The narrative that John Dehlin is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and thus should be cast out of the flock, is a misuse of scripture, and taking a scripture out of context.
The scripture is from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus said in
Let me take a believing point of view of Church History to determine what constituted a "wolf in sheep's clothing" in the past. Joseph was not always the best judge of character. When John C. Bennett came to him with radical ideas, Joseph gave them due consideration. Among all things Bennett encouraged was "spiritual wifery", and Bennett performed abortions to take care of "celestial consequences". I will leave aside whether Joseph Smith participated in any of these, but I think we can all agree that Bennett was indeed a very bad man at the time, and preached doctrines that ultimately had very bad fruits. Because Joseph empowered Bennett as a Counselor in the First Presidency, Bennett was indeed a "prophet" by our modern definition (although I don't think that was clear then).
Bennett fully complies with the concept Jesus laid out as a "wolf in sheep's clothing". He was appointed in a position we now consider a prophet, his fruits where heinous, and in his role as a member of the First Presidency, he wolf behavior was shrouded in holiness -- "sheep's clothing".
In what way does John Dehlin qualify for this distinction?
The argument by the Mormon Apologists that have branded Dehlin with this label is simple: They claim that John leads people out of the church with his comments and online entities. He destroys testimony. Therefore like Korihor, he is a filthy apostate. Like Corianton, he has committed the "Sin next to murder" of destroying testimony (read Micheal Ash).
Has he? Let's look at the defining statement he made in his press release -- one that gave me incredible heartburn -- "It is my intent to provide increased support to Mormons who are transitioning away from orthodoxy." The reason it gives me heartburn is not what it says, but what you might take away if you do a quick reading and make a snap judgment, like we all do at times.
The terms "transitioning away from orthodoxy" implies "leaving the church" to most people. Supporting Mormons who are doing so sounds to the emotional mind like "Helping them do so". So, its an easy leap in the mind from what it says to "Leading Mormons away from the Church". It's unfortunate language.
I'm not dispelling the idea that as bitter as John is at this point, he certainly may, in the future, become more active in leading people out of the church if the church pushes him out. I would. I certainly would. But the reality for now is that until this point, he has not been "leading people away from the church" but rather, supporting and helping those who are already in a process of moving away from orthodoxy, and many that are already out.
To be clear, I don't support in any way anything that "leads people out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Not my mission. Not my purpose. I'm "IN" the church as a heretic, and as much as possible, a faithful non-believer. Many have found my position untenable, but I'm good with it and really don't care what others think at this point. But John knows my position fully, and he supports me and I support him.
So, is John Dehlin a "wolf in sheep's clothing". Not in the least, to my way of seeing it. Instead, he has been the guy at the very border of the flock, watching the lambs leaving the flock and shouting out about the wolves in among the flock. He has tried to give a voice to the stray lambs. And for this, he will be cast out.
Who are those wolves? We are.
The scripture is from the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus said in
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-16)Without equivocation, John Dehlin has never claimed he is a prophet, and I doubt anyone here or elsewhere believes that he is. This isn't just a semantic difference: we proclaim that "prophets" are those called to be such in the Church.
Let me take a believing point of view of Church History to determine what constituted a "wolf in sheep's clothing" in the past. Joseph was not always the best judge of character. When John C. Bennett came to him with radical ideas, Joseph gave them due consideration. Among all things Bennett encouraged was "spiritual wifery", and Bennett performed abortions to take care of "celestial consequences". I will leave aside whether Joseph Smith participated in any of these, but I think we can all agree that Bennett was indeed a very bad man at the time, and preached doctrines that ultimately had very bad fruits. Because Joseph empowered Bennett as a Counselor in the First Presidency, Bennett was indeed a "prophet" by our modern definition (although I don't think that was clear then).
Bennett fully complies with the concept Jesus laid out as a "wolf in sheep's clothing". He was appointed in a position we now consider a prophet, his fruits where heinous, and in his role as a member of the First Presidency, he wolf behavior was shrouded in holiness -- "sheep's clothing".
In what way does John Dehlin qualify for this distinction?
- Is he in any way a "prophet"? No. He has never held a position of leadership in the church, let alone those with the distinction of "prophet, seer, and revelator". No.
- Does he teach false doctrine? No. He doesn't teach doctrine at all. He doubts it. Disbelieves it, but does not teach it, nor does he advocate any doctrine (that is "what is taught") as being official doctrine of the Church. It's clear to anyone that John Dehlin does not represent his views as being the doctrine of the church.
- Are his fruits evil? From my vantage point, he has saved lives. I went through years on suicide watch for a daughter who faithfully went through four years of seminary and four years of BYU suppressing her same sex attraction, trying to make the LDS church work for her. I lost her to the church entirely as a result, but thank God she is still alive and no longer suicidal. I didn't have the tools 10-15 years ago that we have now, largely thanks to John Dehlin and others who have given voice to those struggling with both LDS beliefs and LBTGQ issues.
The argument by the Mormon Apologists that have branded Dehlin with this label is simple: They claim that John leads people out of the church with his comments and online entities. He destroys testimony. Therefore like Korihor, he is a filthy apostate. Like Corianton, he has committed the "Sin next to murder" of destroying testimony (read Micheal Ash).
Has he? Let's look at the defining statement he made in his press release -- one that gave me incredible heartburn -- "It is my intent to provide increased support to Mormons who are transitioning away from orthodoxy." The reason it gives me heartburn is not what it says, but what you might take away if you do a quick reading and make a snap judgment, like we all do at times.
The terms "transitioning away from orthodoxy" implies "leaving the church" to most people. Supporting Mormons who are doing so sounds to the emotional mind like "Helping them do so". So, its an easy leap in the mind from what it says to "Leading Mormons away from the Church". It's unfortunate language.
I'm not dispelling the idea that as bitter as John is at this point, he certainly may, in the future, become more active in leading people out of the church if the church pushes him out. I would. I certainly would. But the reality for now is that until this point, he has not been "leading people away from the church" but rather, supporting and helping those who are already in a process of moving away from orthodoxy, and many that are already out.
To be clear, I don't support in any way anything that "leads people out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Not my mission. Not my purpose. I'm "IN" the church as a heretic, and as much as possible, a faithful non-believer. Many have found my position untenable, but I'm good with it and really don't care what others think at this point. But John knows my position fully, and he supports me and I support him.
So, is John Dehlin a "wolf in sheep's clothing". Not in the least, to my way of seeing it. Instead, he has been the guy at the very border of the flock, watching the lambs leaving the flock and shouting out about the wolves in among the flock. He has tried to give a voice to the stray lambs. And for this, he will be cast out.
Who are those wolves? We are.
No comments:
Post a Comment