Dehlin'S Methodology?

[CASteinman]

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?

I think the leadership prefers nice. I think that there is even a scripture that does not use the word "nice" but nevertheless the meaning comes across that after all the things you might do, you also need to be nice if you want God's favor. I will look it up if you want.

Having said that, I don't think that you have to be perceived as nice for it to be so... and that merely being perceived as nice does not actually make it so. To paraphrase Gump: Nice is as Nice does.

I disagree with your claim about the "current state" of Mormon Apologetics being a problem. But then, I may not have read what you have read. I would suggest, however, that a few examples are not the same thing as the "current state of Mormon Apologetics". Its a big area not fit for a sweeping generalization about its "current state".

[robuchan]

I disagree with your claim about the "current state" of Mormon Apologetics being a problem. But then, I may not have read what you have read. I would suggest, however, that a few examples are not the same thing as the "current state of Mormon Apologetics". Its a big area not fit for a sweeping generalization about its "current state".

Agree. DCP is (was until two weeks ago) the face of Mormon Apologetics. He and a few others tightly connected with him are (were) the source of this issue with tone, by my observation.

[CASteinman]

Agree. DCP is (was until two weeks ago) the face of Mormon Apologetics. He and a few others tightly connected with him are (were) the source of this issue with tone, by my observation.

New thread there I think. Mainly because I do not know what you are talking about but it is off topic here.

[William Schryver]

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

Perhaps but not where I live.

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.

Your comment was cynical and of course I understand what cynical means. It is cynical to believe that most people who leave are cynical about it and are just looking to feel good about themselves. But based on what I see of your tone I don't expect you to get this. And I did not assume that you are not fine with people leaving the Church. I just note that the was you seem to view them is cynical.

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

Case in point. This observation is cynical. Sometimes it is something else. But not usually. Often it is that they are unhappy that what they believed was true for them no longer is. And they have valid reasons for reaching that conclusion.

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.

I am not sad per say I just find your attitude sad, or perhaps pitiful is better. I am not wringing my hands about it not one whit. And where I am belly aching in any of my posts here? As for me personally I do not want to leave. If I did I would.

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.

Oh please. You got this all from my one little post?

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.

Who is blaming anyone? Your rant is bordering on a bit of a tirade here.

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.

Great. I am happy for you. But your conclusion that above about what Dehlin is and is not doing and is frankly cynical. Many of these people are quite happy as they have moved on from something they believed fully but for whatever reasons no longer can. They don't find the counsel of Prophets and Apostles disturbing. They just no longer believe the truth claims of the Church or that these men really have any more divine connection to God than anyone else and perhaps in some cased less. That does not make them less than you, hopeless or any of the other pejoratives you may wish to apply to them.

[CASteinman]

Your comment was cynical

No, it wasn't. I am the world's leading authority on this matter.

It is cynical to believe that most people who leave are cynical about it and are just looking to feel good about themselves.

Maybe. Maybe not. But I did not say that. Now you are falsely putting words into my mouth.

I just note that the was you seem to view them is cynical.

the word "seems" being important. And also the words that you left out "seems to me". In other words, a mental process inside you. However your internal mental processes do not create a new reality for me or change how I feel about things.

This observation is cynical.

Bogus. I can barely count on one hand the number of people I have met in apostate ranks who were upset with the Gospel. In fact, probably not two people I have met were upset with the Gospel.

And saying that is not cynical. Even Dehlin has done studies on why people leave and anything like "upset with the Gospel" or "dislike of the Gospel" does not even register in his surveys.

I am not sad per say I just find your attitude sad, or perhaps pitiful is better.

LOL.. personal attacks and yet I am the cynical one.

Again, this is an internal issue with you. I am not in control of your thoughts and feelings. You are.

Oh please. You got this all from my one little post?

You were laying some blame game out there.. sending it my direction. Still are. You don't even know me to make such judgments of me.

But your conclusion that above about what Dehlin is and is not doing and is frankly cynical.

Nonsense. Utter balderdash.

Many of these people are quite happy as they have moved on from something they believed fully but for whatever reasons no longer can. They don't find the counsel of Prophets and Apostles disturbing. They just no longer believe the truth claims of the Church or that these men really have any more divine connection to God than anyone else and perhaps in some cased less. That does not make them less than you, hopeless or any of the other pejoratives you may wish to apply to them.

I do not trust you to speak for a population of people -- a population you do not claim to represent -- nor to judge who is better or worse than me. Do you think that is cynical of me? What a funny idea. Especially when you do not even understand me.

But talk about cynical.. your arguments rest a great deal on making false accusations about me personally -- a person you do not know.

[Hayds]

The constant fear and "boogie man" focus of Dehlin on this board is laughable. Dehlin is insignificant. It seems to be alluded from many on this board that Dehlin somehow played a large role, or was instrumental in the shake-up at NAMIRS. If this truly is the case, then Dehlin should be the least of our worries or the target of our invective.

If Dehlin was a major instrument, we should be more concerned about the leadership at NAMIRS, who were allowed to be mislead by a nobody like Dehlin without even reading the "hit piece" on him as claimed. More importantly we should be concerned about the unnamed GA who supposedly stepped in to squelch the paper without reading it. Aren't the GA's supposed to be prophet, seers, and revelators? How could a nobody like Dehlin, who has at numerous times publicly stated he doesn't believe in the historical claims of the LDS faith, fool this GA? Shouldn't this GA have a higher level of discernment than the rest of us? Is the Lord's one and only true church so weak that it's apologetic arm and the GAs can be infiltrated by a nobody like Dehlin? Forget Dehlin, and worry about who is at the helm at the LDS church.

In reality, I believe Dehlin maybe had a 1% role in this, and the NAMIRS changes were already heading down the pipeline. Since Dehlin is insignificant, its easy for guys like Hamblin to call Dehlin out rather than call the unnamed GA out because we all know what happens when we speak ill of the Lord's anointed.

You guys will empower Dehlin more by focusing all this attention on him. Your assertion that he is some big bad "anti christ" will become self fulfilling prophecy since you love to keep him as the center of attention. Look how many posts about Dehlin or Mormon Stories occupy the first page of this board.

People who follow Dehlin have already made their decisions based on how they feel about the church. NOMs and apostates have flourished long before Dehlin came on the scene. He may have made them more vocal, but he is not the driving force causing them to leave.

Who cares if Dehlin claimed apologetics were ad-hominem based attacks? Who cares if he's asking for examples? He doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. He is just a distraction which is keeping the focus off of the real issues at hand.

[cwald]

Bogus. I can barely count on one hand the number of people I have met in apostate ranks who were upset with the Gospel. In fact, probably not two people I have met were upset with the Gospel.

And saying that is not cynical. Even Dehlin has done studies on why people leave and anything like "upset with the Gospel" or "dislike of the Gospel" does not even register in his surveys.

I think that is because not all mormons equate the "gospel" and the "church" as the same thing?

I don't think they are the same. I have some issues with the church instittion. I'm fine with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[ERayR]

What amazes me is those who join because the church is unique and then very soon become disaffected and want the church to change into something like what they have left. So many believe that God, through his church should change to accommodate their favorite sins. There are still others who get sidetracked on to their favorite hobby issue. Still others who thing that if only the church leaders were as smart as they themselves are they would change policy and doctrine.

Abraham 3:24-25

24 And there stood ^aone among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and ^bwe will make an earth whereon these may ^cdwell

25 And we will ^aprove them herewith, to see if they will ^bdo all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

[why me]

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.

Dehlin's issue is with tone? Really? I can't believe it. I suppose if the lds church were a cult, a cult where emotional life is nulled into a peaceful, tranquil personality he may have a point. But people are allowed to show passion if they wish to. And they also allowed to show anger or disappointment etc. Members of christ's church are human beings and as such, they have all sorts of emotions running through their blood.

This idea that exmormons can show anger, passion, lust, aggression, spite, evil, kindness etc while mormons must subdue all tone and passion is nonsense. Where are humans cool and calm without exercising other emotions when the time calls it? Was Joseph Smith cool and calm when he faced his enemies? I don't think so. He showed anger, disappointment, kindness etc. And yes, some members were disappointed in his anger. But he was human. This idea that members represent christ's church and as such must be calm, cool and subdues is very cultish to me.

[why me]

I'm fine with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And what is the gospel of jesus christ and where is it best defined?

[CASteinman]

I think that is because not all mormons equate the "gospel" and the "church" as the same thing?

I don't think they are the same. I have some issues with the church instittion. I'm fine with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Well, they aren't really the same things are they?

The Gospel is the News and Plan of God for Man's Salvation through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Whereas the Church is the divine vessel, carved without hands, but committed into the hands of men, to promulgate and advance the message of Gospel in the Earth.and to administer the ordinances thereof, both of those through the power of God given to man-- namely the Priesthood.

[Hayds]

What amazes me is those who join because the church is unique and then very soon become disaffected and want the church to change into something like what they have left.

I agree with you here, but I also think part of the problem is our "Milk before Meat" attitude when teaching investigators. I had many baptisms on my mission and was saddened to later learn many of them had left the church after about a year or so.

I think many of these people learn the "Milk" aspect of the church and see something unique that they want to be part of and they join. Shortly after they are presented with the "Meat" and feel like what they thought was unique was now too unique for them and they become disaffected.

You can argue that "Milk before Meat" is not effective, or you can argue that these people were too weak and never really had a true testimony because if they truly believed, the "Meat" would not have phased them. It depends on your viewpoint.

[CASteinman]

The constant fear and "boogie man" focus of Dehlin on this board is laughable. Dehlin is insignificant. It seems to be alluded from many on this board that Dehlin somehow played a large role, or was instrumental in the shake-up at NAMIRS. If this truly is the case, then Dehlin should be the least of our worries or the target of our invective.

If Dehlin was a major instrument, we should be more concerned about the leadership at NAMIRS, who were allowed to be mislead by a nobody like Dehlin without even reading the "hit piece" on him as claimed. More importantly we should be concerned about the unnamed GA who supposedly stepped in to squelch the paper without reading it. Aren't the GA's supposed to be prophet, seers, and revelators? How could a nobody like Dehlin, who has at numerous times publicly stated he doesn't believe in the historical claims of the LDS faith, fool this GA? Shouldn't this GA have a higher level of discernment than the rest of us? Is the Lord's one and only true church so weak that it's apologetic arm and the GAs can be infiltrated by a nobody like Dehlin? Forget Dehlin, and worry about who is at the helm at the LDS church.

Not all GA's are prophets seers or revelators and the particular GA(s) in this case are not sustained as such. However, what you describe as the thing people should be worried about is PRECISELY what some are worried about. However they have no evidence so they pick at the lose thread of the sweater to see if they have power to unravel it.

I personally agree with you.... Dehlin did not have much to do with this, although, if Daniel Peterson's recent suspicious are correct then in fact, Dehlin DID have something to do with it.

Edited June 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[juliann]

Hayds, I would argue that this board is as insignificant as you say Dehlin is (and I disagree that he or his movement are insignificant). Analysis rather than reaction is beginning. Peterson put out a blog stating that the purposefully circulated story about involvement in some missionary death being the focus of the paper was false. Given the persistence of this pernicious rumor, Dan may be correct to wonder what the equally mysterious GA was told was in the article.

I see three fascinating directions this is going (which to me is far more interesting than the event itself, other than the personal damage to all involved, of course).

1. The ad homenim (a definable and measurable term) battle cry is being replaced by "tone" (an undefinable and measurable term).

2. The "hit piece" attack is being replaced by "Dehlin is not significant enough to be a topic of study".

This recent blog entry addresses this new development: http://ldsreasonandrevelation.blogspot.com/2012/06/john-delin-dan-peterson-maxwell.html

3. The now mythic story of the suppressed "hit piece" is being followed by thoughtful analysis, springing up in all kinds of "unapologetic" places.

http://www.patheos.com//Mormon/Odd-Couple-Rosalynde-Welch-06-29-2012.html

What was novel about Dehlin's project, it seems to me, was its non-textual platform—podcasts rather than essays or articles—and the edge of anger in the social community surrounding the podcasts that was generally taboo in mainstream Mormon blog discussions at the time. This anger brought an energy to the community ethos, and thus an intensity to the social bonds formed there. This is hardly a remarkable achievement: feelings of community are easy to generate on the internet simply by provoking any intense emotion in the audience and providing a place for discussion. Still, it did represent a novel contribution to the landscape of Mormonism.

Everyone would like to control their own press but it isn't going to happen in this day and age. What I see developing as this topic emerges from the fog is growing interest in the components of this movement. And that is a worthy and notable topic actually needing more attention.

In both of these new entries, themes are recurring (and these are completely independent publications)

From Patheos: Mormon Stories thus defines itself on two axes: both as a supportive social ecosystem, and as a purveyor of what it calls "authentic self-expression." These two goals are, of course, in direct conflict with one another.

From Reason and Revelation: The “latent text” is often juxtaposed with the “preferred text”, which is the intended (or explicit) message and the two can often contradict each other.

This necessarily becomes a discussion of "narrative", something all organizations create. (Seth Payne did a study on this, using "apostate" narratives, for example).

This is where I see this all going, whether it is published by MI, blogs, symposiums or other journals. It cannot be suppressed indefinitely because it is such a fertile ground for study.

[CASteinman]

This is where I see this all going, whether it is published by MI, blogs, symposiums or other journals. It cannot be suppressed indefinitely because it is such a fertile ground for study.

This is a more interesting post than most that I see. Lots to think about.

[juliann]

This idea that exmormons can show anger, passion, lust, aggression, spite, evil, kindness etc while mormons must subdue all tone and passion is nonsense. Where are humans cool and calm without exercising other emotions when the time calls it?

This is the very effective narrative that they have created. That is why an analysis of competing goals or texts becomes threatening because they are not immune from the same accusations they make. I do think that pointing out our failures has been helpful. I have to wonder if similar threads listing their "ad hominem" or "tone" would ultimately be helpful to them in becoming a little more kind.

[John Ping Pong]

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.

I think Dehlin is not so much influencing people as he is meeting them where they are at, offering them understanding, and not trying to get them to go one way or the other in their personal journey.

This is why he has become as popular as he has.

Apologists can do nothing to counter him.

He is playing on an entirely different field.

[William Schryver]

This is the very effective narrative that they have created. That is why an analysis of competing goals or texts becomes threatening because they are not immune from the same accusations they make. I do think that pointing out our failures has been helpful. I have to wonder if similar threads listing their "ad hominem" or "tone" would ultimately be helpful to them in becoming a little more kind.

I submit that virtually EVERY thread on apostate/critic message boards is rife with ad hominem and "tone issues," whereas the same could only be said of a minute fraction of MI articles, if at all.

[William Schryver]

I think Dehlin is not so much influencing people as he is meeting them where they are at, offering them understanding, and not trying to get them to go one way or the other in their personal journey.

This is patently FALSE, and it is the one thing, above all, that Greg Smith's article demonstrates.

Dehlin is the prototypical apostate evangelist.

[CASteinman]

Apologists can do nothing to counter him.

I think you are way too pessimistic ... or optimistic... as the case may be.

[DBMormon]

while I agree with most of your commentsand see him grabbing low hanging fruit in terms handling difficult issues in mormon history and theology........ but where else do you get interviews with Richard Bushman, Daniel Peterson, Scott Gordon, Teryl Givens where they are asked the tough questions and one can feel like those kinds of issues get addressed in an open way? you don't he is it.

[William Schryver]

Apologists can do nothing to counter him.

No doubt this is why he worked so hard to have Greg Smith's article suppressed, right?

He is playing on an entirely different field.

Yeah - one where the opposing team is kept chained up in the locker room.

[TAO]

Hmmm... will Greg Smith's article be published somewhere, so we can see how 'critical' it is?

[ERayR]

I think Dehlin is not so much influencing people as he is meeting them where they are at, offering them understanding, and not trying to get them to go one way or the other in their personal journey.

This is why he has become as popular as he has.

Apologists can do nothing to counter him.

He is playing on an entirely different field.

Dehlin is enjoying his 5 minutes of fame. He is following in the footsteps of past apostates. He will, unfortunately, take some with him as have all previous apostate evangelists. This mortal experience is designed for us to find the level where we are comfortable. I have said it before (and probably will again) many are attracted and join. Some find it is not a good fit and move on. Some quietly, some quite vociferously and some find it is just what they want and join the faithful in building the kingdom. When the history of now is written I doubt that Dehlin gets even an honorable mention.