John Dehlin update

[_Kishkumen]

It's been said a few times, Kish - a community of people *that Dehlin built and led* has been abandoned by it's leader, and not just abandoned for anything, but abandoned for the very thing that betrayed that community. Whatever the weaknesses are that brought people to that community are moot; the fact is, Dehlin set himself up as a Hubbard or a Smith or a Moon, and then walked away.

That was a crummy thing to do.

H.

Hey, LDST. I simply don't agree that he set himself up as a Hubbard, Smith, or Moon. I think that MoSto was probably nudged a little too much in that direction for my personal comfort, but there is a world of difference, in my view, between what John actually did, and what the people on that list claimed and imposed on their followings.

But, I understand that I did not allow myself to fall into that orbit sufficiently to feel burned. Am I not admitting as much?

Thing is, I simply don't get into the charismatic leader thing. No matter which costume it wears. Nor do I like to set others up in my imagination to be such.

[_Kishkumen]

Would it help if I provided a definition of authentic in this context?

What about a life that is as free of doublethink, doublespeak and cog dis as one can make it?

To me, an authentic life means a life wherein one does not have to lie to themselves or others about what they believe. According to this definition, maintaining belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary would not be a hallmark of an authentic life.

Do you really believe that John Dehlin will be able to return to full fellowship in the LDS Church without lying to himself or others?

If John Dehlin is now back "in", will he be able to get a temple recommend without disavowing at least some of what he has said about the truth claims of the LDS Church?

Can you imagine John bearing his testimony as to the truthfulness of the Gospel, given what he has stated publicly about the troubling aspects of Church history?

Please do not misunderstand. As mentioned in my post above, I have a great deal of respect for John and I think he has done a great service to many, including my now NOM - soon to be post-mo - wife.

Given what he has done, I am just not sure that an honest return to full fellowship will be possible, even though I have no doubt that both John Dehlin and the Church hierarchy would like nothing more than to claim that this is not only possible, but will eventually be achieved.
__________________________________________

ETA: Is it really possible to know all the facts about the LDS Church and still truly believe?

I claim that it is not. I claim that one who makes such a statement is making a fool of themselves. Perhaps worse, they are attempting to make a fool of anyone to whom they make such a statement.

I think a lot of things are possible. And, I get how people thrive on consistency and predictability, whether they are Mormons or not. We judge John Dehlin based on our own understanding of what he has said and the plausibility of him being able to change his mind, walk back, or reinterpret any of it. Since I have watched more than one person return to Mormonism after leaving it, people who know the ins and outs as well or even better than either of us, and I have seen that they are sincere, and heard their reasons for doing so, I have no trouble seeing John Dehlin do what he is doing. In fact, I don't think it is at all surprising.

It may not be for you. In other words, you can't imagine how you could do what John Dehlin is doing. But then you aren't where he is. You don't know what he is thinking, and you can't say you do. So, I take your statement as a marvelous reflection of your own mindset right now, but I think it has next to nothing to do with what John Dehlin is going through.

So, sorry to be harsh about the word authentic. I think it a highly suspicious word, even when defined in a particular way. It is, in a sense, much like the word 'moral,' which is similarly abused. Indeed, one might even call it the new age version of moral. But, so be it.

I apologize for being brusque.

[_DrW]

Would it help if I provided a definition of authentic in this context?

What about a life that is as free of doublethink, doublespeak and cog dis as one can make it?

To me, an authentic life means a life wherein one does not have to lie to themselves or others about what they believe. According to this definition, maintaining belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary would not be a hallmark of an authentic life.

Do you really believe that John Dehlin will be able to return to full fellowship in the LDS Church without lying to himself or others?

If John Dehlin is now back "in", will he be able to get a temple recommend without disavowing at least some of what he has said about the truth claims of the LDS Church?

Can you imagine John bearing his testimony as to the truthfulness of the Gospel, given what he has stated publicly about the troubling aspects of Church history?

Please do not misunderstand. As mentioned in my post above, I have a great deal of respect for John and I think he has done a great service to many, including my now NOM - soon to be post-mo - wife.

Given what he has done, I am just not sure that an honest return to full fellowship will be possible, even though I have no doubt that both John Dehlin and the Church hierarchy would like nothing more than to claim that this is not only possible, but will eventually be achieved.
__________________________________________

ETA: Is it really possible to know all the facts about the LDS Church and still truly believe?

I claim that it is not. I claim that one who makes such a statement is making a fool of themselves. Perhaps worse, they are attempting to make a fool of anyone to whom they make such a statement.

I think a lot of things are possible. And, I get how people thrive on consistency and predictability, whether they are Mormons or not. We judge John Dehlin based on our own understanding of what he has said and the plausibility of him being able to change his mind, walk back, or reinterpret any of it. Since I have watched more than one person return to Mormonism after leaving it, people who know the ins and outs as well or even better than either of us, and I have seen that they are sincere, and heard their reasons for doing so, I have no trouble seeing John Dehlin do what he is doing. In fact, I don't think it is at all surprising.

It may not be for you. In other words, you can't imagine how you could do what John Dehlin is doing. But then you aren't where he is. You don't know what he is thinking, and you can't say you do. So, I take your statement as a marvelous reflection of your own mindset right now, but I think it has next to nothing to do with what John Dehlin is going through.

So, sorry to be harsh about the word authentic. I think it a highly suspicious word, even when defined in a particular way. It is, in a sense, much like the word 'moral,' which is similarly abused. Indeed, one might even call it the new age version of moral. But, so be it.

I apologize for being brusque.

No need to apologize. This is a civil discussion.

The point I am trying to make does not rise or fall on whether or not the term authentic is valid, or even applicable, in this context.

When people base their decisions and subsequent actions on beliefs they know to be false, or unsupported by evidence, then they are lying to themselves. While it may make them feel good to do so, it is generally a recipe for eventual disaster. This applies in one's personal life as well as in the lives of communities and nations.

Institutionalized lying is corrosive. No matter how good they might make one feel, lies represent a decoupling from reality. Eventually reality catches up, just as it has with the Book of Abraham, Blacks and the Priesthood, Prop 8, Book of Mormon genetics and many other instances of institutional lying by the LDS Church.

While I do not claim to understand what John Dehlin is "going through", I do know that his choice to go back to the LDS Church is a choice to support an organization that has raised institutional lying to a fine art.

While I respect John Dehlin, I cannot respect his apparent choice in this.

You seem to want to remain subjective when commenting on this issue. That's fine, so long as you recognize the objective reality that most of the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church are demonstrable false. Anyone who knows that, and yet returns to, or continues support of, the LDS Church, is making an informed choice to condone institutional lying.

[_RockSlider]

Anyone who knows that, and yet returns to, or continues support of, the LDS Church, is making an informed choice to condone institutional lying.

Possibly in trade off for business ventures.

I know that's ugly to think or say, but after getting his family situation settled I don't see him staying active long term based strictly on his personal beliefs, other than for the ugly statement above.

I do appreciate John for all he has done and I do wish him well in this new direction. I'm not even sure the above statement is that ugly, as I do believe John will have a lot to offer those whom he will counsel with. If John is good with being any type of Mormon who is "in", why not enjoy the business benefit that might be associated with his being "in".

"I owe my soul to the company store", don't we all in our own ways?

Go for it John and God bless!

[_DrW]

Anyone who knows that, and yet returns to, or continues support of, the LDS Church, is making an informed choice to condone institutional lying.

Possibly in trade off for business ventures.

I know that's ugly to think or say, but after getting his family situation settled I don't see him staying active long term based strictly on his personal beliefs, other than for the ugly statement above.

I do appreciate John for all he has done and I do wish him well in this new direction. I'm not even sure the above statement is that ugly, as I do believe John will have a lot to offer those whom he will counsel with. If John is good with being any type of Mormon who is "in", why not enjoy the business benefit that might be associated with his being "in".

"I owe my soul to the company store", don't we all in our own ways?

Go for it John and God bless!

As stated so eloquently by Tennessee Ernie Ford, most of us do owe (at least some of) our soul to the Company Store.

Mormons I know feel they owe more than most.

[_Hermes]

I cannot disaffiliate from all the communities I exist in merely because they do some harm. I would have to renounce pretty much every association I have (beyond immediate family) and live in the woods somewhere as a hermit (without the steel Palerobber mentions). So I do not expect others to renounce their harmful associations. I do not expect individual North Koreans to rise up and rebel actively against their government. I do not expect John Dehlin to rise up and rebel against the LDS church. People do what they have to in order to survive. As long as they don't try to make me do what they do, I let them go their way with my goodwill.

[Guest]

-

[_DrW]

I cannot disaffiliate from all the communities I exist in merely because they do some harm. I would have to renounce pretty much every association I have (beyond immediate family) and live in the woods somewhere as a hermit (without the steel Palerobber mentions). So I do not expect others to renounce their harmful associations. I do not expect individual North Koreans to rise up and rebel actively against their government. I do not expect John Dehlin to rise up and rebel against the LDS church. People do what they have to in order to survive. As long as they don't try to make me do what they do, I let them go their way with my goodwill.

Well put.

I trust that the comparison of North Korea to the LDS Church was not unintentional.

[_Equality]

[_Infymus]

Ok Equality that really made me LOL!