Dehlin'S Methodology?

[Bill Hamblin]

Dehlin's methodology is discussed on my blog:

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/dehlins-methodology/

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Man, amen.

[Teancum]

Dehlin's methodology is discussed on my blog:

http://mormonscriptu...ns-methodology/

If John is so sloppy then why pay so much attention to him? I wonder if you are all giving him more spot light in blogging and talking about him. Really there is nothing any of you can do about him other than perhaps publish the paper that he squashed in some other venue. You can then expose your views of him to a readership that mostly supports LDS apologetics anyway. You can't excommunicate him. Only his SP can and my understanding is that his current SP is not so disposed. Anyway, just some of my musings.

[CASteinman]

Your comment about lazy Cherry Picking seems to fit some of his technique.

[Bill Hamblin]

If John is so sloppy then why pay so much attention to him? I wonder if you are all giving him more spot light in blogging and talking about him. Really there is nothing any of you can do about him other than perhaps publish the paper that he squashed in some other venue. You can then expose your views of him to a readership that mostly supports LDS apologetics anyway. You can't excommunicate him. Only his SP can and my understanding is that his current SP is not so disposed. Anyway, just some of my musings.

This has nothing to do with excommunicating him. It has to do with his faulty methodology and posturing. If you're not interested, that's fine; don't read the posts about him.

[Teancum]

This has nothing to do with excommunicating him. It has to do with his faulty methodology and posturing. If you're not interested, that's fine; don't read the posts about him.

But I am interested. What makes you think I am not? I am interested in Dehiln. I am interested in Dan Peterson. I like them both. And I care about what happens to them both. I think I have stated a number of times on the recent threads about all this that I think the charge of ad hominem in the Review is overstated. There may be some of that but mostly it is limited. I am saddened to see this turn of events. I think John protests a bit too loudly about it and did so recently. I think John may have had in mind the treatment Grant Palmer received when he heard about the paper that was to be published about him. But that is just speculation.

So ok, you want to attempt to expose your perceived faults in his conclusions about apologetics. Certainly asking for help may indicate he is not as well read in apologetics. Or he has examples and is looking for others to add. Not sure a request for help proves much one way or the other.

[David T]

I fully acknowledge I did a facepalm when I saw that facebook post of Dehlin's. Not helping his case.

Edited June 30, 2012 by David T

[stemelbow]

Edited for temple content

When he showed up on another board attacking Peterson for being a pathological deceiver, joining the crowd in misrepresenting him for sport, I figured he had turned a corner he's been trying to avoid for quite some time. eh...why avoid it. Just let i happen?

[Libs]

But I am interested. What makes you think I am not? I am interested in Dehiln. I am interested in Dan Peterson. I like them both. And I care about what happens to them both. I think I have stated a number of times on the recent threads about all this that I think the charge of ad hominem in the Review is overstated. There may be some of that but mostly it is limited. I am saddened to see this turn of events. I think John protests a bit too loudly about it and did so recently. I think John may have had in mind the treatment Grant Palmer received when he heard about the paper that was to be published about him. But that is just speculation.

So ok, you want to attempt to expose your perceived faults in his conclusions about apologetics. Certainly asking for help may indicate he is not as well read in apologetics. Or he has examples and is looking for others to add. Not sure a request for help proves much one way or the other.

Gosh, these are my sentiments...exactly!

[Darren10]

Dehlin's methodology is discussed on my blog:

http://mormonscriptu...ns-methodology/

From the link:

1- If he doesn’t have enough examples of apologetic ad hominem from his own past study, why has he been so loudly and publicly proclaiming that LDS apologists consistently engage in serial ad hominem?

An excellent question and observation. If Dehlin has but little evidence than his public screeds ought to reflect that small amount of evidence. That's a difference in connotation and nuance between saying that "LDS apologists use ad hominem attacks" and "sometimes LDS apologists use ad hominem attacks".

I agree with numbers 2-4 as well.

Also, I think it's ironic that the advertisement for when I visited your webpost which justifiably calls into question Dehlin's scholarship was an advertisement which talked about too few students today getting an advanced degree in education.

[why me]

If John is so sloppy then why pay so much attention to him? I wonder if you are all giving him more spot light in blogging and talking about him.

I think that the problem is that he is influencing people and this may not be a good thing. So, it may be up to apologists to counter him.

[why me]

Dehlin's methodology is discussed on my blog:

http://mormonscriptu...ns-methodology/

From your blog: 4- Why should anyone take Dehlin’s musings on this topic seriously?

I think that those people who do take him seriously may not understand his methodology.

Edited June 30, 2012 by why me

[Tacenda]

I wish they could just be friends, he and Dan, like so many on here are able to do even with our differing opinions. This whole John thing makes me wonder if down the road a bit he'll just stop and get tired of leading the pack, carrying everyone on his back...it reminds of the movie "Forest Gump". When Forest runs across country and people are joining him and he gets this huge following and then suddenly he stops in the mddle of the road, turns around and starts walking back home. And people are left standing there and have no idea what to do. Could it be that John is afraid of stopping? He just might be one of those people that feel that kind of responsibility for people. I do think the care he has for others is huge. I just wish people would see it isn't good for anyone to have to hold that many up for so long. I think people that held the LDS church as the end all be all, are left hanging when confronted with some hard to swallow truth out there. The church does paint a wonderful picture of eternal life. When someones loses that they need someone or something to anchor them, especially when they lose God in their lives. Which is really high among disaffected LDS.

[why me]

This whole John thing makes me wonder if down the road a bit he'll just stop and get tired of leading the pack, carrying everyone on his back...it reminds of the movie "Forest Gump".

I don't know if we have a john thing. But it would have been nice to have Greg's piece published so those interested could have debated mormonstories and john dehlin. The problem comes with censorship. Greg's piece was censored because John wanted it to be censored. This comes across as dictatorial. Since John is a public figure in Mormon internet circles, his methodology should be able to come under criticism. By John squashing public scrutiny, he brought a lot of hearsay his way.

[treehugger]

Can only "scholars" be apologists?

[Bob Oliverio]

Is it really the questionable methodology of this Dehlin fella that is troubling?  Or is it the significant influence he has had on recent events, even with his questionable methodology and all?

Seems like he is given a tremendous amount of attention here.

[CASteinman]

The church does paint a wonderful picture of eternal life. When someones loses that they need someone or something to anchor them, especially when they lose God in their lives. Which is really high among disaffected LDS.

Yes indeed. Any reasonable person would be unhappy at the prospect of losing Life Eternal.

But, are you saying that John D. fills an ecological niche by helping them to feel better about it?

Edited June 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Is it really the questionable methodology of this Dehlin fella that is troubling? Or is it the significant influence he has had on recent events, even with his questionable methodology and all?

Seems like he is given a tremendous amount of attention here.

I think he is getting a lot of attention because of the Peterson thing. I don't know for sure, but I would wager that fewer than 3 in 100 members of my ward have ever heard his name, much less watched a podcast. Is that great influence among the faithful? I don't think so.

But I think he certainly helps doubters feel better about being cynical and leaving.

[CASteinman]

I wonder if you are all giving him more spot light in blogging and talking about him.

Hmmm.. interesting Yes, I would say blogging and talking about him will also tend to throw more light on his activities. Is that a bad thing?

[Storm Rider]

I reviewed Dehlin's facebook page just to read the quote in the context written and found that it is as blatant as written here. As I read it I thought the same type of thing, "Heck, John, if MI is so guilty of all your accusations, shouldn't you just have that stuff at your fingertips?" Then again, maybe he would prefer to create a list of every time MI has been guilty of such a thing. Then again, when I read the responses I realized that his readers really don't have much a understanding of the definition of an A.H. AH follows in the same type of overused lingo as another one of my favorites "cognitive dissonance". They really don't have a clue what it means but it becomes a catch-all for their anger, disappointment, frustration, confusion, and hatred toward the LDS Church.

I will say that I listened to one of the videos and was struck with some of the sincere pain that some of those who follow Dehlin. These are precious individuals who have found their hearts broken for a number of different reasons. They do possess a sense of community, love to visit one another, have dinners together, and talk. They are drawn together in their feelings toward the LDS Church and the restored gospel. Does this type of interaction sound like anything to you? I wonder if they were assigned to visit one another if they would find it so fulfilling. I wonder if they focused their conversation on Christ if their sense of community would be maintained? Regardless, these people find solace together. I suspect some sense they are "in community" rather than just making a pit stop on their road to something else.

Of those who "bore testimonies" of their "story" (they have a whole lingo), some have lost any recognition of truth that they may have ever known; others are simply in pain and still searching. There are certainly no answers to be found there, just the truth is relative lie that the world teaches.

[robuchan]

Dehlin's methodology is discussed on my blog:

http://mormonscriptu...ns-methodology/

I don't know who your audience is. And I don't know what your goal is. But you seem to be shoveling faster and faster at digging your own grave. Dehlin's issue is with tone. Your blog post reinforces this. You come across condescending and belittling. Why do that? Dehlin comes across concerned about people's emotions and feelings. You and DCP and the rest come across like big, bad wolves. I imagine if events of the past two weeks haven't changed you at all, then this post won't either. You are the ones representing Christ's church. Dehlin's the one persecuting it. You guys ought to be the ones calmly and coolly presenting facts with a loving tone for those that have gone astray. Dehlin should be the nasty, mean one. But the roles are reversed.

[Teancum]

I think he is getting a lot of attention because of the Peterson thing. I don't know for sure, but I would wager that fewer than 3 in 100 members of my ward have ever heard his name, much less watched a podcast. Is that great influence among the faithful? I don't think so.

But I think he certainly helps doubters feel better about being cynical and leaving.

It may be true. The paper then the dismissal of Dan as the Review editor seems to have highlighted Dehlin at least to many here.

As for 3 in 100 knowing Dehlin you are probably correct. About the same that know about FARMS and Dan Peterson.

Last of all I think your last comment was what is cynical. People leave the Church for all sorts of reasons and some may be cynical but many are not. It is sad that you and so many others just don't get it. When someone who has been as devoted or more so than many here are finds things that basically do not allow them to maintain a testimony it is heart wrenching and horrible. There usually is no place to turn. Dehlin is feeling that void. And as much as so many here want to paint a straw man about John wanting to help people out of the Church it is just a lie. He helps a person do what they want to do. Stay, go, be NOMish, whatever. For me Dehlin and his podcasts and conferences hooked me up to people that are maintaining activity in spite of issues they may have. I also found that many people who are solid believers in spite of the facts have had to modify how they approach the Church and are as much a cafeteria Mormon as I am. And these are some big name to many here.

[CASteinman]

I don't know who your audience is. And I don't know what your goal is. But you seem to be shoveling faster and faster at digging your own grave. Dehlin's issue is with tone. Your blog post reinforces this. You come across condescending and belittling. Why do that? Dehlin comes across concerned about people's emotions and feelings. You and DCP and the rest come across like big, bad wolves. I imagine if events of the past two weeks haven't changed you at all, then this post won't either. You are the ones representing Christ's church. Dehlin's the one persecuting it. You guys ought to be the ones calmly and coolly presenting facts with a loving tone for those that have gone astray. Dehlin should be the nasty, mean one. But the roles are reversed.

I don't see any of what you see. But I have two specific questions.

You say Dehlin's issue is one of tone. Do you mean that is his only issue or that sometimes he has mentioned that as one among other problems?

You seem to be in agreement with Dehlin that "tone" is the problem. But exactly what is the problem? Would Dehlin have problems with Jesus' tone toward critics -- and would you have sided with the critics against Jesus?

[CASteinman]

As for 3 in 100 knowing Dehlin you are probably correct. About the same that know about FARMS and Dan Peterson.

I think more people in the Church know about FARMS. I have seen FARMS books all over the place and heard articles discussed in Church.

Last of all I think your last comment was what is cynical.

Ok, you think that. But your opinion would carry more weight if the comment actually was cynical. Seems, perhaps, you do not understand what the word "cynical" actually means -- or else you do not understand that I am fine with people leaving the Church if they do not like it. In fact, I encourage it. Do not stay if you are unhappy with the Gospel.

Truth is though, that very few people are actually unhappy with the Gospel. Its usually something else.

It is sad that you and so many others just don't get it.

I feel for your sadness, but I just don't get it. I don't get why you are sad. Certainly your sadness is not my fault. If you want to leave.. go. If you want to stay.. stay. Quit belly aching. Make a decision and proceed. I am not standing in anyone's way, barring any door or brutishly forcing beliefs on people.

Apostate hand wringing is not appreciated by me.. The psychological problems you describe are not my fault. I don't feel guilty about someone else's emotional issues, no matter how much you want lay blame games and victimology on my doorstep. I reject them.

This is not to say that I reject people. I am not turning anyone aside who asks for help. But in the end I am not in charge of another person's life. I say: Take responsibility for yourself and your own feelings. Quit blaming other people for your personal issues.

As for me this is my feeling: The True Church is led by Christ through the Prophet and 12 Apostles. Apostate Dehlin is leading a new, false church of doubt, hopelessness, self justification and apostasy that appeals to those who find the counsel of the Prophet and Apostles somehow disturbing, boring or otherwise unappealing.

Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

[robuchan]

I don't see any of what you see. But I have two specific questions.

You say Dehlin's issue is one of tone. Do you mean that is his only issue or that sometimes he has mentioned that as one among other problems?

You seem to be in agreement with Dehlin that "tone" is the problem. But exactly what is the problem? Would Dehlin have problems with Jesus' tone toward critics -- and would you have sided with the critics against Jesus?

I'm not a huge fan of Dehlin. I think he's identified a problem with the current state of LDS apologetics. Not the only problem. And it's not the only problem Delhin has with Mormonism. Dehlin comes across as nice. DCP, Hamblin, et al come across as mean. Regardless of how Jesus interacted with the Pharisees, which do you think church leadership would rather its apologists be if they had to choose between nice and mean?