John Dehlin: Initial Criticisms and Impressions Part III
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:22 pm
Brigham Young, again:
If this is true (and this can be known to be true, according to the doctrines of the restored gospel, through the principle of direct, personal revelation), then Dehlin is, not to put too fine a point on it, selling snake oil to doubting and questioning members, not the least of which is by defining Mormonism down to nothing more than one more closely knit fraternal/social organization with a religious gloss among many.
The gospel, however, is a vortex that pulls in and concentrates truth, like the apex of a pyramid concentrates the mind to a single upward facing point. The Church, then, is the institutional – and a highly decentralized one – structure for the application of the gospel in the mortal world – the threefold mission of the Church.
But definitions are only the beginning. Dehlin continues:
That Dehlin here places his “spaces” over against the space provided by the Church and the developing Zion culture within it as if his “space” was a necessary addition to some lack, is telling.
This is a banality. So do LDS, and gospel doctrine, indeed, requires this to be the case. Dehlin says this as if he has discovered something that most faithful LDS were unaware of, which, perhaps, is indicative of a fundamental failure on his part to have ever really grappled with and grasped LDS teachings and understood them substantively.
So does the Church. So do I. And?
So does the Church and Church teaching. And?
What does this mean? Much of this appears as standard, pop psychological value/cultural relativism that attempts to defuse any and all criticism by taking all sides. Much of what it says, at base, is and always has been central to LDS teaching, so, here again, Dehlin is pretending to be an oasis in a desert that doesn't exist. The one caveat for most faithful LDS would be "honoring" other religious traditions, because of its vagueness. What is a Mormon doing "honoring" Wicca? New Age philosophy? Haitian Voodoo? Can I respect Buddhism without "honoring" or paying it homage while abandoning my own knowledge of the gospel as truth to do so? Must I honor Taoism as a system, or can I honor only aspects of it, and reserve criticism for the rest? Vague, diffuse, intellectually fluffy value relativism of this kind does have its attraction to a certain kind of mind, and perhaps, this is, indeed, Dehlin's core audience.
This is where the real problems set in. Dehlin is here very cleverly cloaking his real intentions (to facilitate exist from either the Church or from the gospel while remaining within the Church) within a warm blanket of saving and healing. And yet, the pattern he presents, his other words and claims, militate strongly against taking this without a nearby salt shaker at the ready.
Next, if I get around to it, we'll take a look at what the people who Dehlin and Mormonstories has "helped" to see what they actually believe him to be doing, and contrast that, perhaps, to what he claims for himself.
Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity…it embraces everything that comes within the range of the understanding of man. If it does not circumscribe everything that is in heaven and on earth, it is not what it purports to be.
[The gospel] embraces all morality, all virtue, all light, all intelligence, all greatness, and all goodness. It introduces a system of laws and ordinances.
If this is true (and this can be known to be true, according to the doctrines of the restored gospel, through the principle of direct, personal revelation), then Dehlin is, not to put too fine a point on it, selling snake oil to doubting and questioning members, not the least of which is by defining Mormonism down to nothing more than one more closely knit fraternal/social organization with a religious gloss among many.
The gospel, however, is a vortex that pulls in and concentrates truth, like the apex of a pyramid concentrates the mind to a single upward facing point. The Church, then, is the institutional – and a highly decentralized one – structure for the application of the gospel in the mortal world – the threefold mission of the Church.
But definitions are only the beginning. Dehlin continues:
We seek spaces where we as Mormons can live lives of intellectual and spiritual integrity, individual conscience, and personal dignity.
That Dehlin here places his “spaces” over against the space provided by the Church and the developing Zion culture within it as if his “space” was a necessary addition to some lack, is telling.
We acknowledge and honor different spiritual paths and modes of religious or non-religious truth-seeking. We respect the convictions of those who subscribe to ideas and beliefs that differ from our own.
This is a banality. So do LDS, and gospel doctrine, indeed, requires this to be the case. Dehlin says this as if he has discovered something that most faithful LDS were unaware of, which, perhaps, is indicative of a fundamental failure on his part to have ever really grappled with and grasped LDS teachings and understood them substantively.
We recognize the confusion, distress, emotional trauma, and social ostracism that people on faith journeys often experience. We seek constructive ways of helping and supporting people, regardless of their ultimate decisions regarding church affiliation or activity.
So does the Church. So do I. And?
We affirm the inherent and equal worth of all human beings.
So does the Church and Church teaching. And?
We acknowledge and honor different spiritual paths and modes of religious or non-religious truth-seeking. We respect the convictions of those who subscribe to ideas and beliefs that differ from our own.
What does this mean? Much of this appears as standard, pop psychological value/cultural relativism that attempts to defuse any and all criticism by taking all sides. Much of what it says, at base, is and always has been central to LDS teaching, so, here again, Dehlin is pretending to be an oasis in a desert that doesn't exist. The one caveat for most faithful LDS would be "honoring" other religious traditions, because of its vagueness. What is a Mormon doing "honoring" Wicca? New Age philosophy? Haitian Voodoo? Can I respect Buddhism without "honoring" or paying it homage while abandoning my own knowledge of the gospel as truth to do so? Must I honor Taoism as a system, or can I honor only aspects of it, and reserve criticism for the rest? Vague, diffuse, intellectually fluffy value relativism of this kind does have its attraction to a certain kind of mind, and perhaps, this is, indeed, Dehlin's core audience.
In addition to explicitly striving to align all operations with the Mormon Stories Shared Values, we endeavor to ensure that the projects we undertake 1) support individuals in Mormon-related faith crises, 2) save marriages, 3) heal families, and 4) celebrate, challenge, and advance Mormon culture in healthy ways.
This is where the real problems set in. Dehlin is here very cleverly cloaking his real intentions (to facilitate exist from either the Church or from the gospel while remaining within the Church) within a warm blanket of saving and healing. And yet, the pattern he presents, his other words and claims, militate strongly against taking this without a nearby salt shaker at the ready.
Next, if I get around to it, we'll take a look at what the people who Dehlin and Mormonstories has "helped" to see what they actually believe him to be doing, and contrast that, perhaps, to what he claims for himself.
