Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hamilton Porter

Mormon Stories trying to expand its market.

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m curious, how many of his podcasts have you listened to?

I can't remember. I stopped a long time ago.

Grant Palmer, Terryl Givens 123, Terryl & Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, David Lee Bailey (favorite), Michael Quinn, Bart Ehrman, are some I can think of off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

examples?

Several of Terryl Givens’ books (he was on your list). 

Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon (OUP was on your list a few times)

 Bushman’s RSR

Currently supplementing my New Testament study with NT Wright, but he may not meet your non-redneck, non-trailer trash standards.  I don’t know.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I can't remember. I stopped a long time ago.

Grant Palmer, Terryl Givens 123, Terryl & Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, David Lee Bailey (favorite), Michael Quinn, Bart Ehrman, are some I can think of off the top of my head.

Just curious about your level of experience with him since you seem quick to cast judgment of him. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Several of Terryl Givens’ books (he was on your list). 

Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon (OUP was on your list a few times)

 Bushman’s RSR

Currently supplementing my New Testament study with NT Wright, but he may not meet your non-redneck, non-trailer trash standards.  I don’t know.

No, Wright is excellent!

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Even better, you can actually hear the recordings he has people secretly tape and upload to his website.

You have evidence that “he has people secretly tape” these recordings or is he just posting the content to his site?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps you should read the essays when they are published rather than concluding, a priori, that they are “against the LDS church”. 

Most of them are already 'published'. Did you read them?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rockpond said:

You think that Dehlin has let “the destruction of the LDS church” consume every aspect of living?

Over the past decade Dehlin has completed a PhD in clinical psychology and built a non-profit with this mission:  To promote understanding, healing, growth, and community for people experiencing or impacted by religious transition. (From the OSF website)

When he was working on his Phd, he was still active with his podcasts and other lds interests. I don't think that he took a break from it. It is a constant consumption of everything lds. I find it amazing. Usually when one is consumed with a negativity for a certain amount of time, an unbalance of reality occurs, and perhaps this would explain his intent and meanings around the lds church. And his religious transitions were usually centered on the lds. I don't think that he has done much for transitioning muslims.

Edited by why me

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never criticized anything about "truth" - if you remember the Rorty video (!) he says essentially "we know what truth is, we just can't define it."

Of course there is a way to establish religious truth- it is found in the heart.  It is like romantic truth.  You know when you find a true companion for your life and the truth of your relationship- how? In your heart!  You know what gives you purpose in life- how? In your heart.  You already know your purpose I assume- 

With any theory of truth there comes a theory of metaphysics which shows how the epistemology works with  the metaphysics.  Metaphysics allegedly shows us what "reality" is and epistemology shows how it is possible to "know" what the metaphysics says is "real".

But no one has come up with such an explanation which proves to be coherent under rigorous examination

Neither you nor Clark present a coherent metaphysics that works with an epistemology, and more importantly NO ONE ELSE HAS either in the last 150 years --I don't mean people on this board I mean anyone.

The only arguments that work are ones like Wittgenstein finally accepted- that these are semantic confusions and not really "problems" at all.  As these comments show, they are about the definitions of words like "knowledge" and "real" and "truth" and how the WORDS interact to provide confusion

These  board discussions ignore 2000 years of philosophy.   Let's just say they would not stand up to peer review.  ;)

But this is a big digression from the OP

Thanks, these are good points, and this helps.  In the other thread with Clark, he made a comment to me about my use of the word truth that I think might help me more effectively communicate.  When talking about religious truth, it might be better for me to replace that word with the word meaning instead.  I think I'm going to try this on and see how it fits.

I'm going to try referring to this as religious meaning and that is what I'll mean when talking about how people feel based on spiritual/religious experiences.  I think it would also work when discussing romantic/relationship meaning as well, instead of calling that truth.  Meaningful companionship, friendship, relationship to an institution, membership in a club, fans of sports teams, etc.  This all seems to fit well using that term of meaning instead of the term of truth.  

It does get a little complicated though when in the Mormon context people like to use the term truth to describe religious theological ideas, like the BoM is true or the church is true.  So that traditional use of the term true in a Mormon context is somewhat challenging when trying to distinguish what someone is talking about.  Depending on where you are on the spectrum of belief, you could be using the same language, but your beliefs are very different.  I value clear and effective communication, so I'm trying to find language that helps me in that sense.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/22/2019 at 8:42 PM, Nevo said:

What makes you think Dehlin is trying to make money from this?

image.thumb.png.c8f2f8045be53c9cf8a9f55e4cc90979.png

You forgot this one on the front page:

donate.jpg.cfbeb99be3cb7e0a9f7a5b8b9fdb5f6d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You forgot this one on the front page:

donate.jpg.cfbeb99be3cb7e0a9f7a5b8b9fdb5f6d.jpg

And here, I present the LDS Philanthropies....

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/split-interest-giving-tools/charitable-remainder-unitrust So the rest of the money ends up with the church, but not the children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/farm-or-ranch So the land goes to the church and not to the family.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/family-directed-giving-tools/donor-advised-fund-daf Why do you need the church to donate to charities for you, I think this is a way that someone might just feel overwhelmed and just donate the whole sum back to the church.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/unimproved-property The problem with this one, is the person may not know the extent of the land's true value.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/testamentary-giving-tools/revocable-living-trust *Has assets beyond those intended for heirs. (this bullet, is all you need to know about this one!)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/personal-residence Gives up their personal residence. Okay, like the church needs it. I can think of many people needing it worse.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/securities Once again, I guess the church is destitute and needs your securities and assets! Oh and if your children aren't faithful, let them have it with a one-two punch that they get zip, zero for an inheritance!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/commercial-real-estate Oh, and they would love to take over your commercial assets, but it better be debt free!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/art  Sure they'll take your art once they go over it and make sure it's worth it!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/patents--royalties--or-copyrights And gas and oil interests can have significant value, hint-hint!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/collectibles-or-other-tangible-property "You can keep this collectable to enjoy with your family, but once you're gone, it's ours!"said the church. ;)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/retirement-plan-assets Once again, this is for the very wealthy, and they want to make sure some go to the heirs too. Oh, good for them! :nea:

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, I don't understand this.

Just standard Peirce as outlined in his seminal paper "How to Make Our Ideas Clear."

"No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great law is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." 

He clarified it somewhat in his mature period getting rid of that somewhat confusing "predestinate opinion." 

"I call 'truth' the predestinate opinion, by which I ought to have meant that which would ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that particular direction" (EP 2:457).

So truth is just what people would believe if they inquired sufficiently. Now of course we don't have access to that final point of stability. So we make guesses at truth and see if we're investigating sufficiently to be convinced in a stable fashion. If a belief in a community persists through continued inquiry then we can't help but call it true. Fallibilism means that it may always be overthrown as new evidence arises, but that's a different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And here, I present the LDS Philanthropies....

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/split-interest-giving-tools/charitable-remainder-unitrust So the rest of the money ends up with the church, but not the children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/farm-or-ranch So the land goes to the church and not to the family.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/family-directed-giving-tools/donor-advised-fund-daf Why do you need the church to donate to charities for you, I think this is a way that someone might just feel overwhelmed and just donate the whole sum back to the church.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/unimproved-property The problem with this one, is the person may not know the extent of the land's true value.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/testamentary-giving-tools/revocable-living-trust *Has assets beyond those intended for heirs. (this bullet, is all you need to know about this one!)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/personal-residence Gives up their personal residence. Okay, like the church needs it. I can think of many people needing it worse.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/securities Once again, I guess the church is destitute and needs your securities and assets! Oh and if your children aren't faithful, let them have it with a one-two punch that they get zip, zero for an inheritance!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/commercial-real-estate Oh, and they would love to take over your commercial assets, but it better be debt free!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/art  Sure they'll take your art once they go over it and make sure it's worth it!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/patents--royalties--or-copyrights And gas and oil interests can have significant value, hint-hint!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/collectibles-or-other-tangible-property "You can keep this collectable to enjoy with your family, but once you're gone, it's ours!"said the church. ;)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/retirement-plan-assets Once again, this is for the very wealthy, and they want to make sure some go to the heirs too. Oh, good for them! :nea:

 

I don't care that Dehlin wants people to donate to support his work (not at all), but I'm sure you can see that there is a difference between asking for money to support of a philanthropy (which is a call to support the welfare of others) and asking for money to support ourselves and our own personal endeavors.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And here, I present the LDS Philanthropies....

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/split-interest-giving-tools/charitable-remainder-unitrust So the rest of the money ends up with the church, but not the children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/farm-or-ranch So the land goes to the church and not to the family.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/family-directed-giving-tools/donor-advised-fund-daf Why do you need the church to donate to charities for you, I think this is a way that someone might just feel overwhelmed and just donate the whole sum back to the church.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/unimproved-property The problem with this one, is the person may not know the extent of the land's true value.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/testamentary-giving-tools/revocable-living-trust *Has assets beyond those intended for heirs. (this bullet, is all you need to know about this one!)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/personal-residence Gives up their personal residence. Okay, like the church needs it. I can think of many people needing it worse.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/securities Once again, I guess the church is destitute and needs your securities and assets! Oh and if your children aren't faithful, let them have it with a one-two punch that they get zip, zero for an inheritance!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/commercial-real-estate Oh, and they would love to take over your commercial assets, but it better be debt free!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/art  Sure they'll take your art once they go over it and make sure it's worth it!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/patents--royalties--or-copyrights And gas and oil interests can have significant value, hint-hint!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/collectibles-or-other-tangible-property "You can keep this collectable to enjoy with your family, but once you're gone, it's ours!"said the church. ;)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/retirement-plan-assets Once again, this is for the very wealthy, and they want to make sure some go to the heirs too. Oh, good for them! :nea:

 

None of these donation resources are posted on the front page of the church's main website. The point is that the Mormon Stories website, according to what I see on the front page, appears to exist with one of the the main goals being to make money off it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And here, I present the LDS Philanthropies....

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/split-interest-giving-tools/charitable-remainder-unitrust So the rest of the money ends up with the church, but not the children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/farm-or-ranch So the land goes to the church and not to the family.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/family-directed-giving-tools/donor-advised-fund-daf Why do you need the church to donate to charities for you, I think this is a way that someone might just feel overwhelmed and just donate the whole sum back to the church.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/unimproved-property The problem with this one, is the person may not know the extent of the land's true value.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/how-to-give/testamentary-giving-tools/revocable-living-trust *Has assets beyond those intended for heirs. (this bullet, is all you need to know about this one!)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/personal-residence Gives up their personal residence. Okay, like the church needs it. I can think of many people needing it worse.

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/securities Once again, I guess the church is destitute and needs your securities and assets! Oh and if your children aren't faithful, let them have it with a one-two punch that they get zip, zero for an inheritance!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/commercial-real-estate Oh, and they would love to take over your commercial assets, but it better be debt free!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/art  Sure they'll take your art once they go over it and make sure it's worth it!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/patents--royalties--or-copyrights And gas and oil interests can have significant value, hint-hint!

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/collectibles-or-other-tangible-property "You can keep this collectable to enjoy with your family, but once you're gone, it's ours!"said the church. ;)

https://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/gift-planning/what-to-give/assets/retirement-plan-assets Once again, this is for the very wealthy, and they want to make sure some go to the heirs too. Oh, good for them! :nea:

 

This is what corporations do...tax exempts??

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't care that Dehlin wants people to donate to support his work (not at all), but I'm sure you can see that there is a difference between asking for money to support of a philanthropy (which is a call to support the welfare of others) and asking for money to support ourselves and our own personal endeavors.  

Bluebell, I may have used my last allotted post for the day, in case you respond and need feedback. 

So, I'm not a huge fan of John sometimes. I can barely get through many podcasts now, where before I ate them up because they provided a great outlet for me at a critical time in my life, even to the point of not knowing if I should exist. Just felt like a lone person in a world of the LDS. 

Now onto your comment above...so the LDS leaders (mission presidents etc.), lawyers, church employees, and on and on don't get a paycheck? And the lower of the totem pole get zilch. So, is there anyone that works for John or helps him on the podcasts or website or that provide therapy sessions, that get zilch? The church has hundreds of volunteers that pay out of pocket to help the church, they pay thousands, I wonder what staff that work for John have to pay that kind of dough. The church rides on the backs of those at the bottom that get zilch!

ETA: I have a feeling someone might counteract my "members get zilch" comment. I will say right away, that just like the church gives great experiences in the church, such as SS manuals, pamphlets, temples, church buildings, and so much more. So does John Dehlin's offerings give to people that don't even pay a cent. I've yet to donate, I probably should though.

 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Just standard Peirce as outlined in his seminal paper "How to Make Our Ideas Clear."

"No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great law is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality." 

He clarified it somewhat in his mature period getting rid of that somewhat confusing "predestinate opinion." 

"I call 'truth' the predestinate opinion, by which I ought to have meant that which would ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that particular direction" (EP 2:457).

So truth is just what people would believe if they inquired sufficiently. Now of course we don't have access to that final point of stability. So we make guesses at truth and see if we're investigating sufficiently to be convinced in a stable fashion. If a belief in a community persists through continued inquiry thSo we make guesses at truth and see if we're investigating sufficiently to be convinced in a stable fashion. If a belief in a community persists through continued inquiry then we can't help but call it true. Fallibilism means that it may always be overthrown as new evidence arises, but that's a different issue.en we can't help but call it true. Fallibilism means that it may always be overthrown as new evidence arises, but that's a different issue.

So truth only exists in the infinite future.

Useless.

I need to decide what's true today,. I can't wait til I get to heaven. 

Although it does work for realigious truth I guess.

"We can only know it's true when we get to heaven."

That's why I don't like Peirce .

The ultimate goal is stasis and Greek perfection in completeness, yet to be achieved. It is otherworldly and defacto Cartesian dualism.  Things as they are will only be known in the future intellect, what we know now or simply appearances, not things as they are.

It's the Greek idea of perfection. That's unavoidable. 

James calls all that preliminary searching "truth", the best we have for now.

Which means we are always becoming and reality is always becoming.

Sounds like eternal progression to me. That's why we need prophets. That's why we need personal revelation. More LDS than Cartesian.

I know the church is true today and when it changes tomorrow it will still be true. There is no static perfection to be reached. It is eternal becoming.

James wins. ;)

 

Temple day. I get to go and Progress. :)

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Just curious about your level of experience with him since you seem quick to cast judgment of him. 

I find your love of John Dehlin and your claim you are active believing LDS to be odd. Frankly I don’t believe it. I think you are a fraud.

The British having a saying: “You can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.”

Which are you, hound or hare?

I just finished “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers. Chambers was a former communist. He became a Christian, and found that he could not simultaneously hold his communist ideals and his new Christian faith. They were utterly incompatible. One had to go, and he chucked communism and became a devout Christian.

Afterward he didn’t go around saying, “You know, communism really helped me. There are really a lot of good ideas in it.”

Rather he became an ardent foe of communism and everything it stood for.

You can’t hold up John Dehlin (“Science is my god”) and his supposed virtues on the one hand, and the Gospel/Restoration on the other and pretend they are compatible.

They are not. You have to choose.

(And I think you have chosen. You are a disciple of John Dehlin.)

Edited by bdouglas

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bdouglas said:

I find your love of John Dehlin and your claim you are active believing LDS to be odd. Frankly I don’t believe it. I think you are a fraud.

I am an active, believing (though probably not "traditional believing") LDS.

2 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

You can’t hold up John Dehlin (“Science is my god”) and his supposed virtues on the one hand, and the Gospel/Restoration on the other and pretend they are compatible.

They are not. You have to choose.

(And I think you have chosen. You are a disciple of John Dehlin.)

I am not disciple of John Dehlin which makes your statement false.  Is making false statements consistent with your beliefs?

John Dehlin is, for the most part, a podcaster who interviews people regarding LDS topics.  He certainly has his biases (as we all do).  But exploring those areas of thought, belief, and research is absolutely compatible with the being a member of the restored church of Jesus Christ.  And science can never be incompatible with the gospel.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Bluebell, I may have used my last allotted post for the day, in case you respond and need feedback. 

So, I'm not a huge fan of John sometimes. I can barely get through many podcasts now, where before I ate them up because they provided a great outlet for me at a critical time in my life, even to the point of not knowing if I should exist. Just felt like a lone person in a world of the LDS. 

Now onto your comment above...so the LDS leaders (mission presidents etc.), lawyers, church employees, and on and on don't get a paycheck? And the lower of the totem pole get zilch. So, is there anyone that works for John or helps him on the podcasts or website or that provide therapy sessions, that get zilch? The church has hundreds of volunteers that pay out of pocket to help the church, they pay thousands, I wonder what staff that work for John have to pay that kind of dough. The church rides on the backs of those at the bottom that get zilch!

ETA: I have a feeling someone might counteract my "members get zilch" comment. I will say right away, that just like the church gives great experiences in the church, such as SS manuals, pamphlets, temples, church buildings, and so much more. So does John Dehlin's offerings give to people that don't even pay a cent. I've yet to donate, I probably should though.

 

I feel ya Tacenda. I was just saying that I don't think you can really compare someone asking for money to help other people with someone asking for money to help themselves.   Like I said before, I don't have any problem with Dehlin asking people to donate.  I just don't see his requests in the same category as the requests that come from lds philanthropies.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And science can never be incompatible with the gospel.

But materialism can be, and it is. And that is what JD is, a materialist.

And he also wishes — more than anything, I think — to see the demise of the church/Gospel. This is his mission. You might even say he was "foreordained before the world was" to this mission, this calling.

Dehlin's, "I'm here to help people going through faith transitions," is a facade. Someone who is really sincere about helping people in faith crises does not hang out with people like "New Name Noah".

"Yeah, sure," the Dehlin-ite says, "there are a lot of good things in the BOM. But it is a 19th century production. It is like 'The Book Of Miracles' or the 'Urantia' book. Would I ever read it? Nah. Why waste my time? I prefer Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris."

I guess people who are in the church can hold such views, but for how long? Eventually they will have to choose.

Edited by bdouglas

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

But materialism can be, and it is. And that is what JD is, a materialist.

And he also wishes — more than anything, I think — to see the demise of the church/Gospel. This is his mission. You might even say he was "foreordained before the world was" to this mission, this calling.

Dehlin's, "I'm here to help people going through faith transitions," is a facade. Someone who is really sincere about helping people in faith crises does not hang out with people like "New Name Noah".

"Yeah, sure," the Dehlin-ite says, "there are a lot of good things in the BOM. But it is a 19th century production. It is like 'The Book Of Miracles' or the 'Urantia' book. Would I ever read it? Nah. Why waste my time? I prefer Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris."

I guess people who are in the church can hold such views, but for how long? Eventually they will have to choose.

Baseless character assassination and stereotyping.

How about an apology for your false claims against me?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Baseless character assassination and stereotyping.

How about an apology for your false claims against me?

If I have mis-judged you, I apologize.

But still, I do not see how it is possible for you, on the one hand, to hold up John Dehlin as someone who is doing a great work and is the sum of all virtues, and on the other claim to be active believing LDS.

The two ideas are incompatible.

Why? Because John Dehlin is an enemy. He didn't start out as one, but he was always trending that way. And now he is an enemy.

To deny this points to a certain naivety, or perhaps innocence, on your part (if you are, as you claim, active believing LDS).

Edited by bdouglas

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69038-open-stories-foundation-dehlin-money-and-compensation/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69060-john-dehlins-podcast-and-aftermath/

Still looking for your specific rant, Kevin.

I am defeated unfortunately.  Nothing is coming up for that time period.  Do you remember a couple of key words or names you likely used?

Found it, from an April 12, 2017 post.

Quote

I have been noticing something distinctly Trump-like in Dehlin and in his odd success.  His general ignorance, selectivity, clear bias, shirt-sleeve emotions, craving for attention and demand for personal loyalty over truth, his rejection of criticism and uncritical, invective-larded dismissal of contrary scholarship, as well as his supposing that an accusation he passes on is evidence (for instance, in his infamous letter to the GA, protesting the unread "hit piece" he quoted five different complaints about FARMS but I noticed that none of the complaints included any specific support), and economic success and social following, all have a disturbing resonance.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

If I have mis-judged you, I apologize.

But still, I do not see how it is possible for you, on the one hand, to hold up John Dehlin as someone who is doing a great work and is the sum of all virtues, and on the other claim to be active believing LDS.

The two ideas are incompatible.

Why? Because John Dehlin is an enemy. He didn't start out as one, but he was always trending that way. And now he is an enemy.

To deny this points to a certain naivety, or perhaps innocence, on your part (if you are, as you claim, active believing LDS).

John Dehlin as "the sum of all virtues".  Hyperbole much?

To be clear, I said that he helped me stay in the church.  To be more clear, the content of his podcasts and the study that those podcasts encouraged me to do, helped me stay in the church.  They also helped my marriage.

The real enemy is the sum total of those troubling issues within our church doctrine, narrative, and history that undermine the faith and testimony of members, that lead them to feel betrayed and questioning all that they've ever been taught by other church members and leaders.  Dehlin has been an instrument in bringing those troubling issues to light.  But in the information age, if it wasn't him, I believe it would have been someone or something else.

Funny that you apologize in your first sentence and then question my statement again in your last sentence.  You might take some time to give consideration to the fact that the pews of our church are filled with people who don't believe the same as you.  Fully accepting that has made my church experience even richer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...