Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Reuben
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Reuben » Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:42 am

græy wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:17 pm
Arcturus wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:23 pm
Has God actually talked to these guys and said “gender is eternal.”
It contradicts Joseph Fielding Smith's TK Smoothie revelations, so God may have spoken to one of them, but certainly not both of them. Hmm... :?
I think a Mormon would say God didn't speak to JFS about gender or biological sex.
In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)
While I would love to use this as an example of a blatant contradiction in revelation, I can't. It's pretty clear that JFS is giving his opinion.

As an aside, I really dig "so-called Christian." You know those Christians? They're not, really. We're the only true Christians.
Grieve. It's your right and inheritance as a human being.

el-asherah
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:12 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by el-asherah » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:43 am

"While I would love to use this as an example of a blatant contradiction in revelation, I can't. It's pretty clear that JFS is giving his opinion."



I think it is far more than just JFS opinion, it seems to me to be canonized revelation. See D&C 132

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Within the context of church doctrine when D&C 132 was written - an angel was defined as a gender-less being which "would could NOT be enlarged" (Victorian language for having children through sex).

JFS is just re-enforcing D&C 132:16-17 and he is making it quite clear in his statement that in the church doctrinal context of the early 1900s that an angel still meant a gender-less being. In "so called Christianity" today and all Mormon canonized scriptures an angel is a still gender-less being. The doctrinal shift to an angel having gender is a cultural change with no canonized revelation backing it up, only the recent opinions of men (aka prophets).

I think to argue that TK smoothies is just JFS opinion and not correct, one would have to show a canonized revelation somewhere stating that angels do have gender.
Last edited by el-asherah on Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
I say these things in the name of Joshua and Awmen

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Rob4Hope » Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:42 am

I have a fun monkey-wrench to throw into the TK Smoothy thing.

In NDE literature which is highly supportive of reincarnation and virtual silent on resurrection--gender is something people get to choose, and there are reports of people spending some lives as men and some as women. Its about "experience"...and how can you really understand something unless you actually experience it?

The LDS church gets around this by saying the Holy Spirit (whatever that is) knows everything. But the church also says that experience is critical. So if you learn it through the HS this is the main way everyone learns?...and experience takes a back seat?

Tis a mass of confusion.

Reuben
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Reuben » Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:20 am

el-asherah wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:43 am
I think to argue that TK smoothies is just JFS opinion and not correct, one would have to show a canonized revelation somewhere stating that angels do have gender.
I think to argue that TK smoothies is doctrinal, one would have to show a canonized revelation somewhere stating that angels do not have a biological sex.

I subject putative airtight logical arguments to what I'll call "the DW test." My wife is a believer. She's pretty good at logic. (It's not her default mode, but she's capable.) If I can imagine her not pushing back when I point out a possible contradiction, it's likely to be one given typical Mormon assumptions.

In this case, she would push back. She would identify "I take it" as meaning that JFS was giving his opinion, and point out that being unable to have children doesn't imply lack of sex organs.

And then I would ask her whether male angels have vestigial penises. Heck, I might bring this up just so I can use the phrase "vestigial penis."

At any rate, I can't call this a slam dunk because it fails the DW test.
Grieve. It's your right and inheritance as a human being.

User avatar
græy
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:52 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by græy » Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:37 pm

Reuben wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:20 am
At any rate, I can't call this a slam dunk because it fails the DW test.
That is some fine MythBustin there Reuben. :D

I agree, that even though JFieldingS did talk about, he did not teach it widely, and it never really gained a foothold in general membership's conception of Mormon theology. There are few today who even know that such a teaching ever existed at all.

All of this aside, and back to the OP topic. I really wish the earliest Mormons were a better record keeping people so we could narrow down and knock out a few of the "How it came to be" theories.
I'm better than dirt... well most dirt. Not that fancy store bought stuff, I can't compete with that... full of nutrients and everything. -Moe Sizlack

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by 2bizE » Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:39 pm

JFS has said so many things that are bogus you can’t really believe him. Remember what he said in the 1960s about god would not allow anyone to reach that sphere we call the moon.
He is also the one that cut out the 1832 version of the FV and his it in his office safe for 3-4 decades.
~2bizE

User avatar
1smartdodog
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:51 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by 1smartdodog » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:07 pm

Hagoth wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:45 am
felixfabulous wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:18 am
I thought the material was fascinating. But, I thought it was a hard interview to follow. I feel like I know a fair amount about early Mormon history and was lost during parts. Melonakos seems brilliant but very scatterbrained and kept trying to blurt out facts or left thoughts hanging in mid-air.
I was even more frustrated with John Dehlin at times. He would cut her off mid-sentence and try to steer her to say what he wanted to hear. For the first hour or so she didn't say much because Dehlin was talking most of the time, giving his version of what he wanted her to say. The extreme example of this was when he interviewed Alex Beam about American Crucifixion and Beam had to ask Dehlin to stop putting words in his mouth.
Yes it got frustrating when she was not allowed to finish a sentence. Scatter brained as she was. Especially episode four where John was almost insisting she agree with him. But to Johns defense she was saying some pretty crazy stuff in that episode. In fact I was buying much of what she said even though I thought the counterfeiting was a big stretch. But episode four she lost all credibility, she just became another evangelical trying to discredit Mormonism in favor of her brand of christianity.
“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
― Thomas A. Edison

User avatar
Yobispo
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Yobispo » Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:08 am

Palerider wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:53 am
felixfabulous wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:18 am

I think Oliver Cowdery works well as a co-conspirator except that his falling out in Kirtland was so drastic that it seems like he would have threatened or spilled the beans about how it actually happened. Why didn't this happen? Melonakos would probably say that he was still bound by a blood oath. But it seems like someone would have talked, especially at the end of their lives. I think some kind of monetary or property settlement could have worked, but I haven't seen any evidence of this when Cowdery left Kirtland.
Just finished a short biography on Oliver. I think the guy was really between the proverbial rock and a hard spot.

After he left the church he went and studied law, doing fairly well. But it doesn't benefit someone in that profession to out themselves as being a part of a fraudulent religious scheme.

Later in his life he was popular and well thought of and made three or four attempts at political or civic office. Each time, someone would do some digging and find his connection to Mormonism. Remember news didn't travel then as it does now.

So each time he failed in his ambitions and was not elected because of his ties to Mormonism. He then would move to another area and attempt to start over.

But Mormonism was like a dead chicken around the guy's neck. He couldn't rid himself of it. Couldn't deny it because he would be seen as a liar and a participant in a fraud. It was a no-win situation.

Finally broke, destitute and in failing health, I think he felt at least one option would be to go back to the church where he might regain some standing and be taken care of in his final years.

In the end he left Salt Lake City and went back to die at the home of David Whitmer in Missouri at 44 years of age.

My opinion? I think Oliver couldn't bring himself to deny his "testimony" because he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

Really a horrible position to be in.

Sad deal....
I share your views on Oliver. Somehow he was a blend of co-conspirator and true believer. Maybe he was the type who believed he was doing something shady but for a good reason - to save souls, or something. He couldn't deny Joseph without looking even worse than he already did.

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by moksha » Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:10 am

Rob4Hope wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:25 pm
D. Michael Quinn said there were reports of JS Jr. sacrificing a goat at one of his digs.
The Smith family had barbeque goat that night.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
StarbucksMom
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by StarbucksMom » Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:20 am

After reading about how JD treated Krsity Money, and in other places about sexual harrassment, I deleted the podcasts and refuse to support him in any way.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/dearjohnde ... oblem/amp/

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Hagoth » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:54 pm

I was really interested in her take on polygamy/polyandry as another layer of oath making between too men. This makes particular sense in terms of men handing over their daughters and sharing their wives. It's sort of another type of blood oath where you're offering wife or daughter as collateral.

Anthropologically, this makes a lot of sense. Intermarriage as a form of contract making for the purpose of creating allegiance or commitment to an authority figure, and/or in trade for special privileges is a millennia-old tradition.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Red Ryder » Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:13 pm

Hagoth wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:54 pm
Anthropologically, this makes a lot of sense. Intermarriage as a form of contract making for the purpose of creating allegiance or commitment to an authority figure, and/or in trade for special privileges is a millennia-old tradition.
Help me with a few other examples of this outside of Mormon polygamy. Is sex always part of the equation?

I can think of many non-sexual quid pro quo situations like Trump loading up his cabinet with cronies, etc.
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. —Rosa Luxemburg

Reuben
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Reuben » Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:39 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:13 pm
Hagoth wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:54 pm
Anthropologically, this makes a lot of sense. Intermarriage as a form of contract making for the purpose of creating allegiance or commitment to an authority figure, and/or in trade for special privileges is a millennia-old tradition.
Help me with a few other examples of this outside of Mormon polygamy. Is sex always part of the equation?

I can think of many non-sexual quid pro quo situations like Trump loading up his cabinet with cronies, etc.
The Bible says King David married royalty from all over the place. He cemented relations with neighboring kingdoms that way. I think he fathered children with all of them. I imagine not doing so would have been insulting, and doing so filled the palace with other kings' grandbabies.

I have no idea what expectations should be when someone gives another man his wife, though.

Bleah.
Grieve. It's your right and inheritance as a human being.

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Hagoth » Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:23 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:13 pm
Hagoth wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:54 pm
Anthropologically, this makes a lot of sense. Intermarriage as a form of contract making for the purpose of creating allegiance or commitment to an authority figure, and/or in trade for special privileges is a millennia-old tradition.
Help me with a few other examples of this outside of Mormon polygamy. Is sex always part of the equation?

I can think of many non-sexual quid pro quo situations like Trump loading up his cabinet with cronies, etc.
It happened in many parts of the world. It was common among various Mesopotamian cultures. It was pretty much essential in the Inca expansion. The true Inca were descended through a specific family lineage, so you had to be adopted into their inner circle if you wanted to play the game. The Inca wanted to conquer their neighbors and many of the neighbors wanted stuff the Inca had. Interestingly, one of the major exports of the Inca was their religion and all of the intriguing celebrations associated with it. If you were able to marry your daughter off to an Inca prince you were adopted into the inner circle and were allowed to trade for Inca elite goods that showed everyone how special your were, and you were invited to participate in their most sacred ceremonies. Once you were in the loop the Inca could call on you to send your family to work on Inca personal estates, to fight for them, etc. But that was cool, because you were special.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by moksha » Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:48 am

Hagoth wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:54 pm
It's sort of another type of blood oath where you're offering wife or daughter as collateral.
On a few occasions, handing over the wife or daughter was the purchase price for Joseph granting eternal exaltation for the husband and all his posterity. Don't laugh, several of his followers actually fell for this Smithian bargain.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
MalcolmVillager
Posts: 574
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by MalcolmVillager » Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:47 pm

Arcturus wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:02 pm
Hagoth wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:29 pm
I had to put down Melonakos' book because of my other studies, (I will finish it when I can), but I must admit to some eye rolling at some of the leaps of logic she took to build her forgery case. Not to say there isn't some evidence, but she does make some assumptions. Other than that it's very eye opening.
Another interesting point to me was the discussion of Joseph trying to sell the copyright to the BofM in Canada? Is this historically accurate or another assumption? If Joseph actually had gold plates and the "translation" was God-sanctioned, then why would he try and sell the copyright to it?
I am surprised nobody has responded to your questions regarding the proposed copyright selling to Canada. I thought this was fairly well known. There are lots of sources but to give the best light here is the FAIR page.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book ... s_false.3F

User avatar
EternityIsNow
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by EternityIsNow » Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:02 am

MalcolmVillager wrote:
Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:47 pm
Arcturus wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:02 pm
Hagoth wrote:
Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:29 pm
I had to put down Melonakos' book because of my other studies, (I will finish it when I can), but I must admit to some eye rolling at some of the leaps of logic she took to build her forgery case. Not to say there isn't some evidence, but she does make some assumptions. Other than that it's very eye opening.
Another interesting point to me was the discussion of Joseph trying to sell the copyright to the BofM in Canada? Is this historically accurate or another assumption? If Joseph actually had gold plates and the "translation" was God-sanctioned, then why would he try and sell the copyright to it?
I am surprised nobody has responded to your questions regarding the proposed copyright selling to Canada. I thought this was fairly well known. There are lots of sources but to give the best light here is the FAIR page.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book ... s_false.3F
This is the first time the copyright sale attempt has made sense to me. If Joseph is after counterfeit money in Canada, he has to make a pretense of selling something for the money. He probably did not imagine at that time the book would become so profitable.

User avatar
Hagoth
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Hagoth » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:56 am

Reuben wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:42 am
While I would love to use this as an example of a blatant contradiction in revelation, I can't. It's pretty clear that JFS is giving his opinion.
Let us not forget the fourteen fundamentals:
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

This conveniently leaves the member completely unable to discern whether a statement is revelatory or not. An, even more conveniently, it gives leaders the freedom to move items back and forth between the revelation and opinion categories as suits their needs.
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Corsair » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:42 am

Reuben wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:20 am
And then I would ask her whether male angels have vestigial penises. Heck, I might bring this up just so I can use the phrase "vestigial penis."
As hilarious as that phrase sounds, it is entirely implied and largely appropriate to use in conjunction with every single current and official doctrine on homosexuality. As recently as the October 2018 conference, Dallin Oaks would largely accept that this "vestigial penis" is supported by the policy on how LGBT should live and act.

User avatar
Red Ryder
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:14 pm

Re: Melonakos Interview with John Dehlin

Post by Red Ryder » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:38 am

Felix, do you have a link to the Trebas presentation you reference below?
felixfabulous wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:18 am
It was interesting to me how similar it was to the presentation D. Paul Trebas did on The Lucy Code. Both connect back to Dartmouth, both show it as a Smith family project and both show the strong ties to freemasonry. Trebas says the Smiths were part of a network of grave robbers for medical research and Melonakos says they were involved in counterfeiting. I thought Trebas' presentation was much better and more persuasive.
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. —Rosa Luxemburg

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests