The New Passive Dissent -- "Mormonstories"

[Bond...James Bond]

But only a few truly wretched souls are likely to be comfortable in Bedlam, and to enjoy it.

Checking your soul at the registration page is a prerequisite.

[Bill Hamblin]

Speaking of the Sty...

Dan, you may be interested to know that the "disciple" mentioned in a recent blog post of yours has commented extensively upon your blog. He is waxing hot in his indignation, suggesting that your mention of him is "defamatory" and implies that he is mentally unstable. The poor fellow seems to have overlooked a couple of relevant points:

1) Just because he recognised himself as the "most vocal disciple" does not mean that others will, nor that they will connect his Internet activities with his real-life identity. Is it really possible to "defame" an Internet pseudonym?

2) A "sockpuppet" is a fictitious online persona, a cyber-ventriloquist's dummy. To say that a fictitious character exhibits whatever negative personality features does not ascribe those features to the author who created him/her/it. Thus, to say that a given sockpuppet may present as mentally disturbed says nothing about the actual mental state of his creator.

I also note that the "vocal disciple" seems unclear as to whether he is supposed to be the Malevolent Stalker's sockpuppet or the other way around; possibly because that permits him to milk his sense of grievance to the greatest extent. But it seems quite unambiguous to me.

Regards,

Pahoran

The truth of the matter is that they are all sock-puppets of Satan! I can no more tell them apart than I can the Three Stooges.

PS. Earth to Kishkumen ... Dan was joking!

PPS. I am too!

[Daniel Peterson]

Speaking of the Sty...

Dan, you may be interested to know that the "disciple" mentioned in a recent blog post of yours has commented extensively upon your blog. He is waxing hot in his indignation,

He seems to spend much of his day, every day, sneering at various people and being indignant or resentful.

It seems -- and I'm being very serious -- an unpleasant way to spend one's time.

suggesting that your mention of him is "defamatory" and implies that he is mentally unstable.

I think that my Stalker is mentally and/or emotionally ill. I can think of no other plausible explanation for his malevolent fixation on me, which is, as near as I can tell, in its seventh year. Normal people don't behave this way.

However, if the Stalker is merely a sock puppet for the Stalker's seeming "disciple," then that may all be a mere pose, adopted for who knows what reason. I know that the disciple has projected fictitious personae in the past; he frankly admitted it to me several years ago.

The poor fellow seems to have overlooked a couple of relevant points:

1) Just because he recognised himself as the "most vocal disciple" does not mean that others will, nor that they will connect his Internet activities with his real-life identity. Is it really possible to "defame" an Internet pseudonym?

I doubt that it is.

I've been quite careful on my blog to identify neither the pseudonyms of the Stalker and his disciple nor even the message board on which they hold forth -- and have, obviously, said nothing at all about the disciple's real-life identity, though I know it.

2) A "sockpuppet" is a fictitious online persona, a cyber-ventriloquist's dummy. To say that a fictitious character exhibits whatever negative personality features does not ascribe those features to the author who created him/her/it. Thus, to say that a given sockpuppet may present as mentally disturbed says nothing about the actual mental state of his creator.

Precisely.

I also note that the "vocal disciple" seems unclear as to whether he is supposed to be the Malevolent Stalker's sockpuppet or the other way around; possibly because that permits him to milk his sense of grievance to the greatest extent. But it seems quite unambiguous to me.

I thought I expressed myself quite clearly.

***

Checking your soul at the registration page is a prerequisite.

That's been quite apparent for a long time. It's why I never really felt comfortable there; somehow, I had circumvented that part of the registration procedure.

[Bond...James Bond]

That's been quite apparent for a long time. It's why I never really felt comfortable there; somehow, I had circumvented that part of the registration procedure.

Dr. Shades knows tthe guy who is the figurehead for Satan, the board owner and CEO, and got you a pass from the soul removal. Might not happen for Hamblin though since he doesn't have the "juice" you have with some people.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[why me]

I am really disappointed in the tone of this discussion.

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.

[why me]

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.

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 May 10, 2012 by why me

[why me]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 May 10, 2012 by Libs

[Calm]

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]

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]

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]

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 May 10, 2012 by why me

[Libs]

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 May 10, 2012 by Libs

[mormonstories]

My response to the whole deal can be found here: http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23840

[Daniel Peterson]

See my response to John Dehlin's response here:

[DBMormon]

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

[Calm]

you may want to adjust the list from five to three

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

[CA Steve]

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?

[Calm]

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]

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]

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.

[Calm]

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]

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 . . .