John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Kishkumen]

My observation is your moral reasoning here is based on a subjective granting of ranked privilege for various groups. Religion gets to Trump the average LDS member so the cultural myth of a religion is determined to be of higher worth and value in your estimate than individual choice and liberty. Conversely, religious cultural myth is subordinate to scholarship. When the actions of an institution punish a scholar for contradicting or suggesting an alternative interpretation from that of the orthodox religious narrative, you side with th scholar. Given how the mind works, that seems to be giving all moral reasoning over to justifying ones biases and emotional preferences for particular groups.

Yeah, obviously I don't agree with much of what you have said above. All along you have been interested in condemning the LDS Church, it seems to me, whereas I have been advocating a measure of understanding as we all grapple with the complex issue of dealing with a faith narrative that is bound up in well-documented historical events. I guess it is fair to say that your almost absolute fealty to individual choice and liberty is very clear, whereas I would say that it is not the only consideration, and certainly would not be the only consideration of a person who is given the responsibility to shepherd a Church of millions of people.

The vehement condemnation of those who do not share an absolute fealty to individual choice and liberty above every other consideration is definitely not a place I am willing to go.

The Church making the decision regarding which historical facts are suitable for their membership to know is questionable moral judgement. Combined with the control over people's decision making the Church exerts, it's immoral that it infantilizes the membership to protect it's own claims of authority over them.

For the sake of economy, there is basically one story that can be told. How to tell it? What to emphasize? Which version best reflects where the institution is now? All of these things are serious issues that demand a lot of reflection and, quite possibly, trial and error efforts. I am very sympathetic to the point of view that the LDS Church needs to do a better job of educating its members. At the same time, I do not think it is reasonable to expect the leaders of the LDS Church to give their blessing to a version of the historical narrative (and there will continue to be new versions over time) that induces people to quit.

One thing that the apologists have stressed over and over again, which has not played very well here, for understandable reasons, is that the Church is not obligated to adopt its worst critics' versions of history as its own narrative. I think that this should be accepted as reasonable.

Look, there are a number of people who say that Joseph Smith was a pedophile. By the strict definition of the word, it is a claim that is manifestly erroneous and prejudicial. Yet, I have caught flack from people for trying to correct them when they insist that Joseph Smith was a pedophile. This is the kind of behavior that influences our views of history on this board. We want to condemn the LDS Church for failing to enforce a "factual" version of history that will inevitably lead the entire organization to dissolve. We have little compassion for their reticence to do so, and we call their reticence immoral. The consistent theme here is one of unforgiving moral condemnation at every turn.

It is no wonder to me that defenders of the LDS Church react so poorly to this board, when you look at it from that viewpoint.

[_fetchface]

I think a careful reading of the Dehlin quote in the OP shows that he was talking about immoral actions, not immoral people. I may be the one to blame for shifting the discussion from acts to people.

If I say "so-and-so is immoral", I don't anything more than, "so-and-so does immoral things". I think it's a concise way of saying that so-and-so didn't just screw up one occasion long ago, but is still making a regular practice of doing bad things. It's a somewhat inflammatory way to say that, I admit, but I think that sometimes it's appropriate to be a bit inflammatory. Downtrodden people may deserve gentle handling but powerful people get coddled enough, in my view.

I don't want "so-and-so is immoral" to mean, though, that immorality is a separate internal quality of so-and-so which causes so-and-so's acts, as if immorality were something like, say, syphilis. I'm also not keen on using labels as if they were causes. If my wording comes across that way then I should probably re-think my terminology. I'm open to suggestions.

Well, I didn't mean to shift things there either. The same goes for me.

[_honorentheos]

Yeah, obviously I don't agree with much of what you have said above. All along you have been interested in condemning the LDS Church, it seems to me, whereas I have been advocating a measure of understanding as we all grapple with the complex issue of dealing with a faith narrative that is bound up in well-documented historical events.

Given the issue at hand is the hiding of information, I fail to see your argument as advocating for understanding. Describing the information as well-documented historical events is disingenuous given the reality of how LDS history has been clawed out into the open against the Church's will where the membership was told to ignore it as lies manufactured by Satan against God Himself. It seems much more like an argument to give religious institutions a pass if they behave badly because as a category they do something generally in societies for which you are actually advocating.

It's not radical individualism being defended when one argues against abuses by institutions of power manipulating those within their influence. It is, though, taking a principled position rather than relying on prejudice and partiality.

[_Kishkumen]

Given the issue at hand is the hiding of information, I fail to see your argument as advocating for understanding. Describing the information as well-documented historical events is disingenuous given the reality of how LDS history has been clawed out into the open against the Church's will where the membership was told to ignore it as lies manufactured by Satan against God Himself. It seems much more like an argument to give religious institutions a pass if they behave badly because as a category they do something generally in societies for which you are actually advocating.

It's not radical individualism being defended when one argues against abuses by institutions of power manipulating those within their influence. It is, though, taking a principled position rather than relying on prejudice and partiality.

Yes, it’s very interesting to watch you argue this as though this conversation were being conducted a decade or more ago. After all, it is not like we have fewer historical documents than we did at that time. But here you are happy to ignore that fact and deny the church all credit for its role in making documents more accessible. It is also clear to me that you are not a historian, and really don’t understand why I call LDS history well-documented. From the perspective of an ancient historian, the wealth of materials Mormon historians have to play with is mind boggling. But, no, I am being “disingenuous” in saying so. Ha!

Finally, I have no argument with taking a principled position. What I argue against is a myopic position, which repeatedly returns to self-righteous condemnation and a failure to take a plethora of pertinent issues and factors into account. Can one say that those instances in which leaders conspired to hide evidence were morally bad? Sure. But the sweeping way in which the Church is depicted as doing immoral things in hiding history is unfair. It provides narrow understanding and fails to give any credit to the Church when it has greatly facilitated access to documents.

Today, the Church offers public access to an unprecedented number of primary documents regarding its early history. As a historian, I rejoice at the progress and am grateful for it.

[_Lemmie]

I’m enjoying reading this conversation, but I may have missed something. I apologize if this has already been clarified, but I have a question re a statement you made, Kishkumen,

Kishkumen:

Yes, I don’t follow you on the notion of the manipulation of the facts. There is a question regarding what different people believe the facts to be. There is enough disagreement that some would say there was no First Vision at all. Good historians mostly accept that it did happen.Is teaching that it happened manipulating the facts? Which version represents the facts?

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

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.

Honorentheos:

Describing the information as well-documented historical events is disingenuous given the reality of how LDS history has been clawed out into the open against the Church's will where the membership was told to ignore it as lies manufactured by Satan against God Himself. It seems much more like an argument to give religious institutions a pass if they behave badly because as a category they do something generally in societies for which you are actually advocating.

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.

[_Lemmie]

Just noted something earlier in the discussion,

I really don’t see that being Mormon is necessarily a bad thing unless it really does not suit you

You mean like how one is a woman but one wants to live a good, productive, family-oriented life, but her choices in that life do not fit the tightly proscribed expectations placed on every single aspect— religious, secular, mental, social, physical, emotional, sexual, relationship-oriented, etc. etc. etc., of a woman’s life by the LDS church?

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.

[_Meadowchik]

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.

It is very much like an abuser finally admitting to facts he used to deny, without actually apologizing for past denials or past abuses inflicted on you for talking about them back when he denied them.

The church is not one person, and so that makes managing past denials of current knowns perhaps a more frustrating task. Why should President Nelson apologize for things done and said by David O. McKay, Brigham Youjng, or Joseph Smith? He is morally obligated to apologize for past harms because he holds the office that inflicted those harms.

[_honorentheos]

At this point I'm content to let the argument stand on the points made. There's not much else to say about it that adds to the conversation it seems.

ETA: see above.

[_Lemmie]

At this point I'm content to let the argument stand on the points made. There's not much else to say about it that adds to the conversation it seems.

ETA: see above.

Just when I started reading!

[_honorentheos]

At this point I'm content to let the argument stand on the points made. There's not much else to say about it that adds to the conversation it seems.

ETA: see above.

Just when I started reading!

Both your and Meadowchik's comments advance the discussion so I shouldn't say the thread as a whole seems that way. I'm just not seeing the discussion between me and Kish as advancing any point of value over the last couple of posts and more likely to digress instead.