Dehlin'S Methodology?

[William Schryver]

You made the statement with no evidence.

You forget that I have read Greg Smith's article, and I've been following Dehlin and his movement for several years now. There is no doubt whatsoever that he is an apostate who is attempting to persuade others to apostatize as well. The Dehlinite Movement is another in a long line of apostate movements in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Teancum]

You forget that I have read Greg Smith's article, and I've been following Dehlin and his movement for several years now. There is no doubt whatsoever that he is an apostate who is attempting to persuade others to apostatize as well. The Dehlinite Movement is another in a long line of apostate movements in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So you say. So please do tell share and enlighten us. You certainly can add some substance without simple "Insider" innuendo. I would dare guess I have more experience with Dehlin and his "movement" than you do. I can state he is not attempting to persuade others to apostize but simply works with them where they are at. As I have noted personally, after corresponding with John for a time when I met him at a MS conference he was very pleased to know that I had found a way to remain active and participating in the LDS Church. Genuinely pleased. Never did I feel any pressure ever from him to apostize. Never. Too bad I cannot say as much for some here.

[CASteinman]

Second, I simply am sharing my personal experience with LDS members of former members who claim to have become somewhat disaffected and/or left the Church because they have concluded that based on their own studies it is not true nor what it claims to be. I do not claim to represent that entire population nor did I. I do have experience with many both through internet activity and participation in Mormon Stories conferences and listening to podcasts. And I am personally, to a certain level, part of this group, at least to some extent as I have moved from TBM to more NOMish. Thus my comment that few are cynical, seeking to assuage a guilty conscience or any other such things. On their face, based on what they say and post on MBs, they seem quite happy though the transition is very, very hard. It is made harder by the way the Church operates and its culture of frowning on any open dissent or questions that may stir up the pot. Dehlin's Mormon Stories feels that void. Perhaps rather than attacking Dehlin and what he does that energy could be directed to ideas about what some of you may think would a be a better solution to fill that void.

OK. I understand. You are sharing your personal opinion about things. Based upon your personal experience. I accept that it is your personal opinion based upon your personal experience.

I am sharing my personal opinion also. Based upon my personal experience. It is every bit as valid as yours. Maybe more if I have lived longer. And just because you do not agree with it, does not make it cynical. The cynicism is in those who criticize the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that is not me.

Many many many apostates are not just cynical but bitter. Not only that, but despite their earnest efforts to declare themselves pure and devoted members before leaving, often they are not that either. I know at least 3 such people who make these claims but I also know for a fact that they were in deep dark sins. Still they prance and say that the Church is wrong to say "we left only because of sin -- we were not sinning we just had questions". I know one girl who left the Church after her parents threatened to cut off her inheritance. She cried and moaned at the time. Weeks later, she was now bitter and angry. When she was visited with another girl who took the lessons with her at the same exact time (they took them in the same room from the same missionaries) she announced all sorts of anti-Mormon tripe and declared emphatically that she had never been taught this stuff in the lessons. The girl who was there, who took the lessons was aghast and said, "Yes we were, I was there. You and I talked about it".

So, I know that at least some of these apostates lie about what happened. I know it. Maybe most. Maybe not most. Maybe a few. I do not know. But some number of them lie, and are cynical and even bitter.

So, what fraction are cynical? What fraction are bitter? What fraction are happy?

I do not know the answer to that, but in my experience, if they are happy, you don't see them posting on the internet about how great it is not to be a Mormon, going to meetings about how great it is to not be a Mormon or standing outside of Temple Square with garments and a bull horn.

I have experience with quite a few such happy ex-Mormons (one being a close family member) and they do not visit John Dehlin's website. They barely think about such things at all.

The disaffected people who visit John Dehlins pages are looking for validation, companionship, assuaging, relief, company, justification and fellowship in their apostasy. I am fine with that. I consider it entirely reasonable to feel a loss when leaving the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- and I consider people who are upset and grieving to be more in touch with truth than the people who leave and are happy and content. But at the same time, I think that person who leads people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and further to Damnation will have a big load to account for before God. And that is Dehlin. It is not my call but I have read what Jesus says about such things. Fortunately, he is full of Grace and Truth... but still.

So we have different personal opinions. And I am ok with that.

I am also happy with the fact that the Church makes it hard for false doctrines to be taught and promulgated in its buildings. It is strange to me that seeking to make sure people learn the Gospel correctly is somehow a gripe people have with the Church. I have come to realize that very few people understand how committed the Church Leadership is to the Mission given them -- and some people do not even really understand that Mission or what it means for decisions that the Leadership must make. I think if they did, they would not have this gripe.

However, I am sort of game to talk about how to fill the void people feel -- and talk about it in a positive way from the Church's perspective. It might be an expanding experience. The problem is -- I don't think that they want to be filled with the Gospel. That and fellowship is all we have to offer -- but generally the fellowship is rejected because the Gospel is offensive and a stumbling block.

I think the idea of how to fill the void would be a new thread. And I would look forward to it.

[yootaw]

I think the idea of how to fill the void would be a new thread. And I would look forward to it.

This sounds like an interesting, and useful topic.

[CASteinman]

This sounds like an interesting, and useful topic.

You are right. I thought Teancum's idea was pretty cool. I want to start the thread but I don't really exactly know how to word it yet. I am thinking about it.

I think I want to go into some detail about what sorts of things Dehlin offers in his Church as part of the deal. It seems a bit complex.

Edited July 1, 2012 by CASteinman

[why me]

You forget that I have read Greg Smith's article, and I've been following Dehlin and his movement for several years now. There is no doubt whatsoever that he is an apostate who is attempting to persuade others to apostatize as well. The Dehlinite Movement is another in a long line of apostate movements in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My only disagreement with you is the use of the term *dehlinite*. I don't want john to get a picture that there is an active group of people who follow him and call themselves dehlinites. A normal human being's head can become a balloon with such information.

[why me]

So you say. So please do tell share and enlighten us. You certainly can add some substance without simple "Insider" innuendo.

I don't think that he would have permission to do so.

[William Schryver]

My only disagreement with you is the use of the term *dehlinite*. I don't want john to get a picture that there is an active group of people who follow him and call themselves dehlinites. A normal human being's head can become a balloon with such information.

But I am one of The Knights Who Say "Dehlinite"!

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

...

Edited July 1, 2012 by William Schryver

[why me]

I would dare guess I have more experience with Dehlin and his "movement" than you do.

I think that Will may have more experience as an outsider looking in than as an insider looking in. I know that apologists have been studying his podcasts and words very carefully. I think that when greg's piece is published, the debate will be good for everyone.

[why me]

But I am one of The Knights Who Say "Dehlinite"!

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

Dehlinite.

...

Sounds like danite if said quickly 10 times.

[William Schryver]

I think that when greg's piece is published, the debate will be good for everyone.

Yes, for the apologists AND the Dehlinites.

[ringringring]

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? His claim couldn’t be mere but ideological posturing, could it?

Perhaps he has enough examples and is soliciting more. I can't understand why asking people for examples displays ideological posturing. I'm certain you, Dr. Hamblin, have solicited examples in some of your scholarly work, no?

2- If he doesn’t have examples, doesn’t proper scholarly methodology dictate that he actually read the Review himself to get a complete and nuanced understanding of what the Review is really all about? Is it really adequate to ask a self-selected audience to send you pre-selected data? Talk about confirmation bias!

You have mistakenly presumed Mr. Dehlin does not have examples and that Mr. Dehlin has not read the Review. You appear to have attributed some motive to Mr. Dehlin that can not be verified. Because Mr. Dehlin has solicited assistance from the Review's readership, it follows that they will either find or not find examples of ad hominem attacks. This is not a self-selected sampling of an infinite data set. This is a specific reading of a specific journal.

3- So now, not only is Dehlin openly engaging in egregious cherry picking, he’s apparently even too lazy to pick his own cherries.

Dr. Hamblin, you are basing your conclusion on faulty assumptions. Personally, I would imagine Mr. Dehlin to be a multi-faceted human being, motivated by many factors, and would cautiously, if ever, move to the worst case conclusion that you have made.

Which leads to the final question:

4- Why should anyone take Dehlin’s musings on this topic seriously?

There is much to learn concerning the history of FARMS and the Review; why not take Mr. Dehlin seriously - as serious as we would take your concerns.

[Teancum]

I think that Will may have more experience as an outsider looking in than as an insider looking in. I know that apologists have been studying his podcasts and words very carefully. I think that when greg's piece is published, the debate will be good for everyone.

I look forward to it.

[ERayR]

More often than not people join with very little details about contreversial LDS Church issues/history. Thus when they find out they may rightfully be angry and some become dissaffected. Now in this day and age an investigator can certianly do a lot of research on their own. Maybe that is why baptism rates in more industrialized nations are just horrible. But the Church certianly could give more full disclosure in their teaching process. Take more time, have investigators attend for a while, [pay tithing, etc before they are baptized. May make fewer converts but retentiion would climb I bet.

And the net effect would be? My guess is tat the same ones who choose to stay would still stay and the ones who choose to find fault and leave would be absent.

It has been said (by Brigham Young I think) that we cast in our nets and then pull it in and the sorting begins.

[wenglund]

More often than not people join with very little details about contreversial LDS Church issues/history. Thus when they find out they may rightfully be angry and some become dissaffected.

I don't know about "rightly" being angry and disaffected, though I suppose that can happen when people loose sight of what the gospel is really all about and how it is supposed to work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

My only disagreement with you is the use of the term *dehlinite*. I don't want john to get a picture that there is an active group of people who follow him and call themselves dehlinites. A normal human being's head can become a balloon with such information.

Oh, I think he already knows he's a leader of a group. They just need a name now.

[Teancum]

And the net effect would be? My guess is tat the same ones who choose to stay would still stay and the ones who choose to find fault and leave would be absent.

It has been said (by Brigham Young I think) that we cast in our nets and then pull it in and the sorting begins.

You may be right. I argue with myself all the time about this. I used to discuss it with my MP after my mission. He said that about the same % stay whether they take a long time to join or they are baptized quickly. Still it is a dilemma. And the question is how much of what should be disclosed before someone commits.

[Teancum]

I don't know about "rightly" being angry and disaffected, though I suppose that can happen when people loose sight of what the gospel is really all about and how it is supposed to work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yea Wade I know you think you have the inside scoop on what the gospel is about. Facts don't matter to you.

[ERayR]

You may be right. I argue with myself all the time about this. I used to discuss it with my MP after my mission. He said that about the same % stay whether they take a long time to join or they are baptized quickly. Still it is a dilemma. And the question is how much of what should be disclosed before someone commits.

The impotant things should be and in my esteemed opinion are disclosed. That is that God is our father, Jesus Christ is our redeemer and the Holy Ghost reveals these things to us. All else is not relevant. .

[why me]

You have mistakenly presumed Mr. Dehlin does not have examples and that Mr. Dehlin has not read the Review. You appear to have attributed some motive to Mr. Dehlin that can not be verified.

It doesn't matter if John reads or has read the Review. What matters is that he wanted to squash or censor a piece about him and his mormonstories podcast. That is what matters. I can see no excuse for him to do so. Since he is a public figure within mormonism, he must be willing to take the heat like any other public figure who put himself out there. He would have been much better off just letting the article be published and then if necessary, have a rebuttal. And it would all blow over in a short period of time.

Edited July 2, 2012 by why me

[treehugger]

It doesn't matter if John reads or has read the Review. What matters is that he wanted to squash or censor a piece about him and his mormonstories podcast. That is what matters. I can see no excuse for him to do so. Since he is a public figure within mormonism, he must be willing to take the heat like any other public figure who put himself out there. He would have been much better off just letting the article be published and then if necessary, have a rebuttal. And it would all blow over in a short period of time.

How universal is your position here?

As I see it, you are positing:

Public Figures have no excuse for squashing or censoring, what might be perceived as negative press;

Public Figures must be willing to take "heat" for their words, actions, deeds;

Public Figures should allow negative pieces to be published;

Public Figures should offer rebuttal.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think this provides a useful comparison for what Dehlin's call for atrocity stories is intended to accomplish and how it will appear to do so. Propaganda is all about selectivity and emphasis at the cost of reasonable perspective.

This is Blair's blog post about Quote Mining in the Journal of Discourses as the sure way to illustrate the reality of Mormonism.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/03/quote-mining.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Teancum]

The impotant things should be and in my esteemed opinion are disclosed. That is that God is our father, Jesus Christ is our redeemer and the Holy Ghost reveals these things to us. All else is not relevant. .

Many other denominations believe this as well. The LDS Church makes extrordinary truth claims beyond this that have relevance to it's being and existence as to whether is it is the One and Only True and Living Church. I would think much more should be disclosed. Even the current missionary lesssons disclose more than this.

[wenglund]

Yea Wade I know you think you have the inside scoop on what the gospel is about. Facts don't matter to you.

It is far from an "inside scoop." It is broadcast widely as the three-fold mission of the Church, and clearly reinforced in most every lesson and talk. The only way it can be missed is to close one's eye or be distracted by irrelevancies. Were you not blind or distracted, and were these facts important to you, you would have known this.

As for facts not mattering to me, it depends on the facts. The number of grains of sand that were in Osama Ben Ladin's beard when he died, is not a fact that matters much to me. What the gospel is all about, and the things that are needed to become like Christ, are important to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 2, 2012 by wenglund

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Do you fashion yourself as some sort of a modern day Orin Porter Rockwell?

Now that is the very definition or example of "ad hom". IMHO.