John Dehlin wasn't a real Mormon

[Jason Bourne]

Back in March and April of 2016, various media outlets cited Mr. John Dehlin, who was at the time still a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as expressing his giddy excitement about the new Broadway musical comedy The Book of Mormon:



I thought Mr. Dehlin’s remark extremely silly. But I’m amused to see that, while one purported Latter-day Saint once tried to portray The Book of Mormon as a Latter-day Saint Fiddler on the Roof, some Jews are now supposedly hoping for a Jewish Book of Mormon.

Is this common within Mormonism now? To say that excommunicated Mormons must have not ever really believed in Mormonism? It seems pretty distasteful. And I've seen this particular angry online Mormon speak this way about many of his fellow Mormons - doubting their sincerity. I don't think I've ever come across Catholics disparaging fellow Catholics in this way, or Jews disparaging their fellow Jews.

Current TBMs need to do everything they can to disparage former active members that have left. It causes horrible cognitive dissonance and challenges their precious "testimony." THis has been goi ng on forever. "OH they never really had a testimony" blah blah blah.

[sock puppet]

Is this common within Mormonism now? To say that excommunicated Mormons must have not ever really believed in Mormonism? It seems pretty distasteful. And I've seen this particular angry online Mormon speak this way about many of his fellow Mormons - doubting their sincerity. I don't think I've ever come across Catholics disparaging fellow Catholics in this way, or Jews disparaging their fellow Jews.

Current TBMs need to do everything they can to disparage former active members that have left. It causes horrible cognitive dissonance and challenges their precious "testimony." THis has been goi ng on forever. "OH they never really had a testimony" blah blah blah.

And then it leads to segregation steps being taken (shunning) by the one remaining as a TBM of the departed Mormon. The insulation, keeping the TBMs from the erosive effects of being around ex-Mo's, is essential to keeping their testimony.

[Fence Sitter]

Based on today's criteria, Joseph Smith himself wasn't a real Mormon.

[malkie]

Setting aside the question of whether the apparent direct quote exists, it is a common "no true Scotsman"-type of reaction. I'm sure that many of us on this board have had such post hoc reasoning aimed at us.

My reply has been to ask exactly when it became clear that I was not a true believer, because many people who knew me well, including my priesthood leaders, clearly seemed to be convinced that I was one. Does that perhaps indicate that my leaders were lacking in "true" inspiration?

The Scotsman fallacy is a necessary and needed reaction. Without it a member instead has to come to grips with the alternative: A person who was once a stalwart believer has now left.

I had a few long conversations with the EQ president in my ward, a person that I still consider a good friend, after my departure primarily about my reasoning but also about the shock it caused him. He shared that it was very difficult for him to come to terms as he had always viewed me as a strong member that he could depend on and turn to within the gospel. Me leaving with no obvious reasons why (save the ones I had given him) left him with some heavy cognitive dissonance. He admitted that it made him question his writing off of other members leaving. Perhaps he had been too quick to assume about their reasoning and he had some real searching to do about his narratives on that front.

Most folks, whether we are talking about faithful LDS or any other tribal group, aren't self aware enough or prepared to have those kinds of conversations. It is so much easier to hand wave the problem away. And make no mistake we're all susceptible to it. I've caught myself writing someone off because of a disagreeance of beliefs before so this is just another great reminder to check my assumptions about others at the door.

Several years after I left, I ran into my former High Priest Group Leader. He said he had wanted to talk to me about my departure, but it turned out that he was not interested at all in my reasons. What he was concerned about was that during his time as group leader I was the only HP who had become inactive. He wanted me to start attending again so that he would have a perfect retention record.

I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback that he was so open about his lack of concern for me as a person. Of course, it may just have been that he wanted to avoid any discussion about the causes of my disaffection.

ETA: Yes, I have also been forced to think hard about how poorly I treated some folks when I was the "strong" member and I judged that they were spiritually weak.

[Xenophon]

Several years after I left, I ran into my former High Priest Group Leader. He said he had wanted to talk to me about my departure, but it turned out that he was not interested at all in my reasons. What he was concerned about was that during his time as group leader I was the only HP who had become inactive. He wanted me to start attending again so that he would have a perfect retention record.

I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback that he was so open about his lack of concern for me as a person. Of course, it may just have been that he wanted to avoid any discussion about the causes of my disaffection.

ETA: Yes, I have also been forced to think hard about how poorly I treated some folks when I was the "strong" member and I judged that they were spiritually weak.

Oof, that is a rough one and I'm sorry about that. The ironic part is that I imagine if members focused instead on the well-being of the folks they wished would return they might have much better success at getting them back into the fold. Quite a few of the former members I know in real life didn't really have deep issues with historical problems or even hang-ups on cultural issues. For many of them it boiled down to a value judgement where they no longer were getting more out of attendance than they felt they were having to put in. If a few more members were to approach them as people and talk to them as humans instead of numbers for a pew who knows where they might have ended up.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

… but it turned out that he was not interested at all in my reasons. What he was concerned about was that during his time as group leader I was the only HP who had become inactive. He wanted me to start attending again so that he would have a perfect retention record.

That is so weird. Like, what’s in it for him? I swear if the Morms would put the energy into a portfolio they put into their meaningless corporate dreck callings they’d all be retired by the age of 40.

- Doc

[malkie]

… but it turned out that he was not interested at all in my reasons. What he was concerned about was that during his time as group leader I was the only HP who had become inactive. He wanted me to start attending again so that he would have a perfect retention record.

That is so weird. Like, what’s in it for him? I swear if the Morms would put the energy into a portfolio they put into their meaningless corporate dreck callings they’d all be retired by the age of 40.

- Doc

Simple pride - "holier than thou".

[malkie]

Several years after I left, I ran into my former High Priest Group Leader. He said he had wanted to talk to me about my departure, but it turned out that he was not interested at all in my reasons. What he was concerned about was that during his time as group leader I was the only HP who had become inactive. He wanted me to start attending again so that he would have a perfect retention record.

I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback that he was so open about his lack of concern for me as a person. Of course, it may just have been that he wanted to avoid any discussion about the causes of my disaffection.

ETA: Yes, I have also been forced to think hard about how poorly I treated some folks when I was the "strong" member and I judged that they were spiritually weak.

Oof, that is a rough one and I'm sorry about that. The ironic part is that I imagine if members focused instead on the well-being of the folks they wished would return they might have much better success at getting them back into the fold. Quite a few of the former members I know in real life didn't really have deep issues with historical problems or even hang-ups on cultural issues. For many of them it boiled down to a value judgement where they no longer were getting more out of attendance than they felt they were having to put in. If a few more members were to approach them as people and talk to them as humans instead of numbers for a pew who knows where they might have ended up.

Several years ago, well before his excommunication, I went to talk to Bill Reel while I was on a trip from Canada to Utah.

As I told Bill at the time, if he and I had had that discussion earlier in my disaffection it might have "saved" me as an active disbeliever. He made a pretty good case for cultural Mormonism for those who, for one reason or another, were done with the religion per se. And, yes, If I recall correctly, much of what Bill had to say was about simply treating people decently, regardless of their state of orthodoxy.

I believe that the church made a mistake in pushing out Bill, and others like him, rather than working with them to enlarge the tent.

[drumdude]

It’s easy to see bill as a bitter angry ex Mormon now. But if you listen back to his believing podcasts, he was really trying to make it work. The bitterness and angriness comes from a place of real sorrow of being shunned by a church he loved so much. And gave so much to.

[Xenophon]

Several years ago, well before his excommunication, I went to talk to Bill Reel while I was on a trip from Canada to Utah.

As I told Bill at the time, if he and I had had that discussion earlier in my disaffection it might have "saved" me as an active disbeliever. He made a pretty good case for cultural Mormonism for those who, for one reason or another, were done with the religion per se. And, yes, If I recall correctly, much of what Bill had to say was about simply treating people decently, regardless of their state of orthodoxy.

I believe that the church made a mistake in pushing out Bill, and others like him, rather than working with them to enlarge the tent.

I can definitely see that. I recall a conversation on Peterson's blog years ago where I mentioned that I think basically all members who don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon will eventually leave the Church. Several posters there agreed with me but I think we agree for very different reasons. I see no reason it MUST be that way, just that culturally they will eventually find themselves in a place where they won't feel welcome and that value judgement will slowly shift away from wanting to stay.

Obviously if I had a magic wand or was king of the world I'd expand that tent like you suggest but that doesn't seem to be how they want to go about it. Since they see that approach as having the backing of revelation from God I doubt we'll see that shift in my lifetime. I can't even promise it would ultimately result in more members as I can see it driving away a large portion of the more orthodox members. I just think the result would likely be a healthier organization with a clearer focus on the organizational good it can be in people's lives. Understandably they have different goals.