DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:54 pm**

Aristotle, thanks for your post and your analysis.

I honestly believe that John ended up weighing everything. His family, his career, the threat of excommunication, the scare he states he had "outside the church" that almost caused him to leave his wife and kids, the negatives that come with allowing the church to control his life again, the cog/dis of attending church with his eyes fully open to it's flaws, loosing some of his friends, gaining new friends, and so on.

After weighing it all, going back to church must be a net win for him.....for now anyway.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:57 pm**

Hermes wrote:Not in my experience, Lulu. I include myself in the category of people, by the way.

I guess I still have that Mormon American Arminianism in me.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:55 pm**

An intelligent person recognizes that human beings are a mix of cognition and emotion that intermingle in ways we are not always cognizant of. All of this BS about being truly rational is naïve. The atheist can be as superstitious as the religious person, and probably most of us are in our own way. Religious practice can be a practical, even humble response to the virtues and liabilities of the human condition. Thoughtful and humble atheism can be too. So can thoughtful and humble Protestantism.

I take the word "thoughtful" as referring to the conscientious and aware way in which one grapples responsibly with the issues in one's own religious tradition or philosophy. The word thoughtful in no way demands that the religion concerned have a deep philosophical or theological tradition, or that it square with reason in all its particulars. Show me the Scientologist, the atheist, the Taoist, or the Evangelical who strives to be a careful and conscientious human being with compassion for others, and I will show you a person who is to be respected for thoughtfulness.

I shouldn't expect more than that, and I wouldn't make fun of a thoughtful Scientologist. I hold John Dehlin to be a thoughtful, albeit flawed person, trying to make his way in the world. I hold in little esteem flogging him publicly for it, or ridiculing his good faith efforts.

There's the more you asked for, smart guy.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:15 pm**

Amen, Kishkumen.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:20 pm**

Kishkumen wrote:I hold John Dehlin to be a thoughtful, albeit flawed person, trying to make his way in the world.

I completely agree. I know that John has spent countless hours selflessly trying to help others. I completely and honestly wish him happiness and I hope he and his family can heal. My comments regarding this whole episode have not meant to be personally aimed at John, but at how it's played out so negatively for many. I really don't even believe that he meant to throw such a negative light on the ex-Mormon community and he probably regrets bringing that part up now.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:54 pm**

Kishkumen wrote:An intelligent person recognizes that human beings are a mix of cognition and emotion that intermingle in ways we are not always cognizant of. All of this BS about being truly rational is naïve. The atheist can be as superstitious as the religious person, and probably most of us are in our own way. Religious practice can be a practical, even humble response to the virtues and liabilities of the human condition. Thoughtful and humble atheism can be too. So can thoughtful and humble Protestantism.

I take the word "thoughtful" as referring to the conscientious and aware way in which one grapples responsibly with the issues in one's own religious tradition or philosophy. The word thoughtful in no way demands that the religion concerned have a deep philosophical or theological tradition, or that it square with reason in all its particulars. Show me the Scientologist, the atheist, the Taoist, or the Evangelical who strives to be a careful and conscientious human being with compassion for others, and I will show you a person who is to be respected for thoughtfulness.

I shouldn't expect more than that, and I wouldn't make fun of a thoughtful Scientologist. I hold John Dehlin to be a thoughtful, albeit flawed person, trying to make his way in the world. I hold in little esteem flogging him publicly for it, or ridiculing his good faith efforts.

There's the more you asked for, smart guy.

None of which I disagree with, but you really do seem to have a side hobby of misinterpreting and distorting most of the things I write. To set up my response, allow me to quote myself from this very thread:

Aristotle Smith wrote:I think the basic problem is that if your heart and your head are not going the same direction, you are not going to stick with something. One side can overpower the other for a few months or years, but the repressed side usually resurfaces with a vengeance and you end up going in circles.

I have never argued for a pure rationalism and have always argued for a balanced approach to faith. Indeed, one of the things that attracted me to Wesleyan theology was its balanced approach to faith issues in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. In simple terms it says that scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (which includes emotions) all should brought to bear on matters of faith.

But I don't see that Dehlin's approach is balanced. I see him rebuilding the proverbial shelf and placing all intellectual concerns there while basing all faith decisions on non-intellectual foundations. I don't even think saying that is controversial, he says as much at the beginning of part 3. I don't think that approach works in the end, and may account for the fact that he has gone back and forth between activity/inactivity so many times. In the other thread a wished him well and practically begged him to stay where he now is for his own sake and for the sake of his family.

Being intellectually and emotionally conflicted on issues of faith simply is not conducive to healthy living, and I would hope that a therapist would never suggest doing that (or being engaged in it himself). I don't consider it particularly thoughtful to do that. Many of us were told to do exactly that by our Bishops when we brought concerns to him, which usually leads to the LDS church being publicly crucified on the DAMU boards, such as MD. But, I thought it unfair that naïve Bishops are held up to ridicule while others who advocate the same actions are praised and admired.

Posted: **Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:57 pm**

Bob Loblaw wrote:
lulu wrote:Unfortunately, its not even that.

It's the best at creating guilt.

Quit knocking the Jews, man.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:01 am**

Aristotle Smith wrote:I have never argued for a pure rationalism and have always argued for a balanced approach to faith. Indeed, one of the things that attracted me to Wesleyan theology was its balanced approach to faith issues in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. In simple terms it says that scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (which includes emotions) all should brought to bear on matters of faith.

Yes, and I think you are misreading me too, although I think I am more to blame for that. My point about reason is not directed at you in particular. It is a broader message to the board. What I threw in for you was the bit about a deep philosophical or theological tradition in the faith under discussion. Mormonism does not have the rich intellectual background of Wesleyan thought, and its leadership is explicitly hostile to intellectual criticism of any kind.

I have the greatest sympathy for a Mormon who is attempting to be thoughtful in his or her faith. It is a lonely, rough road. You say John's approach isn't balanced. Yeah, probably because a public expression of such balance would land him in exactly the same place he has been, with spies, both in Provo and his own stake, watching his every online move, with his stake president interviewing him on a weekly basis, with bozos in the Mopologetic community writing hit pieces about him.

The whole thing is completely absurd.

Why are things this way? Because Mormonism is an authoritarian religion with almost no substantive intellectual tradition, or, at least, one recognized in its general discourse. Nevertheless, I think there is, on the level of personal exploration and spirituality, plenty to chew on, and I respect those who continue, in the face of the corporate fascism of the institutional church, try to soldier on.

Being intellectually and emotionally conflicted on issues of faith simply is not conducive to healthy living, and I would hope that a therapist would never suggest doing that (or being engaged in it himself). I don't consider it particularly thoughtful to do that.

I think it remains to be seen what John will do as a therapist, and I think it highly unfair of you to judge him based on this podcast, especially when you are aware of the kind of scrutiny he has been put under over the past several years. The reason I responded negatively to you is this kind of snarkiness about thoughtfulness, which I think offers no grace to John for all he has tried to do, and all he has been subjected to. I consider John a thoughtful person, and I believe that the tradition he was drawing on in using the term "a thoughtful faith" is very high-minded and noble.

From my vantage point you appear to be shooting fish in a barrel on this, and it looks pretty ugly.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:08 am**

Aristotle Smith wrote:
Sammy Jankins wrote:Eventually the intellectual side reignites and you end up back where you started.

Yes, and we have seen it happen repeatedly. I lost track during the podcast, but this is the 3rd or 4th return to the LDS church since 2005. I think the basic problem is that if your heart and your head are not going the same direction, you are not going to stick with something. One side can overpower the other for a few months or years, but the repressed side usually resurfaces with a vengeance and you end up going in circles.

Sort of like a puppy chasing his own tail.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:09 am**

Kishkumen wrote:An intelligent person recognizes that human beings are a mix of cognition and emotion that intermingle in ways we are not always cognizant of. All of this BS about being truly rational is naïve. The atheist can be as superstitious as the religious person, and probably most of us are in our own way. Religious practice can be a practical, even humble response to the virtues and liabilities of the human condition. Thoughtful and humble atheism can be too. So can thoughtful and humble Protestantism.

I take the word "thoughtful" as referring to the conscientious and aware way in which one grapples responsibly with the issues in one's own religious tradition or philosophy. The word thoughtful in no way demands that the religion concerned have a deep philosophical or theological tradition, or that it square with reason in all its particulars. Show me the Scientologist, the atheist, the Taoist, or the Evangelical who strives to be a careful and conscientious human being with compassion for others, and I will show you a person who is to be respected for thoughtfulness.

I shouldn't expect more than that, and I wouldn't make fun of a thoughtful Scientologist. I hold John Dehlin to be a thoughtful, albeit flawed person, trying to make his way in the world. I hold in little esteem flogging him publicly for it, or ridiculing his good faith efforts.

There's the more you asked for, smart guy.

Thanks for that. I see far to many folks that equate atheist with rational. I've known my share of irrational atheists and rational theists. Humility and thoughtfulness are, in my opinion, much more important than whether a person falls into the atheist/theist box.

I'd still be tempted to make fun of any Scientologist, though. :wink:

DiscussMormonism.com

A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!

Re: A Thoughtful Faith? O The Irony!