NOM

So I had some time to work alone over the weekend, so I took the time to download and listen to John Dehlin's tapes about his excommunication. Without a doubt, it was an exhausting listen. Even John explaining things and giving some context about each meeting sounded exhausted at the end, and stated so. I really felt for him, having gone through this myself, (not as badly as him, obviously) and having to explain yourself to some dude, over and over and over again. I even took out one of the meetings I had with my old SP, which I recorded, and that made me exhausted too. It's just so circular, and clearly the leaders just want you to shut up, pay your tithing and do what you're told. Ugh.

It made me realize how much I enjoy NOT having to explain myself to other people, even though every two years I'm forced into it. Lookit, I'm a peon, a nobody, who has an anonymous net handle with not a lot of very interesting things to say, so I know it's not the same level as what John was doing. But I get it. John was just tired of going through interrogations, simply because he wasn't on board with all of the church's doctrines and practices. And decided to be public about it, which is different from what I was/am doing. So I even have some empathy for his leaders dealing with him, as I'm sure they had some pressure from the higher ups about doing something with John. It's just an exhausting situation, and John's right in his conclusion, there just were no winners in that fight. Just losses all around.

So listening to that was triggering for me and brought up the essential hopelessness that I feel in regards to church. Do I want to see it burn down? No, there's people I love who are in it. Do I want to see it change? Yep, for me and for the people I care about. Do I have hope? Not really, but you never know. So that's where I'm left. There are days that my apathy is large, and that's when things are great. I don't care if people say stupid things at church, I'm not in charge of fixing them or it, and I only speak up if harmful things are said. But then I hear the Dehlin tapes, hear the intransigence in the voices of John's leaders and just feel hopeless all over again.

Not for the first time, I envy those who have just left the charade behind and moved on. I'm sure tomorrow I'll be back to my cynical, self-depreciating and generally apathetic self and not worry about it. But today has been rather melancholy.

I might be sorta weird but because I have catalogued so much damning info that I can retrieve at will in my brain, I'm somewhat disappointed I will never get to show it off in a big debate showdown with the local magisterium. I would love to pull the pin on some WTF cogdis grenades and toss them into the high council room full of prudish naive middle aged men (I say that having been one). But alas, they already know I have spiritual COVID 19 and must be avoided at all costs.

I have listened to the first two interviews and found myself getting incredibly frustrated listening to the SP and BP ask the same questions over and over again. Or when JD told them outright that they didn't seem to care to even try and understand his concerns/pain and they answered by telling him to come up church more and read his BoM.

I couldn't finish the third episode (new bishop interview). The audio quality was really hard to get past.

Well local Church leaders are in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the indefensible - they try and put it back on the questioning member to pray and read their scriptures because that is literally the only tool in their box. I guess there’s telling members to read the essays, which is just lipstick on a pig. There simply aren’t any effective tools for them to deal with the situation.

They’ve got nothing. But they can’t admit that without compromising their own authority and commitment to the Church, so all they can do is throw it back on the questioning member. It’s then up to the questioning member to figure out whether the cost is too high to walk away from all the BS - which, unfortunately, for some of us it is, or we wouldn’t be here.

Occasionally you will get reports of LDS leadership presenting this dilemma in an honest, straightforward way. I have heard of leaders that just wants to cut to the chase and tell the budding apostate, "These are the answers we have. You will have to decide what you want to do with these answers." It's rare and I'm sure that apologists and fervent believers would bristle at such a concession.

John Dehlin is simply thinking about belief and religion and God in ways that are simply not comprehended by orthodox believers. We could charitably say that no one is actually at fault. John's stake president had his ordered worldview and John kept asking about the tough questions on the margins.

Mormorrisey, was your experience from the church leadership side of the table or from the excommunicated side of the table? I don’t recall specifically your story.

Having sat in on ward disciplinary councils I can say the whole process is silly. Grown adults having to confess to a room full of men then sitting there helpless while they deliberate.

I was the ward clerk who had to take notes and fill out a form to send to Salt Lake. I may have misspelled intercourse a few times now that I think of it.

I’m also amazed how many adults ended up having sex outside of their temple marriages.

I can say that high council service during disciplinary councils was a huge nail in the coffin for my testimony during my early transition years.

One of note involved a guy going on business trips and habitually visiting massage parlors that had extra benefits.

One really old high priest self-reporting masturbating in the shower and getting caught by his wife (disfellowshipped)

One guy who did prison time for beating up his wife (reconvene for reinstatement after being out for a year)

Plenty of regular old cases of vanilla adultery.

I hated every awkward minute in those courts.

I sat in on one where the single guy was 95% deaf. He hadn't had many girlfriends over the years but met a nice girl who was also deaf. They ended up succumbing to the biological forces of nature and so he came in and confessed. She wasn’t a member and didn’t understand what all the worry was about. She came to his court of love. The bishop explained why they were there then excused her. He proceeded to ask him how many times he had sex. The deaf guy didn’t hear very well and kept saying, what? The bishop raised his voice and said HOW MANY TIMES? The guy said I don’t know. The bishop yelled back, Come on, you know exactly how many times!

They excused him to discuss what they thought should be his punishment and the bishop said, On one hand I want to high five him, and on the other I have to consider fair punishment.

I nearly died laughing and had to literally bite my tongue it was so funny. That bishop was a keeper. He ended up handing down formal probation for 6 months.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:50 am Mormorrisey, was your experience from the church leadership side of the table or from the excommunicated side of the table? I don’t recall specifically your story.

Having sat in on ward disciplinary councils I can say the whole process is silly. Grown adults having to confess to a room full of men then sitting there helpless while they deliberate.

I was the ward clerk who had to take notes and fill out a form to send to Salt Lake. I may have misspelled intercourse a few times now that I think of it.

I’m also amazed how many adults ended up having sex outside of their temple marriages.

I never had to deal with anything untoward except the actual "investigation" process of my apostasy, which is what JD's recordings are really about. I had a couple of bishops and a couple of stake presidents sit down with me over the last decade to "explain" myself and my views, and it was just as exhausting as what John describes. And I then had to have a series of three meetings with my friend the SP to get my temple recommend a couple of years ago. Here's a recap of just one of those meetings:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3451#p45805

But yeah, I've also had to sit in on some disciplinary councils since I've been on the HC, and they are ridiculous; although none for apostasy. I think that in my area, nobody knows the doctrines of the church period, let alone the problems. Thank goodness I don't have to go to these meetings anymore. But as a guy who feels eternally grateful that there's one wonderful woman on this planet who has agreed to have occasional snuggles with me, I've never had the time, inclination or the sexual competence to explore extramarital adventures. Boggles my mind how many in my area not only contemplate, accomplish and then feel guilty enough to confess these events to their priesthood leaders. Yecch.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:30 am I sat in on one where the single guy was 95% deaf. He hadn't had many girlfriends over the years but met a nice girl who was also deaf. They ended up succumbing to the biological forces of nature and so he came in and confessed. She wasn’t a member and didn’t understand what all the worry was about. She came to his court of love. The bishop explained why they were there then excused her. He proceeded to ask him how many times he had sex. The deaf guy didn’t hear very well and kept saying, what? The bishop raised his voice and said HOW MANY TIMES? The guy said I don’t know. The bishop yelled back, Come on, you know exactly how many times!

They excused him to discuss what they thought should be his punishment and the bishop said, On one hand I want to high five him, and on the other I have to consider fair punishment.

I nearly died laughing and had to literally bite my tongue it was so funny. That bishop was a keeper. He ended up handing down formal probation for 6 months.

It's still ridiculous to have a council about that, but good on that bishop to show some mercy. Why do you even need a council to hand down that verdict in the first place? Good grief, young people have hormones, end of story.

I skipped the third interview and moved on with the series. It only gets worse as it goes. SP King repeatedly tells JD that he is absolutely free to support LGBT marriage, that he is free to question church beliefs, but that his support or doubts must remain private. At one point he even says that JD can absolutely continue Mormon Stories so long as he doesn't talk about the church. WTF?

In what world does it do any bit of good to "support" something but remain completely silent on the matter!? How does it help anyone to have questions, doubts, or concerns, but not be able to talk to anyone or seek support from people who really understand how hard this can be!? Is everyone supposed to literally suffer in silence through their entire life!?

That isn't freedom. It's classic cult thought control. It is domination of the group over the individual in order to keep the group as a whole quiet and compliant.

Adapting J Holland's rant...

I’m so furious with people who [refuse to think about] this church. I don’t know whether furious is a good [objective] word. But I am. And I say, what on earth kind of [freedom] is that? What kind of paddy-cake, taffy-pulled experience is that? As if none of this ever mattered, as if nothing in our [religious] life mattered? As if this is all supposed to be just exactly the way [the Q15] want it and [the Q15 had] answered every one of my questions ... and then maybe [ I could remain] a Latter-day Saint. Well, there is too much Irish in me for that.

At another point in the episode, SP King reprimands JD about the Tom Phillips interview. Apparently, JD said that he would not post the interview on his site, so instead he posted a link to where it was hosted on another site?

King says something along the lines of, "You can't put something out there, tell people they shouldn't click it, and expect them not to click on it." (Heavily paraphrased) But isn't that exactly what God did with Adam/Eve and the tree of knowledge? JD is just doing that which has been done in our own world.

Good catches, graey.

The one thing that stood out to me in those later interviews, were the rather outrageous demands that were made to John, to take down all his controversial podcasts that "talked badly about the church." As if John had the time to sift through thousands of hours of content to remove all the warts. And he fully expected that John would comply. Just ridiculous.

græy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:26 am At another point in the episode, SP King reprimands JD about the Tom Phillips interview. Apparently, JD said that he would not post the interview on his site, so instead he posted a link to where it was hosted on another site?

King says something along the lines of, "You can't put something out there, tell people they shouldn't click it, and expect them not to click on it." (Heavily paraphrased) But isn't that exactly what God did with Adam/Eve and the tree of knowledge? JD is just doing that which has been done in our own world.

That puts John Dehlin in the role of the Lucifer character handing out unauthorized knowledge. Since the Q15 are the arbiters of allowable knowledge, Dehlin got a 10% raise and free time on Sunday.

I once pressed an apologist friend of mine on why Joseph was in Carthage jail when he shot. It only took a couple of questions before he stated that William Law was simply not authorized to talk about plural marriage at that time. That justified destroying a printing press. Apparently, revealing plural marriage to the world was only to be legally allowed after Brigham took the polygamous faithful outside the borders of the United States.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:00 am

græy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 9:26 am King says something along the lines of, "You can't put something out there, tell people they shouldn't click it, and expect them not to click on it." (Heavily paraphrased) But isn't that exactly what God did with Adam/Eve and the tree of knowledge? JD is just doing that which has been done in our own world.

That puts John Dehlin in the role of the Lucifer character handing out unauthorized knowledge.

On further thought I can see that conclusion as well. Tempting people with actual knowledge by providing a link and verifiable sources.

I was thinking it puts JD in the role of God. God planted the tree of knowledge in Eden, put Adam/Eve right where to knew they could get to it, and then told them to leave it alone. Similarly, in order to say "don't do it" John avoided posting the interview on his own site, but then provided a way to access the information anyway "for it is given unto thee."

græy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:20 am Similarly, in order to say "don't do it" John avoided posting the interview on his own site, but then provided a way to access the information anyway "for it is given unto thee."

He was only doing that which has been done on other podcasts.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:40 pm

græy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:20 am Similarly, in order to say "don't do it" John avoided posting the interview on his own site, but then provided a way to access the information anyway "for it is given unto thee."

He was only doing that which has been done on other podcasts.

What is that?

I finished listening to the last of these episodes today. The sound quality was certainly rough in places, but I found the whole thing fascinating.

I've wondered at times what it would be like to open up to an LDS leader about my heterodoxy. In the past, I've thought it could be interesting and helpful to do so informally. But it never comes up and I've never gone out of my way to make it happen.

But I don't think it would really accomplish anything other than making the leader in question spend yet more time away from home and lowering his opinion of me.

Ghost wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 6:44 pm I've wondered at times what it would be like to open up to an LDS leader about my heterodoxy.

Try simulating the experience first. Here are proxies for 3 different possible responses.

1- Sit in front of a wall and repeatedly throw a racketball against the wall. Let it hit you in the face on each rebound.
2- Open up about your heterodoxy to a hamster running in a wheel.
3- Go to a Trump rally wearing a Make America Socialist hat.

I listened to part 1 and about 30 minutes of part 2.

Here's the thing... the orthodox, the truly orthodox... I don't think they're in a position to understand the skeptic or a person with nuanced faith.

To draw an analogy, it would be like arguing with someone that's colorblind that this image shows the number 5.



"It has the number 5."
"I just don't understand why you would say that the image has the number 5."
"It has the number 5."
"I just don't understand why you would say that the image has the number 5."
"It has the number 5."
"I just don't understand why you would say that the image has the number 5."
"It has the number 5."
...


"I just don't understand why you would want to baptize your son."

The SP shouldn't have to understand why; it's not his dilemma, it's John's dilemma. Besides, it's an act of faith. But long ago Mormonism apears to have abandoned faith for the comfort of perceived certainty.

30 minutes into part 2 and it's obvious that the SP is trying to impose his beliefs onto John. That's not all that surprising to me, that's just what someone with conventional faith would do in a situation like that. They're not going to understand someone with nuanced faith. To them nuanced faith is just another problem to fix. It only gets further complicated because Mormonism has made its own authority a central object of worship.

I try to avoid those types of conversations with people who are orthodox. It seems to be the most charitable approach and it can be a time saver.

"I just don't understand why people say that the image has the number 5."
"Yeah, it's weird isn't it?"

It's "return to the cave" in the allegory of Plato's Cave.

Of course in this situation it appears John was just trying to live his life and he was constantly being called on the carpet. "Ok. Explain yourself!"

At this stage in my life, my reaction would be: