On MormonStories.org and its gifted founder, John Dehlin.
I try to limit posts on my particular situation and social sphere, but this post is personal. As an enlightened mormon (read: non-believing) I have found a great online support group in the form of a podcast called Mormon Stories. Mormon Stories is a refuge from the church’s official edited version of everything. The podcast consists of interviews of authors, members, former members, relatives of top church leaders, and subject matter experts on LDS history and practices. It’s a forum I believed would naturally exist as I grew up in a church that claimed to have answers to everything. Truth can stand up to criticism, or so I thought. But as it happens, the LDS church excommunicates people for expressing their doubts in public.
The LDS church, at the highest levels, knows that they are presiding over an organization based on many verifiable lies. The Lord has apparently inspired them speak in half truths about their history in order to keep the members’ fragile faith in tact, and their money flowing. The Lord must be impressed at how the internet has outflanked him. So any member who points out Mormonism’s true-but-problematic history in a public forum risks having a wrecking ball swung at their home, by the church. And so far, they’ve shot salvos across the bow of the Mormon Stories ship, but haven’t (yet) declared it an official enemy of the church. And this is thanks to the skills (and courage) of John Dehlin.
I applaud John Dehlin and his efforts, and above all, his manner. People often engage in debate, ultimately with good intentions, wishing to help others to see the light and experience the joy of enlightenment, only to have their efforts be labeled as bad because their affect seems aggressive and angry. This is often a common response by believers to anything that challenges believe. However, John Dehlin manages to straddle that treacherous line well. He conducts interviews like a journalist — a noble profession in my mind — asking good questions and allowing his interviewees speak their true thoughts. Sometimes, though not always, he challenges guests with further questions in order to get to the basis or justification for why people believe as they do in light of related facts or beliefs. His journalistic style allows people to listen and judge for themselves.
People in these forums often are implicitly asking “how can we know truth?” or “Who is to say what is true on certain issues?” If one leaves out supernatural beings and Bronze Age books, all that we have our words, experience (evidence), and our dialog. That is the answer to the question. (A speech by Sam Harris helped me understand this.)
Free speech is an important important right in this equation. You can say anything — say you believe you saw Elvis in your garden. Anyone listening to you, then, can ask you questions, and based on your answers, judge whether or not to give credibility to your words. This is an important way in which we arrive at knowing truth. Open conversation between people — our words and dialog — is a universal way of determining truth.
I’m personally certain that the truth about Elvis is that he’s dead, and the cells that animated his persona while living are also dead. This much, I can say that i “know.” After that, anything about his soul and spirit and all that kind of thing, no one can know. But go ahead and use your words if you wish to make a case for their existence. And I’ll ask questions and let you respond, and after that I get to judge what you say as truth, or not. When this happens on a large scale, we arrive at “approximations of truth,” as Ann Druyan wisely puts it. A humble, reasonable scientific mind will always allow that while absolute truth may be illusory, we can continually improve how much we are getting right about the nature of things. And as Ayn Rand says, when we find contradictions in logic, we should adjust our premises. Put another way, when facts “change,” our opinions should also be open to change.