43 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Nice going, annegb. This is what you call interviewing the interviewer. I’m going to be laughing all day about an Access database called the “General Authority Candidate Tracking System”, somewhere in the COB. Had I been in John’s position, I would have been strongly tempted to hack it, and put in the names of my jack-Mormon relatives and neighbors. |
I was shocked it was in Access. Must be a really small pool. |
John’s work is a double-edged sword. Essentially, John shares the perspective of gays, masons, feminists, liberal academic, African-American, and LDS apologetic types, etc. as they relate to the Church. He does not pretend to be free of bias, but he does a good job of ensuring that the speaker can tell their story. More problematic is his view that the LDS church is not any truer than any other religion. This philosophy has the effect of helping like-minded people stay in the Church. But candidly, once people who take his perspective reach a critical mass inside the Church, they will probably greatly diminish the fervor and belief of ordinary members. The “all religious truth-claims are equally valid” viewpoint has already eviscerated the Unitarian, Congregationalist, and other Protestant denominations. Let’s be honest: no matter how much we may admire John personally, or even agree with his viewpoint, it will ultimately sap the faith of the sister down the block who wears painfully bright floral print dresses and makes casseroles for people when they get sick, or the chubby scoutmaster and accountant who always does his home teaching. Most of the masses aren’t willing to make financial, personal and moral sacrifices inherent to Church membership unless they think the Church literally true. John’s beliefs that the Church is no truer than any other religion is a double edged sword. But one edge is much sharper than the other. |
Mark IV – that was the thing that struck me too – That would be hilarious to put in names of the high profile excommunicants. I am amazed they track such a thing actually. |
I really enjoy John’s perspectives and agree with most of them. Random guy, I think that you will never see such a critical mass in the Church of John’s way of thinking and it will not have the same effects as in other religions because of our heirarchy and people’s belief in a prophet. |
Random guy, I think you’re putting words in John’s mouth. I’ve not seen anything that says he doesn’t think the church is any truer than other churches. Reversely, he holds them in high regard, as do I. |
Annegb: I’m not sure what your trying to say. John doesn’t seem to believe the Church is any truer than any other religion. He not only respects other faiths, he probably believes they’re as true as the LDS Church. For instance: John’s advice regarding raising Children in the Church titled Goodness, not “one trueness” states: Make it very clear at an early age (I recommend eight years old) that you do not take them to the LDS Church because you believe it to be the “one and only true church.” …Also, make it clear to them that you deeply value and respect all faiths and denominations. Devyn S., C’mon. The Church’s belief in prophets and hierarchy don’t make us immune to decay. Catholics once widely believed in infallability and heirarchy, but only a minority of its members attend Church and take its truth claims seriously. So, too, did the original Church, as have many other organizations that are only a memory. If John’s views gain traction, we’ll become just another greying and shrinking Church. I respect John’s view as intellectually valid. But realistically, it’s too tenous and shaky a foundation to ensure the Church’s continued vitatility. |
“Funniest thing he ever saw in his life: DKL at dinner with 4 other mouth-frothing feminists” Just for the record, I’d like it known that there was no actual mouth-frothing at dinner!! It was funny, though–poor DKL. |
Random Guy, the purpose of the church isn’t to instill religious fervor, it’s to bring people to Christ. It takes all types to make Mormonism work, and I find your discussion of “the masses” — as though they’re something we can talk about that we’re separate from, or perhaps better than — is downright silly. Moreover, your notion that you seem to have — that one can’t or shouldn’t be critical of the church or its leaders without risking the destabilization of the masses — is a tacit admission that our church is a brainwashing cult. Since our church isn’t a brainwashing cult, I conclude your notion is wrong. What is truly a double edged sword is the kind of filth offered by so many of the articles in the FARMS Review of Books, much of which is little more than snide innuendo and personal insults looking for the appearance of a slam-dunk, when truth is entirely lacking. Many people read this and think, “If this is a defense of my faith, then I don’t want to have anything to do with it.” I know some. Heck, I’m even tempted to think that when I read it. It’s distressing to think that even the smallest part of my tithing money funds this. |
He’s not saying he believes it, he’s saying “if YOU believe this….” “C’mon. The Church’s belief in prophets and hierarchy don’t make us immune to decay.” I feel this is valid. Although, if the church is true, and I believe it is, God’s blessings will make us immune. I believe that. “If John’s views gain traction, we’ll become just another greying and shrinking Church.” I completely disagree Honesty is refreshing, not damning or killing. “I respect John’s view as intellectually valid. But realistically, it’s too tenous and shaky a foundation to ensure the Church’s continued vitatility.” I don’t think he’s trying to save the church’s vitality single handedly. I don’t think it needs saving. Can you identify yourself in some way? I’m assuming you’re representing the church with your objections. I realize that perhaps you are limited in this, but can you give us some kind of context for your point of view? I mean that in the most respectful way, I want to understand where you’re coming from. Hmmmm….perhaps I should interview you. You up for me asking your brother how you embarrassed the family as a kid? I found that GA thing funny, too. I think I should vet new GA’s. I’m a good picker. |
“without showing proper deference to established personalities (mostly at Times & Seasons”.” This sounds like a bit of backhanded humility. I don’t really buy that anyone in the ‘nacle needs any kind of deference, much less T&S. |
Random Guy, On February 15, 1978, the First Presidency issued a stqatement that said this: “…The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel. Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.” I don’t want to speak for John, but my guess is that his thoughts are more or less consistent with that statement. |
My understanding is that there are two Bains. Mitt Romney worked for one and then helped found the other. The first Bain was the consulting firm and the second one invests money in companies. I imagine that Mitt Romney made most of his fortune in the second one, the one that’s not a consulting firm. |
John Dehlin, OK, you probably will not drop any names about who was in this database, but would you be willing to tell us what the criteria were for potential GAs? |
Kristine, you don’t have to be ashamed. There’s nothing shameful about a woman frothing at the mouth when I’m around. |
The General Authority Candidate Tracking System …. what an interesting concept. |
Annegb, First, I’m not sure either of us should further attempt to define John’s beliefs. I had thought he believed not that the LDS Church is the “only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth,” but that there were many true and living Churches, and that none should claim to be truer or more alive than any of the others. You apparently read him differently. Fair enough. Whatever John’s beliefs, I argue this, and this alone: when members of a demanding faith like Mormonism come to believe that other faiths are equally true and valid, many will seek a church that demands less of them. Assuming the LDS Church is true, this means it will go through a serious and prolonged downswing like it did repeatedly in the Book of Mormon. Assuming it is not true, than this means it will probably go the way of the Unitarians. I couldn’t understand your comment about my brother and interviewing me. |
Mark IV, Sure, absolutely true. The issue is whether abandoning a belief that the Church is the “ONLY true and living Church” will prove harmful. |
#11 Eric, I don’t, either. But there is something there, I can’t put my finger on it. They’re just sort of tight-butted. |
I’d like to know more about YOU now. I asked you to share about yourself. But I can do it in an interview if you wish. I’d love to, actually. |
Random Guy: when members of a demanding faith like Mormonism come to believe that other faiths are equally true and valid, many will seek a church that demands less of them. You’ve got it the wrong way around: Mormons feel strongly about their religion because it demands a lot from them, not vice versa. |
I’ll add that in addition to a potential GA tracking system the Church also gets a list of the three “best” missionaries from each mission president as he is about to leave the mission. I have no idea what is done with this list, but I attest that not only does it exist, but that I filled it out for my mission president. Luckily I was not on it. |
a random john, I have it on good authority that they submit that list of the three best missionaries to the Republican Party, and they continue from that point on to be groomed for various political offices in order to consolidate Mormon power and take over the political system. |
arJ (22), that’s interesting. Maybe the list is stored for long-term considerations such as future mission presidents and GAs. |
DKL, Two of the three from my list are from Brazil. For all I know they vote PT, the worker’s party, aka communist. Well, communist until recently. |
Annegb, I’m a practicing member of the Church in California. I’m an attorney, single, sort of quiet guy who reads constantly. Most members of my ward probably think of me as “that quiet guy,” if they think of me at all. I read a lot of social science. My comments on the Bloggernackle tend to reflect Rodney Stark’s observation that religions must exist in tension with the broader society to grow. |
This looks like an entry on ldssingles.com. |
A few quick reactions…. –First of all, it’s VERY bizarre both to be interviewed, and to be the sole subject of a blog post. It’s worth this embarrassment, however, just to be able to interact with the witty Annegb. Danithew has become a dear friend as well. And John Fowles did great in our last Mormon Matters episode, for those who haven’t had a chance to listen. Smart guy. –OK…I must confess. None of the feminists I had dinner with did any mouth-frothing. I was just trying to be funny. –I don’t see all churches as equally true or good, by any stretch. Not even close. I do see differing levels of inspiration and divinity in all churches, and in all people — believers or otherwise. And I do see ours as being the absolute best for me and my family. It’s hard for me to really speak beyond that…but it is in this church that I am placing my faith and efforts. I do pretty much despise any emphasis on the “one true church” concept. For me, it borders too much on Remeumptum-like behavior. I’m open to it being true, but I believe that it’s actually injurious and even evil to dwell there for any length of time. Churches can’t be true. “True” is a binary term to me — and using it as such not only overstates the position of this man-run institution, but it also (more sickeningly) implies falseness in all other churches — which again, is an evil thing to be thinking and feeling — whether or not it’s actually accurate (for me, at least). Churches are only true when they act as such. Churches are comprised of imperfect people. So, like Bushman, I prefer to judge the world not by a true/false paradigm, but by levels of goodness. And let there be no mistake about it….I see infinite good in the LDS church, and in its members: much inspiration and divinity, indeed. This is why I attend, and this is why I spend so much time encouraging people not to leave it. –That article I wrote (”How to stay in the LDS church after becoming disaffected”), that is mentioned here, was written explicitly for a very specific audience — people who are inclined to leave, or have already left the church. It’s a plea to them, and only them, to consider staying — through some (admittedly) radical recommendations. It’s not in any way intended to be a guide for general membership. Also, I totally agree that it would not be good for the church if a critical mass of church members followed the advice of this document. But I also agree that this is unlikely, and I have no desire for it to be so. Again — it’s only for those in need of radical help to maintain activity (better semi-active than inactive?). It’s also not a direct guide for how I and my wife handle our own affiliation. We’re much, much more traditional and conservative than what that documents explores. –Mitt Romney has worked both for Bain Consulting and Bain Capitol in his day. I worked for Bain Consulting. –The GA tracking system, I imagine, is no longer in Access. My guess is that it’s now an Oracle app. It also could have been discontinued for all I know. Also, I was never allowed to see the raw data: only the tables, forms and queries. I don’t think there was any hard criteria, per se, but I can tell you some of what I saw. I recall that most of the people in the db were either mission, temple, or stake presidents. I also recall that they tracked things like: illness in the family (including mental), debt levels, overall financial position, ability to relocate, or to quit current jobs, past callings, any special “problems” amongst family members, and spiritual impressions from the various interviewers over time, etc. This was a long time ago that I worked for the church, I should say….1997 to be exact…so I’m not sure how much of this is relevant today. Still — it was fun to see. –Kaimi, J. Stapley or Steve Evans can speak directly to how poorly I handled my entry into the bloggernacle. I was moderated and even banned (for a short time) from at least one or two blogs (including T&S), for what I now consider to be very good cause. I should have handled things better, and there definitely is (or at least was) a protocol and list of rules/etiquette that was required for full engagement — that I didn’t really learn until much later. Kaimi and others have been amazingly supportive since then, however. It just took some time for me to gain back some trust. But I was definitely obnoxious at first on their blogs. Anyway, ya’ll are the coolest. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I’m humbled, but it’s kinda fun for me…in a bizarre sort of way. All the best. |
So how did the church know about individual’s debt levels? Just from asking them in interviews? I know someone here who has returned from being a mission president. When he was called, he said that it would be very difficult for him to afford to go, and he was advised that he could sell his house here and use some of the profits to live on. He did take the calling, but did not sell the house, made it some other way financially. But selling a house here, and then trying to return 3 years later would have been financially disastrous, since home prices doubled in that time. I note that he hasn’t been called to higher callings– perhaps the leaders have heard what his wife has to say about the idea of selling the house– or about how difficult those years were on their young children in an area where the schools were really rough. |
John, I agree that there are gradations of truth–truth is not binary, as you put it. All religions have at least some truth, and some error. I also agree that there are levels of goodness. D&C 1:30 describes the Church thusly: “…the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually” What do you think? ——– To be fair, I’ll give my opinion: The world isn’t black and white (binary, as you put it), but neither is it entirely gray (unitary?). There is such a thing as absolute truth, though it may be rare. To my mind, it is possible that the Church is “true.” I suspect the ‘truth claims’ of the Church account in part for the dedication of its members; I worry that transforming the ‘truth claim’ into a ‘goodness claim’ would correspondingly reduce dedication to the Church. (A vacuum cleaner salesman who believes he is selling a good vacuum cleaner would be less devoted than one who believes he is selling the best vacuum cleaner available–the one, true, vacuum, so to speak. This is true regardless of the objective truth about the vacuum cleaner) ——— I also owe you an apology. From the article, I had the impression that you were teaching your children the principles at issue in this post, and I inferred from this that the article represented your views. I’m sorry for my mistake, and for making the mistake in a public forum such as this. |
Well done, A Random Guy. I would like to interview you. e-mail me gardnera@netutah.com And I’ll send you my phone number and we can work something out. If only to introduce you to my single sister, unless you’re the guy I chewed out on her behalf who was a lawyer. But I think he was from Salt Lake. I think on the issue of true (I love John’s words about it, but I also loved yours), I was helped by this post I did and the wonderful responses. http://www.mormonmentality.org/search/What%20does%20true%20mean? Mormon bloggers rock, they just do. |
I agree that truth isn’t binary, but isn’t authority to perform ordinances binary? |
annegb: [What's your biggest] pet peeve[?] You sure about that, John? |
DKL — |
John, I have a ton of questions that I was already asking when we were speaking. First of all, certainty? Huh? Extrapolate. Although I bet that’s not what makes you want to hit people. Like I want to get up and throw something every time I hear “Brother so and so is here with his lovely wife.” Renee Zelwegger, why did she divorce Kenny Chesny? Do you think she’s so sweet that guys take advantage of her? She seems to lack that self protection one would need. Orange is your favorite color. To wear, to have around. Orange? Although my aura is yellow orange and that’s why we get along. I think the baseball field baptisms is rather funny. I can see these good natured Guatemalan boys saying, “you know, these Mormons are good guys. But they have weird requirements to play soccer. Oh well, no worries!” John, I think you did a Mitt on the church is true question. I’m still not sure how you feel. Remember when I asked that question? Or maybe not, I think everybody reads every word I write LOL. The conclusion that I reached through the blog answers was that true=official. The church is God’s official church here one earth. I would qualify by saying that there is wonder and truth and validity in every faith, even B’hai, whatever that teaches us to love each other and serve God. They are good and beloved of God. Even led by God. We do not have exclusivity, but if I were to have to take a stand or be shot, I’d say, “yeah, you know, God formed our church, you guys.” Again, I don’t even think there will be a church in eternity. Churches are temporal vehicles for organizational purposes only. And I think any attempt to interpret eternity and the way God will govern is impossible. However, John, do you teach your kids that our church is one of many, like you suggest on your post? I think you said you didn’t, but I wanted to be sure. Do you believe that we have the authority from God to administer his church on earth? I thought we were talking the same language on that. Which is complicated and not easily explained. It sounds equivocal. But it isn’t. The woman who wrote I Stand All Amazed, of her near death experience, said she believes in our church, but because of what she experienced in the spirit world, would never presume to say what was right for others. The church isn’t a perfect fit, and frankly, I have a touch time fitting that round hole. God loves His children and perhaps there are other ways to come unto Him in this life than Mormonism. Ultimately the principles will hold and God will provide. John, asked and answered my own question. Except…..um….certainty? |
I was sorely tempted to say the exact same thing as you did in #33 DKL. I just thought it might not be the best form to make that comment #1 so I refrained at the time… Anyway, nobody I have ever met is really averse to certainty; though I see people claim to be in the ‘nacle too often. Rather, people are usually not pleased about other people feeling certain about things they themselves are not certain about. (For example, atheists don’t like it when theists are certain there is a God and theists don’t like it when atheists are certain there is no God.) PS — I must confess that people claiming to be averse to certainty is a pet peeve of mine… Way to go John! (jk) |
Oh this is a great interview! I’m a big fan of John Dehlin. The fact that the church has fostered such as him is a great testament to its truth and goodness, in my opinion, though I’m not one of the doubters his wiki is aimed at. But striving to build a better church community, to approach Zion more nearly, is part of what we sign up for when we join, I think, and John’s efforts strike me as effectively going about that work. |
A quick response…. –On certainty: In many ways, of course, I’m a hypocrite on this point, because I often get carried away when I speak or write. In part, I was just trying to come up w/ something witty and provocative for Anne. But if there’s any truth to it, all I’m really saying is what Socrates said, “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” Though I sorely lack it, I really do admire humility when it comes to intellectual and religious pursuits. –Just to be clear, we do NOT teach our kids that the LDS church is God’s “One and Only True Church.” Not because we deny divinity or authority within the church, but because we think it does WAAAAY more harm than good to teach this to people, or to even say it. For us, the word “true” does not belong anywhere near the word “church” — there’s just too much messiness in churches to merit proximity to that word. For us, calling a church true, is like calling the color red “true”, or the flavor of vanilla “true”. To us, it is meaningless….and not only meaningless, but evil in terms of how prideful and divisive the word tends to make us (”we’re true…you’re not…nya nya nya”. In my heart and mind, we’re only as true as we ACT…and we all have a long ways to go on that front. –As for authority, I see divinity and authority in our church, but not to the exclusion of divinity and authority elsewhere. If a Catholic mother prays to heal her child, I see that as in every way valid (and as likely to work, or not) as if an LDS High Priest anoints with oil, etc. In addition, I do not necessarily believe that Mormon baptisms are necessarily required for entrance into heaven (though I’m still open to the idea — just dubious rihgt now). Instead, I believe that somewhere, somehow….things are a bit more complex than this (back to the “not knowing” thing). Personally, I tend to wonder if the whole “proxy work for the dead” part of our church is really for us, not for the dead. I know this is heretical, but other, more central LDS doctrines have been overturned in time…so I’m holding my breath for this one too. There’s so much that needs to be done for the living…I just can’t believe in my heart that God requires physical ordinances for dead people (though I do love all the genealogy stuff). Anyway, I’m still open to it all being “True”, but I can’t get my heart and mind behind it right now. Maybe in 40 years or so. –One very important thing though….I’m not saying that I know that our church isn’t true, or valid, or that it doesn’t have authority. I’m only saying that other churches and paths have authority and truth as well…and that we just don’t understand everything yet. I guess I’m also saying that to focus on the word “True” causes MUCH more harm than good. Most of you have to actually redefine the word “True” to actually feel comfortable using it, which is interesting in and of itself. In the end, I tend to see many ways up Mt. Fuji. Does that answer your questions more directly? You can begin throwing tomatoes now!!! |
John, that echoes my sentiments. It’s hard to explain that with the proper caveats, though, to kids. Mostly I keep my mouth shut. Oh, no I don’t LOL, what am I saying??? |
John, I especially enjoyed your five-part series with Anne Wilde, and the interviews with Richard Bushman. I Love your podcasts!
I struggle with this also, and it is good to hear of someone else who does. For me, it is hard to wrap my head around. I read of in the olden days when people obtained revelation about who to seek out and whose work to do, and how the law of adoption was also tied in, and that makes a bit more sense. But lately, with the church “cancelling” all the baptism of holocaust victims, for example, it makes the whole ordinance seem awfully hollow. If we believe in this, how can we just cancel all the work because someone might have been Jewish and some current Jews got mad about it? Massive numbers of random names, all baptised, with no real spiritual insight into these people or who they are…cancelling politically sensitive baptisms….makes me wonder if this ordinance as currently practiced has any meat to it. |
“The Johnny ye hardly knew…” Well, this is the John I’ve always known. The armchair psychologist in me would classify John as a Type A personality who jumps into everything (work, church, sports, relationships, mission, etc.) like a kid jumping into the pool: a running headstart and his arms and legs flying about. Once the kid (John) surfaces he’s organizing a game of “Marco Polo” with 20 kids he’s never met before. All of this before taking a minute to catch his breath. This raw enthusiasm is combined with a kind of openness/honesty and naivite that is refreshing to some, and offputting to others. It’s not a surprise that he jumped into the Bloggernacle with arms and legs flying about. Just as it is not a surprise that there were other Type A kids already in the Bloggernacle pool who had already established well-ordered games of Marco Polo and Sharks in the Middle and were put off by this Johnny Come Lately. But this is old news. John is one of the many unique Bloggernacle personalities that make the Bloggernacle interesting. Nice post Anne. |
Ben, In my opinion, that which is canceled with the stroke of a pen, can be uncanceled with the stroke of a pen. If the prophet has the right and power to seal and to loose, I would think he could also unseal and “unloose.” After the second coming, the Jewish organization(s) that requested the cancelling of those proxy baptisms are likely going to say “Ummm, can you un-do what we asked you to do in that regard?” Even if we had to physically re-do proxy baptisms for 2,000,000 people, with 130 temples, and assuming each proxy baptism takes 10 seconds, it would only be 43 hours of baptistry work per temple. It could all be re-done in a week’s time. Re: is the work for us or the dead? I sure felt promptings to get my father’s temple work done 2 years after he passed. I didn’t do it myself, but filled out the necessary info/floppy disk, and gave it to a High Priest to do for me. And then my conscience stopped bothering me about it. |
I do not know God’s will regarding religion in this life for each of His other children. I do believe His will for me is to participate in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and, in a non-threatening way, do my part in inviting others to consider the “good news” of Jesus as understood and taught in my faith. I view our proxy work as a universalist part of our religion. If we are “right” that certain ordinances by our Church’s authority really are necessary for full heavenly blessings, we have undertaken to perform them for everyone, so that no one will be excluded simply by having “failed” to join the “true Church” on earth. That is, we go slightly beyond hoping and praying that those outside our faith will find everlasting joy, but do a little something more about it, “just in case” we are “right” and they are “wrong.” To me, this universalist attribute of our faith is an additional reason why I subscribe to it. |