Holy freaking moly!

I submit a small-time post referencing a podcast that I listened to recently, and it’s grown to over 200 comments!!!! With heavy participation from Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley to boot!!!!

I know it’s small beans for you big-time blogs out there, but for me, it’s cause for a mini-celebration!

Thanks to all my readers/listeners for tuning in!!!! For those who haven’t dropped by, please check out the conversation. I actually believe that it’s quite interesting–if not entertaining.


  1. Matt Elggren August 1, 2006 at 12:29 am

    And for those who got a chance to listen to the Tal Bachman podcast…

    Tal would really get a kick out of seeing the comment thread with DP, et al. Someone should tell him.

  2. Daniel Peterson August 1, 2006 at 1:43 am

    Maybe he can supply me with some new quotables about me and my reality-denying fellow-lunatic sociopaths.

    Me, Hugh Nibley, and Louis Farrakhan. We’re the team.

  3. Steve EM August 1, 2006 at 8:36 am

    But John, most of it is a threadjack, and most of the comments are verbal diarrhea. Mayan Elephant is like a kitten playing with its food. I say kitten, because cats play with their food too but eventually eat it. I’m just wondering when ME will let the mice go.

  4. Equality August 1, 2006 at 9:10 am

    John, that’s great. But I would be more enthused about having Mayan Elephant and Domokun and CraigBa! posting comments than Petersen and Midgley. But that’s just me.

  5. Mayan Elephant August 1, 2006 at 9:41 am

    mice? thats no way to speak about the lords apologists. you need to recognize your sin, pay retribution to repair the sin, and cease to commit the same sin.

  6. Steve EM August 1, 2006 at 10:11 am

    Like all analogies, mine breaks down because you\’ve given the mice ample opportunity to run, but they just keep coming back. As I commented on that thread, I found most of your cohorts were nit picking against the apologists and just taking things too seriously. But I could see you were having fun with the whole thing. In any event, I respect you\’re beliefs.

    BTW, I appreciate you\’re poking fun at LDS \”steps of repentance\” nonsense. The process is so much simpler and informal, praise Jesus. [From John–edited a bit…we try not to speak badly of GA\’s here].

    G-d bless

  7. Mayan Elephant August 1, 2006 at 10:18 am

    yeah steve. my wife pointed that out to me too. there have been times where i would have had an anxiety attack listening to some of those arguments. im not sure if the difference now is where i stand, or exhaustion from seeing the arguments, or perhaps the chance to hear if directly from the FARMOUTH, or even if the venue (chez john dehlin) factored into all of it. i did have fun, fo sho.

    for some reason it was cathartic to communicate directly with midgely. his stuff really cut deep when i read it for the first time. im glad to be past some of that, even if i havent forgotten it.

  8. Doc August 1, 2006 at 11:12 am

    For a brief while I had to sit back and read the thread amazed. You actually got some of the loudest voices for both sides of an issue to sit down and respectfully discuss some emotional issues, if only briefly. Kudos.
    Then as people poked at the armor of eachother comments and held them to the microscope and began playing dueling musketeers, the warm fuzzies went away.

    Everyone is still quite entrenched in their own views, but I think getting people to sit down and discuss their feeling was a monumental achievement, especially since these are people (both sides, before you rip me) that go to great lengths to hide their feelings behind the shield of permanent sarcasm. congratulations.

  9. John Dehlin August 1, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Thanks so much, Doc. I’ve actually created a new post where I hope that we can actually create something of value (an end product/document) that will actually help people w/ some of these issues. I’m very hopeful/optimistic that we can break new ground here.

  10. wkempton August 1, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    how do you add quotes?

  11. wkempton August 1, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    [quote]Sunday school, Priesthood, and Relief Society materials are devotional in nature, and are designed to increase dedication to and performance in gospel principles like service, prayer, and fasting. These materials focus on concepts that the Saints can apply in their own lives today. For example, the Sunday School lesson on Doctrine and Covenants 132 discusses eternal marriage, and completely avoids anything having to do with plural marriage. Source: Comment by Mike Parker — July 27, 2006 https://www.mormonstories.org/?p=130#comment-23914#comment-23914%5B/quote%5D

    Well who would want their daughter being told she is the means to the end of some future male-god’s exaltation by providing him with one of many celestial wombs to propagate “his seed” and people his planet(s)? The church has been covering up this teaching ever since polygamy was banned as a practice, as the doctrine went dormant, but never repudiated. In my 1891 D&C there is a footnote to section 132 verse 63: where it says that polygamy is “for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men…” the footnote reads, “that is, the souls or spirits of men to be born in heaven. Verse 19, 30″ (to see an image of this from my 1891 D&C click https://www.geocities.com/exmormon2000/soulsmen.html). I believe the church is embarrassed over the doctrine of celestial polygamy today, and most Mormon men are ashamed over such a doctrine and don’t want it taught to their daughters, so the church covers it up in their lesson manuals.

  12. Mike Parker August 1, 2006 at 7:57 pm

    Well who would want their daughter being told she is the means to the end of some future male-god’s exaltation by providing him with one of many celestial wombs to propagate “his seed” and people his planet(s)?

    The problem, of course, is that wkempton’s tidy summary of LDS soteriology is a rather tasteless distortion of what we actually believe. Even 19th-century Saints would find his characterization offensive and inaccurate.

    Once again the claims of abusive writing by LDS apologists don’t hold a candle to the abuse we suffer.

    Thanks for being “open” and “honest,” wkempton. Now let’s work on “respectful.”

Comments are closed.