Hi All,

Why does John Dehlin stay in the Church? He's an atheist who knows that the Church's foundational beliefs are false.

Does he stay in because:

1. His wife will divorce him if he leaves (and take the children);

2. His parents will disown him;

3. He would feel socio-culturally rudderless if he left; or

4. He would lose the attention that he currently gets (i.e. social standing) as the creator of the Mormon Stories Podcast?

The problem that I have with his staying is very simple. He's intelligent, and is pursuing a doctorate in clinical psychology. He knows that the Church is false. Nevertheless, he goes out of his way to not "offend" active members. He's not living what he knows to be truth, but instead participating in an organization that oppressed blacks, continues to oppress women, and actively opposes homosexuals. To not fight injustice is tantamount to participating in it.

No amount of trying to change the Church from within can alter the fact that the Church is false. Joseph Smith was a liar, charlatan, and fraud whose storytelling destroyed countless other people's lives, and that continues to this day. By remaining within the Church, John is only helping to perpetuate this, even if he, himself, isn't engaged in directly preaching hatred and falsehoods.

Why is John Dehlin living a lie?

Furthermore, why hasn't the Church stopped him? It knows that he's an atheist. If this were the Cold War era, and he were a communist sympathizer, he'd be on the CIA's watch list. There seems to be little doubt that the Church is watching him like a hawk, and will *nail* him at the first misstep. And rest assured that they can't wait!

Who is holding a gun to John's head? Why is he terrified of leaving? What is it that he's trying to protect?

It's not just his life that's at issue, but the lives of his children. Will his boy(s) go on a mission, and be shot at, and killed? What, then? How would John feel to know that his complicit kowtowing to the Church's false doctrines, which he knew to be false, caused his child(ren) to die?

Most of us try to discover what's true from what's false, and lead our lives in accordance with what's true. John seems to be doing the opposite, and it's difficult to see how this behavior is anything but cowardly. He seems not to be able to imagine the consequences of his ongoing membership in the Church. He seems to believe that it's benign. But it's not. He is unintentionally aiding and abetting a morally criminal organization that--we have to admit--tears families apart, and prevents families from forming.

Why?

Steve

He said it's because Mormonism is such an integral part of him.
He likes many of it's aspects. If you can remove yourself mentally from the coercive and stultifying aspects of it, there are plenty of good parts, in his opinion. He wants to treat it as more of a family social club, I guess.

It's yet to be seen if he or I can continue to do the "Cafeteria Mormon" thing. This, I'm sure is distressing and unacceptable to the GAs. They pretty much want you to be a TBM or you need spiritual therapy and a lot of it.

I suppose you could always go ask him.

I can't speak for John Dehlin, but I do know others who are atheists, but remain active in their respective faiths or origin so to speak out of cultural affiliation/affinity. I have some good friends who are atheist Jews and while they absolutely do not fit in to their faith of origin from a theological standpoint, they can't imagine culturally identifying with any other group and so they continue to practice many of the traditions of their religious background believing full well that their faith is a man made construct. I don't know I John Dehlin is similar, and like the above poster I recommend asking him directly.

Maybe he is waiting for them to kick him out or see if and when they will. Idk. Good questions.

John Dehlin should be able to live his life as he sees fit. Maybe he likes living a lie. Maybe it works for him. How do John Dehlin's life choices personally effect any of us? I know the dude personally. He's a genuine guy even though I don't agree with his personal philosophy on Mormonism. He actually does a lot of good. He's not terrified of leaving. He has actually hepled a lot of people out the church and he does it without being condesending or vindictive. you can catch more flies with honey... John has been called into the SP's office a couple of times, but he knows how to walk the line in a way that allows him to not technically break any rules. Different strokes for different folks. Let him do what he wants.

He (and his choices) don't effect any of us, I think it's a "practice what you preach" (believe) kind of thing. Imo.

That's been my impression too, cowardly.

Mind you, if all your family relationships are wrapped up in Mormonism, it is scary to leave. Is there a possibility that he's trying to reform Mormonism? Possibly.

Or will he lose part of the family inheritance if he quits? I guess only John knows.

it's hard for a man over 35, in Utah, to give up his family and social status, and equity in a community. He wants to have it all as the "Beautiful Loser".

I will say 1-3 are reasons that give one pause. Before we are too hard on Dehlin, how many of us continue to pay taxes rather than withhold them, for example, even when the government is using that money to do things we despise? Only a few activists are willing to do that and risk being jailed for their convictions. I'm not. I don't back up my convictions to that degree. I hope I can vote for something better. But is that just an out so I don't do something more decisive and uncomfortable?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2012 05:57PM by robertb.

I've wondered if the church is using him to break the news to members. That way if anything goes wrong, it's john's fault.
I've wondered if they have an agreement. He stays within certain bounds and makes certain disclaimers, they let him stay.

Just wondered. I know it it was someone like me doing what he's doing I would have gotten ex'd a long time ago.

+1
John is playing both sides, and in my opinion is doing it with the blessing of the brethren, in order to help them monitor the black sheep. For all we know, he could be coordinating with, or even a part of the upper ranks of the 'Strengthening the Members Committee'. History is full of men and women who have done similar-this would be nothing new.

John Dehlin is walking in the footsteps of Thomas Ferguson, the original NOM. I am sure not the first, just the most public. When asked this question, he said, basically, "It's still the best brotherhood even if the Book of Mormon is not true."

WHen you heal from the injustice of being lied to in God's name, you cease caring what god's or a pogo stick people around you believe in. You love your family and you're not going anywhere no matter because to you, ALL religions are a crock, so what difference does it make.

This is the attitude many atheists have and why we are, generally speaking, so much more tolerant than religionists.

John Dehlin is like Steve Benson in that he is a big frog in a small pond. Among exmormons, Steve is a celebrity--the grandson of a prophet, who defected. Someone who knows a lot about a narrow slice of American religion that we on this board happen to be very interested in. Steve's frequent posts attract a lot of attention and are read by everyone--they are always meaty and informative, albeit repetitive (but what isn't around here?)

John's views are only of interest because he is on the fence. If he left and joined us, he would lose his unique quality and be one of many intelligent and articulate exmormons. If he was a full-faith Mormon, he would be just another hack bearing his testimony, one among many.

He will be keeping his unique voice as long as he stays on the fence. He has plenty of company, so his Mormon Stories is very popular.

Anagrammy

Really nice thought, Anagrammy. Still, isn't it lovely being in the middle and shot at by both sides? :) Do you think atheists are more tolerant than believers? I'm not so sure of that based on what I've seen here. I guess it is a question of which atheists and which believers . . . . I could well be wrong.

Hi robertb--keep in mind that we have a filtered set of atheists here. It's a Recovery from Mormonism site- a bunch of former cult people who are now atheists.

That suggests a group of people who have rejected Mormonism AND Christianity and any form of god. It is easy to imagine that such a group would be a tad more contentious than the average atheist.

It's easy to be irritated when religion has taken so much of your money, your time, your youth, your hobbies, the career you would have invested in (women), your health and given back...a promise they could never be held accountable for not delivering. An afterlife with certain qualities of power and prestige for you (if you are paid up, of course).

Quite honestly, it's almost impossible to get a never-been-mormon atheist to have a conversation about what recovering Mormons believe--whether they have abandoned Christianity or not. Might as well ask me what I think about whether the African tribe of X will ever be reconciled with the tribe of Y. If I am honest, I will answer, "And I should care about this why?"

Also, let us not forget the attention seeking factor. John is an "element of the church" and "to be considered" and I am sure he enjoys the calls for interviews, his opinion, blah, blah.

Anagrammy

who take my money, lie to me, and are generally an irritant. I've been out of the church so long, I've forgotten how it feels to feel generally irritated with it, nor do I live in Utah or have Mormon family.

So glad to be out of all that. Thanks for the reminder.

As for attention, we all need it and need to belong where we get it. I can't fault him for that. I also can't help but wonder how often people here support statements they don't entirely believe into order to belong.

I have read, for example, that in polarized groups in which people make public statements that often their private statements are softer and actually consider the other point of view. That all goes out the window when "my side" and "their side" is watching and listening.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2012 05:52PM by robertb.

+1. I have found atheists to be pretty intolerant. It may not be true of all or most of them, but that has been my experience.

Is Dehlin an atheist? I haven't followed him that closely, but that was not the impression I got. I know he doesn't believe in the church but that is not the same thing as being an atheist. Got any documentation?

Why are you so dang cool robertb? I always love your insights.

Rings true. Do you think he is essentially untouchable by the church due to his public reach? I can't explain why he hasn't been shown the door yet.

On one hand we have an even-keeled guy like Bishop Bob McCue who is essentially told he must not talk to any members or friends in or outside the church about his ideas and questions or he will get bounced, while on the other hand Dehlin talks to everybody, publishes his ideas like crazy and even hosts his own church meetings for crying out loud and he gets a pass.

Chad Hardy publishes a calendar and he is gets the death penalty. Dehlin publishes interviews with scientists and historians all debunking the TSCC's claims, nothing. Go figure.

It makes no sense to me.

But it does make sense that if he were exed there would likely be a cascade of resignations from the NOM crowd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2012 03:09AM by rodolfo.

Why should it matter to anyone but him?

+1!

John is playing both sides, and in my opinion is doing it with the blessing of the brethren, in order to help them monitor the evil apostates. For all we know, he could be coordinating with, or he may even be a part of the upper ranks of the 'Strengthening the Members Committee'. History is full of men and women who have done similar-this would be nothing new.

John is playing both sides, sort of. But for one, I'm happy he is. He doesn't pick and choose among Mormons or ex-Mormons, and I was happy most of all when I discovered him that he was telling people publicly on YouTube why Mormons were leaving, and he didn't pull punches. At the same time, he was also active LDS. So this gave me someone to point family members to when they got on my case.

OK seriously, what do the brethren really have to gain from John? You think spying on nonbelievers? That's ridiculous. For one, most of the people posting on MormonStories are anonymous.

In what way is directly confronting the church for their hipocracy living a lie?

My brother has listened to topics he would have never broached had it not been for John's even-handedness. He give both sides a say, and that is dnagerous for the side who has been the one hiding things.

If the church ever fired up the Danites again, he would be their first stop.

I don't understand staying while not believing, but I was raised with a convert father, so my cultural, social and family life didn't really revolve around the church.

I think that the fact that he is honest about where he is, belief-wise, keeps me from thinking of him as a hypocrite. I might be put off if he was in denial about the things that are wrong about the church, or kept silent on problematic issues, but he doesn't. He is open about criticisms of various issues and he brings them to the attention of a lot of believers.

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, but I'm glad he is.

I think my fellow RFM'ers can take a bow for a reasonably balanced discussion of the man (whom I do not know).

But I will comment on the irony of the "brotherhood" term:

"It's still the best brotherhood even if the Book of Mormon is not true."

Because (1) it contradicts virtually every personal anecdote I have ever read on this forum, and (2) if someone in God's hierarchy ever declares John Dehlin to be Mormona Non Grata, the "brotherhood" will become a school of Piranha.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2012 12:09PM by 3X.

But it's still a shitty homophobic, sexist, racist brotherhood at that.

I'd say Dehlin is living less a lie than the vast majority of Mormons.

So in all this analysis, I think the bottom-line question is: Have Dehlin's activities since 2005 done more to hurt TSCC (in terms of more resignations, more people deciding not to pay tithing, etc.), or have they actually strengthened people's committment to TSCC? If it's been a net negative for TSCC, then that's all I care about. It may be hard to see now, but maybe years into the future we'll view John as a critical figure that helped thousands out of TSCC.

For those interested in understanding what I'm doing with Mormon Stories and on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-dehlin/my-motives-with-facebook-and-mormon-stories-aka-my-facebook-comments-policy/10151445558205408?notif_t=note_comment