Ep 391 – Post-Mormon Values

Panel Discussion

Posted August 2nd, 2017

Glenn tells the amazing story of a nameless man he met at Sunstone, briefly teases a new feature called “Ask Hard-ass Jesus,” and shares the audio from our Sunstone panel discussion “Infants on Post-Mormon Values” with Randy, Tom, John, Heather, Bob and Glenn. Enjoy.







  • Jason Jordan Smith

    There is a man in Oregon who was given a SET of keys to escape his cage. IOT was one of those keys. This man opted to stay in his cage, for escaping it would mean leaving his spouse and children behind. They did not believe there was safety outside of the cage, and he would not compel them to do anything. Now the man suffers in silence while within the cage. And so he sits, hoping either his family will desire freedom too or that the cage will finally rust away and give them all no choice but to see through the illusion. But in the end, he made his choice, for dwelling within the cage was bearable as his family was with him. Freedom without them was just too empty of an existence.

  • windy_way8192

    I really enjoyed this podcast and want to add how I arrived at my own version of the Golden Rule, and basically, love.

    With love and kindness, loving our enemies, changing the world through it, I think that a shift is necessary for them to make sense from a secular point of view. Define love as doing good for and desiring good for someone, sometimes just the desire for their good when we cannot do.

    Ground this in existential epistemology: I am. (And if I am not, I think that I am so I will proceed as though I am.) If I am, than others are. If my world is real to me, than it follows that others’ perceptions and experiences may be just as real and important to them as mine are to me.

    In order to bridge the gaps between what I perceive and what another perceives so that we can collaborate in our human existences, we form common ground between us. This ground must be acceptable to both parties. If it is not, the separation is made and any new common ground must again be created if we are to interact, which must be acceptable to both parties. This principle can be called healthy boundaries.

    I will use Joseph Smith as an example.

    If I met him on the street, and he asked to buy a bouquet of flowers from my cart, we agree on a price. If he wants it for free and I refuse, the buy/sell relationship is over.

    If we are discussing crop science and we are pondering crop rotations for replenishing soil nutrients based on agricultural principles, and he says goat sacrifice is imperative for a good tobacco crop, because his bosom burns with the idea, I lock up my goat and the critical analysis is over.

    If I had at any point accepted Joseph Smith as a prophet of God to me and he persists in abusing his power and authority, then I will (and did) end that relationship. He is then not my prophet.

    And if anyone comes to me and tells me he is a messenger from god, I may listen out of a diligent sense of inquiry and curiosity, but can dismiss any claims of divine message for me. At the most, he may have received a divine message for him, but until I have repeatable evidence of receiving that message myself in an objective, repeatable context, I will not assume any such message exists for me. If indeed I do find such information through a person claiming prophecy, I only examine each message on a case by case basis and may thank the sharer for sharing, but reject any prophetic claims.

    There are healthy vendor/buyer relationships, healthy scientific relationships, healthy spiritual relationships. Yet there are not healthy prophet relationships, at least not in any definition where a person claims power or control of others based on their prophecies.

    Healthy boundaries in loving relationships require an awareness of and respect for the limited (until further notice) common ground. So a parent-child relationship can range from authoritarian to democratic as the abilities of children expand, and so the extent of love for most of humanity, except for the concept of the common good, is restricted to only desiring for the good of others. Healthy boundaries.

    So I would wish Joseph Smith the best, but under the above conditions would probably avoid trying to do business with him, would be highly skeptical of his scientific advice and spiritual insights, and would completely reject any claims of authority over me. If he was the mayor of the town where I live, I’d leave.

    Thanks for everything, infants!