John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Kishkumen]

Amen. But can we agree that a meaningful step toward getting past disillusionment to this place you describe is facilitated, for a large percentage of population, by the public service that folks like Dehlin absolutely serve, which is to fly a banner in the sky that invites people to embrace their anger, says it’s going to be OK, you’re not alone, your feelings are valid and others are here to embrace them with you. That function may require varying tactics of aggressive marketing because unfortunately the programming has been equally aggressive. Personally I don’t get any value from Dehlin anymore, but there was a time when I realized how necessary a role he serves for church members dealing with the worst kind of emotional trauma. This says nothing by the way about whether I think John is a good person or a moral leader. Had to add that.

I do see a role for someone to tell people they can own their anger. It is important to be validated in the processing of feelings during a time of doubt or loss of faith.

Still, I fundamentally disagree with Dehlin’s statement about immoral behavior in Church leadership above. It is incorrect or misconceived in a variety of ways. So, by all means, embrace those suffering when they suffer, but do not manufacture bogeymen out of other Mormons who do not share that disillusionment and anger. Don’t accuse them of being immoral for believing and acting on those beliefs. John says some clumsy things that create division, when he is trying to do his best to stand with those who suffer.

I applaud his intentions, and I think he does a lot of great things. This statement is not one of them.

[_Gadianton]

I'm mixed on dehlin's statement. Realistically, people create social institutions and social institutions govern people's choices and realistically, the packaged life deal a person gets out of Mormonism isn't that bad compared to other packages out there. There are also other tight-knit communities where shunning happens in principle or practice to the same degree as Mormonism or worse.

What may be unique to Mormonism in my view is the sheer force of the "it's true!" mythology. I can't give the leaders credit for being smart enough to pull this off in terms of a plot. Somehow, and perhaps this would make for a great grad-student paper at the MI, the singularly defining meme of being a Mormon has become "it's true!". I can't tell you how many times I had seminary teachers nearly in tears as they struggled to communicate, "guys, it's true...it's true and if nothing else you just need to know that." No matter how big the fund is or mistakes by leaders or anything else, it's true, and we just know you have to stick with it. The flip side of the "it's true" meme supports Dehlin's position in a very real way. I can't count the number of times I have heard, "If it wasn't true, I wouldn't be here!" A particular Book of Mormon teacher at the Y who had a Harvard theology Phd used to say that if there wasn't a God, he would be the baddest guy around, and that if the Church wasn't true, he'd be gone in a flash (or something). And then there are the statements by Joseph Smith, and perhaps it was Joseph Smith's evil genius that got this stone rolling down the hill, that if he were to find another organization with more truth than Mormonism, he'd leave for it in an instant. And so Dehlin and pretty much the entirety of Chapel Mormon culture agrees on the point that either the Book of Mormon is true, or it's the greatest lie the Devil ever produced. And so theoretically, when an apostate leaves because the lies stack up and there's just no way it's true, they are on sure footing theoretically, per Mormonism's own theology, it's just that they go against the fine print that says, "by the way, the Church can't be false."

Where it gets questionable is Dehlin also has an advanced degree in psychology, right? And so he can't possibly hold the Church to it's own standards in the long run, he needs to consider it in terms of the much better ideas of men that frame social institutions, and at a certain point, it's helpful to realize that while yes, the Church is obviously false, it's also not really that far off from any other uptight institution out there, I'd say it's within a standard deviation from the norm.

[_moksha]

If you view this from the perspective of a corporation it is only amoral.

Putting aside whether a product is actually new and improved if it cleans your laundry adequately then it is performing as expected.

[_Physics Guy]

I can't speak about disenchantment with Mormonism in particular. I do have mixed feelings now about some of the religiously motivated choices I made in my twenties. I don't think too many middle-aged people are perfectly happy with everything they did in their twenties, though. And I'm not completely sure that just spending less time in churches and Bible studies would automatically have made me a rock star. If I were to meet my younger self now I wouldn't scream at him to get out of anything; I'd just suggest over beer that he could afford to chill out a bit more. So up to a point I think I can empathize with ex-Mormons but only up to a point.

Finding out that you're a standard deviation below the norm kind of sucks if you've always thought you were far, far above the norm. It could be worse, but you're not used to having to think that way.

For what it's worth I also doubt that Mormon leaders are deliberately deceiving anyone. I think that Dehlin has an important point, however, about the situation of people building their lives to a significant degree upon lies. That's not harmless. It's quite a bad thing in itself. And the leaders may not have been consciously telling the lies, but there's such a thing as culpability by criminal negligence.

The leaders have done a lot of damage to a lot of people. Okay, say they did it unknowingly. Still they really ought to have appreciated that the kind of thing they were doing would be pretty rotten if what they believed should happen not to be true. And then, appreciating that, they ought to have investigated more, just to be sure. I mean, if I pull something from the fridge just for me to eat, I might overlook a slight smell because it's probably safe and it's only me. If I'm serving dinner to family and guests, though, I'm supposed to apply a higher standard of food safety.

In the case of Mormonism there are so many iffy-smelling things. It's hard to believe that anyone as smart as most Mormon leaders who had really exercised due diligence in checking out the iffy things would still have gone on proclaiming Mormon truth so firmly. So it's hard not to feel that Mormon leaders have failed to exercise due diligence and are responsible for encouraging a lot of people to base their lives upon lies. They may not have known what they were doing but they should have had doubts.

[_honorentheos]

To focus on one example among many, there are people in the leadership who, knowing the facts about the first vision, still choose to present the official narrative as irrefutable fact. They have it written into manuals, taught in the standard block, make movies about it, bear testimony of it, destroy or hide written evidence that called it into question and otherwise decide for others what information is valuable for them to have or act on
Does the possibility they choose to see it as black and white, and are sincere in believing the official narrative is the correct one make their actions of presenting one version while hiding others moral or even neutral? No. It's deeply immoral behavior. It's also arrogant and anti-democratic. I agree with Dehlin on this one.

[_Kishkumen]

People generally know what it is in their interest to know and what is rewarding for them to know. That is as true of the most educated person in society as it is the most ignorant. One cannot assume that being smart makes one right, or that being smart and wrong makes one immoral.

[_Stem]

I think there's also room to suggest some particular action by a leader is immoral. I think Joseph Fielding Smith's action of trying to hide the 1832 version of the first vision as the Church Historian is an immoral act. I don't think that means the leaders of today are being immoral for thinking the official version is the best representation of history.

If we extend Dehlin's point out to others, the point feels meaningless to me. It seems to me we'd all be pointing fingers of scorn at each other crying immoral, all because we each tend to see things our own way.

[_honorentheos]

I think there's also room to suggest some particular action by a leader is immoral. I think Joseph Fielding Smith's action of trying to hide the 1832 version of the first vision as the Church Historian is an immoral act. I don't think that means the leaders of today are being immoral for thinking the official version is the best representation of history.

What's immoral is making the decision for others. That includes the current leadership, not just JFS.

People generally know what it is in their interest to know and what is rewarding for them to know. That is as true of the most educated person in society as it is the most ignorant. One cannot assume that being smart makes one right, or that being smart and wrong makes one immoral.

A person's knowledge is limited by the information available to them. Playing information gatekeepers to keep people uninformed and thereby compliant is immoral.

[_Kishkumen]

What's immoral is making the decision for others. That includes the current leadership, not just JFS.

Leadership means, by definition, making decisions for others. For the most part leaders of the LDS Church fill the role that they have been called upon to take up and they act in accordance with the traditional norms of LDS leaders.

If we, being more democratic, do not agree with the norms for LDS leadership, then we should not assent to them or cooperate with them. Really, the LDS Church is not the place for us. That said, I would not count it personally immoral for a leader to act in good faith according to the values of their community.

And, when it comes to history, the questions are not so easy and straightforward as John Dehlin's harsh judgments seem to suggest.

A person's knowledge is limited by the information available to them. Playing information gatekeepers to keep people uninformed and thereby compliant is immoral.

This--a person's knowledge is limited by the information available to them--is also true of the leaders. Their knowledge is limited by the information available to them, and that includes the information that they choose to know or desire to know. Like most human beings, they will select and favor information that reinforces the rewards of their community, not those that bring them tension, unhappiness, and the loss of those rewards.

The information they choose to pass on will be the information that works within the system, because they hold out the others the promise of emulating their success and happiness. If they did not get where they are by reading the Tanners, they will not send others to read the Tanners to be happy Mormons.

[_honorentheos]

Fox News is kewl, then? ;)