John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Kishkumen]

Another good example of Mormon immorality is the Temple Endowment. You have to solemnly and eternally agree to “it” on pain of everlasting penalty before you know what “it” is. That’s coercive and immoral.

Here is one place where much could be done to improve matters. Members should know more about the temple before they go through. I think the shroud of secrecy surrounding it is understandable but unnecessarily thick. Those things that are not to be revealed by covenant are relatively few in number.

I don’t think, however, that the intention was to be coercive. The intention was to protect the sacredness of the House of the Lord and His ordinances. The law of unintended consequences is at work here. Efforts to protect sacredness have backfired and produced a sense of alienation. The temple should be better integrated into the daily experience of all Mormons, or less emphasis should be placed on the necessity of participating in its ordinances.

[_Stem]

I think Dehlin's statements works and resonates with people because people have been hurt. It sucks leaving religion especially one as exclusive as Mormonism. It's gut-wrenching to lose religion. It sucks to see typical reactions by associates, and it is excruciating to deal with loved ones who see you in a different way.

I think it's in that context where Dehlin's statement makes sense. The problem is its such a simplistic view of the situation. I thought the whole first vision thing was a good example. It's not that the leaders don't know about the different versions its simply that they feel convicted that the vision is best represented, most completely described in the official version--the one where Joseph claimed he was going to come out and tell it truthfully. I disagree with them, but I can't imagine why that would make them immoral.

If you break it down to issue after issue, the leaders conclude differently than most here. There may be something wrong with the logic they employ. They are likely being driven by their belief that God is behind them, and that He has personally told them in their hearts that the Church is true, type of thing. Calling their efforts immoral isn't helpful. It also seems to lack any degree of putting yourself in their shoes. They don't feel stuck peddling lies. They feel emboldened by that which they call truth.

[_Meadowchik]

If it was just a simple history textbook, the editor might be easily forgiven for only selecting one version for its students. But this is not that. The gravity of standing as God's authority on earth should magnify the necessity for epistemological humility. Their process, then, deserves hyperactive scrutiny, especially their own. Anything, then, that is knowingly misleading about the basic facts of that process is highly problematic and at some point would be immoral.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Dehlin's statements works and resonates with people because people have been hurt. It sucks leaving religion especially one as exclusive as Mormonism. It's gut-wrenching to lose religion. It sucks to see typical reactions by associates, and it is excruciating to deal with loved ones who see you in a different way.

I think it's in that context where Dehlin's statement makes sense. The problem is its such a simplistic view of the situation. I thought the whole first vision thing was a good example. It's not that the leaders don't know about the different versions its simply that they feel convicted that the vision is best represented, most completely described in the official version--the one where Joseph claimed he was going to come out and tell it truthfully. I disagree with them, but I can't imagine why that would make them immoral.

If you break it down to issue after issue, the leaders conclude differently than most here. There may be something wrong with the logic they employ. They are likely being driven by their belief that God is behind them, and that He has personally told them in their hearts that the Church is true, type of thing. Calling their efforts immoral isn't helpful. It also seems to lack any degree of putting yourself in their shoes. They don't feel stuck peddling lies. They feel emboldened by that which they call truth.

Well said, Stem.

[_Kishkumen]

If it was just a simple history textbook, the editor might be easily forgiven for only selecting one version for its students. But this is not that. The gravity of standing as God's authority on earth should magnify the necessity for epistemological humility. Their process, then, deserves hyperactive scrutiny, especially their own. Anything, then, that is knowingly misleading about the basic facts of that process is highly problematic and at some point would be immoral.

Faith and epistemological humility is an interesting combination. For instance, how many people rise from the dead and are taken up to heaven before the eyes of witnesses? Perhaps we should discuss the statistical likelihood of that occurring every time communion is administered in Christian churches. Perhaps Christians should sing a hymn about how that never happens, one should honestly admit it, and then pick apart Gospel accounts as late, inaccurate accounts of Jesus’ life composed to make it look like Jesus was fulfilling misinterpretations of ancient Hebrew prophecies.

Jesus might have existed
But we don’t really know
We just love the symbolism
While we suffer here below
Suffer here below

People do not come to life
After they’ve been dead
But we still love the tale of Jesus
Soothing to the heart not head
Not, indeed, the head

They say there is no heaven
And they’re likely right
But we need this mythic crutch
To make us feel alright
To get us through the night

Let us drink the wine
Let us eat the bread
We do not know that Jesus did
Or exactly what he said
If anything he said

Anything lacking this acknowledgment of historical probabilities in Christian worship is arguably immoral by Dehlin’s standard.

[Guest]

Can one make the case that the Mormon church came to a "crunch "point" when the question of whether the church narrative of foundational claims would be a faith promoting narrative or "let's tell the truth warts and all " narrative? And the decision (who made that decision by the way?) was to embark on a faith promoting highly correlated narrative of church history, theology,doctrine, the character of Joseph Smith etc. The highly correlated narrative still exists today, not withstanding some efforts by Jensen and Snow and others to have the church be "more transparent" , eg rock in the hat translation process.

Embarking on the faith promoting narrative led to a ton of work to keep the lid on issues popping up on the internet and just might be the point the church sold itself out to the adversary who was probably the leaders themselves!!

k

[_Physics Guy]

And here is how I see your meth doctor analogy falling apart. Most people openly agree that illicitly dealing highly addictive substances under the table is immoral. Most. And the doctor doing this is clearly violating the law. Many of the issues that we are taking the Church to task for are not clear cases on which there is near universal consensus.

I agree that this is an issue but I wouldn't say it makes the analogy fall apart. The analogy's point isn't that we have to lock up the Brethren. It's that doing some good in the world doesn't excuse one for also doing evil, if the evil could be removed without losing the good. Saving a life doesn't entitle the life-saver to a free murder.

Just how bad it is, what the Mormon leaders are doing, is certainly more debatable than murder or meth-dealing. And it may be that some of the harm they do is inextricably bound up with some of the good they do. If they could do less harm while still doing the good they are doing, however, and they simply choose not to stop doing that harm, then to me that's immoral.

The issue of innocent intent is not so straightforward to me for leaders, either. I'm sure there are Boeing executives who can honestly say they didn't know there was anything wrong with their 737 program. As executives, though, they should have made it their business to know that there was something wrong.

[_Kishkumen]

I agree that this is an issue but I wouldn't say it makes the analogy fall apart. The analogy's point isn't that we have to lock up the Brethren. It's that doing some good in the world doesn't excuse one for also doing evil, if the evil could be removed without losing the good. Saving a life doesn't entitle the life-saver to a free murder.

Just how bad it is, what the Mormon leaders are doing, is certainly more debatable than murder or meth-dealing. And it may be that some of the harm they do is inextricably bound up with some of the good they do. If they could do less harm while still doing the good they are doing, however, and they simply choose not to stop doing that harm, then to me that's immoral.

Yeah, I get the point of your analogy in terms of its logic and how you intended it to be used. Rhetorically, however, the appropriateness of the parallel does impact its persuasiveness. A better parallel might be a doctor who prescribes outdated treatments despite being trained in more up-to-date methods. That also addresses the problem of how the harm and the good they do is inextricably bound up. People arguably find meaning, strength, and solace in faith, but what happens when the story of the faith consists of problematic history?

What the analogy leaves out is the fact that the leaders of the LDS Church are doing something to address the problems. It is not as though they do not know, do not care, and have not acted, however inadequately.

It is also not the case that their primary motivation for doing what they do is self-interest. I doubt a meth doctor is acting in anyone's interest but his or her own when that person sells meth.

[_Physics Guy]

The doctor who prescribes outdated treatments is indeed a better analogy than my meth dealer doc. It expresses the point I wanted just as well, but as you say it also works in the issue of how entwined the good and harm may be. The way in which it works in this issue even fits the Mormon case nicely, since the main charge against the Mormon leaders is that they have stuck with outdated dogmas. If doctors do stick with outdated treatments it's likely in part for the sake of trust and comforting familiarity, and the reassurance that an experienced doctor gives to a frightened patient is a genuine part of the good that a good doctor does.

I also accept that your analogy is more rhetorically fair in that it breaks much less bad. So I'm happy to drop my analogy in favor of yours, which is just better all round.

I still think it leaves a significant charge against Mormon leaders, much as Dehlin expressed. The Mormon leaders may be guilty of the kind of immorality of a doctor who goes on offering familiar treatments when better ones are available—and the doctor either knows that they are available, or could and should know that they are.

[_Kishkumen]

The doctor who prescribes outdated treatments is indeed a better analogy than my meth dealer doc. It expresses the point I wanted just as well, but as you say it also works in the issue of how entwined the good and harm may be. The way in which it works in this issue even fits the Mormon case nicely, since the main charge against the Mormon leaders is that they have stuck with outdated dogmas. If doctors do stick with outdated treatments it's likely in part for the sake of trust and comforting familiarity, and the reassurance that an experienced doctor gives to a frightened patient is a genuine part of the good that a good doctor does.

I also accept that your analogy is more rhetorically fair in that it breaks much less bad. So I'm happy to drop my analogy in favor of yours, which is just better all round.

I still think it leaves a significant charge against Mormon leaders, much as Dehlin expressed. The Mormon leaders may be guilty of the kind of immorality of a doctor who goes on offering familiar treatments when better ones are available—and the doctor either knows that they are available, or could and should know that they are.

One thing that I have unfortunately come to learn in the past two decades is that some people are seemingly impervious to new and better information. They honestly believe in the phony treatment or unsubstantiated cause of an illness. Some of these people are even doctors. They are sincere, and I think it is absolutely tragic that this should be the case. Unfortunately, the problem is so pervasive in humanity (manifesting, of course, in different forms) that one must conclude that it is endemic to the species.

In cases such as this I look at words like immoral as a strong rhetorical device that may overreach the mark. Now, it is always possible that these things are the result of cynical self-interest and callousness, but I have my strong doubts. I tend to think that this reflects the weakness of humanity and not its craven, callous, and selfish nature.