John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Kishkumen]

But that is a major point of the OP, that our important life decisions, including life or death ones, are contingent upon the conclusions drawn from information available to us. We outsource decisions to authority, and the authority is maintained with the assistance of the information. The details of narrative are continually used to define how we frame the role of and implications of authority.

This is going in circles. One either does or does not accept a spiritual prompting as a basis for making decisions. The LDS Church is founded on the value of spiritual experiences in making important decisions. Its founding texts describe that and model it. If one believes that this is somehow dangerous or immoral, then, yes, that person will probably not choose to live an LDS life. I accept that others value spiritual experiences in their decision-making process. I may not see things exactly as they do, but I do not believe that their viewpoint and way of life is fundamentally immoral.

John Dehlin is arguing from a naturalistic perspective. He believes that a certain kind of history is a necessary foundation for authority. I do not accept his assertion that a naturalistic history is the only legitimate kind of historical narrative for establishing religious authority. Since the entire system of Mormonism revolves around conclusions drawn from prayerful consideration and inspiration, it makes no sense to insist that such a system anchor itself in naturalistic/academic history. It is entirely reasonable that those who promote the faith tell their story in such a way that inspiration is a central feature of it.

[_Meadowchik]

John Dehlin is arguing from a naturalistic perspective. He believes that a certain kind of history is a necessary foundation for authority. I do not accept his assertion that a naturalistic history is the only legitimate kind of historical narrative for establishing religious authority. Since the entire system of Mormonism revolves around conclusions drawn from prayerful consideration and inspiration, it makes no sense to insist that such a system anchor itself in naturalistic/academic history. It is entirely reasonable that those who promote the faith tell their story in such a way that inspiration is a central feature of it.

Mormonism is not just prayerful consideration, it is also to some extent naturalistic. See the significance or a "real" record of the ancient Americas visited by Jesus Christ Himself. Mormonism fundamentally ties it self to naturalistic claims. I think I could likely use every single prophet of the Restoration to support the idea that the Book of Mormon is a concrete record of the Gospel.

President Eyring's father was not speaking radically when he said "But in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is a part of the gospel." So Dehlin's argument is not wholly rooted outside Mormon cosmology.

[_Physics Guy]

Everyone has history to tell. That is the perspective in which my comment comes. We all use history to tell our stories and perhaps to emphasize our priorities and lessons. "once I ran away from a bear and that means this to me....you should do that.."

If crazy uncle Barney tells a story about punching a bear, no-one believes the old coot, and the coot probably knows it. So his misremembered/made-up story is harmless. If the Dalai Lama were to tell a story about punching a bear, millions of people would hear it, thousands might take it to heart, and a dozen might die punching bears.

The Dalai Lama would have killed those dozen people by spreading authoritative myths about bears. Lamas have to watch what they say more carefully than ordinary uncles. And before I preached this point to a big audience I'd probably do more research about bears and the Dalai Lama, and maybe try to find a real example of a crazy uncle instead of making up one named Barney. Since I'm just another internet schmo I reckon my stupid made-up example is harmless; a few people will figure out what I meant and no-one will go after His Holiness—or go off to punch bears.

What I meant is that leaders with actual power have a higher standard, because when they distort history it affects more people.

[_Kishkumen]

Mormonism is not just prayerful consideration, it is also to some extent naturalistic. See the significance or a "real" record of the ancient Americas visited by Jesus Christ Himself. Mormonism fundamentally ties it self to naturalistic claims. I think I could likely use every single prophet of the Restoration to support the idea that the Book of Mormon is a concrete record of the Gospel.

President Eyring's father was not speaking radically when he said "But in this Church you don’t have to believe anything that isn’t true. You go over to the University of Arizona and learn everything you can, and whatever is true is a part of the gospel." So Dehlin's argument is not wholly rooted outside Mormon cosmology.

I don't think this is really the case, however. What is privileged above all is a spiritual witness. One obtains a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon, then concludes it is "true," then joins the Church that is governed by authorities that make decisions on the same basis of "inspiration." I agree that Mormons believe that this inspiration indicates something about the truth of the real world, but in epistemological terms the "facts" definitely take a backseat to the spirit. Mormon scholars insist that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text primarily on the basis of their spiritual testimony. As much as you and I may argue back that the facts don't support their view, they will continue to look for a reading of the facts that allows for their point of view to be true. It can be maddening, but that back and forth will not end so long as each side remains committed to its epistemological perspective and priorities.

[_Lemmie]

But that is a major point of the OP, that our important life decisions, including life or death ones, are contingent upon the conclusions drawn from information available to us. We outsource decisions to authority, and the authority is maintained with the assistance of the information. The details of narrative are continually used to define how we frame the role of and implications of authority.

This is going in circles. One either does or does not accept a spiritual prompting as a basis for making decisions. The LDS Church is founded on the value of spiritual experiences in making important decisions. Its founding texts describe that and model it. If one believes that this is somehow dangerous or immoral, then, yes, that person will probably not choose to live an LDS life....

The terms dangerous or immoral don’t necessarily capture the full picture, but certainly being cognizant of the source of “spiritual promptings” allows for a fuller examination of exactly what one is being prompted about.

From a fascinating thread about how “spiritual experiences”:

Dr. W:

The main point here is that the best explanation for the phenomenon of transcendent religious experience and belief is that it is an evolutionarily engineered feature of the human brain. No invisible, external, supernatural, or "spiritual" force is involved or required.

As mentioned elsewhere on the board, the fact that religiosity is pretty much universal, with hundreds or thousands of gods claimed, makes the probability that supernatural gods even exist vanishingly small. The chances that the Mormon Elohim exists are even smaller, owing to the internally inconsistent and logically contradictory attributes ascribed to him.

Those who depend on "spiritual" feelings as an integral part of their lives and worldview should at least have the discernment to properly attribute the source and characteristics of these feelings, keeping in mind that a delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47259&hilit=Spir%2Atual+DrW

Meadowchik’s point about spiritual promptings being outsourced to those in authority puts even more emphasis on the idea that putting your trust in a church that has a history of not being honest in what it shares with members, as well as how it shares, can be dangerous.

[_Physics Guy]

The LDS Church is founded on the value of spiritual experiences in making important decisions. Its founding texts describe that and model it.

One's own spiritual experiences, or those of one's leaders?

Since the entire system of Mormonism revolves around conclusions drawn from prayerful consideration and inspiration, it makes no sense to insist that such a system anchor itself in naturalistic/academic history.

Could it make some sense, though, to insist that followers ought to be able to decide for themselves whether naturalistic history blatantly contradicts the claimed spiritual experiences of their leaders?

The concern I saw in Dehlin's quote was not about spiritual experience usurping the supposedly rightful place of naturalistic history. It was about leaders concealing relevant evidence from followers. Deciding that I'm not going to let historical issue X shake my own spirit-based testimony is one thing; deciding that millions of faithful members don't need to know about issue X is another.

[_Kishkumen]

The terms dangerous or immoral don’t necessarily capture the full picture, but certainly being cognizant of the source of “spiritual promptings” allows for a fuller examination of exactly what one is being prompted about.

Cognizant, in other words, that the source is the brain and the body, not God? In other words, it is necessary to adopt a different epistemology, even if it is fundamentally incompatible with your religion.

Meadowchik’s point about spiritual promptings being outsourced to those in authority puts even more emphasis on the idea that putting your trust in a church that has a history of not being honest in what it shares with members, as well as how it shares, can be dangerous.

But it is your conclusion that dishonesty is what drives the narrative. The point to identifying the epistemology informing the practice of history in the community is to get away from a loaded, prejudicial assessment of the community's way of talking about the past. All we are doing here is going back and forth about the necessity of adopting a naturalistic history in the community in order to practice history morally and safely. If you go with naturalistic assumptions, this seems to be incontrovertibly true. If you don't, it is not obviously true.

[_Kishkumen]

It was about leaders concealing relevant evidence from followers. Deciding that I'm not going to let historical issue X shake my own spirit-based testimony is one thing; deciding that millions of faithful members don't need to know about issue X is another.

So, if you are asking me if I think the Church's handling of historical issues is perfect and cannot stand improvement, then I freely concede that it is not perfect and it could improve. I look at John's statement as being consistent with his general naturalistic viewpoint as expressed elsewhere. He is saying that it is the LDS Church's responsibility to handle history in the way that academic historians ideally handle history. It is his assumption that what is valuable for having an honest history is to place all of the evidence in front of every member, to the extent possible, so that the member can decide what is important him or herself.

I don't think this is a reasonable standard, or one that is consistent with the theology and practice of the religion. I have tried to show why that is the case, pointing to the reality of Mormonism following the tradition of having a scriptural canon to which the Joseph Smith History belongs. Canon is not a neutral category. One cannot expect, let alone reasonably demand, that the Church prefer other versions of the story over the canonical version. I think it is, however, reasonable to suppose that the story of the faith will evolve over time, partly in response to issues regarding its contemporary applicability. The less applicable it seems, the more likely it is to change in order to become sufficiently applicable.

[_Stem]

If crazy uncle Barney tells a story about punching a bear, no-one believes the old coot, and the coot probably knows it. So his misremembered/made-up story is harmless. If the Dalai Lama were to tell a story about punching a bear, millions of people would hear it, thousands might take it to heart, and a dozen might die punching bears.

The Dalai Lama would have killed those dozen people by spreading authoritative myths about bears. Lamas have to watch what they say more carefully than ordinary uncles. And before I preached this point to a big audience I'd probably do more research about bears and the Dalai Lama, and maybe try to find a real example of a crazy uncle instead of making up one named Barney. Since I'm just another internet schmo I reckon my stupid made-up example is harmless; a few people will figure out what I meant and no-one will go after His Holiness—or go off to punch bears.

What I meant is that leaders with actual power have a higher standard, because when they distort history it affects more people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EC_VEYj3yo

[_honorentheos]

The leadership cut pages out of Joseph Smith's letter book containing the 1832 account of the first vision and hid them in a safe, pretending they didn't exist.

Note the use of the term "leadership" for what was likely the act of one or two people.

As noted earlier, it's convenient to blame a couple of individuals when seeking to protect the institution on the one hand, and then blame the institution when seeking to protect the behavior of select individuals who are merely acting out their beliefs as provided by the institution.

I don't believe Dehlin said anything about handling the history the way academic historians might, or that the issue is one of professional ethics. The comment is that there is a significant amount of influence the Church wields over it's membership that is based on it's claims that inherently tie history to the church's function as a religious institution. By manipulating it's history, it's asserting it knows better than the layperson in the Church what is best for them and infantilizes them by doing so. Arguing that this should be permissible because religious history is in a class deserving special protection is in effect agreeing that the church knows better than the lay membership what is in their best interest. That's pretty arrogant.