John Dehlin And Faith Reconstruction

[awyatt]

There is a lot of angst in this thread. The church made a decision who it would partner with: John Delhin or some of the old school Mopologists posting in this thread. That decision came as a shock to many.

If the church has, indeed, picked its partner, I wonder why John's bishop and stake president haven't gotten the memo and allowed him to baptize his son?

[Louis Midgley]

How, exactly, is the Church "partnering" with John Dehlin? Isn't it clear that it is Dehlin who capitulated (pending his reverting back in the future, once he gets bored with the TBM routine)?

Dehlin's dream of endorsement and referrals from priesthood leaders to him and his wife for counseling is the mother of all pipe dreams.

Rongo is correct about this. All we have suggesting anything resembling "partnering" is an embellishment of gossip from Dehlin. .

[Daniel Peterson]

Apparently it's extremely uncharitable of people here not to admit that the Church has chosen John Dehlin as its "partner" for guiding Mormonism into the future.

You're very, very bad people.

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently it's extremely uncharitable of people here not to admit that the Church has chosen John Dehlin as its "partner" for guiding Mormonism into the future.

You're very, very bad people.

It would seem, despite my earnest efforts, there were portions of that podcast I missed.

I got that that he has aspirations that he and his wife will embark on some sort of counseling service for couples. But if he envisions this as being in partnership with the Church, I guess that got by me somehow.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Libs]

Actually, I don't remember that, either....and I did listen to the whole thing.

I think we have to remember that John is not posting here and a lot is being said about him out in the "nether regions" that may not be his thinking or anything he has said, himself.

Personally, I hope John gets a chance to realign with the church, because I think it does mean a lot to him.

[Daniel Peterson]

Good point. In fairness to John Dehlin, I don't imagine that he's claiming that the Church is "partnering" with him.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Personally, I hope John gets a chance to realign with the church, because I think it does mean a lot to him.

Thankfully, everyone already has a 'chance' to realign with the Church. What I sincerely hope for every single person is that s/he will take that chance, embrace it fully, and experience the miracles that only then occur. As I've repeatedly taught the Young Men in my ward, the quickest and surest way to burn out a gearbox is to ride the clutch, keeping it partially engaged.

[mfbukowski]

Good point. In fairness to John Dehlin, I don't imagine that he's claiming that the Church is "partnering" with him.

Agreed. The sad part about all this is, that for him, this exchange is lose-lose proposition. We can second-guess his motivation, as I admit I have as much or more than anyone, but the reality is that he's getting blasted from both sides. Yes he is getting a lot of attention, but the poor guy can't win for losing!

It always amazes me how posters are different over there than they are here, one in particular. I suppose I am dating myself but "Eddie Haskell" comes readily to mind. That esoteric reference is for serious scholars only of course.

What is weird is that kind of behavior presumes that we cannot read what is happening over there. Not a very logical presumption, I must say, and it kind of totally destroys any semblance of credibility he may have had. Kind of sad really.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thankfully, everyone already has a 'chance' to realign with the Church. What I sincerely hope for every single person is that s/he will take that chance, embrace it fully, and experience the miracles that only then occur. As I've repeatedly taught the Young Men in my ward, the quickest and surest way to burn out a gearbox is to ride the clutch, keeping it partially engaged.

One of the better analogies I've heard. Well done!

[rockpond]

Agreed. The sad part about all this is, that for him, this exchange is lose-lose proposition. We can second-guess his motivation, as I admit I have as much or more than anyone, but the reality is that he's getting blasted from both sides. Yes he is getting a lot of attention, but the poor guy can't win for losing!

What's interesting is that John continues to move forward. Just tonight he posted a presentation file to Facebook asking for feedback. His presentation deals with understanding why members leave and how we might better understand ways to keep them in the church. It seems that he might have found a way to tune out all that is being said about him on both sides.

[wayfarer]

What's interesting is that John continues to move forward. Just tonight he posted a presentation file to Facebook asking for feedback. His presentation deals with understanding why members leave and how we might better understand ways to keep them in the church. It seems that he might have found a way to tune out all that is being said about him on both sides.

I'm not sure that the presentation is a move 'forward', but rather, a restatement of what John was saying over the past several years. There is no new research from I can tell in the presentation. There is only a single-path diagnosis of "why people leave", and no real method for addressing those issues. What is 'new' is that he starts with the family picture, and makes reference to the idea that he is an active believer, while saying that his disaffection almost made him leave. Ok. But without a "why I stay" or at least a path to return to activity, I'm left with the feeling -- and I know that many here will sieze on this statement -- that he is now rebranding himself as being "active believer" to better anchor his point of view to those who still believe. Without a credible path toward a stable relationship with the Church and Gospel, I find it hard to understand what is different about this approach.

He recycles the survey he did in 2011 around why people leave. He specifically rejects the concepts put forward by those who proclaim that those who leave are lazy ("lazy bums"), or simply leave because they want to sin or break their covenants, or are influenced by anti-mormon literature. He does not provide the methods of his survey and research, and I recognize that there are many here who dispute the validity of the survey. Yet there is a point to be made. Articles and literature containing statements condemning those who have gone through a struggle of faith, calling them "lazy bums", "offended", "sinners", "covenant breakers", or referring to them based upon scripture as "anti-christs" are harmful to those who struggle -- even if the intent of the articles and literature is not so targeted. This is one of John's key themes -- whether valid or not, it's relevant to this thread and what he has been saying for some time -- essentially the bone of contention between himself (with others like me who share this opinion) and the apologist community.

Looking specifically at his cycle of disaffection on pages 36 to 49, there is only a diagnosis landing on disaffection:

Discover

1. Active member hears about troubling elements of Church history, theology, and culture from a disaffected member
   
2. Active member searches for information to refute the new information
   
3. Active member finds the disaffected member was accurate in many of their claims
   

Disclosure and Distress

1. Active member feels betrayed thinking the Church “hid the truth”
   
2. Active member shares concerns with family and friends and is treated harshly
   

Disaffection and Disaffiliation

1. Family and friends distance themselves emotionally and physically from active member
   
2. Feelings of betrayal over historical issues are magnified by anger at loss of familial relationships
   
3. Active member becomes disaffected member and shares their pain and anger with others.
   

When I look at these 8 steps in 3 stages, I am struggling to find commonality and universality in these. I have never felt betrayed by the Church, nor do I think it wise to share one's disaffection with family and friends -- it not only doesn't help, it tends to infect others -- so why do it? So what happens for many is after discovering that there are problems in the church, many simply suffer quietly. This leads to a distinct type of emotional damage, one neither addressed in John's presentation, nor in the resources he provides at the end of this powerpoint.

He includes a set of resources in the following order:

- FAIRLDS

- MormonThink

- StayLDS

- MormonStories, MormonExpression

- MormonMatters, MormonSundaySchool

- ByCommonConsent

- FeministMormonHousewives

- and of course his email.

A few of these are dominated by a worldview that definitely does not help the disaffected member stay in the church. I'm not sure that among the resources, he has listed a viable place to learn how to effectively deal with disaffection other than (and I'm obviously biased, here), StayLDS. Notably missing are NOM, MI, and mormoninterpreter.com.

I do agree with John at least in part as to how to deal with those in disaffection:

1. Listen to them.
   
2. Love them unconditionally.
   
3. Don’t try to re-convert them.
   
4. Do the work to understand where they are coming from.
   
5. Respect and honor their choices.
   

And while accept John's suggestion for a more supportive response to those who leave is necessary, John's lack of providing a viable path back to stability WITHIN the church is a serious gap to this presentation. His inclusion of MormonThink and MormonExpression -- two sites that seem to have no other objective than to disaffect mormons -- seems to be a flaw as well.

Edited February 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[rockpond]

I'm not sure that the presentation is a move 'forward', but rather, a restatement of what John was saying over the past several years.

Yes, and John's work over the past several years has helped a lot of people stay in the church. That was my point.

[Tacenda]

Yes, and John's work over the past several years has helped a lot of people stay in the church. That was my point.

His mormonstories podcasts of faithful members that knew of the "not so nice" history, helped me stay. Without it, I would be more insane than what I already am. Edited February 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[wayfarer]

Yes, and John's work over the past several years has helped a lot of people stay in the church. That was my point.

I wish we had metrics on this. I am left to wonder if it hasn't eased people out more often than helped them stay.

His mormonstories podcasts of faithful members that knew of the "not so nice" history, helped me stay. Without it, I would be more insane than what I already am.

And I appreciate your anecdote, tacenda. Yes, it does help some. Yet he also did podcasts on the McLays and Grant Palmer, and almost released one on Tom Phillips: Are these the type of messages that help people stay in the Church?

For me, however, I have been in and through the MormonStories community. Personally, I don't see the benefit. While it may help others, the goal of MormonStories seems to be more about sharing disaffection and why we got to that point, rather than a productive outcome: what are we going to do about it. I'm not saying that the MS community doesn't try to resolve this, most have landed on something other than a faithful position vis-a-vis the Church. What is in common among all MormonStories participants is their disaffection, never a path 'back', but many paths 'forward', and no consensus there.

This is the same problem with John's current powerpoint deck -- Yes, we get it -- people get disaffected. Now what?

Edited February 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[Tacenda]

I wish we had metrics on this. I am left to wonder if it hasn't eased people out more often than helped them stay.

And I appreciate your anecdote, tacenda. Yes, it does help some.

For me, however, I have been in and through the MormonStories community. Personally, I don't see the benefit. While it may help others, the goal of MormonStories seems to be more about sharing disaffection and why we got to that point, rather than a productive outcome: what are we going to do about it. I'm not saying that the MS community doesn't try to resolve this, most have landed on something other than a faithful position vis-a-vis the Church. What is in common among all MormonStories participants is their disaffection, never a path 'back', but many paths 'forward', and no consensus there.

This is the same problem with John's current powerpoint deck -- Yes, we get it -- people get disaffected. Now what?

I attended the MormonStories Conference last summer and get exactly what you're saying. It sounds like John has quit attending these. Of course the one I went to had Richard and Claudia Bushman attending and Claudia spoke. So was glad for the faithful aspect there. But I do agree wholeheartedly that these groups may ease some to leave.

[Calm]

I wish we had metrics on this. I am left to wonder if it hasn't eased people out more often than helped them stay.

I remember measures of psychotherapy decades ago that indicated that one third got better, one third stayed the same and one third got worse with therapy (I understand that with more effective therapies available now there is greater success). With stats like those, one would tend to wonder why spend the money.

It is very hard to judge the difference between what would have happened without when there is really nothing to measure save people's opinions of 'what might have been'. Dehlin may have helped people to stay....but perhaps those are the people who would have looked elsewhere to find that kind of help until they got it so it was not about Dehlin, but about the individual in what caused them to stay.

Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kevin Christensen]

The difference between a person encountering new information and concluding "I've been lied to and betrayed! The sky is falling!" and another person encountering the same information and concluding, "Oh.. that's interesting. I did not know that before. Either my teachers did not know, or I was not paying attention, or both. I wonder where I can go to learn more?" does not appear to be addressed in John's work. That is, the data does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Why do people interpret the same information so differently? Why does the same information that causes a crisis for some, have no such effect on someone else? The cycle of disaffection narrative that John offers does not address this point. It validates one path of interpretation without exploring the existence and the underlying reasons for different interpretations. It is about passive victim-hood, not about active choices by agents.

While on my mission in 73-75, I got interested in the question of why things that seemed obvious to me did not seem obvious to other people. So over the years I've been interested in the Parable of the Sower, Myers Briggs Type Theory, Thomas Kuhn and paradigm construction and change, and the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. All of these have been helpful. I had a particularly powerful epiphany when I decided to study up on the arguments that Biblical people gave for rejecting Biblical prophets. I came up with about 70 distinct arguments. It came as a shock to realize that none of them had gone out of date. And I eventually realized that all of them fall into one of two categories. People were either saying that the prophet was not agreeing with what they thought, whether in word or action, or not telling them what they wanted to hear, not catering to their desires. People were either deciding based on false information combined with good premises, or false premises applied to good information. Or both false information and false premises. I also noticed that the Bible had several very good passages on what to do to see truth. (There is a lot more to it than going by feelings.) And in every case, there was a direct correlation between the failure to apply those good practices, and the specific arguments used in rejection. (My FAIR Wiki paper on Discerning True and False Prophets goes into this.)

I do understand and sympathize with John's concerns. I've written on the topic myself in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. An earlier version of the material that eventually became "Paradigms Crossed" was titled "Disillusion and Enlightenment." For about a year and a half, I had an open offer to be interviewed myself. I was a little dismayed last week, on going back to look at some of the listener comments on the Mormon Stories Coe Interview to find that most of my comments have been removed. That is, censored, suppressed. I have to wonder whose concerns were being addressed by removing my comments? I gave specific corrections to specific comments in the interview, including references to sources. Who did it help to remove answers to questions raised? Who is boldly facing the facts wherever they may lead?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[awyatt]

I do agree with John at least in part as to how to deal with those in disaffection:

1. Listen to them.
   
2. Love them unconditionally.
   
3. Don’t try to re-convert them.
   
4. Do the work to understand where they are coming from.
   
5. Respect and honor their choices.
   

In theory I have no problem with these and try (with varying levels of success) to apply them in all areas of life. The one I find most questionable is #3, particularly because the stridently disaffected (not all disaffected, mind you, but the stridently disaffected) work so hard to try to de-convert them. If there is no reason provided to stay (which the disaffected often see as an attempt at re-conversion), then those who give reasons to leave have full reign and greater chances for success.

-Allen

[awyatt]

The difference between a person encountering new information and concluding "I've been lied to and betrayed! The sky is falling!" and another person encountering the same information and concluding, "Oh.. that's interesting. I did not know that before. Either my teachers did not know, or I was not paying attention, or both. I wonder where I can go to learn more?" does not appear to be addressed in John's work. That is, the data does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Why do people interpret the same information so differently? Why does the same information that causes a crisis for some, have no such effect on someone else? The cycle of disaffection narrative that John offers does not address this point. It validates one path of interpretation without exploring the existence and the underlying reasons for different interpretations. It is about passive victim-hood, not about active choices by agents.

I agree with you 100%, Kevin. The whole concept of why different people who (1) experience the same things or (2) study the same things and yet come to entirely different conclusions is fascinating to me. I wrote a blog post about it several years ago on the FAIR blog, and the discussion that was generated was also fascinating.

-Allen

[robuchan]

The difference between a person encountering new information and concluding "I've been lied to and betrayed! The sky is falling!" and another person encountering the same information and concluding, "Oh.. that's interesting. I did not know that before. Either my teachers did not know, or I was not paying attention, or both. I wonder where I can go to learn more?" does not appear to be addressed in John's work. That is, the data does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. Why do people interpret the same information so differently? Why does the same information that causes a crisis for some, have no such effect on someone else? The cycle of disaffection narrative that John offers does not address this point. It validates one path of interpretation without exploring the existence and the underlying reasons for different interpretations. It is about passive victim-hood, not about active choices by agents.

People who think or believe one way, regularly change their minds and think or believe different ways, as they pass through life and accumulate increased knowledge and experience. There doesn't need to be a moral explanation for it. Usually we have positive words to describe this general pattern, like progress or evolution.

As for this notion that people feel like the church as an institution or church members as a culture manipulated or kept hidden certain things and what you call being passive victims vs active agents...

Compare growing up in the church to growing up in some other homegenous culture where a certain viewpoint is widely believed and reinforced. Let's say there is a child growing up in communist Russia. This kid is not going to be taught a well balanced, fair, or true version of Western society and capitalism. He's given a certain world view. You certainly can't blame him or call him a victim for having certain unfair biases. He may have all the information he needs if he looks in certain places or asks and trusts the right people or interprets facts he's aware of in different light. But he doesn't because it just doesn't occur to him. He has no reason not to trust the worldview he's been given. It may be until he's 30 or 40 and world events take place (ie revolution, media availability, etc in Russia and internet proliferation for LDS) that force him to view the real facts before he understands his worldview was wrong. You certainly can't call this person a passive victim, can you? And if so, then it certainly must not pack the negative connotation for you that it rings for me.

[wayfarer]

...

While on my mission in 73-75, I got interested in the question of why things that seemed obvious to me did not seem obvious to other people. So over the years I've been interested in the Parable of the Sower, Myers Briggs Type Theory, Thomas Kuhn and paradigm construction and change, and the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. All of these have been helpful. I had a particularly powerful epiphany when I decided to study up on the arguments that Biblical people gave for rejecting Biblical prophets. I came up with about 70 distinct arguments. It came as a shock to realize that none of them had gone out of date. And I eventually realized that all of them fall into one of two categories. People were either saying that the prophet was not agreeing with what they thought, whether in word or action, or not telling them what they wanted to hear, not catering to their desires. People were either deciding based on false information combined with good premises, or false premises applied to good information. Or both false information and false premises. I also noticed that the Bible had several very good passages on what to do to see truth. (There is a lot more to it than going by feelings.) And in every case, there was a direct correlation between the failure to apply those good practices, and the specific arguments used in rejection. (My FAIR Wiki paper on Discerning True and False Prophets goes into this.)

As I string together the above highlighted statements in what you describe, I come to a sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you think as being true, especially from a biblical perspective is a priori true, and those who reject what you consider obvious and true, either do so because of being unfertile to the truth (parable of the sower), they are infused with false information, or don't want to hear such things.

Are you taking the position that the biblical and modern day prophets are always true and correct as an a priori basis for evaluating truth going forward? To be specific, the rejection of a given message could be based upon true information and good premises -- a condition you do not seem to include in your evaluation of the 70 ways biblical prophets might be rejected.

Take for example Joseph Fielding Smith's prophecy that man would never step foot on the moon. he was wrong, of course, and while we may want to back-pedal saying that he wasn't a 'prophet' at the time he said this, he was quite certain on his belief, and many agreed because of his position. When man steps forward on the moon, then it is 'true information' that dispels what JSF said before and premises have little or nothing to do with it.

As well, Jesus is quoted in NT to having said that there would be those 'in this generation' who wouldn't see death before his second coming. And absent a special interpetation of this prophecy, it would appear that Jesus's 'prophecy' was unfulfilled. My concern with taking an a priori position regarding prophetic truth as being true is that one either has to reject the facts (your 'false information' condition) or question one's motives (your 'false premises' condition). Is there any place in your schema for the idea that the scripture is simply wrong?

Edited February 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[Daniel Peterson]

It always amazes me how posters are different over there than they are here, one in particular. I suppose I am dating myself but "Eddie Haskell" comes readily to mind. That esoteric reference is for serious scholars only of course.

What is weird is that kind of behavior presumes that we cannot read what is happening over there. Not a very logical presumption, I must say, and it kind of totally destroys any semblance of credibility he may have had. Kind of sad really.

I'm struck by exactly the same thing.

In the case to which I believe you're referring, the poster professes to hold us in great respect and then retreats over there and refers to us as "idiots" who have the mysterious power to turn those who interact with them into "idiots" as well. And so on and so forth.

Credibility zero.

[wayfarer]

I'm struck by exactly the same thing.

In the case to which I believe you're referring, the poster professes to hold us in great respect and then retreats over there and refers to us as "idiots" who have the mysterious power to turn those who interact with them into "idiots" as well. And so on and so forth.

Credibility zero.

Are you referring to the post where I said, "I want to stand up and scream THEY ARE ALL IDIOTS?" Yes, I want to say that, Dr. Peterson. As well, I feel like an idiot for having to deal with you in this way -- it's not the best of us, as I have pointed out so many times to you. I want you to know that when I post a thoughtful answer to your accusation that I'm bearing false witness and Dr. Midgley's accusation that I "changed the subject", and both of you ignore it, that it makes me want to scream. Can you blame me? I went out of my way to answer Dr. Midgley's musings in another post, and instead of answering me directly, he went on to post five bizarre third-person commentaries on my post, none of which actually answered anything I said. Why don't either of you simply answer my posts instead of making a caricature of my paltry efforts to point out a problem that we can easily solve?

Edited February 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[Kevin Christensen]

As I string together the above highlighted statements in what you describe, I come to a sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, that what you think as being true, especially from a biblical perspective is a priori true, and those who reject what you consider obvious and true, either do so because of being unfertile to the truth (parable of the sower), they are infused with false information, or don't want to hear such things.

Do I think it is all about orthodoxy, in this case Biblical orthodoxy? No. I think it is all about "further light and knowledge." Look at the scriptures for "seeing truth" in my FAIR Wiki essay. They do not describe either orthodoxy nor authority figures, nor tradition as a be all, end all. Rather, they invite us to engage ourselves in an ongoing, open-ended process.

Are you taking the position that the biblical and modern day prophets are always true and correct as an a priori basis for evaluating truth going forward?

No. I quote D&C 1 at least a dozen times a year on this topic. It expressly says that the LDS faith is imperfect morally and intellectually, and non-exclusive with respect to both truth and revelation. It expressly declares of the LDS leaders that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest" and points out that revelation is an ongoing process, conditioned on seeking and expedience. And I quote D&C 93 on truth as "knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come." Anything short of omniscience is open to further light and knowledge. We have no legitimate claim to a Big Book of What to Think. D&C 1 does not even contain the phrase "only true church." It says something quite different, using many more words to express a concept that is far more tolerant and robust.

To be specific, the rejection of a given message could be based upon true information and good premises -- a condition you do not seem to include in your evaluation of the 70 ways biblical prophets might be rejected.

I do not include it because I did not find it in those examples. And I've found the same condition has held to be the case in the various LDS controversies that I have investigated over the past 40 years. The DNA arguments depend on a reading of the Book of Mormon that ignores a great deal in the text. (Roper was very good on that. I'd noticed several key verses myself.) I'm not at all concerned with what LDS tradition has passed on because, thanks to D&C 1, I'm not bound to LDS tradition. Joseph Fielding Smith's young earth creationism? Not a problem. I have different readings available that are much more amenable. Nibley and Barker, for instance. Joseph Smith and Polygamy? God would not allow that! But what about Abraham, Israel, Moses, etc. Mountain Meadows? I can read the Bible and find equally unpleasant things. The chosen people have opportunity and accountability,not a guarantee of virtue.

Take for example Joseph Fielding Smith's prophecy that man would never step foot on the moon. he was wrong, of course, and while we may want to back-pedal saying that he wasn't a 'prophet' at the time he said this, he was quite certain on his belief, and many agreed because of his position. When man steps forward on the moon, then it is 'true information' that dispels what JSF said before and premises have little or nothing to do with it.

See D&C 1 and quite a lot more. The expectation of perfection is a false premise. I did locate 28 tests for true and false prophets in the Bible. I also noticed that the best known, regarding prophesy, turns out to the one most qualified by precept and example, and the one most abused even within the Bible. The abuse is based on the notion that it's easy to apply the test, and that any perceived error will do.

The logical advantage of insisting on perfection is that it makes imperfection, and only that, decisive. It's quite another thing to ask whether Joseph Smith, or Joseph Fielding Smith, ever received real inspiration. Testing that calls for an entirely different problem field, method, and standard of solution.

As well, Jesus is quoted in NT to having said that there would be those 'in this generation' who wouldn't see death before his second coming. And absent a special interpetation of this prophecy, it would appear that Jesus's 'prophecy' was unfulfilled. My concern with taking an a priori position regarding prophetic truth as being true is that one either has to reject the facts (your 'false information' condition) or question one's motives (your 'false premises' condition). Is there any place in your schema for the idea that the scripture is simply wrong?

Sure. D&C 1. "Inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest." And, in Paradigms Regained, I made the case that the unfilled expectations in the New Testament are quite nicely fulfilled in 3 Nephi 8-30.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[mfbukowski]

I'm struck by exactly the same thing.

In the case to which I believe you're referring, the poster professes to hold us in great respect and then retreats over there and refers to us as "idiots" who have the mysterious power to turn those who interact with them into "idiots" as well. And so on and so forth.

Credibility zero.

That's the one! Unbelievable!