John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[Guest]

From Gad:"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. "

Is it ever "right" for an organization,religion, government, cult, tribe, nation,state, city,town or even a family to "force" (big F or little f) a life package deal on a person? The RCC tried it on me and others teaching that the life package deal was what God wanted for me or do to me. For me, rebellion/denouncement/breakaway and freedom was much much easier it seems than one "caught " in the Mormon life package deal scenario. On a much smaller level but still important, my friends who went to West Point because of granddad/dad/uncle/brother, often found later that the military life package deal was not them. Often it took courage to opt out.
maybe john is saying that when a life package deal becomes /is coercive there is something not right(maybe not immoral) about if from a denial of a person's inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. finally is relativism ( life deal A is certainly a hellavu lot better than life deal B) applicable here?

thanx
k

[_Stem]

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

People are making decisions for others all the time. I make decisions for others, at work, at home. I often end up deciding what information is important and what is not. I could be wrong. If that's immoral I'm sunk.

I'm stuck seeing Dehlin's point and wondering how his condemnation doesn't fall on everyone.

[_fetchface]

I think there are "guardian" types of personalities that think it is their duty to shield others from information that they feel the others cannot handle. What they do doesn't seem immoral to them. They think it is their duty and that they are making the world better by doing it! And they may actually prefer that others take these types of steps with them.

It seems very immoral to someone who is highly analytical like me. I need to see all of the data so that I can make the best decision, after all, and so does everyone else. My first instinct is to assume that everyone else wants this and that everyone wants society to function like this always. However, I have been shown many counterexamples in my life (inside and outside the church), and I have to conclude that there is a whole class of people who think like this.

I think that the LDS church is very good at selecting these types of personalities for their leadership. I think the vast majority of GAs genuinely don't understand the basics of how people like me think and/or feel in the church.

[_Meadowchik]

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

People are making decisions for others all the time. I make decisions for others, at work, at home. I often end up deciding what information is important and what is not. I could be wrong. If that's immoral I'm sunk.

I'm stuck seeing Dehlin's point and wondering how his condemnation doesn't fall on everyone.

Do you have an example that compares to the whole church system?

In my view, a system can be immoral even if the people are good.

[Guest]

I think the leaders are delusional, yet probably a lot have good intentions. It's obviously false yet, they had a good feeling and history was so far in the past that it doesn't matter any more. There must have been a good reason for the past to have played out the way it did, they must tell themselves, and the Book of Mormon is the source of good feelings because the group says so. They view themselves as good people, doing good things and want to only do what's best for their families and whomever they have under them in the hierarchy. My TBM, former stake president brother feels this way. For him, the history doesn't matter because he believes what he is doing is "good."

The church is good at reinforcing this goodness loop, based on the good feeling they have and continually tell each other. There is "safety" staying in the group and humans are hardwired to seek to belong to groups. I don't know how many times, but it is a lot, where I am saying this or that about how the church cannot possibly support its truth claims and I get the impression that the TBM is asking themselves how can such a good thing be false? We're good people, doing good things. You must have been offended or whatever in order to not see what I see. For them the past really doesn't matter. The absurdity of God not being able to forgive sin unless Jesus died is beyond comprehension for them because it is assumed. No, having thought about this for a while and not being able to get inside of any leader's head, from an outside perspective, I think they are more likely delusional.

Even so, I think people are better served realizing that the history doesn't add up and that the church is over-charging for its services. The church isn't the source of everything good as it wants to claim and reinforcing that nonsense is where it has to stop. Getting together as a group is good and having a support group is good, but being delusional about who should get credit for whatever good decision I may make or anyone makes is wrong and needs to change.

[_Stem]

Do you have an example that compares to the whole church system?

I'm not sure what you're asking for. Feeling dense here.

In my view, a system can be immoral even if the people are good.

On that point I'd wonder if anybody who has ever lived has not been a part of or associated with a system that is by some measure immoral. There is often something immoral about how countries are run. There is likely some immoral activity happening in business or trade. I mean with the Church finances...I think there's some immorality to be point out there. This feels like it's getting us away from the original quote though.

[_Stem]

I think there are "guardian" types of personalities that think it is their duty to shield others from information that they feel the others cannot handle. What they do doesn't seem immoral to them. They think it is their duty and that they are making the world better by doing it! And they may actually prefer that others take these types of steps with them.

It seems very immoral to someone who is highly analytical like me. I need to see all of the data so that I can make the best decision, after all, and so does everyone else. My first instinct is to assume that everyone else wants this and that everyone wants society to function like this always. However, I have been shown many counterexamples in my life (inside and outside the church), and I have to conclude that there is a whole class of people who think like this.

I think that the LDS church is very good at selecting these types of personalities for their leadership. I think the vast majority of GAs genuinely don't understand the basics of how people like me think and/or feel in the church.

This^ for me too.

[_Meadowchik]

Do you have an example that compares to the whole church system?

I'm not sure what you're asking for. Feeling dense here.

In my view, a system can be immoral even if the people are good.

On that point I'd wonder if anybody who has ever lived has not been a part of or associated with a system that is by some measure immoral. There is often something immoral about how countries are run. There is likely some immoral activity happening in business or trade. I mean with the Church finances...I think there's some immorality to be point out there. This feels like it's getting us away from the original quote though.

I mean, do you have examples where you make decisions for people at a level comparable to the church?

Yes, we could find immorality in many common systems easily. But the point of the OP quote is the level of control crafted by the Mormon narrative for those who convert to it or are born into it. The existence of similarly-controlling systems doesn't change the immortal nature of the system.

[_jfro18]

I think John's statement is overly simplified and in a lot of ways condemns each leader individually, but I think there's also a lot of merit to it.

For example, Russell Nelson last conference asked members to study the First Vision, but he didn't tell them to read each one or look at outside resources. He told them to read the canonized one while at the same time the leaders are out there demonizing those with doubts.

Is it Nelson's fault they have taken the identity of Native American members away? No, but he's clearly not interested in admitting they were wrong about the Book of Mormon history because it ruins God's revelation which ruins the church.

So I guess to me it is immoral to teach a history they know has problems while also vilifying the people who have legitimate doubts and questions, and to tell those members they'll be separated at death because one of them just didn't hold on with blind faith in the church.

I don't know what the leaders know or don't know - none of us do. But we do know they've caused great harm by claiming to speak for God on the Nov 15 policy, and we know that science and history proves the church false.

So to me it is immoral that not only do they teach a history/doctrine that is false, but that they simultaneously attack those who question it or leave. It causes harm to people that are struggling such as the LGBT community, and it causes stress in families when one person does look into the history and has doubts or leaves.

And again I don't know what is intentional or not, but I do think that if they do not know of these issues it is because they are purposefully avoiding them. As leaders of the church it is their job to know what is going on, and as such they should be aware of what is causing people to leave. Yet instead of being upfront with members, they double down on making members distrust and ignore those who have doubts while continuing with an untenable narrative.

[_Kishkumen]

Fox News is kewl, then? ;)

I know, right?

So, no. Fox News is not “kewl.” Why? Because the People of the United States of America own the airwaves and news ideally is there to inform the electorate as it votes on important issues and candidates. These (churches and news organizations) are different kinds of organizations that fill different functions in our society. A church does not serve the same public interests in the nation that a news organization does.

But you winked, so I know you know all of this.