Temple Worthiness Of Public Individuals

[sethpayne]

And all I am saying is this is up for debate according to Bro. Dehlin's own comments.

I understand where you are coming from. I have a different perspective but, as always, I respect your POV.

[sethpayne]

However, I am doing it right now because your position seems to be based on the assumption that he does have a TR and we should not be criticizing him for behaving a certain way because his leaders must be okay with it. But there is evidence that his leaders are not okay with it so while that doesn't automatically mean we should criticize him, it does seem to remove your objection to it or at least the automatic assumption that seems to be in place that he has a TR.

Not quite. The scope of my point is much more limited. Dehlin should be open for criticism just like anyone who writes/speaks publicly. My position is strictly limited to second-guessing whether a person should have a TR or not.

In no way am I suggesting that if local leaders issue a TR they tacitly endorse all of the activities of the individual to whom they have issued the TR. If they issue a TR it only means that they feel comfortable issuing a TR.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am honestly trying to understand how people see this because it is so foreign to how I perceive the situation.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that if a local leader deems a member of his congregation worthy of a TR then that's it. Discussion over.

That's not quite how I view it. In far and away most cases, yes, the discussion is over. It's none of my business.

However, it may be that the bishop or stake president doesn't know all the facts. If Bob sees Frank staggering drunk out of the local bordello with a burning cigarette in his mouth, it seems to me not entirely out of order for Bob to raise that issue, quietly and humbly, with the bishop who recently renewed Frank's temple recommend. After that, it's the leaders' call.

Now, as to whether Dehlin was teaching people how to lie in the TR interview -- reasonable people can disagree. Whether he did or didn't is beside the point because John made this information pubic .... and it has been public for a long time. Unless his local leaders live under a rock I have to assume they knew about John's position given that it was public and that John wasn't shy in sharing this info.

I don't agree. Bishops and stake presidents have unusually busy lives, and we can't presume that they follow John Dehlin's Facebook page and monitor the hundreds of hours of his podcasts.

So ... assuming that John's local leaders did know about his writing/statements

I don't make that assumption.

and knowing they issued a TR, I just don't feel it would be my place to second guess these local leaders. For me, this is the crux of the issue.

Just for the record: Greg Smith didn't write his articles, so far as I'm aware, to serve as the basis of a disciplinary council or for the specific reading of John Dehlin's ecclesiastical leaders, and nobody that I know of is making any particular effort to identify them, let alone to forward the papers to them.

But I see absolutely nothing morally problematic in publicly discussing something said in public.

[Pahoran]

Not quite. The scope of my point is much more limited. Dehlin should be open for criticism just like anyone who writes/speaks publicly. My position is strictly limited to second-guessing whether a person should have a TR or not.

In no way am I suggesting that if local leaders issue a TR they tacitly endorse all of the activities of the individual to whom they have issued the TR. If they issue a TR it only means that they feel comfortable issuing a TR.

Really?

Then what was the point of your post #10?

Thanks for adding some context, Scott.

Let me add some additional context. John Dehlin held a TR while his writings/statements encouraging others to "conceal or disguise" their feelings in the TR interview. I'm making the assumption his local leaders knew about this and gave him a TR. But maybe his local leaders don't have the internet. I've heard Logan is pretty rural.

Reasonable people can disagree on Dehlin's intent. There is no disagreement, however, that his local leaders gave him a TR.

Given (and it is a given) that nobody has actually questioned Mister Dehlin's temple worthiness at that time, and given (and it is a given) that the only person to connect his "How to lie on a TR interview and get away with it" advice with his own temple worthiness is your own Payneful self, exactly what is the point of this thread anyway?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

I have no idea.

All I'm saying is that local leaders issued a TR as is their responsibility and right. If a local leader issues a TR then I suppose I don't feel comfortable second guessing how the TR was obtained.

NOBODY IS DOING THAT! Nobody here is second guessing whether a bishop should or should not sign Dehlin's recommend. That's none of our business.

We are discussing the appropriateness of Dehlin publicly advising people how to dissimulate on their recommend interviews. It is impossible to do that without discussing temple recommends. If you don't want to discuss this issue, that's fine, but stop pretending that we are discussing the issue you want to to think we are discussing. We are not.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[cinepro]

So even in Dehlin's local leaders were unaware of his writings/statements when they issued the TR, they could not have remained ignorant of it for long and could have rescinded the TR.

I suspect if Dehlin were clearly posting his thoughts in a blog you might have a point. But much of what he was saying was in the form of podcasts and forum or Facebook postings.

I don't fault a Bishop for not listening to hours and hours of podcasts and spending time on Facebook or RFM in order to ferret out the true meaning of John's answers to the Temple Recommend questions.

John does share the story of his discussions with his Stake President, and the Stake President's reaction to listening to some of his podcasts, in his most recent interview. It's been a few days since I listened to it, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the Stake President wasn't totally unconcerned about what he was hearing.

Edited February 26, 2013 by cinepro

[Teancum]

You know I have been thinking about this and am surprised on what I have decided.

Generally the answer is no.

But I do think it can be yes if the person is a public figure and they discuss their temple recommend status.

But such discussions should be at least decent and respectful

For example if John doubts the restoration but still has a recommend and talks about having one then it is fair game to ask how he might answer the question.

[sethpayne]

That's not quite how I view it. In far and away most cases, yes, the discussion is over. It's none of my business.

However, it may be that the bishop or stake president doesn't know all the facts. If Bob sees Frank staggering drunk out of the local bordello with a burning cigarette in his mouth, it seems to me not entirely out of order for Bob to raise that issue, quietly and humbly, with the bishop who recently renewed Frank's temple recommend. After that, it's the leaders' call.

I don't agree. Bishops and stake presidents have unusually busy lives, and we can't presume that they follow John Dehlin's Facebook page and monitor the hundreds of hours of his podcasts.

I don't make that assumption.

Just for the record: Greg Smith didn't write his articles, so far as I'm aware, to serve as the basis of a disciplinary council or for the specific reading of John Dehlin's ecclesiastical leaders, and nobody that I know of is making any particular effort to identify them, let alone to forward the papers to them.

But I see absolutely nothing morally problematic in publicly discussing something said in public.

Thanks, Dan. I can understand your view but I suppose I see things a bit differently.

Also, if my comments have in any way suggested that Greg wrote the article to be used as the basis for disciplinary action then I completely disavow that notion. I do not believe this.

Honestly, Dan, I think Greg wrote the essay in good faith. I'm starting to think that this whole thing boils down to differences in perspective.

For the record, publicly accusing Rod Meldrum of claiming authority/revelation outside his stewardship was equally unsettling to me. I certainly think FAIR needed to respond to Meldrum's claims. They need to be debunked.

Seth

[Calm]

Not quite. The scope of my point is much more limited. Dehlin should be open for criticism just like anyone who writes/speaks publicly. My position is strictly limited to second-guessing whether a person should have a TR or not.

In no way am I suggesting that if local leaders issue a TR they tacitly endorse all of the activities of the individual to whom they have issued the TR. If they issue a TR it only means that they feel comfortable issuing a TR.

Okay, I have got to admit I am very confused now on why you have said certain things certain ways to support your position....I think I will take a long break including some needed sleep and then come back to the thread to see if I follow your position better.

[Teancum]

But people always talk about their Church callings etc... some of which we know require a TR. For example, Dan often shared experiences about being a Bishop. Obviously he had a TR. Does that mean his calling as Bishop and his TR are fair game?

If Dan uses his position as a bishop in a public setting in order to invoke credibitly then yes it is fair game. In fact I have seen some accuse Dan of having of having some alleged behaviour that they think is not becoming a bishop and deride him for it.

[sethpayne]

NOBODY IS DOING THAT! Nobody here is second guessing whether a bishop should or should not sign Dehlin's recommend. That's none of our business.

But Bill, let's say I write something that 10 people read. 5 walk away thinking I said X and 5 walk away thinking I said Y. Why? I can think of two reasons. 1) They bring their personal bias to the table and 2) they believe certain things are implied by the paper and how it was written.

So, I know you believe "NOBODY IS DOING THAT" but some readers of Greg's essay believe that this is precisely what is being done.

We are discussing the appropriateness of Dehlin publicly advising people how to dissimulate on their recommend interviews. It is impossible to do that without discussing temple recommends. If you don't want to discuss this issue, that's fine, but stop pretending that we are discussing the issue you want to to think we are discussing. We are not.

Sorry Bill. You can't control how others read/perceive an essay.

[Calm]

Thanks, Dan. I can understand your view but I suppose I see things a bit differently.

One more question or two before I shut down because I am very confused.

Are you suggesting that no one should ever give any input for the purpose of a bishop judging a person's temple worthiness save the person himself?

That if someone saw behaviour that was against the standards of the temple recommend they should not report it if they believed the person had a temple recommend?

Is this for all behaviour or just up to a certain point (say when such behaviour becomes unethical or perhaps not even until it becomes criminal)?

What about when someone is called to a calling and we are asked to sustain them? If we know of something that we think might be cause not to sustain them, should we simply accept the calling as the leaders' decision and not say anything or do we oppose and share our information?

(and I am only making you work this hard because I respect your views and want to make sure I understand it properly as it may cause me to view my own position differently)

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

Okay, I have got to admit I am very confused now on why you have said certain things certain ways to support your position....I think I will take a long break including some needed sleep and then come back to the thread to see if I follow your position better.

I have a habit of being very confusing. Just ask my wife.

[rongo]

If a public figure discloses that he is a bishop, I should think that publicly observable behavior that obviously renders one ineligible to serve in that calling (such as, say, public drunkenness) would be an apt subject for discussion.

Man, oh man ---- can this lead to interesting experiences. I am active in my local message boards, and when I was serving as a bishop, my ward clerk ran for mayor (and won with 60% of the vote). It was a particularly acrimonious election, with anti-Mormonism coming into play, and I defended the Church and my clerk online. While I had mentioned before that I was a bishop over one of the seven local congregations, I didn't go out of my way to identify myself by name (observant people would have made the connection because of publicized apologetic firesides and Q&A sessions we had had over the years). The anti-Mormon partisans and supporters of his opponent made a herculean effort to "out" me and tried claiming all kinds of weird stuff, such as that I regularly electioneered from the pulpit, forced ward members to knock doors, and forced everyone to stay after church and put stickers on their car. They made much of the fact that I had committed these "atrocities" as a bishop, and when I deftly and adroitly (with a touch of humor) turned all of their allegations upside down on them, they raged at how a supposed "man of God" could "cruelly quip" on message boards (it was the sort of things where several non-members would post that they just spit Coke all over their keyboards --- the anti-Mormon people were not the sharpest tools in the shed, and their allegations were easily turned against them in a publicly embarrassing manner).

They made it known afterwards that they blamed me solely for the loss, and that if it weren't for me grossly abusing my office, their man would have won for sure.

[Bill Hamblin]

I believe Dehlin was foolish and narcissistic in discussing his person temple recommend situation publicly. Be that as it may, that's not the point.

The point is not whether he has a recommend or not.

The point is not whether he is worthy to have a recommend or not.

The point is not whether he had a recommend at one time and didn't at another.

The point is not what his bishop and stake presidents are doing to try to help him, or if they will or will not sign his recommend.

The point, and the ONLY point is that he publicly advised people on how to dissimulate in answering TR questions. Because of this, the issue not only can appropriately be discussed publicly, in fact, I think it should be discussed publicly.

[Bill Hamblin]

But Bill, let's say I write something that 10 people read. 5 walk away thinking I said X and 5 walk away thinking I said Y. Why? I can think of two reasons. 1) They bring their personal bias to the table and 2) they believe certain things are implied by the paper and how it was written.

So, I know you believe "NOBODY IS DOING THAT" but some readers of Greg's essay believe that this is precisely what is being done.

Sorry Bill. You can't control how others read/perceive an essay.

Alas I know I can't. There's no way do deal with lack of reading comprehension.

But I can attempt to clarify what the issues really are when people bullheadedly insist on misreading an essay.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

But Bill, let's say I write something that 10 people read. 5 walk away thinking I said X and 5 walk away thinking I said Y. Why? I can think of two reasons. 1) They bring their personal bias to the table and 2) they believe certain things are implied by the paper and how it was written.

So, I know you believe "NOBODY IS DOING THAT" but some readers of Greg's essay believe that this is precisely what is being done.

Your first misrepresentation of the issue can be understood as a honest misunderstanding.

When you keep on misrepresenting the issue after it has been explained to you many times, well, then it would seem to be wanton disregard of authorial intent.

[sethpayne]

One more question or two before I shut down because I am very confused.

Ok!

Are you suggesting that no one should ever give any input for the purpose of a bishop judging a person's temple worthiness save the person himself?

No. Not at all. However I think such things should be communicated to the Bishop/SP in private.

That if someone saw behaviour that was against the standards of the temple recommend they should not report it if they believed the person had a temple recommend?

I think it is completely appropriate if done in private.

Is this for all behaviour or just up to a certain point (say when such behaviour becomes unethical or perhaps not even until it becomes criminal)?

I believe that if members are prompted by the spirit to share information with their Bishop or another person's Bishop they should do so -- in private.

[sethpayne]

Alas I know I can't. There's no way do deal with lack of reading comprehension.

But I can attempt to clarify what the issues really are when people bullheadedly insist on misreading an essay.

There is no reason to be insulting, Bill.

If I write an essay that a large number of people "misread" in the same way, I usually take a hard look at what I've written because obviously I haven't made my point as clearly as I could have.

[sethpayne]

I'm going to request that the mods close this thread because I don't think anyone wants to see the Payne/Hamblin pissing match for the 100th time. The personal animosity between Bill and I, unfortunately, tends to make such conversations a waste of time for all involved.

Thanks to all for all the responses.

[Calm]

Seth, before you close it could you delete my comment from your post 18 so no one is tempted to make it part of the conversation in another thread since the reason I brought it up was a misunderstanding....I have deleted my own posts dealing with that point.

Edited February 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[sethpayne]

Seth, before you close it could you delete my comment from your post 18 so no one is tempted to make it part of the conversation in another thread since the reason I brought it up was a misunderstanding....I have deleted my own posts dealing with that point.

Absolutely, Cal.

[Skylla]

Closed as requested.

Skylla