88 replies to this topic

[LifeOnaPlate]

wenglund, on 27 June 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Hi LoaP,

I respect your opinion and would be interested to learn specifically how you believe the "Dehlin phenomena" should be dealt with? I would also like to know how you figure there are better ways than Greg's article given that you also haven't read it? And, even if there may be better ways of dealing with the phenomena, is there a problem dealing with it as Greg has?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll have more to say about it sometime down the road, most likely. Suffice it to say, I think addressing the sort of underlying things that lead to the minor success of Dehlin's movement (providing more rigorous historical accounts in a church setting, for example) is better than direct assault. It doesn't take 100 pages to know that Dehlin's approach has problems. Apologists need to do a better job of recognizing that much of Dehlin's success stems from the sort of empathy one doesn't find explicitly in much apologetic output.

Ironically, I tried to model the sort of approach I favor within the pages of the FARMS Review itself, and I'm grateful they ceded their pages to a nobody like me. An unpublished, uncredentialed undergraduate. It was my first published book review. Some of the editors there didn't like my approach much, but they let me maintain my vision for the review nevertheless (aside from the title, which they wouldn't change!):

http://maxwellinstit...21&num=2&id=774

Also, here's an interesting piece to check out, meantime.

http://www.lds.org/g...leship?lang=eng

Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 27 June 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[William Schryver]

LifeOnaPlate, on 27 June 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Apologists need to do a better job of recognizing that much of Dehlin's success stems from the sort of empathy one doesn't find explicitly in much apologetic output.

I don't believe Dehlin's "success," such as it is, stems from any such thing.  This is, in my estimation, as much a myth as the one to which I refer here: The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics.  As Smith's article eloquently demonstrates, Dehlin's "success" is largely due to his prodigious talent for deceptive persuasion combined with the general faith malaise of a certain segment of the Saints.

[CASteinman]

William Schryver, on 27 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I don't believe Dehlin's "success," such as it is, stems from any such thing.  This is, in my estimation, as much a myth as the one to which I refer here: The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics.  As Smith's article eloquently demonstrates, Dehlin's "success" is largely due to his prodigious talent for deceptive persuasion combined with the general faith malaise of a certain segment of the Saints.

You know, this is almost worth another thread.  "What are Dehlin's successes and How do they obtain?"

I think that one cannot overlook the soft spoken quality of his discontent.  There is no hanging out on Temple Square, yelling into a bullhorn and passing out copies of the Nauvoo Expositor.  

Rather he comes across as a bit spiritually tired and quietly disbelieving.  Of course this latter bit is not true.  He is not the least bit quiet.  He is highly vocal and is virtually shouting from the hills.  But it seems mannerly.

This has to be factored in, in my opinion.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

CASteinman, on 27 June 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

You know, this is almost worth another thread.  "What are Dehlin's successes and How do they obtain?"

I think that one cannot overlook the soft spoken quality of his discontent.  There is no hanging out on Temple Square, yelling into a bullhorn and passing out copies of the Nauvoo Expositor.  

Rather he comes across as a bit spiritually tired and quietly disbelieving.  Of course this latter bit is not true.  He is not the least bit quiet.  He is highly vocal and is virtually shouting from the hills.  But it seems mannerly.

This has to be factored in, in my opinion.

An excellent point.....perhaps critics need to start talking like the General authorities do in conference, nice and quiet and sweet toned and spiritual when they are griping to get everyone's attention, and the speakers at conference need to start talking as if they actually were alive and awake and put some emotion in their voices like critics do who picket us instead of droning to get the attention of THEIR audience, and all will go well.....

[Senator]

William Schryver, on 27 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Dehlin's "success" is largely due to his prodigious talent for deceptive persuasion

Empathy

Deceptive persuasion

Two very different opinions. Interesting

[LifeOnaPlate]

William Schryver, on 27 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I don't believe Dehlin's "success," such as it is, stems from any such thing.  This is, in my estimation, as much a myth as the one to which I refer here: The Apostate Myth of Mormon Apologetics.  As Smith's article eloquently demonstrates, Dehlin's "success" is largely due to his prodigious talent for deceptive persuasion combined with the general faith malaise of a certain segment of the Saints.

Undoubtedly the well-poisoning against apologetics that forms a part of Dehlin's overall gospel is annoying, short-sighted, incomplete, and not congruent with the facts on the ground as I understand them from personal experience and through personal conversation with real people. At the same time, criticizing various apologetic outlets and personalities isn't the sum total of Dehlin's approach. In a very Mormon way he's also tapped into the power of personal testimony and building a sense of communitas. The fact that his in-group needs an out-group explains why apologetics has served as a ready target.

But some apologists have bought into the mirror image of that narrative, building up a story about "apostates" and perpetuating an us-against-them seige mentality that frankly turns a lot of people off in general, and it seems unnecessary to the overall goals of apologetics (to help sustain faith, contextualize and understand criticism, and hopefully assist in maintaining the faith community). Nothing you've said thus far even demonstrates that you understand my perspective, what I'm calling for, or why I'm calling for it. That's partly my fault due to brevity. Hopefully soon enough I'll get around to writing a post or something people can read to get a better handle. Meantime, my review of McCraney and the Hales sermon linked above should give some good indication.

[Senator]

LifeOnaPlate, on 28 June 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Undoubtedly the well-poisoning against apologetics that forms a part of Dehlin's overall gospel is annoying, short-sighted, incomplete, and not congruent with the facts on the ground as I understand them from personal experience and through personal conversation with real people. At the same time, criticizing various apologetic outlets and personalities isn't the sum total of Dehlin's approach. In a very Mormon way he's also tapped into the power of personal testimony and building a sense of communitas. The fact that his in-group needs an out-group explains why apologetics has served as a ready target.

But some apologists have bought into the mirror image of that narrative, building up a story about "apostates" and perpetuating an us-against-them seige mentality that frankly turns a lot of people off in general, and it seems unnecessary to the overall goals of apologetics (to help sustain faith, contextualize and understand criticism, and hopefully assist in maintaining the faith community). Nothing you've said thus far even demonstrates that you understand my perspective, what I'm calling for, or why I'm calling for it.

Well said, LOP!

[David T]

LifeOnaPlate, on 28 June 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

But some apologists have bought into the mirror image of that narrative, building up a story about "apostates" and perpetuating an us-against-them seige mentality that frankly turns a lot of people off in general, and it seems unnecessary to the overall goals of apologetics (to help sustain faith, contextualize and understand criticism, and hopefully assist in maintaining the faith community).

YES.

[William Schryver]

LifeOnaPlate, on 28 June 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Undoubtedly the well-poisoning against apologetics that forms a part of Dehlin's overall gospel is annoying, short-sighted, incomplete, and not congruent with the facts on the ground as I understand them from personal experience and through personal conversation with real people. At the same time, criticizing various apologetic outlets and personalities isn't the sum total of Dehlin's approach. In a very Mormon way he's also tapped into the power of personal testimony and building a sense of communitas. The fact that his in-group needs an out-group explains why apologetics has served as a ready target.

But some apologists have bought into the mirror image of that narrative, building up a story about "apostates" and perpetuating an us-against-them seige mentality that frankly turns a lot of people off in general, and it seems unnecessary to the overall goals of apologetics (to help sustain faith, contextualize and understand criticism, and hopefully assist in maintaining the faith community). Nothing you've said thus far even demonstrates that you understand my perspective, what I'm calling for, or why I'm calling for it. That's partly my fault due to brevity. Hopefully soon enough I'll get around to writing a post or something people can read to get a better handle. Meantime, my review of McCraney and the Hales sermon linked above should give some good indication.

Right ... because, as almost everyone knows, the Church in our day, almost miraculously, has managed to avoid the presence among the Saints of calculating apostates, such as were seen among the Nephites and during the earlier periods of modern Church history.

It is comforting to know that, as the second coming draws ever nearer, at least we won't have to worry about apostate elements among us seeking to corrupt the doctrine of the restoration and erode the faith of the Saints.  In the immortal words of Forrest Gump: "One less thing ..."

Edited by William Schryver, 28 June 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Senator]

Let me first state that I have a great deal of respect and gratitude for the scholarly, non-polemical work that many apologists have done. Their work has been invaluable to myself and many others who when in the midst of faith crisis, have offered reasoned alternatives to the charges of many of the difficult issues regarding church history, doctrine, and scriptural exegesis.

However, (I know you were waiting for the but), a skilled and well versed scholar/apologist does not a good ambassador necessarily make.

I have a vision where there is a break between the producers of non-polemical apologetic works, and those (shall we call it a new group of apologists) who then are the disseminators of that work; that regard the apologetic works as but one of many tools in there embassatorial tool box; such individuals that possess a more ecumenical mindset.

I believe Dehlin could have been such an individual, had he been able to retain his faith and belief in the chuch.

[juliann]

LifeOnaPlate, on 27 June 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Also, here's an interesting piece to check out, meantime.

http://www.lds.org/g...leship?lang=eng

This article contains the key:

"To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula."

FAIR does this by answering questions privately and individually, person to person.    FAIR is almost never given credit for this (nor do they seek that)  and they are instead tarred with the usual "apologist" slurs.

I agree (as does the literature) that a reactive group needs an enemy and Dehlin has set his up through a series of rather vicious attacks, both verbally and in writing.  Thus, there is a scripted and formulaic foundation for his movement just as there is for each side.  ( We already know that from the growing study of New Religions and leavetakers).  Elder Hales explicitly says to respond in a Christlike way,  not a mopologist or countermopologist way.    That is what is missing in the assigning of white and black coats depending on which believer/nonbeliever category you can stick someone in before any knowledge of what they actually do...also known as well poisoning.

Dehlin has skillfully created what is amounting to a successful new movement and he deserves admiration for that accomplishment regardless of how one judges it. Even the NYTimes has highlighted him.  One might argue over the content of a 100 page analysis of that movement, (if it hadn't been censored.)  But to say that it does not merit a 100 page review seems highly defensive.... or at least curious.

[wenglund]

LifeOnaPlate, on 28 June 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Undoubtedly the well-poisoning against apologetics that forms a part of Dehlin's overall gospel is annoying, short-sighted, incomplete, and not congruent with the facts on the ground as I understand them from personal experience and through personal conversation with real people. At the same time, criticizing various apologetic outlets and personalities isn't the sum total of Dehlin's approach. In a very Mormon way he's also tapped into the power of personal testimony and building a sense of communitas. The fact that his in-group needs an out-group explains why apologetics has served as a ready target.

But some apologists have bought into the mirror image of that narrative, building up a story about "apostates" and perpetuating an us-against-them seige mentality that frankly turns a lot of people off in general, and it seems unnecessary to the overall goals of apologetics (to help sustain faith, contextualize and understand criticism, and hopefully assist in maintaining the faith community). Nothing you've said thus far even demonstrates that you understand my perspective, what I'm calling for, or why I'm calling for it. That's partly my fault due to brevity. Hopefully soon enough I'll get around to writing a post or something people can read to get a better handle. Meantime, my review of McCraney and the Hales sermon linked above should give some good indication.

I appreciate you answering my question. And, While I hear what you are saying about "us-vs-them," I wonder if you are engaging a bit in this yourself by pitting your approach against "theirs." I am wondering if the "us-vs-them" mindset may stem from an "either/or" view, and may be avoided by opening our minds to the value of varied approaches--using Christ as the exemplar, in which at times his speech is gentle and merciful, and other times, paradoxically, it was rightly indignant and harsh.

The same seems to be the case with the prophet Joseph. There were times when he was remarkably soft and conciliatory, and other times when he threw verbal and physical fists.

It would be wonderful if returning scorn with kindness always worked and worked best. However, in my experience in behavioral science, as well as interacting with critics and struggling saints for multiple decades, that different approaches work differently with different people. Sadly, there are some people in some situation who only respond to and are impacted by the kind of aversive stimuli they, themselves, practice. "Wolves" tend to respond to things differently than "sheep."

In other words, a single approach that is tailored only to either "wolves" or "sheep," may come at some expense of both.

Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 28 June 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[David T]

I think it comes down to, not that the piece was being presented, but the implications and assumptions that would be expressed by who was doing the publishing of it.

I think at this sensitive time, the appearance of BYU, a Church Institution smacking down John Dehlin is not understood by everyone to be in the Church's best interests.

I'm all for FAIR, or someone else independently publishing this critique of a Church member's views. I think right now, however, having the NAMI be the presenter is problematic and unwise in a few key ways.

Edited by David T, 28 June 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[Senator]

juliann, on 28 June 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

I agree (as does the literature) that a reactive group needs an enemy and Dehlin has set his up through a series of rather vicious attacks, both verbally and in writing.  

CFR ?

Not even trying to defend Dehlin. Just trying to round out my understanding of him.

Edited by Senator, 28 June 2012 - 11:09 AM.

[Tacenda]

juliann, on 28 June 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

This article contains the key:

"To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula."

FAIR does this by answering questions privately and individually, person to person. FAIR is almost never given credit for this (nor do they seek that)  and they are instead tarred with the usual "apologist" slurs.

I agree (as does the literature) that a reactive group needs an enemy and Dehlin has set his up through a series of rather vicious attacks, both verbally and in writing.  Thus, there is a scripted and formulaic foundation for his movement just as there is for each side.  ( We already know that from the growing study of New Religions and leavetakers).  Elder Hales explicitly says to respond in a Christlike way,  not a mopologist or countermopologist way. That is what is missing in the assigning of white and black coats depending on which believer/nonbeliever category you can stick someone in before any knowledge of what they actually do...also known as well poisoning.

Dehlin has skillfully created what is amounting to a successful new movement and he deserves admiration for that accomplishment regardless of how one judges it. Even the NYTimes has highlighted him.  One might argue over the content of a 100 page analysis of that movement, (if it hadn't been censored.)  But to say that it does not merit a 100 page review seems highly defensive.... or at least curious.

I can personally speak for this.  I emailed Gregory Smith on numerous occasions during my faith issues and he was awesome to me.  Didn't judge, just gave the information to help me along in my journey.  Wonderful volunteers at FAIR, I needed them at that time in my life.  And I threw some doozies out there for them.  They maintained a Christlike demeanor towards me and didn't balk at some crazy stuff I might have had questions about.  Albeit, as much as I love their honesty, it may harm some or has harmed some that are tender in their testimonies, that weren't raised with alot of the early history of the church, like me.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

Albeit, as much as I love their honesty, it may harm some or has harmed some that are tender in their testimonies, that weren't raised with alot of the early history of the church, like me.

In responding to this comment, I want to point something out. First, it seems odd to suggest (implicitly) that we should be cautious about telling accurate or truthful narratives. And second, critics of the church have no compunction about providing such a history - and they may well be providing it just to harm testimonies. Which is better - to learn disconcerting things from those who are believers and want to help create faith, or to learn them from those who are not believers and are trying to destroy it?

For me at least, there is a clear answer to this question.

Ben M.

[wenglund]

Benjamin McGuire, on 28 June 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Which is better - to learn disconcerting things from those who are believers and want to help create faith, or to learn them from those who are not believers and are trying to destroy it?

For me at least, there is a clear answer to this question.

I agree, though I believe that doing so at the right time and in the right places is also critical. Given the relatively narrow objective of Sunday lessons, I am not sure that is the appropriate time and place, but I believe venues like this, and FAIR and FARMS/MI, may well be.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

David T, on 28 June 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

I think it comes down to, not that the piece was being presented, but the implications and assumptions that would be expressed by who was doing the publishing of it.

I think at this sensitive time, the appearance of BYU, a Church Institution smacking down John Dehlin is not understood by everyone to be in the Church's best interests.

I'm all for FAIR, or someone else independently publishing this critique of a Church member's views. I think right now, however, having the NAMI be the presenter is problematic and unwise in a few key ways.

I don't necessarily disagree with this observation.  In fact, if a general authority talked to Jerry Bradford about not publishing the article, I'm certain the reasoning behind such a request was as you allude above: it may not be a good strategic move to have a Church-sponsored institution publish the paper at this point in time.

That said, I firmly believe that Bradford's decision to dismantle the apologetic arm of the Maxwell Institute merely exploited the Dehlin issue as an excuse to advance an ill-conceived agenda that, per se, can only result in negative long-term consequences.

Edited by William Schryver, 28 June 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[Tacenda]

I just believe that people with a tender testimony or even a rock solid one like mine was, will find it hard to swallow at first.  But people need to be fortified with true history, so I ABSOLUTELY stand for being honest. The church condoning a place like FAIR which provides members like me or others with information, is the right thing to do. And it frees them up to get down to the business of preaching the gospel.  I wish I could be like so many strong LDS members out there.  It makes me question the testimony that I once had.

Edited by Tacenda, 28 June 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[wenglund]

Tacenda, on 28 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I just believe that people with a tender testimony or even a rock solid one like mine was, will find it hard to swallow at first.

And, that is okay. Metaphorically speaking, some swallowing issues are to be expected when one's diet goes from milk to meat, or from the known to the unknown.

Quote

But people need to be fortified with true history, so I ABSOLUTELY stand for being honest.

I believe I get where you are coming from. However, I think you may be confusing true and honest with fully disclosed history. The church has given a true and honest, though rightly a limited, history in its CES material (particularly in Sunday lessons).

I say "rightly limited" because the discussion of history is unavoidably and ought to be limited in non-history courses. Instead, the bulk of the lesson material, in accordance with effective instructional design, should focus on the main topic of the course and meeting the stated course objectives. There is a reason that very little history, if any, is taught in math classes.

Quote

The church condoning a place like FAIR which provides members like me or others with information, is the right thing to do. And it frees them up to get down to the business of preaching the gospel.  I wish I could be like so many strong LDS members out there.  It makes me question the testimony that I once had.

Well said, though I would advise against your questioning the testimony you once had, but instead be thankful for the growing testimony you now seem to have--if I am reading you right. The gospel is all about growth and looking and moving forward rather than wallowing unproductively in the past.

More important, since you appeared to have successfully weathered the testimony storm, that positions you well to help guide others through their own personal storms. As the bible says, "when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-