Who is Dehlin's Target?

[_Kishkumen]

Is there a place for the "ethic Mormon" in the Church today? I don't know, but it doesn't seem that way (not that I'm whining about it, nor begrudging those who want to try to find a place). I think there was more of a place for them yesteryear. I could identify as a "cultural Mormon", that is, one in basic agreement with many "Mormon values", and even some Mormon beliefs, but if it's going to "spoil the party", I'd rather remain outside. No point hailing stones at "the party", simply because I don't pay its taxes, obey/like its laws, support its leaders, and don't live in that country.

Well, Ray, you're here on this board, participating in this community that largely revolves around things LDS. Some of us would say that, contrary to your protestations, you still are, in many ways, Mormon. I can imagine someone forwarding a persuasive academic argument that your own denial of that fact should not be considered decisive.

In my view the only thing we are arguing about is how open people should be allowed to be about various states and versions of belief while still openly affiliating with the community in some way. It is not as though there are not people who believe all kinds of things, or don't believe them, who participate in the LDS Church at all levels. People have differing views on matters as fundamental as what a testimony is, that most important marker of LDS identity. Some feel it is a powerful, life-changing epiphany, others just a sense that Mormonism works. With such a range of experience and views, I find it laughable that anyone presumes to claim Mormon as this narrow, bcspace-like category which only the purest in doctrine and ideology may occupy.

Any community has these nuts who insist that Democrats are communists, or Republican are Nazis, or people who use contraception are apostates. The problem with a lot of apologists is that, even in spite of broader views they have in other areas, they often come across as these extremist, exclusionary bigots in their writings. They seem to be fighting the culture wars in their publications, and this muddies the waters as badly or worse than the idiosyncrasies and alleged heresies of the people they go after.

Being so close to this, it seems to me you have declared your surrender with your mouth, Ray, but your feet are still firmly grounded in the community of those whose life is steeped in Mormonism in one way or another. I find that highly interesting.

[_RayAgostini]

Being so close to this, it seems to me you have declared your surrender with your mouth, Ray, but your feet are still firmly grounded in the community of those whose life is steeped in Mormonism in one way or another. I find that highly interesting.

I wish I could say it was so in real life, but it isn't. Mc Murrin (from yesteryear) wrote volumes on Mormonism ("mouthing" if you like) while never setting foot in Church, and although he sometimes attacked the likes of Packer, he generally took a favourable view of Mormonism. His interests in Mormonism were largely from philosophical and theological points of view, and he entirely embraced that. For him Mormonism was, I suppose, a great part of his "life of the mind" and reflective thought as a philosopher. I doubt he would have engaged in any of the current "battles".

In that sense (still viewing Mormonism as philosophically and theologically very interesting), you are right about me (I like to try to work out how it may fit a Universalist point of view, too). I head off to work in about one hour, and Mormonism isn't even going to cross my mind until I return to "Mormon-related boards" until some time tomorrow. But you're right, when I "engage it", it's very interesting.

[_Kishkumen]

I wish I could say it was so in real life, but it isn't. Mc Murrin (from yesteryear) wrote volumes on Mormonism ("mouthing" if you like) while never setting foot in Church, and although he sometimes attacked the likes of Packer, he generally took a favourable view of Mormonism. His interests in Mormonism were largely from philosophical and theological points of view, and he entirely embraced that. For him Mormonism was, I suppose, a great part of his "life of the mind" and reflective thought as a philosopher. I doubt he would have engaged in any of the current "battles".

In that sense (still viewing Mormonism as philosophically and theologically very interesting), you are right about me (I like to try to work out how it may fit a Universalist point of view, too). I head off to work in about one hour, and Mormonism isn't even going to cross my mind until I return to "Mormon-related boards" until some time tomorrow. But you're right, when I "engage it", it's very interesting.

Well, take care and be safe at work. You might guess that I don't necessarily privilege in real life Mormonism over URL Mormonism.

[_static]

Jesus disagrees with you:

No, he doesn't.

I'm not sure why you think he's "leading members down this path." He has simply stated what his own views are--bearing his testimony, as it were. His "mission," as I understand it, is merely to help people once they have their own faith crisis. He's offering an alternative to FAIR, FARMS, and SHIELDS.

Do you really consider SHIELDS relevant? Just curious, because to me it looks like they never left 1995. The reason it is my opinion that JD is leading members down a particular path is because, like many, he claims to "be one of them" when, in fact, he believes very little of the truth claims of the church (if any).

[_static]

Can you give us an example of a specific concern about the Church you've had and the specific answer God gave you?

I can't think of one off the top of my head. But, I do know that God usually gives answers through our interactions with other people. So, it was probably answered in church, or through any number of friends or family.

Also, as you may be aware, many subscribers to Meldrum's theories have received personal revelation that his geography is true and that the Mesoamerican theory is false -- meaning it is false. You're OK with this, I'm sure.

Yup.

Even if I grant you are right, the purpose of the missionary guide and PR campaign rolled out by the brethren is specifically geared to rise above "human nature" for the greater good of the campaign on this matter. It's human nature to have sex outside of marriage, do you blame people for doing so? It's ineffective to cure apostasy this way, if it somehow worked, you'd have at least half an argument.

So, what you're saying is that the playing field isn't fair. It's severely tipped in favor of the critics. Not being bound by a set of ethical guidelines gives one a huge advantage. I have to say that I agree.

Don't the apologists also do their fair share of cherry picking?

I suppose they do. Again, the playing field is unfairly balanced in favor of the lawless.

Well, anyway, I thank you for providing the quotes from his website, I was way off in my understanding of his project.

Has your opinion of JD changed?

[_Nevo]

Nevo is someone who's intelligence I respect, and This is how he feels.

Since I've already broken my vow of silence with regard to this board, let me say this: Ray, I would be thrilled if you returned to activity in the Church just as you are. "As all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another..." (D&C 88:118).

I have no problem with doubters in the Church, none at all (I am one). My issue with Dehlin concerns him setting himself up as a light to members confronting faith crises. I think he's well meaning, but from my vantage point he has done more harm than good.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Do you really consider SHIELDS relevant?

FAIR does---it lists them as an "affiliate" in their Links section.

Just curious, because to me it looks like they never left 1995. The reason it is my opinion that JD is leading members down a particular path is because, like many, he claims to "be one of them" when, in fact, he believes very little of the truth claims of the church (if any).

"One of them"? You're going to have to cite specific text here. Where does he say this, and how is it used rhetorically to "lead members down a particular path"? For this to be true, you'd have to demonstrate that he's trying to persuade people to do and believe as he does. So let's see the evidence.

[_Kishkumen]

I have no problem with doubters in the Church, none at all (I am one). My issue with Dehlin concerns him setting himself up as a light to members confronting faith crises. I think he's well meaning, but from my vantage point he has done more harm than good.

My problem with the NMI publishing a Greg Smith critique of Dehlin is that such action implies a certain authority behind his opinion, which may or may not exist. One member with no stewardship over another member should not be able to use the imprimatur of a Church organization to lend his personal criticism of another member such an appearance of authority. It stacks the deck unfairly against the criticized member. If there is to be a disciplinary action or counsel to desist from Mormon Stories activities, it should come through proper priesthood channels, not from Greg Smith and the NMI.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have no problem with doubters in the Church, none at all (I am one). My issue with Dehlin concerns him setting himself up as a light to members confronting faith crises. I think he's well meaning, but from my vantage point he has done more harm than good.

How is his approach more harmful than, say, that of FAIR or FARMS or SHIELDS?

[_Kishkumen]

I have no problem with doubters in the Church, none at all (I am one). My issue with Dehlin concerns him setting himself up as a light to members confronting faith crises. I think he's well meaning, but from my vantage point he has done more harm than good.

How is his approach more harmful than, say, that of FAIR or FARMS or SHIELDS?

Touché. Big touché.