What's new

John Dehlin on Radio West.

♪alt13

Well-Known Member
Tuesday, Doug is joined by John Dehlin, whose popular podcast Mormon Stories focuses on “exploring, celebrating, and challenging Mormon culture in constructive ways.” It’s a mission that’s put him at odds with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On Sunday, they held a disciplinary council to decide whether he will be excommunicated. Dehlin has received a letter with their decision and joins us to reveal what it says. We'll also discuss what it means for his life and his work going forward.

Audio Link

What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Here is the ted talk that allegedly contributed to his excommunication
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MxCXjfAunk
 
Tuesday, Doug is joined by John Dehlin, whose popular podcast Mormon Stories focuses on “exploring, celebrating, and challenging Mormon culture in constructive ways.” It’s a mission that’s put him at odds with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On Sunday, they held a disciplinary council to decide whether he will be excommunicated. Dehlin has received a letter with their decision and joins us to reveal what it says. We'll also discuss what it means for his life and his work going forward.

Audio Link

What are your thoughts?

If you're LDS, and a perv with personal problems or even a merely questioning or unsure "believer", the Mormons will try to "love you up to their standards".

If you're a knowitall with bald statements about what's wrong with the Church, it's leaders or doctrines, they don't know how to "love you up" because it feels like you're dragging them down to something they've already chosen to reject.

According to the news blip I read, he was critical of the "translations" of accepted "scripture" specifically the imaginative "inspired" translation of the Egyptian Book of The Dead and Sydney Rigdon's superposition of Paul's theology on the story Solomon Spaulding wrote about the old Indian Mounds in the Ohio woods. The Church refused to specifically include the issues about women having the Priesthood or Gay Marriage in their letter explaining their decision to excommunicate.

The way I read the news, with the ongoing legalization of Gay Marriage and the womens' Priesthood issue, this means the leaders are already positioning themselves to "obey the law" as decreed by our courts. They haven't really faced the fake scripture issue yet. So they're more comfortable putting that issue out for the public to howl about.

You pervs in here don't treat the Mormons fair. You like your private clubs for your drinking, with their "Members Only" signs. You enjoy all the security that gives you and your reputation, mostly the certainty your wife can't barge in and haul you out. But for some reason you won't allow the Mormons the same privileges in selecting their clientele.

I disagree that this issue has societal equivalency with slavery or any personal rights that means anyone has a duty to reach out, accept, love, or support someone else in some manner. I think hating anyone is stupid, and expecting others to comply with my moral standards is even more obtuse. No one should expect Mormons to change their beliefs or their ways. Hating Mormons is just stupid.

Far from being on some historical trend to social justice, the LGBT community, at least in the effort to establish a "right" set of beliefs, is bound to fail. First of all, it empowers government to get involved in establishing acceptable "beliefs", which means none of us will have the rights of belief or speech, or the right to actually live the way we believe. Once we give government that power, it will be used against us all, perhaps sequentially but certainly.

So it's the construct of the LGBT argument that will eventually bring people to reject their "special" rights and then marginalize them once again. If you don't want to marginalize yourself, you don't define yourself as "different" or "special".

You're no different from a Mormon who believed or thought polygamy was "special".
 
Last edited:
If you're LDS, and a perv with personal problems or even a merely questioning or unsure "believer", the Mormons will try to "love you up to their standards".

If you're a knowitall with bald statements about what's wrong with the Church, it's leaders or doctrines, they don't know how to "love you up" because it feels like you're dragging them down to something they've already chosen to reject.

According to the news blip I read, he was critical of the "translations" of accepted "scripture" specifically the imaginative "inspired" translation of the Egyptian Book of The Dead and Sydney Rigdon's superposition of Paul's theology on the story Solomon Spaulding wrote about the old Indian Mounds in the Ohio woods. The Church refused to specifically include the issues about women having the Priesthood or Gay Marriage in their letter explaining their decision to excommunicate.

The way I read the news, this means that with the ongoing legalization of Gay Marriage and the womens' Priesthood issue, this means the leaders are already positioning themselves to "obey the law" as decreed by our courts. They haven't really faced the fake scripture issue yet. So they're more comfortable pulling that issue out for the public to howl about.

You pervs in here don't treat the Mormons fair. You like your private clubs for your drinking, with their "Members Only" signs. You enjoy all the security that gives you and your reputation, mostly the certainty your wife can't barge in and haul you out. But for some reason you won't allow the Mormons the same privileges in selecting their clientele.

I guess you're talking to me. My only beef as of late was them trying to hold other establishments to a different standard than they would hold people with religious convictions to. Why can't I discriminate gays and be secular? If they can do whatever they like in their establishments I should be free to do the same. But this is kinda besides the point.

As for this Dehlin thing I just find it interesting. His "I'm a Mormon but I'm not a Mormon" thing is different. It's something I haven't heard much of and there are obviously a number of folks that feel the same way. It's like a weird almost agnostic Mormonism. I probably share a confusion about the point of his position with orthodox Mormons.

Also Honestly the jokes kinda on the church here. They just handed the dude a bigger mic. I hadn't heard of him til today.
 
I guess you're talking to me. My only beef as of late was them trying to hold other establishments to a different standard than they would hold people with religious convictions to. Why can't I discriminate gays and be secular? If they can do whatever they like in their establishments I should be free to do the same. But this is kinda besides the point.

As for this Dehlin thing I just find it interesting. His "I'm a Mormon but I'm not a Mormon" thing is different. It's something I haven't heard much of and there are obviously a number of folks that feel the same way. It's like a weird almost agnostic Mormonism. I probably share a confusion about the point of his position with orthodox Mormons.

Also Honestly the jokes kinda on the church here. They just handed the dude a bigger mic. I hadn't heard of him til today.

I agree with the big mike aspect. I guess I just expect people to have their problems and if I think people are not going to be able to just love me, I go out in the desert and talk to cows or something. I don't believe in feeling myself to be a victim.

I was re-working my comment when you quoted it. I guess I'm as tired of Mormon bashing as I am about this issue and maybe a lot of others.

The guy is extremely eloquent and makes his case as well as anyone could.
 
I agree with the big mike aspect. I guess I just expect people to have their problems and if I think people are not going to be able to just love me, I go out in the desert and talk to cows or something. I don't believe in feeling myself to be a victim.

I was re-working my comment when you quoted it. I guess I'm as tired of Mormon bashing as I am about this issue and maybe a lot of others.

The guy is extremely eloquent and makes his case as well as anyone could.

I assure you that bashing is not my intent. Most of the best people in my life are Mormons. I was further lucky I think in that the family role models of what makes a good mormon/person(my grandparents)were very accepting. They concerned themselves with their own actions and they held the ideals of family and loving thy neighbor above all others. Most of my experience with the church and its members has been positive, but...

First that does not mean that if I disagree with the churches position I will keep my mouth shut especially when it involves public policy. Second(and this is what is going on here) I live in Utah. This is a current issue for Mormons and Mormonism. I'm just curious how average Mormons feel about this. When I get the opportunity to bring this up with some of my family they are not going to be offended they are simply going to tell me what they think. Honestly without this type of feedback it would be very hard to continue to understand the majority of people I see day to day. Which would make it hard to communicate with them. Which would make it hard to exist/cooperate with them.
 
Last edited:
From the overall impression I gather the guy was questioning parts of the Mormon faith and trying to persuade others that the Church is wrong which by default attacks their message of divinely inspired. The guy has every right to do so. But the Church has a right to revoke his membership as a result.

I fail to see the problem.
 
From the overall impression I gather the guy was questioning parts of the Mormon faith and trying to persuade others that the Church is wrong which by default attacks their message of divinely inspired. The guy has every right to do so. But the Church has a right to revoke his membership as a result.

I fail to see the problem.

Agreed. The leaders of the club want someone gone... so they threw him out. Standard Practice

LifeonaPlate posted something on his facebook that introduced me to this John Dehlin character.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dehlin

The short(ish) version from what I gathered on Wikipedia:

There are a lot of foul issues that his life experiences and studies taught him about the church and it's overall beliefs, doctrines, and practices. Some beliefs he doesn't feel are right(ordination of women, treatment of homosexuals), some he can cite scientific studies proving are wrong(Book of Mormon taking place in the Americas... really?). Adding it all up, he wanted to raise the BS flag while keeping himself and his followers JUST BARELY inside the line of "member".

At the end there he wrote an email to his bishop requesting no more contact from the bishop, home teachers, visiting teachers, the Relief Society, or any other church leaders. He said that he and his wife would attend the ward when their children did, but "otherwise would like you to please no longer consider Margi and myself as members of the ward.", which to me screams he was being persecuted at the ward level.

His bishop and stake president retorted with the offer of letting him resign, or face a disciplinary committee for his apostasy(used interchangeably with heresy by those outside the church).

It's all fascinating to me. Solid read/research. The guy wanted tangible answers, and quantifiable changes to doctrine. The church wants to be the church and have no public debate on any of it... "will of the Lord" type stuff that is otherwise accepted in just about every other religion on the planet.

I feel for the guy... there's no circle of hell quite like showing someone a clearly defined problem, often one that can be fixed, and being ignored over it. But hey, you don't like the church, make your own. That, too, is what's been done for thousands of years now.
 
Here's the church's statement on the situation, which I don't think has been disputed by Dehlin:
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

Specifically, it says:

...the local leader’s letter delivered to Mr. Dehlin on February 9, ... spelled out the reasons for the local council’s unanimous decision, as follows:

Disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction.
Statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God.

In his letter the local leader stated, “...Our Heavenly Father has given us moral agency to decide how we will live our lives, and cherished free speech rights in this country allow you to openly state your opinions.
But you do not have the right to remain a member of the Church in good standing while openly and publicly trying to convince others that Church teachings are in error.”

If that's an accurate depiction of the situation, which I think it is, then I have no issue with how the local leaders handled things. He clearly doesn't believe in core LDS doctrines, and is actively trying to convince others that the church's teachings are wrong. As I see it, he basically gave the church no option but to remove him from membership.
 
Here's the church's statement on the situation, which I don't think has been disputed by Dehlin:
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

Specifically, it says:



If that's an accurate depiction of the situation, which I think it is, then I have no issue with how the local leaders handled things. He clearly doesn't believe in core LDS doctrines, and is actively trying to convince others that the church's teachings are wrong. As I see it, he basically gave the church no option but to remove him from membership.

I think you're misunderstanding what Dehlin was doing. A big chunk (frankly a large majority) of his work was dedicated to learning how to stay Mormon and embrace the positives of faith while coming to grips with the basic factual problems of the church. You never really found Dehlin unless you had one or two feet out the door anyway and he was really the only person who handled Mormonism positively (and yes, it was handled positively) that was speaking to that audience.

Dehlin was a functional church ally. You just have to take a view outside the institution to see why.
 
Here's a Dehlin example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. This is the back half of his "why I stay" lecture.

I stay because I still consider myself to be a believer – in what…I’m not totally sure. But my heart and soul still impel me to believe in some higher purpose, or power. And when I listen really carefully, I still feel moved and inspired by the whisperings.

I stay because even when I don’t always agree with what is being said across the pulpit --I still feel spiritual nourishment when I attend Sunday church services, General Conference, or when I listen to Music and the Spoken Word -- if I’m open to feeling it,that is. There are spiritual truths in Mormonism that still ring true to me – as inexplicable as this may sound to my non-believing friends.

I stay because I believe that, when functioning at its best, this church is a splendidly beautiful thing to behold – blessing the lives of millions across the globe. Does it occasionally harm people – in some cases irreparably? Absolutely. But to me, the brilliance is also undeniable.

I stay because I believe that if this life has an “enemy,” the LDS church is not it. The elements that vex all of us so-called “liberals” in the church -- bias, political extremism,
closed-mindedness, ignorance, ostracization, bigotry, abuse, backbiting, etc.-- exist pretty much everywhere, including--and maybe especially--within more liberal institutions, and even within liberal podcasts and podcast communities. These frailties are inextricably tied to the human condition. To escape them, you not only have to jettison religion – but human interaction as well.

I stay because the church continually reminds and motivates me to try harder to be a good father, and a good husband. And I need these reminders.

I stay because many of the ordinances, covenants and commandments that I have participated in or observed, still have value and meaning to me.

I stay because I believe in what Jews and Catholics have already demonstrated – which is that major world religions can, eventually, adjust to accommodate varying shades of
belief and disbelief, orthodoxy and heterodoxy. This is, in fact, how they survive. Consequently, I believe that it is now our turn, as Mormons, to figure out how to do this –
how to save our culture…our heritage…and yes…our church. I believe that, in fact, we ARE doing this, and that the past few years, and the next several more, will go down in
the Mormon history books as being particularly influential in helping to create more diverse spaces within the church. I believe that what could be called “Reform Mormonism” is already happening – but that it is happening within the church, instead of as a schism.

I stay because I believe that all Mormons are cafeteria Mormons – some are just more open about it, or aware of it, than are others. For me, having gone inactive for a time, and then coming back to the church on my own terms…as an outed semi-believer…was a crucial step in losing the anger that I once felt towards the church.

I stay because my parents, siblings, children, and most of my in-laws have chosen to remain in the church, in spite of my candor with them, and I want to be able to stay
connected to them in this sacred, meaningful part of our lives.

I stay because I don’t like my children having to sit alone during sacrament meeting, and because nothing better has come along for my family and me. Not yet, anyway.


I stay because of the positive fruits of Mormonism that I regularly witness in the lives of everyday Mormons. Flaws acknowledged, my experience is that in general, Mormons tend to be honest, sincere, hardworking, selfless people who are trying to do what’s right – and this can make them really good neighbors and friends.

I stay because, even with as much room as the church still has to grow, I see it moving in the right direction: away from destructive doctrines and theology, towards historical
candor. Even towards accepting, loving and embracing those of us who were once deemed enemies to the church. Yes the church is slow to change – but it is changing, arguably at a faster rate than it ever has before. And we should give credit where credit is due.

I stay because I do not want to throw away or forget the history, culture, heritage and identity that made me who I am. If you cut a tree down, and try to re-plant it--without its root system— it will not grow. It just dies. And just as a tree needs its root system to grow, I believe that many of us will grow best if we hang on to our heritage and history, our culture, our identity, our social and spiritual roots. Wholesale rejection of my Mormon heritage does not feel healthy – for me, anyway. For me it would feel like
cutting off a limb.

I stay because I still love this church. As dysfunctional, as broken and as misguided as it behaves sometimes – it is no more dysfunctional, broken or misguided than I am – if
I’m being honest with myself.

I stay because maintaining my membership increases my ability and influence to effect positive change within the church.

I stay because I can’t imagine ever shedding my core Mormon identity, or leaving it behind. I am Mormon, to the bone, and always will be. As Joanna Brooks likes to say, it
doesn’t just wash off.

Finally, I stay as perhaps my last, great act of religious faith. I believe – in my heart – that this big, beautiful, and clumsy thing called Mormonism -- that we have loved for so
long -- is somehow big enough and strong enough to withstand, welcome, and even embrace doubters, strugglers, and heretics like us--flaws and all.

I’ll close by reading from 1 Corinthians 12: “The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. But God has put the body together,
giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”

In the end, I stay because Christ’s invitation appears to be open and welcoming to all --even to Mormons like us. Maybe even especially to Mormons like us. Thank you.

It's hard for me to say that guy is a bad church member.
 
I think you're misunderstanding what Dehlin was doing. A big chunk (frankly a large majority) of his work was dedicated to learning how to stay Mormon and embrace the positives of faith while coming to grips with the basic factual problems of the church. You never really found Dehlin unless you had one or two feet out the door anyway and he was really the only person who handled Mormonism positively (and yes, it was handled positively) that was speaking to that audience.

Dehlin was a functional church ally. You just have to take a view outside the institution to see why.

I disagree. I think he was challenging core tennets of Mormon faith and calling them wrong. In a setting where those tennets are considered to be divinely inspired that leaves no room for adjustment or negotiation. It is not the same as saying "I don't get it". It's saying "you're wrong". That is the same as saying "God is wrong" to Mormons. Dehlin knows this intimately.

So no, I do not think he was a good member. I think he was an exceptionally bad one. Good for him for questioning and searching for a theology he can accept and live by. We need more of that in America and the world imo. But it is clear that it is not the Mormon church for Mr. Dehlin and that he was damaging the church congregation and as such was properly removed by the church as a member.

Removing him as a member was good for him and the congregation imo.
 
From the overall impression I gather the guy was questioning parts of the Mormon faith and trying to persuade others that the Church is wrong which by default attacks their message of divinely inspired. The guy has every right to do so. But the Church has a right to revoke his membership as a result.

I fail to see the problem.

From what I heard last night I don't even think Dehlin is disputing whether they have a right to revoke his membership. I think he is questioning whether it is right for them to revoke his membership.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I think he was challenging core tennets of Mormon faith and calling them wrong. In a setting where those tennets are considered to be divinely inspired that leaves no room for adjustment or negotiation. It is not the same as saying "I don't get it". It's saying "you're wrong". That is the same as saying "God is wrong" to Mormons. Dehlin knows this intimately.

So no, I do not think he was a good member. I think he was an exceptionally bad one. Good for him for questioning and searching for a theology he can accept and live by. We need more of that in America and the world imo. But it is clear that it is not the Mormon church for Mr. Dehlin and that he was damaging the church congregation and as such was properly removed by the church as a member.

Removing him as a member was good for him and the congregation imo.

I guess this depends on what your view of a healthy church is: exclusionary or inclusionary.
 
I disagree. I think he was challenging core tennets of Mormon faith and calling them wrong. In a setting where those tennets are considered to be divinely inspired that leaves no room for adjustment or negotiation. It is not the same as saying "I don't get it". It's saying "you're wrong". That is the same as saying "God is wrong" to Mormons. Dehlin knows this intimately.

So no, I do not think he was a good member. I think he was an exceptionally bad one. Good for him for questioning and searching for a theology he can accept and live by. We need more of that in America and the world imo. But it is clear that it is not the Mormon church for Mr. Dehlin and that he was damaging the church congregation and as such was properly removed by the church as a member.

Removing him as a member was good for him and the congregation imo.

Question

Aren't Mormons part of the personal god crowd? That is aren't they supposed to pray and reflect on matters rather than just follow the BOM verbatim?

^holy spirit and what not

^also not an attack just a question
 
I think you're misunderstanding what Dehlin was doing. A big chunk (frankly a large majority) of his work was dedicated to learning how to stay Mormon and embrace the positives of faith while coming to grips with the basic factual problems of the church. You never really found Dehlin unless you had one or two feet out the door anyway and he was really the only person who handled Mormonism positively (and yes, it was handled positively) that was speaking to that audience.

Dehlin was a functional church ally. You just have to take a view outside the institution to see why.

I believe that was true up until about a year ago. But from what I've seen, the tone of his podcasts seemed to change dramatically in the past year.
 
Question

Aren't Mormons part of the personal god crowd? That is aren't they supposed to pray and reflect on matters rather than just follow the BOM verbatim?

^holy spirit and what not

^also not an attack just a question

Yes, that's correct. I like this quote from Brigham Young, for example, and think it accurate represents current LDS teaching on personal revelation from God:

"How do we know that prophets wrote the word of the Lord? By revelation. How do we know that Joseph Smith was called of God to establish his Kingdom upon the earth? By revelation. How do we know that the leaders of this people teach the truth? By revelation... Without revelation direct from heaven, it is impossible for any person to understand fully the plan of salvation. We often hear it said that the living oracles must be in the Church, in order that the Kingdom of God may be established and prosper on the earth. I will give another version of this sentiment. I say that the living oracles of God, or the Spirit of revelation must be in each and every individual, to know the plan of salvation and keep in the path that leads them to the presence of God."
 
.
At the end there he wrote an email to his bishop requesting no more contact from the bishop, home teachers, visiting teachers, the Relief Society, or any other church leaders. He said that he and his wife would attend the ward when their children did, but "otherwise would like you to please no longer consider Margi and myself as members of the ward.", which to me screams he was being persecuted at the ward level.

Interesting because that is not at all what I concluded. I read that and concluded that he was removing himself from the church long before the church acted to remove him. Maybe it is because I have seen it happen a few times, particularly where I grew up. Back then a guy started questioning the church, then started discussion groups, then started his own church. Over time a few, not many, but a few members went with him. And each time they chose to end their association with the church before the church took action to excuminicate. Excomunicate means to put out of the community, but in every instance I have seen for apostasy the person removes themselves from the community first. They would stop coming to church, or refuse visits from the ward or bishop who were still trying.

I have no doubt he had some awkward moments with some ward members, but so does everyone else who attends church for any length of time.
 
I guess this depends on what your view of a healthy church is: exclusionary or inclusionary.

I see it as a difference between questioning and denying.

@heyhey I get that and I would agree with you that he is contesting if they should have not that they can. And from what I gather I think they should have.
 
Back
Top