Ya Gotta Love John Dehlin'S Reasoning

[Hamilton Porter]

Isn't Dehlin right?

When Welch states the following

isn't she indirectly insulting Peterson, Bushman, Givens, and other respected LDS apologists, who combined account for at least a dozen hours of those podcasts?

¿En serio? What part of Givens´s podcast did you not yet know from reading his books? She does acknowledge that you can hear scholars in podcast format, which is original. I would also add that you can hear interesting biographical information on the likes of Givens, Quinn, Bushman, that are pretty cool. That's it.

[wenglund]

wow, lol. OK. Last I checked, Mormon Stories doesn't have any truth claims as God's one true church and only path to salvation.

They don't have Apostles or General Authorities, or a Church office building, or scriptures, or a myriad of other irrelevancies that you could have mentioned. They do have shared views ("truth" claims) that define them as a community.

But yeah, I guess.

I am glad you see the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[robuchan]

¿En serio? What part of Givens´s podcast did you not yet know from reading his books? She does acknowledge that you can hear scholars in podcast format, which is original. I would also add that you can hear interesting biographical information on the likes of Givens, Quinn, Bushman, that are pretty cool. That's it.

You're straining at gnats. She insulted the podcasts, which feature prominent LDS apologists. Dehlin is simply responding to that.

[Hamilton Porter]

AND...John Dehlin takes down the link from his Facebook. Too many Welch supporters commented.

[Calm]

You're straining at gnats. She insulted the podcasts, which feature prominent LDS apologists. Dehlin is simply responding to that.

I really don't see that. I think she insulted his expectations of what the podcasts would be...that he inflated their value, but not the podcasts themselves.

That he might see that as insulting because he sees them as something they are not is certainly possible.

Edited July 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Isn't Dehlin right?

When Welch states the following

isn't she indirectly insulting Peterson, Bushman, Givens, and other respected LDS apologists, who combined account for at least a dozen hours of those podcasts?

No. However, this is where I may disagree somewhat and to a very minor extent with Welch. I think that in a way Dehlin may indirectly fill the intellectual void merely by expanding the audience of those, such as Peterson et. al., who directly fill the intellectual void.

But, let's not nit-pick (ironically strain at gnats) to the point of missing the gist of what Welch astutely said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

Dehlin positions himself better if he can claim he is defending the honour of those he interviewed rather than being offended because she thought his claim about the lack of resources was silly or that he inflated the academic/intellectual value of the podcasts.

i would agree with Wade that the podcasts have communicative/educational value in that they help to fill a void that exists for those that don't like to read for information or like a more visual approach. But I think one should be clear about the difference between educational value---sharing information/knowledge in a new way---and intellectual value---sharing new knowledge/information. The podcasts do the first, not the second.

Edited July 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

I can see why many of you like the article. Is she always this deliciously snarky?

I find it especially interesting that she would use this throw away quip: "a lot like a high school gay-straight alliance and about as important."

That she would choose to belittle sincere efforts to ease the difficulties gay teens face in our society, tells me quite a bit about her, and her target audience.

[Libs]

Boy, when Dehlin calls for the troops they march in lock-step to the call. To think that these people have a issues with the LDS Church? These are all cookie-cutter people and none of them have an original thought. Wow!

I don't see that, at all. There is actually quite a bit of disagreement within the Facebook community, of which I am a part. I didn't agree with John's choice to stifle the MI article about him, and there were a lot of people who didn't agree with that move. He does not (at all) always get "lock step" agreement, in that community. And, he is generally open to being given advice...even asks for it, on occasion.

[Libs]

I can see why many of you like the article. Is she always this deliciously snarky?

I find it especially interesting that she would use this throw away quip: "a lot like a high school gay-straight alliance and about as important."

That she would choose to belittle sincere efforts to ease the difficulties gay teens face in our society, tells me quite a bit about her, and her target audience.

Yeah, that remark really bothered me, as well. Very condescending.

[wenglund]

I can see why many of you like the article. Is she always this deliciously snarky?

I find it especially interesting that she would use this throw away quip: "a lot like a high school gay-straight alliance and about as important." That she would choose to belittle sincere efforts to ease the difficulties gay teens face in our society, tells me quite a bit about her, and her target audience.

It tells me that she doesn't irrationally over-inflate the meaningfulness and importance high-school clubs. It tells me that she is able to keep things in proper perspective.

Your sour snarky retort tells me just the opposite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

That is a really well-written article. One of the best I've read in a long time. My only criticism would be that the analogy to gay high school clubs seemed a little forced.

But other than that, really good!

[Jaybear]

It tells me that she doesn't irrationally over-inflate the meaningfulness and importance high-school clubs. It tells me that she is able to keep things in proper perspective.

Your sour snarky retort tells me just the opposite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It am not surprised that you see it that way. Clearly, she know her audience.

Like I said, I can see why many here like the article.

[Calm]

She should have left it at high school clubs in general...at least it would have been spot on for my high school. Maybe a few kids in the political/support a cause clubs were committed and focused enough I could see them carrying on after high school, but the stuff most of them did was very shallow and had little impact beside decorating the school with posters on occasion.

[cinepro]

She should have left it at high school clubs in general...at least it would have been spot on for my high school. Maybe a few kids in the political/support a cause clubs were committed and focused enough I could see them carrying on after high school, but the stuff most of them did was very shallow and had little impact beside decorating the school with posters on occasion.

More importantly, they also serve to decorate college applications.

[Calm]

More importantly, they also serve to decorate college applications.

Yeah, there is that....

[wenglund]

It am not surprised that you see it that way. Clearly, she know her audience. Like I said, I can see why many here like the article.

Yes...reasonable people are drawn to reasonableness, whereas the denizens of political correctness are not. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamilton Porter]

I don't see that, at all. There is actually quite a bit of disagreement within the Facebook community, of which I am a part. I didn't agree with John's choice to stifle the MI article about him, and there were a lot of people who didn't agree with that move. He does not (at all) always get "lock step" agreement, in that community. And, he is generally open to being given advice...even asks for it, on occasion.

I can predict with amazing accuracy how the Mormon Stories sheep will respond to podcasts.

1. Say Terryl Givens are Michael Quinn are being interviewed.

Automatic Response: "How can someone so intelligent be a TBM? Here's a link to weak-sauce Michael Shermer argument on why smart people believe dumb things."

2. "I am such a victim of being taught incorrect things in primary! LDS Church raped me!"

[Verum]

I can predict with amazing accuracy how the Mormon Stories sheep will respond to podcasts.

1. Say Terryl Givens are Michael Quinn are being interviewed.

Automatic Response: "How can someone so intelligent be a TBM? Here's a link to weak-sauce Michael Shermer argument on why smart people believe dumb things."

2. "I am such a victim of being taught incorrect things in primary! LDS Church raped me!"

Do you actually have any examples of to support this completely ignorant, unsympathetic caricature or are you just spewing this sort of venom to get some attention?

[Hamilton Porter]

Do you actually have any examples of to support this completely ignorant, unsympathetic caricature or are you just spewing this sort of venom to get some attention?

Seriously?

Do you read the comments in the podcasts?

Assertion #1: "How can someone so intelligent be a TBM? Here's a link to weak-sauce Michael Shermer argument on why smart people believe dumb things."

I found Bob Mcue’s writings on this to be extremely thought provoking, and a way for me to analyse myself, and come to a greater understanding on how the human psyche works. The essay – Do smart mormons make mormonism true:

]Given that, regarding the psychology of belief that Porter Rockwell raised in his post, I much prefer the research in Michael Shermer’s book “The Believing Brain”

I often wonder, and I mean this as no insult against Dr. Quinn, how educated, intelligent people still maintain a literal belief in Mormonism. There is not mistake about it: many scholars, scientists, judges, politicians, doctors and other educated professionals believe in a literal set of gold plates, angels, etc. Dr. Quinn is in good company. Yet, I simply do not understand how, while knowing all the historical discrepancies and problems, they can maintain a system of belief.

In an article entitled Why Smart People Believe in Weird Things, Michael Shermer argues that “mart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.” Schermer further writes:

Terryl is a good guy but I have wondered how Givens, Daniel Peterson, John Sorenson, etc . continue to defend all these issue when they know the evidence against just the Book of Mormon alone is substantial. I think for some of these guys their reputation, career, church standing, social circles, and livelihood is tied to and dependent on being apologetic. I respect Terryl Givens approach but was surprised he had not listed to the Dr Michael Coe interview.

I have the same problem with David Bailey as I do with Francis Collins. They both firmly acknowledge that the science is valid and true (and they are both well qualified to do so), but then resort to apologetics to reconcile the religious inconsistencies. I listened to his interview and read the entire website, and found not one thing that said to me, “Wow, religion *does* fit perfectly into the natural world!” I just can’t make my mind wrap around things like that. I don’t know how these PhDs can do it.

(^^^ Dear commentator above: Think a little harder)

All I’m saying is….ALL of us need to keep trying to figure out how to find sharp, thoughtful believers who are willing to take the really hard questions. I don’t think any of us have it figured out yet. But I’ll keep trying.

I found Dr. Bailey’s responses to most questions as lacking in credibility, given his education level, and he seemed to be willfully ignorant of the current state of evidence with regard to JS, BoM, and BoA issues. He appears to have compartmentalized the Church into an area where he simply does not apply the same academic rigor as he does in his professional field. It sounds as if he is purposely avoiding having his own “dark night of the soul” experience.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[wenglund]

Seriously?

Do you read the comments in the podcasts?

Assertion #1: "How can someone so intelligent be a TBM? Here's a link to weak-sauce Michael Shermer argument on why smart people believe dumb things."

(^^^ Dear commentator above: Think a little harder)

It appears that Verum may have been projecting. The critics have been doing that a lot lately.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamilton Porter]

Assertion #2:

"I am such a victim of being taught incorrect things in primary! LDS Church raped me!"

I’m tired of the “blame the victim” attitude from the apologist corner. The “members should take responsibility for what they learn in church” is extremely irritating.

[Hamilton Porter]

It appears that Verum may have been projecting. The critics have been doing that a lot lately.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good, because I don't want to keep looking for examples.

[Libs]

Good, because I don't want to keep looking for examples.

That doesn't mean those examples are representative of most who follow John's podcasts (who are at least 2000 and probably many more).

I certainly don't question why intelligent people belong to the LDS Church or any other. Spirituality is not, primarily, a working of the intellect (although the intellect is, of course, involved for most of us). Spirituality is more philosophical, emotional, feeling of connectedness to something higher than our intellect...

[cwald]

Boy, when Dehlin calls for the troops they march in lock-step to the call. To think that these people have a issues with the LDS Church? These are all cookie-cutter people and none of them have an original thought. Wow!

Yeah wow. And how is this attitude any different than when faithful LDS get all lumped into a brain washed cult? Both sides can play this game.

Edited July 2, 2012 by cwald