John Dehlin...Giant Killer

[TomesD]

reformation has almost always come from the masses...bottom up. It rarely comes from the leadership or the top down. I seriously doubt John wants to change the church doctrine. Change church policy and practices? Yeah. That very well could be his motivation...and god bless him for it.

Fortunately, we are in a Church led by a Prophet who gets inspiration from Heavenly Father on how to lead the Church and what changes He wants in His own good time.

[TomesD]

So why does the church change its policies...if not because of a need to meet the need of the membership because of the feedback from the bottom up?

The Church changes policies because Heavenly Father directs them to be changed. Now, it is certainly possible that He takes notice of the pleadings and prayers of the membership in His deliberations, but I don't know His process and so won't speculate on the accuracy of something like that.

[Bob Oliverio]

Definitely. Since I am homebound and even bed bound much of the time, I am very grateful for this board for a social and mental outlet.

My apologies. And I won't practice therapy!

[Calm]

My apologies. And I won't practice therapy!

No problem.

[TomesD]

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.

Quick question... from where do we know that Dehlin tried to suppress this article?

[Calm]

Quick question... from where do we know that Dehlin tried to suppress this article?

From Dehlin:

PS: have fun if this is your first exposure to the controversy,

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[cwald]

Based on first hand and personal knowledge of people who have been influenced and led away from the church and Dehlin used as their source for support.

Well if that is all it takes for a CFR, than I have first hand and personal knowledge that JD has helped many struggling Mormons stay in the church and remain active, which was his goal, and that he is not an apostate, and has never been discplined by any church authority.

[Hayds]

Again, too much fear and emphasis are placed on Dehlin. No one including John Dehlin can make people leave the church. People were leaving the church before John Dehlin came along. There is no hidden agenda. All Dehlin does is provide a safe environment for people who are questioning the church. Some people question and decide the church is false and some people question and decide the church is true. I know several people who have had shaken faith syndrome and turned to Mormon Stories and regained their testimonies.

On the flip side, I personally know of at least 5 people who were questioning their faith and turned to FAIR/FARMS for answers and decided the church was false based on the apologists writings. Is FAIR and FARMS a wolf in sheep's clothing? Probably just as much John Dehlin which is hardly.

[CASteinman]

at least 5 people who were questioning their faith and turned to FAIR/FARMS for answers and decided the church was false based on the apologists writings.

I don't believe this at all. Its a preposterous claim.

Edited June 25, 2012 by CASteinman

[selek1]

On the flip side, I personally know of at least 5 people who were questioning their faith and turned to FAIR/FARMS for answers and decided the church was false based on the apologists writings.

While I won't go quite so far as CASteinman, I also suggest that this statement says more about self-selecting samples, group think, conventional wisdom, and echo-chamber dynamics than it does about the apologists and their work.'

People will repeat things they hear their friends say, whether they believe it or not.

And if you repeat something often enough, you will come to believe it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by selek1

[Evangeline]

I know several people who have had shaken faith syndrome and turned to Mormon Stories and regained their testimonies.

I agree with you that no one can make someone leave the church. We all certainly look for things to validate our own biases. It would be enlightening to know which stories these people you know actually listened to. Did they listen to all of them in their entirety or did they only listen to some? For myself, I watched some of the MormonStories videos on YouTube. I really enjoyed a few of them, particularly the one with Dr. Peterson and the one with Edward Kimball. I found those ones quite faith-promoting. A few other ones I thought had some great bits of wisdom intermingled with stuff I didn't agree with. That was okay. Then I started to watch some that I felt were less-than-faith-promoting and I was totally turned off after that.

One thing I have to say, though, is that in my opinion, John Dehlin's bias shows very clearly in his body language and in the questions he chooses to ask in his interviews.

[Libs]

I don't believe this at all. Its a preposterous claim.

I know people who make this claim...I have made it, myself. I did go to FARMS for answers...I read a lot, there, but I don't think I was in a frame of mind to really accept a lot of it. It was kind of hit and miss for me. The one thing that did have an impact (finally) was Michael Ash's book, "Shaken Faith Syndrome". I even went back to the church for several months after reading it. But, going back was difficult and I was still very unsure about the issues I was dealing with, so I ended up leaving, again.

Leaving can be very complicated and emotionally unsettling. I can totally believe that people go to FARMS/MI or FAIR and still not feel satisfied, because for many/most of the questions we deal with, there are no cut and dry answers (which is what many of us are looking for).

Edited June 25, 2012 by Libs

[Brian 2.0]

One thing I have to say, though, is that in my opinion, John Dehlin's bias shows very clearly in his body language and in the questions he chooses to ask in his interviews.

He's always been very open as to where he is at. No need to read into body language when he states flat out his own questioning state. On numerous occasions he's giving "state of the union" type podcasts where he says where he's at personally, his own journey, his desires for the podcast, etc. and his positions have changed throughout the years (from pushing a stayLDS position in all circumstances to later backing away and admitting that he thinks there are times where it may be right for someone to leave), but he's always been very upfront about it. Which is why I get confused when a "wolf in sheeps clothing" label gets put on him.

[CASteinman]

I can totally believe that people go to FARMS/MI or FAIR and still not feel satisfied, because for many/most of the questions we deal with, there are no cut and dry answers (which is what many of us are looking for).

But that was not the claim. It was not that they were not satisfied, but that they decided the Church was false based on what FAIR had written.

Which is silly. How is it even possible?

Had the claim been "We left despite FAIR's arguments" I would accept that. But not that somehow FAIR wrote things proving that the Church was false.

Edited June 25, 2012 by CASteinman

[Libs]

But that was not the claim. It was not that they were not satisfied, but that they left because of what FAIR had written.

Which is silly.

Had the claim been "We left despite FAIR's arguments" I would accept that. But not that somehow FAIR forced them out.

Okay, I see the difference.

I guess, if you read and read and leave "unsatisfied", you could blame the messenger. I think I did, for awhile.

[Libs]

I think some people are claiming that the ad homs in the apologetics actually turned them off and away from the church. That's something I never really saw much of and was not an issue for me.

[CASteinman]

I even went back to the church for several months after reading it. But, going back was difficult and I was still very unsure about the issues I was dealing with, so I ended up leaving, again.

I hope you come back! Its good if you do!

[Evangeline]

He's always been very open as to where he is at. No need to read into body language when he states flat out his own questioning state. On numerous occasions he's giving "state of the union" type podcasts where he says where he's at personally, his own journey, his desires for the podcast, etc. and his positions have changed throughout the years (from pushing a stayLDS position in all circumstances to later backing away and admitting that he thinks there are times where it may be right for someone to leave), but he's always been very upfront about it. Which is why I get confused when a "wolf in sheeps clothing" label gets put on him.

I haven't listened to those particular podcasts. I tuned him out before that.

Personally, though, I don't think there's anything wrong about questioning. What matters is how you look for the answers and how sincere and teachable you are.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Evangeline

[Brian 2.0]

Personally, though, I don't think there's anything wrong about questioning. What matters is how you look for the answers.

Agreed. And for me, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong about looking at evidences from critics or even anti-Mormons in your looks for answers. It shouldn't be the ONLY place to look. And you need to look beyond rhetoric and look at the evidence, but I don't think anyone should be reprimanded for looking at their questions from all sides (including the critics side)

[Evangeline]

Agreed. And for me, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong about looking at evidences from critics or even anti-Mormons in your looks for answers. It shouldn't be the ONLY place to look. And you need to look beyond rhetoric and look at the evidence, but I don't think anyone should be reprimanded for looking at their questions from all sides (including the critics side)

Agreed. Can I add something else? I also don't think anyone should be reprimanded and belittled for choosing not to explore the critics' side. There are many faithful LDS who stay away from "anti" material, but I believe that when they're seeking for answers, God is more than capable of granting them wisdom and understanding through other means. Perhaps a different kind of wisdom, but wisdom nevertheless.

[Hayds]

Again. I personally know 5 people who no longer believe in the church. They had doubts and FARMS/FAIR explanations were the lynchpin that pushed them over. Just because you folks don't know people with this experience doesn't mean I don't. One of the five had his name removed. You guys can accuse me of making stuff up all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I personally know 5 people. And, since many others make this claim I am sure it has happened with others. Why would I make this up. People either reach 2 conclusions when they study church history and apologetics: 1. It's 100% true, or 2. The whole faith is man made. Apologistic writings are polarizing. Look how many blogs and forums exist that are for or against apologetics. Look at how many posts on this very board are for or against apologetics. Why is it such a shock that some people read apologetics and come to a different conclusion?

Say what you want, but my experiences are my own. I know what I know and you can all say or think what you want about my claim, but it doesn't change the facts that I am personally in tune with.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Hayds

[Calm]

The problem is if they had doubts to begin with, then it is impossible to know how much weight their experience with FAIR/FARMS played in their leaving and how much the original state caused the problem. IOW, there is no way to know if they would have left if they had never experienced FAIR/FARMS or not. And if they would have left anyway, how can FAIR or FARMS be held responsible?

Think of it this way. Someone is royally ticked off at a coworker and storms out of the office, running into another guy at which he gets mad as well for blocking his way. Do we know for sure he would have gotten mad at the second coworker even though he was blocking his way if he hadn't been angry at the first coworker to begin with? I don't think we can, just as I don't think we can ever tell what role FAIR or FARMS played with someone who doubted before encountering them.

Now if they had no doubts beforehand, came and read stuff on FAIR or FARMs and had no other encounters with negative material before they lost their faith/left the Church, I think the conclusion that FAIR or FARMS contributed to their leaving would be more appropriate, but how and why might still be up in the air.

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[Hayds]

But that was not the claim. It was not that they were not satisfied, but that they decided the Church was false based on what FAIR had written.

Which is silly. How is it even possible?

Had the claim been "We left despite FAIR's arguments" I would accept that. But not that somehow FAIR wrote things proving that the Church was false.

Read my post again. I never claimed that anyone decided the church was true solely by reading apologists. I prefaced it with the fact that these people were already questioning the faith and went to apologetics with answers. The answers did not suffice and they left. Apologetics aren't a magic pill that can bring everyone back around just as John Dehlin is not some catalyst that makes people apostatize.

[Calm]

Apologetics aren't a magic pill that can bring everyone back around...

If only they were, it would be so much easier.

[Evangeline]

I personally don't believe apologetics is a magic pill either, nor do I believe that John Dehlin "makes" people apostatize. We're on the same page there.