The New Passive Dissent -- "Mormonstories"

[Mark Beesley]

Well, obviously I think John was exaggerating . . .

Does he do a lot of that, ya know, exaggerating thingy?

[Libs]

He does exaggerate when he talks about his own mistakes, yes, because he is a fairly humble person.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

He needs an adjustment in his XML-7000 Mind Control Chip .

[Kenngo1969]

He does exaggerate when he talks about his own mistakes, yes, because he is a fairly humble person.

But never, as we can see over on the other thread involving Bro. Dehlin, does he exaggerate when talking about the otherwise-innocuous doings of others.

[Libs]

Yeah, I've just been reading that thread. I don't honestly know what to make of it. Was there a critical article in the making that got stifled? Or was it just gossip? I can't tell by what's been posted, so far. Seems there has been a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on, of which I (and probably many others) have been unaware.

[Mark Beesley]

He does exaggerate when he talks about his own mistakes, yes, because he is a fairly humble person.

Right . . . And whatever other emoticon is appropriate . . .

[Calm]

Yeah, I've just been reading that thread. I don't honestly know what to make of it. Was there a critical article in the making that got stifled? Or was it just gossip? I can't tell by what's been posted, so far. Seems there has been a lot of behind the scenes stuff going on, of which I (and probably many others) have been unaware.

There is an article....since no one has reported on its content, that is all that can be really said save it is likely to be published somewhere at sometime in the future....though knowing Greg, I can, I believe, safely guess there will be a lot of substance to it.

Edited May 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

Okay, thanks, Calmoriah.

[mtomm]

And all of this drama could have been avoided if no one had even mentioned the article. I thought it was pretty unfair to refer to an article that is not available for anyone to look at (not even the subject of the article has seen it) in order to discredit him. Am I the only one on this board that see this as a problem?

Edited May 10, 2012 by mtomm

[Pahoran]

And all of this drama could have been avoided if no one had even mentioned the article. I thought it was pretty unfair to refer to an article that is not available for anyone to look at (not even the subject of the article has seen it) in order to discredit him. Am I the only one on this board that see this as a problem?

Yep.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Just to be clear, mtomm, are you talking about the attempt to discredit Greg Smith the author of the article that has not been read, but has been condemned or about the discussion criticizing John Dehlin for his attempt to censor that article even though he didn't know what it contain?

I would agree it is rather silly to criticize, let alone censor something when one doesn't have a clue what it is, otoh pointing to the act of censorship of an article as an attempt at censor doesn't really require knowing what is in the article since it deals with actions outside of the article's content.

[Pahoran]

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.

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.

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.

Over on what might or might not be the message board in question, there is a thread discussing this thread. (That's par for the course over there. When there's nothing else to discuss, discuss threads from this forum. Also known as "board parasitism.")

In that thread, the person who may or may not be the stalker's "vocal disciple" has diagnosed Bob Crockett as having a "personality disorder."

Apparently when you say that about an anonymous Internet character and then speculate about whether that character is a fictitious creation, that is "defamatory" towards the possible creator of that character, and justifies loud and bitter complaining.

But when the complainer says the same thing about a real person who chooses to post in his IRL name, that's all hunky-dory.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 10, 2012 by Pahoran

[noel00]

I think we can expect a purge from the LDS church AFTER the November election of folks like Dehlin, Brooks and others.

[Robert F. Smith]

My commentary on the new style of passive dissent, and John Dehlin ("mormonstories") as an example of it, follow. In summary, I admire John and find him an interesting source of new and timely information, but do not endorse passive dissent in the church as particularly compelling way to criticize or bring change.

Some of you may know that I am a lawyer. I once represented one of California's largest landowners who was in the process, as the California Department of Fish & Game was requiring it do do, of trapping and exterminating a colony of red foxes (not native to California) that a former fur operation on neighboring land had let loose 20 years before. The red foxes were killing local birds which were otherwise skilled in fending off the native grey fox.

Local animal activists engaged in a number of terrorist tactics to stop the trapping, such as firing guns into the offices and homes of my client's executives. I took the deposition of one of them, who had been previously arrested for a firebombing incident at UCLA's medical school where animal experiments were taking place. He testified that whereas he'd never endorse firing guns into occupied structures as a means of dissent and protest, he knew plenty others and had friends who did and would.

I style this as "passive dissent;" not really taking a stand but passively endorsing and providing the means for others to do to the point that passivity seems a little disingenuous.

"Mormonstories" is quite a bit like that, at least to me. I listened to many interviews. I was particularly entertained by Brant Gardner's interview and of the McLays. The Gardner inteview was one mild challenge to another of basic beliefs in Mormon history and doctrine; either the interviewer (Dehlin) lacked an in-depth knowledge of things or he was pretending to do so. But the feeling that came from that interview, and it was very long, was the Dehlin wanted to expose the flaws of Mormon doctrine merely by asking questions that "others" might be raising. And then there was the McLays, with the rather offensive pressure to get them to bear testimony to something that was true when they knew it was false.

It seems to me that if one wants to be a critic of the Church, then dagnabbit, just be a critic. What's the big deal?

On the strength of your comment here, I listened to all 5 hours of the Brant Gardner interview, and considered it time well spent. I made lots of notes and sent off a couple of long emails to Brant (whose recent book I have nearly finished). So, thanks for getting me off the dime in this matter.

However, there is one small matter I am unsure of: Just who or what is this phenomenon of passive aggression or passive dissent that you detect? Who or what does it correlate with? Are you suggesting subterfuge? If so, by whom?

I do note that JD was incredulous that Brant has never been called on the carpet for openly discussing his ideas. It would never have occurred to me to suppose that he might have been. Perhaps there are several different versions of the LDS Church in our minds. Question is: Which one is the more accurate? I see an LDS Church which is open and decentralized. That is obviously not the Church which some others believe in.

[Monster]

Not sure where you get the passive idea from. John seems rather forthright in what he thinks and what he is trying to accomplish. Of course if you have only listened to some selected podcasts you may be in the dark as to his intentions.

[mercyngrace]

Perhaps there are several different versions of the LDS Church in our minds.

Robert,

Perhaps there are several different versions of the LDS Church in our experience.

If someone you know or respect was one of the September Six, you'd likely have an entirely different perspective. It really comes down to respecting that other people can and may well have had radically different experiences within the church than we have.

Like you, I find the notion of people being chastized for speaking unorthodox views unusual. But then, I was fresh off a mission and half a world away when the September Six affair occurred and I was too young to understand what was happening with the McConkie-Pace rebuke, or to hear of the letter Elder McConkie sent to Eugene England condemning him for his "unorthodox" thinking and teaching.

It's all just a matter of perspective, I suppose.

[cinepro]

Perhaps there are several different versions of the LDS Church in our minds. Question is: Which one is the more accurate? I see an LDS Church which is open and decentralized. That is obviously not the Church which some others believe in.

"Open and decentralized"? Are you kidding me? It may be that there are some aspects of the Church that are "open" and "decentralized", but to the degree that this is the case, I suspect it is only because Church leaders feel they have no other choice due to the size of the Church.

Ultimately, is there any aspect of the Church that is not directly accountable to Salt Lake City? Is there any latitude given in teaching or administering the Church that is independent of the Church Office Building? Sure, local leaders may have some degree of latitude in picking carpet samples for the foyer or organizing youth dances, but beyond that, there are policies and manuals that are supposed to be followed.

But, to the degree that Jesus is leading the Church through his prophets and apostles, this isn't a bad thing. Why would I want to have openness or decentralization when Jesus is at the center, and the more "closed" I get the closer I get to him?

Edited May 11, 2012 by cinepro

[mtomm]

Sure, local leaders may have some degree of latitude in picking carpet samples for the foyer

Actually their choices are limited to a few colors and two manufacturers.

It's ALL correlated baby!

[Skylla]

I think we can expect a purge from the LDS church AFTER the November election of folks like Dehlin, Brooks and others.

You're out of the thread noel00.

[CASteinman]

the letter Elder McConkie sent to Eugene England condemning him for his "unorthodox" thinking and teaching.

I don't think "unorthodox" is the correct word there. I believe McConkie was correcting false doctrines potentially taught, which is a matter beyond merely "unorthodox".

[cinepro]

Actually their choices are limited to a few colors and two manufacturers.

It's ALL correlated baby!

Even as I was typing that, it occurred to me that they might not have that much latitude even for carpets.

Then again, I attended a chapel years ago where a woman had covered the walls of the Relief Society room with a hideous floral print wallpaper. So there's something to be said for correlated interior design.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Perhaps there are several different versions of the LDS Church in our experience.

If someone you know or respect was one of the September Six, you'd likely have an entirely different perspective. It really comes down to respecting that other people can and may well have had radically different experiences within the church than we have.

A very dear friend of mine, Lavina Fielding Anderson, was among the so-called September Six, a very anomalous congeries or group. With her PhD and long experience as a professional journalist, and being at the same time a very faithful and non-heretical Latter-day Saint, I would have thought that she would have been allowed to report on current history. However, her article in Dialogue was taken as a criticism of the Brethren, which she had taken a formal temple covenant not ever to criticize, and that was said to be the basis of her excommunication. As you know, she remains faithful to the Church.

Anyhow, I should have thought that a very famous and prominent professor at the UofU (now departed) would have been more eligible for excommunication due to his public apostasy, but for various reasons he was given a pass -- as Lavina should have been given.

Like you, I find the notion of people being chastized for speaking unorthodox views unusual. But then, I was fresh off a mission and half a world away when the September Six affair occurred and I was too young to understand what was happening with the McConkie-Pace rebuke, or to hear of the letter Elder McConkie sent to Eugene England condemning him for his "unorthodox" thinking and teaching.

It's all just a matter of perspective, I suppose.

I read England's brilliant but private effort at theological harmonization after he was publicly humiliated for writing it. I heard from Gene first hand how he had sent a copy directly to Elder McConkie for his approval. Elder McConkie immediately sent him a very harsh and condemnatory letter, which was then circulated in Provo by Elder McConkie's son. All this happened even before Gene and his wife had returned from vacation, and I witnessed Gene's wife sobbing over that humiliating affair. I even tried to console her. As usual, Gene took it like a man. He was unruffled and able to discuss it very calmly. Gene was truly "a noble and great one."

One might compare Brother Brigham's open condemnation of the theological views of Orson Pratt. Yet, today it is Orson's view on the matter which is normative within the Church. I think that we need to take the long view, with a sense of perspective.

[mercyngrace]

Robert,

Given your personable knowledge of people being chastized and disciplined for publicly presenting unorthodox ideas, why were you surprised when John Dehlin commented as he did?

You wrote:

I do note that JD was incredulous that Brant has never been called on the carpet for openly discussing his ideas. It would never have occurred to me to suppose that he might have been.

I'm not trying to attribute feelings you didn't have with the word "surprising", just lacking a better word.

edited for redundancy (again) lol

Edited May 14, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Robert F. Smith]

"Open and decentralized"? Are you kidding me? It may be that there are some aspects of the Church that are "open" and "decentralized", but to the degree that this is the case, I suspect it is only because Church leaders feel they have no other choice due to the size of the Church.

Ultimately, is there any aspect of the Church that is not directly accountable to Salt Lake City? Is there any latitude given in teaching or administering the Church that is independent of the Church Office Building? Sure, local leaders may have some degree of latitude in picking carpet samples for the foyer or organizing youth dances, but beyond that, there are policies and manuals that are supposed to be followed.

But, to the degree that Jesus is leading the Church through his prophets and apostles, this isn't a bad thing. Why would I want to have openness or decentralization when Jesus is at the center, and the more "closed" I get the closer I get to him?

Size may have something to do with it, but the Holy Spirit may also play an integral part.

I see the local members and leaders running local affairs very independently of HQ. Local bishops have tremendous authority, and financial auditing is done every 6 months at the Stake level. Classes may be taught pretty much as the set-apart instructors desire, and class members participate and say what they wish. I see a great deal of initiative. Through it all, the official Church directive is that no Church program be allowed to interfere with the family -- the first priority. That is true decentralization.

That the design and building of chapels and temples are handled directly by HQ is simply a matter of efficiency, even though some of us may hanker for a time when members contributed to a local bldg fund and participated in the actual construction and landscaping. Such matters are of ephemeral importance anyhow.

[mercyngrace]

Robert,

Obviously, you couldn't have been saying that it wouldn't occur to you that public chastisements and discipline for unorthodoxy occur.

Were you saying that it never occurred to you that it would happen to Brant because of his particular views?