John Dehlin on Radio West.

[Stoked]

"John Dehlin: Okay, but you’ve expressed that you guys don’t like the public expression of
doubt.

Bryan King: No. It’s okay—well… not true. Everybody has doubts.

John Dehlin: I’m talking about the public expression of doubt.

Bryan King: You can publicly express that you have a doubt.

John Dehlin: You can?

Bryan King: You can.

John Dehlin: Okay.

Bryan King: The problem that comes that I have is when people come to you, or align
themselves with you—and then they become more comfortable in their doubts because you
have doubts.

John Dehlin: Which I have no control over.

Bryan King: Well, you do in a sense that you express them publicly.

John Dehlin: So it is about expressing doubts publicly.

Bryan King: This is a circular argument."

This makes it pretty clear what they thought of him expressing doubts, and questioning tenants. Again, when not allowed to do this, it is very dangerous for a church.

In my opinion, based on what and how he is "questioning" particular tennets, I think he is being disengenous here. Especially since he is recording this without the other parties knowledge. Smells of a gotcha attempt to me. The guy even says you can question and tries to paint a difference between that and actively working against the church. Even if he did a terrible job of it.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Again, we disagree on the "questioning". I do not think that is what he was doing and I do not think that is how the Church saw it.

In fact, Elder Uchtdorf, who has a little pull in the church said the following:

It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions.

and reminded us that the church

was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth.

 

[sirkickyass]

I agree with you, especially the part about excommunication not being the right answer. I wish the church would either do away with it all together or reserve it for the most extreme cases (whatever those might be). Also, about the church being better served with guys like him as thei allies, I hope that's true, because, to be honest, in terms of his beliefs, I don't differ much from him. I am pro gay marriage, if weren't indifferent to it, I'd be pro OW, I don't care if scripture stories are literal or not rather the principles contained in them are what is important, I don't ever say "I know" and whether or not the church is the "only true church" is irrelevant.

Here's the thing, I think a plurality of members are in that camp with you and Dehlin. You and he might disagree about the degree to which you care about historicity, but I believe you have much much more in common than not. That's what makes the wedge all the more painful. When members, lapsed and former, say that they don't feel like the church has a place for them it's going after guys like Dehlin that makes them think that.

Later in the transcript he points out the position of OW is that they just want the leadership to pray to God and ask for continuing revelation regarding ordaining women with the priesthood. Most of the members of OW similarly love the church and want to stay in, but even asking the leadership to consult is too much as long as they do it in such a way that people know they have questions. This is sort of like apostate Don't Ask Don't Tell. I think we've all learned that Don't Ask Don't Tell is a terrible policy.

The biggest difference is that I don't have a podcast. I don't shout my beliefs from the rooftops and I certainly don't try to convince anybody else that my way is the right way. My last two Bishops know all that I described above about me, yet one put me in a Bishopric and made me scoutmaster, while the other put me in primary, then High Priest Group leadership.

And here is where I learn that the bishopric is full of secret apostates.

 

[Hantlers]

Perhaps if the church wants people to ask questions and search for answers, then they should give those people the answers that they are looking for.

 

[Stoked]

Perhaps if the church wants people to ask questions and search for answers, then they should give those people the answers that they are looking for.

Having had the job I do for over a decade many times people don't want the right answer but instead what vindication of their feelings.

But what ever, we disagree on that part so no point in beating the deadhorse.

 

[sirkickyass]

In fact, Elder Uchtdorf, who has a little pull in the church said the following:



and reminded us that the church

Replying to your quote from Uchtdorf:

Do we think that Dehlin was not honestly searching for truth?

We all know that I'm not religious, but to the extent that he existed and what is recorded of his physical acts on earth are true, it's clear that Jesus fella was one hell of a guy. If I was even 1/4th that understanding and tolerant of other people, and 1/10th as generous, I would be one smug mother****er indeed. I'm with my oldest and wisest muse Kurt Vonnegut on the Jesus question:

If what Jesus said was good, and so much of it was absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?

If Christ hadn’t delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn’t want to be a human being.

I would just as soon be a rattlesnake.

Revenge provokes revenge which provokes revenge which provokes revenge — forming an unbroken chain of death and destruction linking nations of today to barbarous tribes of thousands and thousands of years ago.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Perhaps if the church wants people to ask questions and search for answers, then they should give those people the answers that they are looking for.

Yes they should. Apologies would be nice too, among other things.

 

[Hantlers]

Having had the job I do for over a decade many times people don't want the right answer but instead what vindication of their feelings.

But what ever, we disagree on that part so no point in beating the deadhorse.

So you think the church does not need to answer members questions? To minister to their doubts? If we are the body of the church, and we are called to be of one mind and one spirit, then how is the church not ministering to their members needs a good thing? Or am I just misunderstanding what you're saying.

Also, I'd really appreciate an answer on the BoA thing...how does the church reconcile that the papers they discovered don't say what JS said they did? As a Mormon, what do you think of it Stoked?

 

[seattlejazzfan]

Replying to your quote from Uchtdorf:

Do we think that Dehlin was not honestly searching for truth?

We all know that I'm not religious, but to the extent that he existed and what is recorded of his physical acts on earth are true, it's clear that Jesus fella was one hell of a guy. If I was even 1/4th that understanding and tolerant of other people, and 1/10th as generous, I would be one smug mother****er indeed. I'm with my oldest and wisest muse Kurt Vonnegut on the Jesus question:

First, I don't want to defend the church's decision to ex Dehlin and I certainly won't defend that SP after reading the transcript you linked. I don't think it is right and disagree vehemetly with the decision, but again, it isn't that he expressed doubts, disagreed with the church or had questions, rather it's the public nature in which he communicated his positions.

The church is saying, have your doubts and your questions, but don't try to persuade others to believe similarly. Again, I disagree with that stance, but let's at least try to be accurate.

 

[Stoked]

So you think the church does not need to answer members questions? To minister to their doubts? If we are the body of the church, and we are called to be of one mind and one spirit, then how is the church not ministering to their members needs a good thing? Or am I just misunderstanding what you're saying.

Also, I'd really appreciate an answer on the BoA thing...how does the church reconcile that the papers they discovered don't say what JS said they did? As a Mormon, what do you think of it Stoked?

I never said the Church shouldn't answer peoples questions. Nor did I even vaguely imply it. I agree with you that it would be good policy for the Church to do so. We disagree on that being what Mr. Dehlin was doing though.

As a "Mormon" who has not gone to church in several years, doesn't pray, doesn't have FHE, doesn't read the scriptures or even wear my garments or honor most tennets of the Church I haven't paid close enough attention to it.

But if he said they say "x" and it has been proven they say "y" then he lied, right?

Please do not tie that into a Mr. Dehlin was right argument agaisnt me as I have never questioned his right to seek the truth or even hotly contest Mormon theology. Simply that he is doing so in a way that the Church could not accept and as such they were right to break formal ties with him.

 

[Hantlers]

I was more just curious to see what members thought, and I thought you were a practicing one. Wasn't trying to offend or catch, more just curious.

 

[Stoked]

I was more just curious to see what members thought, and I thought you were a practicing one. Wasn't trying to offend or catch, more just curious.

Fair enough. But nope, not a practicing Mormon. I do have a postive opinion of the Church though.

Conan would be a good target but he is MIA. EJ Wells or Colton maybe?

 

[Hantlers]

I'd also love to hear Trout expound on what he said he was studying in class. Sounds interesting.

 

[colton]

Also, I'd really appreciate an answer on the BoA thing...how does the church reconcile that the papers they discovered don't say what JS said they did? As a Mormon, what do you think of it Stoked?

You can read the church's position about the historicity of the BoA here: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng.

My own opinion is that first, it's by no means certain that the documents that have been found in fact include the ones that Joseph translated. See here, for example, for the most detailed comparison I know of between what has been found vs. what people in Joseph Smith's day described. https://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml#point1

Second, I've always believed the text of the Book of Abraham is what must be considered scripture, not the "facsimiles", i.e. sketches with brief descriptions. (If you're not familiar with the facsimiles, you can view them here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp?lang=eng.) So if one of the facsimiles matches something in the Book of the Dead, that doesn't really affect my view on the truthfulness of the BoA text itself.

Third, it seems possible that the Egyptian documents triggered a revelation even if they themselves didn't contain the words being revealed.

 

[Hantlers]

The fascmiles are considered a part of the book, right? And the book was canonized by the church, meaning that the church, and Joseph Smith, believed everything to be true by holy revelation. So if the fascmiles are considered a part of the book by the church, then one would assume that the fascmiles being found to be false translation would erode the reliability of the book.

For example, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, 95% of the current version of Isaiah was accurate compared to the Qumram version. Of that 5%, it was primarily spelling and some missing letters. Isaiah 53 is a famous example, of the 166 words, only 17 letters were different from the Qumram version, and none of them had any affect on the literal meaning of it. So we have background and evidence of Biblical Word being found, and translated correctly. We know that it has happened. So why not here with the fascmile? Was it the documents causing revelation, or was it somebody translating incorrectly hoping he wouldn't get caught? I know which one makes more sense to me.

 

[colton]

The fascmiles are considered a part of the book, right? And the book was canonized by the church, meaning that the church, and Joseph Smith, believed everything to be true by holy revelation. So if the fascmiles are considered a part of the book by the church, then one would assume that the fascmiles being found to be false translation would erode the reliability of the book.

As far as I know, Joseph Smith didn't describe the translation process of the Book of Abraham, and unlike the Book of Mormon, we have no eyewitness accounts of how the book was translated. So we don't really know how, or even if, the facsimiles related to the text of the book. And we don't have any record (that I know of) of Joseph Smith considering the information in the labels of the facsimiles to be canonical. So while it is reasonable for some to consider the facsimiles & labels to be scripture, I think it's also reasonable for others to consider the facsimiles to not be scripture.

As another alternative, the first link I gave you, https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng, points out that "The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers... Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure."

So there's no reason why the facsimiles couldn't symbolize two different things.

 

[colton]

This seems pretty one-sided, but I just ran across this response to Dehlin's excommunication, https://mormonvoices.org/3280/excommunication-of-john-dehlin. To quote part of it,

As Dehlin’s influence grew, he initiated organizations around the United States and other parts of the world known as “chapters” of his Mormon Stories organization. “Mormon Stories Retreats” were also initiated. These chapters and retreats encouraged individuals who were in the process of leaving the Church and abandoning their faith to gather together for support as opposed to turning to Church leaders for spiritual counsel and support. Testimonials of disbelief were common in such meetings, and the organization served to provide a church-like setting so as to ease the social aspects of departure from the faith.

John Dehlin also co-founded a website that was originally designed to assist individuals who no longer believed in basic tenets of the LDS faith in maintaining their social ties to the Church through deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops about their commitment to the Church.
...
Between 2012 and 2014, Dehlin responded to criticisms from vocal ex-members of the Church who had recently withdrawn public and financial support for his foundation, claiming that Dehlin had ceased to be true to himself. In response to these accusations, Dehlin resumed open criticism of the LDS Church by publishing recordings of sacred temple ordinances which members are instructed not to discuss outside the temple, renewed interviews with prominent Church critics such as Simon Southerton and Brent Metcalf, and provided publicity to organizations that undermined the Church or taught doctrine contrary to the doctrines of the Church.

Did he seriously host retreats with anti-testimony meetings, tell people to lie to their bishops, and post recordings of temple ordinances? If so, I'm shocked that his excommunication took this long to happen.

 

[spycam1]

Wait...Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Abraham and the church admitted it was false? I had never heard that before.

So from what I'm reading, people who can actually read Egyptian looked at the papyrus and learned that it wasn't the book of Abraham, but funeral arrangements? Or am I off?

I'm honestly more intrigued by the Book of Abraham stuff. If true, would be a big blow to Smith's reputation.

As far as subject of OP, if he doesn't like the BoM and that stuff, but still likes the Bible, community and church, maybe he should try a more traditional church. The church doesn't owe him a response, but they certainly look worse by not responding to his claims.

I've researched the topic before. I'll try to give you my basic version:

This is the Anti-Mormon argument:

Premise 1: Smith is said to have translated the Book of Abraham from some Egyptian papyrus.

Premise 2: Said papyrus was found in recent times and experts in the fields of Egyptology and hieroglyphics (including those of Mormon faith) agree that Smith's English translation does not match up with the Egyptian papyrus.

Conclusion: Joseph Smith's "translation" is purely fictional, and he is therefore a fraud.

Whether Mormonism is factual or fictional, this is an example of valid logic, but not sound logic. Meaning, the above conclusion is directly drawn from its premises, but not all the premises are actually true (which I'll get to explaining).

Here's another example of logic that is valid, but not sound:

Premise 1: Cats are felines.

Premise 2: Cats are dogs.

Conclusion: Dogs are felines.

The conclusion certainly draws directly from its premises in a step by step fashion, but the problem is that Premise 2 isn't actually true.

Based on my understanding, the same is most likely true in the case of the Book of Abraham. Why? Well, let's start with where Smith acquired the Egyptian papyrus in the first place.

Smith encountered a trader in possession of three mummies, with them he found what he believed to be the BOA. So, he purchased these mummies, along with all of the accompanying papyrus that came with them.

Now, what experts say Smith's papyrus is is the Book of the Dead. It is a document that was buried with people that included instructions of what to do and where to go when they awoke in the after life. So, because Smith purchased three mummies, it's likely there was not only one copy of the Book of the Dead, but three (along with what he considered to be the BOA).

Fast forward to after Smith's death. One of his wives gave all of the papyrus that Smith had to The Museum of Chicago, which shortly after burned down.

Many years later (early 2000's, I believe?) some of the papyrus was found and given back to the LDS Church. However, it is only an estimated 10% of the total amount of papyrus that was originally given to the museum.

So, knowing that 90% of the papyrus that was in Smith's possession was lost, why would one assume that that specific surviving papyrus is the one he used to translate the BOA? And why would the fact that it's actually the Book of the Dead be bothersome when it's most likely he was in possession of three copies of it (along with what he claimed to be the BOA)?

It's clear that the found papyrus was in possession of JS. But it's most likely that--whether he was a fraud or not--the found papyrus is not what he used for translating the BOA.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I've not followed the arch of Dehlin's 'career', so I don't know how far off the orthodox rails he's gone, but I can say that when my brother was questioning his testimony and wavering about his belief, he found great comfort in Dehlin's podcasts, and Dehlin was absolutely instrumental in helping my brother calm the troubled seas of his testimony and find answers/comfort.

As someone who's spent a good deal of time reading and debating Mormon apologists, it is clear that many apologists hold very heterodox beliefs, or at least offer heterodox explanations for troubling aspects of LDS theology and history, including outright disputing pronouncements by "God's anointed." Yet, they are never, as far as I know, hauled before an LDS 'Court of Love,' to answer for their heterodoxy.

I agree that the LDS Church has a right to regulate its membership, including setting up and enforcing rules for disfellowshipment/ excommunication, but this is far from the same thing as saying that every exercise of this right is right, morally just, wise, etc. It would, for example, be wise NOT to punish loyal opposition within its ranks, as I can 'testify' (though not beyond a shadow of a doubt) that these people play a critical role in helping keep wavering Saints in the fold. Many members cannot identify with the marblesque perfection of the prophets and apostles (every feeling inadequate compared to these nearly flawless exemplars of human virtue), but they CAN identify with the ordinary Saint who is struggling with his/her own beliefs and human frailties, but who wants to believe and who has found some way (even if heterodox) to make it work.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

But what if archeological evidence ends up proving that the Nephites were here? I'm not talking about conspiracy garbage, but honest to goodness evidence. I've spent the last year researching the topic and am studying it at Dixie State. It's only a matter of time before it becomes more than just a story that Joseph Smith made up.




*edit* This was supposed to be a reply to ElRoach's first post and his assertion that the people of the BoM were never here.

Really? I'd be curious to know what significant finding is about to be published in a peer reviewed academic publication (outside of FARMS, the Maxwell Institute, Sunstone, or other LDS publications) that support the existence of a pre-Columbian civilization in Meso America that:
1. Was Christian
2. Had a horse culture
3. Forged steel
4. Drove chariots
5. Had Hebrew genetic markers
6. Name myriads of other BoM anachronisms here.

Remember, the key here is a non-LDS academic journal, where experts in relevant fields of study publish peer-reviewed articles. I'm not talking about anything doctrinally related either, but rather objectively verifiable scientific evidence, that meets peer review muster, that the BoM civilizations existed.

It seems to me, my friend, that you've been imbibing too liberally in the LDS apologist cool aid.