nutshell Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Is there more to this story?Can't help but think the whole Time inc. photo essay deal did not play in heavy here as well
nutshell Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 And I have very personal reasons for disliking him and his ilk because I have family members who have followed his and his acolytes' agendas.Sounds like blaming AA for a friends drinking.
Deborah Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Sounds like blaming AA for a friends drinking.Nonsense. To compare what AA does to Dehlin is ridiculous because the first attempts to make one face his demons and the latter gives excuses for overlooking them.
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Nonsense. To compare what AA does to Dehlin is ridiculous because the first attempts to make one face his demons and the latter gives excuses for overlooking them.Apparently Dehlin was upset at the deceptive means by which his mission got a big monthly "body count" of new "converts" and blew the whistle. Does that sound like someone who excuses bad behavior? 2
Deborah Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Apparently Dehlin was upset at the deceptive means by which his mission got a big monthly "body count" of new "converts" and blew the whistle. Does that sound like someone who excuses bad behavior?CFR
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 CFRDehlin, John (September 4, 2005). "Mormon Stories Podcast # 001: Bad Baptisms? My Mission Experience in Guatemala". Mormon Storieshttp://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-podcast-001-kiddie-bapsmy-mission-experience-in-guatemala/
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Are you seriously suggesting that just because someone is upset with one action he views as bad, that all actions that are viewed as bad by everyone will not only be viewed as bad by him, but will be condemned by him?You don't believe that there has never been an individual who has justified to himself bad behaviour for one reason or another (especially if it either benefits himself or is something he has done) while refusing to justify other behaviour he views as bad that others have done?
cwald Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 What I know of Dehlin is that he is very influential among a large apostate group here in Utah, and that he is looked to for their rationale to be disaffected with the church. He has many disciples who have established their own blogs and websites and claim the same agenda but who openly oppose church authority and consider the church in apostasy rather than themselves. CFR
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Are you seriously suggesting that just because someone is upset with one action he views as bad, that all actions that are viewed as bad by everyone will not only be viewed as bad by him, but will be condemned by him?The incident in Guatemala I cited when I got nailed with a CFR was formative for Dahlin. He began to study the church's administration and history in great depth, which in turn led to a crisis in his faith. This eventually resolved as his current status as a kind of part-time Mormon. But at the core is a desire to get at the truth. At the very least, he doesn't come across as someone who would excuse sinful behavior.
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) At the very least, he doesn't come across as someone who would excuse sinful behavior.But that would depend on what he views is sinful behaviour and that varies a great deal from person to person and from what I've seen over the years, even for some people from situation to situation.For example, do you think it is appropriate to lie to your spouse on important things about yourself? Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah 2
Bob Oliverio Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Apparently Dehlin was upset at the deceptive means by which his mission got a big monthly "body count" of new "converts" and blew the whistle. Does that sound like someone who excuses bad behavior?I never went on a mission for the Church, and admittedly, don't think I would want to given the parameters. I don't know anything about this Dehlin guy, but if someone on a mission thought the actions of the peer group were beginning to to like like an Amway meeting, why would anyone object to a cautious warning or observation? Even as a new member, I can see the pressure put on these young men and women for recruitment. And our retention rate of new converts is terrible. It's not out of the realm of possibility that bad practices have and do happen(ed). But after reading about this Maxwell Institute drama, I can't help wondering "what is the real issue here for this board"?Is it the departure from "group think" at the Institute or is it the fear of "new think" there? Are those who will be forced into some type of transition such a significant marquee to this board that it adversely impacts the legacy of this board or their individual messages? Does it now somehow pit this board against a long standing credibility association with this Maxwell Institute from those posters now formerly ingrained with that organization?Is it a fear that the Church is no longer formally supporting the direction of those who believed they had that up until this change of direction?Is it a reality of loss of income (which is nothing to take lightly today)?Is it sense of betrayal from the Church itself? (Assuming that BYU never does anything not directed from brethren.)I don't really follow this drama but it seems to be a BIG ISSUE on this board right now and hence the reason for the questions.
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) I don't really follow this drama....Maybe you should rather than presenting questions that only add to it in an extravagant way.My answers to all of your questions is "No", btw. Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 For example, do you think it is appropriate to lie to your spouse on important things about yourself?Not at all, but I have lied to my parents about my cancer, because they are extremely aged and frail, and if they were to worry about me, they would be on oxygen at the very least. So that lie is a good thing to do.
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Not at all, but I have lied to my parents about my cancer, because they are extremely aged and frail, and if they were to worry about me, they would be on oxygen at the very least. So that lie is a good thing to do.Do you think it would be okay to lie to your spouse about your cancer if you thought it would cause him to be troubled or even wonder about whether he wanted you as a wife anymore?
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Do you think it would be okay to lie to your spouse about your cancer if you thought it would cause him to be troubled or even wonder about whether he wanted you as a wife anymore?Well, as a practical matter that would have worked only until he went out to the mailbox and saw the doctor bill.
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Funny, but a nonanswer.No, it's not okay to lie to your spouse. Have you been married for 22 years? If so, then you would not have asked that question. 1
why me Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 But at the core is a desire to get at the truth.If this were the case, he would not have tried to suppress Greg's piece. It seems that he wants to suppress the truth unless it is his truth. 4
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) DittoVery well. I will give your absurd questions some attention after all.Is it the departure from "group think" at the Institute or is it the fear of "new think" there? Neither. If you had read much stuff produced by the MI, you would be aware that there is a variety of thought published, as should be relatively apparent just looking at the number of authors. Not only that, but as Dr. Hamblin and others have stated the new vision as stated is not seen as a bad one, it is that the old vision has been neglected contrary to commitments that were made.Are those who will be forced into some type of transition such a significant marquee to this board that it adversely impacts the legacy of this board or their individual messages?No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).Does it now somehow pit this board against a long standing credibility association with this Maxwell Institute from those posters now formerly ingrained with that organization?No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).s it a fear that the Church is no longer formally supporting the direction of those who believed they had that up until this change of direction?No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).Is it a reality of loss of income (which is nothing to take lightly today)?No and there is no evidence that even suggests this, so this question appears to be a non sequitur (I think that is the correct term, not a lot of sleep last night so brain isn't fully functional).Is it sense of betrayal from the Church itself? (Assuming that BYU never does anything not directed from brethren.)No one impacted by the dismissals has made claims that the Church itself is involved that I recall, in fact the opposite has occurred. If there is someone interpreting the events as a betrayal by the Church, it is likely they are not aware enough of the actual facts to draw any sort of conclusion and from what I've seen written on the board, at most there are very few proponents of the board who are even considering this a possibility, most dismiss it. Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah 2
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 No, it's not okay to lie to your spouse. Have you been married for 22 years? If so, then you would not have asked that question.I was and am asking for your opinion, not for a statement of fact.So you would disagree that someone who has lost faith in the Church should lie to his or her spouse about those beliefs, even out of fear that the spouse may choose divorce after learning of the loss of faith?
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 If this were the case, he would not have tried to suppress Greg's piece. It seems that he wants to suppress the truth unless it is his truth.Without even knowing what that "truth" was, in fact.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 [Ahem. ]Some journalists have a tough time getting things right.All journalists have a tough time getting things right. It goes with the job. One problem is journalism school, where fluff and ornamentation are more important than substance. Give me an old fashioned print journalist with a master's degree in a substantive discipline anytime -- I don't care whether it is history, English lit, philosophy, or science, or the like. Real journalism requires depth and perspective. Not an easy job.
why me Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Without even knowing what that "truth" was, in fact.It is amazing the people cannot see the hypocrisy in all this. John wanted to suppress a piece about him because he was afraid of the impact it would have on his reputation. But he wants the church to act differently be open about its history etc. 2
Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 If this were the case, he would not have tried to suppress Greg's piece. It seems that he wants to suppress the truth unless it is his truth.You make a good point. I cannot defend Dehlin for trying to suppress the article. If I were his advisor, I would have suggested taking the 100 page hit, and making a 100 page rebuttal.
Recommended Posts