DiscussMormonism.com

Have you seen this podcast by John Dehlin entitled "The Other Mormon Heroes"? I highly recommend it. Set aside 45 minutes and watch this presentation - you may find it edifying.

http://mormonstories.org/othermormonheroes/The%20Other%20Mormon%20Heroes%20TOC.html





[Even if you wish to argue against it, it would be good to watch it first.]

This podcast increased my appreciation for both Lowell Bennion and Leonard Arrington. I had a chance to chat with Lowell Bennion in his office in the 70's a couple of times. I remember being impressed by how kind and insightful he was.

Is there any way to get this in podcast format?

I got about half way through it.

Correct me if I'm way off. It seems that Dehlin's ulterior motive is to destroy the faith of TBM's by matter-of-factly throwing in the most damning of facts that cast doubts on their perceptions of historical leaders and the church.

I listened to a few of his pods when I was first digging. His style is disturbing to me in that he has this passive (or amoral) twist when speaking of deplorable acts.

I would rather listen to a person that will state their personal beliefs and their true purpose for discourse.

Jason Bourne wrote:Is there any way to get this in podcast format?

It is a podcast I think. It might be somewhat different that Dehlin's other efforts, since this is visual as well as audio.

----------------
Inconceivable, Dehlin seems to be emphasizing those other heroes in the Church whose efforts ran into opposition. He does not mind exposing us to uncomfortable information. I think he wants us to see how history has many untold stories.

moksha wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote:Is there any way to get this in podcast format?

It is a podcast I think. It might be somewhat different that Dehlin's other efforts, since this is visual as well as audio.

----------------
Inconceivable, Dehlin seems to be emphasizing those other heroes in the Church whose efforts ran into opposition. He does not mind exposing us to uncomfortable information. I think he wants us to see how history has many untold stories.

I can't really pin it down any better than I have. On the surface he takes no position, yet he makes a point of working in the dirt to all of his discourses. He is not a friend to the church by any means. The only thing I can see anyone coming away with (regardless of what any given podcast is about) is, "wow, I had no idea Joseph Smith did that..".

I found it a stretch for him to label some of his infamous people as some sort of heros. It was more a justification of mediocrity and corruption.

just my .02

What I came away with was the realization that one can have lofty ideals like Bennion and Arrington, and although faced with adversity, can make a positive contribution to the Church and Society by ultimately doing the right thing. Bennion's support for civil rights and opposition to the Priesthood racial purity ban cost him the directorship of the University Institute which he helped found, but he still persevered as a supportive member and later was vindicated when the Church ended that ban.

I haven't had time to listen through it yet since I'm rather busy and distracted. I flipped through quickly to see who his list would include and it seemed like the "usual suspects." I'll try to come back to it later.

I'm interested in Inconceivable's remarks, though, because that's not how I see Dehlin's approach (which I also have "problems" with, just not those). I'm curious who he sees as examples of mediocrity and corruption, too.

"The church welcomes inquisitiveness" - NOT

"There are no white hats and no black hats in history.. there are just people doing various degrees of their best for humanity and their cause". Though he digresses and states "Things are just more complex than we understand.. " It would seem he makes this quote so that a good TBM will be reminded of their indoctrination that things are to be seen in black and white. He goes on to demonstrate instance after instance of black deads that ought to be overlooked in order to see a white tidbit or two.

A TBM will be left with a bucketfull of dirt that he sees as dirt.

for example:

He begins by referencing the character of Emma Smith by quoting Joseph's reflections of Emma (a positive one), then Brigham Young's - "the damnedest liar and a child of hell" which, according to Brigham Young, were Joseph's actual words before he died. The first view has little meaning when taken in context as spoken by a "prophet"

He goes on to relate a quote condemning poligamy in the 1935 D&C. TBMs that have studied McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" know that this was slipped in without Joseph Smith permission.

Then there is the dirt about Joseph Smith being caught having relations with Fanny Alger and the point that this was the beginning of poligamy without anyone being apprised of it beforehand. Of course this is evildoing, but seemingly not to him. But surely he has an opinion about this. Surely he isn't so amoral that he would not find this reprehensible.

It just goes on and on.

Ah, thanks for your comments! I still haven't gone back, but you make some good points.

"The church welcomes inquisitiveness" - NOT

Heh. Too true!

"There are no white hats and no black hats in history.. there are just people doing various degrees of their best for humanity and their cause". Though he digresses and states "Things are just more complex than we understand.. " It would seem he makes this quote so that a good TBM will be reminded of their indoctrination that things are to be seen in black and white. He goes on to demonstrate instance after instance of black deads that ought to be overlooked in order to see a white tidbit or two.

Yes, I have problems with this approach to history: that we can't "judge" because its all too complex or far away or whatever. Perhaps you are right, though, that Dehlin sees this as a more positive approach than the black-and-white thinking he assumes his audience will start with. I hadn't considered that, but I think you are right that it doesn't go very far in helping someone think differently to begin with the notion that "we can never really know or understand fully" that seems to be the unspoken assumption here. His point after all is really just "appreciation" isn't it? Getting all sides to "appreciate" the other?

I'll add more if and when I look at it. I'm kind of interested given the particular faces in the "rogues gallery" he's assembled.