John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, could you clarify what you meant “it” in the bolded statement?

The so-called First Vision.

I am assuming you mean the subjective experience, as related by Smith, is something he truly believes actually happened to him. Would that be correct? And that the various versions are based on one emotional experience, subjectively interpreted?

In the context of his life as a whole, I can see a historian arguing that he really believed it happened, but not that it has to have actually, objectively happened, unless I am reading your statement too literally. I can also see the argument, however, that his behavior as a whole doesn’t close the door on him faking or embellishing upon this subjective “experience” to further his goals, even if those goals include the intent to do good by establishing a religion.

I’m not a historian either, just looking for some clarification on your statement, because your following statement about “facts” seems to bring in a different context. To me, a non historian, teaching the facts would involve noting and pointing out the discrepancies. I have no problem with a church teaching about a religious experience in the context of religious learning, but this doesn’t rule out objectively considering the process of how a church may have manipulated the portrayal of its history.

A vision, according to my understanding, is a subjective experience. I don’t think it is upsetting if a believer historian simply writes that God appeared to Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820/1.

in my opinion, the over-arching, organizational behavioral reputation of the LDS church is that it obfuscates facts. Pointing out how many documents are now available doesn’t change that assessment.

That’s true. It has that reputation. It earned it partly by restricting access to historical documents. Maybe some credit is due to the Church for doing the opposite.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, being a Mormon is necessarily a bad thing in that it really does not suit a woman who isn’t the type of woman the LDS church thinks ALL WOMEN should uniformly be. And don’t suggest a woman doesn’t really have to live that way to be a Mormon. To be an honest person, a woman who stays in the Mormon church does.

I am glad we are in agreement that being Mormon when it does not suit you sucks.

[_honorentheos]

Maybe some credit is due to the Church for doing the opposite.

Wow.

Again it is difficult to watch you make arguments in defense of religion in a forum you apparently feel is unfairly hostile to such so defense of any kind is apparently warranted. Yet these exact same arguments are used elsewhere to defend political behavior you seem to be fully aware can't be justified using the same level be of argument. I don't see how this can be based on a principled set of beliefs other than based on ones preferences and prejudices.

[_Kishkumen]

Wow.

Again it is difficult to watch you make arguments in defense of religion in a forum you apparently feel is unfairly hostile to such so defense of any kind is apparently warranted. Yet these exact same arguments are used elsewhere to defend political behavior you seem to be fully aware can't be justified using the same level be of argument. I don't see how this can be based on a principled set of beliefs other than based on ones preferences and prejudices.

I am absolutely certain that you don’t.

Well, I don’t find it difficult to watch you do what I am accustomed to see. Yes, this board is predominantly a place for seeing the worst in Mormonism. That doesn’t bother me, and so it is not difficult.

And no, I don’t agree that my arguments are “the exact same arguments are used elsewhere to defend political behavior,” etc.

[_honorentheos]

That's nice. In some circles it's considered necessary to make a case rather than just disagree. Like here usually. Some places like Sic et Non it's cool to just assert things I hear, and claim it's the membership's fault if they never knew about the history. Heaven knows how many times that old chestnut was tossed out because apparently that's what one defaults to when defending Mormonism I guess.

I do think you are better than your argument, Kish. But it's a terrible position you are defending. Absolutely morally reprehensible in itself, actually. Imagine we made your claim a universal truth that applied to all, allowing the privilege of deceit over principle because of internal interest. What a society that would leave us...

[_Kishkumen]

That's nice. In some circles it's considered necessary to make a case rather than just disagree. Like here usually. Some places like Sic et Non it's cool to just assert things I hear, and claim it's the membership's fault if they never knew about the history. Heaven knows how many times that old chestnut was tossed out because apparently that's what one defaults to when defending Mormonism I guess.

I do think you are better than your argument, Kish. But it's a terrible position you are defending. Absolutely morally reprehensible in itself, actually. Imagine we made your claim a universal truth that applied to all, allowing the privilege of deceit over principle because of internal interest. What a society that would leave us...

First of all, you have asserted something, and I have no obligation to disprove your naked assertion. Secondly, I never said it was the members’ fault for not knowing the history. Perhaps you should cool off and not rage read. Thirdly, I am not defending Mormonism. I am advocating tempering our views and being reasonable. The unremitting negativity that colors a lot of what passes as rational criticism in our midst looks borderline hysterical.

All of the silliness about my morally reprehensible argument reads in my mind like you being terribly self-indulgent in your righteous indignation, and in your high dudgeon spouting off as though not being enraged at the LDS Church at every turn will inevitably lead to an age of barbarism.

Such drama!

[_honorentheos]

I'm pretty sure the argument has been that the behavior of church leadership in deceiving the membership into making immensely impactful life choices under the pretenses of authority derived from knowingly manipulating it's history is an immoral act. You claimed religion should not be judge in doing so because it provides some people with some form of cultural services. Thus, principles of right and wrong should not be applied to the behavior of the leadership. You also argued it's an institution where the leadership are just as much a victim as any other member, that to call out this behavior as immoral is equivalent to hating the church or calling the leadership themselves evil or immoral human beings, and even that they deserve credit for the history coming further into the light by opposing it happening thus somehow also enabling it.

Those are not assertions but simply acknowledging your statements as provided and pointing out you don't hold other groups or individuals to the same standard. I believe your comments in this thread, as pointed out serve as evidence from which a conclusion is formed which you don't like but have yet to make a case for a principled moral position that is consistent with your statements. Beginning with asking why you don't hold Trump to this standard while asserting the church does do harm when attacking scholars, I've made a case for your position being one based on a ranking of how you feel towards different groups rather than on a moral philosophical argument. That's all well and good, but using one of the most basic ethical arguments - the categorical imperative - it leaves your position itself in question as to it's moral implications.

[_Kishkumen]

Unfortunately, as has happened between the two of us too often, I do not recognize my arguments in your “recap” of them. Listen, let’s just drop it. I thought you were dropping it, and that was not such a bad idea. The miscommunication here seems chronic, and I am not sure how it can be fixed. I still do not see that you have done anything more than assert something that you feel I need to refute. The difference between us strikes me as one of temperament as much as anything. I am not going to give you what you demand, so this discussion is essentially over.

[_honorentheos]

If you are able to better articulate and defend your argument, by all means. Or is the difference one of willingness to default to ad hominem rather than debate on the merits of one's position?

[_Dr. Shades]

No, stupid is equating the illegal actions of one president with an evolving community’s changing faith narrative.

Let's not neglect the fact that the community is evolving and changing its faith narrative against the wishes of the brethren, NOT in accordance with the wishes of the brethren.