John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_kairos]

The below quote attributed to John on ExMormon Reddit some hours ago has a depth of thought, I,as a nevermo, never thought about it in the way he puts! OTOH being raised in the "one true church" Roman Catholic way of life, the quote applies too; but not as rigidly as it applies to Mo'ism. I see the narrative being played out in the current life of some of my grandchildren!

So just askin- what strikes you about the quote and it's applicability to your experience?

"There is something fundamentally immoral to presenting a narrative that people build their entire lives upon. They decide what to do with their education, how much money to give, who to marry, when to marry, how many kids to have, what professions to pursue… There’s this massive amount of decisions that you make, you know in a finite life, and to base that life on a narrative, when not only the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, when leaders know the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, and intentionally - for as long as they could - withheld the information that would allow people to make an informed decision about how they spend their finite time and resources –that’s profoundly immoral." John Dehlin.

[_candygal]

In this, John Dehlin is true! Your thoughts and how you think are ingrained and even patriarchal blessings will be reflective in your choices...you serve, you pay, you are promised! And to be lied to changes your whole frame not only who you are...but who you may have become.

[_Stem]

I think the leaders largely believe the narrative they are selling for the most part. Any errors kind of crept in unawares in their view. I think they think Joseph did see God, that he was gifted some power to translate and bring forth the Book of Mormon, that he was visited by New Testament characters and given the priesthood, was inspired to build temples, write Abraham's story, led people from here to there and around about, was commanded to marry a bunch of ladies for reasons they don't understand, and was killed for following God. Certainly digging into various details hurts the dominant narrative, as Bushman suggested, but on the whole I think they firmly think that it all happened that way. I don't think its profoundly immoral that they are pushing people to do what they think is best.

[_Kishkumen]

I think the leaders largely believe the narrative they are selling for the most part. Any errors kind of crept in unawares in their view. I think they think Joseph did see God, that he was gifted some power to translate and bring forth the Book of Mormon, that he was visited by New Testament characters and given the priesthood, was inspired to build temples, write Abraham's story, led people from here to there and around about, was commanded to marry a bunch of ladies for reasons they don't understand, and was killed for following God. Certainly digging into various details hurts the dominant narrative, as Bushman suggested, but on the whole I think they firmly think that it all happened that way. I don't think its profoundly immoral that they are pushing people to do what they think is best.

Precisely. I get where John was coming from, but by now he really should know that the leaders of the LDS Church did not and do not have any special insight into Mormon history. They generally work from the assumptions and spiritual experiences of most Mormons. The difference is in the scope of responsibility. I am kind of tired of this ex-Mormon trope. I see insufficient reason to buy into it.

[_Dr Moore]

I respectfully disagree, reverend. When the journey experienced by freshly awakened members is so consistently painful, and so consistently linked to point after point of degrees of deception (white lies, seeing every glass half full, or outright hiding and deceit) it does legitimately justify feelings of anger and betrayal. At a minimum, those feelings are a healthy stage of grief and to deny anyone expression on that is to prevent healing and growth.

[_Kishkumen]

I respectfully disagree, reverend. When the journey experienced by freshly awakened members is so consistently painful, and so consistently linked to point after point of degrees of deception (white lies, seeing every glass half full, or outright hiding and deceit) it does legitimately justify feelings of anger and betrayal. At a minimum, those feelings are a healthy stage of grief and to deny anyone expression on that is to prevent healing and growth.

I don’t question the validity of these feelings in members who are discovering these things for the first time, but John knows better what the reality of the situation is. Should he simply encourage people in their bad feelings or temper their expectations? That is his choice, but I would not be of a mind simply to reflect back to these struggling members, or even amplify, their anger.

[_Stem]

I respectfully disagree, reverend. When the journey experienced by freshly awakened members is so consistently painful, and so consistently linked to point after point of degrees of deception (white lies, seeing every glass half full, or outright hiding and deceit) it does legitimately justify feelings of anger and betrayal. At a minimum, those feelings are a healthy stage of grief and to deny anyone expression on that is to prevent healing and growth.

I think there's room to acknowledge people were deceived and rightfully feel angry and betrayed, while also thinking the leaders believe what they're selling. Perhaps it means we accept that they are tolerating some errors while moving forward to their goal, thinking the errors are minimal or inconsequential anyway. Added to that is perhaps them thinking that which seems wrong to all of us is correct to them.

To me the story of the first vision is really just Joseph's teenage dreams. To them it happened precisely as the official version says--as if Joseph just memorized it. To them the contradictions from the other versions are inconsequential because he confused things when he wrote those or spoke those versions.

[_Stem]

I don’t question the validity of these feelings in members who are discovering these things for the first time, but John knows better what the reality of the situation is. Should he simply encourage people in their bad feelings or temper their expectations? That is his choice, but I would not be of a mind simply to reflect back to these struggling members, or even amplify, their anger.

oh yep. that's a better response.

[_Kishkumen]

Some members really believe. Some do not care that the story is not, strictly speaking, true. Some see it as true in other senses. Some come to see Joseph Smith as a con artist or cult leader. There is a range of possibilities here. It bothers me that some critics do not come to understand that most Mormons have not purposely deceived others for nefarious reasons. If you don’t know you are incorrect about something, you cannot lie to others about your understanding that you are correct. You just don’t know.

The process of selecting leaders in Mormonism heavily favors those who express conviction that Mormonism is true. The result is that most believe Mormonism is true. When they are true to their understanding, people think they must be lying. A few may be. It is unlikely that this percentage comes anywhere close to a third of the pack.

So, it is not reasonable to expect disconfirming evidence and arguments from Church leaders. I don’t think that calling this situation immoral is at all realistic or accurate. Let’s try to bring people to a place where they reach reasonable conclusions about their Mormon experience, not because we care that they remain Mormon, but because we want them to come out the other side as happy and healthy as possible.

[_Dr Moore]

Let’s try to bring people to a place where they reach reasonable conclusions about their Mormon experience, not because we care that they remain Mormon, but because we want them to come out the other side as happy and healthy as possible.

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.