Anyone Here Still Follow John Dehlin Or Bill Reel

[Roy]

More often than not, it seems to make it worse. I just wish we better ways within the church system to makes better. I know there's sustaining and not sustaining people in the church, but in too many cases not sustaining is take seriously when it comes to not sustaining the brethren. Especially cases where there might some serious corruption in the system that needs to be arrested.

I think I know what you mean. When we do the sustaining votes for leadership, it is almost universally understood that you vote to sustain unless you are in apostacy. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "serious corruption in the system that needs to be arrested." If you are talking about bribery, fraud, or other criminal behavior then the church would generally be happy for you to expose those things. If you are referring to "corruption" more metaphorically as in "anything less than the pure gospel of Jesus Christ" then I think church leaders would prefer for you to keep that to yourself.

[AmyJ]

Thank you, everyone, for the comments. It just gets hard for me after awhile to be bombarded almost constantly with hearing stories from Mormon Stories about people resigning from the church or being excommunicated from it and hearing Bill Reel picking apart so much of church doctrine just to prove Mormonism isn't true.

Roy, I agree completely. The church and questioners both have been burned pretty badly. Leadership roulette from the top to bottom either makes these things better or worse when it comes to this. More often than not, it seems to make it worse. I just wish we better ways within the church system to makes better. I know there's sustaining and not sustaining people in the church, but in too many cases not sustaining is take seriously when it comes to not sustaining the brethren. Especially cases where there might some serious corruption in the system that needs to be arrested.

Well, through a lot of this, prayer and practicing meditation daily has helped me and is continuing to help me be patient and find peace through all this.

A) Grief Processing - those stories are in part grief. Grief about the church and/or a relationship with God not being what the individual expected on some level, in some specific area. Those stories get picked up because they can be interesting, and have drama as a byproduct (generally). When I hear something or read something from some of those people (I do follow Jana Reiss), part of what they are saying/writing is processing their experience in real time and sharing it with us. Sometimes that is useful like a support group. Sometimes that is not helpful because our grief is processed (for now) or we are not in a stage where we have grief to actively process in that way.

B) Select Club (sorta) - Before my last child, I had a miscarriage. Up until then, "miscarriages happened to other women - I had some magic fertility ward". And then I experienced one myself and joined that club of women (many women actually) who had had a miscarriage and had mourned that loss. I finally could really "mourn with those women" rather then try to be supportive awkwardly from the sidelines.

Faith transitions are no different - there is point where the change in faith matters, certain questions cannot be unasked or unthought about. A lot of active members will not reach that point or choose not to stay in that space of accepting the easy answers to those questions. [This is the Stage 4 Deconstruction from Stage 3 Activity). In Fowler's model, eventually a person who goes into a Stage 4 situation will have the chance to marry/thread together their Stage 3 and Stage 4 experiences to achieve Stage 5 and 6 depths of meaning and a variation of activity levels. This isn't even the .02 cent tour of that process, more like a tour guide sign of a map destination].

FINAL POINT: Our church teaches that believe in agency and that we are free to make choices. That is a big deal for us. We value that so much that we believe that an entire Heavenly War was fought for it.

On some levels, this freedom to choose is "sacred" because of that. However, because the church is an organization and is interested in completing staffing requirements, financial solvency, and related concerns, sometimes the message is "Your freedom to choose is important to us - except when your freedom to chose means that tithing isn't paid and callings are not completed' (and related circumstances where the choices of the individual and obligations to the church come in conflict".

Sometimes we have to "stand our sacred ground" (quoting Brene Brown) even when standing there doesn't feel sacred and doesn't meet the expectations of church policy and/or church leaders. We don't necessarily have to get vocal about it, it may not be an aggressive, explicit fight (it usually isn't). It's just getting to know yourself and being able to say "No AND" having conversations about what you can do, what you want to do, and what actions are meaningful for you. Your mileage may vary. But just because you aren't meeting someone's or some organization's expectations doesn't mean that you have to change to do so (or that you do have a really good reason to make different choices and/or have a conversation regarding what that individual/organization can expect from you - actually it can be both). The tension between the health of an organization (and the organization's priorities) and the individual belonging to the organization is an ongoing internal dialog (at least for the individual).

[Ilovechrist77]

Sorry, I meant serious corruption in the system that needs to be addressed. I typed "arrested" by mistake. Sorry about that. Haha.

What I mean by that is when the brethren, General Authorities individually, and local leaders are guilty of being regularly dishonest or other bad behavior. It just seems in many Mormon Stories episodes the way these things are dealt with are just either not take very seriously or even in Nemo The Mormon's (He's a young English member of the church that's been on Mormon Stories and has his own YouTube channel) case when he chose not the First Presidency because of Oaks' several dishonest statements. He even wrote Oaks mails back and forth regarding the statements and Oaks kept referring him to a Fair article about the statements he was talking about, instead of actually addressing. Now, I realize everyone, even truly honest people, have been of and will be guilty of some form of dishonesty, a little or huge. But, being regularly dishonest with others is a cause for concern.

So, I was really meaning that I wish there were better ways in the church with dealing with that type of corruption. I wasn't talking about if the gospel wasn't taught in it's pure form. I agree with you there that you're better off keeping quite.

[Roy]

He even wrote Oaks mails back and forth regarding the statements and Oaks kept referring him to a Fair article about the statements he was talking about, instead of actually addressing. Now, I realize everyone, even truly honest people, have been of and will be guilty of some form of dishonesty, a little or huge. But, being regularly dishonest with others is a cause for concern.

I think of Elder Packer's talk "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" to help understand what I believe to be the mindset of many church leaders. In the talk Elder Packer contrasts the approach of a professional historian making pains to remain as impartial as possible with the approach of what I imagine to be a lawyer. The lawyer is not impartial. They are either for the prosecution or the defense. If they are working for the defense then they have no obligation to disclose facts that might help the prosecution. They are also allowed to defend their client by presenting alternative theories on how the crime may have transpired. The defense does not need to prove these theories, it is enough that they are reasonably plausible.

Elder Oaks specifically has been professionally trained as a lawyer and judge in his career prior becoming a GA.

In this way, I don't think that Elder Oaks is being dishonest as much as he is assuming a role of promoter of faith and defender of the church.

Perhaps there are specific examples that have been made by Elder Oaks that you might want to examine more closely.

[Ilovechrist77]

Perhaps there are specific examples that have been made by Elder Oaks that you might want to examine more closely.

Well, one of the statements Nemo was referring to is where (I know this a sensitive issue, as Staylds has stated several time before) Oaks claimed he didn't about conversion therapy going on at BYU when he was the school's president, but ends up saying later on that he knew about it. Which is it, President Oaks? With a different apostle, Elder Ballard, he claims in one video that the church hasn't hid the true church history from its members, but then in another video he claims the opposite.

I really don't want this to become an argument. I'm just expressing what I understand in the best way I know how.

[Roy]

Yeah, I personally tend to give a pass on examples like that. My intent is to give people the benefit of the doubt.

In these examples, I imagine that Elder Oaks might have peripherally known that conversion therapy was happening but not really deep into the details. The psychology department may have any number of experiments happening at any given time. They certainly do not require the personal approval or oversight of the university president. So maybe both can be true. That he had heard about it but was not really involved.

Hiding the true church history IMO is a bit of a different issue. I think that there is a mountain of evidence that the church actively discouraged non-faith promoting narratives. I point to the treatment of authors Juanita Brooks, Linda King Newell, and Valeen Tippetts Avery. These were faithful Latter Day Saints that wrote the truth (as much as they could with the resources available to them) and faced consequences. But even here, if Elder Ballard says that the church didn't hide the true history, then I assume that he means that church officials have promoted the narrative that they firmly believe while discouraging competing and revisionist versions. It is not as simple as hiding a body for example. History is a tapestry. Even trained historians will highlight those parts that they feel are most important/relevant and minimize other elements. History is, of necessity, a condensed version of the past.

I assume that Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard would be reluctant to parse their statements and parse exactly what they meant in each setting because there is a high probability that anything they say could be used against them and against the church.

In short, I see them both operating in their capacity as members of a board of directors for a multi-billion dollar and multi-national corporation. I wouldn't exactly call them dishonest. I would however agree 100% that they are not very transparent.

P.S. Going back to the Lawyer example of my previous post. Are defense lawyers dishonest? Is it an unacceptable profession for people of faith and integrity? There does seem to be some wiggle room between being dishonest and telling the full and unvarnished truth in all situations.

[Ilovechrist77]

I think I understand what you're saying. I agree what saying. I agree that there's some wiggle room with being honest and being open, especially when it comes to defense lawyers and people that do undercover work for the government, the military, and law enforcement, even though being deep undercover for long periods can be incredibly stressful for those people involved. I apologize if I seemed like I trying to say that honesty means that you're always an open book to all people at all times. I really wasn't trying to say that at all.

I also agree that history is a condensed version of past events. You're right. Nobody who writes or tells history will want or will be able to write or tell every single little detail. I've tried when I've written in my journal before. Hahah. It's not even possible.

I just believe the telling of certain events could have been handled a little bit better, but, then again, as the saying goes, it is what it is.

[nibbler]

Oaks claimed he didn't about conversion therapy going on at BYU when he was the school's president, but ends up saying later on that he knew about it. Which is it, President Oaks?

If I recall correctly, Oaks made the claim that conversion therapy at BYU was discontinued before he became president of BYU and that it didn't happen under his term. People researched it and determined the statement was false. A grad student did some research on conversion therapy while Oaks was president.

That's where my knowledge ends. Maybe Oaks was unaware of the grad student's research. Maybe he signed off on it and forgot. Maybe he did know and did remember but he lied about it. It's hard for me to say without knowing more facts.

I don't know of any statement by Oaks where he recanted but even if he did it could have been one of those situations where you make what you believe to be a correct statement, find out you were wrong, and then issue a correction to your prior statement. I wouldn't classify that as lying, provided you genuinely believe the first statement you made.

With a different apostle, Elder Ballard, he claims in one video that the church hasn't hid the true church history from its members, but then in another video he claims the opposite.

I looked this one up so I could get the exact language.

Context: The question was asked, "What advice/guidance would you give for answering tough questions about Church history when we are asked about them by someone who is struggling with their faith?"

Ballard:

But it’s this idea that the church is hiding something, that we would have to say as two apostles [Oaks was with him] who have covered the world and know the history of the church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the quorum of the twelve from the beginning of time. There has been no attempt on the part, in any way, of the church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody.

Now, we’ve had the Joseph Smith papers, we didn’t have those. Where they are in our hands now and so we’re learning more about the Prophet Joseph. It’s wonderful we are. There are volumes of it, there’s so much of in those books now on my bookshelf. Maybe you’ve read them all, but I haven’t. I’m a slow reader!

So, just trust us, wherever you are in the world and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that. That’s the Lord’s way.

I'm not aware of any comments by Ballard where he claims the opposite. The opposite would be, "We attempted to hide things from you." I can't imagine Ballard saying the opposite, even if he believed it.

I do find his comments about the Joseph Smith papers interesting. He said we (which I take to mean he includes himself) are learning more about JS. I think there's an assumption that the apostles know everything about everything when it comes to the church but maybe they're learning the same things we're learning at roughly the same time or maybe they're not learning them at all. Can you actively hide something you don't yet know?

Now... I think there has been an intentional effort to whitewash history to only tell the faith promoting/narrative supporting side. In my opinion that is a form of dishonesty but that's only my opinion, someone else may not see it that way, but back to Ballard.

From his perspective he may believe the church hasn't hidden anything. From another perspective people believe the church has. From the perspective of people that believe the church has hidden things, it can look as though Ballard is lying but that's not necessarily the case.

I think it all comes down to guessing at the knowledge and motivations of others.

[Ilovechrist77]

Thanks, Nibbler, for sharing your perspective. I try to give people the benefit and not judge them harshly or condemn them. At the same time, the Lord says we all need to use discernment, although that's different discussion entirely.

[Old-Timer]

I think there is a good example of how difficult this issue can be in the Bible.

The Gospels tell different versions of the ministry of Jesus. In some cases (fairly numerous), they contradict each other. A very simple example is Jesus fasting in the wilderness. Matthew describes a typical Jewish fast lasting 40 days, where there is no food or water from sunup to sundown (like the Islamic Ramadan), while Luke adds a statement that Jesus ate nothing the entire time. (Of note, Luke does not say Jesus drank nothing, also. We assume that, based on our definition of fasting.)

[As an interesting side note: Matthew was a tax collector, while Luke was a physician. Stereotyping, Matthew probably was practical and systematic, while Luke probably was more mystical and versed in “spiritual” issues (since medicine back then included mystical/spiritual elements). It would make sense that Matthew would see a standard, important, long-term fast, while Luke would see a physical miracle or extraordinary accomplishment.)

If we take Luke’s account to mean no food and no water, it is physically impossible, while even no food alone is next to impossible to do and still be be reasonably healthy and coherent, so I accept Matthew’s account - but Luke was focused on highlighting Jesus as a miracle worker, so his account fits his overall narrative better. Was he lying, or did he hear the account and automatically assume a miraculous event, or did he hear the story from someone else who assumed or was taught a miraculous event - or was it actually a miraculous event?

I can’t know with absolute certainty, but I accept the non-miraculous version for three reasons: it makes more sense to me; I don’t need it to be miraculous for it to be meaningful to me; it is more meaningful to me if it is not miraculous.

Add the issue of multiple plausible interpretations of various stories and events (like why Judas “betrayed” Jesus and Peter denied knowing and following Jesus), and we can begin to realize how difficult (or even impossible) it is to understand people fully - even people we know quite well.