificational agenda, which you wear on your sleeve in every post or statement you make, has so destroyed your ability to think rationally that it long ago made serious discourse with you impossible.

I joked with my wife telling her that they were no more temple worthy than I am. The main difference is that I am truthful when I answer these questions from the Bishop. They just do what most believers have to do, which is come up with their own rationalizations in order to maintain faith. When I found myself resorting to these kinds of self-deceptions, is when I started working my way out of the Church. I have too much respect for intellectual honesty. Mormon apologists do not.

Your sins, of whatever kind - the reasons you really left the Church - and the web of self serving illusion you've woven around them to deceive others you wish to follow your path, will eventually be your undoing.

The chickens are eying the roost Kevin, even as we speak.

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy I may respond more to you OP later.

But it seems you take exception to Dehlin's proposal that one can self-identify as LDS/Mormon even if one does not believe or practice all or even most of it. Right?

So let me ask you a question. My Father has not been active in the LDS Church since he was 18. He is 78. He drank heavily and still does some. He was not faithful to my mother and that plus a a few other things ended their marriage. He has strived to atone to his children for that many mistake he made and for the poor father he was when I was growing up with my two brothers. He has become a fairly decent human being and a great grandfather. He has over the years studied LDS doctrine and history as well as the LDS scripture extensively. Yet he has not attended. He made it to Priest in the LDS Priesthood.

He is still on the records of the Church. He accepts a HT, a few years ago he decided to start to pay tithing. But that is it. For all these years he considered himself a Mormon. Does he have the right to do so? The Church counts him still though he has only attended a few times as an adult.

Really if someone like my father cannot self-identify as LDS then the Church should not count him, as it does, in the 14million.

Droopy how about a cogent response to this.

[_sansfoy]

Droopy,

You keep delivering these threats, backed up by an ominous soundtrack, but it rings hollow. You have no spiritual authority to threaten these people.

[_Droopy]

Droopy,

You keep delivering these threats, backed up by an ominous soundtrack, but it rings hollow. You have no spiritual authority to threaten these people.

I am Gumby, dammit.

[_Droopy]

Droopy I may respond more to you OP later.

But it seems you take exception to Dehlin's proposal that one can self-identify as LDS/Mormon even if one does not believe or practice all or even most of it. Right?

So let me ask you a question. My Father has not been active in the LDS Church since he was 18. He is 78. He drank heavily and still does some. He was not faithful to my mother and that plus a a few other things ended their marriage. He has strived to atone to his children for that many mistake he made and for the poor father he was when I was growing up with my two brothers. He has become a fairly decent human being and a great grandfather. He has over the years studied LDS doctrine and history as well as the LDS scripture extensively. Yet he has not attended. He made it to Priest in the LDS Priesthood.

He is still on the records of the Church. He accepts a HT, a few years ago he decided to start to pay tithing. But that is it. For all these years he considered himself a Mormon. Does he have the right to do so? The Church counts him still though he has only attended a few times as an adult.

Really if someone like my father cannot self-identify as LDS then the Church should not count him, as it does, in the 14million.

Droopy how about a cogent response to this.

Why? I haven't seen a cogent response from you yet.

[_Jason Bourne]

[Droopy how about a cogent response to this.

Why? I haven't seen a cogent response from you yet.

Oh I see. So my point about my father, the chuch including him and others who may not be YOUR type of Mormon, or those who are not active but for whatever reasons want to remain Mormon and identify as such was just too much for your idiotic opening post.

You see Droopy my post was cogent nor was it strident like my comment above is.

Continue your wordy bloviating rants. Is it about all you have.