John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _honorentheos »

This should be illuminating.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _Kishkumen »

honorentheos wrote:Early in the thread you defended the Church hiding information on the grounds the church deserved special consideration.


No, I did not.

honorentheos wrote:I'd argue people following that method are actually following the principle of "being realistic and understanding in the face of complicated situations, of acknowledging the bad and the good, and in not painting things in overly simplistic terms".


Good for you! And bully for them. To the extent that I don't see this at work, I will comment upon it. For example, look at the title of the thread: "John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!"

honorentheos wrote:So again, it is unclear that your approach rises above privileging certain groups you favor or, perhaps, reacting to your belief MDB is unjustly antagonistic towards Mormonism so you are defending it with no more complexity to the actual argument than what you rationalize post to post.


Well I don't concede that because it has never been at all clear to me that you and I are communicating well here. You don't represent my posts very accurately and instead tend to provide your own shorthand versions to poke it.

honorentheos wrote:So, applying the categorical imperative to that behavior - preferentially arguing in favor of maintaining authority through deceit and infantalizing adults through manipulating information and abuse of authority, it seems your own position here is ethically questionable. It would certainly do serious damage to the world were it to become a universally accepted rule. I mean, look at Fox News and the Republican party... :wink:


What should be done in one circumstance is not necessarily what should be done in another. You insist that it should be, and that it makes sense to do so. I do not. I am also not arguing in favor of deceit or infantilizing adults. This is one of the many reasons why I sometimes wonder what it is you are actually responding to.

Cutting pages out if primary sources to hide them in a safe isn't good historical practice let along moral behavior.


Yes, there is something we agree on.

But I appreciate the further illumination on what you find sympathetic...because it supports the argument your principle here is defense based on ranked emotional attachment.


Not really, but, if you think so, I am tiring of the "discussion" (mutual misunderstanding) anyway.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _honorentheos »

Keeping it simple - in the case of the first vision did the Church leadership act immorally in actively hiding other accounts? Do we agree or disagree the outcome of this behavior, whether immoral or just editorial, is the church seeking to protect the narrative that supports the membership believing the Church has special knowledge that justifies accepting their authority in weighing in on important matters affecting people's lives? Even being a primary reason much of the membership believes the Church is speaking for God, an omnipotent and benevolent Father figure in whom they feel they can place absolute trust in His divine good will?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _Lemmie »

Kishkumen wrote:
That is not at all what I said and I am not at all in agreement with your flippant and dismissive answer.

My full post addressed a very specific issue:


Yes, I read it. It looked like you were making a case for the absolute impossibility of the vast majority of Mormon women being happy to be Mormon. I honestly don’t know how to respond to that. That looks incredible to me. Some seem to be reasonably happy.

Those who are definitely not, we seemed to agree, are not well suited to be Mormons.

I don’t think that is a dismissive answer.

They look happy to you, so you don’t see the problem with an organization teaching that a stereotype of an entire group is an eternal law, and then creating and cruelly enforcing these expectations in ways that limit and stunt lives?

I recall you gave up your LDS membership over the LDS policy regarding children of gay parents. Didn’t enough of those gay people look reasonably happy to you? If they had seemed happier, would you have dismissed those concerns as well? Or was your condemnation of the LDS church policy an outcome of your consideration of the morality of the policy, unlike this frivolous non-consideration you’re posting now?

May I suggest policies that stereotype women deserve an equal consideration, or at the very least not the dismissive condescension you are exhibiting here, with your befuddled ‘well, the things called women LOOK happy, so what’s the problem?’
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _Kishkumen »

honorentheos wrote:Keeping it simple - in the case of the first vision did the Church leadership act immorally in actively hiding other accounts? Do we agree or disagree the outcome of this behavior, whether immoral or just editorial, is the church seeking to protect the narrative that supports the membership believing the Church has special knowledge that justifies accepting their authority in weighing in on important matters affecting people's lives? Even being a primary reason much of the membership believes the Church is speaking for God, an omnipotent and benevolent Father figure in whom they feel they can place absolute trust in His divine good will?


As a historian who believes in a certain approach to history that is in keeping humanistic values and scientific methods, I do not condone restricting access to evidence. That said, I don't claim to be an expert on "believing history" or "devotional history," which obviously does not precisely correspond to my own values and methods.

To get a sense of the Church's values and beliefs, it is important to understand Mormonism in theology and practice quite thoroughly, and I also believe, in keeping with my humanistic values, that one should seek to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the object of one's study, to the extent that this does not come to compromise one's values in other ways. For example, I would find it difficult to exercise any sympathy for Hitler. Thankfully, Nazi Germany is not my area of study. Tacitus cautioned against allowing either hatred or flattery to shape one's account of history. I think that is good historical practice.

When considering what was done with the First Vision it is important to take into account the fact that Joseph Smith History was canonized in 1880. This means that it does not have the status of just any old historical document. For Mormons its status is comparable to a book in the Bible. One wonders how the existence of other accounts would be likely handled in that situation, particularly by a person who lacks the tools to make productive decisions, regardless of their authority to do so. It might induce panic or just aporia. What to do? At that point the official account was long canonized.

In any case, the canon represents the core set of narratives for the faith, those that are authorized, legitimized, and selected for devotional purposes. When a person spiritually reflects on the meaning of being Mormon and seeking salvation within Mormonism, they turn to the scriptures. Other things are not, and purposely so. That was always the case going back to the formation of the Biblical canon. We may not agree with the choices, but Mormonism sees to have adopted the concept of some sort of canon anyway.

Devotional history serves the spiritual purposes of the faith, in support of, or at least in as little conflict as possible with, the scriptures. It is not primarily aimed at uncovering what happened in the past. It is primarily about constructing the past through the lens of the theology, doctrine, and practice of the present. To the extent that academic history challenges the purposes of devotional history, those whose primary interest is in promoting and inculcating the faith will necessarily find themselves at odds with the goals of those who engage academic history.

Personally, I don't see the goals of devotional faith being sinister or immoral. At the same time, I do not condone suppressing or hiding the evidence and arguments of academic history. The LDS Church and its scholars continue to struggle with how to handle these questions. In the past they have frustrated the efforts of academic historians who seek to understand the past outside of the strictures of devotional history. I think some leaders have crossed ethical lines in doing so. I am unhappy with the way they have responded to academic historian members of the faith who wrote outside of the vein of devotional history.

But, I think there have been strides forward. Sometimes one step forward, two steps back, but these days I see more reason to have some hope that the LDS Church will deal with historical matters productively and not respond in fear or aporia.

I also don't happen to think that Mormon beliefs about God are necessarily so brittle that they cannot be cultivated strongly moving forward. Many people seem to hunger for divine things, and to the extent that a religion provides a milieu for providing an experience of them, while also providing a desirable identity and community, I think it will succeed to no small degree. The LDS Church, being a relatively new religion, and enduring the challenges of our times, is having a hard time of it at present.

But there are people who are doing some of the important intellectual work that may improve its durability in the future.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _Kishkumen »

Lemmie wrote:They look happy to you, so you don’t see the problem with an organization teaching that a stereotype of an entire group is an eternal law, and then creating and cruelly enforcing these expectations in ways that limit and stunt lives?

I recall you gave up your LDS membership over the LDS policy regarding children of gay parents. Didn’t enough of those gay people look reasonably happy to you? If they had seemed happier, would you have dismissed those concerns as well? Or was your condemnation of the LDS church policy an outcome of your consideration of the morality of the policy, unlike this frivolous non-consideration you’re posting now?

May I suggest policies that stereotype women deserve an equal consideration, or at the very least not the dismissive condescension you are exhibiting here, with your befuddled ‘well, the things called women LOOK happy, so what’s the problem?’


How strange is it that I repeatedly say that Mormonism does not suit everyone, and yet our agreement on that point does not seem to satisfy you. You want me to say that Mormonism does not work for any woman and protest that I would dare say that it works for some, when neither of us really knows exactly what the case is. I don't know. I am guessing you don't know.

Yes, I gave up my membership in the LDS Church because I thought it was un-Christian for the Church to deny children baptism on the grounds that they had a gay parent cohabiting with a gay partner. That policy was in direct conflict with scripture, and it was, moreover, simply cruel.

I don't agree that the two situations are the same.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _honorentheos »

So the only people qualified to weigh in on if the Church manipulating their history is immoral are historians? The average member or former member is woefully unqualified and should instead take direction from an authority on the subject of history regarding ethics?

Huh.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Physics Guy
_Emeritus
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:38 pm

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _Physics Guy »

John Dehlin wrote:There’s this massive amount of decisions that you make ... in a finite life, and to base that life on a narrative ... when leaders know the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, and intentionally withheld the information that would allow people to make an informed decision ... that’s profoundly immoral.

Dehlin’s statement quoted in the OP was a bit awkward. Parsed literally, what it calls immoral is basing one’s life on a bogus narrative. Presumably what Dehlin meant to say was that it was an immoral act for leaders to sustain the bogus narrative on which lots of other people based their lives.

But the thing that made me interested in this thread was the premise that for people to base their lives on a bogus narrative is a bad thing. Without this premise, Dehlin’s charge makes little sense to me; I’ve been trying to sustain his charge because I do buy his premise.

It’s not about whether people are happy or not. It’s about whether they are being denied the chance to make their own choices based on honest information. If a child in a rich family sees something on TV about starving children, the parents could make the child happier by saying that it was only pretend and that really every kid in the world has a comfortable home and a full plate just like theirs. In most cases, though, that’s not the right thing to tell the child. In no case, it seems to me, is it right to deceive responsible adults just to make them happy.

So I have no idea how many Mormon women are happy. My worry is that fewer of them would be happy with the lives they have, if they knew what the leaders didn’t let them know. That situation is the immorality to which I think Dehlin was pointing.
_Meadowchik
_Emeritus
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _Meadowchik »

For the record, probably the bitterest pill for me as an exmormon is that as a result of me trusting prophetic counsel on the most important decisions of my life, my children do not get the attention or care I want to be able to give them. I can't think of anything worse than this. I always wanted to be a good mom, and I thought I was making the best choices for them, but I wasn't. It's hella depressing, but I hope now just to mitigate my inadequacies as much as I can.

I realised not long after I left, especially after reading some of my own letters as a teen, that I was much smarter on my own about my own life than a bunch of generic guidance from the church. If only I hadn't trusted it so much!
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

Post by _Lemmie »

How strange is it that I repeatedly say that Mormonism does not suit everyone, and yet our agreement on that point does not seem to satisfy you.

How odd that I repeatedly say that you are incorrect when you reduce what I say to an “agreement” with your superficial and meaningless tautology that if Mormonism does not suit everyone, then Mormonism does not suit everyone. We do NOT agree.

You want me to say that Mormonism does not work for any woman

No I don’t. I would, however, like you to stop telling me what I am saying.

and protest that I would dare say that it works for some,

Except you didn’t say that. You said

Some seem to be reasonably happy.

Because you can tell by looking at an LDS women that the LDS church works for her. We are speaking of a church where women are raised to always cater to men because they hold the priesthood, to never disagree with men because they are called of God, and to always look happy and not talk too much, because men are in charge. The fact you take a superficial look at a woman and conclude the church works for her speaks exactly to that training. You are just on the other side of it. It’s a sexist and hurtful way to think of a group of people.

Yes, I gave up my membership in the LDS Church because I thought it was un-Christian for the Church to deny children baptism on the grounds that they had a gay parent cohabiting with a gay partner. That policy was in direct conflict with scripture, and it was, moreover, simply cruel.

I don't agree that the two situations are the same.

Because some women seem happy is grossly insufficient in determining the moral implications of policy.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply