158 replies to this topic

[why me]

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Excellent post, MG.  I very much agree that John has filled a void in that place, in between, where so many people have been living and honestly questioning.  People like John Dehlin (and I have to include Michael Ash and his book Shaken Faith Syndrome) gave me hope and a reason to keep trying.  And, even though I did, eventually leave, I so much appreciated those safe places to explore, away from critics on both sides.

It is really disturbing to see John characterized as "a sheep in wolves clothing" or some such.  He is not trying to "steal" anyone out of the church.

And has john helped you stay in the church or has he helped you to leave? I think that that is the question. I think that John's podcasts are more or less designed to get people who have left the church to feel better about their decision. I don't know of many people who have said, I stayed in the church because of John's podcasts.

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Excellent post, MG.  I very much agree that John has filled a void in that place, in between, where so many people have been living and honestly questioning.  People like John Dehlin (and I have to include Michael Ash and his book Shaken Faith Syndrome) gave me hope and a reason to keep trying.  And, even though I did, eventually leave, I so much appreciated those safe places to explore, away from critics on both sides.

. I think that you stated it rather well: you still left. And this is an important point. John's podcasts get people who are questioning the opportunity to leave and feel better about it. I don't know anyone who has stayed in the church because of john's podcasts. Now are they out there? Maybe. I just haven't read any posts by them that stated it. But I have read posts from former members who have felt better about leaving after listening to john. See the point?

And this is why john cannot claim neutrality. His podcasts do have an agenda. It is not a bad agenda but it is an agenda. But he cannot separate himself from his podcasts and his own feelings about the church. I also think that john feels better after his podcasts. Why not?

Edited by why me, 09 May 2012 - 11:14 PM.

[why me]

Bill Hamblin, on 09 May 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

The people over at Bedlam are among the most full-of-**** morons I've ever seen.  And that's the nice way to put it.

Now, Bill, you know that in the cult called mormonism such outbursts of emotion are prohibited by the leadership. We must control all emotions and sound like drones. Please attempt to controll yourself or I will report you to the morgbot leadership.

[why me]

Storm Rider, on 09 May 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

I have no problem with questioning, discussion, or anything of the nature; I have a giant problem with attacking faith in the attempt to destroy it.  I ignore his presentation and look at what actually happens. I reject his actions just as much as I reject those of many of the LDS Church's most sensational critics.  As I have stated before, he is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing.  I will trust his words when his actions follow them.

But his earlier podcasts were good. I really enjoyed them and still do when I need to direct someone to them for more information. I think that john is needed for people who are questioning the church and who need a comfortable exit. But if that is his mission, he should state it. But I don't think that he is now neutral.

[Libs]

why me, on 09 May 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

And has john helped you stay in the church or has he helped you to leave? I think that that is the question. I think that John's podcasts are more or less designed to get people who have left the church to feel better about their decision. I don't know of many people who have said, I stayed in the church because of John's podcasts.


. I think that you stated it rather well: you still left. And this is an important point. John's podcasts get people who are questioning the opportunity to leave and feel better about it. I don't know anyone who has stayed in the church because of john's podcasts. Now are they out there? Maybe. I just haven't read any posts by them that stated it. But I have read posts from former members who have felt better about leaving after listening to john. See the point?

I never listened to a podcast, before I left the church...only after.  My exposure to John Dehlin, was through "StayLDS" (his first efforts, which was simply a website with a lot of suggestions on how to stay LDS, even though you are questioning some things (even very basic things about the church).  It did help me stay for awhile longer.  I think John had no idea how difficult it would be, in the long term, to stay with so many doubts.  It was impossible for me.  But, had nothing to do with John's podcasts, which came later.

Quote

And this is why john cannot claim neutrality. His podcasts do have an agenda. It is not a bad agenda but it is an agenda. But he cannot separate himself from his podcasts and his own feelings about the church. I also think that john feels better after his podcasts. Why not?

I know that John has some beliefs, but I wouldn't call it an "agenda"...certainly not an agenda to get people out of the church.  He is not even fully out of the church, himself.  He still attends, occasionally (I think he said about once a month).

[Libs]

why me, on 09 May 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

This is usually a passive-aggressive statement directed at believing mormons. It usually means that mormons should be more controlling of their emotions and suppress any emotion that may show a particular tone. But mormons are just people who have emotions about many issues and some of these issues are personal and they do elicit a rather charged emotion. Mormons do not belong to a cult that requires its members to control all emotional outbursts and feelings of anger, distrust, etc. Mormons are human. Also, all the posts by members have been in the manner of discussion. No one is being mocked, bashed, name called etc as may happen on exmormon boards.

The problem that Joseph Smith had was with his anger management. People were surprised that a prophet shows anger and other emotions that members considered not prophet-like. And they left the church.

It means no such thing.  Of course, Mormons are people...I WAS a Mormon...good grief.  My disappointment was in those who were judging John by calling him a wolf in sheep's clothing.  I think that is a very unfair characterization, and it also seems like an attempt to shutdown anyone who has questions or criticisms of the church.  Tow the line or you will be perceived as a doer of evil...a follower of satan.

Edited by Libs, 09 May 2012 - 11:34 PM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

I think that is a very unfair characterization, and it also seems like an attempt to shutdown anyone who has questions or criticisms of the church.

Unless Dehlin somehow represents anyone who questions to those labeling him in such a way, I don't see how you can come to this conclusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

Libs, on 08 May 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

But....all of these warnings about the "adversary" can sound an awfully lot like trying to shut people up.  

I don't see John Dehlin as the "loyal opposition" and I doubt he sees himself like that (now).  Perhaps, when he first started all of this, he thought of himself that way, but I think he has moved a little beyond that.  

I don't know John personally, but I certainly did and do relate to his struggle with the church.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of LDS out there who do relate (which is why he has such a large following, at this point).  From what I have seen, he has practically bent over backwards trying to be fair, both to the church, and to the very sensitive issues with which he and others try to  deal...sort through...bring to light for consideration and discussion.  He never tries to lead anyone and is completely non-judgmental about where a person is, in regards to church activity.

I'd feel a whole lot more comfortable about it if Dehlin bothered to prepare himself for his interviews.  It is obvious that he hasn't done his homework, hasn't read widely enough to get a feel for the true nature of the issues.  I suppose that is to be expected, coming as he does from a family (as he himself said) which was anti-science and very conservative (the way fundamentalist christians are typically rigid and conservative).

Perhaps his interviewing will by itself help him learn something about the issues, but I doubt it.  He is so poorly informed at this point that he has little to judge his interviewees by, and little context in which to place their responses.  He is more likely to be whipsawed by every little piece of propaganda, regardless of the source.  Aside from all that, he seems like a nice guy.

[why me]

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

I never listened to a podcast, before I left the church...only after.

And if you had only one doubt? Would his podcasts have helped you to stay? Of course, if someone has several doubts well, maybe not. But i do think that someone who listens to john after they have left would not return because of the information in his podcasts. We are speaking about his podcasts now. I don't think that they are designed to get people to stay or to bring them back to the fold.

John during his staylds phase wanted people to stay in the lds church. But are his podcasts now designed to do that? He is revolving from his original podcasts.

I question his neutrality.

[why me]

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

It means no such thing.  Of course, Mormons are people...I WAS a Mormon...good grief.  My disappointment was in those who were judging John by calling him a wolf in sheep's clothing.  I think that is a very unfair characterization, and it also seems like an attempt to shutdown anyone who has questions or criticisms of the church.  Tow the line or you will be perceived as a doer of evil...a follower of satan.

A wolf in sheep's clothing is someone who looks innocent but isn't. Now here is a question: would a believing member who tunes into the current mormonstories feel good about his or her membership or would they begin to doubt their faith? We have people on this forum questioning the lds faith. But they are not called wolves in sheep's clothing. John has been around a long time. People who have followed his journey and where he is now are allowed to come to a decision about john and his intent with mormonstories.

I have nothing against john. I was in contact with him a long time ago. But he is not neutral and never has been even in the beginning. In the beginning he was questioning his faith as a believer and his questions reflected that in his interviews. In fact, at times he would show amazement by the answers as if, he got what he needed for himself. And nothing wrong in that. It made his podcasts interesting.

Edited by why me, 09 May 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[Libs]

Quote

A wolf in sheep's clothing is someone who looks innocent but isn't. Now here is a question: would a believing member who tunes into the current mormonstories feel good about his or her membership or would they begin to doubt their faith?

I honestly don't know.  I think that would be very individual.  Obviously, many believing LDS here HAVE watched/listened to John's podcasts and are still very active in the church.  What is it that makes John "dangerous"?  It just cannot be considered "dangerous" to ask questions and try to get informed answers.  Now, some people are saying the answers he is getting are not well informed.  That may be, in part, true...but, I know he does try to get people who know their subject...I mean, he interviewed Dr. Peterson and I really enjoyed that particular interview.  That certainly could not have made anyone feel bad about their membership in the church.  Pretty sure John has interviewed several other active members, as well.  That's one of the reasons I would consider him "balanced and fair" (not like Fox News, though!  )  

I probably need to just be quiet and leave this be.   I think John is a really good person and has been very helpful to many people (even some of whom are still in the church).  Perhaps, I am biased, just because I like him and feel to defend him.  I am in a couple of his groups on Facebook, so I "see" him interacting often (almost everyday) and I know that he truly wants to be fair to all sides and everyone.  He is still learning, just like the rest of us.  He doesn't deserve to be called names.

Edited by Libs, 10 May 2012 - 12:03 AM.

[mormonstories]

My response to the whole deal can be found here: http://mormon*****.*...php?f=1&t=23840

[Daniel Peterson]

See my response to John Dehlin's response here:

http://www.mormondia...ou/page__st__20

[DBMormon]

Quote

Non-goals:
1) To be dissenters
2) To criticize
3) To influence church leadership in order to effect change in the church
4) To persuade anyone to leave the church
5) To persuade anyone to stay in or join the church

yet here you have criticized
you have influenced church leadership to affect change in the publishing of a critical paper
you may want to adjust the list from five to three

[calmoriah]

reelmormon, on 10 May 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

you may want to adjust the list from five to three

Accuracy in one's claims is always preferable, is it not?  

[CA Steve]

reelmormon, on 10 May 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

yet here you have criticized
you have influenced church leadership to affect change in the publishing of a critical paper
you may want to adjust the list from five to three

So if it was wrong for John to inluence church leadership to stop publication on the paper, what does that say about the church leader(s) who made such a decision?

[calmoriah]

CA Steve, on 10 May 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

So if it was wrong for John to inluence church leadership to stop publication on the paper, what does that say about the church leader(s) who made such a decision?

Since we don't know any info about an actual decision, how can anything be concluded about the alleged decision?

[Libs]

reelmormon, on 10 May 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

yet here you have criticized
you have influenced church leadership to affect change in the publishing of a critical paper
you may want to adjust the list from five to three

I think John was talking about doctrinal changes in the church.  This whole discussion has gone very personal...

[CA Steve]

calmoriah, on 10 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Since we don't know any info about an actual decision, how can anything be concluded about the alleged decision?

Lack of information does not seem to stop the speculation on either side. And with that in mind it seems reasonable to conclude there has been GA involvement based on the reactions so far. It is hard to imagine this level of dialogue simply because some critical emails were sent to church leadership.

[calmoriah]

CA Steve, on 10 May 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

It is hard to imagine this level of dialogue simply because some critical emails were sent to church leadership.

Not hard for me at all.  There has been much dialogue on a lot less, lol.

[Mark Beesley]

Libs, on 09 May 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

I would guess over 150 years, it was more than "just a few" mistakes.

I am really disappointed in the tone of this discussion.  

Yes, it would be a guess . . .